We are once again on the record in the case of people v. Simpson. The defendant is present with counsel. The people are represented. Dr. Golden is on the witness stand. I remind you, sir, you remain under oath. Mr. Shapiro.
Doctor, I was presented this morning with a three-quarter page form that indicates "curriculum vitae"; and it's dated may of '94. Is this your current resume?
I notice in here that it indicates - there is a space for current academic appointments, and it is blank. During your tenure, have you had any academic appointments?
And it indicates in here "current medical staff appointments," and it is blank. During your tenure, have you had any medical staff appointments?
Then the next thing that is listed is the concise summary of your role in the forensic pathology program; and it lists three things, that you perform autopsies, courtroom testimony and lecturer. Does that cover the gamut of the summary of your role as a forensic pathologist?
I am trying to think if there is anything I have omitted. Basically so, yes, unless there are some things I haven't recollected. Basically, I am a deputy medical examiner and forensic pathologist.
And courtroom testimony, you have told us, I believe, you have testified approximately 700 times?
I don't have the tally. In civil cases I could be called by either the plaintiffs or the defendants. I wouldn't know -- i have testified in civil cases; But in those instances, I am not sure whether it has been the plaintiffs or the defendants. In most of the criminal -- in most of the criminal cases, the prosecution calls me as a witness but not invariably because -- I won't say "frequently" but occasionally the defense counsel wants -- wants us called as a witness rather than accepting a stipulation.
Have you testified in any other city -- or any county other than Los Angeles county as a forensic pathologist, as an expert?
Well, as a medical examiner, some of my cases have been in other counties. I am sure about San Bernardino county. I have been in santa barbara County -- i have been called as a witness in santa barbara county. it pertained to a department of coroner case, But -- it was a civil case, and I -- either the plaintiff or the defendant called me. the reason I went there was not as a consultant but because the decedent came under our jurisdiction. I did testify in an L.A. civil case in santa barbara county, civil case in San Bernardino county; but I would be available in a criminal case in any county in California.
Also on your curriculum vitae, you have presented a list of publications from the last five years; and you have included yourself as a co-author, in 1989, of a four-page magazine article dealing with pneumonia in infants. Is that the extent of your publications?
I have read forensic pathology textbooks, and these would be the standard texts: Gradwall's forensic medicine -- comma -- Spitz and Fisher's medicolegal investigation of death, latest edition; Adleson's pathology of homicide; Demayo's text on forensic pathology; and Knight's -- K-n-i-g-h-t -- textbook on forensic pathology. These are all standard references available to me at the department of coroner.
And in reviewing those sources, would you agree that the following factors are to be considered in determining time of death: first, rigor mortis?
And would you say that one of the important roles of your job as a deputy medical examiner is to ascertain the time of death in a homicide?
And there are other people who you work with in forming those conclusions that are part of the coroner's office; is that correct?
And those people have also filed reports that you have included as part of what you call the autopsy report, or autopsy protocol; is that correct?
In reviewing their findings regarding nicole Simpson, were you informed that she was found and pronounced dead by a member of the Los Angeles fire department, engine 19 squad?
May I -- first, I believe these are official records and part of the autopsy protocol which he has indicated; And if he has relied on these records in performing his opinion, he can testify to it. Second, hearsay is admissible at these proceedings.
First of all, the people have elicited no opinion with regard to time of death, nor do we intend to. We have an independent factual basis for that. So there is no foundational aspect to this. Second of all, it is complete hearsay. There is information in a report. And counsel has the burden of establishing this is an official record. And it is hearsay upon hearsay and, hence, still inadmissible.
Your Honor, if the people are going to contend a case report from the county coroner as part of an autopsy report is not an official record, we will take the time to establish the foundation.
At this point it is hearsay; and the witness not being a peace officer, there is no exception to his being able to relate hearsay. At this point the objection is sustained.
In forming any conclusions or opinions in this case, did you at all consider the time the decedent nicole Simpson brown was pronounced dead?
Objection, your Honor. No foundation in evidence thus far and ambiguous as to which conclusions and opinions that counsel is interested in.
And what factors did you use to estimate the time of death or range of time of death for the decedent Miss Brown?
Objection. Misstates the evidence. This witness has not made an estimate as to time of death.
Well, we haven't heard of an estimate as to time of death; so it assumes facts not in evidence.
Have you made an estimate in your official reports, or has anyone from the coroner's office made an estimate, as to the time of death of the decedent Mrs. Brown?
It would be sustained as to whether someone other than this particular witness made an estimate.
I am asking did you make an estimate. Did anybody ask you as the head person investigating this homicide to make an estimate as to the time of death? Yes or no?
Objection. That misstates the evidence. He is not the head person investigating this homicide.
It looks like you are reading something to me. Maybe it would be simpler if you need to refer to Something -- if you could put that aside and if you need to refer to it, just ask us. Would that work for you?
OKAY. Would you kindly put that aside. Now, would you tell us what you told your boss, Dr. Lakshmanan, regarding your estimate of the time of death of nicole brown.
My estimate was based on the state of the gastric contents and the character of the gastric contents. It was somewhere three to four hours after her last meal.
Using that evidence along with the body temperature determinations, which were taken approximately 11 hours after the body was discovered, I used a formula, graphs to reach a conclusion that the range of the time of death was somewhere between 10 and 15 hours prior to the time the investigator took the liver temperature determination.
And I then considered the rigor mortis determination, which, at the time the investigator -- the time the investigator performed her determination, the body was in full Rigor -- If now I may pick up and look at page 1 of the coroner's protocol -- The Rigor mortis was fixed and was -- was fully fixed. So that also placed the time of death somewhere beyond 9 to 12 hours. In other words, it was fully fixed at the time, which was probably known at the time of the pronouncement of death. livor mortis was also fixed, and Rigor mortis was fully established. So four of the measurements, or examinations, were performed.
Let's go through each one of those, if we might. Regarding rigor mortis, what time does the case report that you have just referred to indicate that an observation for rigor mortis was first done by somebody from your department?
It was fully established -- you know, the interesting thing is the air and liver temperature times are given -- date and time. The Rigor -- the livor and Rigor mortis statements do not have an exact date and time listed, but it is taken at or about the time the liver temperature is taken.
Would you agree that the closer you take -- the closer that you make the observations of the four indications -- well, the three -- Let's not talk about stomach content -- the closer you make the three observations to the time of death, the better chance you will have of accurately establish parameters for time of death?
And would you say that it is proper procedure if a decedent was found at approximately ten minutes after midnight to wait 10-1/2 hours to perform these temperature evaluations?
The measurements are more accurate the closer to the actual time of death.
KEY QUOTEAnd are there people available from the coroner's office to make those measurements at the request of homicide detectives?
Now, regarding the stomach contents, you say that was something important, that you used as a criteria for establishing the estimated time of death of the decedent nicole brown; is that correct?
And I take it those stomach contents are materials that can be preserved for later analysis. Is that correct?
And, in fact, on the forms that you use, there is a check box for toxicological specimens collected; isn't that correct?
Now, is there something in the report that indicates that one of your investigators had information from the mother of the decedent that she was alive at 11 p.m.?
Your Honor, I am going to object now because counsel is attempting to elicit inadmissible and unreliable hearsay evidence.
I think it would be admissible only if the doctor relied upon it in formulating his opinion, and it would not be offered then for the truth of the matter but for the fact the doctor may have relied upon it. And I don't know whether he did or did not; and, therefore, until that foundation is established as to whether he relied upon that in forming his opinion, the objection will be sustained.
Yes. I understand the court's ruling. And should it be permitted, it would be only for the limited purpose articulated by the court?
Did you have any information from any investigator that is filed under a county of Los Angeles investigator's report for the department of the coroner regarding the last time somebody saw or spoke to nicole brown?
I am going to object for lack of foundation because there is no indication yet that this witness relied upon that information, whatever it may be.
Yes. Mr. Shapiro, I think you need to establish that foundationally before I will allow that testimony to come in.
Yes. Not in exact detail, but I did look at them. In fact, some of these reports were preliminary, may not have been fully prepared, at the time I did the autopsy.
When was the report that's -- we are referring to, that has in the upper left-hand corner "no. 3," prepared?
Is it your testimony that you did or did not consider the investigator's report before you have testified here today for any -- in any area?
I did consider those parts of the investigator's report that I considered relevant to my testimony, and I have already testified about her measurements that she took. That's the ones I have been asked about.
Is -- didn't you just say that eyewitnesses are very important in establishing time of death?
Would you consider a mother talking to her daughter as being an eyewitness to when somebody was last alive?
Well, I meant someone actually witnessing her death, as often happens when death is pronounced in a hospital. We know the exact time of death.
Is there anything that was done by anyone from the coroner's office to try to ascertain that?
Your Honor, now I will object on the grounds counsel is attempting to elicit hearsay and hearsay of a potentially unreliable nature. There is an addendum to the report to which counsel is referring, which states, in part, "the following information summary is based on preliminary information and cannot be completely verified at the time of this report." In addition, what counsel is attempting to elicit does not fall within an exception to the hearsay rule. Even though contained in what may be characterized as an official record, you still have second level hearsay. So on all those grounds, I object.
I still don't think, Mr. Shapiro, you have established the foundation the court needed to be established before that information could come in for the limited purpose for which the doctor considered it, if he indeed considered it. I don't know whether he did. That is the foundation that has not been established.
I believe, your Honor, he has testified an eyewitness or somebody establishing the time the decedent was last known alive would be one of six factors he would consider in establishing time of death.
I understand that. But specifically in this case there has been no testimony he, in fact, did rely on any statement from someone indicating they had had a telephone conversation with the decedent; And that's what you need to establish before I will allow that testimony in for a limited purpose only, not for the truth of the matter.
If you had some information as to the time the decedent was last talking to her mother, would that be of any benefit to you in coming to your estimate as to the time of death?
My estimates are based on the body measurements. I do not use -- I did not use any information about a telephone conversation.
KEY QUOTEDid you see any information about a telephone conversation when you came to your conclusions?
My question now is -- a All I am saying is I did not use any telephone conversation to come to this time of death determination. I am using body measurements and Rigor mortis, livor mortis, cooling of the body and the gastric contents. That has nothing to do with a telephone conversation.
It is 10-1/2 hours after the fact, and you would rather rely upon that than upon a mother's testimony that she -- or mother's comment she had a telephone conversation with her daughter? Which one do you think is more accurate?
Do you have an opinion -- you observed the stomach contents of the decedent Mr. Goldman; is that correct?
Well, first of all, I did not think it was indicated to save the contents on nicole brown Simpson. It was important to measure it, characterize it and describe it; and I did not think it was indicated to save it for toxicological examination. Of course, saving blood and other body fluids are very important for toxicological examination, which is what we did. The duty to characterize the gastric contents and measure it and describe what was in it is important, which is what I did. On Mr. Goldman, again, blood and other body fluids were preserved. On him I was asked to save the gastric contents.
Do you have an opinion as to, between nicole brown and ronald Goldman, who was the last one to consume food?
Well, I don't know for sure. His state of -- the food being more digested in his stomach could indicate that he had the meal earlier or that he had a lighter meal or that it -- digestion started sooner, whereas her food being in the less digested state, particularly what I observed, a lot of the food was -- appeared to be unchewed. Particularly some of the particles of rigatoni were unchewed, and that could indicate that the unchewed food could remain in the stomach for a longer period of time before digestion.
Regarding the knife wounds, is it your finding that there were two types of knife wounds on both victims?
There are two morphologically different types of stab wounds on the victims. Namely, some of the stab wounds on the victims are indicative of a single-edged blade for the reasons that I indicated. They have both a round or blunt end and a pointed end. And other -- some of the wounds have a characteristically double pointed or forked end, which would indicate that they could be made by either a blunt end instrument, or knife, or a double sharp end instrument. In other words, a two-edged knife or a single-edged knife. And there's no way that my determinations can tell the difference between those, so there are two morphologically different types.
Did you look for any semen, saliva, hairs, Bloods, that might be left behind on the victim of a sexual attack?
Okay. That -- that would be a -- that would be performed by a criminalist, to collect and preserve that evidence, and I wouldn't do it, and it's my understanding that it was not requested or performed.
Was there any attempt made to look for seman in Nicole or Mr. Goldman at the scene or at the autopsy?
Is it proper, in your opinion, to do a rape kit analysis on young women murder victims as a general rule?
The circumstances would dictate whether that procedure would be performed, and the investigators are the ones who would initiate that request.
Did you ask him -- did you tell him you might have needed -- did you need more time than he gave you to examine it?
The detective who is in charge of a homicide comes in with a knife and he tells you, "this may be similar to the murder weapon"; is that correct?
He asks you to check to see, and you're telling us that you didn't think it was indicated for you to perform a proper evaluation?
Well, I said it could be. It could be the weapon that caused some of the wounds, including the cutting wounds. It was a single edged -- it had a single sharp cutting edge, and it's obviously consistent with many of the slashing wounds. And it was a six-inch blade and at the time we didn't think it indicated -- or I didn't think it indicated to go through each wound, wound by wound, to try to exclude that weapon. That can be done at some other time.
The measurements are more accurate the closer to the actual time of death.
Somewhere between 9 o'clock and midnight.
My estimates are based on the body measurements. I do not use -- I did not use any information about a telephone conversation.
For an accurate scientific examination, yes.
Now?