Cross-examination of Tom Lange (part 1)

📄 Cross-examination of Tom Lange (part 1) — Thursday, March 9, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\MAR\9\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-TOM-LANGE.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 34 of 167

◀ Back on record Sidebar: objection and foundation ▶

Witness: Det. Tom Lange
Examiner: Johnnie Cochran
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Thursday, March 9, 1995 • Utterances: 106

Cochran cross-examined Detective Lange on two fronts: first, whether any searches of airplanes (or lavatories) traveling to/from Chicago were conducted, and second, whether Lange agreed with principles in the Lemoyne Snyder 'Homicide Investigation' textbook regarding time-of-death estimation and the 'Golden Rule' of crime scene preservation. Clark repeatedly objected on foundation grounds because Lange read a later edition than the 1953 copy Cochran presented. The session ended with Judge Ito threatening $250 sanctions after a speaking objection from Clark.

# 1 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. MR. COCHRAN, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

# 2 MR. COCHRAN:

A FEW MORE QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR.

# 3 Q:

DETECTIVE LANGE, WITH REGARD TO AREAS THAT WERE SEARCHED BY YOU ON OR AFTER JUNE 13 OR UNDER YOUR INVESTIGATION, DID YOU HAVE ANY SEARCHES CONDUCTED OF ANY AIRPLANES GOING TO CHICAGO OR COMING BACK FROM CHICAGO?

# 4 (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

# 5 Q:

WHAT IS THAT?

# 6 A:

I DON'T RECALL ANY SEARCHES OF AIRPLANES.

# 7 Q:

YOU DON'T RECALL WHETHER OR NOT AN AMERICAN AIRLINES PLANE WAS SEARCHED UNDER YOUR DIRECTION OR UNDER ANYONE'S DIRECTION IN THIS CASE?

# 8 A:

I DON'T RECALL AN AIRLINE -- AN AIRPLANE BEING SEARCHED.

# 9 Q:

NO LAVATORIES IN THE AIRPLANES EITHER; IS THAT RIGHT?

# 10 A:

THERE WAS AN INQUIRY REGARDING A LAVATORY ON AN AIRPLANE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS ACTUALLY SEARCHED, THOUGH.

KEY QUOTE

# 11 Q:

ALL RIGHT, SIR. NOW, JUST BEFORE OR AFTER THE BREAK I PLACED BEFORE YOU A PUBLICATION ENTITLED "HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION BY LEMOYNE SNYDER." THIS IS AN OLD EDITION, A '53 EDITION, AND AT THAT TIME IT WAS THE SEVENTH PRINTING. HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO REVIEW ANY PORTIONS OF THE SEVEN OR EIGHT PAGES THAT HAVE BEEN PLACED BEFORE YOU?

# 12 A:

YES.

# 13 Q:

I WANT TO ASK YOU JUST A FEW QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS.

# 14 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION, THERE IS NO FOUNDATION.

# 15 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 16 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: IS THIS A PUBLICATION BY LEMOYNE SNYDER THAT YOU RELIED UPON, THAT YOU SPOKE ABOUT YESTERDAY WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT PUBLICATIONS YOU HAD RELIED UPON IN FORMING VARIOUS OPINIONS IN THIS CASE?

# 17 A:

IT IS ONE PUBLICATION I HAVE READ, BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS SEVERAL YEARS AFTER THIS WAS PRINTED.

# 18 Q:

ALL RIGHT. WELL, SOME THINGS WITH REGARD TO HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION DON'T CHANGE FROM VOLUME TO VOLUME; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 19 A:

CERTAINLY.

# 20 Q:

AND I WANT TO ASK YOU A COUPLE QUESTIONS, IF I CAN, ABOUT IT, AND ASK YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU AGREE WITH WHAT IS IN THE PUBLICATION.

# 21 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION. THIS IS NOT THE PUBLICATION HE RELIED ON.

# 22 MR. COCHRAN:

YOUR HONOR, THIS IS THE PUBLICATION, BY THE SAME AUTHOR AND IT IS AN EARLIER EDITION.

# 23 MS. CLARK:

1953.

# 24 THE COURT:

THERE IS A FOUNDATIONAL OBJECTION?

# 25 MS. CLARK:

FOUNDATION.

# 26 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 27 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO THIS, THEN THE EDITION THAT YOU READ -- WHAT PRINTING WAS THE EDITION THAT YOU READ?

# 28 A:

I DON'T RECALL.

# 29 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND WITH REGARD TO THAT, YOU ARE NOT AWARE IF THERE IS ANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THIS PRINTING THAT I HAVE BEFORE YOU HERE IN DEFENDANT'S 1052 AND THE PRINTING THAT YOU READ SOME TEN OR FIFTEEN YEARS AGO, ARE YOU?

# 30 A:

I COULDN'T SAY.

# 31 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND FOR INSTANCE, WITH REGARD TO THE GOLDEN RULE OF HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION, AS FAR AS YOU ARE CONCERNED, THAT RULE --

# 32 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

# 33 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: -- HASN'T CHANGED, HAS IT?

# 34 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION, NO FOUNDATION.

# 35 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 36 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: WITH REGARD TO ESTIMATING THE TIME OF DEATH, WHEN YOU READ -- DID YOU READ THAT PARTICULAR PORTION OF THE PUBLICATION OF LEMOYNE AND SNYDER THAT YOU REFERRED TO YESTERDAY IN YOUR TESTIMONY? DID YOU READ THAT CHAPTER DEALING WITH ESTIMATING THE TIME OF DEATH?

# 37 MS. CLARK:

SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, FOUNDATION.

# 38 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 39 MR. COCHRAN:

I WILL LAY THE FOUNDATION.

# 40 THE COURT:

OVERRULED. YOU CAN ASK HIM IF HE READ IT.

# 41 DET. TOM LANGE:

YES.

# 42 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: DID YOU READ THAT? AND WITH REGARD TO ESTIMATING THE TIME OF DEATH IN CHAPTER 3 IN THE PAPER YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU THERE, WHAT YOU READ TEN OR FIFTEEN YEARS AGO IS CONSISTENT, IS IT NOT, WITH WHAT IS THERE IN THE PUBLICATION BY THE SAME AUTHOR, AN EARLIER PRINTING; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 43 A:

IT APPEARS TO BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT, YES.

# 44 MR. COCHRAN:

ALL RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR, REGARDING THAT, IF YOU MIGHT.

# 45 Q:

NOW, WITH REGARD TO ESTIMATING THE TIME OF DEATH, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT: "IT IS ALWAYS IMPORTANT TO KNOW AS NEARLY AS POSSIBLE THE TIME WHEN THE VICTIM EXPIRED. IN THE ABSENCE OF WITNESSES THIS INFORMATION MUST BE OBTAINED FROM AN EXAMINATION OF THE BODY ITSELF." DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT SO FAR?

# 46 A:

YES.

# 47 Q:

"GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE SOONER AFTER DEATH THE BODY IS FOUND, THE MORE DEFINITELY CAN THE ACTUAL TIME OF DEATH BE FIXED." DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT SO FAR?

# 48 A:

GENERALLY YES.

# 49 Q:

"HOWEVER, IT IS USUALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO ESTABLISH ACCURATELY THE HOUR AND MINUTE WHEN LIFE CEASED." DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

# 50 A:

YES.

# 51 Q:

AND SO WITH REGARD TO THE BODY, AS YOU HAVE TOLD US, THE EXAMINATION OF THE BODY, THAT IS DONE BY THE CORONER; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 52 A:

YES.

# 53 Q:

AND SO IF THIS IS A PUBLICATION THAT YOU AGREED WITH AND BASE YOUR OPINION ON, DO YOU AGREE THAT IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO, AS NEARLY AS POSSIBLE AFTER DISCOVERY OF THE BODY, TO HAVE THE BODY EXAMINED BY SOMEONE TRAINED TO DO THAT AND IN THIS INSTANCE THE CORONER? IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

# 54 A:

I WOULD AGREE WITH WHAT IS WRITTEN HERE, THAT IT IS -- GENERALLY SPEAKING, THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT, YES.

# 55 Q:

ALL RIGHT. NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE EVER HEARD OF THE GOLDEN RULE OF HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION?

# 56 A:

NO.

# 57 Q:

HAVE YOU EVER READ THE GOLDEN RULE OF HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION AS SET FORTH ON PAGE 28 IN THE LEMOYNE SNYDER PUBLICATION?

# 58 A:

I DON'T RECALL SEEING THAT SINCE I READ THE BOOK MANY YEARS AGO. I MAY WELL HAVE.

# 59 Q:

LET ME ASK YOU IF YOU AGREE WITH THIS AND MAYBE IT WILL REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION. DO YOU AGREE THAT: "UNDER THE GOLDEN RULE OF HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION THAT ONE SHOULD NEVER TOUCH, CHANGE OR ALTER ANYTHING UNTIL IDENTIFIED" COMMA, "MEASURED AND PHOTOGRAPHED" ? DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT SO FAR?

# 60 A:

GENERALLY THAT IS CORRECT, YES.

KEY QUOTE

# 61 Q:

"THAT WHEN A BODY OR AN ARTICLE HAS BEEN MOVED," COMMA, "IT CAN NEVER BE RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL POSITION"? DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

# 62 A:

YES.

# 63 Q:

NOW, DURING THE BREAK I WAS NOT ABLE TO SPEAK WITH YOU IN CONNECTION WITH THIS; IS THAT CORRECT?

# 64 A:

NO, SIR, THAT IS NOT CORRECT. WE SPOKE OUTSIDE.

# 65 Q:

WE SPOKE IN THE RESTROOM BUT NOT ABOUT THIS PARTICULARLY, DID WE?

# 66 A:

YES, SIR, WE DID.

# 67 Q:

WHEN YOU FIRST LEFT THE STAND, I WENT UP TO TRY AND TALK TO YOU, DID THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY TELL YOU NOT TO TALK TO ME AT THAT POINT?

# 68 A:

NO, THEY DID NOT. THEY CALLED ME OVER TO THEIR TABLE.

# 69 Q:

I WAS NOT ABLE TO TALK TO YOU?

# 70 A:

WELL, I CAN'T TALK TO EVERYONE AT ONCE.

# 71 Q:

DIDN'T YOU SAY, "I'M ON THE STAND MR. COCHRAN. I'VE GOT TO GO TALKED TO THEM FIRST"?

# 72 A:

I MAY HAVE SAID SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THEY SIGNALED ME FIRST SO I WALKED OVER THERE AND YOU WALKED BETWEEN US.

# 73 Q:

WASN'T I WAS STANDING UP BY THE JURY AS THE JURY LEFT THE ROOM BEFORE THEY EVER CALLED YOU AND I STARTED TO TALK TO YOU AND MR. DARDEN THEN CALLED YOU AND THE OTHERS CALLED YOU AFTER THAT? ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 74 A:

YOU WERE QUICKER TO GET OVER HERE, YES.

KEY QUOTE

# 75 Q:

THE JUDGE DIRECTED ME TO GET OVER THERE AND I GOT THERE FIRST AND YOU WALKED PAST ME AND WENT OVER THERE TO TALK TO THEM; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 76 A:

YOU WERE QUICKER.

# 77 Q:

ALL RIGHT. WELL, I WON'T COMMENT ON THAT. NOW, WITH REGARD TO THIS PUBLICATION CALLED "HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION," SIR, THE PART I GUESS ON PAGE 38 THAT DEALS WITH EXAMINATION OF STOMACH CONTENTS, DO YOU RECALL YESTERDAY WE TALKED ABOUT STOMACH CONTENTS? AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU WHETHER OR NOT THIS PARTICULAR -- THESE PARAGRAPHS DEALING WITH STOMACH CONTENTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU READ SOME TEN OR FIFTEEN YEARS AGO WHEN YOU READ THIS PUBLICATION AND WHICH YOU RELIED UPON IN FORMULATING SOME OF YOUR OPINIONS IN THIS CASE.

# 78 A:

OKAY.

# 79 Q:

HAVE YOU READ THAT?

# 80 A:

YES.

# 81 Q:

IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU READ SOME TEN OR FIFTEEN YEARS AGO?

# 82 A:

I CAN'T SAY FOR SURE. I CAN'T SAY.

# 83 Q:

LET ME SEE IF THIS WILL REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AT ALL THEN AND SEE IF YOU AGREE WITH THIS -- THESE STATEMENTS. "A PROCEDURE WHICH IS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE IN FIXING THE TIME OF DEATH IS THE EXAMINATION OF THE STOMACH CONTENTS." DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

# 84 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, THIS IS HEARSAY AS READ BY COUNSEL. THE WITNESS CAN READ IT TO HIMSELF AND DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT --

# 85 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 86 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU READ THIS PARAGRAPH TO YOURSELF ABOUT THE EXAMINATION OF STOMACH CONTENTS, I GUESS ON PAGE -- THIS MAY BE --

# 87 THE COURT:

39.

# 88 MR. COCHRAN:

-- 39, I BELIEVE, YOUR HONOR. IT GOES OVER TO PAGE 40 RIGHT BEFORE THE PARAGRAPH THAT SAYS "IMPORTANCE OF ASSOCIATED EVENTS."

# 89 DET. TOM LANGE:

YES.

# 90 Q:

BY MR. COCHRAN: HAVE YOU READ THAT?

# 91 A:

YES.

# 92 Q:

DO YOU AGREE WITH WHAT IS CONTAINED IN THAT PARAGRAPH?

# 93 A:

THE PARAGRAPH DOESN'T ADDRESS THE DIGESTION PROCESS CEASING AT THE TIME OF DEATH.

# 94 Q:

THE QUESTION IS DO YOU AGREE WITH WHAT IS CONTAINED IN THIS PARAGRAPH, SIR?

# 95 A:

GENERALLY, YES.

# 96 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU READ SOME TEN OR FIFTEEN YEARS AGO ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF FIXING THE TIME OF DEATH AND THE USE OF THE STOMACH CONTENTS IN MAKING THAT DETERMINATION; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

# 97 A:

YES. GENERALLY, YES.

# 98 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT, IF I MIGHT, YOUR HONOR, THAT "IF STOMACH CONTENTS ARE PRESENT IT IS POSSIBLE" --

# 99 MS. CLARK:

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. OBJECTION.

# 100 THE COURT:

WHAT IS THE OBJECTION?

# 101 MR. COCHRAN:

HE RELIED UPON THIS, YOUR HONOR.

# 102 MS. CLARK:

NO, HE DID NOT RELY UPON THIS. HE TOLD US REPEATEDLY THIS IS AN EARLIER EDITION.

# 103 MR. COCHRAN:

SPEAKING OBJECTION, COUNSEL.

# 104 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED. IT IS A SPEAKING OBJECTION. AT THE SIDE BAR.

# 105 MR. COCHRAN:

THANK YOU.

# 106 THE COURT:

IF I HEAR ANOTHER SPEAKING OBJECTION FROM EITHER SIDE, THE SANCTION IS GOING TO BE $250.00.

KEY QUOTE

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Tom Lange

THERE WAS AN INQUIRY REGARDING A LAVATORY ON AN AIRPLANE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS ACTUALLY SEARCHED, THOUGH.

Reveals that investigators were aware of the airplane lavatory as a potential evidence location but apparently never confirmed it was searched — a gap in the investigation.

Tom Lange

YOU WERE QUICKER TO GET OVER HERE, YES.

Lange's admission that Cochran reached him first during the break, but he walked past him to speak with the prosecution instead — suggesting prosecution coaching during recesses.

Tom Lange

GENERALLY THAT IS CORRECT, YES.

Lange concedes agreement with the Golden Rule of homicide investigation — 'never touch, change or alter anything until identified, measured and photographed' — setting up criticism of the crime scene handling.

Lance A. Ito

IF I HEAR ANOTHER SPEAKING OBJECTION FROM EITHER SIDE, THE SANCTION IS GOING TO BE $250.00.

Ito asserting firm courtroom control, threatening monetary sanctions on both sides.

Evidence (2)

Defendant's 1052

Lemoyne Snyder 'Homicide Investigation,' 1953 seventh printing edition — a forensic investigation textbook used to establish standards for time-of-death estimation and crime scene preservation

Discussed; Clark successfully blocked much of its use on foundation grounds

Informal

American Airlines airplane and lavatory potentially searched in connection with OJ Simpson's Chicago trip

Referenced; Lange could not confirm whether a search was actually conducted

Notable Exchanges (3)

Johnnie Cochran•Tom Lange

Cochran pressed Lange about whether prosecutors had blocked him from speaking to the witness during the break. Lange admitted Cochran reached him first but said he went to the prosecution table because 'they signaled me first.' Cochran pushed back, saying Darden called Lange away only after Cochran was already there.

revealing

Marcia Clark•Lance A. Ito

Clark objected while also explaining the substance of her objection aloud ('No, he did not rely upon this. He told us repeatedly this is an earlier edition'), prompting Ito to call a sidebar and warn both sides of $250 sanctions for any further speaking objections.

heated

Johnnie Cochran•Tom Lange

Cochran walked Lange through the Golden Rule of homicide investigation and the importance of examining stomach contents for time-of-death, getting Lange to agree with the principles — implicitly criticizing how the investigation was handled.

strategic

Light Moments (1)

Tom Lange

Cochran and Lange's awkward back-and-forth about the restroom conversation during the break, with Lange dryly noting 'I can't talk to everyone at once' and 'You were quicker.'

Credibility Attacks (3)

⚔ Tom Lange

Bias / prosecutorial coaching

Cochran highlighted that during the break Lange walked past him to speak with prosecutors first, suggesting the witness was being coached or directed by the prosecution during recesses.

⚔ Tom Lange

Prior inconsistent conduct / omission

Cochran established that no airplane was confirmed searched despite an 'inquiry' about a lavatory — suggesting investigators failed to follow up on a potentially critical lead related to Simpson's Chicago flight.

⚔ Tom Lange

Admission against interest via expert authority

By getting Lange to agree with the Golden Rule ('never touch, change or alter anything until identified, measured and photographed'), Cochran set up an implicit argument that the Bundy crime scene was mishandled.

Witness Demeanor

(NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE) — Lange initially silent when asked about airplane searches

Lange deflects and hedges throughout, repeatedly saying 'generally yes' or 'I can't say for sure'

Objections

6 objections (5 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 5221 • 106 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103