📄 Sidebar: victim identity questions — Wednesday, September 20, 1995
Address:
C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\SEP\20\SIDEBAR-VICTIM-IDENTITY-QUESTI.DOC
TRIAL
▲ Day 158 of 167

Sidebar: victim identity questions

Date: Wednesday, September 20, 1995 • Utterances: 14
Judge Ito calls a sidebar to shut down an expanding line of questioning about whether police knew the victim's identity before making next-of-kin notification. Marcia Clark argues Cochran opened the door on cross-examination by repeatedly asking Commander Bushey about knowing it was Nicole Brown, but Ito is unmoved and limits the scope strictly to whether Vannatter had an order to make notification.
1 THE COURT:

Over at the side bar with the court reporter, please.

2 (The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
3 THE COURT:

Over at the side bar. Just an observation. Why would they go notify somebody if they didn't know who it was?

4 MS. CLARK:

Exactly, but Mr. Cochran went into it extensively on cross-examination. He did, your Honor, and I would ask it to be read back. He did. He did. He asked the--he asked Commander Bushey whether knowing that it was--it was Nicole Brown he told you that, he told you that. He asked him several times. Detective Phillips--

5 THE COURT:

Had to do with next of kin.

6 MS. CLARK:

No, it had--it also had to do with that, your Honor.

7 MS. CLARK:

Can we have it read back?

8 THE COURT:

No, we are not going into this.

9 MS. CLARK:

It is true.

10 THE COURT:

But it is really a so what? The issue here is did Vannatter have an order to go make notification? Yes or no.

KEY QUOTE
11 MS. CLARK:

It is the issue, but it has been taken far afield by counsel.

12 THE COURT:

And I stopped him and I've stopped him and I'm stopping him too.

KEY QUOTE
13 MS. CLARK:

He elicited impeachment on Detective Phillips on this point.

14 THE COURT:

There is a limited scope here. That is it. It is over.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (3)

Lance A. Ito
Just an observation. Why would they go notify somebody if they didn't know who it was?
Ito's rhetorical observation cuts to the logical problem at the heart of the disputed testimony — if they notified next of kin, they must have known who the victim was.
Lance A. Ito
But it is really a so what? The issue here is did Vannatter have an order to go make notification? Yes or no.
Ito collapses the entire dispute to a binary factual question, foreclosing Clark's broader framing.
Lance A. Ito
And I stopped him and I've stopped him and I'm stopping him too.
Ito makes clear he is applying the same scope limits to both sides equally, rebuking Clark's argument that Cochran was allowed to go further.

Notable Exchanges (1)

Marcia ClarkLance A. Ito
Clark repeatedly tries to argue Cochran opened the door on victim identity during cross of Commander Bushey and Detective Phillips, and requests a read-back of prior testimony. Ito denies both the read-back and the expanded scope.
strategic

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Detective Phillips
prior inconsistent statement
Clark references that Cochran elicited impeachment of Detective Phillips on the question of when/whether police knew the victim's identity — the point she is now being blocked from rehabilitating.

Objections

None recorded
Proceeding 7789 • 14 utterances
Criminal Trial
Department 103
⚖️ Start
📂 SEP 20, 1995 📄 Sidebar: victim identity quest
SEP 20, 1995 KRT DvH TD