📄 Recross-examination of Comm. Keith Bushey (part 2) — Wednesday, September 20, 1995
Address:
C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\SEP\20\RECROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-COMM-KE.DOC
TRIAL
▲ Day 158 of 167

Recross-examination of Comm. Keith Bushey (part 2)

Witness: Comm. Keith Bushey
Examiner: Johnnie Cochran
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Wednesday, September 20, 1995 • Utterances: 14
Cochran closes his recross with a single pointed question: establishing that LAPD's commanders assumed the murder victim was Nicole Brown Simpson before ordering notification to OJ Simpson. Bushey confirms the assumption, which Cochran uses to cement that the notification order was not a random act but a deliberate decision based on a known victim identity.
1 MR. COCHRAN:

Last question, your Honor,

FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY Mr. COCHRAN

2 MR. COCHRAN:

With regard to the fact that detectives were at Nicole Brown Simpson's house, her children were at the police department--is that correct?

3 COMMANDER BUSHEY:

At some point.

4 MR. COCHRAN:

Yes. They had been found at that scene and Detective Phillips told you that she was the victim; isn't that correct?

5 MS. CLARK:

Objection, hearsay.

6 THE COURT:

Overruled.

7 MS. CLARK:

Asked and answered.

8 THE COURT:

Overruled.

9 MR. COCHRAN:

Isn't that correct?

10 COMMANDER BUSHEY:

Our assumption was that it was Nicole Brown Simpson.

KEY QUOTE
11 MR. COCHRAN:

Otherwise you wouldn't tell him to go give notification? You wouldn't give a direct order as a commander of the Los Angeles Police Department, would you?

KEY QUOTE
12 COMMANDER BUSHEY:

That's correct.

13 MR. COCHRAN:

Thank you, sir.

14 (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (2)

Comm. Keith Bushey
Our assumption was that it was Nicole Brown Simpson.
Cochran extracts the admission that police had already identified — or assumed — the victim's identity before sending detectives to notify Simpson, undercutting any suggestion the visit was routine or neutral.
Johnnie Cochran
Otherwise you wouldn't tell him to go give notification? You wouldn't give a direct order as a commander of the Los Angeles Police Department, would you?
Cochran frames the notification order as proof of certainty about the victim's identity, reinforcing the defense's timeline narrative.

Notable Exchanges (1)

Marcia ClarkLance A. Ito
Clark fired two rapid objections — hearsay then asked and answered — both overruled in succession, allowing Cochran's question to land cleanly.
strategic

Witness Demeanor

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

Objections

2 objections (0 sustained, 2 overruled)
Proceeding 7793 • 14 utterances • Prosecution witness
Criminal Trial
Department 103
⚖️ Start
📂 SEP 20, 1995 📄 Recross-examination of Comm. K
SEP 20, 1995 KRT DvH TD