Redirect examination of Comm. Keith Bushey (part 1)

📄 Redirect examination of Comm. Keith Bushey (part 1) — Wednesday, September 20, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\SEP\20\REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-COMM-K.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 158 of 167

◀ Cross-examination of Comm. Keith Bushey (part 2) Sidebar: victim identity questions ▶

Witness: Comm. Keith Bushey
Examiner: Marcia Clark
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Wednesday, September 20, 1995 • Utterances: 48

Marcia Clark conducted a brief redirect examination of Commander Bushey, attempting to rehabilitate the prosecution's position on the notification order given to Detective Phillips regarding the Bundy Drive victims. Clark tried to establish that proper procedure requires certainty of victim identity before notifying next of kin, implicitly defending why notification to O.J. Simpson may have been delayed or handled as it was. Cochran repeatedly objected and largely succeeded in blocking Clark's most pointed questions, with Judge Ito sustaining several objections on relevance, speculation, and hearsay grounds.

# 1 MS. CLARK:

Briefly.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

# 2 MS. CLARK:

Sir, as a police officer or detective on a scene would it be fair to state that circumstances dictate your actions?

# 3 COMMANDER BUSHEY:

Would you please repeat that question, please.

# 4 MS. CLARK:

Yes. For any police officer or detective on a scene, would it be fair to say that circumstances have to dictate your actions?

# 5 COMMANDER BUSHEY:

Absolutely, and they are all always different.

# 6 MS. CLARK:

Now, if it is unknown who is ultimately going to handle the case, is it reasonable police procedure to wait for the person or detective that is ultimately assigned to the case to make personal notification?

# 7 MR. COCHRAN:

Leading and suggestive, your Honor.

# 8 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 9 MS. CLARK:

What is the proper police procedure regarding who makes notification when it is unknown as to which detective or which agency will ultimately handle the case?

# 10 MR. COCHRAN:

Object. That is vague, your Honor. Which agency? Talking about LAPD.

# 11 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 12 MS. CLARK:

Which division?

# 13 COMMANDER BUSHEY:

It is--we try very carefully, we try very hard to make sure that the person who calls the shots is the lead investigator. And if there is going to be a hand-over investigative responsibility from one entity to another, the entity that is relinquishing that responsibility always defers to the people who are going to assume responsibility for that investigation. It is very important from the standpoint of continuity.

# 14 MS. CLARK:

Okay. Now, if the detectives are yet unsure as to the identity of a victim, would it be proper, based on a supposition, to go and make notification to next of kin?

# 15 MR. COCHRAN:

Your Honor, that assumes a fact not in evidence and speculative. Improper redirect.

# 16 THE COURT:

Overruled, overruled.

# 17 COMMANDER BUSHEY:

If you did not know who the victim was.

# 18 MS. CLARK:

If you were unsure?

# 19 COMMANDER BUSHEY:

If you were unsure, you wouldn't maybe the notification.

KEY QUOTE

# 20 MS. CLARK:

It would be important, would it not, sir, to make sure that you have correctly identified the victim before you go to notify that person's family, correct?

# 21 MR. COCHRAN:

Your Honor, this is irrelevant and immaterial.

# 22 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 23 MR. COCHRAN:

Improper redirect.

# 24 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 25 COMMANDER BUSHEY:

Absolutely. You wouldn't notify next of kin until you know for certain that their loved one had expired.

KEY QUOTE

# 26 MS. CLARK:

Do you recall precisely what Detective Phillips said to you, whether he said he thought it was Nicole Brown or was sure it was Nicole Brown, at the time you spoke?

# 27 MR. COCHRAN:

Your Honor, I object. This is hearsay.

# 28 THE COURT:

Sustained, sustained.

# 29 MS. CLARK:

Your Honor, this is--this was elicited by counsel.

# 30 THE COURT:

No, not as to who it was. No.

KEY QUOTE

# 31 MS. CLARK:

When you issued your order to make notification, did you intend that it be followed, whether or not Detective Phillips was sure that it was Nicole Brown--

# 32 MR. COCHRAN:

Object to the form of that question, your Honor.

# 33 MS. CLARK:

--that was the victim?

# 34 MR. COCHRAN:

Object to the form of that question.

# 35 THE COURT:

Sustained. It is irrelevant.

# 36 MS. CLARK:

Would you expect any detective to make sure of who the victim was before you went to make notification?

# 37 COMMANDER BUSHEY:

Absolutely.

# 38 MS. CLARK:

Did you assume that Detective Phillips would do that, sir?

# 39 COMMANDER BUSHEY:

That is a given. That would certainly be among the assumptions I would make.

KEY QUOTE

# 40 MS. CLARK:

Did you know whether Detective Phillips had ascertained for sure whether that was Nicole Brown at the time you spoke to him?

# 41 MR. COCHRAN:

Calls for speculation, your Honor.

# 42 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 43 MS. CLARK:

Were you aware of what Detective Phillips' state of mind was or his knowledge was with respect to the identity of the victims in this case at the time you spoke to him?

# 44 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 45 MS. CLARK:

What did you know about Detective Phillips' knowledge of the identity of the victims in this case at the time you spoke to him?

# 46 MR. COCHRAN:

Irrelevant and immaterial.

# 47 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 48 MS. CLARK:

Did you have a conversation with Detective Phillips about whether or not he was sure it was Nicole Brown at the time you spoke to him?

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Comm. Keith Bushey

If you were unsure, you wouldn't maybe the notification.

Bushey confirms that uncertainty about victim identity would justify withholding next-of-kin notification — a key point in the prosecution's defense of the Rockingham visit.

Comm. Keith Bushey

Absolutely. You wouldn't notify next of kin until you know for certain that their loved one had expired.

Strong affirmation of the procedural justification Clark was building toward — that detectives going to Simpson's house was proper given uncertainty about Nicole's identity.

Comm. Keith Bushey

That is a given. That would certainly be among the assumptions I would make.

Bushey confirms he assumed Phillips would verify victim identity before acting — supports prosecution's narrative that the Rockingham visit was standard procedure.

Lance A. Ito

No, not as to who it was. No.

Judge clarifies the limits of Cochran's cross-examination, sustaining a hearsay objection and cutting off Clark's attempt to revisit Phillips' exact words about Nicole's identity.

Notable Exchanges (2)

Marcia Clark•Lance A. Ito

Clark pushes back on a hearsay ruling by arguing the topic was opened by defense counsel on cross. Ito firmly disagrees, drawing a distinction between what was elicited and what Clark was now trying to re-examine.

tense

Johnnie Cochran•Lance A. Ito

Cochran objects to a question about notification procedure as irrelevant to LAPD, adding 'which agency? Talking about LAPD' — a pointed interjection that Ito overruled but that signals Cochran's ongoing effort to narrow the scope of Bushey's testimony.

strategic

Objections

12 objections (7 sustained, 3 overruled)

Proceeding 7788 • 48 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103