Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)
(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)
(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)
(Pages 37050 through 37059, volume 188A, transcribed and sealed under separate cover.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Bailey. The People are represented by Miss Clark and Mr. Kelberg and Miss Lewis. Good morning, counsel.
MS. LEWIS: Good morning, your Honor. Your Honor, I'm here to simply schedule a hearing or two hearings on motions that were filed last week. One of those was filed by Hank Goldberg last Thursday to preclude the testimony of the Defense expert Herbert McDonnell for discovery violations, and as additional grounds, though it may not be addressed in the motion, lack of foundation for his testimony. Umm, that was served on counsel last Thursday, and I'm wondering--
THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. Can we have it quiet, please.
MS. LEWIS: I'm wondering what the Court's convenience is on the scheduling. I should mention that I have listed him as potentially coming up as early as Wednesday, and since we feel that he should not be allowed to testify at all on a dual basis of inadequate foundation and discovery violations, I think this would be useful to both sides to resolve as soon as possible.
THE COURT: Mr. Douglas, when do you anticipate this witness testifying?
MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I haven't seen this motion. I was asking Mr. Cochran if he had seen it.
MS. LEWIS: It was served on Mr. Shapiro, I'm told, by Diana Martinez.
MR. SHAPIRO: I think we got it Friday.
MS. LEWIS: It was served Thursday.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Douglas, when do you anticipate this witness being called?
MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I anticipate his being called sometime on Wednesday. Can we have a hearing perhaps tomorrow afternoon?
MS. LEWIS: What time, your Honor?
THE COURT: 1:30.
MS. LEWIS: Thank you.
THE COURT: Excuse me. One o'clock.
MS. LEWIS: The other motion has to do with collateral impeachment witnesses regarding Detective Fuhrman. That was filed and served last Friday. The Defense initially had some such witnesses on a short list and then removed them and I'm not sure what their timing is, their expectation with regard to those witnesses, but we do need to have that resolved of course.
MR. DOUGLAS: I think Friday, your Honor, will be an appropriate day for that motion. Those witnesses will likely not be called until next week.
THE COURT: Let's see. That is the 21st. I seem to recollect we have another matter set the 21st in the afternoon.
THE CLERK: That has been rescheduled.
THE COURT: All right. We will make it the 21st then at 1:30. All right.
MS. LEWIS: I think that does it. Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Miss Lewis. Mr. Douglas, you have a matter?
MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, yes, and we can deal with it now or perhaps this afternoon. It concerns the testimony of the nurse Thano Peratis. I submitted this morning to the Court an affidavit from Mr. Peratis' doctor.
THE COURT: Right. I received it. I have been in chambers with counsel on other matters. I have not had the opportunity to read it.
MR. DOUGLAS: Yes, your Honor. In a nutshell, the motion seeks to declare Mr. Peratis unavailable and seeks to allow the introduction of his preliminary hearing testimony by video and portions of his grand jury testimony to be read. We would like that that to be resolved today so that we can edit the tape and have that presentation to the jury tomorrow afternoon.
THE COURT: Out of curiosity, what is your theory of admissibility of grand jury testimony?
MR. DOUGLAS: That it is being offered against a party who introduced the testimony at the actual proceeding, the earlier proceeding. That is sworn testimony. We are simply having the grand jury portion to reinforce the preliminary hearing testimony concerning the amount of blood that was withdrawn, the approximately eight cc's, 1291-A(2) I believe it is.
THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark.
MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. I believe that Mr. Goldberg will be best able to address this. I think that we can take live testimony if Mr. Peratis, yes, I do. We have had contact with him in the past couple of days and it is not clear at all that this declaration by the physician is dispositive. I understand that the Defense does not want to allow Mr. Peratis to testify live to modify his testimony or explain what actually occurred when he drew Mr. Simpson's blood, but the People think it is very important that the jury get the truth of this matter and that the jury be informed of what actually transpired.
THE COURT: We are talking about holding a 240 availability hearing here?
MS. CLARK: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. When do you anticipate being able to do that, since this was just filed today?
MS. CLARK: If I may make a phone call--I was just handed this this morning as well. If I may call Mr. Goldberg, we have been working on this issue, as a matter of fact, to see when Mr. Peratis would be available and able to testify and in what manner. I can call Mr. Goldberg now. I can find out for the Court immediately.
THE COURT: Why don't you just advise the Court after the lunch hour.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Sure. Okay.
THE COURT: And counsel today the lunch hour will go until 1:30.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. DOUGLAS: For the record, your Honor, Mr. Peratis had a triple bypass surgery.
THE COURT: Counsel, I understand that he has had some medical problems, but we will take it up when we have the hearing.
MR. DOUGLAS: Very well.
MS. LEWIS: I'm sorry, there was one other thing I wanted to mention that I forgot. In a footnote in my brief with regard to the collateral impeachment witnesses I asked to see the Court in camera ex parte and I'm going to submit that under seal.
THE COURT: Thank you. Give it to Mrs. Robertson. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.
(Brief pause.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
THE COURT: Everybody looks fit and rested after a weekend. All right. Dr. Huizenga, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Robert Huizenga, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: All right. Good morning again, doctor.
DR. HUIZENGA: Good morning.
THE COURT: Doctor, you are reminded, sir, you are still under oath. And Mr. Kelberg, you may continue with your cross-examination.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Good morning, doctor.
DR. HUIZENGA: Good morning.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. KELBERG
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want to ask you if you would look at your original report of June 15th, which is marked as exhibit 507, and page 2, acute problem no. 2. I'm going to ask Mr. Fairtlough to put this back up and he has got it right where I would like it. There is a topic heading of "Night sweats." Do you recall testifying about that I think in response to Mr. Shapiro's direct examination?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I do.
MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, this description was provided to you by Mr. Simpson on June 15, 1994; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is absolutely correct.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, night sweats by definition are circumstances in which a person awakens, usually in the middle of the night, dripping wet, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: It is not a situation of a person who is in an awakened state perspiring?
DR. HUIZENGA: Typically not.
MR. KELBERG: And Mr. Fairtlough, I think we are done with that. So, for example, doctor, I want you to assume there has been testimony in this Court from a limousine driver, Mr. Park, that he picked up Mr. Simpson on June 12, 1994, at Mr. Simpson's Rockingham estate roughly around eleven o'clock at night. And that as Mr. Simpson is getting into the car and through the course of the drive to Los Angeles International Airport, and prior to getting out of the car, Mr. Simpson appeared to be sweating, complained of being hot, asked that the air conditioning be turned on, had the windows rolled down. Assuming that that testimony has been given here, doctor, that would not be the product of the night sweats Mr. Simpson was complaining of to you on June 15th, correct?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, your Honor. It is an improper hypothetical.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor.
DR. HUIZENGA: No. I would have to disagree with that because he complained of night sweats, but when you sweat at night, that may also indicate episodes of sweating during the day, and there are many other reasons, including lymphoma and various infectious disease and rheumatologic diseases, that can cause sweats, possibly predominantly at night, where a doctor may mistakenly call them night sweats, but in fact there may be thermal regulation problems and temperature variations at other times in the day.
MR. KELBERG: Well, doctor, though, you understood the night sweats to be based on the complaint that he was waking up in the middle of the night dripping wet over the last thirty-day period, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is exactly.
MR. KELBERG: Correct. He was not complaining that during the day when he was up and about he was sweating unnaturally, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: He did not complain of flushing or things that I would consider endocrine pheochromosoma type symptoms, however, his history under the circumstances was rather trying.
MR. KELBERG: Well, trying, doctor? What do you mean his history under the circumstances was trying? You were trying to get from him a detailed history; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And in what fashion would you describe it as trying on Mr. Simpson to ask about his medical history?
DR. HUIZENGA: He was obviously in a two-hour period, and then this next encounter on the 17th, another hour or so, the vast majority of that time was talking about obviously his acute stress and problems of that nature, in addition to obviously going over every possible cause of the sweats which I viewed as his--one of his two top problems, so that obviously to go back and to try to differentiate between night sweats and any of the other causes that can cause sweats at night and sweats during the day, is probably not all that important. And very frankly, Mr. Simpson, given the fact that he was sleep-deprived, was not being as--as sharp as he might otherwise have been in giving a very clear and lucid history.
MR. KELBERG: When you say "Not as sharp as he might have been," you had never seen Mr. Simpson before June 15, 1994, as a physician; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is absolutely correct.
MR. KELBERG: You have no basis, no base line basis as of June 15, 1994, to assess the sharpness of Mr. Simpson's ability to recall his medical history, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, that is absolutely incorrect. There were parts during my--my physical--I mean, obviously when somebody comes in with--with a complaint, a severe complaint, they are going to be very attentive, and there are periods that he was so sleep deprived that he almost feel asleep right in my office. We essentially had to give him coffee and get him up and moving because he was really so sleep-deprived and so distraught at that point this time, so it was not an optimal time to elicit very detailed medical details.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are you familiar with a drug called Xanax?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I am.
MR. KELBERG: What is that drug, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: Xanax is a medication that affects the secretion of acid in the stomach.
MR. KELBERG: What is the general purpose of taking--
DR. HUIZENGA: Xanax or Xantec?
MR. KELBERG: Xanax.
DR. HUIZENGA: Xanax?
MR. KELBERG: X-a-n-a-x.
DR. HUIZENGA: Xanax is an anti-anxiety medication.
MR. KELBERG: And to your knowledge was Mr. Simpson taking Xanax as of June 15, 1994?
DR. HUIZENGA: To my knowledge, based on what he told me, he was not taking Xanax. I didn't get that history, no.
MR. KELBERG: May I have just a moment, your Honor?
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, were you ever apprised that in a duffel bag searched on June 17, 1994, a full bottle of Xanax was found?
DR. HUIZENGA: No one has ever told me that. I have never been apprised of that in any way.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, in page 2 of your report you say on this night sweats issue: "The patient admits to a month-long history of nocturnal sweats severe enough to awaken him and require him to towel off his entire body, then go to sleep or other non-soaked side of the bed without associated flushing or known fever," right?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: Now, if a person had an influenza and develops a fever, you would expect to see chills initially as the fever escalates, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: During the evolving phase of the fever as it is going up, you are right, you would typically see chills.
MR. KELBERG: Then as the fever breaks--the reason you have the chill sensation is because your body, being warmer than its normal temperature, is sensing a chilliness to the environment around it?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, that is absolutely incorrect. What happens when you get a chill is that as the temperature goes to up, your brain for a variety of reasons, maybe it is saying, hey, there is an infection and the infection can't live at 104 degrees, but my body can, so what the body does is it makes you chill, it makes you shake and that generates heat, and that is body's mechanism to raise your temperature, so no, that is an incorrect explanation of that phenomena I believe.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Doctor, would you agree that as the fever breaks that one then experiences sweats as the temperature of the body starts coming down to the normal temperature?
DR. HUIZENGA: Typically you will sweat as the temperature comes down as a means of evaporating so that you can lose that heat.
MR. KELBERG: Did you ever, prior to June 15th, 1994, receive any information as to what temperatures Mr. Simpson had over the period of, let's say, June 10th, through June 15th?
DR. HUIZENGA: No. He did not take his temperature to my knowledge at any of these times, so we had no information there.
MR. KELBERG: And he denied having a fever, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: He did not feel that he had a fever. On the other hand, people can have temperatures that are quite high and not know them and then you go, gee, your temperature is 102, and they go oh, really.
MR. KELBERG: But the temperature you took was 98.9, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And that is within the normal range of temperatures?
DR. HUIZENGA: I think that is a couple of ticks higher, but I would have to call that a normal temperature.
MR. KELBERG: Well, if there has been testimony received in this trial that people who have evaluated temperatures in bodies for the purposes of estimating time of death have given as a normal range of temperature temperatures that rise even a degree above 98.6, would you have any reason to disagree with that assessment?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I wouldn't, actually. There is a circadian pattern of temperature and your body temperature hits a nadir or low point usually at night and it may be a little bit warmer in the afternoon, so absolutely, it can vary quite a bit.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor I want you to assume hypothetically that on June 12th, 1994, at between 10:15 and 10:30, Mr. Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman in a very brief and violent assault. He then hurried back to his house and arrived sometime about ten to 11:00 to eleven o'clock at night. He then rushed around to get his materials together to get into the limousine to rush to Los Angeles airport to catch an airplane to go to Chicago. Assuming such hypothetical circumstances, doctor, would that be a basis to cause sweating in a human being who is feeling perfectly healthy otherwise?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, improper hypothetical.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, assuming that Mr. Simpson had engaged in vigorous physical activity within an hour of being observed by the limousine driver to be sweating, to complain of being hot, would that be a basis for someone to be sweating?
DR. HUIZENGA: There are many causes of sweating, one of which is athletic endeavors or the use of your muscles in a--over a certain threshold.
MR. KELBERG: And would it be correct, doctor, that the more vigorous the physical activity, the more sweating one might expect?
DR. HUIZENGA: Given the humidity, given the patient's level of hydration, I think that that is generally a pretty reasonable assumption.
MR. KELBERG: And is it also correct, doctor, that when people are rushing around trying to meet a deadline, that they tend to perspire?
DR. HUIZENGA: They may. On the other hand, some people that rush around that are extremely nervous or apprehensive may get cold hands and may have kind of an opposite effect, but I think in generalities I--I can't quibble with that.
MR. KELBERG: And so doctor, if one were to evaluate Mr. Park's testimony that Mr. Simpson was sweating and complained of being hot, asked for the air conditioning to be turned on and so forth, that would not be consistent with your alternative definition of night sweats as being a circumstance other than the usual case of awakening in the middle of the night?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, assumes fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: I'm going to ask you to rephrase the question, counsel.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you said initially that night sweats are typically associated with people waking up and sweating profusely, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: Night sweats are. I wasn't sure what the heck he had. I was still searching for why he was sweating. I--I put down night sweats because that is what I got out of him under those trying situations. I had no idea what the cause was, and eventually, you know, when I came to my best guess as to the cause, that sort of sweating may occur during the day.
MR. KELBERG: Well, doctor, what literature are you relying upon to support your conclusion that night sweats, which might be related to an infection which may be the cause for the enlarged lymph nodes, would lead to daytime night sweats, using the term loosely, rather than the traditionally understood definition of night sweats as awakening in the middle of the night dripping wet?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, improper question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor.
DR. HUIZENGA: My in-arrears impression--
MR. KELBERG: I move to strike. The question was what literature was he relying upon.
THE COURT: Sustained. Doctor, will you answer the question.
MR. SHAPIRO: Assumes a fact not in evidence that he was relying on any literature.
THE COURT: That is true.
MR. KELBERG: What, if any, literature?
DR. HUIZENGA: Standard textbooks.
MR. KELBERG: Which one?
DR. HUIZENGA: The current standard library book on rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatic disease lists that during episodes rheumatic disease, specifically rheumatoid arthritis, is beginning to kick up begin, some of the signs may include low grade temperature elevation, sweating and adenopathy lymph nodes. That is my best guess as to what was going on with him, but there are other explanations. And very frankly, you know, unlike what some people would try to insinuate, there aren't simple blood tests that can diagnose rheumatoid arthritis or other diseases, so that is my best guess, but I don't have absolute concrete evidence of what the cause was.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, at a recess would you please advise Defense counsel of what book it is and see if somebody can perhaps have it faxed over if you have it in your library or something?
DR. HUIZENGA: Sure.
MR. KELBERG: So that we can have the page or pages you are referring to. But in the meantime, you told us on Friday that in your opinion Mr. Simpson was not in fact suffering from an acute onset of rheumatoid arthritis on June 15th, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is absolutely incorrect, because what I believe I said, and I may have been in some kind of a zone, was that he had some very--some atypical features. His C reactive protein was negative, his RA Quant was negative and his sedimentation rate at 24 was lower than I certainly would expect for an acute flare.
However, were that it was so easy, these are tools that help you diagnose rheumatoid arthritis and you have to kind of evaluate the entire patient, and I think it is still a very difficult tough call. But given, you know, the entire, you know, American Rheumatism, you know, Association's criteria, there are 7 different criteria. C reactive protein is not on there, sedimentation is not there. They are just too insensitive and nonspecific to qualify for diagnosing rheumatoid arthritis. So you have to rely on clinical symptoms of which he had some very striking x-ray evidence and the fact that he has had two biopsies, one of his left knee and one of his right axilla, that are consistent with rheumatoid arthritis. I am not a rheumatologist. I have never pretended to be. I am his doctor. I try to be the general that coordinates, but that is my best assumption based on what I've heard.
MR. KELBERG: You were his doctor for the time on June 15th, 1994; isn't that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is absolutely correct.
MR. KELBERG: In fact, doctor, from all the records you have obtained, when was the last time Mr. Simpson saw any other doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: He last saw you--he never had a, quote-unquote, doctor. He had an orthopedic specialist, Dr. Frank Jobe, who he saw July, I believe, 13, 1993, and at that time Dr. Jobe, an orthopedic specialist, felt that OJ was in an acute rheumatoid arthritis flare and then immediately sent to him Dr. Maltz.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, move to strike. That was not the question.
THE COURT: Stricken. The jury is to disregard it.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you please listen to my question.
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: My question was when prior to June 15th, 1994, did Mr. Simpson last see a physician?
DR. HUIZENGA: He saw a physician--he saw two different physicians; Frank Jobe, an orthopedist, and Dr. Maltz, a rheumatologist, on July 13, 1993.
MR. KELBERG: And so your examination is taking place eleven months since his last examination by any physician, at least to your knowledge; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: Now, you said you had these blood tests ordered on June 15th, 1994, which included the RA Quant and the CRP--
DR. HUIZENGA: Uh-huh.
MR. KELBERG: --c reactive protein, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And they came back negative in both cases, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. KELBERG: You also said that you did not detect bilateral swelling, which would be the traditional thing to see an acute episode of rheumatoid arthritis, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: That would be one of the traditional signs, exactly.
MR. KELBERG: So doctor, is it your statement that on June 15th, 199--
DR. HUIZENGA: Let me correct that. He did have bilateral elbow problems and he did have problems on both hands that were difficult to differentiate. Osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis can sometimes merge. It can be a very difficult call, what is a hard joint, what is a boggy joint. And to the best of my knowledge, when I saw him I did not believe he was having a flare. It was only in arrears that I came to that assumption.
MR. KELBERG: In arrears?
DR. HUIZENGA: I did not--I did not feel--I thought it was mostly or all osteoarthritis when I saw him. No. 1, he wasn't complaining of joint pain, he wasn't sent to me for joint pain, he didn't get sent to me--he didn't say he had a problem with his joint. I just detected it watching him limp and just seeing what is going on in this regard. He never complained of weak grip, of bad knees, of bad wrists. I picked that up. He--he kind of just shrugged everything off.
MR. KELBERG: He--
DR. HUIZENGA: That wasn't why I was examining him. That was just a total aside.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. KELBERG: Now you said weak grip. Is that what you said, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: I said he was not complaining of weak grip.
MR. KELBERG: Well, you--
DR. HUIZENGA: He was not--
MR. KELBERG: --found it was a normal grip?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is exactly right. I'm explaining that he wasn't complaining of joint problems. I found joint problems. He didn't come in saying, gee, I'm limping, I can't walk, make me--make the pain go away. He basically shrugged those problems off.
MR. KELBERG: Let me invite your attention and counsel's attention--this is from the real time transcript, so I'm not sure how one finds it. It is from the disk printed out on page 397. And the question asked was: "Again this would suggest that Mr. Simpson did not have an acute episode of rheumatoid arthritis, correct"? And your answer was: "It would be on that side."
DR. HUIZENGA: Okay.
MR. KELBERG: Do you recall that?
DR. HUIZENGA: I do. This is why this yes/no stuff doesn't get information across. This is what I said. I said--
THE COURT: Excuse me, doctor. The question was do you recollect giving that answer to that question?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: Next question.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do you consider yourself an advocate for Mr. Simpson?
DR. HUIZENGA: I consider myself Mr. Simpson's doctor. When someone comes into my office, I'm their doctor.
MR. KELBERG: Do you--I'm sorry.
DR. HUIZENGA: I would not in any way lie, but my job is to--to be his doctor and take care of his health. That is my duty.
MR. KELBERG: Would you agree that your examination on the 15 was an unusual circumstance of seeing a patient for the first time?
DR. HUIZENGA: Absolutely, yes.
MR. KELBERG: Mr. Shapiro, who was I think you said your partner's patient--
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. KELBERG: --brought Mr. Simpson to see you; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: Uh-huh.
MR. KELBERG: Is that a yes?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And would it be accurate to say, doctor, that you had socialized with Mr. Shapiro, from what you said last Friday?
DR. HUIZENGA: I think that that would be a stretch. He was at the Lyle Alzado benefit and I have seen him at probably two charity functions, so I have seen him very cursorily on three social occasions, basically had the same number half many times I've been at a social occasion with Gil Garcetti, so I mean, I don't really--I don't--
MR. KELBERG: That is three more that I have been with Mr. Garcetti I can assure you?
DR. HUIZENGA: I don't consider myself a social acquaintance of his.
MR. KELBERG: Well, you used the term "Socializing" in your direct examination, didn't you, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: He asked had we socialized and I believe my answer was no, not really. I have seen you at a couple of, quote-unquote, events. He is the auctioneer for a charity both of our wives belong to and that is essentially the other two times I have seen him at functions. I have not sat with him, I have not talked with him, you know, we are acquaintances.
MR. KELBERG: Let me see if I can find the examination. On page 317 if the printout. "Would you describe us as social friends?" Question. "Answer: We have seen each other at several outings, but I would say it is more professional than social."
DR. HUIZENGA: I agree with that statement.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, had you ever seen Mr. Shapiro in the absence of your partner as a patient?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I have.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor would you agree that a lot of what you were trying to do on the 15th, besides taking a history, is to interpret these findings that you are observing?
DR. HUIZENGA: Sure. I observe things and I try to interpret them and that is a fair statement.
MR. KELBERG: And much of medical interpretation is subjective in nature, is it not, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: I think that there is a degree of subjectiveness and blood tests don't tell all that much in many instances.
MR. KELBERG: Well, for example, the grip test, for example, you said you didn't use any kind of objective measuring device, you didn't have one, so you had the test as you demonstrated with me, and you felt that he had normal grip strength. That is a subjective evaluation, is it not, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, would it be accurate to say that even if one consciously did not want to be influenced in how they evaluate a patient, there can be subconscious influences that cause a person to be biased?
DR. HUIZENGA: If it is subconscious, I wouldn't be aware of it, so it is difficult for me to comment on that.
MR. KELBERG: Well, doctor, would you agree that your relationship with Mr. Shapiro, at least on the surface, carries the possibility that in your subjective evaluations of the patient you may be subconsciously biased to make findings that will please Mr. Shapiro or help Mr. Shapiro's client?
DR. HUIZENGA: All medical patients are referred by other people. Typically in your practice--
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have to move to strike. It is nonresponsive to the question.
MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, he hasn't answered it.
THE COURT: Overruled. He can answer the way he wants to. That goes to bias, counsel.
MR. KELBERG: All right.
THE COURT: Doctor, continue your answer.
DR. HUIZENGA: When you see a patient, either you've got it or you don't. Either you are going to be an honest evaluator and try to use the experience you've had and try to use the proficiency you have demonstrated in your training, and hopefully you care about people and you are going to do the best job you can, and that is really all that I tried to do.
MR. KELBERG: Well, doctor, did you consider the possibility that you should tell Mr. Shapiro, "Look it, you should get a doctor who does not know you as a patient, who has no relationship whatsoever with you as a patient, who has no relationship with Mr. Simpson, so that that doctor would be in the best position to be fair and objective in evaluating Mr. Simpson"? Did you ever say that to Mr. Shapiro?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I never said that to him.
MR. KELBERG: Did you ever consider that possibility?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I never considered that possibility.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, did you ever feel that it was part of your responsibility to try and prepare a Defense for Mr. Simpson to the charges?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, absolutely not.
MR. KELBERG: Would it be accurate to say that the exam on the 15th was in fact an effort to start preparing a Defense to anticipated charges?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did you believe--you said it was a somewhat unusual circumstance--did you believe that the focus of that examination on the 15th was in part to start preparing a possible Defense in the event Mr. Simpson was charged?
DR. HUIZENGA: Two--two sub-answers to that. No. 1, if I would have thought that, obviously the first thing I should have done is documented any infirmity in terms of these orthopedic problems to the nth degree. That is not really not the tact I took. I took the tact to address his mental status problems and his insomnia and his difficulty handling this incredible, incredible stress that maybe no other human being short of job has endured. And no. 2, to address a problem that I felt was potentially life-threatening and that was what acute lymph node under his arm associated with night sweats and clubbing, and I went after that. That had nothing to do with this incident. And that is where all my attention and energy was focused during this initial several weeks and when he even he went into the jailhouse and the physician there initially said he didn't have a lymph node, all my efforts were aimed in that direction, which I think had nothing to do with the Defense. I think they probably wished I would go away. I just, you know, took pictures of the cuts, and you know obviously, I just wanted everything documented in that regard, but I did--really I followed the advice of somebody that gave me a long time ago, and that is that you treat all patients the same. The minute you start doing special stuff for special patients, you get yourself into a heap of trouble as a doctor.
MR. KELBERG: I just want to be clear. In your answer is it your characterization that Mr. Simpson is in a situation which to your knowledge only job has suffered more?
DR. HUIZENGA: I think the pressure that was on him, for whatever reason, was a tremendous weight, the change in his life status that very few, if any, people have experienced, in my opinion.
MR. KELBERG: And if he had murdered two human beings, Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman, would that be the kind of thing that would cause a great weight to be on a man's shoulders?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, improper.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor.
DR. HUIZENGA: If someone hypothetically killed someone, they certainly would have a great weight on their shoulders.
MR. KELBERG: I'm asking--you have described Mr. Simpson. I'm asking you assuming he had done, that would that be, in your opinion, a great weight on Mr. Simpson's shoulder to bear, not a hypothetical to anyone but Mr. Simpson?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SHAPIRO: Assumes a facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor--may I approach, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Do you have the note--for reference it is page 484 of the materials. Do you have this note in the original, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I don't.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I would ask that that page 484 be marked as People's exhibit I think it is 511.
THE COURT: 511.
(Peo's 511 for id = document)
THE COURT: You should let Mr. Shapiro--
MR. KELBERG: I mentioned the page from the discovery, but I will be glad to.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SHAPIRO: May I just have a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. KELBERG: Did we could lower it? I'm sorry.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, can you see that--do you have the copy of this letter in your material?
DR. HUIZENGA: I definitely wrote it. I don't know what happened to it.
MR. KELBERG: Excuse me. The question is do you have a copy of the letter that we are seeing on the screen, not the small what appears maybe to be a post-it sticker entry, but the actual letter?
DR. HUIZENGA: I don't have a copy of that.
MR. KELBERG: Isn't it normal practice for a physician to keep a copy of any letter that they send to an attorney regarding a patient of the doctor's?
DR. HUIZENGA: Umm, I don't have it.
MR. KELBERG: No. My, question, doctor isn't it the usual practice to keep a copy of any such letter?
DR. HUIZENGA: I don't deal with legal matters, so I think that we try to keep all of our letters.
MR. KELBERG: Well, doctor, in your training as a physician, haven't you been trained that you save basically any correspondence regarding the patient?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I think that is a good habit.
MR. KELBERG: And what, if any, explanation do you have for not having the February 5th, 1995, letter to Mr. Douglas?
DR. HUIZENGA: This is my best remembrance of that. I was told right around January that there was some kind of flap about my records, so I was called by Carl Douglas and he said we are not going to release your medical records. We want a statement. We want a one or two or three-page--we want a one-page statement that summarizes your findings. So I typed up a one-page statement summarizing my findings and then put a little sticker on the top and said "Is this the kind of thing that you are looking for?" Is this thorough enough? Obviously, you know, you can't say much in one page. Do you want more detail? That is basically the gist of that and that is--that was something that was requested of me by Mr. Douglas on the phone.
MR. KELBERG: So doctor, in your opinion, this doesn't reflect that you were an advocate for Mr. Simpson in asking one of his lawyers whether this represented the kind of statement he sought?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, absolutely not. Basically in my mind it was he wanted me to summarize my entire findings and I didn't know if that was too much or too little detail. I knew that it was all truthful. I just didn't know if he wanted me to expand or contract because he had some problems with some of my charts apparently.
MR. KELBERG: Mr. Shapiro, pages 465 and 466.
MR. SHAPIRO: May I just see those for a moment, please.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry.
THE COURT: Yes.
(Brief pause.) (Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg.
MR. KELBERG: Yes. Thank you, your Honor. May I approach again?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, showing you, first of all, what is marked as page 465, these are the materials that we received from the Defense.
DR. HUIZENGA: Uh-huh.
MR. KELBERG: Umm, by the way, before I forget, you did write that note, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did, absolutely.
MR. KELBERG: That is on exhibit 511.
THE COURT: Referring to what appears to be a post-it note?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. KELBERG: Now, this document, July 6, 1994, did you write this letter to Mr. Shapiro?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: Do you have a copy of this letter in your file?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I do.
MR. KELBERG: And let me show you what is--
MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, is that marked?
MR. KELBERG: It is going to be marked in just a second.
MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you.
MR. KELBERG: Show you page 466 of the material, July 28, 1994, letter. Did you send this letter to a colleague of Mr. Shapiro's, Ms. Kaplan?
DR. HUIZENGA: Looks like I sent to it Robert, Shapiro, right, and Sara. Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: Okay. Do you have a copy of this letter in your file?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I do.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you explain why you kept a copy these of these two letters and did not keep a copy of the letter of February 5, 1995, that is up on the board, exhibit 511?
DR. HUIZENGA: I probably have it somewhere in my office. This chart as you can see is getting pretty unwieldy, so I bet if I really dug around and looked I could find it, but I--I don't believe--I just went through it last Friday and I don't believe I have it. I may. I would have any reason to dispose of it, that is for sure.
THE COURT: The doctor is referring to what appears to be about a four or five-inch stack of papers.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, when did you first get apprised that you were going to testify?
DR. HUIZENGA: I was first told, I don't know, I think the beginning of June, something like that.
MR. KELBERG: Of 1995?
DR. HUIZENGA: 1995, right.
MR. KELBERG: And were you told that it would be important to have all your records together?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I was really never given any such instructions.
MR. KELBERG: In your practice, is it your practice to keep a patient's file altogether so that you have access at any convenient time to review the entire file?
DR. HUIZENGA: Absolutely is. Absolutely is.
MR. KELBERG: So it wouldn't be your practice to have documents not in this patient's file, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: Typically not, you know.
MR. KELBERG: You have patients who have files that are much thicker than this one, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: Not too much.
MR. KELBERG: Not too much thicker or not too many patients?
DR. HUIZENGA: Not too much thicker.
MR. KELBERG: You can always divide it into a second file if you needed to?
DR. HUIZENGA: Well, that may have happened. There actually may be--there may be--there may be other things that are in, you know, the--the medical papers that were Xeroxed off about his particular case and there may be stuff floating there. I would have to go back and check.
MR. KELBERG: Most of these records that compile your file are not your own personal records, are they?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, that's correct.
MR. KELBERG: They are the records you have acquired from other physicians had who have seen Mr. Simpson?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. KELBERG: And about how many pages would you estimate your own reports constitute of that file that is presently sitting in front of you, resting in front of you?
DR. HUIZENGA: Forty, I don't know, fifty.
MR. KELBERG: And that is not a particularly thick patient file, is it?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, it is not.
MR. KELBERG: So if we set aside the other pages that are due to other doctor's records, Mr. Simpson's file in your possession of your materials, is a relatively modest file, is it not?
DR. HUIZENGA: There have been fatter ones.
MR. KELBERG: Let me ask also Fairtlough--and your Honor, I would ask then that page 465 be marked as People's exhibit 512.
THE COURT: 512.
(Peo's 512 for id = document)
THE COURT: This is the letter dated.
MR. KELBERG: July 6, 1994, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor you said that you didn't consider yourself that you were an advocate for Mr. Simpson; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: I considered that as his doctor that I certainly would be an advocate to get his health situation in as best as shape as I could.
MR. KELBERG: Did you consider that as part of that responsibility it was to try and get him acquitted of these charges?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I really didn't, as a matter of fact.
MR. KELBERG: Would you look, if you would, please, the last paragraph of that letter directed to "Dear Bob" Mr. Shapiro.
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And for the record: "The night sweats Mr. Simpson complained of may be pertinent to the Court testimony of the chauffeur who implied OJ was quite warm when he got in the limo. We need to follow up on this from a medical standpoint." You wrote that, didn't you, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: The first sentence of that paragraph is not pertinent to your role as a physician trying to identify a medical condition, is it, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: The first sentence of--
MR. KELBERG: That last paragraph that I just read?
DR. HUIZENGA: Night sweats are--I think that the answer is--is yes and no. The problem was he was in jail, I couldn't get to him. They would not let me in because I didn't have clearance. He had these night sweats. The jail people were saying he didn't have a lymph node, and I felt that his medical condition needed evaluation.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, my question was--and maybe you can explain how that answer indicates that your first sentence of that last paragraph: "The night sweats Mr. Simpson complained of may be pertinent to the Court testimony of the chauffeur who implied OJ was quite warm when he got in the limo."
DR. HUIZENGA: He may be having fevers during the day that even he wasn't aware of.
MR. KELBERG: That Mr. Simpson wasn't aware of?
DR. HUIZENGA: It may be a sign of something--he really wasn't complaining of a whole lot. As I said, he wasn't complaining of the joint problems and all of that added to my worry that he had some sort of infection, cancer or some other etiology of not only night sweats, but possibly fevers during the day.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, were you aware of the preliminary hearing that involved Mr. Simpson initially in a court like this, but without a jury where testimony was presented? Were you aware of it as it was ongoing?
DR. HUIZENGA: I was aware of some of it. I would periodically read the newspapers absolutely.
MR. KELBERG: In fact, this letter was written during the course of that preliminary hearing, isn't it?
DR. HUIZENGA: I would assume so, right, if it mentioned that episode where he testified--that someone testified he was sweating during the day, because I obviously picked up on that.
MR. KELBERG: And that is why you wanted to make sure Mr. Shapiro was aware of it so that he may be able to use your medical finding for his legal purposes in defending Mr. Simpson? Isn't that why you included it, sir?
DR. HUIZENGA: I don't believe that I did, but that is my opinion.
MR. KELBERG: Let me ask if I could, your Honor, for page 466, which is dated July 28 of `94, be marked as exhibit--I think we are at 513.
THE COURT: People's 513.
(Peo's 513 for id = document)
MR. KELBERG: And this time if we could again just so we can see the heading. Mr. Fairtlough, could we--thanks.
MR. KELBERG: This is a letter you sent on July 28, 1994, to Mr. Shapiro to the attention of his colleague, Ms. Kaplan; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: And it is addressed "Dear Sara"; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. KELBERG: Now, if I could ask Mr. Fairtlough--let's drop down to the end of that, if we could, please.
MR. KELBERG: Item no. 5 under the summary: "As I previously discussed with Dr. M. Baden"--that is Dr. Michael Baden, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. KELBERG: And you understand that he is a forensic pathologist, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. KELBERG: Correct, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: "OJ's severe left wrist arthritis and resultant marked decreased mobility of that joint may have implications for the forensic pathologist." You said that in the letter, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: Now, that has nothing to do with your role as a physician taking care of Mr. Simpson's medical problems, does it, sir?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, it doesn't.
MR. KELBERG: That's an advocate trying to suggest a possible avenue of Defense to be used by another physician, Dr. Baden, the forensic pathologist, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: Dr. Baden and I--can you restate your question?
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, if possible, I know I speak quickly and I don't want to ask the reporter, if it is too difficult, I will reask it if it is, but if possible I would ask that it be reread.
THE COURT: You have it there before you.
MR. KELBERG: The question is doctor, referring to item 5: "That is an advocate trying to suggest a possible avenue of Defense to be used by another physician, Dr. Baden, the forensic pathologist, correct?"
DR. HUIZENGA: Dr. Baden and I were discussing various things when we were at Robert Kardashian's house on the 17th. In those discussions those issues were asked of me and those are the way that I replied.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, my question, though, is that has nothing to do with treating his medical condition as a physician, does it?
DR. HUIZENGA: That has nothing to do with that, correct.
MR. KELBERG: It has to do with trying to help him defend against the charges he faced, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: It was in response to my conversation with Dr. Baden.
MR. KELBERG: Well, doctor, you--
DR. HUIZENGA: The questions he had asked me.
MR. KELBERG: Excuse me, doctor. You said you were with Dr. Baden on July--on June 17th, 1994, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. KELBERG: The date of this letter is July 28, 1994?
DR. HUIZENGA: Right.
MR. KELBERG: Dr. Baden hadn't suddenly called you up before you sent this letter and said "I need some more information on this," right? He hadn't done that?
DR. HUIZENGA: Dr. Baden had called me on several occasions asking me questions.
MR. KELBERG: Do you have any record of those conversations in your file, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I don't have any records.
MR. KELBERG: Is there any note taking that you made, even if you didn't keep it?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, there wasn't. They were basically questions about could I run, could I draw blood tests from various people in our office.
MR. KELBERG: That was the substance of the calls from Dr. Baden?
DR. HUIZENGA: Of those calls, in addition to my discussing his arthritis problems which they saw since we were all at the house together on the 17th and we took photos together, retook photos of his cuts, and those questions were asked of me. I was there. They asked me these various questions and I responded and followed through on some of the questions they asked me in these letters.
MR. KELBERG: But you hadn't been specifically requested, had you, doctor, before sending the July 28th letter, to put it in writing to remind Dr. Baden that there may be significance to this? You did this on your own accord; isn't that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: This is basically the note taking that I did, right, to--to commiserate what had happened on that earlier conversation, absolutely.
MR. KELBERG: Commiserate?
DR. HUIZENGA: To put down on paper what we had discussed at that earlier date.
MR. KELBERG: And you may have misspoke unintentionally, but your definition of "Commiserate," doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yeah, that was a misspeak.
MR. KELBERG: Your understanding, though, of the definition of commiserate is?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is not what I meant.
MR. KELBERG: Well, my question to you is, sir, what is your definition of the word "Commiserate"?
DR. HUIZENGA: Commiserate is when you kind of tell sad tales together and hold hands.
MR. KELBERG: Trying to buck everybody up in tough times?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yeah. That is not--basically he was asking me questions. He was working on the case. And obviously they were calling me and asking me various medical questions about their particular areas of expertise, and I tried to respond as honestly as I could and I certainly wasn't withholding or not mentioning them in letters or any other, you know, typewritten records that I kept.
MR. KELBERG: I think we are done with this document right now, if Mr. Fairtlough will remove that.
MR. SHAPIRO: Was that marked, your Honor?
THE COURT: That is--
MR. KELBERG: 513 I thought it was.
THE COURT: 513. Mr. Kelberg, 10:45.
MR. KELBERG: 10:45.
THE COURT: 10:45.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, briefly again on the grip test, did do you any test to see the maximum grip strength of Mr. Simpson?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I did not.
THE COURT: I thought we had been through this already.
MR. KELBERG: We asked if it was normal, but I didn't ask whether he did something to assess the maximum grip strength.
THE COURT: I stand corrected.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, you told Mr. Shapiro on direct that in your opinion Mr. Simpson could hold a knife, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: In either hand, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, he can.
MR. KELBERG: Would he also be able, in your opinion, to grab the hair of Nicole Brown Simpson and yank her head back to hyperextend her neck prior to taking a knife and slashing at her throat area? Did he have the strength in his left hand to do that, sir.
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, improper question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question?
THE COURT: But it is a compound question.
MR. KELBERG: I will try and simplify it.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did Mr. Simpson have--have sufficient strength, in your opinion, to grab the hair of his former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and yank her head back to fully expose her neck?
DR. HUIZENGA: If he had his left hand and didn't have to hyperflex back his wrist, he did have motion and strength that was within normal, as I put on my exam, with the exception of he was unable to fully extend the elbow, but his flexion was normal on my exam and his strength was normal on my exam.
MR. KELBERG: So my question still, which has not been answered, doctor, is could he with his left hand have grabbed the hair of his ex-wife and pulled her hair back?
DR. HUIZENGA: In a stationary situation, yes.
MR. KELBERG: And when stationary I want to you assume she has collapsed on the walkway in front of her condominium. That's the kind of condition you are talking about, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: And in your opinion he could do that?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And not only could he do that, doctor, in your opinion could he then with his right hand holding a knife slit her throat? Did he have the strength in his hand to do that?
DR. HUIZENGA: Given a stationary hypothetical as you have said, yes, I believe that that would be possible.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, by the way, did you ask Mr. Simpson if he was right or left-handed?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: Which is he?
DR. HUIZENGA: I didn't put that down here. He is right-handed.
MR. KELBERG: You didn't put that in your report?
DR. HUIZENGA: I will have to look.
(Brief pause.)
DR. HUIZENGA: I don't have it written down here that I can see.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, that would be a pretty significant aspect to find out, wouldn't it, when you are trying to at least evaluate the limitations Mr. Simpson may have due to his arthritic condition that you found?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yeah. I know he is right-handed, and no. 2, it is readily accessible information, so it is not a nuclear secret, so I'm not sure that it is a vital piece to put down, but it would have been helpful, yes.
MR. KELBERG: Well, for example, you found, did you not, that the limitation in dorsiflexion, that is flexing the wrist back, was the left wrist, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. KELBERG: Not the right wrist, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's right.
MR. KELBERG: Would you agree that if Mr. Simpson were right-handed that normally would he have at least somewhat greater strengthen, if he were healthy, between the left and the right hands? He would have greater strength in the right hand than in the left hand?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is true for most people. Sometimes athletes can be pretty ambidextrous, but I think that is a fair statement.
MR. KELBERG: When did he have the surgery to his left wrist, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: 1965.
MR. KELBERG: And when did he start with his professional career with the buffalo bills?
DR. HUIZENGA: I don't have that exact date.
MR. KELBERG: How many years did he play?
DR. HUIZENGA: I don't have those exact dates.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if I told you he played eleven years, would that sound pretty reasonable to you?
DR. HUIZENGA: It was from the late sixties to the early eighties, somewhere in there, yes.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, he was playing football after he had surgery to that left wrist, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is absolutely correct.
MR. KELBERG: If I told you he gained over 11,000 yards rushing, would you accept that as a reasonable interpretation of his skills as a football player?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I would.
MR. KELBERG: And that he received, that is, he caught passes for over 2000 yards, does that sound reasonable to you?
DR. HUIZENGA: Sounds reasonable.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, given that status, is it your--did do you anything to test the relative strengths between the left hand and the right hand? We have talked about normal grip strength, we talked about maximum grip strength. Now I'm talking about relative grip strength?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: And what did you find?
DR. HUIZENGA: I found that they were roughly equal.
MR. KELBERG: And on what basis did you form that opinion? Was that a subjective evaluation from how he gripped your hands?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct. That is why I explained when we did that demonstration last Friday, why you do the--the grip simultaneously so that you access one side compared with the other.
MR. KELBERG: So given that he was right-handed and given that he did not have surgery to his right wrist and given that you did not find significant limitation of motion of the right wrist, vis-à-vis the left wrist, you found that nevertheless he had the same grip strength in his left hand as his right hand? Is that a correct statement?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is a correct statement.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, before we get into the photographs on the injuries, I wanted to be clear on something. Mr. Shapiro asked you about your background to evaluate knife wounds--knife cuts and so forth, and you mentioned your tour, if you will, moonlighting in emergency rooms. Do you recall that testimony?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I do.
MR. KELBERG: Is that the primary basis on which you have the expertise in this area?
DR. HUIZENGA: That, plus working emergency rooms in my training at Harvard Med school, as well as during my internship and residency, as well as seeing cuts during my private practice years subsequent to that.
MR. KELBERG: What percentage of your practice involves seeing cuts?
DR. HUIZENGA: I would say it is very small now, but still probably see one or two cuts a week.
MR. KELBERG: Wouldn't it be accurate to say that most people who have a cut that they think might require medical attention run to the local emergency room, not to the Beverly Hills doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: Not in my practice. We still do a lot of stitching.
MR. KELBERG: Okay. Your ER moonlighting you say is during medical school, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: No.
MR. KELBERG: I'm starting to--
DR. HUIZENGA: You don't moonlight in medical school, but basically you do rotations in an emergency room and basically there at Massachusetts General Hospital when you see the people getting out after the Boston Bruin games with all sorts of cuts and slashes, that is basically the foundation of my medical school years.
MR. KELBERG: Okay. And as a medical student you are basically relegated to do doing, I will use the term, scut work in the ER?
DR. HUIZENGA: I would say at a county hospital, it is see one, do one, teach one, so basically even as a third year medical student I was stitching up wounds there.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor your moonlighting days, during your internship and residency period; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct, and afterward.
MR. KELBERG: Okay. You got out of medical school in 1978?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. KELBERG: June of 1978 roughly?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. KELBERG: You started a one-we are rotating internship?
DR. HUIZENGA: One-year internship in internal medicine.
MR. KELBERG: So you did the whole twelve months in internal medicine?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: That was at cedars?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: You did what, three more years of a residency in internal medicine at cedars?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, that's correct.
MR. KELBERG: You are moonlighting during that period?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I am.
MR. KELBERG: Moonlighting is basically a way for doctors to make some extra money because residency programs are not notoriously well-paying; is that a fair statement?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is a fair statement.
MR. KELBERG: You moonlighted what, a day or two a week or a month?
DR. HUIZENGA: I would say I averaged two days a week.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, again during this period of time that you are moonlighting, you are still a doctor in training, though, aren't you?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is absolutely correct.
MR. KELBERG: And you stopped moonlighting 1984?
DR. HUIZENGA: I would say that is a fair estimate.
MR. KELBERG: That is shortly after you completed your chief residency in internal medicine at cedars; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, did you ever take any examination to become board certified in emergency room medicine?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I did not. I was board eligible, but I did not take the test since I wasn't planning to go into emergency room medicine.
MR. KELBERG: And board eligible merely means that you have completed the necessary requirements?
DR. HUIZENGA: There is a certain number of hours. Unfortunately the exact number I can't give you, but I was substantially over the number of hours you need to then be able to go down to Chicago and take the emergency room boards which is something that anyone planning to stay in emergency room medicine, you know, does.
MR. KELBERG: Does the board require, at the time you were moonlighting, that you be a chief resident in the emergency room?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, it did not.
MR. KELBERG: To your knowledge does it now?
DR. HUIZENGA: Umm, I think things are a little bit--little bit changed from back when I did it. I don't know what the exact regulations to be able to take the boards in emergency room medicine are currently.
MR. KELBERG: Since I believe the Court is going to take a break shortly, let me just finish with the curriculum vitae and then we will start in with the other materials later. Doctor, let me ask Mr. Fairtlough from Defense exhibit 1238 to put on the third page of where you are curriculum vitae. This is heading of "National television interviews"; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: And if Mr. Fairtlough will just pan this page so that you will see it in its entirety. May I move on, your Honor?
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is this kind of data that one normally finds in a physician's curriculum vitae?
DR. HUIZENGA: I don't believe it is.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, with respect to publications--let me ask Mr. Fairtlough to put on page 2 of your curriculum vitae. And let me start in the--I think you might turn you head to your right and you will see it--the last entry. That is a book that you authored; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And if nothing else, doctor, you sold one more copy since you took the stand and I have had a chance to read it. You are okay, it is just a bruise," that is the book, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would it be accurate to say that this book is, in the parlance of today's language, kind of a tell-all book of your period of time as a physician with the Los Angeles Raiders?
DR. HUIZENGA: I would say it is an expose of some of the behind the scenes things that go on where players are pretty much crumpled up like an old can of soda and disregarded, yes.
MR. KELBERG: Well, you are very critical of management Mr. Davis and the Raider's management, are you thought?
DR. HUIZENGA: I had a lot of problems with his approach to the game of football and I felt that he put winning football games over the health of players and that is essentially the reason why I came out, with the agreement of over forty of the players who gave me medical consent to reveal their particular medical history, so that we could try to change the way things are done in professional football and hopefully in other professional sports as well.
MR. KELBERG: You were a patient advocate, weren't you--you were a player advocate as a physician?
DR. HUIZENGA: I think the players have a lot of things that they have to learn, but I think that management, and certainly in the instances that I demonstrated, is really taking advantage of the commodity of the, quote-unquote, player and seeing the sequelae, seeing the end result of what the players end up at, seeing them with amputations, seeing them, you know, being described by their wives as, you know, very difficult getting out of bed in the morning, you know, hearing them say that they have no money and less cartilage, it was something that really moved me. And given the whole situation that no one else had ever talked about it, I felt that I should step out, and obviously I knew I was going to take a hit for doing it.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, you said, and this is on page 326 of the real time transcript, this was the question from MR. SHAPIRO: "And what is your experience in dealing with athletes in a professional capacity?" And your answer is: "I was the team physician for the Los Angeles Raiders from 1993 until 1990." You gave that absence?
DR. HUIZENGA: 1980?
MR. KELBERG: 1983 until 1990?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in fact you were not the team physician for the Los Angeles Raiders; isn't that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is incorrect. There is a team physician and there is a team orthopedist. I was the team physician and there is a team orthopedist. That is how it is typically set in every team.
MR. KELBERG: Well, doctor, Dr. Robert Rosenfeld, R-O-S-E-N-F-E-L-D, was the orthopedic surgeon for the Raiders, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And in the hierarchy of authority in the medical side, he had authority over you; isn't that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: No one really had authority over me, but he was closer to the owner, and that is where the whole trauma, the whole tragedy really occurred, yes.
MR. KELBERG: How long had Mr.--Dr. Rosenfeld been with the team before you joined it, if you know?
DR. HUIZENGA: He had been with the team since, I believe--umm, they used to fly him up from Los Angeles when they were with the Oakland team, so he had been the team doctor from the sixties for the Raiders.
MR. KELBERG: And he would have the primary responsibility, would he not, for evaluating orthopedic injuries that players on the team had? You would not have that responsibility, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, is this an appropriate time?
THE COURT: Yes, it is. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our mid-morning break at this time. Please remember my admonitions to you. Doctor, you can step down, and please come back in 15 minutes and we will try to finish you up this morning. All right. We will take 15.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Let's have the jurors, please. Go ahead and have a seat.
(Brief pause.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. The record should reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. And Mr. Kelberg, you may complete your cross-examination.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, once again, I understand the Court's subtle hint.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. KELBERG: Although I believe that it may take longer because of some video that will be shown in the course of the examination. Doctor, we were talking about Dr. Rosenfeld as the team orthopedic surgeon, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: And even in situations where you thought a player had an orthopedic condition and you disagreed with what Dr. Rosenfeld's view was of the situation, it would not be within your field of expertise to diagnose the condition for the purposes of getting the treatment started, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: No.
MR. KELBERG: An orthopedic condition?
DR. HUIZENGA: My job obviously is to treat all non-orthopedic non-joint and muscle diseases; however, ethically, and this is what the book was all about, when I saw things that I felt were being mistreated, and then obviously the reason I resigned when I saw flagrant medical malpractice or possibly fraud, that he was misrepresentating to the player in an effort to get the player to play, all of those instances I would go behind the scenes and make sure they saw other orthopedic surgeons. So yes, I would act as an orthopedic surgeon in the sense of sending them to a, quote-unquote, legitimate orthopedic surgeon, so I wouldn't just sit back and take his word because he, quote-unquote, had boards in orthopedics and I did not.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you didn't act as an orthopedic surgeon in that situation. You acted as a triage doctor who felt there was a problem outside the field of your expertise and you sent the patient to the physician in that field of expertise you thought appropriate; isn't that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: And Dr. Rosenfeld is now deceased; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: Dr.--I guess Mr. Fairtlough is back now, and I need exhibit 507 which I have here. And I will ask Mr. Fairtlough again to put on page 5. This is your initial report dealing with the orthopedic examination and if we can get--Mr. Fairtlough will be on the bottom of the document. So if we can--all right.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, you testified, in response to direct exam by Mr. Shapiro, about range of motion tests. Again, if the Court would permit for the doctor to step down, doctor, would you use me as Mr. Simpson for the purposes of demonstrating what you asked Mr. Simpson to do in order to assess his shoulder range of motion.
DR. HUIZENGA: Shoulder range of motion basically, (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: And for the record, your Honor--we have to describe what you are doing for the record. Why don't you get back into position, if you would, please, doctor, just before you move it. For the record, your Honor, the doctor has his heft hand resting on my left shoulder, he has his right hand underneath approximately my right wrist and he is starting to elevate my arm upward and he has done so to a position which is approximately parallel to my body as I stand.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Then he has allowed my arm to drop down.
MR. KELBERG: Is that the test that did you with Mr. Simpson?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is one of the tests.
MR. KELBERG: Did you do any additional tests on the shoulder for range of motion?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: The next one would be?
DR. HUIZENGA: Internal and external range of motion.
MR. KELBERG: We will do it slowly, doctor. You have asked me or you basically put my left arm in a bent position where it is bent at the elbow and my left forearm hand is resting across the midsection of the front of my body, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: (No audible response.)
MR. KELBERG: You have to keep your voice up, doctor.
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: And now what are you going to do with it?
DR. HUIZENGA: We are going to externally rotate the shoulder.
MR. KELBERG: What you have done doctor is with your left hand--you have to get back in position. I can't remember all this. With your left hand on the palm surface of my left hand as you pushed my left forearm and hand back, you have started to turn my left wrist and hand. You are moving it such that it is--well, you describe it.
DR. HUIZENGA: Trying to keep the hand and the wrist stable. That is basically we are keeping the elbow at ninety degrees. We are just trying to ascertain solely what the internal and external range of motion capabilities are of the shoulder. We are not really trying to affect any other joint.
MR. KELBERG: All right. You rotated to what final resting position if you complete the exam?
DR. HUIZENGA: We are basically going back to about this level here, (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: For the record, your Honor, the doctor has stopped where now my left forearm and hand with the palm facing to the sky is--doctor, would you describe that.
DR. HUIZENGA: Sixty degrees or so.
MR. KELBERG: Sixty degrees from--
DR. HUIZENGA: Basic--sixty degrees from--
MR. KELBERG: Horizontal?
DR. HUIZENGA: The ninety degree mark here, so in other words, if this is your starting position, we are going about sixty here and going all the way in here, (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Starting position would be with my forearm and hand straight out in front of my body so that it is at a ninety degree angle to my chest?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. KELBERG: And the first two tests that you have just described, Mr. Simpson, left shoulder, full range of motion?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: Right shoulder, full range of motion?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: Any other range of motion tests for the shoulders that you did?
DR. HUIZENGA: I think that was the initial screening of his range of motion. We also of course in the neurologic you look for tremor and you then you also get forward flexion of the shoulder which is a separate thing right there.
MR. KELBERG: For the record, you raised your two arms upright where your arms are now at a ninety degree angle to your body, but they are being held out at about the level of the breast?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And did Mr. Simpson accomplish that test--
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: --appropriately?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, he did.
MR. KELBERG: You may retake the stand, doctor.
DR. HUIZENGA: (Witness complies.)
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, in your report, if you will look, you describe about halfway down right knee with slight--not halfway, maybe a third of the way--"Right knee with slight crepitus, inability to flex the last ten degrees." Crepitus, is that a medical term--if I walked and you kind of here creaking of my bones, is crepitus a term that might describe what you are hearing?
DR. HUIZENGA: It might describe what you are hearing, but you also can--some people just have a snapping of the joint so there may be some confusion there.
MR. KELBERG: Now, is crepitus necessarily a limiting symptom?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, it is not.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, the next entry down deals--oh, I'm sorry "Inability to next the last ten degrees." Again with the Court's permission could the doctor step down? Doctor, if I have to sit somewhere, I'm going to be the patient again. Could I sit, with the Court's permission, on the edge counsel table?
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. KELBERG: If I can move my own materials without having it all fall off on ms. Clark. Doctor, I would be in a sitting position?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: What would you do to test--
DR. HUIZENGA: You should be in a lying position.
MR. KELBERG: Which did you have with Mr. Simpson?
DR. HUIZENGA: In a lying position.
MR. KELBERG: May I take my coat off, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may. Can we have a little assistance clearing that off, Miss Clark.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry.
THE COURT: I'm asking Miss Clark if we could have some assistance clearing that off.
MR. KELBERG: That is okay. I don't mind lying on my own stuff.
DR. HUIZENGA: Basically there is a--you test for extension and then basically you test for flexion.
MR. KELBERG: This is flexion, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: This is knee flexion, correct.
MR. KELBERG: All right. For the record this is a tough one for me to describe, except by feel, the doctor has got my knee bent in such a position that the lower part of my leg is as close as it is ever probably going to get to the back of my upper leg.
THE COURT: All right. Doctor, would you switch around just so the jurors on the other side of the jury box can see what you are doing.
DR. HUIZENGA: Sure. This is extension.
MR. KELBERG: Extension, for the record, he has my leg straightened out at the knee.
MR. KELBERG: Is that correct, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: With his arm supporting my leg.
DR. HUIZENGA: This exercise flexion, and in relatively flex individuals you can get the heel to touch the buttocks.
MR. KELBERG: I'm not that flex.
DR. HUIZENGA: There is--well, his heel did touch his buttocks. There is a wide range of normal. It can be--you know, there is tables for what normal individuals are able to flex, but in his situation he basically was, you know, somewhere in this range, (Indicating), which isn't terrible, but isn't normal either, and that is basically where, you know, I'm--you know, you make mental notes to yourself as a doctor and you say 10, 20 degrees less, how accurate is that? You just note that basically they are getting nowhere near their butt, and it is a little bit less than even what some of your stiff patients might be able to do.
MR. KELBERG: Well--
DR. HUIZENGA: In addition, when you put your hand right here and you move, this is where the crepitus comes in. You feel this vibration and that is what I meant by crepitus that he said.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, before you leave, though, a person who had full flexion would be in what situation? If you will put my leg if it is physically possible--
DR. HUIZENGA: See how his heel touched his buttock.
MR. KELBERG: Okay. Are holding my leg back there?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. KELBERG: Is that what you try and do, you hold the leg back there?
DR. HUIZENGA: You try to bounce it right off there.
MR. KELBERG: Okay.
DR. HUIZENGA: In other words, you are going to try to resist on me now, is that what I'm doing?
MR. KELBERG: No. I am asking you in doing the test do you ask the patient to try and flex it as far as the patient can?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I do not. I do it--I ask them to relax as best they can and then I passively move and try to assess the range of motion.
MR. KELBERG: And a 10 degree limitation, would you show what is the distance for 10 degrees.
DR. HUIZENGA: Basically again what is the best that somebody can do. That is where you have this wide variation of normal, but he was something like this, not severe, (Indicating), but not normal either, and that is all that ten degrees means.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor--and you did the same with the left; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: I think I need to put my jacket back on.
THE COURT: Those are the rules.
MR. KELBERG: And according to your report, doctor, you said the left knee showed marked crepitation, has anterior posterior laxity, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: That is just front to back?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And that there is an inability to flex the last 15 to 20 degrees; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And 15 to 20 degrees would be roughly 5 to 10 degrees more in the form of a limitation of the left knee than the right, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct. Again you have to remember when you are in--let's be Frank, you know, you are--you are moving as fast as you can through--these are--a lot of these are crib notes for yourself to try to assess things. It certainly means it is worse than the right. Does it mean 20 degrees or 30 or 15? It is somewhere in that range where it is limited, limited more than the other, but not again stuck at 90 degrees or not stuck at a level that when he walks the toe is going to catch when he tries to swing through in the gait.
MR. KELBERG: Well, doctor, when you are making this report out, you want to be as accurate as possible, don't you, with respect to your evaluation?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is absolutely correct.
MR. KELBERG: There is nothing that presented you from writing down on a piece of paper whatever the limitation of flexion was with respect to either knee, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: It is--I assessed it based on looking at it.
MR. KELBERG: I want to invite counsel's attention to page again 327 of the real time transcript and ask, doctor, if you gave this as part of your direct examination testimony following questioning by MR. SHAPIRO: "And when you move the knee, the knee should go through a certain range of motion which I can demonstrate, you can see it is a straight 180 degrees when I flex it. There is a different range that everybody--everyone can flex that by nature, by typically it--but typically it goes back to 135 degrees, 140, whatever. He was able to extend--extend his knee. Really he could only flex it to a point where he was limited by 25 to 30 degrees, approximately." Did you testify in part as I have just read, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I would assume so.
MR. KELBERG: And your report says only 15 to 20 degrees, not 25 to 30 degrees; is that correct, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: If you wanted to portray Mr. Simpson in worse condition with respect to that knee and limitation of movement, you would have done so by giving him a greater limitation of flexion, 25 to 30, than what is described in your report as 15 to 10; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: I was basically talking off the top of my best of recollections and obviously wasn't reading my report when I gave that answer, but my report--
MR. KELBERG: Well, Mr.--
DR. HUIZENGA: --again a lot of these things are shorthand for what you observe over time in your own practice and these are in my--this is not an orthopedic exam by an orthopedist. An orthopedist looked through all his previous evaluations, often don't get out an exact angle measuring device to detect it, and so it was a rough approximation. Given the time constraints that was, you know, the best that I felt was able to be done.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, has Mr. Simpson been evaluated at your suggestion by an orthopedist, since June 15th, 1994?
DR. HUIZENGA: I discussed it with his orthopedist. His--he has no acute reasons to be seen by an orthopedist currently, so no, he has not.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, you've come in to testify in direct examination about these orthopedic limitations of Mr. Simpson, have you not?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I have.
MR. KELBERG: Would you agree it would be more appropriate to have his orthopedist come in and give an opinion on an area within the orthopedist's field of specialty than for you who by your admission is not an orthopedist--
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. KELBERG: --and who has not done a thorough and complete examination, but rather a throwaway examination to use your term of Friday?
DR. HUIZENGA: All I can do is report what I saw. I have no ability to have other people come and testify or--
MR. KELBERG: Well, my question was, doctor, wouldn't it be more appropriate to have an orthopedist rather than you, but I won't ask you to pursue that because you said all you can do is come in and testify. Is that what you were doing when you made the suggestion in exhibit 513: "As I previously discussed with Dr. M. Baden, OJ's severe left wrist and arthritis and resultant marked decrease mobility of that joint may have implications for the forensic pathologist"?
DR. HUIZENGA: When we discussed his medical condition, and I was asked questions by the forensic pathologist that was hired on the case, I responded as honestly as I could, and communicated that in that letter. I didn't really have anything to hide as far as I was concerned.
MR. KELBERG: Well, doctor, if you wanted to have Mr. Simpson's evaluated for his physical capability to murder two human beings and you were concerned that because of limitations from surgeries to his ankle or surgeries to his wrist and arthritis that he may not be capable of murdering these two people, wouldn't it seem logical to have Dr. Jobe, who was his orthopedic surgeon for many years--correct everybody that is correct.
MR. KELBERG: Wouldn't it be logical to have him conduct a thorough evaluation before trial of Mr. Simpson to see where he is today from where he was when Dr. Jobe last saw him?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Actually it is a two-part question because it is compound.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. KELBERG: Dr. Huizenga, wouldn't it be appropriate, if one were concerned about orthopedic limitations of Mr. Simpson to have Dr. Jobe, his orthopedist of many years, examine him before trial, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: I'm not conducting the Defense. I'm just reporting what I saw when he came to my office and he came to my office because of physical problems and the orthopedic things were things that I observed that you are very interested in, but very frankly, I was less interested in because I had, as I have stated before, two other problems that I felt were more important for his immediate physical health. He had a rheumatologist that was seeing him and the feeling was from a medical standpoint there was nothing to be gained from having an orthopedist see him, either acutely for the one or two days that he was not in custody, or in arrears once he went in jail. There was no acute benefit that he could do to OJ's health. If you want to ask should it have been done for other reasons, I'm not the person to ask that to.
MR. KELBERG: Well, doctor, you recommended to players on the Raiders that they see orthopedists and neurosurgeons for second and third opinions when you thought the need arose, didn't you?
DR. HUIZENGA: Absolutely.
MR. KELBERG: And have you ever suggested--let me go back to your report that is exhibit 507--which says--this is from page 6 and I will ask Mr. Fairtlough to put it back up--under item 10. Which says: "To discuss with ankle specialist when patient's current situation resolved." You wrote that in your report, right, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: And "The current situation" meant his legal situation; isn't that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: His whole life situation which included the fact that, right, he wasn't able to travel, we couldn't get him to specialists that we might otherwise have wanted to because of other life things like going to funerals, et cetera, and we had to evaluate what is urgent on a medical side and what could be handled sometime later. And my opinion was that the orthopedic things, although very vexing, there was nothing acutely to be done and that those things could be handled at some future date.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, isn't it correct that in assessing the effects of arthritis it is extremely important to look at a patient over a period of time to compare how the patient is today with how the patient was, let's say, a year ago?
DR. HUIZENGA: Absolutely.
MR. KELBERG: Because these can be progressive diseases, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And so if the question was--well, let me withdraw that. You told us that the last time Dr. Jobe saw Mr. Simpson was July 13th of 1993, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And as you've testified here in response to direct and cross-examination about Mr. Simpson's condition, you are talking about it on June 15th, 1994, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: Do you agree that Dr. Jobe would be in a very good position as an orthopedic surgeon to have evaluated Mr. Simpson around the time of your evaluation to see whether he has shown any progression in any osteoarthritic condition he had existing as of the time of the July, `93, examination?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I don't feel that that would be helpful at all. There is only one of two scenarios that happens: Either his osteoarthritis has progressed or it has not. In either instance there would be nothing medically that we would do different other than going after his immediate problems and in addition to which obviously having him see the rheumatologist and see if there were other conditions that could be treated. Osteoarthritis is a chronic degenerative disease, and short of surgery, there is nothing an orthopedist can do other than give pain medications and prescribe rest and physical therapy. Those things were handled. Given the time constraints, given the other things going on, no, I would really have as to disagree with you. I don't think seeing an orthopedist on the 15th would have helped his medical condition. Yes, maybe it would have pertained to some sort of Defense measure, I can't answer to that, but from a medical situation if I had a person that was leaving to Europe on a Friday and presented on a Wednesday as he did, no, I don't think that we would make them change all their work plans and their busy pre-trip schedule to go so an orthopedist. So no, I'm not really sure what you are driving at there.
MR. KELBERG: Well, doctor, first of all, you visited Mr. Simpson as a physician in the jail since his incarceration, haven't you?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I have.
MR. KELBERG: And again, to your knowledge, has Dr. Jobe gone down to examine him?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, he has not.
MR. KELBERG: And you didn't feel there was anything of an immediacy to his orthopedic condition that required an orthopedist to see him over the next few days at least as of June 15th, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And in fact you talk about until his current situation is resolved and that is still not resolved, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: Is it still your opinion there is no need for him to see an orthopedic surgeon because that situation has not yet been resolved?
DR. HUIZENGA: The reason he doesn't need to see an orthopedic surgeon now in this phase is he had significant joint problems when I saw him on the 15th. Those problems, if anything, intensified over the first several weeks he was incarcerated. It was felt by his rheumatologist that he had a flare of rheumatoid arthritis. He was put on a rheumatoid arthritis disease modifying drug and his symptoms markedly improved. It was on the basis of that, the fact that his swollen left knee, swollen ankle, his painful wrist, his new onset right wrist ganglion and some of his other complaints resolved that no further orthopedic consultation was felt deemed necessary at that time in the jail.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, umm, you say that Dr. Maltz, who is the rheumatologist, felt that there was an acute episode of rheumatoid arthritis, but all the clinical laboratory results were negative; isn't that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: He felt there was an acute flare based on the fact that you diagnose rheumatoid arthritis on seven criteria, with the aid of biopsies. He had a--a number of those seven criteria that classified him as having rheumatoid arthritis.
MR. KELBERG: Which ones?
DR. HUIZENGA: He had morning stiffness.
MR. KELBERG: That can be from osteoarthritis, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: That can be from osteoarthritis as well.
MR. KELBERG: And Mr. Simpson had complained all the time of morning stiffness when he gets up, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: He has had that for quite a time, although he has had severe flares where he is so bad he can't tie his shoes, and essentially is trapped in bed, and he has had at least two significant flares of that nature. This certainly wasn't that bad.
MR. KELBERG: Any others?
DR. HUIZENGA: Any other symptoms that--
MR. KELBERG: That fit this classical--
DR. HUIZENGA: --that fit this criteria?
MR. KELBERG: Exactly?
THE COURT: Counsel.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry. Any other of the classical symptoms? You said he did not have bilateral, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: I didn't say that. I said he had both elbows with fixed flexion contractures which may be seen in rheumatoid arthritis. He had bilateral hand disease. To classify for symmetry they don't necessarily have to be the exact same joint, sometimes different joints on the hand. He had x-ray changes consistent with rheumatoid arthritis. Umm--
MR. KELBERG: Which x-ray changes were those, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: I would prefer to leave all that for the rheumatologist. I don't want do pull out x-ray films when they are definitely not my field of expertise. You are asking me what signs were positive and I'm giving them to you, but I'm not saying that I specifically corroborated them with my expertise. These were things that based on x-ray reports, were said to be positive. I mean, I can pull out the reports and read them through with you, but I'm not going to pretend that I am an expert on the erosive changes and the other changes characteristic of rheumatoid arthritis that you don't see in osteoarthritis.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what if anything have you done since June 15, 1994, to independently evaluate Mr. Simpson's physical activities over a period of, let's say, three months before June 15th?
DR. HUIZENGA: What have I done to independently?
MR. KELBERG: Yes. In other words, without taking Mr. Simpson's word for any limitations to see if there was independent evidence to support any claims of limitation?
DR. HUIZENGA: Again, he never complained to me of limitation other than the fact that I said why are you limping and he said, you know, this is just an ongoing thing, and you know, I can't walk a golf course, but that is after I questioned him. He wasn't complaining to me of joint problems.
MR. KELBERG: My question, doctor, is what, if anything, have you done to independently evaluate any limitations Mr. Simpson may have had over the last three months of his life before June 15th, 1994?
DR. HUIZENGA: I have heard from other individuals about his difficulty walking, his trouble getting around a golf course. I have requested all his previous medical records, but of course those are not helpful in the last three months.
MR. KELBERG: Because he hadn't seen a doctor for eleven months?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is exactly correct.
MR. KELBERG: Incidentally, doctor, have you been provided with any exercise videotapes of Mr. Simpson from late May of 1995?
DR. HUIZENGA: I saw that, umm--
THE COURT: `95, counsel?
MR. KELBERG: `94, excuse me, thank you, your Honor.
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I have. I saw that this Sunday--this Saturday.
MR. KELBERG: When did you first see it?
DR. HUIZENGA: I saw it Saturday and I saw it also about three or four months ago.
MR. KELBERG: How was it that you saw that? Was it brought to your attention or had you independently identified that?
DR. HUIZENGA: Umm, it was basically something that I independently heard about and was curious about.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, the people you got information from, were these friends of Mr. Simpson's?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, they were.
MR. KELBERG: Now, have you heard the testimony of the people that the Defendant has called over the last oh, week or so, people such as Mr. Howard Bingham?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I know nothing about that testimony.
MR. KELBERG: Mr. Valerie?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I didn't hear anything about that.
MR. KELBERG: Mr. Kilduff?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I didn't hear anything about that.
MR. KELBERG: Mr. Merrill?
DR. HUIZENGA: No.
MR. KELBERG: Let me read the whole list then. Mr. Gladden, Mr. Norris, Mr. Williams, Mr. Partridge, and also from previous time called by the Prosecution, Allan Park and Mr. Kaelin?
DR. HUIZENGA: No.
MR. KELBERG: Any of those witness' testimony did you hear or review?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I did not.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, you said Mr. Simpson limped into your office, and again to use your term, he walked like Tarzan's grandfather; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want you to assume that these people I mentioned saw Mr. Simpson on June 12th in Los Angeles or saw him on June 13th in Chicago.
DR. HUIZENGA: Uh-huh.
MR. KELBERG: And that these people, to a person, say that they saw no limp on the part of Mr. Simpson--
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, your Honor, misstates the evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KELBERG: May I have a moment, your Honor?
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, obviously I'm at some disadvantage.
THE COURT: Let me see you at the side bar without the court reporter, please.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: All right. Proceed.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if there have been witnesses called, among the people that I listed, and when asked if they observed any limitation on the part of Mr. Simpson walking, that those people who were asked indicated they saw no such limp, would you accept such testimony as consistent with your findings on June 15th?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I wouldn't.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, is it very difficult to identify a person who is limping if you are not a doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: Well, there are certainly subtle variations of a limp, and certainly I can tell a limp that someone else at first glance may say they look like they are walking normally, but the limp he had when he came into my office I believe anyone would have been able to identify.
MR. KELBERG: Would you come down, please, with the Court's permission, and in a way where the jurors can see, demonstrate--I'm going to ask you to do this since you are the one who saw it--demonstrate how Mr. Simpson walked in a limp which in your opinion demonstrated that he walked like, again your phrase, Tarzan's grandfather?
MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I would object. We would--I would have no objection to Mr. Simpson walking and having the doctor describe it.
THE COURT: Overruled. I think you need a couple of foundational questions here, though.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you did observe him in your office on June 15th, 1994, walking; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: You observed at that time what you thought to be a limp, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: And it was from the way he walked which led you to talk about he walked like Tarzan's grandfather, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: Again, with the Court's permission I would ask that he be allowed to demonstrate what he saw in the way of a limp of Mr. Simpson.
THE COURT: Doctor, do you believe that you can accurately reenact the manner in which Mr. Simpson walked?
DR. HUIZENGA: It is very difficult. He had two joints that were bothering him, his ankle and that knee, and he kind of was hunched a little bit. I really--it would be very difficult. I could try, but it would be difficult, and to know exactly the degree, I think it would be a very iffy proposition.
THE COURT: All right. The objection is sustained.
MR. KELBERG: But doctor, in your opinion even though you feel at this time that you cannot demonstrate, that it was clearly something that a lay person would be able to see?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it was.
MR. KELBERG: And you would expect it to be present on June 12th; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: (No audible response.)
MR. KELBERG: Given that you saw it on June 15th?
DR. HUIZENGA: Certainly could have been.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, assuming that these same witnesses, when asked about any observation of any kind of physical limitation or evidence of distress by Mr. Simpson indicated they saw no such limitation or distress, assuming that that is accurate testimony, would that be inconsistent with what you would expect on June 12th, given your findings of June 15th?
MR. SHAPIRO: I'm going to object, your Honor. It depends on when the observations were made.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor.
DR. HUIZENGA: I saw a limp on the 15th. If he had no limp on the 12th, then obviously something has changed in the interval.
MR. KELBERG: Or perhaps Mr. Simpson was faking a limp in your office?
DR. HUIZENGA: That certainly would be in the differential.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, I didn't limit it to limps. I talked about any evidence of discomfort. People can grimace in pain from moving in a way that causes some kind of pain response, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: Did you see Mr. Simpson evidence any kind of reaction to pain during the course of your June 15th examination?
DR. HUIZENGA: He had some pain with the movement of his left ankle and left wrist and right--excuse me, right ankle, left knee and left wrist.
MR. KELBERG: Right ankle, left knee, left wrist; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: And what did you see, if you can describe it, that led you to believe he was demonstrating some kind of distress from whatever testing you were doing in those areas?
DR. HUIZENGA: Umm, typically you get a reflex--I think everybody has had it when somebody twists your arm back suddenly and unexpectedly, it is very difficult unless you are a movie star, to basically deny pain. And when we did those sorts of things basically again it wasn't earth shattering, but you know, it appeared that, you know, another two or three degrees was--was not going to be all that much fun for the patient. And it is basically another clinical sign that doesn't have a number, doesn't have some kind of blood test that is stamped on a report, but this is an observation that you cull after years of doing that sort of evaluation.
MR. KELBERG: It is a subjective interpretation, is it not, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.
MR. KELBERG: And if you in fact are an advocate for Mr. Simpson, that can even in a subconscious way lead to a bias that influences how you saw what you've just described; isn't that correct, doctor?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you said unless you are a Hollywood star something like you can fake the pain?
DR. HUIZENGA: I was thinking of the Mel Gibson movie Braveheart where, you know, they start withdrawing body organs and he doesn't mutter one yelp. I think that that is again a Hollywood sort of thing and not something that happens in an office, a medical office.
MR. KELBERG: How about a veteran of national football league football? Are those people people who tend to be able to play through pain?
DR. HUIZENGA: I think that is a fair statement.
MR. KELBERG: And in fact inviting your attention to page 20 of your book did you write the following: "As Dr. Rosenfeld was rechecking Marcus'"--that is Marcus Allen, is it?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes it is.
MR. KELBERG: "Neurological status, I was pulled away by a player who walked me over to a teammate sitting on the bench with a grossly deformed and swollen left ring finger. It was obviously dislocated. `it would be nice to get a x-ray before we put that thing back in,' I told the player.
"'doc, this is the NFL,' he replied. `I got to go back in two plays.' "Seeing Rosenfeld still busy with Marcus, I grabbed the lineman's wrist with my left hand, then slowly by firmly pulled the dislocated finger toward me with my right hand. Once I had good traction going, I flexed the finger forward. I felt a pop. The joint was back in place. "'okay, grip,' I said. "'now open your hand. Good.' "As I taped the damaged fourth to the good third finger I repeated, `we are still going to need some x-rays at half time.' "'doc, there is a football game going on. Maybe sometime next week, okay?' "'sometime this after time' I countered. I couldn't get over the fact that he didn't even complain once about the pain. A normal emergency room patient would have been screaming." Did you write that, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: And in fact Mr. Simpson, with eleven years as a leading running back initially on a very poor football team that provided him with something less than tremendous blocking, learned about playing through pain. Isn't that your understanding?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.
MR. KELBERG: And in fact that even with whatever physical limitations you observed from your throwaway orthopedic examination, to use your term, there was nothing that physically prevented him from murdering these two people as you told use Friday, correct?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. HUIZENGA: If you have the hypothetical where things are stationary, the strength was there to do as you asked me before, hold hair, pull back and move his other extremities.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you were asked on Friday if there was anything that you found which prevented Mr. Simpson from being physically capable of murdering Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. You were asked that question on Friday, weren't you?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I was.
MR. KELBERG: And your answer was no, there was no such limitation, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, have you ever visited 875 South Bundy, the crime scene?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I have not.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want you to assume that there has been testimony from a forensic pathologist, Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran, the chief medical examiner of Los Angeles County, that he has visited the 875 south Bundy scene and in describing the location where Mr. Goldman's body was found and the circumstances surrounding blunt force trauma to the back Mr. Goldman's hands, he testified that Mr. Goldman, in essence, was a caged animal with no place to go. I want you to assume that that is the testimony in part of Dr. Lakshmanan and I will save everybody the last name. Okay? Had you heard that testimony before, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I have not.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, you talked about the aerobic condition of Mr. Simpson and aerobic condition is--like marathon runners have incredible aerobic condition, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: Would it be accurate to say that there are certain professional football players who may not have particularly good aerobic conditioning?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's absolutely true.
MR. KELBERG: They have tremendous power, though, do they not?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is true.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, if one assumes that the murder of Ronald Goldman was a question of power, not a question of aerobics, because Mr. Goldman had nowhere to go to be chased down, how would you describe the power of Mr. Simpson's upper torso?
DR. HUIZENGA: I would say that he has some difficulties there, specifically the fixed flexion contracture. When you get a boxer, basically your punch is the body and the shoulder, but what you have to do is you have to snap out, you have to snap out your arm, and when you have affixed flexion contracture, imagine a boxer just going like that, (Indicating) You have some problems there. He certainly has power, and I've already described that I thought his motor was, you know, for intensive purposes fairly good, if not absolutely normal. However, that is one defect and the other is his ability to use his hands and the other is if there had to be any bending or any movement of the lower extremity, there could be problems there. Assuming, though, there is--that he is standing in a firm-footed position, then I think that given the difficulties with punching and the difficulties with full motion of that wrist, he would be similar to a man his age of, certainly not a world class athlete, but a man his age he would be average.
MR. KELBERG: Well--
DR. HUIZENGA: I wouldn't hire him to, you know, back me newspaper a bar fight. You know, he isn't that--he isn't as powerful as he looks, but he certainly is as powerful as someone else his stated age.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what did do you to assess the power of his upper torso?
DR. HUIZENGA: Basically looking at the flexion contractures of the elbows and the difficulty with the wrist. That is--that is--that is the only point that I'm basing that on.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, for example, would you describe the condition of Mr. Simpson's upper torso, the chest area, for example--and I will ask Mr. Fairtlough--this is one of the Defense exhibits 1249, the upper torso, the chest, and let me see if I can find the flip side showing the back. Here. I'm not sure if Mr.--well, Mr. Fairtlough, could you make it smaller perhaps and--I think I would rather go by one by one. Let's start with--there we go. Doctor, would you consider Mr. Simpson's upper torso, front and back, to be well-muscled?
DR. HUIZENGA: Absolutely well-muscled.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, muscles atrophy without use? They basically wither, don't they?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is not true in all instances. Some people have huge muscle builds that work out very, very little. I don't personally fully understand it, but that is not absolutely correct, no.
MR. KELBERG: But it would be very unusual?
DR. HUIZENGA: It is in the realm of possibility, but certainly he has, as I described I think in my exam, a very well-muscled body, certainly above arrange.
MR. KELBERG: Did you ask Mr. Simpson if he lifted weights?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: What was his answer?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, he didn't.
MR. KELBERG: Did he have a weight room in his home, if you know?
DR. HUIZENGA: I don't know that.
MR. KELBERG: Did he belong to any sports clubs, if you know?
DR. HUIZENGA: I don't know that either.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, did you ask him to do any kind of exercise to test the power of that upper torso?
DR. HUIZENGA: No.
MR. KELBERG: That is, for example, bench press? You know what a bench press is undoubtedly?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I do.
MR. KELBERG: What is that, just for everybody's benefit?
DR. HUIZENGA: A bench press is where you lay on your back, you have a bar resting across the breast area, and you extend your arms in this sort of fashion, (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: Now, are there other tests that could be done, besides a bench press, that would assess Mr. Simpson's upper torso muscle strength?
DR. HUIZENGA: I think you could go through every individual muscle and test its strength. What we did in the office is very generally test his gross strength in terms of his deltoids, in terms of the grip, as I said, in terms of the biceps over the range it was able to go and the triceps over the range it was able to go and those were all grossly normal. But we didn't assess his maximal strength, which is maybe one of the questions that you are asking.
MR. KELBERG: That is what I was going to ask you. You did not in fact assess how much strength he really has, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is absolutely correct.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, you mentioned punching maneuver. What evidence, if any, do you have that the killer of these two people punched Mr. Goldman?
DR. HUIZENGA: I have no idea--
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question.
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I have no idea what the testimony has been about the incident, so I really can't say. That was just--you asked me what his power was and that is the only area that I know he has some deficiency, but--
MR. KELBERG: Well, for example, doctor, if Mr. Goldman was killed with lethal knife thrusts, we are not talking about a punch, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: No.
MR. KELBERG: And there was no limitation--you said he could hold a knife, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, he can.
MR. KELBERG: And he is right-handed, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, he is.
MR. KELBERG: And you have no idea--
DR. HUIZENGA: Excuse me. I also did write that in the exam, so that is one small thing.
MR. KELBERG: Do you want to tell us which page?
DR. HUIZENGA: It was page 1, 46-year old right-handed, the chief complaint--
MR. KELBERG: I think I have got it here. Let me check.
DR. HUIZENGA: God willing.
MR. KELBERG: Well, unfortunately, doctor, I think the reason that that is a problem is the copy I was provided does not have on page 1--
DR. HUIZENGA: Okay.
MR. KELBERG: --the first material.
DR. HUIZENGA: I'm sorry. That is--
MR. KELBERG: So I'm glad you brought it to our attention. Doctor, you have no idea then of the maximum strength in his right hand to thrust the knife that he could hold, in your opinion?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I don't, other than the general tests were normal.
MR. KELBERG: The general tests were all normal in that area, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: (No audible response.)
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, are you familiar with something called catecholamines?
DR. HUIZENGA: I know what catecholamines are.
MR. KELBERG: What are they?
DR. HUIZENGA: It's one of the hormones released by the adrenal cortex.
MR. KELBERG: The adrenal cortex; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: The adrenal glands.
MR. KELBERG: And in your training as a physician and your practice as an internist, physiology is a part of your medical knowledge, is it not?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.
MR. KELBERG: And adrenaline is a catecholamine, is it not, sir?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.
MR. KELBERG: Are you familiar with something called the sympathetic nervous system?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I am.
MR. KELBERG: What is that, sir?
DR. HUIZENGA: Sympathetic nervous system is something that comes into play when what is described in medicine, the four F's, happen, and that is fear, fright, flight and mating.
MR. KELBERG: And I'm sorry, mating?
DR. HUIZENGA: Mating.
MR. KELBERG: Would it be--if somebody were enraged, in an emotional state of rage, that that can stimulate the sympathetic nervous system?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it can.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor--and that happens without us intentionally saying to yourselves I got to turn on the sympathetic nervous system?
DR. HUIZENGA: It is automatic.
MR. KELBERG: And in fact one of the things that the sympathetic nervous system releases is adrenaline, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: And from your training and experience as a physician is it correct to say that there are anecdotal incidents reported of people who have very modest strength performing what appear to be superhuman activity when in the throes of an adrenaline rush?
DR. HUIZENGA: I am aware of several reports of mothers lifting cars and whatnot. I can't verify their authenticity.
MR. KELBERG: But there is such anecdotal evidence, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: There is anecdotal reports, right.
MR. KELBERG: Basically those say, for example, the situation of a mother, for example, who is maybe a hundred pounds, ninety pounds, lifting an automobile off of a pinned child, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: I have head of those reports, absolutely.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, if Mr. Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman after being enraged, you would expect that he would be in the throes of an adrenaline rush; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, your Honor, calls for speculation and misstates the evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: Your answer is that's correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, when professional football players are in a game, the plays last relatively few seconds, do they not?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is true.
MR. KELBERG: They huddle, figure out what play they are going to try and use, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: They walk up to the line of scrimmage and get set to run the play, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: Then the ball is snapped and the play takes off, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. KELBERG: And after the play is done the players get up, sometimes slowly to conserve energy, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: Sometimes not at all.
MR. KELBERG: Not at all, and they walk back, assuming they are capable of doing so, to their huddle?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. KELBERG: To do the next play, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: Professional football players learn to harness their energies to release them when it counts during the play, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: I think that is an accurate statement.
MR. KELBERG: And in fact what drives them and enhances their ability is part of the same mechanism that drives an adrenaline rush, correct, the sympathetic nervous system automatically, without asking it to, turning on whatever juices are harnessed in the body?
DR. HUIZENGA: That turns out not to be case. I think that pre-game jitters is when the sympathetic nervous system is just pumping. Actually you get into a game and you make the first couple hits and the first couple plays and you go into a zone. People aren't jiving up, they are not getting a sympathetic rush before every play. They are getting it pre-game possibly, but no. Once you are a professional, it is like somebody in any other profession, you get really nervous once you are out there and doing your thing pretty much all the adrenaline dies down and you--you are--you are really not under the influence of that sympathetic nervous system.
MR. KELBERG: Well, doctor, what then drives the energy--you would agree, would you not, that the player is operating as a much higher heavily of physiologically when involved in the play, let's say a running back like Mr. Simpson, than when he's walking back to the huddle after the play to find out what's the next play?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: And the body is able to turn it on and turn it off for him, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.
MR. KELBERG: And he doesn't have to say to the body I'm turning it on and I'm turning it off; it is a natural aspect of the body's physiological phenomena?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is true.
MR. KELBERG: And so, doctor, is it also accurate that in professional football players become comrades of each other and then a player gets traded to another team and they are now adversaries? Happens?
DR. HUIZENGA: Happens.
MR. KELBERG: But they still are friend off the field, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: Typically.
MR. KELBERG: And in fact after a game it is not unusual that after they have been beating their heads against each other that you will see the players put an arm around each other from an opposing team, walk off the field shaking hands, congratulating each other on a good game, right?
MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, objection, relevance, 352.
THE COURT: Are we at about the end of this one?
MR. KELBERG: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Your answer, doctor? I'm not sure that he answered the question.
DR. HUIZENGA: You were asking whether after a game sometimes opponents shake hands?
MR. KELBERG: And basically renew friendships?
DR. HUIZENGA: I think that happens, absolutely.
MR. KELBERG: They have harnessed whatever rages may drive them during the game to remember their friendships after the game, they are not still going at each other's throats?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection.
MR. KELBERG: Is that your experience, doctor?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, assumes a fact not in evidence and a waste of the Court's time.
THE COURT: Overruled. You may answer the question.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor.
DR. HUIZENGA: That one you are going to have to give me over again.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor--well, Miss Clark is going to help me. I'm not computer literate so--well, it takes too long to do it that way. Doctor, my question is that from your experience you have found, have you not, that players who have harnessed their energies and gone at each other, for lack of a better term, hammer and tong throughout the game can thereafter control those same urges and act in a perfectly normal and cordial fashion with each other afterwards?
DR. HUIZENGA: I think NFL football players are probably no difference than lawyers in terms of attacking opponents and then after the event shaking hands and going back to a civil normal life.
MR. KELBERG: I don't think, doctor, you have to risk any concern that I would physically try and attack you. I present a most meek target. Your Honor, this would be an appropriate time to break.
THE COURT: Do you have much more?
MR. KELBERG: I have probably some things to watch as well as some brief questioning, yes.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the noon hour. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case among yourselves, form any opinions about the case, conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, or allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We will stand in recess until 1:30. Dr. Huizenga, you are ordered to come back at 1:30. All right. We will finish today.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Let me see counsel at the side bar without the reporter.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
(At 12:00 P.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, JULY 17, 1995 1:30 P.M.
Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)
(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)
(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. Mr. Douglas.
MR. DOUGLAS: Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon. Your Honor, pursuant to evidence code section 1291, we would ask the Court to declare the nurse Thano Peratis unavailable so that the Court can allow for the introduction of Mr. Peratis' preliminary hearing testimony as well as selected portions of his grand jury testimony. As the Court has hopefully now had a chance to read, we have submitted an affidavit which was signed yesterday by Dr. Robert Chesne, who is Mr. Peratis' treating physician, who is a cardiologist at Daniel Freeman hospital. Dr. Chesne has been treating Mr. Peratis for over 20 years.
THE COURT: All right. I've read the statement.
MR. DOUGLAS: We think, your Honor, that there is no alternative given the tenuous nature of Mr. Peratis' current health, that he has been home only for two weeks recuperating from his latest surgery, and we would seek to have the Court declare him unavailable and then we can turn to the question of what portions of the preliminary hearing testimony would be admissible, whether there need to be certain redactions done, et cetera. So I'm first focusing on the question of unavailability, and later on, what portions we should have admitted.
THE COURT: All right. People.
MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. We spoke with Mr. Peratis' doctor today, who indicated to us that there would be no problem with examining Mr. Peratis in the Daniel Freeman hospital. The problem that--the fear that he has is not that Mr. Peratis will have a heart attack, but only that there may be some arrythmia and that it would be easily accommodated in a room at the Daniel Freeman hospital where there are facilities that could be arranged for that examination. So Mr. Peratis is not unavailable.
THE COURT: All right. Do you have any competent evidence besides hearsay on a phone call?
MS. CLARK: Well, we can call the doctor in. If you would like, we can file a further declaration from the doctor indicating what he told us today.
THE COURT: I'd like to see that.
MS. CLARK: Okay. We'll do that. We have not had--I've been in court and Mr. Goldberg was the one in touch with him and we weren't sure--I thought perhaps we were going to have a full-blown 240 hearing, in which case there would be an opportunity to take testimony. But if the Court would like a declaration from the doctor and we can resolve it that way, that would be fine.
THE COURT: Well, I mean, what do we contemplate, Miss Clark, as far as going to a hospital? Do we contemplate a conditional examination? Do we contemplate taking the jury with us? What are you contemplating here?
MS. CLARK: Either one. It would be fine. We can take the jury with us because they have conference rooms there that will accommodate the court staff and jury so that testimony could be taken. And the doctor does work out of Daniel Freeman hospital. The doctor would be present for the testimony, or we could videotape it in that same facility. Either one is possible.
THE COURT: But shouldn't I be concerned if the doctor wants to have or insists that this examination be conducted in a hospital facility? I mean, doesn't that raise some concern for Mr. Peratis' health and well-being?
MS. CLARK: Which concern the doctor feels will be adequately addressed by having it at the hospital. The doctor is the one who can indicate to us what his concerns are, how grave they are and how they are best addressed. And obviously the Court would always prefer to have live testimony in front of the jury than to mark a transcript which the Defense knows is not his position at all and thereby misrepresents what the true nature of his testimony would be. I think we all want the jury to have the truth, and if we can get the truth best by accommodating the doctor's concerns, by following the procedure I've outlined, then I think that all parties will be well cared for.
THE COURT: When do you contemplate being able to file a declaration from Dr. Chesne?
MS. CLARK: I'm sure that we could do that--let me check with Mr. Goldberg, your Honor. May I?
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: We could get a signed declaration to the Court this afternoon if the Court will accept a faxed signature. I would indicate to the Court however that since the declaration filed by counsel is hearsay and not admissible in evidence, the People would move to strike the declaration with an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
THE COURT: Counsel, I'm trying to do this the easy way.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Then I'm saying either way.
THE COURT: Well, then it would be equally applicable to your declaration as well, correct?
MS. CLARK: I agree.
THE COURT: So you're insisting that we have a 240 hearing?
MS. CLARK: I--yes. I will.
THE COURT: Okay. Fine.
MS. CLARK: I'm insisting that we--
THE COURT: Friday, 2 o'clock. Have your witnesses here.
MS. CLARK: All right.
THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jury, please.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Dr. Huizenga, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Robert Huizenga, the witness on the stand at the time of the lunch recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Kelberg.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. KELBERG
MR. KELBERG: And good afternoon, doctor. Doctor, I wanted to move to this area of your examination of Mr. Simpson on June 15th regarding evidence of any bruising. Do you recall being asked questions about that by Mr. Shapiro on direct examination?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I do.
MR. KELBERG: Would it be accurate to say that you carefully examined Mr. Simpson for any evidence of a contusion on his body? Is that a fair statement?
DR. HUIZENGA: That would be a fair statement.
MR. KELBERG: Now, was that examination of the same thorough and completeness that you originally stated your orthopedic examination was?
DR. HUIZENGA: The bruise exam was extremely thorough. The hand exam in terms of drawing pictures was not because we had detailed pictures of the hand and so I wanted the pictures to suffice for that. But I realized that the pictures would not show the bruises. So I spent a lot of time with the bruising and the skin whereas the hand, basically we got the majority of our pictures there.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, why then draw anything with respect to the hands if you felt that you had photographs that adequately documented any hand injury in the way of cuts?
DR. HUIZENGA: I think mainly just to look at the joints and to try to get an idea which joints were swollen and see if that corroborated with any other orthopedic things since I basically wanted to circle those just so I would have those for my orthopedic exam.
MR. KELBERG: I'm going to get into the hand-drawn hand outlines in just a moment. But would it be a fair statement that after your thorough and complete examination of Mr. Simpson for any evidence of contusions that you found that he had sustained none? Correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: He had no contusions over the aforestated portions of his body, correct.
MR. KELBERG: And is it accurate to say that in response to Mr. Shapiro's further questioning, that if he had sustained blunt force trauma on June 12th, you would have expected to see some evidence of that in an examination conducted roughly two and a half days later on June 15th? Is that what you said?
DR. HUIZENGA: If it was of significant enough nature, yes.
MR. KELBERG: In other words, a person can receive a blow and not sustain a contusion as a result of that blow; isn't that true, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is true.
MR. KELBERG: And there's been testimony here from Dr. Lakshmanan about something called a glancing blow where the full force of the blow is in fact not received by the recipient, and in such circumstance, one would not expect to see a contusion. Would you agree with that?
DR. HUIZENGA: I would agree with that.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, you said--
MR. KELBERG: Let me invite counsel again--this is to the real time transcript. Make sure I have the--page 346.
MR. KELBERG: You were asked to describe the area of his right upper extremities, shoulder, biceps, et cetera, and you were asked the question: "Was there any evidence of any recent contact?" And your answer was: "No, there was not." Do you recall that question and that answer, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I do.
MR. KELBERG: And in fact, would it be accurate to say that your testimony with respect to all areas that you examined was that you saw no evidence of any recent contact to Mr. Simpson in the areas examined? Is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: Now, you said this afternoon though that he could have been the recipient of contact and not have had evidence of a contusion at the time of your examination. Isn't that what you've said this afternoon?
DR. HUIZENGA: If there wasn't a major impact and you don't have bleeding, you don't have edema, correct, you wouldn't see anything.
MR. KELBERG: But, doctor, your answer on direct examination was, there was no evidence of recent contact. You did not limit it to contact of sufficient force to cause a contusion; isn't that correct?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Argumentative, asked and answered three times.
THE COURT: Sustained. It is argumentative as phrased. Rephrase the question.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your original answers to Mr. Shapiro in which you said there was no evidence of recent contact, you did not limit that to contact with sufficient force to cause a contusion; is that accurate?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is accurate.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, I want to ask you to assume hypothetically that there's been testimony again from Dr. Lakshmanan in which he evaluated blunt force trauma to the hands and arms of Ronald Goldman and that in the opinion of Dr. Lakshmanan, there is no compelling evidence to indicate that Mr. Goldman ever struck the perpetrator of the murder with a direct blow. Ask you to assume that hypothetical, okay?
DR. HUIZENGA: Give me that one more time.
MR. KELBERG: I want you to assume that Dr. Lakshmanan testified--
MR. KELBERG: And perhaps, could I have Mr. Lynch's assistance, your Honor? I need to set the easel up here just to show one board of photographs.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: 361, your Honor, and 361-A, the patch job.
THE COURT: Right. Mr. Bancroft, avoid this, please. I see we don't have Mr. Bancroft.
MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, with your--with the permission of the Court, would you please step down to this photographic exhibit. This is exhibit 361, and the title of it is "Blunt force trauma, sharp force injuries and defensive wounds to the left and right hands of Mr. Goldman." I want to ask you to assume that these photographs fairly and accurately represent the condition of each area photographed of Mr. Goldman's body at the time of the autopsy conducted on June 14th, 1994. Have you ever seen these photographs before?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I have not.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, I want you to assume hypothetically that Dr. Lakshmanan said with respect to photograph G26 that the injuries he sees to the back of Mr. Goldman's left hand do not reflect a blow delivered to the perpetrator and that in fact what appears to be a contusion near the wrist of the left hand has what is described by Dr. Lakshmanan as a punctate abrasion in the center of it. Ask you to assume all of that.
DR. HUIZENGA: Okay.
MR. KELBERG: And further to assume--and I'm going to get another board of photographs, if I could just briefly do so. Exhibit 359. Excuse me, doctor. That exhibit 359 shows the area of crime scene where Mr. Goldman's body was found. It's entitled "Possible sources for Ron Goldman's blunt force trauma injuries." Have you ever seen these photos before?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I have not.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, I want you to further assume that Dr. Lakshmanan said from his examination of the environmental surroundings of 875 south Bundy and the blunt force trauma to the back of Mr. Goldman's left hand, it was his opinion that there were sources at the crime scene to reflect that Mr. Goldman had flailed his arm backwards to avoid attack and had sustained the blunt force trauma in a defensive effort to just protect himself. Ask you to assume that as well. Okay? You have to answer audibly. I'm sorry.
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And that again, in the opinion of Dr. Lakshmanan, this evidence of blunt force trauma to the back of Mr. Goldman's left hand did not suggest that Mr. Goldman had struck whether a direct or indirect blow on the perpetrator. Do you understand that hypothetical?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, with respect to--and it's photograph--if Mr. Lynch would help me--G32 that shows the back of the right hand of Mr. Goldman. And that with the exception of what appears to be a contusion, doctor--do you see a contusion near the middle finger at the base of where the middle finger joins the hand?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I do.
MR. KELBERG: Do you see that? With the exception of that contusion, it was Dr. Lakshmanan's opinion that all of the other injuries are inconsistent with a blow being struck, direct or indirect, on the perpetrator by Mr. Goldman and are consistent with, again, flailing both arms now, both right and left backwards and coming in contact with rough surfaces such as the bark of a tree, such as a metal fence that has irregularities from the paint and so forth. Do you have that understanding?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I do.
MR. KELBERG: And further, that with respect to that one area of contusion, it was Dr. Lakshmanan's considered opinion that that did not reflect a blow delivered to the perpetrator because taking into account its location as inconsistent with where you would respect to see a contusion if there had been a fully directed blow, that is, you would expect to see a contusion in other areas of the joints of the hand, that with respect to the appearance of punctate abrasions centered on other contusions on the right hand in the center, which--the far photograph, doctor--suggesting again that there had been contact made with a hard surface, that at the point of contact had a rough aspect to it to create the punctate abrasion, that all of that series of injuries was consistent with flailing and not a direct blow being delivered.
MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I'm going to object at this point in time. This is not a question. This is a lecture.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: And further, doctor, that Dr. Lakshmanan testified it would be illogical for a person who is being attacked by a knife to try and deliver a blow like you delivered on the stand earlier today because it would bring the victim closer to the knife rather than further away. And further, that Dr. Lakshmanan's opinion was that this contusion was not evidence of a blow because there was no evidence of defensive cuts on the back of either the right or left arm of Mr. Goldman, which he would have expected to have been inflicted if Mr. Goldman tried to block the knife with his arm in an action of punching. Ask you to assume all of that, okay? With that said, we can take the photographs down and I'll get to the question. Understanding that hypothetical set of circumstances, doctor, would it be accurate to say that your examination showing no evidence of a contusion to the body of Mr. Simpson was fully consistent with Dr. Lakshmanan's testimony as I offered it in the form of that hypothetical?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. This is beyond this witness' expertise. He is called as an internist, not a forensic pathologist.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor.
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And further, doctor, if you assume that Dr. Lakshmanan said that even if one assumed that that one contusion on the right hand that I pointed out does not have a punctate abrasion on it represented contact in the form of a blow between Mr. Goldman and the perpetrator, that a glancing blow would not leave necessarily evidence of a contusion on the murderer, assume that hypothetically, that would be fully in accord with your own testimony this afternoon in that area, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: If there isn't sufficient force delivered, you will not get evidence of trauma.
MR. KELBERG: And in fact, you can have evidence of trauma on the victim from the effort to deliver a blow without having concomitant evidence of a contusion forming on the recipient of the blow depending on the angle of force; isn't that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's a very tough question and I would have to research the literature. That's really over my head in terms of whether that's possible or not.
MR. KELBERG: Well, in fact, that would be in the area of a forensic pathologist--
THE COURT: Hold on, Mr. Kelberg. You have to let the doctor finish his answer.
MR. KELBERG: I apologize to both the Court and the doctor.
MR. KELBERG: Had you finished your answer?
DR. HUIZENGA: I guess I have now.
MR. KELBERG: Have now or have not? I'm sorry.
DR. HUIZENGA: I have.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, this would be an area for an experienced forensic pathologist more than a doctor with your expertise and background. Is that a fair statement?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's a fair statement.
MR. SHAPIRO: Motion to strike all the previous testimony regarding expertise in this area.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, I want to move to the hand examination. And you have--I asked you before we started if you could take out your rough drawing.
MR. KELBERG: May I approach, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would it be of extreme difficulty to you if we marked your original as an exhibit and gave you a copy back for your file?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's fine.
MR. KELBERG: Only because it's in pen and I think it's going to be a little easier maybe for us.
MR. KELBERG: If that's okay with the Court.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, could this document--it has writing on both sides--be marked as People's exhibit 514?
THE COURT: 514.
(Peo's 514 for id = document)
MR. KELBERG: And I'll write it in red to differentiate from the writing that's on 514 at the bottom side that has the "L" which I assume represents the left hand. Mr. Fairtlough, if you would put that up on the--I think the other way around. And if we could--let me give the doctor a copy that you previously provided to me.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, does that appear to be a true and correct copy of the document that we have up on the elmo?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it does.
MR. KELBERG: Mr. Fairtlough--
MR. KELBERG: Well, just to begin with, the "L" at the top of the diagram represents this is the left hand, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: Now, if we'll move down, you've got--even a little more--okay. Let me start with the last word at the bottom that says "Clubbing." Do you see that?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I do.
MR. KELBERG: And you previously testified on direct examination that--in fact, I think in your report, exhibit 507, made a finding of clubbing; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would it be accurate to say clubbing is a situation, if you look at a profile of your fingernail, normally one sees the fingernail is lower towards the finger as it goes towards the wrist than it will be at the center and at the tip of the fingernail where we clip our fingernails?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct. Normally the nail from the nail bed angulates slightly upward, and clubbing, you take an initial downward path and scoop down.
MR. KELBERG: In other words, it's filled up at the lower part where the nail bed begins if you will?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct. At the nail bed, that becomes--when looking at the finger longitudinally, that's the highest point. And then the nail basically starts curving downward where if you all look at your own nails, you can see there's a slight angulation upward of a normal nail.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, I've put on the elmo with Mr. Fairtlough's assistance one of the exhibits from 1249, which I believe you testified on Friday represents the ring finger of Mr. Simpson's left hand; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: Now, Mr. Fairtlough's ahead of me. He's got an arrow just about where I'd like it. Is this a photograph that in your opinion demonstrates the phenomenon of clubbing?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.
MR. KELBERG: And would you--you said it--normally it starts and it's a downward angle; isn't that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Does that appear to if you, if Mr. Fairtlough will move to the left, where the nail bed begins--
DR. HUIZENGA: Uh-huh.
MR. KELBERG: --and then trace along a line towards the tip of the fingernail--
DR. HUIZENGA: Uh-huh.
MR. KELBERG: --does that appear to you that the fingernail bed is actually rising slightly?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, it does not. That's--that appears to be clubbing to me.
MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, if you believe that that is clubbing, how severe a case would you describe that as being?
DR. HUIZENGA: You don't rate clubbing. I certainly have never heard of any rating system for clubbing. Either it's kind of a yes or no answer.
MR. KELBERG: Well, doctor, would it be of some assistance if in fact what you found was--let me withdraw the question if I might. You've seen cases, have you not, doctor, of clubbing where it's clear that the--there's a sponginess material, whatever it is, that has raised the area where the nail bed begins much higher than we see in Mr. Simpson's finger in this photograph so that the angle is much more pronounced. Is that a fair statement?
DR. HUIZENGA: There are different levels of clubbing, yes. I'm not aware of a prognostic significance of that. So that's why--I didn't--
MR. KELBERG: If a rheumatologist said that if that is clubbing, it's of minimal significance, would you agree with that assessment?
DR. HUIZENGA: I think it's clubbing and I'd basically agree with that.
MR. KELBERG: Would you agree--I'm not sure you've answered my question--that it would be of minimal significance, this degree?
DR. HUIZENGA: I think that clubbing is a yes or no phenomena to the best of my knowledge, and I may be off in left field. But no, I'm not aware of a significant versus a nonsignificant clubbing in terms of looking at it. Certainly when you see somebody with clubbing, a lot of people are just born with it and it's of no significance whatsoever. Occasionally it represents some other type of disease, occasionally pulmonary, occasionally some other type of disease. So I think if you have clubbing, you make a note of it and you look into possible causes without saying gee, that's a minimally significant clubbing, let's forget it as compared to gee, that's a significant clubbing, let's really work that up. So no, I'm not aware of that differentiation.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if we could have Mr. Fairtlough put back now what we're looking at, that exhibit 514 I believe it is, and again the left hand. On this hand-drawn sketch, you wrote information regarding three cuts that you identified to the left ring and middle finger of Mr. Simpson; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, did you identify all cuts that you saw by naked eye examination on June 15th to those fingers?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I didn't.
MR. KELBERG: You were asked on direct examination about three cuts. Do you recall that testimony?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. KELBERG: How many cuts in total did you identify on June 15th, 1994 to Mr. Simpson's left hand, wrist, arm?
DR. HUIZENGA: He had basically a--the third cut there on the fourth finger had two components. It was one laceration, but on this initial picture, there's--mainly, if you look at the spacial relationship, there's--it looks--basically I put one slash there, and it looks like it's not basically representing the inferior portion of what I kind of call the 3-B part of that laceration.
That stayed that way basically because immediately on dictating my report after 48 hours and sending it in, I, to try to be a little bit more clear, transferred these pictures over to two right hands. And there was a--it was a stereotypic mistake. In other words, the--the right hand, I put the starting left cuts. And basically, I could see immediately that that was incorrect. But obviously I didn't want to change any of the records, and so I kept this picture the same as well as the other description as well.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, may I ask Mr. Fairtlough to put from exhibit 507 this drawing that is marked page 440.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, this is the form that you subsequently transferred the information to?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And basically, we're looking at an outline, dorsal and palmar, of a right hand, but you are using this to represent a left hand; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: And would it be accurate to say that what you have diagrammed on the second finger, the index finger--
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. KELBERG: --of the right dorsal, back of the hand, the right side of this diagram--
DR. HUIZENGA: Right.
MR. KELBERG: --is intended to reflect the ring finger of the left hand?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: In other words, you would put whatever is identified there--and if Mr. Fairtlough has the identifying carrot. And Mr. Harris is going to help us out. Thanks very much. If Mr. Fairtlough will move it down to the left of that, please, that line right there.
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, that line there is inaccurately placed; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: It's accurately placed, but it should be elongated. I basically put a shorter laceration there than what was in fact there waiting for the pictures to return.
MR. KELBERG: Well, excuse me. That is, is it not, the index finger of the right hand?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: The injury it is to reflect is to the ring finger of the left hand; isn't that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: The ring finger of the right hand would be--if Mr. Fairtlough would move the carrot directly horizontal and over one more--that is the ring finger of the right hand; is it not?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And if you wanted to put that cut that you identified on the index finger--
DR. HUIZENGA: Right.
MR. KELBERG: --on the correct finger, recognizing this is a right-hand drawing for a left hand--
DR. HUIZENGA: Right.
MR. KELBERG: --that would be where it should be, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: So it is improperly located by you on this form?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.
MR. KELBERG: All right, doctor. Let's start if we could, please--
MR. KELBERG: Thanks, Mr. Harris. I think we're going to ask Mr. Fairtlough to come back to exhibit 514.
MR. KELBERG: With respect to your rough drawing, you do have it located, do you not, on the ring finger of the left hand?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I do.
MR. KELBERG: What did you write down with respect to any description of that particular injury? And if you can't read it from--I'm talking about writing down on this.
DR. HUIZENGA: Oh, okay.
MR. KELBERG: I gave you a copy. That's why if you need to take a look at it, if you can't--Mr. Fairtlough, maybe you can zoom in a bit.
DR. HUIZENGA: "Partially healed edges with heme in-between edges of cut and below paper cut--"
MR. KELBERG: I want to be clear. Just what you started to read, doctor, that doesn't refer to the index finger injury, does it? That refers to the injury on the middle finger; isn't that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct. "Paper-cut slice--"
MR. KELBERG: Okay. Let's start--now, you're going to tell us what you wrote for the ring finger, left hand, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: No. The index--the third finger left hand is sliced angulated injury about one sonometer.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Is that to reference what would be the lower injury diagrammed to the far left of this particular diagram?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it would.
MR. KELBERG: In fact, don't you have an arrow--do you not have an arrow--and, Mr. Fairtlough, if you'll--down, down, Mr. Fairtlough, to the right, to the right. Right there--that is the area, is it not, doctor, where you diagrammed in what you defined as an injury to the left ring finger?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: And you have an arrow pointing to that, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: What if any hand--I'm sorry--written entry did you make describing that injury?
DR. HUIZENGA: The written injury--
MR. KELBERG: On this document.
DR. HUIZENGA: On that document. None.
MR. KELBERG: So--
DR. HUIZENGA: The paper-cut slice angulated injury is discussing that lesion the distal part of the third finger.
MR. KELBERG: So where it says "Paper cut," that paper cut--and you see how the "T" of "Cut" is just above the arrow that is pointing to the area of the injury on the left ring finger. Do you see that?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct, yes.
MR. KELBERG: Is it your testimony, doctor, that "Paper cut" there does not refer to that injury on the left ring finger?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Now, "Paper cut" then refers to the injury to the middle finger; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And now if Mr. Fairtlough could move the diagram so maybe we can center on--thanks, Mr. Harris. Let's start--I want to start with the paper cut if we could, Mr. Fairtlough. Drop down if you would, please. Now, what did you then write with respect to this--down a little, Mr. Fairtlough, with the arrow, please. For that injury. You notice you have again a carrot sign pointing to it?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, what did you write then for that particular finding, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: "Paper cut slice angulated injury."
MR. KELBERG: Did you write in any way that that was caused by glass?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I did not.
MR. KELBERG: Did you write in any way that that was caused by a knife?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I did not.
MR. KELBERG: But in fact, when Mr. Shapiro asked you on direct examination the cause of that particular injury, you said it was due to a sharp object, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And in fact, you indicated things like a metal object, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Like a knife?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Or glass?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Not a paper cut, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: When I initially saw the wound, it was sliced so clean, that was what came into my head initially, and I did jot that down. Absolutely.
MR. KELBERG: And "So clean" means it had no rough edges; isn't that correct, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is the one cut that has no rough edges.
MR. KELBERG: And your testimony on Friday on direct exam was, the absence of a rough edge would be more consistent with a knife. It was the presence of a rough edge on one of the injuries that led you to favor glass over a knife for that other injury; isn't that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: Both glass and knives can have smooth cuts. However, if you have a sharp cut, there's no way of knowing. On that case, part of the reason why I thought that that was more consistent with glass was the fact that the wound appeared to me to continue directly over to the adjacent fourth index finger and that it was difficult, after I really sat down and thought about it, for me to--to believe or to think that this cut which seemed to continue over, it seemed more consistent with some type of irregularly-shaped object, sharp object than a knife to be able to cause both of those seemingly related lacerations if in fact they were related.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, my question though to you was, on direct examination in response to Mr. Shapiro's question, you differentiated glass over a knife because of the rough edge of one of the cuts; isn't that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And your testimony here is that this other cut, this one you initially describe as a paper cut does not have a rough surface, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's absolutely correct.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did you try and age each of these injuries to form an opinion as to how old the injury was?
DR. HUIZENGA: I really did not. I have a mental picture of it, and obviously much more important, I wanted to rely on the pictures that were taken.
MR. KELBERG: Well, doctor, your visual examination was the best examination. Pictures may be distortions in some respect. They may not, but they may be, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: I think pictures are going to tell this pretty accurately. I would certainly hope.
MR. KELBERG: Well, doctor, then did you attempt to age these injuries?
DR. HUIZENGA: I don't really consider myself a pathologist to age injuries, but I mean, if you want my opinion, absolutely. I mean, I--I attempted to see if the ages were relatively similar, if the erythema around the borders was similar, if the amount of clot inside, the degree of scabbing was similar. And it was difficult because the cuts were so dissimilar. One of them, the fascia cut on the third proximal interphalangeal joint, was a slice injury and there was a significant amount of blood and heme there. The laceration on the distal third finger, which was the very smooth one, was wide open without anything inside. It was more superficial and it was totally clean, the edges were not touching. As you well know, a wound heals much more quickly when the laceration goes in perpendicular to the skin surface. And these were beveled or angulated lacerations. But it did appear to me that there was some continuity because right this smooth lesion, it came right over into this third--what I call the cut 3-B came right seemingly over in one fell injury and it seemed like some sort of sharp object caused both of those, and it made it a little bit more difficult in my mind to think that it was a knife although certainly I never said that it couldn't be a knife. I said that it seemed more consistent with glass.
MR. KELBERG: But you said it was more consistent with glass because of the rough edge of that injury, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: The rough edge of the injury, putting them both together, they seem to be a similar injury.
MR. KELBERG: Did you assume all of the injuries you saw on his left hand were incurred at the same time?
DR. HUIZENGA: I didn't make that assumption. And certainly, as I've described, the wounds had different entry marks and it was very difficult. Certainly not something that I have any expertise in in terms of exactly dating them. And that's why in my mind, I was just to see Mr. Simpson. I requested that the pictures be taken and that all these legal issues be handled by a qualified forensic pathologist because I knew full well that that wasn't something that I was going to be able to testify up here in front of Court on because that's not what I do for a living. And when I made these drawings, I had no intention of answering any of these questions because I assumed I would not be an expert and that I just wanted to make sure the pictures represented what I had remembered. And I feel in that case, they are.
MR. KELBERG: Did you tell Mr. Shapiro that you did not consider yourself an expert in identifying these kinds of injuries?
DR. HUIZENGA: In dating them I think is what I said. In terms of exactly timing, this is not something that I do as part of my practice. In terms of looking at a wound and without, as you say, making the assumption that the patient is lying to me, exactly go back and date it somehow, whether it's carbon dating back centuries or back days, that isn't something that I do for a living, and I don't even pretend to offer any more than a sidewalk consultation on that.
MR. KELBERG: Well, doctor, though as part of your training in the emergency room that you relied upon in being able to differentiate knife cuts from glass cuts, you would be involved in the same process with respect to when you got the injury. You ask the patients if they're conscious, able to talk, "When did you get it," right?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's absolutely correct.
MR. KELBERG: And you also are in a situation where people will come, after you've put in some sutures, to see how the wound is healing; isn't that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is absolutely correct.
MR. KELBERG: And that would be in situations where you would know based on patient history when the wound was inflicted, right--
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: --assuming it was accurately given?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And then you would know what's the condition of the wound at the time you're looking at it the next visit, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's a suture wound, which is totally different than a gaping wound that's had bacterial infestation and that is cut at a variety of angles and that has totally different appearances in all of these cuts and has totally different healing qualities, different rates of epithelialization, different rates of wound contracture, and all these are very difficult issues unless you've, you know, studied pictures and really made a science of this, which I certainly have not.
MR. KELBERG: Well, doctor, is it your testimony that you have never, in your emergency room moonlighting over the years you've identified, never been dealing with patients who have the kind of cuts that you saw on Mr. Simpson's left hand at various stages of healing? Is that your testimony, sir?
DR. HUIZENGA: No. I have seen cuts at every different stage of healing, but I have not made a mental note, is this a cut one day old, two days old, three days old, four days old or five days old. That's a very tight call, and short of evaluating a wound for its need or appropriateness of suturing, apart from evaluating a wound for its infectious or noninfectious nature, a part from evaluating a wound for foreign bodies inside, in terms of dating it exactly, I don't think that that's something that I feel comfortable doing. I think that I have seen a lot of people who I thing were answering truthfully say I got cut by a knife slicing the bagel this morning or I got cut by glass washing the dishes in the sink, and I feel I have a general idea, a pretty good idea after all those years of recognizing the difference between glass and knife. And I think it comes down to--and again, this may be oversimplified--if there is a lot of erratic shaggy edges, then it's probably not something perfectly sharp like a surgical blade or a razor blade or a knife. If there's some jagged edge, then it's more likely some other type of irregular, but very sharp material.
THE COURT: All right. Let's move on.
MR. KELBERG: If I could, one last question in this area.
THE COURT: I think we've covered this quite a bit now.
MR. KELBERG: All right. One last question. Then if the Court feels it's in the same vein--
THE COURT: No. Wind it up but, let's move on.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, if Mr. Simpson's hand was moving at an angle to the instrument inflicting the injury, that could account for the roughness or shagginess of the edge; isn't that correct, sir?
DR. HUIZENGA: It could account for--
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, your Honor. It's beyond his expertise.
THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.
DR. HUIZENGA: If you are slicing with a knife and you move suddenly, you'd have to--in order to get a beveled edge, of course, you have to move smoothly, but you could get one or two large movements theoretically.
MR. KELBERG: Which would give a shaggy appearance, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: Not a shaggy appearance. Maybe--maybe a change in direction of the laceration.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, I want you to assume hypothetically the following, and you tell me whether any of your findings would be inconsistent with this. In fact, let me withdraw this. Did you ask Mr. Simpson when he got any of these injuries, when as in time he got any of these injuries?
DR. HUIZENGA: Again, I think that this is maybe going to come as a shock to you, but I was asked to see him because of acute anxiety, situational problems and to evaluate to make sure that medically, he was okay. I took careful pictures of the hands. I asked him how he got the lacerations, which he said he got cut by glass. I did not ask him the time. I didn't ask him whether or not he committed this crime. I didn't go into those items. That was for different people. He had a whole different set of people evaluating those things. This was not something where I saw myself as somebody that was going to be sitting here defending him in court. I was really seeing him as a doctor, taking pictures of anything abnormal that I saw and not really evaluating him so that at some later date, I would sit here to protect him or do anything else in a legal vein along the lines you're asking me currently.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have another photograph. May this be marked as exhibit 515?
THE COURT: 515. Have you shown that to counsel?
MR. KELBERG: No, but it was given to me by Defense counsel.
(Peo's 515 for id = photograph)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry. Yes. May I approach first?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, let me show--
MR. KELBERG: And I wrote 515 on the back of the photograph, your Honor.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, are you familiar with what's shown in that photograph?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I am.
MR. KELBERG: And is that in fact a photograph taken on June 17th, 1994?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.
MR. KELBERG: And this is taken during the course of the subsequent examination in which you were involved; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And you're seen in this photograph, aren't you?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I am.
MR. KELBERG: And is that Dr. Baden that's also seen in the photograph?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.
MR. KELBERG: What you're looking at is Dr. Baden and you're looking at in this photograph--
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Assumes a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. KELBERG: Let's just put it up on the elmo. If we could bring it up just a little, Mr. Fairtlough, so we could see--just for clarification, looking to the left, that's Dr. Baden, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.
MR. KELBERG: Looking to the right in the foreground with the glasses, that's you; is that correct, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.
MR. KELBERG: In the yellow shirt is Mr. Simpson?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.
MR. KELBERG: And is that Mr. Simpson's right hand that appears to be resting on Mr. Or Dr. Baden's left palm?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, was this part of the more complete examination of the hands for injuries?
DR. HUIZENGA: This was--
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, what are the two of you doing in this photograph then?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Let me see counsel at sidebar with the court reporter, please.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: All right. We are over at the sidebar. What was our limitation on the 17th business? What was our limitation on the 17th?
MR. SHAPIRO: Our limitation was, we would not go into where the examination took place or what the substance of the examination was, only that there was a house-call examination by Dr. Huizenga. Otherwise, we're going to open up the whole area why Dr. Baden was there, and I don't think the People want to get into that.
MR. KELBERG: I'm just asking--
MR. SHAPIRO: If you do let them open it up, then we're ready for it. We'd be more than glad to have that.
MR. KELBERG: I'm just asking what is taking place in this photograph. I'm not asking to open up anything. I'm just asking what are they doing. He's testified about hand examinations he's conducted on direct exam, his opinions, and now he seems to be doing a little fast backtracking as to his lack of being an expert in the subject matter. Yet he's nevertheless present to watch what appears to be Dr. Baden conducting a further exam. I think that's of some relevance.
MR. SHAPIRO: This is an absolute disgrace. This cross-examination, it is so far beyond any of the scope--
THE COURT: Mr. Shapiro, you don't need to adopt that tone.
MR. SHAPIRO: It is so far beyond the scope of the relevancy of this man's examination. This man is an internist. He is not a forensic medical examiner. He is not a pathologist. He is not a person who testifies or render opinions. He saw the man. He is here to talk about his medical condition on the 15th and on the 17th. He was not at the crime scene. He knows nothing about any of the facts in this case that have been gone into and, your Honor, if we are going to continue like this, we'll never end this case. This man was called for a very limited purpose, to explain to the jury Mr. Simpson's injuries, physical condition on the 15th.
THE COURT: Objection will be overruled at this point.
MR. KELBERG: That is all I am going to ask.
THE COURT: Be quick.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. KELBERG: Let me reask the question. I think I started with a question. Doctor, what are you and Dr. Baden doing in this photograph?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Compound.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KELBERG: What are you doing in this photograph, doctor?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. He doesn't appear to be in the photograph.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: I think he just identified himself, Mr. Shapiro, in the--
MR. SHAPIRO: He's not doing anything.
THE COURT: Overruled. Counsel.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor. What are you doing in this photograph?
DR. HUIZENGA: Looks like I'm just standing there. I have no idea what I'm doing.
MR. KELBERG: Are you looking at anything in particular?
DR. HUIZENGA: I have no recollection of exactly what I might have been doing with that particular procedure. I think that what we did there was, as I said, he and Dr. Lee were present on the 17th, and basically just to make sure that the correct photographs were taken--and, again, they're the ones that were going to handle what the cuts were, what they meant, how to age them--the entire hand was rephotographed. And I believe, if I had to take a guess what was going on, this was just a picture I believe taken by Dr. Lee that was the start of this whole process of reexamining his entire body with those two specialists there. Again, no one wanted to rely on--that wasn't really my role. And so at this point, they were rephotographing his entire hands as well as his entire body.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor. I think we're done with the photograph.
MR. KELBERG: Let me ask Mr. Fairtlough then if he would please put your rough sketch, 514, back up. Now, doctor, let's--let me ask you if there is anything inconsistent from your examination that the injuries that you've identified in this drawing could have been caused by different sources at different times.
DR. HUIZENGA: I think that's--
MR. SHAPIRO: Calls for speculation, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor.
DR. HUIZENGA: I think it's possible. But again, it was difficult because the injuries were of quite different nature as I explained before. And so while they could all have been incurred at the exact same moment, they also could have been at a slightly different time. Again, the time frame of one or two days certainly with my expertise would be very difficult for me to tell the difference when you have cuts that have different entry angulation and, therefore, different healing rates. You also--of course, the healing is dependent on how much laxity there is in the skin. So depending on where the laceration is in the finger in terms of, is there motion on that joint, is it an area where there's really no motion, is it an area over the third finger where there's swollen joints, and so obviously the skin will be pulled back, all those factors, even if everything were cut exactly the same moment, it could appear I would think absolutely difficult and the healing rate could be quite different. I think all of us have had the experience where you get multiple cuts and some heal much quicker than others. Typically the ones over your joint will be the one that just keeps breaking open and bleeding, you know, for extended periods.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would it be then fair to say though that given the different nature of appearance between the three cuts that are identified in this hand-drawn sketch, that that is suggestive that the injuries may have been caused by different sources?
DR. HUIZENGA: It's very difficult to say. It's very difficult to say, but there is various theories because if you take--take a hand where the majority of the injuries are right here (Indicating), right here and right here on the left hand and then as we discussed before, there is a fine abrasion right here and you kind of had some system like that and the injuries are kind of along this gray, it could be possible that they were all caused at the same time by the same substance as well.
MR. KELBERG: For the record, the doctor took his left hand and with the palms up, he made an up and down motion I think several times, your Honor, with that forearm and hand as if, doctor, to represent striking some surface; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: Some surface or some sharp thing, correct.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, if that had been the situation, wouldn't you expect to see contusions to the areas along the knuckles that come in contact with the hard surface in the action that you just demonstrated?
DR. HUIZENGA: Again, it's very difficult depending on the force of the blow and, no. 2, depending on whether, you know, someone strikes something that is sharp right up front or somebody basically rubs their hand over the sharp surface. That's a tough call.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I have another photograph. May this be marked--a color photograph, what appears to be the left hand. May this be marked as 516?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Peo's 516 for id = photograph)
MR. KELBERG: And I'll ask Mr. Fairtlough--and perhaps reduce the glare in some fashion. And I'm going to be asking you, Mr. Fairtlough, if you could focus more on the wrist area for the moment. Exactly. That's perfect. And if you can also do some kind of carrot. Exactly. If you move it straight down, straight down, please, and now to the left and--a little more and down just a tad. Right there.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do you see where the arrow has stopped here?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I do.
MR. KELBERG: You testified at the end of your direct examination by Mr. Shapiro that you did identify a couple of abrasions. You described them as punctate abrasions; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: There were a number of abrasions. I believe the punctate ones were more--you can see them right on--as I look at this picture, on the left-hand side, you can see a dot and then another dot. Those are the punctate lesions, and then there were several other--these other small abrasions which were, you know, more in the I think something like a quarter by an eighth inch and an eighth by an eighth (Indicating).
MR. KELBERG: First of all, let me ask you if this was your testimony, page 366, of the real time transcript. "Other than those on the 15th," referring to the cuts that you've already testified to, "There was no other evidence of any trauma except for several very small little punctate abrasions that were also on the back of his left palm, but they were--appeared to be basically zigzag areas of maybe several sonometers which were very superficial irritation scrapings of some sort." Do you recall that testimony?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I do.
MR. KELBERG: Did that testimony refer to what we are seeing under the carrot here?
DR. HUIZENGA: That did include those areas. There's a straight area you can't see on this picture and then there are these several dots, and then there are these other two areas, yes.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you describe this as the back of the left palm as you--
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I would.
MR. KELBERG: All right. And that is an abrasion; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.
MR. KELBERG: Is that an injury--that's a blunt force trauma type of injury, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: It could be a blunt force, but more likely some sort of a scrape or--
MR. KELBERG: Well, let's assume Dr. Lakshmanan has testified that blunt force trauma is a category of certain kinds of injuries which includes abrasions, contusions, lacerations. Any reason to disagree with that analysis?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection to the form of the question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor.
DR. HUIZENGA: Say that one more time. Let me hear--
MR. KELBERG: If Dr. Lakshmanan testified that blunt force trauma is a generalized category of types of injuries that includes abrasions, contusions and lacerations, would you have any reason to disagree with that?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I wouldn't.
MR. KELBERG: And as he also testified and I'll ask you to assume that an abrasion is a scraping type action. Is that consistent with what you identified on what appears to be the lateral side of the little finger where--of the area near the little finger's base of the left wrist?
DR. HUIZENGA: Right. It's actually over the carpal bones on the left side, the ulnar side of the carpal bones, yes.
MR. KELBERG: That's one abrasion?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. KELBERG: And did that appear to be of the same vintage age wise as the cuts that you were looking at on the third and fourth fingers of Mr. Simpson's left hand?
DR. HUIZENGA: The finger cuts were still open and this appeared to be somewhat more healed on the 15th.
MR. KELBERG: But an abrasion doesn't have the appearance of a cut, does it, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, it does not.
MR. KELBERG: And so the fact that a cut is open is not relevant to the degree of healing of an abrasion; isn't that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: All right. If Mr. Fairtlough can--can you circle that, please, Mr. Fairtlough? So we'll call that abrasion no. 1 just for keeping a count if we could. Mr. Fairtlough, would you move the arrow to the right, along the--oh, okay. You do it that way. Little further. Right there.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, is that another abrasion that you identified on June 15th?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.
MR. KELBERG: And in fact, in your diagram--is this going to really--Mr. Fairtlough--no. I'll tell you what. Before we get to the diagram, did it appear to be of about the same vintage as the first abrasion?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it did.
MR. KELBERG: And if Mr. Fairtlough could circle that. May I approach again, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, showing you this diagram that we already had up from exhibit 507, did you write in on that form the location and description of those two things we're looking at on this photograph, exhibit 515?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: What was your measurement of what we've described here as abrasion no. 1, the one that is closer to the fingers?
DR. HUIZENGA: I put that that was--the closer to the fingers?
MR. KELBERG: Yes.
DR. HUIZENGA: Approximately one sonometer.
MR. KELBERG: And one sonometer you said on Friday you thought was 2.2 centimeters to the inch and I think--
DR. HUIZENGA: We'll correct it to 2.54. So it's basically--
MR. KELBERG: Third of an inch maybe?
DR. HUIZENGA: A third of an inch.
MR. KELBERG: And how about abrasion no. 2? Did you measure that one?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: How long was that one?
DR. HUIZENGA: I marked it was approximately a half of a sonometer.
MR. KELBERG: So that's about a sixth of an inch?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion, was each of those consistent with some kind of scraping such as, for example, a fingernail?
DR. HUIZENGA: Didn't appear to be a fingernail, but obviously, if you catch a fingernail flush, that would be a possibility. But typically you're looking for some kind of a curve. You know, we see obviously a lot of fingernails in the eyeball. I guess that's where I've had the most experience where you can see that characteristic curvature and, you know, usually scrapes on the skin are a little wider than, you know, the scrape he had. But that certainly was something that I entertained.
MR. KELBERG: Well, doctor, let me ask you hypothetically to assume that Dr. Lakshmanan testified that he identified on Mr. Goldman's neck two superficial incise wounds semiparallel in nature running along the front of his neck. All right?
DR. HUIZENGA: Okay.
MR. KELBERG: Assume that? And further, that he offered an opinion that those two superficial incise wounds were consistent with being inflicted by a person holding a knife in the right hand who had Mr. Goldman from behind controlled with a left arm around the chest area. Do you have a pretty good picture of that?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And in such a situation, doctor, would it be accurate to say that the area that you see, the two abrasions in this photograph, would be exposed to the outside if it's in the position that I've got right here, a bar arm type of hold across the chest?
DR. HUIZENGA: I think that is a possibility. You'd really have to rotate it out because you see this ulnar styloid is sticking out right here (Indicating), and so, you know, you really have to--let's see. You're saying--
MR. KELBERG: No.
DR. HUIZENGA: Left hand.
MR. KELBERG: The left hand, the left arm--I want you to assume and--
DR. HUIZENGA: It will take me a little time to work this out. I'm not just going to do this instantly.
MR. KELBERG: I think we can help with you this.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, with the Court's permission, could Dr. Huizenga step down, please?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, if you will take on a role that I played a little earlier in this trial and perhaps you could face the jury, and I'm going to represent Dr. Lakshmanan by putting my arm--I don't have as long a arm as he has--around your chest. And that he then with his right arm holding--appearing to hold a knife made some slashing gestures with his right hand to represent how quanting type of parallel cuts could be inflicted. You with me so far?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, in this position that I'm in, would it be correct to say--I've got a watch on. Let me take the watch off. Would it be correct to say, doctor, that the area of Mr. Simpson's hand and wrist and arm where we see those two abrasions would be in this position to the outside of Mr. Goldman (Indicating)?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor, just as I've got my hand in this position.
DR. HUIZENGA: It's possible. But if you just--in this position, I still feel your ulnar styloid sticking out a little bit right here (Indicating). So I still think you could abrade this area, but then why didn't you abrade this area if you've got this area because you almost have to be like this somehow to get both those. If you're coming in curving toward me, you're sticking out this ulnar styloid.
MR. KELBERG: What if I'm not curving, doctor, but I've got you like I got you now where I'm applying the pressure, and I think you'll verify the pressure is being applied right here, is it not, and this area is up (Indicating). I just want to ask you--
MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I hope he's not hurting the doctor with all this pressure.
MR. KELBERG: Not in the slightest, am I, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: No.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor--
DR. HUIZENGA: Not yet.
THE COURT: He's a wrestler, counsel.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sure he could throw me in a second, your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: The question, doctor--and this is the only question--is this area that is on the outside of your body the area that is depicted in the photograph that's up on the elmo?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Now, you can retake the stand.
DR. HUIZENGA: Thank you. (The witness complies.)
MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, if Mr. Goldman was trying to get the knife or the arm that's holding the knife at his throat away from him and he's grappling to try and get free, would you agree, doctor, that if he rubs along the left edge of the left hand of the perpetrator, if that position of the perpetrator's arm was as I demonstrated, that that could be a source for such abrasions?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. HUIZENGA: Certainly abrasions could be caused by that type of a motion. Whether or not they would be in that exact location, again, I would have to look at the exact dimensions of Mr. Simpson's arm. And, you know, this is like a lot of medicine, you have to do a test, you know. That's what science is all about.
MR. KELBERG: You have to do a test. What test did you do to see Mr. Simpson ever attempt to run to see how well he could run? Did you ever ask him to run at any time?
DR. HUIZENGA: I never asked him to run.
MR. KELBERG: And that would be the best test, would it not, to see how well he could run given his arthritic condition as you found it?
DR. HUIZENGA: He told me he could not run and you're right, I took him at his word.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I think we're up to is it 517?
THE COURT: 517.
MR. KELBERG: I have another photograph that appears to show the left arm. May that be marked as that designation? And I've written it on the back of that photograph.
(Peo's 517 for id = photograph)
MR. KELBERG: Mr. Fairtlough, if you'll take down the previous one and put this one up. Could we--and focus more again on the back of the hand at the moment rather than on the fingers. Great. And, Mr. Fairtlough, can you take an arrow again and about in the center of the photograph, bring it down. Right--a little further down, please.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do you see where the arrow is right now on this exhibit 517?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I do.
MR. KELBERG: Did you observe that particular finding at the time of your June 15th examination?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: Did you form an opinion as to what that represented?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I did not.
MR. KELBERG: Would you agree that you did not describe it anywhere on your rough diagram which we marked as exhibit 514? That's this.
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I would disagree with that.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Would you--let me show you--you tell me then where you mark these in.
DR. HUIZENGA: Right here (Indicating), these lines right there.
MR. KELBERG: Okay. What do these other lines mean? And we'll get this up so everybody could see.
DR. HUIZENGA: Those were the little--the ditsals that we were talking about.
MR. KELBERG: The ditsals? Which are the ditsals?
DR. HUIZENGA: Immediately to the right of that linear area and then there's one back behind that. Again, those were just to make me remember to look at those on the pictures, but they were definitely there.
MR. KELBERG: Did you ever write a report describing what those things were? I'm sorry. Yes. If we could put exhibit 514 up. We'll come back to the photograph just so everybody can see what you've described. And, doctor, why don't you point out if you would and then maybe Mr. Fairtlough will circle it.
DR. HUIZENGA: (The witness complies.)
MR. KELBERG: Direct him if you can.
DR. HUIZENGA: These areas right here, and there's a dot. Again--there is a little area right there (Indicating). These were areas that, again, I was counting totally on the pictures to document those. I was putting those down as a self-reminder taking the exact pictures I can't draw. It's all very misleading. This wasn't what I intended to do diagrammatically and I wanted to have pictures be the record for that and that's why I had pictures taken.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do you still have your original report that we marked? Yes. I'm sorry. That's yours. I think this is the one I need.
MR. KELBERG: Mr. Fairtlough, would you put up again page 440. And for the record, Mr. Fairtlough drew some circles around the area where the doctor had pointed out on his rough diagram.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, this is the more complete diagram. And if Mr. Fairtlough will raise it just a bit. Could you raise it just so we can see the bottom. At the bottom, you drew in or wrote in--and maybe you could raise it even further, Mr. Fairtlough, and we'll focus on just right on the end. There we go. We're looking at now those two areas of abrasion--
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. KELBERG: --that were seen in the photograph we were looking at, 516 I think that is?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Now, if we'll bring the rest of the schematic into view. Did you draw in any of those little lines that you drew in in your rough diagram?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: And would you indicate where they are?
DR. HUIZENGA: There's a zigzag line and then those various dots down below.
MR. KELBERG: All right. If you'll direct Mr. Fairtlough.
DR. HUIZENGA: This was intending to be the abrasion, and then these various dots that represented these various other punctate lesions again that I was doing as a mnemonic assuming that these were all going to be replaced by the photos and that this was just something that would--
MR. KELBERG: Where Mr.--I'm sorry.
DR. HUIZENGA: That this was something that would then just keep the whole issue fresh in my mind.
MR. KELBERG: Where Mr. Fairtlough has the uppermost arrow, you said that was in your opinion an abrasion?
DR. HUIZENGA: That was the linear laceration.
MR. KELBERG: Laceration or abrasion, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: Linear abrasion.
MR. KELBERG: And let's ask Mr. Fairtlough--you can print that out? Sure. Why don't you print that out.
(Brief pause.)
MR. KELBERG: Thanks, Mr. Harris. And now ask you to put up 517 again and again focusing on that, bring the arrow over if you would, please, Mr. Fairtlough, to the right. Right there.
MR. KELBERG: Is that, doctor, what you are now describing as this abrasion?
DR. HUIZENGA: The linear abrasion, correct.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Now, doctor, if Mr. Simpson had had a glove on his left hand, that area would in your opinion be covered if the glove were still being worn; would it not be the situation?
DR. HUIZENGA: It would be difficult to get this sort of abrasion unless there was something inside the glove if in fact your--your premise of wearing a glove were correct, yes.
MR. KELBERG: But if the glove had been forcibly removed, this area of the hand would be exposed; is that correct?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Speculation, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want you to assume hypothetically that Mr. Simpson did murder Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. May we approach, your Honor?
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. KELBERG: I want--
MR. SHAPIRO: May we approach, your Honor?
THE COURT: No.
MR. SHAPIRO: Make a record?
THE COURT: No. Proceed.
MR. KELBERG: --that the perpetrator of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman wore gloves, left and right hand, that in the effort to perpetrate the murder, he lost the left glove, exposing the hand as we see it in this photograph. With me so far on this hypothetical?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I am.
MR. KELBERG: And that in the course of Mr. Goldman trying to get the knife in the right hand of the perpetrator away from his neck, that he scratched the perpetrator's left hand that was being used to control him, much like I demonstrated with you earlier this afternoon. Do you have that assumption?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, your Honor. May we approach?
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: Do you have that assumption in mind, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I do.
MR. KELBERG: Again, would this be consistent in your opinion with an injury received by Mr. Simpson under such a hypothetical set of circumstances?
DR. HUIZENGA: Can I see some pictures of that cut so that I can just make sure they're right to left?
MR. KELBERG: Sure.
DR. HUIZENGA: Because you'd think for it then if his right hand--
MR. KELBERG: For the record, I'm giving the witness exhibit 517.
THE COURT: Yes.
DR. HUIZENGA: That would be a possibility.
MR. KELBERG: That would be a possibility? I'm sorry.
DR. HUIZENGA: That would be a possibility.
MR. KELBERG: May I recollect? Now, doctor, I'm just going to ask you collectively regarding these other injuries. But to do so, let me mark some additional photographs, and I'll show them to you collectively.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, what appear to be seven additional photographs of the left wrist or hand area, may they be marked collectively 518-A through whatever the next letter would be?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Peo's 518-A through 518-I for id = photographs)
MR. KELBERG: And then what appear to be two photographs of the right hand. I'm sorry. I need to add one more of the left hand to the collection. A photograph of the right hand that I'd ask to be marked as exhibit 519.
THE COURT: 19.
MR. KELBERG: 19?
THE COURT: 19.
(Peo's 519-A and B for id = photographs)
MR. KELBERG: May I approach? There are two of them. I'm sorry. I was right the first time. 519-A and B. May I approach the witness?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you look at 518-A through whatever it is going to end, which as you are looking at them, my question to you is, do each of these photographs fairly and accurately show the left hand, wrist or arm near the area of the wrist of Mr. Simpson as of the time you saw him on June 15th and June 17th, 1994?
MR. SHAPIRO: We'll stipulate these are photographs--
DR. HUIZENGA: Excuse me?
THE COURT: No. Go ahead.
MR. SHAPIRO: We'll stipulate these are photographs that we turned over to Mr. Kelberg.
THE COURT: Go ahead and look at the photographs. Mr. Kelberg.
MR. KELBERG: I certainly accept the stipulation as required under Defense discovery, but the question was, do these fairly and accurately represent the areas depicted as of the time seen by Dr. Huizenga on June 15th and June 17th, 1994.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. KELBERG: And that's the purpose I ask you to look at them, doctor.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you've had a chance to review each of them?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I have.
MR. KELBERG: Do each of those photographs fairly and accurately show the area depicted in each of the photographs as seen by you on June 15th and June 17th, 1994?
DR. HUIZENGA: The areas of the injuries are similar, correct.
MR. KELBERG: And basically, do the photographs fairly show them? In other words, it's not a distortion what we're looking at?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I don't believe these are distorted.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, let me add two other photographs. Oh, I'm sorry. This one has been marked. I'm not sure that this one has. Just to be on the safe side, another one to add to the 518 collection, your Honor?
THE COURT: All right.
MR. KELBERG: Of the left hand.
MR. KELBERG: Same question to you, doctor. Does that fairly and accurately show the area of the left hand, back of the left hand as you saw it on June 15th and June 17th?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it does.
MR. KELBERG: And let me show you then the two photographs marked 519-A and B and ask you basically the same question regarding the back of the right hand.
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it does.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, with respect to the left hand, how many injuries--and I will include cuts, abrasions together. How many injuries did you see on June 15th on Mr. Simpson, whether you diagrammed them in or you have to go on the basis of photographs? And let me give you the photographs, and you can look through them to count if necessary.
DR. HUIZENGA: He sustained an injury to his proximal interphalangeal joint that we've discussed. He sustained an injury to the distal third interphalangeal joint. He sustained an injury that appeared to be continuous, but did have a mid--a mid-break area on the fourth--basically from the D, the distal to the proximal interphalangeal joint.
MR. KELBERG: Let me stop you if you're done with that description because we have a photograph I'm going to ask you--this is one of the Defense exhibits, 1249.
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: All right, doctor. If Mr. Fairtlough can get us the arrow again. Why don't you trace for us on this photograph the course that you're talking about. And I think you may need to bring--there you go, Mr. Fairtlough.
DR. HUIZENGA: Basically it's difficult to see here, at least my angle. But the incision, the laceration starts here (Indicating), and there appear to be kind of a continuous cyanidol pattern right here. It seemed to be one injury to me at the time. That was my initial impression.
MR. KELBERG: In looking at this photograph or any of the other photographs, has your opinion changed as to whether or not in fact this may be the product of separate injuries?
DR. HUIZENGA: I still think that it's--it's a continuing type of injury.
MR. KELBERG: Now, we could go on--and, Mr. Fairtlough, if you could print that out perhaps. And, your Honor, could the printout just be added to the Defense exhibit of 1249? Want to make it a People's exhibit? Then it's 520.
THE COURT: 520.
(Peo's 520 for id = printout)
MR. KELBERG: We're done with the photographs.
THE COURT: All right. Five minutes, Mr. Kelberg.
MR. KELBERG: Okay.
MR. KELBERG: Any other on the left? Any others on the left?
DR. HUIZENGA: Oh, and then we had the abrasion that we noted here. We had--
MR. KELBERG: May I approach, your Honor?
DR. HUIZENGA: --as I recall, three punctate lesions.
MR. KELBERG: A lesion being an injury?
DR. HUIZENGA: An injury, kind of a small circular area.
MR. KELBERG: And let me have--your Honor, just to be on the safe side, could this be 519-A so we'll be able to--518-A. Excuse me.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. KELBERG: Mr. Fairtlough, will you put that up so we can all see what the doctor is looking at? And we're going to focus down toward the arm from where we saw that linear abrasion. Is that right, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And if Mr. Fairtlough gets the arrow up to the right. To the right. To the right. Up. Right there. Is that one of the injuries, the punctate lesions as you've described it?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.
MR. KELBERG: And is that consistent with an abrasion, punctate abrasion much like you described the other as being a linear abrasion?
DR. HUIZENGA: Of some sort.
MR. KELBERG: Did they appear to be in approximately the same state of healing?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, they did.
MR. KELBERG: Are there any other abrasions as seen in this photograph, 518-A?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes. There's one below that and a little bit off to the right.
MR. KELBERG: All right. If we can lower the arrow. To the right. Down further, Mr. Fairtlough, perhaps. To the right.
DR. HUIZENGA: To the right.
MR. KELBERG: Right there about, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. KELBERG: And is that a similar punctate abrasion?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.
MR. KELBERG: Anything else in this photograph?
DR. HUIZENGA: I don't see anything in that photograph.
MR. KELBERG: If Mr. Fairtlough could print this perhaps. And, your Honor, 518-AA as the printout?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Peo's 518-AA for id = printout)
MR. KELBERG: Any others, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: There was, you know--on one of the pictures here, there were three. That's why I said that they were very--the other one was somewhat smaller than that.
MR. KELBERG: Why don't you show me which photograph. We can put it up.
DR. HUIZENGA: These I believe were the two that you have just mentioned, and there was--I don't really see it on this picture.
MR. KELBERG: Let me ask you to look actually at one of the--
DR. HUIZENGA: I don't see it on this picture.
MR. KELBERG: --the large photographs of the left hand.
MR. KELBERG: And I'll make this 518-B.
MR. KELBERG: Do you see what appears to be some kind of injury on the thumb?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I do.
MR. KELBERG: Was that one of the injuries you saw?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, it was not.
MR. KELBERG: Was it--do you know when this photograph was taken?
DR. HUIZENGA: I have no idea.
MR. KELBERG: As between the 15th of the 17th? We stipulated this has been provided by Defense counsel. Can you tell us when?
DR. HUIZENGA: Umm, that looks like the 15th.
MR. KELBERG: And, Mr. Fairtlough, could you put this 518-B up and see if we can see this injury on the thumb area. You're going to--there we go. Do you want to switch perhaps the other direction, Mr. Fairtlough? Now--I mean with the thumb vertical. I'm sorry. And down and about in the--halfway down from the thumbnail, Mr. Fairtlough, with an arrow.
MR. KELBERG: You have no recollection, doctor, of seeing that injury on the 15th?
DR. HUIZENGA: That was one of the things I didn't indicate and--on the initial evaluation and obviously was there if that's the 15th, but I didn't make a note of that.
MR. KELBERG: I didn't hear the last part. I'm sorry.
DR. HUIZENGA: I didn't make a note of that and I haven't seen this picture ever before.
MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, in looking at the picture, do you have an opinion as to whether this is a cut or an abrasion?
DR. HUIZENGA: It appears also to be an abrasion of some sort.
MR. KELBERG: Any other injuries, doctor, to the left hand?
DR. HUIZENGA: The two that we discussed near the ulnar styloid.
MR. KELBERG: Any others?
DR. HUIZENGA: No. That's--that's everything.
MR. KELBERG: Let me show you the right-hand photos. We have two photos of the right hand, 519-A and B. In the photographs, do you see any cuts or abrasions?
DR. HUIZENGA: No. I don't see any cuts or abrasions here.
MR. KELBERG: Do you see--you described I think seeing a paper cut on the 17th that you didn't initially see on the 15th; is that accurate?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, that's not accurate.
MR. KELBERG: You saw a paper cut at the tip of one of the fingers on the right hand; is that--
DR. HUIZENGA: On the 15th and the 17th.
MR. KELBERG: Same one though?
DR. HUIZENGA: Same one.
MR. KELBERG: Okay. And you have no idea when that was received age wise, do you?
DR. HUIZENGA: No. I basically asked how he got the cuts, and he said he cut it on glass, and I basically did not pursue that.
MR. KELBERG: And that included the right-hand paper cut on the end of the particular finger? Is that a yes?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is a yes.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, does the Court wish to take a break at this point?
THE COURT: Yes. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our mid afternoon break. Please remember all my admonitions to you. And we'll stand in recess for 15. Doctor, you can step down. Return in 15. All right.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.
MR. KELBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. Does the Court want to hash out this video because I've got maybe two more minutes, three more minutes before we get to the video.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, there are several videos. First video involves this exercise workout. We have a video that is of the tape--taping sessions. You can divide it into two category. The first part, which I think is roughly 40 minutes, is Mr. Simpson doing take after take of the introduction, running through the, for lack of a better term, spiel that is going to be the introduction for the actual exercise portion of the tape.
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
MR. KELBERG: The remaining little less than an hour are the takes of the exercise itself. I have no problem if Mr. Shapiro wants the whole video shown, although I think quite frankly, the first 40 minutes of the speil take after take is not really terribly relevant to this witness except for hand motions. But I would intend to start with the exercise portion and let the jury see the exercise portion, which is directly relevant to this witness, who has testified with respect to what he believes to be limitations on the part of Mr. Simpson, characterizes them, as the Court well has heard over the last day and a half or so. So that would be the way I would intend to go. There is then the commercial product that is produced, which is cut of course from the taping segments and which include some things that are not in the taping segment. As an offer of proof--Mr. Shapiro was interested in an offer of proof. The--
MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, that's not--we're not interested in an offer of proof. We're interested in a proper foundation.
MR. KELBERG: Well, your Honor, it will be laid on rebuttal. Obviously I can't lay a foundation at this time for this witness, but I can certainly make an offer of proof to the Court that we will lay a foundation which permits this to be used to question this witness. I don't think we are required to bring--oh, by the way, I've been told by Miss Clark the trainer who's involved in this was subpoenaed by the Defense for Wednesday. But setting even that aside, the law does not require us to lay the foundation first. We can make an offer of proof that we will lay the foundation. Mr. Walker is in fact the photographer. He was present for all three days, May 25th, May 26th, May 27th of 1994, roughly 16 days, 17 days, 18 days before the murders. He was the director of photography for the videotaping of an aerobic exercise production featuring Mr. Simpson. The taping lasted approximately 12 to 16 hours daily on all three days. He was on the set at all times during the taping. He stated the first day consisted of indoor aerobic exercises featuring Mr. Simpson. And I believe that is what is going to be on the tape that we have to play first. The second and third day consisted of videotaping Simpson--Mr. Simpson swinging a golf club and playing basketball. Some of that is in the commercial tape that is sold to the public. That's the foundation--and that this fairly and accurately--this videotape fairly and accurately depicts the takes of the aerobic exercises. It seems to me that's the foundation we need to lay and we will be able to lay it when it is our opportunity to call a witness in our rebuttal case.
THE COURT: All right. So you have Mr. Walker who is going to testify to all these things?
MR. KELBERG: Yes. And I've been reading from a summary of an interview with Mr. Walker at 10 o'clock this morning. And this was at my request of Mr. Yochelson because again, I got involved later on in the process and it was my request that Mr. Walker be interviewed.
THE COURT: All right. What other videos are you going to show besides those two?
MR. KELBERG: There is one other video that involves a motivational speech made by Mr. Simpson on March 31 of 1994 at the Juice Plus convention in Dallas. And the portion which I believe is the only portion relevant and under 356, the remainder is not, deals with Mr. Simpson's comments regarding his health. And I do have a transcript of that if the Court wishes to take a look at it.
THE COURT: And what is your offer as to the foundation for this tape?
MR. KELBERG: The foundation for this is an interview with Mr. Albert J. Martin, president of national safety association, the distributor for Juice Plus, who's the one who identified Mr. Simpson as the speaker at this convention. And this is the speech that he gave.
THE COURT: And that this videotape is a videotape of that speech given by the Defendant on May 31st?
MR. KELBERG: I believe--in the summary of the interview that was done--and this is before I got involved. So it was a taped interview, but I did not have an opportunity for input on the questions of Mr. Martin. The statement from Mr. Martin says, "In March, he spoke at our conference in Dallas, Texas." This is a self-authenticating tape, your Honor, because Mr. Simpson is speaking--I would represent to the Court--and the Court could look at the video if there's any question or read the transcript, that it's clear that this is in fact what Mr. Martin is talking about. Mr. Simpson is a motivational speaker at a Juice Plus convention in Dallas.
THE COURT: You said this is in March or in May?
MR. KELBERG: This is March. The motivational speech is March 31, `94. And for the record, what--and I'll give you the full transcript. Mr. Simpson talks about his arthritis. "I was at a time where I was having a pretty tough time because I got hit by what they might call, some of you might have it, it's rheumatoid arthritis. I had the first, the beginnings of rheumatoid arthritis. I was really having--I was having really a tough time. I actually had mornings where I could not open my door. I could not turn my wrist because my wrist, my fingers, my elbows would all get swollen up.
"They had me on--you name it--Napacin, Indocin, Motrin, I, I had so much Motrin you couldn't believe it, you know. Every day this was my life. My neighbor's a guy named Frank Jobe, who may be the greatest orthopedic surgeon in the world, he's the guy that rebuilt Tommy John's arm and stuff; he's tellin' me about this simple little operation that they can do with both my wrists to relieve some of the pain. And I know this is something we don't really get into with this product, uh, we can't really talk about. So when he's telling me about all this stuff, and I'm thinking about it, because one thing I can't do anymore, I had gone to a nutritionist, is drink orange juice." And he talks about why he can't drink orange juice. "And I was one of these guys that drink a quart of orange juice every day. So as he's telling me about it, I said, you know, I'm gonna have to try this stuff." And the stuff is the Juice Plus. "I said I'll call home and get them to send it to me. He said, no, I got it right here, he had a whole bag of it right there.
"So for the next few months, along, once again, with changing my diet and stuff, I started taking regularly Juice Plus and started feeling, I don't know if it was mind over matter, if it was a mental thing, but almost immediately, I started feeling better. All of a sudden, I was starting to get another 10 yards on my drive." And having viewed the video, Mr. Simpson makes a gesture as if he's swinging a golf club. "When I was--and then before I knew it, I just start skippin the Napacin and skippin the Indocin and skippin the pain pills, uh, the Advil. I mean I was one of these guys who was on six or seven Advils a day, you know, until today when I don't have to take anything. And my thought at the time was--I contacted Smokey, who is--
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Kelberg, the two issues are foundation for the tape and whether or not something in March of `94 is relevant to issues in June of `94. Those are the two concerns I have.
MR. KELBERG: Will, I think, your Honor, the question is, as a foundational fact, a 403 preliminary fact as to whether it's relevant. That is, is there any tendency in reason for a rational fact finder, a juror, to say that if in fact Mr. Simpson is saying he had an arthritic problem before, but he changed his diet and he's on this Juice Plus and he's feeling great, that that is relevant to assess whether he was capable less than two months later of murdering these two people. I think, given that it is a foundational fact which is at the lowest level of the burden of introducing evidence, that it clearly is relevant. It does have a tendency in reason. We've heard Dr. Huizenga talk about Mr. Simpson coming in on the 15th walking like Tarzan's grandfather, and we've got Mr. Simpson less than two months earlier saying he's feeling great, he's off the drugs, he's getting 10 yards more on his golf swing. It will be for the jury to decide. It may well be that the jury decides that Mr. Simpson was lying to those people at that convention, that in fact maybe he did have intermittent episodes of arthritis. But the fact he would lie is itself relevant, lie with respect to his condition, when one is evaluating whether he played through pain and was willing to lie if necessary when it was to his advantage or whether he would be fully candid, in which case, if he was, he wasn't having a problem less than two months earlier. So under either circumstance, it's relevant, and I submit given what I've indicated and given what the document itself will show, document in the generic sense I think of evidence code section 250, 240, a writing, including a videotape, that it's self-authenticating. But Mr. Martin I'm certain, given the summary of the interview that I indicated to the Court, would be able to say this is the speech that Mr. Simpson gave March 30, 31 of 1994.
THE COURT: Mr. Shapiro.
MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you very much, your Honor. With regard to the minimum or minimal maintenance video that Mr. Simpson participated in, it is our position that if it is played, it should be played in its entirety.
THE COURT: Are we talking about the commercial product?
MR. SHAPIRO: No. That's the--what Mr. Kelberg has incorrectly referred to as an aerobic or exercise video. It is more a geriatric type of maintenance that Mr. Simpson endorsed and does not perform very well in. We--if that is shown, it should be shown from the beginning to the end without any breaks, and all of the outtakes that were done should be shown to the jury so they can see all the rest periods, all the breaks that had to be taken, all the reshooting that had to be done where you will see--probably the most strenuous thing is a series of a minimal amount of push-ups with stress and done improperly. As far as videos of him playing basketball, we would like to see those. The only thing that we know is, there is one picture of him taking one shot, making one basket. I don't know that they have videos of him playing basketball. If they have videos of him in a basketball game, they have not provided them to us in discovery. And the outtakes that they have, we do not have, and we would like to see them before they're shown.
THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, we have provided the Defense last week. Mr. Lynch I believe made arrangements to have the copies made, Mr. Fairtlough, one of the two, of all of these videotapes to provide the Defense. The product for sale is the one that has three--
THE COURT: When were they provided?
MR. KELBERG: When? Late last week I understand. They were given to Mr. Armstrong. They were provided to Mr. Armstrong, who is our conduit.
MR. SHAPIRO: Who is Mr. Armstrong? Does he work for us?
MR. KELBERG: Mr. Armstrong is an investigator with our office, Mr. Shapiro. Apparently this was litigated--again, I wasn't around for the opening statements. When Miss Clark says this was litigated during the course of the opening statement, I have no way of knowing one way or the other.
THE COURT: No. I'm just curious. My only question is, when were the copies of both tapes you want to play given to the Defense or all three tapes?
MR. KELBERG: My understanding would be late last week, and that's because I got involved with this late last week.
THE COURT: All right. And to whom were they given?
MR. KELBERG: They would have to--that information would have to come from Mr. Armstrong because Mr. Armstrong is our conduit to filter all information to the Defense for discovery.
THE COURT: Mr. Douglas?
MR. SHAPIRO: Mr. Douglas does inform me that we did receive two videotapes, and we'll have to review those. If those are as Mr. Lynch represents, the entirety of three days of outtakes, they should be quite lengthy and I don't know how they would fit on two videos.
MR. KELBERG: This--first of all, that's not accurate by Mr. Shapiro. And just out of deference to the young men and women who are exercising in this video, I don't think anyone would describe them as being in the geriatric class. These are people in the 20's--
THE COURT: Counsel, that's not helping me here. The issue is the offer of proof and whether or not you're going to play the whole thing in its entirety. That's all I'm interested in.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, this has been represented to me to be the aerobic exercise segment, the taping of that. It appears to have been all on one day. You'll see the time in the videotape. It is approximately one hour long. There are like three takes of one set of exercise, I think two takes of another set of exercises. There is before that this 40-minute or so period where Mr. Simpson is going through the introduction, the promotional.
THE COURT: Are we going to have the doctor sit through all this?
MR. KELBERG: No. I am not suggesting that, your Honor. Mr. Shapiro is the one, he says let's play it all the way through. I believe that the only relevant portion to the doctor is the physical exercise that Mr. Simpson is engaging in, which is the period of about an hour that occurs after the 40 minutes. And that's where I have it racked up.
THE COURT: You have it cued up to that?
MR. KELBERG: I do, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Any other comment, Mr. Shapiro?
MR. SHAPIRO: Yes, your Honor. The video that I reviewed, unless it's something different, is 70 minutes. And in order to get a proper perspective, it should be shown from beginning to end because Mr. Simpson goes through numerous cycles and he talks about how to exercise in the office, how to exercise on an airplane, how to exercise sitting down, and it will be very important for the jury to see what his exercise regimen is like. As far as the outtakes, they should be played definitely in their entirety because, as the Court is well aware, when commercial videos are made, they're made like movies and they are cut in sequence. It's not just 70 minutes shot and they put it on tape for commercial distribution.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. All right. I'll accept the offer of proof from the Prosecution that they can in fact lay a sufficient foundation for the authenticity of the tapes and the manner in which they were made. The Prosecution is not required to play the tapes in their entirety for the purposes of cross-examination. However, under 356, the Defense may on redirect play it from beginning to end if they so choose.
MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, out of--just to save time, we will so choose. So rather than start it once and then have to play the whole thing, we would ask the Court to have it shown in its entirety, and the jury can be told it's at the Defense request.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, what I would suggest is, I will play the exercise portion first, and then we can play the introduction. But the exercise is clearly what is the relevant portion to this video.
THE COURT: I agree. All right. I've ruled. Let's have the jurors for another 30 minutes. Doctor, it looks like we're going to see you again tomorrow. Tomorrow, we are going to work through to 6 o'clock. So we will finish.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, just for the record, the printouts from the elmo, there are several that needed to be identified. One is 518-BB of the--
THE COURT: Let's take that up after we've concluded with the jury.
MR. KELBERG: All right.
MS. CLARK: You wanted me to give references for Mr. Merrill's testimony and Mr. Parks' testimony.
THE COURT: Let's do that after--let's try to squeeze what little we can out of the jury this afternoon. All right.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. The record should reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. And Dr. Robert Huizenga is again on the witness stand. Mr. Kelberg.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, during the recess, did you count the number of abrasions that you identified on the left hand or wrist area of Mr. Simpson?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: How many separate abrasions did you identify?
DR. HUIZENGA: Seven.
MR. KELBERG: And did you also count the number of cuts to his left hand?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: How many did you identify?
DR. HUIZENGA: Three cuts, one of which, on the fourth finger, had both an a and B portion.
MR. KELBERG: That's that ring finger, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, you said that Mr. Simpson told you he got these injuries in Chicago; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: No. That's incorrect.
MR. KELBERG: That he cut it on glass?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I want you to assume that there's been testimony received in this case that blood that was genetically tested and found to match Mr. Simpson's was found in the foyer and driveway areas of Mr. Simpson's home--
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection.
MR. KELBERG: --on Rockingham.
MR. SHAPIRO: Assumes facts--
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
MR. KELBERG: That there has been testimony received that tests have been performed on what appear to be blood samples from the foyer and driveway area of Mr. Simpson's Rockingham estate, that in the opinion of expert witnesses, that the genetic characteristics of those drops are identical to the characteristics of Mr. Simpson and therefore they form the opinion--
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, your Honor. That's incorrect.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
MR. KELBERG: --that the experts have formed an opinion that the blood is consistent genetically with Mr. Simpson's. Okay?
DR. HUIZENGA: Okay.
MR. KELBERG: Do you have that understanding?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's the hypothetical?
MR. KELBERG: That's part of it.
DR. HUIZENGA: Okay.
MR. KELBERG: And further, that Mr. Simpson left Los Angeles to go to Chicago sometime after 11 o'clock in the evening of June 12th and did not return to Los Angeles until sometime after officers from the Los Angeles Police Department observed such blood in the foyer and driveway area of Mr. Simpson's estate and had it collected for purposes of the subsequent testing that I've asked you to assume was done and opinions formed as a result; and that also, testimony has been received from Mr. Kaelin, Kato Kaelin, that he had observed this before Mr. Simpson returned from Chicago to his Rockingham estate.
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection.
MR. KELBERG: Do you have all of that assumption--
MR. SHAPIRO: Misstates the evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: Do you have all of those assumptions in mind?
DR. HUIZENGA: Can you repeat just the last one with Kato Kaelin?
MR. KELBERG: That Mr. Kaelin had observed this blood in this area of the estate before Mr. Simpson returned from Chicago.
DR. HUIZENGA: Okay.
MR. KELBERG: Do you have all that assumption?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I do.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, in your opinion, would the kind of cuts that you observed in Mr. Simpson's hand, left hand, be the kind of cuts that can leave blood drops?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, they can.
MR. KELBERG: And in fact, is the hand one of the most vascular, that is full of little blood vessels, areas of the human body?
DR. HUIZENGA: Face, head, fingers. Absolutely.
MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, assuming that Mr. Simpson by saying that he injured his hand by breaking glass was referring to an injury in Chicago on June 13th, do you have any information on how such blood, if it is in fact Mr. Simpson's, could have been left on the Rockingham foyer and driveway on June 12th?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, your Honor. We don't know when the blood got there.
THE COURT: What's the nature of that objection?
MR. SHAPIRO: Speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, is your findings with respect to those cuts such that those cuts could be the source for blood droppings left by Mr. Simpson in his foyer and driveway on June 12th, 1994 before he left for Chicago?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, your Honor. Assumes so many facts, it's so speculative as to the size of drops, the amount of drops--
THE COURT: Sustained. Foundation.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, how much blood, if you have an opinion, would you expect such cuts in this highly vascular area of the hand to produce?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. Compound.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SHAPIRO: Lack of foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. HUIZENGA: When you slash a finger, basically what happens is, you've got this outer layer, the epithelium, which is maybe a millimeter, which is, you know, somewhere between a 32nd and a 16th of an inch. There's no blood vessels there. Then you go to the tissue right underneath. And of course, in the fingers, you know, unlike the rest of our body, you don't have that much tissue between the outside and the bone. So basically the dermis is going to be compressed somewhat. But you've got different layers. You've got the superficial layer of the dermis where there's going to be smaller vessels, although they're anastomosing. You've got the deeper vessels. And occasionally, even you have connections between the artery system and the venous system because that's why the hands, when you're very cold, can get cold because the body says I don't want to lose any heat through evaporation and you'll shunt blood. So you can occasionally cut a vein that even bleeds a little bit like an artery was what I was trying to say. So it's totally dependent on the depth of the cuts and it's sometimes a haphazard sort of thing. You know, the veins wind through. I think it's quite variable, but certainly cuts of this nature could bleed significantly. Again, in my personal experience in working emergency rooms, I never see people cut themselves and then just let it bleed. You know, I'll see somebody where they cut themselves and they come in with a dish rag around their finger. But again, with cuts that don't appear absolutely dissimilar, you know, you can stain a dish cloth or something of that nature. Absolutely. So I would say many drops.
MR. KELBERG: And in the healing process, is it accurate that there can be something called a temporary clot that initially takes place in an effort to stop the bleeding?
DR. HUIZENGA: Of course. You know, once you cut the veins or even if you happen upon an artery, the initial mechanism of clotting is that the platelets form a plug, and that plug then gets aided because the plug releases certain mediators and then the fibrin comes in which intercrosses and strengthens that plug. That is something that essentially happens relatively quickly. On the other hand, if it's on a joint or some other area, it may bleed longer with movement.
MR. KELBERG: And that was my next question. That you can have a temporary clot and then with movement of the hand, for example, such as Mr. Simpson's left hand, you can reopen what is that cut with the temporary clot, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is possible.
MR. KELBERG: And you can have a rebleed and then it will temporarily clot again, and hopefully at some point, the permanent mechanism of healing will have enough opportunity to take hold, then you'll have no further bleeding; is that correct.
DR. HUIZENGA: I think that's accurate.
MR. KELBERG: May I have just a moment, your Honor? Now, your Honor, I do have a video--
MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, we just had a lengthy hypothetical and no question. Move to strike all those questions and ask the jury to disregard the implication.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: Now, your Honor, I do have a video. I'd ask that this be marked--I think we're at 520?
THE COURT: 521.
MR. KELBERG: 521.
(Peo's 521 for id = video)
MR. KELBERG: It's entitled, "Playboy Entertainment Group Inc., OJ Quad split, tape 1," and I have cued it hopefully to the area where I wish to start the tape, and I'll ask Mr. Fairtlough if he could, please.
THE COURT: All right. And this is for the purpose of showing--
MR. KELBERG: For the doctor, yes. I do ask, doctor, if you'll please watch this. And as an offer of proof, doctor, I want you to assume this is Mr. Simpson engaging in activities that are being filmed for the purposes of an exercise video, that the filming is taking place around the 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th of May 1994, sometime a little over two and a half weeks, three weeks by the time we get to your examination of June 15th, but a little over two and a half weeks before the date of the murders, June 12th, 1994. So these are going to be repeated segments, that is, they reshot it multiple times. There will be a timer on it. I'll ask you to just follow as the videotape is played.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Fairtlough, have you tested the audio level on this?
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: No, your Honor, I have not. I'll start low.
THE COURT: Sounds hot to me. Proceed.
MR. KELBERG: And, your Honor, when it's first shown, if we could get the--stop it for one second. That it had a time of 15:17 I believe it's 01.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Proceed.
(At 3:45 P.M., People's exhibit 521, a videotape, was played.)
(At 4:00 P.M., the videotape was stopped.)
THE COURT: All right. We've stopped it at 15:54. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our recess for the day. We have a 4 o'clock dentist appointment for one of our jurors today. So we're going to have to break at 4:00 today. Please remember all my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any opinions about the case, don't deliberate until the matter has been submitted to do, don't allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We'll stand in recess until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. Dr. Huizenga, tomorrow morning, 9 o'clock. All right. We're in recess.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: We're over at the sidebar.
MR. SHAPIRO: We saw this previously. There was one outtake where there was a simulated punching scene where there were some comments made by OJ Simpson, and we would object to those comments under 352.
THE COURT: Do you know where they are on the tape, the real-time counter?
MR. SHAPIRO: No, I don't. Do you know, Mr. Kelberg?
MR. KELBERG: I know the segment you are talking about. It has been transferred on to laser disk, but I do not know vis-à-vis the video because quite frankly, I watched it in fast forward without the sound after I--
THE COURT: Got the flavor.
MR. KELBERG: --got the flavor of it.
MS. CLARK: This is just the warm-up.
MR. KELBERG: Of course, we're seeing multiple takes of the same process and progressed, and there will be multiple takes.
THE COURT: Well, Mr.--
MR. KELBERG: I don't think the issue is as quite simple as the Court may initially believe. The comment does in fact suggest that a way to take care of the wife is with a blow because the trainer is moving I think in the direction of Mr. Simpson.
THE COURT: Well, no. Mr. Kelberg, what I was interested in is where in the tape on the real-time counter does it exist so I can review it.
MR. KELBERG: Would you like to review the laser disk? We can get to it right away.
THE COURT: Sure. Let's do that.
MR. SHAPIRO: Also, your Honor, earlier, we made two requests to have that portion of the transcript brought up regarding the observations of Mr. Park.
MS. CLARK: Shall I do it now?
THE COURT: Yeah.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
THE COURT: Let's go back on the record. All right. As to the commercial tape, you're not going to offer all of that. It's just some items that are not on the out-take tape; is that correct?
MR. KELBERG: That's correct.
THE COURT: All right. Then I would suggest you get that cued up. All right. One other thing. I left the evidence feed off for the out-take tape because I think this is all copyrighted material.
MR. KELBERG: It makes no difference to me, your Honor.
THE COURT: If you have any opinion about that, let me know.
MS. CLARK: Isn't the commercial version of these outtakes out?
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
MS. CLARK: Don't they already have the commercial version of these outtakes out?
MR. SHAPIRO: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Miss Clark, as to the--then I take it neither side cares if that's let out on the--
MR. SHAPIRO: Let's talk about that.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CLARK: Volume--yes, your Honor. For Kato--I mean, for Parks' testimony, page 15,115, line 5: "Could you tell us how he looked? How did he appear? "Answer: He seemed to be hot "Question: And what did you see that made you believe that? "Answer: He had a little bit of sweat on his forehead." Earlier--well, excuse me. I have one other.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
THE COURT: Let's go back on the record.
MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. I have other pages for that testimony that went back up with the law clerk, and in virtually--but prior to this testimony also, the testimony that is elicited concerning his appearance when he gets into the limousine and when he's in the limousine complaining of it being hot over and over again and rolling down the windows, turning on the air conditioning.
MR. SHAPIRO: That's exactly our point.
MR. COCHRAN: We need that.
MS. CLARK: You don't believe that testimony occurred?
MR. COCHRAN: We know that testimony occurred. We want to put it in perspective.
MR. SHAPIRO: What the hypothetical was.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CLARK: He said he saw him sweating. With respect to Mr. Merrill on the real time, page 195, the day of his testimony: "Question: You watched him walk toward you? "Answer: Yes. "And did he appear to limp? "Answer: Not that I noticed. I noted he was a little bowlegged, but that's about it. "Question: Okay. That's--I mean, I'm not talking about the shape of his legs. I'm just saying the manner in which he was-- "Answer: I didn't notice a limp." That was Mr. Merrill's testimony.
MR. SHAPIRO: What about Mr. McKay's testimony on that?
MS. CLARK: He was not included in the list, counsel.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SHAPIRO: Isn't that misleading to the jury, Judge?
THE COURT: No. The jurors know who's included and who's not. I think that's an adequate offer. All right. Tomorrow morning, 9 o'clock.
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, let me ask the Court for assistance. Did you want us to put in the declaration from the doctor--we can bring it in tomorrow--or dispense with it?
THE COURT: No. It seemed to me you wanted a full-blown 240 hearing. So it looks like we're going to have to drag witnesses in and put them under oath.
MS. CLARK: Not if we bring in the declaration.
THE COURT: Counsel, you raised the objection. I didn't.
MS. CLARK: No. I don't object to proceeding on the declaration if the Court accepts the People's as well as the Defense's with a proposal for how to conduct the hearing at the hospital. That was the People's position.
THE COURT: Well, Miss Clark, you're taking inconsistent positions now.
MS. CLARK: Okay. I don't mean to do that, your Honor, and if that's how I'm perceived, then I apologize. I don't want to take up any more Court time than is necessary.
THE COURT: Why don't you file the declaration and let's see what's there.
MS. CLARK: Okay.
MR. COCHRAN: Can we get those things, things from the jurors? Is that today or tomorrow?
THE COURT: Tomorrow. I'll get to it when I get in tomorrow morning. I've got to take off and take care of some things.
(At 4:10 P.M., an adjournment was taken until, Tuesday, July 18, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
The People of the State of California,)
Plaintiff,)
Vs.) No. BA097211)
Orenthal James Simpson,)
Defendant.)
Reporter's transcript of proceedings Monday, July 17, 1995
Volume 188 pages 37060 through 37283, inclusive
(Pages 37050 through 37059, inclusive, sealed)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCES:
Janet M. Moxham, CSR #4588 Christine M. Olson, CSR #2378 official reporters
FOR THE PEOPLE: Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012
FOR THE DEFENDANT: Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I N D E X
Index for volume 188 pages 37060 - 37283
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day date session page vol.
Monday July 17, 1995 A.M. 37060 188 P.M. 37172 188
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGEND: Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden D Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
DEFENSE witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
Huizenga, 188 Robert (Resumed) 37069BK (Resumed) 37180BK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
WITNESSES direct cross redirect recross vol.
Huizenga, 188 Robert (Resumed) 37069BK (Resumed) 37180BK
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBITS
PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
511 - 1-Page document 37093 188 described as a letter by Robert Huizenga, MD., dated February 5, 1995
512 - 1-Page document 37100 188 described as a letter by Robert Huizenga, MD., dated July 6, 1994
513 - 1-Page document 37103 188 described as a letter by Robert Huizenga, MD., dated July 18, 1994
514 - Drawing 37191 188 of a hand by Dr. Huizenga
515 - Photograph 37212 188 of the palm side of the Defendant's hand and arm
516 - Photograph 37221 188 of the left wrist and hand of the Defendant
517 - Photograph 37232 188 of four fingers on the Defendant's left hand and arm
518-A thru 518-I - 37239 188 photographs of various sections of the Defendant's left hand
519-A - photograph 37240 188 of the right hand, wrist and forearm of the Defendant
519-B - photograph 37240 188 of the right hand of the Defendant
518-AA - photograph 37246 188 of a close-up view of the top of the Defendant's hand with two green arrows (Computer printout)
520 - Photograph 37244 188 of a close-up view of the Defendant's middle finger with a green line (Computer printout)
521 - Videotape 37274 188 of the Defendant exercising