Recross-examination of Stephen Oppler

📄 Recross-examination of Stephen Oppler — Wednesday, September 13, 1995

Address:

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

TRIAL

▲ Day 153 of 167

◀ Redirect examination of Stephen Oppler Redirect examination of Stephen Oppler (part 2) ▶

Witness: Stephen Oppler
Examiner: Peter Neufeld
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Wednesday, September 13, 1995 • Utterances: 25

Peter Neufeld conducted a brief recross-examination of Stephen Oppler, focusing on the 14-minute gap during the Peratis videotaping session. Neufeld worked to establish that Goldberg and Peratis were free to converse privately while the videographer dismantled equipment, and that Goldberg could have coached Peratis before the tape rolled.

# 1 MS. CLARK:

I have nothing further.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. NEUFELD

# 2 MR. NEUFELD:

Mr. Oppler, it was the videographer who was taking apart and putting back the equipment, correct?

# 3 MR. OPPLER:

Yes.

# 4 MR. NEUFELD:

It wasn't Mr. Goldberg, was it?

# 5 MR. OPPLER:

No.

# 6 MR. NEUFELD:

And it wasn't Mr. Peratis, right?

# 7 MR. OPPLER:

Right.

# 8 MR. NEUFELD:

So while she's taking apart her equipment, Mr. Peratis and Mr. Goldberg are free to have whatever discussions they want during that 14-minute period; is that correct?

KEY QUOTE

# 9 MR. OPPLER:

Yes.

# 10 MR. NEUFELD:

And if Mr. Peratis happened to walk off with some period of time to get another syringe, that didn't take up 14 minutes, did it?

# 11 MS. CLARK:

Objection. Speculation.

# 12 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 13 MR. NEUFELD:

Well--

# 14 THE COURT:

Rephrase the question.

# 15 MR. NEUFELD:

You said on redirect examination that you're not even sure if during those 14 minutes Mr. Peratis even went off to get another syringe, are you?

# 16 MR. OPPLER:

Correct.

# 17 MR. NEUFELD:

And, sir, you also said at the end of her redirect examination a moment ago that that day when you arrived there, there was no script given to Mr. Peratis; is that right?

# 18 MR. OPPLER:

Correct.

# 19 MR. NEUFELD:

And no instructions before the tape began rolling the first time to Mr. Peratis; is that correct?

# 20 MR. OPPLER:

Correct.

# 21 MR. NEUFELD:

But you don't know to what extent Mr. Goldberg prepped him on prior occasions, do you?

KEY QUOTE

# 22 MR. OPPLER:

No, I wouldn't.

# 23 MS. CLARK:

Objection, your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.

# 24 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 25 MR. NEUFELD:

Nothing further.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

Peter Neufeld

So while she's taking apart her equipment, Mr. Peratis and Mr. Goldberg are free to have whatever discussions they want during that 14-minute period; is that correct?

Neufeld plants the suggestion that the prosecution could have coached Peratis off-camera during the videotaping gap — a key defense theory about the blood volume discrepancy.

Peter Neufeld

But you don't know to what extent Mr. Goldberg prepped him on prior occasions, do you?

Neufeld implies Goldberg may have improperly prepared Peratis before the taped deposition — objection sustained, but the insinuation was made.

Stephen Oppler

No, I wouldn't.

Oppler concedes he has no knowledge of any prior coaching sessions between Goldberg and Peratis.

Evidence (1)

Informal

The Peratis videotaped deposition, including the 14-minute gap during which the videographer was packing up equipment

discussed

Notable Exchanges (1)

Peter Neufeld•Marcia Clark•Lance A. Ito

Both of Neufeld's probing questions about the gap — one speculating about Peratis fetching a syringe, one implying Goldberg coached Peratis — were shut down by sustained objections, forcing Neufeld to abandon both lines.

strategic

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Hank Goldberg

insinuation of improper witness preparation

Neufeld suggested Goldberg may have coached Peratis on prior occasions before the videotaped deposition, though the objection was sustained before Oppler could answer substantively.

Objections

2 objections (2 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 7644 • 25 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103