Cross-examination of Stephen Oppler (part 2)

📄 Cross-examination of Stephen Oppler (part 2) — Wednesday, September 13, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\SEP\13\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-STEPHEN-O.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 153 of 167

Witness: Stephen Oppler
Examiner: Peter Neufeld
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Wednesday, September 13, 1995 • Utterances: 186

Defense attorney Peter Neufeld cross-examined DA investigator Stephen Oppler about his role in the videotaped interview of blood-draw nurse Thano Peratis at Peratis's home on July 27, 1995. Neufeld methodically attacked the circumstances of the taping: the defense was never notified, Peratis was not sworn, approximately 15 minutes elapsed before the camera rolled, and the tape itself shows a 14-minute unexplained gap. Oppler was unable to satisfactorily explain the gap and admitted no effort was made to include defense representation.

# 1 THE COURT:

All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all of the members of our jury panel. We found the report. Mr. Neufeld.

# 2 MR. NEUFELD:

Thank you.

# 3 MR. NEUFELD:

Sorry about that. Mr. Oppler, you said you've been with the District Attorney's office as an investigator for about seven years?

# 4 MR. OPPLER:

Yes.

# 5 MR. NEUFELD:

And this investigation you went out on on July 27th of 1995, that was at the request of Deputy District Attorney Hank Goldberg?

# 6 MR. OPPLER:

Through my lieutenant, yes.

# 7 MR. NEUFELD:

And had you--did you actually set up the appointment with Mr. Peratis?

# 8 MR. OPPLER:

No, I didn't.

# 9 MR. NEUFELD:

When were you first notified that you were going to be going to Mr. Peratis' on July 27th?

# 10 MR. OPPLER:

Earlier in that day.

# 11 MR. NEUFELD:

And have you been working on this case, sir?

# 12 MR. OPPLER:

Yes.

# 13 MR. NEUFELD:

Since the beginning?

# 14 MR. OPPLER:

Since October of last year.

# 15 MR. NEUFELD:

All right. So you knew when you went out to Mr. Peratis' house this past July 27th that Mr. Peratis had given sworn testimony to a grand jury in this case; is that correct?

# 16 MR. OPPLER:

I was informed of that.

# 17 MR. NEUFELD:

Okay. And you knew when you went out on July 27th that Mr. Peratis had also given sworn testimony as a witness called by the Prosecutor Marcia Clark at a preliminary hearing on July 7th of 1994. Did you know that too?

# 18 MR. OPPLER:

I understood that, yes.

# 19 MR. NEUFELD:

Okay. And you were told when you went out on July 27th to Mr. Peratis' home of this year, 1995, that the purpose of this taping was to obtain statements which would impeach or contradict the sworn testimony that Mr. Peratis gave approximately one year ago. You knew that too, didn't you?

KEY QUOTE

# 20 MR. OPPLER:

I don't know so much in those terms. Umm, what I was informed of was that he had conducted a demonstration to himself.

# 21 MR. NEUFELD:

Sir, I'm asking whether or not you were told when you went out there on July 27th that the purpose of this taped interview was to secure a statement from Mr. Peratis which would be used to impeach his own sworn testimony that he gave on July 7th of 1994 and June 22nd of 1994.

# 22 MS. CLARK:

Objection.

# 23 MR. NEUFELD:

Were you told that? I'm sorry. Not were you told that. Did you know that?

# 24 MS. CLARK:

Objection. Argumentative, hearsay.

# 25 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 26 MR. NEUFELD:

Now, did you know when you went out there on July 27th of 1994 that this taping was being conducted because a determination had been made that Mr. Peratis was unavailable to come into court and be sworn in as a witness because of his poor health?

# 27 MR. OPPLER:

Yes.

# 28 MR. NEUFELD:

And you knew when you went out there on July 27th to conduct this taped examination or interview I should say of Mr. Peratis that he wasn't going to be sworn in before he gave the statement to you; isn't that correct?

# 29 MR. OPPLER:

I was never told he was going to be sworn in. No.

# 30 MR. NEUFELD:

Okay. And you knew that because this interview was going to be conducted at Mr. Peratis' home, he was never going to be subjected to cross-examination as he had been at the preliminary hearing when he was called by Marcia Clark.

# 31 MS. CLARK:

Objection. Irrelevant, calls for speculation.

# 32 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 33 MR. NEUFELD:

Well, Mr. Oppler, did you make any effort on July 27th before you went out to Mr. Peratis' home to notify the Defense so they could have a lawyer present for this interview?

# 34 MR. OPPLER:

No.

# 35 MS. CLARK:

Objection. Objection, your Honor.

# 36 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 37 MS. CLARK:

Assumes legal facts not in evidence.

# 38 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 39 MR. NEUFELD:

Did you, sir, make any effort on July 27th to notify the Defense so at least the Defense investigator could be present?

# 40 MR. OPPLER:

No.

# 41 MS. CLARK:

Objection, your Honor. This is irrelevant.

# 42 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 43 MR. NEUFELD:

And, finally, sir, did you make any effort on July 27th to ensure that some independent person who was neither associated with the Prosecution nor the Defense could be present for this taped examination at Mr. Peratis' home?

# 44 THE COURT:

Sustained. That's irrelevant.

# 45 MR. NEUFELD:

What time did you arrive at Mr. Peratis' that day?

# 46 MR. OPPLER:

Approximately 3:15, 3:20.

# 47 (Brief pause.)

# 48 MR. NEUFELD:

And when you arrived at Mr. Peratis' home, did he let you in?

# 49 MR. OPPLER:

Yes.

# 50 MR. NEUFELD:

And was he alone or with someone?

# 51 MR. OPPLER:

He was alone.

# 52 MR. NEUFELD:

And where did he take you when he let you in, sir?

# 53 MR. OPPLER:

Originally we went into the room adjacent to the entry, which I think was the living room, and we ended up upstairs in a room that was more like a den.

# 54 MR. NEUFELD:

And how long did you stay in the living room before you went upstairs to the den?

# 55 MR. OPPLER:

Just a few minutes.

# 56 MR. NEUFELD:

And who made the decision to go upstairs instead of doing it downstairs?

# 57 MR. OPPLER:

I believe it was Mr. Peratis said it would be more comfortable up there.

# 58 MR. NEUFELD:

And, sir, you said you arrived sometime between 3:15 and 3:20?

# 59 MR. OPPLER:

Approximately.

# 60 MR. NEUFELD:

Now, according to the tape, the tape itself shows I believe one time, but you hear a voice-over on the tape saying it's a different time; is that correct?

# 61 MR. OPPLER:

That's correct. I was--when I initially put the heading on the tape, I stated 3:48 when in fact my watch was 3:38. The photographer said the tape on the video was 3:36. I checked my watch. It was 3:38, not 48. I was in error when I first said that. And on my backup audiocassette, which I was making, I believe I corrected that at the end of it.

# 62 MR. NEUFELD:

So if you arrived between 3:15 and 3:20 and the tape began at approximately 3:38, that would mean that there was about 20 minutes while you were there at Mr. Peratis' home before you started rolling the tape; isn't that correct?

# 63 MR. OPPLER:

When I say 3:15, 3:20, because we have a radio, because that's when I called into the office. Then we walked to the house. We got there a minute or so later. And then--and at that point, we were downstairs, then went upstairs.

# 64 MR. NEUFELD:

So, Mr. Oppler, am I correct in saying that it's approximately 15 minutes that you were there at Mr. Peratis' house before the tape began rolling?

# 65 MR. OPPLER:

Yes.

# 66 MR. NEUFELD:

And it's your testimony that during that 15 minutes, other than saying, "Let's move upstairs where we'll be more comfortable," there was absolutely no discussion between District Attorney hang Goldberg and Mr. Peratis?

# 67 MR. OPPLER:

There was no discussion regarding what the content of the tape would be.

# 68 MR. NEUFELD:

You remember that specifically, sir?

# 69 MR. OPPLER:

I remember we weren't going to discuss that.

# 70 MR. NEUFELD:

Now, during those 15 minutes before the tape started rolling, did Mr. Goldberg assure Mr. Peratis that he could say whatever he wanted to say because he wouldn't be sworn?

# 71 MS. CLARK:

Objection. Your Honor--

# 72 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 73 MR. NEUFELD:

During the 15 minutes--by the way, we notice that Mr. Peratis was holding a syringe at one point on the tape and holding a vacutainer. Did you and Mr. Goldberg bring that equipment with you to his house?

# 74 MR. OPPLER:

No.

# 75 MR. NEUFELD:

He had it there already?

# 76 MR. OPPLER:

Yes.

# 77 MR. NEUFELD:

He had it sitting out when you arrived?

# 78 MR. OPPLER:

I don't recall where it was when we arrived.

# 79 MR. NEUFELD:

Now, sir, you said that--that on direct examination, that he was not rehearsed while you were there on July 27th; is that correct?

# 80 MR. OPPLER:

Yes.

# 81 MR. NEUFELD:

But during the course of this interview at Mr. Peratis' house, didn't Mr. Goldberg refer to other conversations and discussions that he had had with Mr. Peratis?

# 82 MR. OPPLER:

I don't recall. I'd have to see that tape again, that part of it where it said that. I don't recall every piece of that tape, if he had that discussion.

# 83 MR. NEUFELD:

To the best of your recollection, Mr. Goldberg never said during the course of the tape or bring up the fact that he had had any prior discussion with Mr. Peratis before just showing up on July 27th out of the blue?

# 84 MS. CLARK:

Objection. Hearsay. The tape speaks for itself. Best evidence.

# 85 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 86 MR. OPPLER:

I didn't say he never said it. I said I don't recall if he said that.

# 87 MR. NEUFELD:

And you learned, sir, during the course of this examination or your participation in this outing on July 27th that Mr. Peratis had been an employee of the Los Angeles Police Department for some 30 or 40 years; did you not?

# 88 MR. OPPLER:

I didn't know the exact number of years. I know it was many years.

# 89 MR. NEUFELD:

And, sir, you also learned during this outing on July 27th that the first time Mr. Peratis ever believed that his testimony, his sworn testimony was false was after this trial actually began. Did you learn that on July 27th?

# 90 MR. OPPLER:

Yes.

# 91 MR. NEUFELD:

And did you learn--

# 92 MS. CLARK:

Objection, your Honor. Hearsay.

# 93 THE COURT:

Overruled. It's late.

# 94 MR. NEUFELD:

And did you learn on July 27th--one moment--that it was only after he learned that it was the Defense theory through opening statements--

# 95 MS. CLARK:

Objection. Hearsay.

# 96 THE COURT:

Calling for a conclusion on the part of this witness as to somebody else. Sustained.

# 97 MR. NEUFELD:

During this interview with Mr. Peratis at his home, did he show you the syringe or an exact replica of the syringe that was actually used to draw blood out of Mr. Simpson's on July 13th, 1994?

# 98 MS. CLARK:

Objection.

# 99 MR. NEUFELD:

I'm sorry. June 13th, 1994.

# 100 MS. CLARK:

Objection. No foundation.

# 101 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 102 MR. OPPLER:

He showed us a syringe that said it was like the one that he used. I don't know if the exact replica was it, but--

# 103 MR. NEUFELD:

And the syringe that he showed you that he said was like the one that he used, didn't it have calibrations on the syringe itself with numbers so that anyone who looked at the syringe and saw liquid in it would know how much was there?

# 104 MR. OPPLER:

The syringe had calibrations on it.

# 105 MR. NEUFELD:

And when we say "Calibrations," it had numbers indicating whether it was 1 cc, 2 cc's, 6 cc's or 8 cc's, didn't it?

# 106 MR. OPPLER:

I didn't see it up close, whether it said cc's or milliliters or what was the exact marking, but it was calibrated.

# 107 MR. NEUFELD:

And it was calibrated with numbers--

# 108 MR. OPPLER:

Right.

# 109 MR. NEUFELD:

--indicating quantities?

# 110 MR. OPPLER:

Right.

# 111 MR. NEUFELD:

And it was calibrated with lines next to the numbers so you could see where the liquid was at a certain point, couldn't you?

# 112 MR. OPPLER:

Correct.

# 113 MR. NEUFELD:

And it was at that point that Mr. Peratis during this interview told you and the Deputy District Attorney Hank Goldberg--

# 114 MS. CLARK:

Objection. Hearsay.

# 115 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 116 MR. NEUFELD:

There was a time when we looked at the videotape where the image was giggling a little bit. Have you seen a version of that tape where the image doesn't giggle at all?

# 117 MR. OPPLER:

Yes.

# 118 MR. NEUFELD:

And I notice that when Mr. Peratis is giving an explanation of what he did when he looked at the syringe when trying to explain his preliminary hearing testimony in which he--

# 119 MS. CLARK:

Objection. That's argumentative.

# 120 THE COURT:

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

# 121 MR. NEUFELD:

Do you remember the portion on the tape where Mr. Goldberg brings out the fact that Mr. Peratis had testified under oath that the amount in the syringe could--"The amount drawn could have been 7.9 or it could have been 8.1. I just looked at the syringe and it looked at about 8 cc's," unquote? Do you remember when Mr. Goldberg brought that point up to Mr. Peratis?

# 122 MR. OPPLER:

Yes.

# 123 MS. CLARK:

Objection. Hearsay.

# 124 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 125 MR. NEUFELD:

And do you remember when Mr. Peratis showed you the syringe with the calibrations, the numbers and lines on it, to indicate how much liquid would be in a syringe? Do you recall that?

# 126 MR. OPPLER:

Yes.

# 127 MR. NEUFELD:

And do you recall that on this tape, he says--or I'm sorry--he then turns the syringe over so you can't see the numbers and calibrations, you only see a portion of the syringe that has no numbers on it? Do you recall that?

# 128 MR. OPPLER:

Yes.

# 129 MR. NEUFELD:

Sir, is it your testimony that neither you--I'm sorry--that Deputy District Attorney Mr. Goldberg had no discussion at all with Mr. Peratis about how he held the syringe 12 months ago on June 13th before he uttered that description during that videotape session last month?

# 130 MR. OPPLER:

Are you speaking before we filmed the tape or--I'm not sure I understand the question.

# 131 MR. NEUFELD:

Before you filmed the tape that day on that day. That's the time frame I'm talking about.

# 132 MR. OPPLER:

Right. Before he--the filming of the tape is what you're saying.

# 133 MR. NEUFELD:

Yes. Do you understand the question? I can rephrase it if you'd like.

# 134 MR. OPPLER:

I'd like you to, please.

# 135 MR. NEUFELD:

Sure. Prior to Mr. Peratis turning that syringe over so he said that the numbers and calibrations couldn't be seen when he withdrew the syringe, what I'm asking is, did that subject come up at any time at all in the discussion between Deputy District Attorney Hank Goldberg and Mr. Peratis before he gave that statement on the videotape that day?

# 136 MR. OPPLER:

No.

# 137 MR. NEUFELD:

There was no demonstration by Mr. Peratis off camera before the taping started of how he may have held the syringe?

# 138 MR. OPPLER:

Not in my presence.

# 139 MR. NEUFELD:

Was there any mention in your presence of a concern that he had testified under oath that, "I just looked at the syringe and it looked at about 8 cc's"? Was there any discussion at all that that would be a problem for the Prosecution?

# 140 MR. OPPLER:

No.

# 141 MR. NEUFELD:

Sir, at any point at all during that day, was there any substantive discussion held about this case when the tape was not running?

# 142 MR. OPPLER:

No.

# 143 MR. NEUFELD:

So it's your testimony that the tape ran continuously and there was no time where the tape was turned off and a discussion about the substantive facts of this case occurred?

# 144 MR. OPPLER:

No. The only downtime when we got there was when the photographer was setting up her equipment.

# 145 MR. NEUFELD:

Mr. Oppler, isn't it a fact that according to the clock on the tape, on the original tape that you provided to the Defense in this case, that the tape stops at 3:59 P.M. and resumes at 4:13 P.M. with approximately 14 minutes of downtime in-between? Isn't that correct, sir?

# 146 MS. CLARK:

Objection. Objection, your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.

# 147 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 148 MS. CLARK:

Hearsay, irrelevant.

# 149 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 150 MS. CLARK:

Nothing--352, misleading.

# 151 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 152 MR. OPPLER:

Can you repeat that, please?

# 153 MR. NEUFELD:

Isn't it a fact that when you went to Mr. Peratis' home to make this tape and to interview Mr. Peratis, that the tape was turned off at 3:59 and resumed at 4:13, some 14 minutes later?

KEY QUOTE

# 154 MR. OPPLER:

I don't recall that specifically. I think that there might have been a time that the photographer was checking and making sure that it was recording correctly.

# 155 MR. NEUFELD:

Well, sir, you testified that the time that the tape began was approximately 3:36; is that right?

# 156 MR. OPPLER:

Approximately.

# 157 MR. NEUFELD:

Well, if the tape was turned off at 3:59, that would be 23 minutes after the tape started; is that correct, sir?

# 158 MR. OPPLER:

Yes.

# 159 MR. NEUFELD:

And if the tape was turned off at 3:59 and resumed at 4:13, some 14 minutes later, that certainly wouldn't be for the purpose of making sure the tape was working, would it, sir?

# 160 MR. OPPLER:

Probably not. I--I do recall her doing that. It may have been at the end just to make sure that it tape-recorded before we left. So at that time, you know, possibly that wasn't the reason.

# 161 MR. NEUFELD:

Sir, other than the fact that the tape was working, is it your testimony that there was no substantive--that there was no break in this tape of some 14 minutes before you resumed this witness describing his position regarding his handling of the evidence in this case? Is that your testimony?

# 162 MR. OPPLER:

I don't recall the reason that the tape stopped. Other than being on tape, there was nothing substantive spoken about.

KEY QUOTE

# 163 MR. NEUFELD:

Sir, are you saying--are you changing your testimony when you said a moment ago--

# 164 MS. CLARK:

Objection. Argumentative.

# 165 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 166 MR. NEUFELD:

One moment.

# 167 (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

# 168 MR. NEUFELD:

Your Honor, I just need to get a little portion of the tape cued up.

# 169 MR. NEUFELD:

Sir, while he's cueing that up, let me ask you one other question. Was there ever a time during this interview on tape when Mr. Peratis instead of actually speaking, mouthed words, "I don't remember"?

# 170 MR. OPPLER:

I do recall him mouthing words. I don't remember if it was "I don't remember."

# 171 MR. NEUFELD:

Well, if it had been him mouthing words, "I don't remember," but not saying that, would that be in response to his inability to remember that portion of the script that was given to him?

# 172 MR. OPPLER:

No.

# 173 MS. CLARK:

Objection, your Honor.

# 174 THE COURT:

Sustained. The answer is stricken. The question and answer are stricken.

# 175 MR. NEUFELD:

Well, sir, if in fact he mouthed the words, "I don't remember," are you sure that that would not be in response to something he had been--to something that had been discussed with him before the tape ran?

KEY QUOTE

# 176 MR. OPPLER:

I'm positive. We didn't discuss anything concerning what we would be filming.

# 177 MR. NEUFELD:

Are you as positive about the fact that you didn't discuss the substance of his testimony before the--I'm sorry--the substance of his unsworn interview before the tape began running as you are that there was no 14-minute break in the tape in which after that break ended, you resumed the substantive discussion of the facts of this case?

# 178 MS. CLARK:

Objection. That misstates the testimony and it's argumentative.

# 179 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 180 (Brief pause.)

# 181 MR. NEUFELD:

I'm sorry, your Honor. We're just cueing it up and it's my fault.

# 182 (Brief pause.)

# 183 MS. CLARK:

Can we see what the Defense is planning on--

# 184 THE COURT:

We'll take our recess at this point.

# 185 MS. CLARK:

I was just going to say, you want to--

# 186 THE COURT:

We're going to take our recess at this point. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our mid-afternoon recess. Remember all my admonitions to you. Mr. Oppler, you may step down. You are ordered to come back in 15 minutes. All right. 15. Miss Clark, take a look at the video.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (5)

Peter Neufeld

Isn't it a fact that when you went to Mr. Peratis' home to make this tape and to interview Mr. Peratis, that the tape was turned off at 3:59 and resumed at 4:13, some 14 minutes later?

The 14-minute gap in the tape is the centerpiece of the cross — Neufeld uses it to suggest off-camera coaching occurred, directly contradicting Oppler's claim that nothing substantive was discussed off camera.

Stephen Oppler

I don't recall the reason that the tape stopped. Other than being on tape, there was nothing substantive spoken about.

Oppler cannot explain the gap, yet insists nothing improper was discussed — a contradiction Neufeld immediately exploits.

Peter Neufeld

Well, sir, if in fact he mouthed the words, 'I don't remember,' are you sure that that would not be in response to something he had been — to something that had been discussed with him before the tape ran?

Neufeld raises the possibility Peratis was following a script, implying the interview was staged rather than spontaneous. The question and answer were stricken.

Stephen Oppler

Not in my presence.

When asked if Peratis demonstrated syringe-handling off camera before taping, Oppler qualifies his denial — 'not in my presence' leaves open the possibility it happened without him.

Peter Neufeld

You were told when you went out on July 27th to Mr. Peratis' home of this year, 1995, that the purpose of this taping was to obtain statements which would impeach or contradict the sworn testimony that Mr. Peratis gave approximately one year ago.

Frames the entire Peratis tape as a prosecution-engineered effort to undo its own witness's sworn testimony — the foundational attack on the tape's legitimacy.

Evidence (4)

Informal

Videotaped interview of Thano Peratis at his home, July 27, 1995, conducted by DA investigator Oppler and Deputy DA Hank Goldberg

discussed, challenged — specifically the 14-minute gap and off-camera preparation

Informal

Syringe shown by Peratis during the tape — described as 'like the one' used to draw OJ Simpson's blood on June 13, 1994; had numerical calibration markings

discussed — Neufeld highlights that Peratis turned the syringe over to obscure the calibrations during the demonstration

Informal

Peratis's sworn grand jury testimony and preliminary hearing testimony (July 7, 1994) in which he estimated approximately 8 cc's of blood drawn

referenced as the prior sworn statements the Peratis tape was designed to undercut

Informal

Backup audiocassette made simultaneously by Oppler during the Peratis home interview

mentioned — Oppler says he corrected a time discrepancy on it

Notable Exchanges (4)

Peter Neufeld•Stephen Oppler

Neufeld establishes a ~15-minute window before the tape rolled, then asks whether Goldberg had any substantive discussion with Peratis during that time. Oppler insists there was none. Neufeld then reveals the 14-minute gap mid-tape and confronts Oppler with the internal contradiction.

strategic

Peter Neufeld•Stephen Oppler

Neufeld asks whether Peratis mouthed the words 'I don't remember' on tape and whether that was because he'd forgotten 'that portion of the script.' Ito strikes the question and answer.

aggressive

Peter Neufeld•Stephen Oppler

Neufeld walks through the syringe demonstration: Peratis showed a calibrated syringe, then turned it over to hide the numbers. Oppler confirms the calibrations existed but says he didn't see them closely. Neufeld uses this to imply the demonstration was staged to reframe Peratis's '8 cc' estimate.

revealing

Marcia Clark•Lance A. Ito

Clark fires four consecutive objections (assumes facts, hearsay, irrelevant, 352/misleading) against a single question about the tape gap. Ito overrules all of them.

heated

Credibility Attacks (3)

⚔ Stephen Oppler

internal inconsistency / impeachment by prior testimony

Oppler testified no substantive discussion occurred off camera, then could not explain a 14-minute gap in the tape during which the camera was off. Neufeld juxtaposed Oppler's blanket denial with the documented gap to suggest either coaching occurred or Oppler's memory is unreliable.

⚔ Stephen Oppler

qualification of denial

When asked if Peratis demonstrated syringe handling before the tape, Oppler said 'not in my presence' rather than a flat denial — Neufeld left this qualifier hanging for the jury.

⚔ Thano Peratis (by proxy)

suggestive questioning / script allegation

Neufeld implied through questions to Oppler that Peratis's on-tape statement was coached or scripted, pointing to the mouthing of words, the syringe reversal, and the off-camera prep time as circumstantial evidence of rehearsal.

Witness Demeanor

(Brief pause.) — after Neufeld asks what time Oppler arrived at Peratis's home

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.) — while Neufeld confers with co-counsel

(Brief pause.) — twice while defense team cues videotape for playback

Objections

17 objections (11 sustained, 6 overruled)

Proceeding 7667 • 186 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103