Continued cross-examination of Steven Schwab

📄 Continued cross-examination of Steven Schwab — Friday, July 1, 1994

Address:

C:\DEPT103\PRELIMINARY\1994\JUL\1\CONTINUED-CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 2 of 6

◀ Court announcement and discussion regarding sealed evidence Redirect examination of Steven Schwab ▶

Witness: Steven Schwab
Examiner: Gerald Uelmen
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Friday, July 1, 1994 • Lines: 100

Defense attorney Gerald Uelmen clarified Steven Schwab's route past the Bundy homicide scene, his encounter with a patrol officer, and what happened to the blood-marked Akita afterward. Uelmen then challenged Schwab with a police statement placing the dog encounter at 11:15 p.m.; Schwab blamed that discrepancy on confusion during a 5:00 a.m. interview, disputed other details in the statement, and said police never prepared a corrected report.

# 1 THE COURT:

All right. CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED

# 2

By MR. UELMEN:

# 3 Q:

Mr. Schwab, we were discussing the police car that you encountered on Bundy.

# 4 A:

Yes.

# 5 Q:

Just so we have our bearings, Bundy runs north and south, doesn't it?

# 6 A:

Yes. That's basically correct.

# 7 Q:

All right. And at this time you were walking north on Bundy, going from Dorothy up to Montana?

# 8 A:

That's correct.

# 9 Q:

Okay. And are you familiar now with where the scene of the homicide was at 875 south Bundy?

# 10 A:

Yes.

# 11 Q:

That's between Dorothy and Montana; isn't that correct?

# 12 A:

That's between Dorothy and Gorham.

# 13 Q:

Dorothy and Gorham. And Gorham is between Dorothy and Montana?

# 14 A:

That's correct.

# 15 Q:

So you would have walked right past it on the opposite side of the street.

# 16 A:

I was on the opposite side of the street. As I said, the dog crossed the street with myself and my dog, so at that point I was on the opposite side of the street.

# 17 Q:

All right. And do you recall approximately where you were when you first saw the police car?

# 18 A:

That was before Gorham, so that was between Dorothy and Gorham that I first saw the police officer and called out to him.

# 19 Q:

Now, thinking back to where you were --

# 20 A:

Um-hum.

# 21 Q:

-- Can you tell us where that was in relationship to the scene of these homicides?

# 22 A:

Well, I -- I don't know the exact scene of the homicide, not having really been there or seen anything connected with that, so I don't know the exact spot or anything like that. I know it was on the other side of the street. I was approaching Gorham, I wasn't at Gorham yet, and the police officer was on the other side of the street.

# 23 Q:

All right. And was the police officer moving or was the car parked there or what?

# 24 A:

No. The police officer was moving until I stopped him.

# 25 Q:

All right. You flagged him down?

# 26 A:

Yes, I did.

# 27 Q:

Then he pulled a U-turn?

# 28 A:

I spoke to him from that other side of Bundy. He was on -- he was on the other side of the street and I spoke to him. And since he was on the driver's side, you know, I was able to communicate with him that way. I assume that he made a U-turn because he ended up following me and the dog to Montana, but I -- so I assume that that's what happened.

# 29 Q:

So the U-turn would have been after you spoke to him. Initially you spoke to him while he was just stopped in the middle of the street.

# 30 A:

Initially I spoke to him -- again, I don't know if he made a U-turn or he pulled into a driveway or what.

# 31 Q:

But you spoke to him and then he turned and proceeded in the opposite direction.

# 32 A:

Yes. I continued -- I actually crossed -- I crossed the street again -- Bundy winds around, and I continued in a straight line back to Montana and Bundy.

# 33 Q:

Okay. And this was a normal black and white patrol car?

# 34 A:

Yes.

# 35 Q:

L.A.P.D.?

# 36 A:

Yes.

# 37 Q:

Was the officer in uniform?

# 38 A:

Yes.

# 39 Q:

And it was a male officer?

# 40 A:

Yes, it was.

# 41 Q:

And you don't remember his name, do you?

# 42 A:

I never found out his name. He was a young black officer. I don't know his name.

# 43 Q:

All right. And the officer, at some point, told you that he would contact animal control?

# 44 A:

Yes. At that point he told me that he would contact animal control. So I assumed that he would then follow the dog and see where the dog led, and if necessary take the dog. But as I said, the dog continued to follow us. It wouldn't leave my side at that point.

# 45 Q:

Did he take your name?

# 46 A:

Not at that point. Initially he didn't. After following -- again, it ended up being kind of a procession with myself and my dog and followed by the Akita and followed by the officer, and this led all the way back to Bundy and Montana. I turned right on Montana to head home with the dog still following me. He pulled into a driveway near my house and we spoke again, and at that time I gave him my address -- my name also, address and phone number. And we agreed that I would continue to hold onto the dog since that seemed to be what the dog wanted to do, and he would take care of contacting animal control.

# 47 Q:

Did he observe the dog at that point?

# 48 A:

I don't know.

# 49 Q:

Did you make any mention to him of the blood on the dog's legs or paws?

# 50 A:

I just mentioned that the dog appeared to be lost. I didn't make any mention of blood or anything like that at that time.

# 51 Q:

Now, you indicate you got home then about 11:05?

# 52 A:

That's correct.

# 53 Q:

Had the dog, the Akita dog, stopped barking by that time?

# 54 A:

Yeah. The dog seemed to have calmed down considerably by that time. It again followed me right up the stairs, right to my front door.

# 55 Q:

All right. And then you indicated at what time, about 11:30, 11:40, you turned the dog over to your neighbor Sukru?

# 56 A:

Yes, it was around 11 -- around 11:40.

# 57 Q:

11:40?

# 58 A:

Yeah. That's approximately the time, as best as I can recall.

# 59 Q:

Now, you indicated Mr. Sukru at that time --

# 60 A:

Sukru is his first name.

# 61 Q:

What is his last name?

# 62 A:

I don't know his last name.

# 63 Q:

Okay. We'll refer to him as Sukru, then. Did he leave immediately to take the dog for a walk?

# 64 A:

Not immediately, because we discussed what to do. He was concerned about going to work the next day and what to do about the dog, and so we discussed various options because we still could have tried to take the dog back to animal control at that point. But he's a very responsible person. I knew the dog would be in good hands. So we discussed what to do, and what we decided at that point was that he would hold onto the dog for the night. If I got up early enough in the morning I would get the dog from him before he left for work. If I didn't, he would tie the dog up in our courtyard outside that morning, and then -- therefore that morning I could walk the dog back again and put up posters trying to find the dog's owner. That's what we agreed at that point. So there was some discussion at that point before I gave him the dog.

# 65 Q:

Did he take the dog then back to his apartment?

# 66 A:

No. He took the dog for a walk at that point. He walked -- he left with the dog through our apartment's back entrance, and that was the last I saw of the dog when he left with the dog through the back entrance. My wife and I continued to talk to his wife Bettina for a bit, and then went upstairs to go to bed.

# 67 Q:

All right. So at no time then did he take the dog back to his apartment?

# 68 A:

I didn't see him go into the apartment at that point. I saw him -- again, the last I saw was when he walked off with the dog, and I went to bed.

# 69 Q:

To take the dog for a walk?

# 70 A:

Yeah.

# 71 Q:

And did his wife go with him?

# 72 A:

No. At first he went -- he went off by himself and we spoke to the wife.

# 73 Q:

Now, were you interviewed by the officers of the Los Angeles Police Department about these events shortly after?

# 74 A:

Well, at 5 -- that morning at 5:00 a.m. there was a pounding on my door and my dog started barking, and I got up still in my underwear and went to the door, and there were two detectives outside. And I inquired what they wanted and they said that they wanted to talk to me about the dog in connection with a homicide. So I asked them to wait outside and I got dressed and actually woke up my wife and explained to her what was going on.

# 75 Q:

All right. And have you seen the statement that they obtained from you at that time?

# 76 A:

No, I have not.

# 77 Q:

Could I show that to you?

# 78 A:

Absolutely.

# 79 MR. UELMEN:

May I approach?

# 80 THE COURT:

Yes, you may.

# 81

BY MR. UELMEN:

# 82 Q:

Mr. Schwab, it indicates that you told the officers you first encountered the Akita dog at 11:15 p.m.; is that correct?

# 83 A:

Is which correct?

# 84 Q:

Is that what the statement says?

# 85 A:

The statement says that, yes.

# 86 Q:

All right. Is that what you told the officers?

# 87 A:

I was trying to remember at that point, and at one point I did mention 11:15. I was -- again, it was 5:00 a.m. in the morning and I was very confused at that point as to what time all of this occurred. Unlike here and now, the officer didn't, you know, say, "well what time did you leave the house, what time did you get here, what time did you get there." I was trying to remember and I couldn't remember whether the whole thing had started at 10:30 or 11:00 o'clock or any of that. And I was trying to -- I remember I stated a couple of things. This is obviously the one he wrote down.

# 88 Q:

So at that time you did tell them it was 11:15 p.m. when you first encountered him?

# 89 A:

That was one of the times that I had mentioned talking to them at that point, yeah.

# 90 Q:

And as you have reconstructed it, you've been able to identify that time with greater precision?

# 91 A:

Yes. I was aware prior to this that that is incorrect. I even called the police department back to explain to them that having remembered what had happened. It not being 5:00 a.m. anymore and being able to remember what happened that night, I called the police to inform them that I knew that this time is incorrect and that I recalled better what time it was because I knew better what time I had left the house and what time this whole incident started.

# 92 Q:

And the statement also indicates that when you encountered the dog, it was obviously lost, running from house to house, barking; is that correct?

# 93 A:

First of all, it doesn't say anything about barking here. It incorrectly says that it's "Dundy and Dorothy," not "Bundy." And despite the fact that it says it was running from house to house, that's not the way it happened.

KEY QUOTE

# 94 Q:

And that's not what you told them.

# 95 A:

I probably -- I tried to explain as I've explained here about the dog going from house to house barking at the doors. I don't recall ever saying that the dog was running, because the dog was at no time while it was in my possession running. As I said previously, the dog was very dehydrated. It was not expending a lot of energy. It was not running around at all. It was doing a good amount of barking.

# 96 MR. UELMEN:

Thank you. I have nothing further. Maybe I do. One more question.

# 97

BY MR. UELMEN:

# 98 Q:

Did any officers come back to prepare a supplemental report after they spoke to you to correct any of these errors?

# 99 A:

No one spoke to me after that in connection with this at all. I spoke to those two detectives and the next that I knew about anything relative to any of this was when I received my subpoena. A detective came to my apartment to issue me a subpoena. That was the next time that I spoke to anyone in person about any of this from the police department.

KEY QUOTE

# 100 MR. UELMEN:

Thank you. Nothing further.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (5)

Steven Schwab

I didn't make any mention of blood or anything like that at that time.

Schwab said he did not alert the patrol officer to the blood reportedly visible on the Akita.

Steven Schwab

Again, it was 5:00 a.m. in the morning and I was very confused at that point as to what time all of this occurred.

Schwab explained why his initial statement placed the encounter at 11:15 p.m., creating a significant timeline discrepancy.

Steven Schwab

I even called the police department back to explain to them that having remembered what had happened.

Schwab maintained that he proactively tried to correct the erroneous time after reconstructing the evening.

Steven Schwab

First of all, it doesn't say anything about barking here. It incorrectly says that it's "Dundy and Dorothy," not "Bundy."

Schwab attacked the accuracy of the police statement itself rather than accepting it as a reliable account of his words.

Steven Schwab

No one spoke to me after that in connection with this at all.

Schwab testified that police never returned to prepare a supplemental report correcting the disputed details.

Evidence (2)

Informal

The Akita dog Schwab encountered on Bundy, which was barking, appeared lost and dehydrated, and reportedly had blood on its legs or paws.

discussed

Informal

The police statement taken from Schwab at approximately 5:00 a.m., recording an 11:15 p.m. encounter time and describing the Akita as running from house to house.

displayed and challenged

Notable Exchanges (3)

Gerald Uelmen•Steven Schwab

Uelmen established that Schwab walked opposite the homicide location before flagging down a uniformed LAPD officer and then led a procession consisting of himself, his dog, the Akita, and the patrol car toward Montana Avenue.

clarifying

Gerald Uelmen•Steven Schwab

Uelmen showed Schwab his police statement and confronted him with the recorded 11:15 p.m. encounter time. Schwab admitted mentioning that time but said he was confused during the early-morning interview and later called police to correct it.

strategic

Gerald Uelmen•Steven Schwab

Schwab disputed the statement's description of the Akita as running from house to house and highlighted errors in the report, while Uelmen established that no supplemental report was prepared.

revealing

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Steven Schwab

prior inconsistent statement

Uelmen confronted Schwab with a police statement saying he first encountered the Akita at 11:15 p.m., contrary to the earlier time Schwab reconstructed in court. Schwab acknowledged mentioning 11:15 but attributed the discrepancy to confusion during a 5:00 a.m. interview and said he later contacted police to correct it.

⚔ Steven Schwab

challenging consistency between testimony and police statement

Uelmen questioned Schwab about the statement's description of the dog as running from house to house. Schwab denied describing the dog as running and pointed to other errors in the document, including the misspelling of Bundy as “Dundy.”

Objections

None recorded

Proceeding 9088 • 100 lines • Prosecution witness

Preliminary Trial

Department 103