Cross-examination of Philip Vannatter

📄 Cross-examination of Philip Vannatter — Thursday, July 7, 1994

Address:

C:\DEPT103\PRELIMINARY\1994\JUL\7\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-PHILIP-VA.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 5 of 6

◀ Direct examination of Philip Vannatter (part 2) In chambers: hearsay and scheduling ▶

Witness: Det. Philip Vannatter
Examiner: Robert Shapiro
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Thursday, July 7, 1994 • Utterances: 37

Robert Shapiro cross-examines Detective Vannatter about the handling of OJ Simpson's cut finger, establishing that despite photographing the injury, investigators made no effort to have it examined by a doctor, criminalist, or medical examiner to determine its cause, severity, or recency. The brief examination ends when Shapiro attempts to introduce Simpson's statement about the finger and is shut down on hearsay and scope grounds.

# 1 THE COURT:

Cross.

# 2 MR. SHAPIRO:

Thank you, your Honor.

# 3

CROSS-EXAMINATION

# 4

BY MR. SHAPIRO:

# 5 Q:

Detective Vannatter, when you caused to have Mr. Simpson's index finger photographed, did you ask for a criminalist to examine it?

# 6 A:

No, I did not.

# 7 Q:

Did you ask for a medical examiner to examine it?

# 8 A:

As it was being photographed?

# 9 Q:

Yes.

# 10 A:

No, sir.

# 11 Q:

Did you ask for a doctor to examine it?

# 12 A:

No, sir.

# 13 Q:

Did you ask for a nurse to examine it?

# 14 A:

At a later date I did, yes -- or at a later time I asked for a nurse to examine it.

# 15 Q:

I am not saying the photograph. I am saying the finger.

# 16 A:

The finger, yes.

# 17 Q:

So you asked a nurse to examine it?

# 18 A:

I asked a nurse after the photograph was taken.

# 19 Q:

After the photograph?

# 20 A:

Yeah.

# 21 Q:

Did you ask a doctor, a criminalist or a medical examiner?

# 22 A:

No, sir, I didn't.

# 23 Q:

Did you ask anyone if they could determine how recent the cut was?

KEY QUOTE

# 24 A:

No, sir.

# 25 Q:

Did you ask anyone if they could determine the severity of the cut?

KEY QUOTE

# 26 A:

No, sir.

# 27 Q:

Did you ask anyone if they could determine the cause of the cut?

KEY QUOTE

# 28 A:

No, sir.

# 29 Q:

Did you ask anyone to examine the hand to see if there were any glass particles that may have caused the cut?

# 30 A:

No, sir.

# 31 Q:

Was this photograph taken before or after Mr. Simpson gave a statement to you?

# 32 A:

After.

# 33 Q:

During the statement, Mr. Simpson told you --

# 34 MS. CLARK:

Objection. Beyond the scope and hearsay.

# 35 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 36 MR. SHAPIRO:

On what grounds?

# 37 THE COURT:

Well, it appears that it is actually both.

KEY QUOTE

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

Robert Shapiro

Did you ask anyone if they could determine how recent the cut was?

Highlights the failure to scientifically document a key piece of evidence linking Simpson to the crime scene.

Phillip Vannatter

No, sir, I didn't.

Repeated admission that no professional — doctor, criminalist, or medical examiner — was asked to examine the cut finger.

Kathleen Kennedy-Powell

Well, it appears that it is actually both.

Wry judicial response sustaining on both hearsay and beyond-scope grounds simultaneously, cutting off Shapiro's attempt to introduce Simpson's statement.

Evidence (2)

Informal

Photograph of OJ Simpson's cut index finger

discussed

Informal

OJ Simpson's statement to detectives

challenged — attempt to reference blocked by objection

Notable Exchanges (2)

Robert Shapiro•Phillip Vannatter

Shapiro systematically walks Vannatter through every professional who could have examined the cut finger — criminalist, medical examiner, doctor, nurse — establishing that none were asked to determine cause, severity, recency, or whether glass particles were present.

strategic

Robert Shapiro•Kathleen Kennedy-Powell

Shapiro asks 'On what grounds?' after the objection is sustained, and the judge matter-of-factly notes it is both beyond scope and hearsay.

procedural

Light Moments (1)

Kathleen Kennedy-Powell

Judge Kennedy-Powell's dry 'Well, it appears that it is actually both' in response to Shapiro questioning the grounds for her ruling.

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Phillip Vannatter

omission/negligence

Shapiro establishes through repeated 'No, sir' admissions that detectives made no attempt to have Simpson's cut finger professionally examined to document its cause, age, or severity — suggesting investigative shortcuts or indifference to exculpatory possibilities.

Objections

1 objections (1 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 8980 • 37 utterances • Prosecution witness

Preliminary Trial

Department 103