Recross-examination of Tom Lange (part 3)

📄 Recross-examination of Tom Lange (part 3) — Wednesday, March 8, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\MAR\8\RECROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-TOM-LAN.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 33 of 167

◀ Sidebar: investigation leads Lunch recess ▶

Witness: Det. Tom Lange
Examiner: Johnnie Cochran
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Wednesday, March 8, 1995 • Utterances: 73

Cochran uses his recross of Detective Lange to methodically build the defense's alternative drug-murder theory, centering on Faye Resnick's cocaine habit, her stay at Nicole's Bundy condo, and her entry into drug rehab just four days before the murders. Lange is forced to admit he did not consider Resnick's drug timeline when forming his opinion that this was not a drug killing, and concedes that if he were pursuing that theory, all those factors would be relevant.

# 1 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

# 2 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: DETECTIVE LANGE, IF -- WHY DON'T WE COME BACK TO THE CLUES AND WHAT YOU PURSUED AFTER LUNCH IF YOU DON'T MIND. LET ME ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR THEORY ABOUT THIS NOT BEING A DRUG-RELATED HOMICIDE. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF SOMETHING CALLED A COLOMBIAN NECKLACE?

# 3 A:

I BELIEVE SO.

# 4 Q:

AND IT'S TRUE, IS IT NOT, THAT A COLOMBIAN NECKLACE IS A SITUATION WHERE DRUG DEALERS WILL SLICE THE NECK OF A VICTIM, INCLUDING THE CAROTID ARTERY, IN ORDER TO KILL THE VICTIMS AND TO INSTILL FEAR AND SEND A MESSAGE TO OTHERS WHO HAVE NOT EITHER PAID FOR THEIR DRUGS OR HAVE BEEN INFORMING TO THE POLICE? ISN'T THAT WHAT A COLOMBIAN NECKLACE IS?

# 5 A:

I HAVE HEARD THAT.

# 6 Q:

AND, SIR, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT YOU IN YOUR EXPERIENCE KNOW ABOUT DRUG KILLINGS WHERE KNIVES HAVE BEEN USED? ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 7 A:

I DO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF KNIVES BEING USED, YES.

# 8 Q:

AND, SIR, IN THIS CONNECTION, YOU ARE AWARE, ARE YOU NOT, THAT FAYE RESNICK BECAME A RESIDENT AT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S PLACE AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY ON OR ABOUT JUNE 3RD, 1994? ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 9 A:

NO, I'M NOT.

# 10 Q:

ALL RIGHT. YOUR INVESTIGATION -- YOUR SUPERFICIAL INVESTIGATION DIDN'T REVEAL THAT?

KEY QUOTE

# 11 A:

INITIALLY, THE INVESTIGATION REVEALED SHE MAY HAVE BEEN. I'VE SINCE RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT SHE WAS NOT A RESIDENT AT THAT LOCATION, AND THAT IS ONGOING.

# 12 Q:

YOU'RE STILL LOOKING AT THAT?

# 13 A:

YES, WE ARE.

# 14 Q:

ALL RIGHT. WELL, IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, HAVE YOU LEARNED THAT SHE MOVED IN WITH MISS SIMPSON ON OR ABOUT JUNE 3RD, 1994 AND STAYED THERE --

# 15 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION. HEARSAY.

# 16 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: -- UNTIL JUNE -- MAY I FINISH THE QUESTION?

# 17 THE COURT:

FINISH THE QUESTION.

# 18 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: -- AND STAYED THERE UNTIL JUNE 8TH, 1994, AT WHICH TIME SHE WENT INTO DRUG REHABILITATION --

# 19 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

# 20 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 21 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. DID YOUR INVESTIGATION REVEAL THAT FAYE RESNICK WENT INTO DRUG REHABILITATION ON OR ABOUT JUNE 8, 1994 AND THAT SHE WAS LIVING AT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S --

# 22 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION. HEARSAY.

# 23 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 24 MR. COCHRAN:

I'M ASKING THIS INVESTIGATION, YOUR HONOR.

# 25 THE COURT:

COUNSEL, IT'S A COMPOUND QUESTION.

# 26 MR. COCHRAN:

ALL RIGHT. LET ME RESTATE IT THEN, YOUR HONOR.

# 27 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, DID YOU LEARN THAT --

# 28 THE COURT:

WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. THAT ASSUMES THAT SOMETHING IS A FACT. DID YOU CONSIDER -- WHEN HE FORMED HIS OPINION, DID YOU EVER CONSIDER THESE THREE FACTORS.

# 29 MR. COCHRAN:

ALL RIGHT, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

# 30 THE COURT:

AND IT'S ONLY ON THE BASIS OF FORMING AN OPINION, NOT ASSUMING IT TO BE TRUE.

# 31 MR. COCHRAN:

THANK YOU.

# 32 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: IN THE COURSE OF YOUR FORMING YOUR OPINION --

# 33 MS. CLARK:

IS THE JURY GOING TO BE GIVEN A LIMITING INSTRUCTION ON THIS?

# 34 THE COURT:

THEY WILL AS SOON AS I HEAR WHAT THE QUESTION IS.

# 35 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION INTO THIS MATTER, YOUR DETERMINATION THAT THIS WAS NOT A DRUG KILLING, DID YOU CONSIDER THE FACT THAT NICOLE -- THAT FAYE RESNICK WENT INTO A DRUG REHABILITATION FACILITY ON OR ABOUT JUNE 8TH --

# 36 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION.

# 37 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: -- 1994?

# 38 MS. CLARK:

ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

# 39 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 40 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU CONSIDER THAT FACT?

# 41 A:

I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT SHE HAD.

# 42 Q:

THE QUESTION IS NOW NOT WHAT YOU'VE BEEN TOLD, SIR. DID YOU CONSIDER THAT FACT WHEN YOU CAME TO THIS CONCLUSION YOU TOLD US ABOUT YESTERDAY?

# 43 A:

WHEN I CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION I TOLD YOU ABOUT YESTERDAY, I DIDN'T HAVE THAT KNOWLEDGE.

KEY QUOTE

# 44 Q:

ALL RIGHT. SO THERE ARE OTHER FACTS THAT ARE COMING INTO YOUR KNOWLEDGE EVEN AS WE SPEAK IN THIS CASE; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 45 A:

EVERY DAY.

# 46 Q:

ALL RIGHT. NOW, IF -- I WANT TO ASK YOU THIS AS IT RELATES TO YOUR OPINION. IF FAYE RESNICK WAS FREE-BASING COCAINE ON A DAILY BASIS AT THE BUNDY LOCATION, SO MUCH SO THAT SHE HAD TO HAVE A DRUG INTERVENTION BY JUNE 8 OF 1994, AND YOU LEARNED THAT TO BE A FACT, WOULD THAT CHANGE YOUR OPINION ABOUT THIS POSSIBLY BEING A DRUG-RELATED KILLING?

# 47 A:

IF I HAD THAT INFORMATION, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A CONSIDERATION IF I HAD NO OTHER DIRECTION TO GO.

# 48 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND IF YOU FOUND OUT THAT AS SHE USED THIS COCAINE AND WAS FREE-BASING ON A DAILY BASIS, SHE HAD NO JOB BY WHICH TO PAY FOR THESE DRUGS, WOULD THAT BE A FACTOR THAT MIGHT BEAR UPON THE OPINION YOU GAVE US YESTERDAY?

# 49 MS. CLARK:

SAME OBJECTION. THAT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE ALSO.

# 50 MR. COCHRAN:

IT RELATES TO HIS OPINION.

# 51 THE COURT:

OVERRULED. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS IS -- WHAT COUNSEL IS POSING TO THE DETECTIVE ARE WHAT ARE KNOWN AS HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS. THE WITNESS IS ASKED TO ASSUME TO BE TRUE CERTAIN FACTS AND THEN ASKED TO GIVE AN OPINION BASED UPON THOSE ASSUMED FACTS. IF THOSE ASSUMED FACTS TURN OUT NOT TO BE TRUE, THEN YOU CAN TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION IN EVALUATING THE OPINION THAT IS GIVEN. MR. COCHRAN.

# 52 MR. COCHRAN:

THANK YOU. I DON'T THINK WE HAD AN ANSWER TO THE LAST QUESTION.

# 53 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU HAVE -- DO YOU WANT THE QUESTION READ BACK FOR YOU?

# 54 A:

I THINK I UNDERSTAND IT.

# 55 Q:

ALL RIGHT.

# 56 A:

IF I HAD BEEN PURSUING THAT LINE, THAT CERTAINLY WOULD BE A FACTOR I WOULD LOOK AT, YES.

# 57 Q:

AND YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN INDIVIDUALS GET DRUGS, THEY SOMETIMES WILL PAY FOR THEM IN CASH, SOMETIMES THEY GET THEM ON CONSIGNMENT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 58 A:

I'VE HEARD OF THAT.

# 59 Q:

AND IN YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH -- EXPERIENCES POLICE OFFICER, WHEN PEOPLE ARE GIVEN DRUGS, THE DRUG DEALERS ARE PEOPLE WHO GIVE THOSE DRUGS WANT TO BE PAID; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 60 A:

I WOULD ASSUME THAT.

# 61 Q:

AND SOMETIMES IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, YOU KNOW THAT WHEN DRUGS ARE NOT PAID FOR THAT HAVE BEEN GOTTEN AND USED, THERE ARE REPERCUSSIONS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 62 A:

CERTAINLY.

# 63 Q:

AND HENCE, SOMETIMES -- AND THAT'S WHY YOU'VE HEARD THIS TERM "COLOMBIAN NECKLACE"; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 64 A:

I HAVE HEARD THAT TERM, NOT NECESSARILY IN CONNECTION WITH EVERY MURDER I'VE EVER HANDLED.

# 65 Q:

WELL, IT CAN ALSO BE FOR PAYBACK FOR NOT HAVING PAID BACK FOR DRUGS; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, SIR?

# 66 A:

I SUPPOSE IT COULD BE.

# 67 Q:

AND IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, IF YOU WERE TO LEARN THAT FAYE RESNICK WAS IN THIS DRUG TREATMENT FACILITY ON JUNE 12TH, 1994 AND THAT SHE IN FACT CALLED MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON THAT EVENING FROM THE DRUG TREATMENT FACILITY, WOULD THAT BE A FACT THAT YOU MIGHT FIND RELEVANT IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION, YOUR OPINION REGARDING WHETHER DRUGS ARE RELATED IN THIS MATTER?

# 68 A:

AGAIN, IF I WERE PURSUING A DRUG-RELATED HOMICIDE, IT WOULD PROBABLY COME INTO PLAY, YES.

# 69 Q:

AND WOULD IT BE RELEVANT TO YOU IF YOU WERE PURSUING A DRUG-RELATED HOMICIDE, THAT MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WAS PRESENT AT THE INTERVENTION IN WHICH FAMILY AND FRIENDS OF FAYE RESNICK, INCLUDING NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND HER FORMER BOYFRIEND, CHRISTIAN RIECHARDT, INSISTED BECAUSE OF THE STATE OF HER FREE-BASING COCAINE, THAT SHE GO AND GET SOME HELP THAT SAME NIGHT AND LEAVE NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE? WOULD THAT -- WOULD YOU CONSIDER THAT AS ONE OF THE FACTORS IF YOU WERE PURSUING THIS AS A DRUG-RELATED HOMICIDE?

# 70 A:

IF I WERE PURSUING IT AS A DRUG-RELATED HOMICIDE, I WOULD PROBABLY WANT ALL OF THOSE FACTORS, YES.

KEY QUOTE

# 71 Q:

IN OTHER WORDS, AS AN EXPERIENCED INVESTIGATOR, YOU WOULD WANT TO KNOW ALL OF THOSE THINGS AND YOU WOULD WANT TO DETERMINE WHAT BEARING IF ANY THEY HAD, AND THAT WOULD BE MORE THAN A SUPERFICIAL INVESTIGATION; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 72 A:

IF IT LED IN THAT DIRECTION, CERTAINLY.

# 73 MR. COCHRAN:

VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR. MAY WE STOP AT THIS POINT?

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Johnnie Cochran

ALL RIGHT. YOUR INVESTIGATION -- YOUR SUPERFICIAL INVESTIGATION DIDN'T REVEAL THAT?

Cochran openly characterizes Lange's work as superficial, planting the label in the jury's mind while Lange cannot fully deny it.

Tom Lange

WHEN I CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION I TOLD YOU ABOUT YESTERDAY, I DIDN'T HAVE THAT KNOWLEDGE.

Lange admits his drug-killing opinion was formed without key facts about Resnick's timeline — a direct blow to his credibility as a thorough investigator.

Tom Lange

EVERY DAY.

Lange's candid one-word answer that new facts in the case are still emerging undermines the finality of all his prior conclusions.

Tom Lange

IF I WERE PURSUING IT AS A DRUG-RELATED HOMICIDE, I WOULD PROBABLY WANT ALL OF THOSE FACTORS, YES.

The culminating concession — Lange effectively endorses the logical relevance of every hypothetical Cochran posed, validating the drug-murder theory's investigative merit.

Evidence (4)

Informal

Faye Resnick's alleged stay at 875 South Bundy beginning June 3, 1994

discussed as hypothetical basis for drug-murder theory

Informal

Faye Resnick's entry into drug rehabilitation on or about June 8, 1994

discussed as factor Lange did not consider when forming his opinion

Informal

Phone call from Resnick to Nicole Brown Simpson from the drug treatment facility on June 12, 1994

posed as hypothetical relevant to drug-homicide investigation

Informal

Drug intervention involving Nicole Brown Simpson and Christian Riechardt

posed as hypothetical Lange conceded would be investigatively relevant

Notable Exchanges (2)

Johnnie Cochran•Tom Lange

Cochran extracts a series of escalating concessions via hypotheticals — Resnick's cocaine use, lack of income, drug debts, the intervention, the rehab call on the night of the murders — each time getting Lange to agree these would be relevant if he were pursuing a drug-murder theory.

strategic

Lance A. Ito•Marcia Clark•Johnnie Cochran

Judge intervenes to restructure Cochran's questions as proper hypotheticals and delivers a limiting instruction to the jury explaining that assumed facts may not be true — Clark had been repeatedly objecting to the form.

procedural

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Tom Lange

omission / incomplete investigation

Cochran establishes that Lange formed his opinion that this was not a drug killing without knowing key facts about Resnick's cocaine use, her residency at Bundy, and her rehab timeline — explicitly calling it a 'superficial investigation.'

Objections

5 objections (3 sustained, 2 overruled)

Proceeding 5210 • 73 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103