Recross-examination of Douglas Deedrick

📄 Recross-examination of Douglas Deedrick — Thursday, September 14, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\SEP\14\RECROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-DOUGLAS.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 154 of 167

◀ Redirect examination of Douglas Deedrick (part 2) Next witness ▶

Witness: Douglas Deedrick
Examiner: Barry Scheck
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Thursday, September 14, 1995 • Utterances: 139

Barry Scheck recrossed FBI hair and fiber expert Douglas Deedrick, pressing him on two main points: his lack of blood spatter expertise and whether that undermined his bloody imprint conclusions, and the bombshell redirect testimony about knife damage to Ron Goldman's shirt that Deedrick observed in August 1994 but never wrote down, reported, or photographed. Scheck hammered the credibility of Deedrick's undocumented knife-wound observation, pointing out that Deedrick claimed to remember a specific three-quarter inch measurement two years later without any notes.

# 1 THE COURT:

Mr. Scheck.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK

# 2 MR. SCHECK:

Miss Clark asked you on redirect examination whether it in any way undermined your opinions that you lacked background in blood spatter analysis. Do you recall that?

# 3 MR. DEEDRICK:

Yeah. I don't--I don't have any expertise in blood spatter analysis.

# 4 MR. SCHECK:

But she asked you whether that lack of expertise in any way undermined, in your opinion, the validity of any of your conclusions?

# 5 MR. DEEDRICK:

Umm--

# 6 MR. SCHECK:

Do you recall that?

# 7 MR. DEEDRICK:

Yeah. I don't believe it has an impact on the imprint pattern comparisons.

# 8 MR. SCHECK:

The bloody imprint pattern comparisons?

# 9 MR. DEEDRICK:

Right, right.

# 10 MR. SCHECK:

And you said that blood spatter analysis, as you understood it, concerned the movement, projection of blood and what happens to it when it strikes surfaces?

# 11 MR. DEEDRICK:

Well, that is my limited understanding of it.

# 12 MR. SCHECK:

And based on your limiting understanding of it, do you think that might have something to do with an analysis of bloody imprints?

# 13 MR. DEEDRICK:

I don't see it in the same vein.

# 14 MR. SCHECK:

Well, I am having a little trouble with this. Agent Deedrick, if you don't know something, how do you know that it is irrelevant?

# 15 THE COURT:

Argumentative, counsel.

# 16 MR. SCHECK:

Well, without knowledge of this field, how can you state with such assurance to the jury that it has no relevance to an analysis of bloody imprints?

# 17 MR. DEEDRICK:

Well, I--I really can't comment on that.

# 18 MR. SCHECK:

Right. And agent Deedrick, just take that explanation you gave about swipe. Do you recall that?

# 19 MR. DEEDRICK:

Yes.

# 20 MR. SCHECK:

Upon reflection, do you think that an analysis--an understanding of blood pattern analysis might be of some usefulness in interpreting the multiple imprint impressions in the area of the jeans that you are telling us was caused by a swipe?

# 21 MR. DEEDRICK:

Well, I said it may have. That was a possible explanation for it.

# 22 MR. SCHECK:

Well, you think blood spatter analysis might have some relevance to that point?

# 23 MR. DEEDRICK:

Well, it would be nice to know a little bit about everything or maybe a lot about everything, but I don't know everything.

# 24 MR. SCHECK:

Well, before you hold yourself out as an expert on bloody imprints at the conclusion of this trial, do you think it might be important, even to consult somebody who had expertise about that?

# 25 MS. CLARK:

Objection, argumentative.

# 26 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 27 MR. SCHECK:

Now, you said that you had looked at the shirt and the jeans at some point on redirect examination. Do you recall that?

# 28 MR. DEEDRICK:

I do.

# 29 MR. SCHECK:

And you observed imprints at that time?

# 30 MR. DEEDRICK:

No, I don't recall seeing imprints at that time.

# 31 MR. SCHECK:

Didn't you say on redirect examination that you saw imprints when you observed the jeans?

# 32 MR. DEEDRICK:

No, I didn't look at the clothing items at that time early on for that purpose, nor did I notice any.

# 33 MR. SCHECK:

Did you ever inspect the clothing items--well, when was this first time you inspected the jeans or the shirt?

# 34 MR. DEEDRICK:

I'm thinking August of `94.

# 35 MR. SCHECK:

And was there a subsequent time you examined the jeans?

# 36 MR. DEEDRICK:

Well, I looked at them for the second time last night.

# 37 MR. SCHECK:

Okay. So in August of `94 you looked up and down the jeans and you were looking for damage?

# 38 MR. DEEDRICK:

Well, I did examine the jeans and the shirt for possible damage.

# 39 MR. SCHECK:

And was it at that time that you made the observations that you told us about on redirect examination with respect to knives?

# 40 MR. DEEDRICK:

Right. It was basically an observation of both the jeans and the shirt.

# 41 MR. SCHECK:

So that is all of 1991 that you made this inspection--`94?

# 42 MR. DEEDRICK:

`94.

# 43 MR. SCHECK:

`94, right?

# 44 MR. DEEDRICK:

That's right.

# 45 MR. SCHECK:

Okay. Now, when you were conducting that inspection in August of `94, did you observe the imprint with the circular ridge and the parallel lines that you've identified in People's 619 as an imprint that you thought, based on your observations, could be consistent with the imprint of a heel?

# 46 MR. DEEDRICK:

No, I didn't make any observations regarding imprint patterns of whatever type at that point.

# 47 THE COURT:

All right. That is 619, upper photograph, lower circle.

# 48 MR. SCHECK:

If you had noticed that, would you have immediately notified Agent Bodziak or someone else to go examine that because it could be an imprint pattern consistent with a shoe?

# 49 MR. DEEDRICK:

I don't know quite how to answer that. I assumed at one point it would be coming in, but then it may not have. I just didn't make this observation.

# 50 MR. SCHECK:

Well, you said you were--didn't see anything, I think on redirect examination, of significance?

# 51 MR. DEEDRICK:

From an imprint pattern standpoint I didn't look for anything regarding that.

# 52 MR. SCHECK:

Would you agree that sometimes significance--the significance of imprint patterns or any other observations are affected by the point of view one has towards the examination of the evidence?

# 53 MR. DEEDRICK:

Perhaps.

# 54 MR. SCHECK:

Now, you said, I guess--well, we've now established that was on your August 31st or August--is it August 31st, 1994, that you looked at the shirt?

# 55 MR. DEEDRICK:

It was in August, I remember. I can't recall the exact date.

# 56 MR. SCHECK:

August of 1994 you examined the shirt for damage?

# 57 MR. DEEDRICK:

That's right.

# 58 MR. SCHECK:

And that is--Miss Clark asked you on redirect examination about your observations with respect to damage caused perhaps by knives?

# 59 MR. DEEDRICK:

Right. I did observe some cutting marks.

# 60 MR. SCHECK:

And before she asked you that question the two of you hadn't discussed it at all?

# 61 MR. DEEDRICK:

No.

# 62 MR. SCHECK:

Just a question she happened to ask you out of the blue at the end of this trial about damage to the shirt?

# 63 MR. DEEDRICK:

Yes, that's right.

# 64 MR. SCHECK:

No discussion between the two of you whatsoever about what answer you might give?

# 65 MR. DEEDRICK:

No.

# 66 MR. SCHECK:

Is that typical, in your experience?

# 67 THE COURT:

Excuse me, counsel. I did cut off the redirect examination as to this issue.

# 68 MR. SCHECK:

Well, I understand, but substantive things were said and I would like to just explore them briefly, your Honor, because the jury heard them.

# 69 THE COURT:

Briefly, briefly.

# 70 MR. SCHECK:

Now, you told this jury that you saw damage to the back of Mr. Goldman's shirt, correct?

# 71 MR. DEEDRICK:

That's right.

# 72 MR. SCHECK:

And that you now recall that you saw one area where there was a three-quarter of an inch, what would you call it, incision or entry?

# 73 MR. DEEDRICK:

Looked like a stab cut.

# 74 MR. SCHECK:

Stab cut and that you had concluded it was from a sharp instrument?

# 75 MR. DEEDRICK:

Yes.

# 76 MR. SCHECK:

And a single-edged knife?

# 77 MR. DEEDRICK:

Yes.

# 78 MR. SCHECK:

And you so made such--and you made such observations and conclusions in August of 1994?

# 79 MR. DEEDRICK:

That was an observation I made then, yes.

# 80 MR. SCHECK:

Did you write it down?

# 81 MR. DEEDRICK:

No.

# 82 MR. SCHECK:

Did you make a report about it?

# 83 MR. DEEDRICK:

No.

# 84 MR. SCHECK:

Did you take a photograph of it?

# 85 MR. DEEDRICK:

No.

# 86 MR. SCHECK:

When you inspected the shirt last night, the gaping area was not in the same condition as when you observed it?

# 87 MR. DEEDRICK:

Well, it--it looked to be a little bit different, probably because of handling.

# 88 MR. SCHECK:

Is the reason that you did not bother writing down, documenting, taking a photograph of this damage you saw with respect to an entry that you said comes from a single-edged knife, is you thought somebody else will do it; not my department?

# 89 MR. DEEDRICK:

Well, it was not a requested examination. I didn't have a weapon to compare it to.

# 90 MR. SCHECK:

And didn't you tell me before you thought somebody else would deal with it?

# 91 MR. DEEDRICK:

I don't recall saying that, but--

# 92 MR. SCHECK:

Is that--

# 93 MR. DEEDRICK:

I wasn't involved with examining the items of evidence except for looking for hair and fiber.

# 94 MR. SCHECK:

But didn't you just say that you were looking at the shirt for damage?

# 95 MR. DEEDRICK:

Right. I did--that is because I was in the lab, but the main purpose was to look at the shirt to--just to see it, just to be familiar with the structure of it, the composition of it, the texture of it, transferability of it. And also damage is part of it, but also the items will dry. Early processing of items for hair and fiber evidence often will not recover as much as secondary processing.

# 96 MR. SCHECK:

But I thought you said--so one of the purposes of observing the shirt in August of 1994 was damage?

# 97 MR. DEEDRICK:

That was part of it, right.

# 98 MR. SCHECK:

And damage would include something that could be consistent with a knife wound?

# 99 MR. DEEDRICK:

It was at the time like scientific curiosity, just to see what type of damage was present in the shirt.

KEY QUOTE

# 100 MR. SCHECK:

Never told anybody about it?

KEY QUOTE

# 101 MR. DEEDRICK:

No.

# 102 MR. SCHECK:

And as you sit here today you can actually remember, without any notes, that was a three-quarter of an inch incision in its widest part?

# 103 MR. DEEDRICK:

Right. That would have been the maximum blade width, three-quarters inch.

# 104 MR. SCHECK:

Did you measure it?

# 105 MR. DEEDRICK:

Sure.

# 106 MR. SCHECK:

And didn't write it down?

# 107 MR. DEEDRICK:

No.

# 108 MR. SCHECK:

Just remember it now?

# 109 MR. DEEDRICK:

Well, I remembered it all along.

# 110 MR. SCHECK:

Uh-huh. And just shared it with everybody right now today?

KEY QUOTE

# 111 MS. CLARK:

Objection, argumentative and asked and answered.

# 112 THE COURT:

Sustained.

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

# 114 MR. SCHECK:

And on redirect examination you were asked about--you were talking about the number of cases where you did fabric comparisons. Do you recall that, Miss Clark was asking you about that?

# 115 MR. DEEDRICK:

I talked about fabric, but I don't know what type of comparison you are asking about.

# 116 MR. SCHECK:

Well, on cross-examination I had asked you, I thought we had established--we had agreed that to the best of your knowledge you had never done a case involving bloody imprints on fabric, fabric to fabric?

# 117 MS. CLARK:

Objection, misstates the testimony.

# 118 THE COURT:

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

# 119 MR. SCHECK:

Well, on redirect examination are you now saying that you might have done such a case, but you forgot it?

# 120 MS. CLARK:

Objection, that is argumentative.

# 121 THE COURT:

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

# 122 MR. SCHECK:

Did you just say on redirect examination that you could have done such a bloody imprint case but you simply don't remember?

# 123 MR. DEEDRICK:

No. I said that I couldn't recall a specific case. I've worked a lot of cases involving imprint patterns, especially on sheets, on homicide victims, people standing over the body. You will see a lot of those imprint patterns, but I can't recall what case it was.

# 124 MR. SCHECK:

Well, when we were--I asked you a very specific question about bloody imprints made by one fabric to another. Now are you saying now that you might have done such a case but you just can't remember it?

# 125 MS. CLARK:

Objection. That misstates the testimony. It is argumentative.

# 126 THE COURT:

Argumentative. Rephrase the question.

# 127 MR. SCHECK:

Are you saying that you could have done such an analysis, but you have forgotten it?

# 128 MR. DEEDRICK:

Well, as I said, I don't remember all my cases and I do recall getting cases similar to that over the years, but there is an awful lot of cases that we get in.

# 129 MR. SCHECK:

But the group of imprint cases that you say you worked on are primarily dust imprint? You said about a hundred?

# 130 MR. DEEDRICK:

About a hundred cases, that's right.

# 131 THE COURT:

All right. Counsel, this is really getting redundant.

# 132 MR. SCHECK:

Well, she asked.

# 133 THE COURT:

It is redundant.

# 134 MR. SCHECK:

But you can remember that one-quarter of an inch entry of a night in August that you never wrote down and you never took a picture of?

# 135 THE COURT:

Misstating.

# 136 MS. CLARK:

Objection, asked and answered.

# 137 MR. SCHECK:

Three-quarters of an inch, that one you got?

# 138 MR. DEEDRICK:

That one I got. I still remember it.

KEY QUOTE

# 139 MS. CLARK:

I have nothing further.

Temperature

heated

Key Quotes (5)

Barry Scheck

Agent Deedrick, if you don't know something, how do you know that it is irrelevant?

Scheck's sharpest logical trap — exposing that Deedrick can't assess the relevance of blood spatter analysis to bloody imprints because he doesn't know enough about the field to make that judgment.

Barry Scheck

And just shared it with everybody right now today?

Captures the central credibility problem: Deedrick sat on potentially significant knife-wound evidence for over a year, never documented it, and only disclosed it on redirect at the end of trial.

Douglas Deedrick

That one I got. I still remember it.

Deedrick's defiant final line — holding firm on his undocumented memory of the three-quarter inch measurement despite Scheck's sustained mockery.

Barry Scheck

Never told anybody about it?

Repeated refrain punctuating the implausibility of a forensic expert observing apparent knife damage consistent with a specific blade and telling no one for over a year.

Douglas Deedrick

It was at the time like scientific curiosity, just to see what type of damage was present in the shirt.

Deedrick's attempt to minimize his August 1994 knife-damage observation as casual curiosity, undermining the significance he seemed to assign it on redirect.

Evidence (3)

People's 619

Photograph of jeans showing circular ridge and parallel lines — alleged heel imprint

discussed; Scheck established Deedrick did not notice this imprint during his August 1994 inspection

Informal

Ron Goldman's shirt — three-quarter inch stab cut observed by Deedrick in August 1994, consistent with a single-edged knife

challenged; Scheck attacked lack of documentation, no report, no photograph, condition changed by time of trial

Informal

Ron Goldman's jeans — examined for damage in August 1994 and again the night before testimony

discussed; Deedrick admitted he did not observe imprint patterns during the 1994 inspection

Notable Exchanges (3)

Barry Scheck•Douglas Deedrick

Scheck walks Deedrick through the logical paradox of claiming blood spatter analysis is irrelevant to bloody imprints while admitting he has only a 'limited understanding' of blood spatter analysis. Judge Ito intervenes when Scheck's question becomes too argumentative.

strategic

Barry Scheck•Douglas Deedrick

Scheck methodically establishes that Deedrick observed knife damage to Goldman's shirt in August 1994, measured it, concluded it was from a single-edged knife, and then never wrote it down, never reported it, never photographed it, and never told anyone until redirect examination at the end of trial.

devastating

Barry Scheck•Lance A. Ito

Scheck pushes back when Ito calls his questioning redundant, noting 'But she asked' — defending his right to recross on redirect topics. Ito allows him to continue briefly.

procedural

Light Moments (2)

Barry Scheck

Scheck slips and says '1991' instead of '1994,' then immediately self-corrects — a small stumble in an otherwise tight cross.

Douglas Deedrick

After sustained mockery about Deedrick's undocumented three-quarter inch memory, Scheck sarcastically says 'Three-quarters of an inch, that one you got?' and Deedrick fires back 'That one I got. I still remember it.' — a rare moment where the witness gets a line in.

Credibility Attacks (3)

⚔ Douglas Deedrick

omission / lack of documentation

Scheck established that Deedrick observed what he believed was a single-edged knife wound to Goldman's shirt in August 1994, measured it at three-quarters of an inch, drew conclusions about blade type, and then made no report, no notes, took no photographs, and told no one — only surfacing it on redirect at the close of trial.

⚔ Douglas Deedrick

expertise boundary attack

Scheck exposed that Deedrick lacks expertise in blood spatter analysis while simultaneously offering opinions about bloody imprint patterns — and cannot logically assess whether that missing knowledge is relevant because he doesn't have it.

⚔ Douglas Deedrick

prior inconsistent statement / shifting testimony

Scheck pressed Deedrick on whether he had ever done fabric-to-fabric bloody imprint comparisons — Deedrick appeared to walk back his cross-examination concession on redirect, leading to multiple sustained objections for 'misstating testimony.'

Witness Demeanor

Deedrick is defensive but composed throughout, occasionally hedging ('I don't quite know how to answer that') when cornered.

Deedrick becomes slightly defiant at the end, pushing back on Scheck's mockery with 'That one I got. I still remember it.'

Objections

8 objections (6 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 7679 • 139 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103