Direct examination of Allen Cowlings by Michael Brewer (2 of 3)

📄 Direct examination of Allen Cowlings by Michael Brewer (2 of 3) — Wednesday, May 15, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\DEPOSITION\1996\MAY\15\DIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-ALLEN-CO.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 29 of 31

◀ Direct examination of Allen Cowlings by Daniel Petrocelli Direct examination of Allen Cowlings by Daniel Petrocelli ▶

Witness: Allen Cowlings
Examiner: Michael Brewer
Called by: Plaintiff • Date: Wednesday, May 15, 1996 • Utterances: 49

Brewer presses A.C. Cowlings on whether he suspected OJ Simpson was responsible for Nicole's death, drawing on the 1989 domestic violence incident. Cowlings hedges carefully throughout — acknowledging the thought 'could have entered his mind' while refusing to commit to any direct accusation. The exchange culminates in a careful distinction: Nicole told him she was hit, but never told him specifically who hit her.

# 1

BY MR. BREWER:

# 2 Q:

So when you say that you could have said it, are you saying that based upon your recollection of how you felt at or near the time that you took this walk with Cora?

# 3 MR. LEONARD:

Objection. Calls for speculation.

# 4 ALLEN COWLINGS:

I don't understand the question.

# 5 MR. BREWER:

Bad question.

# 6 Q:

When you say it is something that you could have said, meaning it is possible that you could have told Cora this, is that because you had those feelings?

# 7 MR. LEONARD:

Objection. Calls for speculation.

# 8 ALLEN COWLINGS:

I probably had the feelings early on.

BY MR. BREWER: Q: Okay. That Mr. Simpson was responsible or could tee responsible for Nicole's death; true?

# 9 MR. LEONARD:

Objection. Vague, calls for speculation

# 10 ALLEN COWLINGS:

No.

# 11 MR. LEONARD:

compound.

THEWITNESS: Sorry.

# 12 MR. LEONARD:

Go ahead.

# 13 ALLEN COWLINGS:

The thought could have entered my mind.

KEY QUOTE

# 14

BY MR. BREWER:

# 15 Q:

And when you say the thought could have entered your mind, is that because you had some knowledge with respect to the violent nature of their relationship in so far as you were a direct observer of some of the events in 1989?

# 16 MR. LEONARD:

Objection. Vague, compound.

# 17 ALLEN COWLINGS:

There was only one event in '89.

# 18

BY MR. BREWER:

# 19 Q:

Where he had struck her; correct?

# 20 MR. LEONARD:

Objection.

# 21 ALLEN COWLINGS:

I never saw it.

# 22 MR. LEONARD:

Lack of foundation.

# 23 ALLEN COWLINGS:

Something happened.

# 24

BY MR. BREWER:

# 25 Q:

Well, based upon what you saw and what you were told, you came to the conclusion that she was hit; true?

# 26 MR. LEONARD:

Objection. Argumentative, compound, lack of foundation.

# 27 ALLEN COWLINGS:

That was her statement that she said she was hit.

# 28

BY MR. BREWER:

# 29 Q:

Well, did you think that she was lying?

# 30 MR. LEONARD:

Objection. Argumentative

# 31 ALLEN COWLINGS:

I didn't question it.

# 32 MR. LEONARD:

lack of foundation, calls for speculation.

# 33 ALLEN COWLINGS:

Sorry.

# 34

BY MR. BREWER:

# 35 Q:

And when she told you that she was hit, what she was describing was the history with respect to what has been characterized as a concussion or swelling on her forehead; true?

# 36 MR. LEONARD:

Objection. Vague, compound, calls for speculation.

# 37 ALLEN COWLINGS:

Like I have stated, I don't know how it got there. She could have been hit, she could have fell, she could have bumped her head.

# 38

BY MR. BREWER:

# 39 Q:

You know, Mr. Cowlings, sometimes when people explain, give a history with respect to a condition, you may not believe them for whatever reason, and the question I am asking you is: You are looking at a big bruise or swelling on her forehead. She told you that she was hit causing that bruise. Is there anything about what she told you or what you observed that caused you to disbelieve what she was telling you concerning the source of that injury?

# 40 MR. LEONARD:

Objection. Lack of foundation, carts for speculation.

# 41 MR. RE:

And I think that the problem is that it is misstating his prior testimony, and the one phrase in there that misstates it isand I think it is what we have gotten hung up on that the hit caused the bruise. In other words, what I think he testified to was she said she was hit. She did have a bruise. And I think he testified that the bruise could have been caused by a hit, it could have been caused by a fall, it could have been caused by another thing, so I would just simply object to that.

# 42

BY MR. BREWER:

# 43 Q:

Well, given that, let me just make sure that I understand this. You were told in the course of that day by Nicole that she was hit; true?

# 44 A:

Right.

# 45 Q:

You observed that she had injuries on her person; true?

# 46 A:

I observed early on redness in her face. Later on that evening there was some swelling.

# 47 Q:

Did you have any reason to disbelieve her when she told you that she was hit by Mr. Simpson?

# 48 MR. LEONARD:

Objection. Argumentative, lack of foundation, calls for speculation.

# 49 ALLEN COWLINGS:

She didn't tell me where she was hit. She just said she was hit.

KEY QUOTE

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

A.C. Cowlings

The thought could have entered my mind.

The closest Brewer gets to Cowlings admitting he suspected OJ — immediately after being asked if he thought OJ was responsible for Nicole's death.

A.C. Cowlings

I never saw it. Something happened.

Cowlings simultaneously distances himself from the 1989 incident while acknowledging its reality — a carefully split admission.

A.C. Cowlings

She could have been hit, she could have fell, she could have bumped her head.

Cowlings introduces alternative explanations for Nicole's injury, undermining the foundation Brewer is trying to build.

A.C. Cowlings

She didn't tell me where she was hit. She just said she was hit.

The final answer of the proceeding — a precise semantic distinction that stops Brewer from putting OJ's name in Nicole's mouth through Cowlings.

Evidence (1)

Informal

Nicole Brown Simpson's injuries from the 1989 domestic incident — described as redness and later swelling on her forehead

discussed

Notable Exchanges (2)

Donald Re•Michael Brewer

Re interrupts with a speaking objection arguing Brewer is misstating Cowlings' prior testimony by conflating 'she said she was hit' with 'the hit caused the bruise' — drawing a precise factual distinction on behalf of the witness.

strategic

Michael Brewer•A.C. Cowlings

Brewer asks repeatedly whether Cowlings had any reason to disbelieve Nicole's account; Cowlings ultimately deflects by noting she never named who hit her.

strategic

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ A.C. Cowlings

prior statements / implied prior belief

Brewer uses Cowlings' reported statement to Cora (that OJ 'could have been responsible') to suggest Cowlings privately believed in OJ's guilt, contradicting his protective public posture toward Simpson.

Witness Demeanor

Witness hedges consistently, volunteering qualifications ('could have,' 'probably,' 'early on')

Witness apologizes mid-answer after speaking over a pending objection ('Sorry.')

Witness states 'I don't understand the question' at the outset, prompting Brewer to withdraw and rephrase

Objections

10 objections (0 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 9004 • 49 utterances • Plaintiff witness

Deposition Trial

Department 103