And, sir, you are now employed by the Los Angeles county department of the coroner; is that correct?
Dr. Golden, would you tell us what your job title is with the L.A. County department of the coroner.
And would you describe for us, please, what your duties and functions are as a deputy medical examiner.
As a deputy medical examiner, I am a physician specialist; and my duties are to perform autopsies on decedents that come under our jurisdiction and to determine the cause and manner of death.
Sir, how long have you worked as a deputy medical examiner for the L.A. County department of the coroner?
And, dr. Golden, have you received any specialized education, training or experience that qualifies you to hold your position as a deputy medical examiner?
Well, besides being a doctor of medicine, I have received four additional years of postgraduate residency training in pathology and one year of postgraduate residency training in forensic pathology; and I am certified by the American board of pathology in anatomical pathology, clinical pathology and forensic pathology.
Doctor, let's break those down just a little bit. First of all, sir, you describe yourself as a physician and you have testified that you are a physician; is that correct?
And you stated that following your graduation from the University of Illinois that you've received some specialized training; is that correct?
And you mentioned that you are certified in certain -- with regard to certain aspects of pathology; is that correct?
Well, the physician specialty groups have their own sub-specialty boards which certify physicians as competent in their field, so, for example, an internist will have board certification in internal medicine. A surgeon may be board certified in surgery or general surgery. The pathology group or sub-specialty has board certification also in various branches of pathology.
And are there tests -- are there requirements that enable one to become board certified, sir?
And do those tests and other requirements exist with regard to those certain specialties that you have mentioned thus far in your testimony?
Now, amongst the certifications that you've indicated, you've indicated that you have -- you were certified in pathology; is that correct?
And would you describe the difference or distinction between those three types of pathology for us.
Well, anatomical pathology is that branch of clinical medicine that deals with the -- I guess I could say deals with autopsy pathology and surgical pathology as well as biopsy, exfoliative cytology. In other words, there's a clinical sub-specialty in some respects. It also deals with autopsy pathology. And clinical pathology is basically laboratory medicine. Those are those doctors who specialize in the use of laboratory methods for the study and diagnosis of disease.
Well, forensic pathology deals in those aspects of pathology that come in relationship to the law; and as you know, forensic pathologists perform autopsies to determine the cause and manner of death, and forensic pathologists have special knowledge of violent or non-natural deaths. In other words, all of the -- all the causes of death -- all of the causes of death that are not due to natural causes, such as accident, homicide, suicide.
And, sir, it's -- as a forensic pathologist, you work in your job for the L.A. Department of Coroner; is that correct?
And, sir, I have to assume, since you've been working since July of 1980 for the department of the coroner, in that course of time you've had the opportunity and occasion to perform a number of autopsies; is that correct?
Would you give us an estimate of approximately how many autopsies you've performed since starting work for the L.A. County department of the coroner.
I would say approximately -- well, it's more than 5,000. Somewhere in the mid 5,000 autopsies.
And Dr. Golden, in the course of your duties as a deputy medical examiner here in the County of Los Angeles, have you had occasion to testify in court and to render opinions as to cause of death as well as manner of death?
Well, using an estimate that I testify three or four times a month, and let's say rounding that out to approximately 50 times a year, so in 14 years I would say close to 700 times. Somewhere, 650 to 700 times.
Dr. Golden, I would like to direct your attention to the date of June the 14th, 1994. Were you working in your capacity as a deputy medical examiner on that date?
On the date of June the 14th, 1994, did you perform an autopsy upon the body of an individual identified to you as Nicole Brown Simpson?
Now Dr. Golden, later in the morning of June the 14th, 1994, did you perform an autopsy upon the body of an individual identified to you as Ronald Goldman?
Dr. Golden, in connection with each of those autopsies that you performed that morning, was an autopsy report prepared?
Well, the autopsy report includes my protocol transcription, which the protocol describes my autopsy findings.
And that's what I personally have prepared through dictation and transcription. And it also includes a number of diagrams which I have personally prepared. That -- that -- that is what I have personally prepared, plus a -- if you want to be precise about this, there's also a form medical report, "Forensic Science Center," where I list -- I list the cause and manner of death. That is used by the certification desk to prepare the death certificate. So these are all prepared by me. The actual report contains additional pages that are not prepared by me, but they are included in the autopsy report.
And Dr. Golden, you've stated that you dictated notes and prepared diagrams with regard to your protocol; is that correct?
And does that mean, sir, at the time you're performing the autopsy you are making notes of your findings, and that at some point contemporaneous with that you are dictating your findings; is that correct?
And is it at some time subsequent to that, that you prepare what is known as an autopsy report?
At first, is that report prepared in rough, then reviewed by yourself, and then published in a final form?
Now, with regard to the autopsy performed on Nicole Brown Simpson, when was that report prepared?
And the preparation of that report had taken place, I would have to assume, between the dates of June the 14th and June the 16th, then; is that correct?
And with regard to the autopsy report pertaining to Ronald Goldman, sir, when was that report prepared and issued?
Well, between the 14th and the -- and the -- and the -- actually, I signed the report on Mr. Goldman on June 17th, 1994.
Okay. Thank you, sir. And Dr. Golden, it's a fact, is it not, that during the course of the autopsy, you direct that photographs be taken as well; is that correct?
And in the course of preparing an autopsy report, often it is good to look at those photographs in order to assist you in your findings and observations and conclusions; is that correct?
And in these two instances, were photographs taken of each autopsy while the autopsy was being performed?
Now, you testified before the Los Angeles County Grand Jury on the date of June the 20th, 1994, did you not?
And after you testified before the Grand Jury, did your department issue some additional reports with regard to the autopsies performed on Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman?
Was there an addendum that was prepared with regard to Nicole Brown Simpson's autopsy report?
And it is true, is it not, Dr. Golden, that an addendum to the Ronald Goldman autopsy report was issued on that same date?
Okay. I'll go through each case number. On Nicole Brown Simpson, addendum report was prepared for the following reasons: One, there were corrections of typographical errors. Two, upon review of the photographs I made amendments, additions to the original report. And pertaining only to Nicole Brown Simpson, I made an addendum opinion after review of stored tissue, and that --
And you had not had an opportunity to review that stored tissue prior to the issuance of the autopsy report; is that correct?
Now, sir, there were some additional corrections of typos, amendments to the autopsy report of -- on Ronald Goldman; is that correct?
And sir, before you issued the autopsy reports -- or caused to be issued the autopsy reports with regard to each victim in this case, had you had an opportunity to review the photographs which were taken during each of the autopsies?
Subsequent to the issuance of those reports, did you have an opportunity to make a detailed review of those photographs?
And was it subsequent to the review of those photographs, a detailed review, that these addendums were issued?
With regard to the addendum, does any of the basic data or findings of -- that were included in your original autopsy reports, does any of that change?
The changes were made to make the report more precise and detailed. The basic findings -- and that includes findings as to the cause of death -- were not changed. There were no changes about -- pertaining to the internal examination. Basic measurements taken when I did the examination, including measurements on the stab wounds, were not changed. All of the basic measurements, particularly ones that would pertain to cause of death or weapon identification, were not changed. I changed some of the descriptions based on the photographs to provide a more precise and detailed description for this report.
Now, doctor, let's relate back to the morning, June the 14th, 1994. You commenced the autopsy procedure on the body of Nicole Brown Simpson at about 7:30 in the morning; is that correct?
And as part of your autopsy procedure or protocol, did you perform an external examination of Nicole's body?
Well, the decedent was wearing a short black dress that was blood stained, and a pair of black panties. That's what she was wearing.
The clothing was removed for photography purposes, and also the clothing had to be dried and preserved as evidence.
After the clothing was removed, Dr. Golden, did you determine the length of Nicole Brown Simpson's body?
After determining the length and weight of Nicole's body, did you observe any evidence of injury to the neck of Nicole Brown Simpson?
The decedent had an incised wound -- that is a cutting wound -- of the neck, which extended from the left side of the neck, across the larynx or voice box, and then angulated upwards towards the right ear.
And Dr. Golden, did you observe a number of stab wounds to the left side of Nicole Brown Simpson's neck?
Your Honor, excuse me. For the sake of the record, I have no objection to the doctor refreshing his memory or reading from the report, but I would like the record to indicate when that is being done.
All right. Have you been reading, in response to the last couple of questions, from your report, doctor?
Dr. Golden, did you create a diagram which reflected the approximate locations of the wounds that you just indicated in your testimony?
Your Honor, I have here a diagram. I have previously shown this to counsel. It is a coroner's diagram. It reflects relative positions of the wounds thus far described by Dr. Golden. May this be People's 25 for identification?
Doctor, do you see the exhibit that has now been identified as People's 25 for identification?
There's a lot depicted on the diagram, but basically there's a diagram of the cutting or incised wound on the neck, which is indicated here in this schematic that I'm pointing to now.
And for the record, sir, you're indicating a schematic of the neck and head portion of a human figure in the upper left-hand corner of the diagram; is that correct?
Let us focus on that particular wound for a few moments, if we may. Doctor, you have characterized that wound as a cutting or incised wound; is that correct?
Well, an incised wound is a injury produced by a sharp object that cuts across the skin and produces an injury that is longer than it is deep.
Your Honor, again, may the record indicate that at least the first portion of that answer was read from the autopsy report, or appeared to be read.
I'm sorry. It appeared to me at this point. Can the witness be instructed if he is going to read or refresh his memory that he just indicate that. We have no objection to that procedure.
All right. Anytime you do elect to read something, if you could just state it so that the record is clear.
Now doctor, with regard to the cutting or incised wounds that you have described thus far in your testimony, would you give us the dimensions of that wound as noted by yourself during Nicole Brown Simpson's autopsy?
All right. Well, I can get that from the diagram charts. Basically it was a gaping wound measuring 5 1/2 inches in length by 2 1/2 inches in width. And after alignment of the edges -- that is, by moving them together and approximating the edges, the right-hand side measured 4 inches and the left-hand side measured 2 1/2 inches.
And sir, when you refer to "right-hand side" and "left-hand side," you are relating that in accord with a hypothetical midline, are you not?
The midline would be a line hypothetically going down the middle of the body; is that correct?
And when you're referring to right and left aspect of the midline, you are characterizing that as one would observe the decedent from the front; is that correct? The right side -- the left side of the body and the right side of the body, in other words.
Very well. Now, with regard to the right ear lobe and right side of the midline, you've stated that this wound appears to -- after going across the neck, appears to angulate upward toward the right ear lobe; is that correct?
Now, with regard to the right side of the wound path -- this would be referring to the right side of this hypothetical midline -- would you give us a description of your findings regarding the wound path and depth of wound.
Okay. Well, I will also look at my notes to refresh my memory, but this wound passed through the muscles on the right side of the neck and cut through the membrane between the larynx and the hyoid bone. Let's see. The -- see, the wound on the left side and cutting across the midline is transverse or horizontally. In a single wound of this nature, I traced the depth as it went through anatomic structures, so it passed through the skin and the tissue beneath the subcutaneous tissue under the jaw, then across through the thyrohyoid membrane and ligament, and it went as deep as -- it went through that ligament posterior, or backwards, and transected the distal 1/3 of the epiglottis, then through the pharynx, and passed directly through to the vertebral column, which is the bone of the vertebral column, specifically the third cervical vertebra. And then I found a wound in the body of the third cervical vertebra where the actual cut went in for 1/4 of an inch into the bone.
So this particular wound that you've described thus far was deep enough to cut through the neck and actually cause a nick on the spinal column; is that correct?
Yes. As I was saying, as the wound went up or angulated towards the right ear, it became more superficial and then ended in the skin below the right ear lobe. Now, on my dissection of the wound, the right common carotid artery was severed or completely cut across, transected, and there was a 1/4 inch nick or cut on the right internal jugular vein. Now, that was on the right side. On the left side, tracing the wound from the midline towards the left, the left common carotid artery was transected and the internal jugular vein was almost transected. There was a thin strand of tissue bridging across the two cut ends.
So Dr. Golden, with regard to this particular wound, we have the complete severing of both carotid arteries; is that correct?
And you have the near severing of one jugular vein and a nick in the other jugular vein; is that correct?
Now, doctor, did you form an opinion as to whether or not this particular wound in and of itself was a fatal wound?
Well, both the carotid arteries and the common carotid arteries and internal jugular veins were transected and cut, which would lead to exsanguinating hemorrhage.
Doctor, referring to the diagram which has been marked as People's 25 for identification, and the figure in the lower right-hand corner, do you see that, sir?
This is a fatal wound.
The right common carotid artery was severed or completely cut across, transected, and there was a 1/4 inch nick or cut on the right internal jugular vein... the left common carotid artery was transected and the internal jugular vein was almost transected. There was a thin strand of tissue bridging across the two cut ends.
It went through that ligament posterior, or backwards, and transected the distal 1/3 of the epiglottis, then through the pharynx, and passed directly through to the vertebral column... I found a wound in the body of the third cervical vertebra where the actual cut went in for 1/4 of an inch into the bone.
Bleeding out. Which ultimately would cause death, would it not?