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. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Bailey. The People are represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Darden and Mr. Kelberg. Also present is Mr. Gordon. Counsel, is there a matter you need to take up with me before we resume?
MR. GORDON: Very briefly, your Honor. Your Honor, with regard to witness list and some discovery issues, the witness list we have been getting has been at best fluid, changing, ebbing as the tides go each hour, if not day. The ability to prepare for such is next to impossible. That was difficult enough when we had the civilian witnesses with that type of testimony, but as we are moving into this arena of scientific evidence with this fluid witness list where we have different personnel involved, coupled with the fact that we are receiving reports on work that was done literally months and months ago, dated today, dated yesterday and those reports contain numerous issues that are going to have to be litigated. One, it is not complying with discovery. Two, I don't think it is--
THE COURT: Do you want to give me some specific examples?
MR. GORDON: Just a moment.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GORDON: Specifically with regard to reports, speaking of the recent reports we received from MacDonell--Dr. MacDonell and Doctors Lee, both of which contain information that--with regard to preparation, without knowing when these witnesses are going to testify, when we have other DA's have to do it.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GORDON: Secondarily, there is all sorts of experimental type of information contained that is going to require litigation. Counsel should know that. Miss Clark informs me we just received a report today from Dr. Rieders, and in getting these reports there is no specific time when these witness are going to testify, so the ebb and flowing witness list, coupled with this type of discovery at this date, is, a, not fulfilling with the Court's orders, and two, it is going to take a lot of Court time, our time, in making it very difficult to be prepared and ready to go for the Court.
THE COURT: All right. Well, I see Mr. Douglas is not here, who is our discovery compliance person.
MR. COCHRAN: That is all right.
MR. GORDON: We would like specifically at least a concrete witness list in compliance with the Court's order, so we can prepare what is occurring; not at six o'clock on Sunday we may call some people or some time later today a cryptic remark of a specific concrete list. Thank you, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.
MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, your Honor. You know, that sounded very similar to what we were always saying when they were putting on their case, didn't it?
THE COURT: Deja vu.
MR. COCHRAN: Deja vu all over again. The trial is a dynamic process that does in fact change. The Court will recall that last week Mr. Douglas, over my objections, gave them 24 witnesses. He was so far out in front it was amazing. We did cover 22 witnesses last week. Then we dealt with Mr. Kelberg and we have been stymied yesterday. Because I want to move this trial, we are going to be--and I told Mr. Darden just before we came out, perhaps he didn't talk to Mr. Gordon--I told him who the witnesses will be today. They know who the witnesses are today. I will be glad to tell them. I told them that we decided to move Maltz back because I don't want to spend the rest of this week on doctor's testimony that doesn't mean anything and we want to move on. And so I will be glad to cooperate with them from that point.
MS. CLARK: Motion to strike, your Honor.
MR. COCHRAN: Well, I'm talking, your Honor. So at any rate--so that is the point I think. With regard to discovery, Mr. Douglas will be here just momentarily.
THE COURT: All right, counsel. I will meet with counsel at the noon hour and we will hammer out the schedule for the next several days.
MR. GORDON: Thank you.
MR. COCHRAN: Sure. We will be glad to.
MR. DARDEN: Can we place on the record, your Honor, what is the witness list for today?
MR. COCHRAN: I will be glad to, your Honor, as best I can. I think that after this witness, whenever he is finished finally, we expect to call Juanita Moore. Counsel is aware of. We expect to call--
MS. CLARK: Can we get an offer of proof as to Juanita Moore? We have no idea who she is.
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, may I address this? Juanita Moore. I expect to call Mr. Meraz, Kelly Mulldorfer, the LAPD officer, Mr. Walsh, the man who made this video. And while we are wasting all this time, I think he will clear that up for them. We expect to call--we are going to see at lunchtime a photographer, Rokahr. We would also like to talk to Willie Ford, the other photographer who did the civil liability video.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. COCHRAN: Umm, there may be one that I am missing out on, your Honor, but we always try to have more than enough witnesses for the day. So I think those are the witnesses Mr. Darden and I talked about. In fact, Rokahr and Ford, he is going to make available. We will probably, right after Juanita Moore, Officer Don Thompson, the officer who handcuffed Mr. Simpson like at twelve o'clock on June 13th. He was here yesterday, so they know who the witnesses are, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. The one other issue to be resolved before we invite the jury to come back is the comment that is in this tape. And the record should reflect that this morning I met with counsel, Mr. Shapiro, and Mr. Kelberg, and viewed the laser disk outtake on three different occasions, and the Court recollects having seen that outtake on two previous occasions. And I will hear argument from counsel regarding the admissibility of that statement by Mr. Simpson.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, perhaps should the Court have that played just briefly so we can--it takes just about two minutes I think.
THE COURT: Well, the reason we played it four times--
MR. KELBERG: Well, just so that everybody understands what the statement is.
THE COURT: I'm the only one whose opinion counts here, Mr. Kelberg.
MR. KELBERG: Well, that is for certain, your Honor. The statement then, for the record, involves the trainer beginning an exercise in which he is making punching motions with the left and right hand and the trainer begins by saying "You better watch out, OJ," and Mr.--or words to that effect.
THE COURT: "You better look out for this left."
MR. KELBERG: "For this left." The Court wrote it down. I'm going to need my notes then to--
THE COURT: That was an exercise to try to save time in not viewing.
MR. KELBERG: What he says is, "You got to get your space in if you are working out with the wife, if you know what I mean. You could always blame it on, umm, working out." At the time he is making punches with the left and right arm. That is, Mr. Simpson is making it. Your Honor, the Court of course is well aware this video was made less than three weeks before the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson. This Court has heard testimony of domestic violence involving Mr. Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson and has admitted such evidence as it may relate to intent and to motive. Mr. Simpson's unscripted remark reflects his state of mind, his attitude towards his wife, his attitude towards striking his wife. You can always blame it on, in essence, this exercise, this workout. Now, everybody laughs in the video because this video is made before the murders. If this video had been shown the day after or had been shot the day after the murders and Mr. Simpson made the very same remark to that trainer that he makes in this video, I don't think there is one person who is exercising with Mr. Simpson or one person who would watch that video who would be laughing along with Mr. Simpson. It is so close in time to the murders, your Honor, it is so directly related to striking his wife, which is exactly part of the evidence to show intent and motive, relevant to premeditation and deliberation. If it is an offhanded remark that is not intended to reflect his true state of mind, the jury may so find. I don't think they will find that, not given the proximity in time and the other evidence of domestic violence. So it has substantial probative value on Mr. Simpson's state of mind. And let's face it, your Honor, his state of mind is a big issue in this case, both with respect to proving identity and with respect to proving premeditation and deliberation. And so on the basis of the threshold for admissibility, I submit to the Court it has substantial probative value and its unfairness or its possible prejudice is what? That the jury will think what? That he beats his wife or that he thinks beating a wife is something that is of no consequence. Well, isn't that exactly what this is all about; his intent, his motivation, his relationship with his wife and whether it serves to prove that he is in fact the murderer and that these murders are first degree rather than second? So I submit that there is substantial probative value and it is not substantially outweighed, as the code requires, by undue prejudice. I'll submit the matter, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Shapiro.
MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you very much. Good morning.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, fortunately we had a chance to view the tape on four occasions this morning starting at 8:30. And the Court will recall that this was said with a smile on Mr. Simpson's face, that the people who heard the remark were chuckling at it, that it was clearly a remark made in jest; it was taken in jest. Mr. Kelberg has not had the benefit of being here through the entire trial, so therefore he has only honed in on the medical aspects of this case and apparently does not realize that the only evidence that Mr. Simpson had any physical contact with Nicole Brown Simpson was five and a half years ago in 1989. And to try to establish some type of linkage between that and five and a half years later when doing what he describes as a punch--and if Mr. Kelberg would like me to demonstrate a punch, I would be more than glad to show it to him--but this is just a little arm movement going up and down on each side, far from a punch. And clearly a remark made in jest, clearly something that is potentially very, very prejudicial and no real probative value. It doesn't prove anything whatsoever, therefore, it should properly be excluded from consideration by this jury.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.
MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. The Court, in evaluating this statement, must look at the statement in its context, both within the context of how the statement is made here during an outtake from an exercise videotape, plus the context of the facts and circumstances of the case. I have to weigh the probative value, which I find to be substantial, especially given the proximity. I think the proximity is what gives it the most probative value. And I find that that outweighs any prejudicial impact and the objection will be overruled. All right. Let's have the jury, 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 panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
THE COURT: All right. Doctor, 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: The record should reflect that Dr. Robert Huizenga is on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Kelberg. Good morning again, doctor.
DR. HUIZENGA: Good morning.
THE COURT: You are reminded, sir, you are still under oath. Mr. Kelberg, you were playing a videotape which you have stopped at a particular location at the court session yesterday.
MR. KELBERG: Yes, your Honor. And my intention would be simply to ask Mr. Fairtlough to start the tape up and continue watching the videotape.
THE COURT: All right. And before you do that, ladies and gentlemen, the parties have asked me to mention to you that in viewing this videotape this is the raw footage that was later made into finished product. There are starts and stops and that may not be apparent to you in watching it, so you should also pay attention to the real time counter which is in the lower right-hand quadrant of the screen so that you can note when there is a start and a stop.
MR. KELBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Is that correct, Mr. Shapiro?
MR. SHAPIRO: Yes. Thank you very much, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Fairtlough.
(At 9:16 A.M., People's exhibit 521, a videotape, was played.)
(At 9:54 A.M. the playing of the videotape concluded.)
MR. KELBERG: I believe that is the end of the tape, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Kelberg, do you have any additional questions for the doctor?
MR. KELBERG: Just some very brief questions before we get to another video.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. KELBERG
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, first of all, I want you to assume that that video series of tapes was shot on May 25, 1994, and all of that was shot in the course of one day with additional taping that day involving the introductory remarks that Mr. Simpson is going to make as part of the ultimate finished product which I have not shown for purposes of questioning you. First of all, doctor, in viewing this videotape did you see Mr. Simpson limp as you say he limped in the same fashion you saw him limp on June 15th, 1994, in a situation that led you to describe it as like Tarzan's grandfather?
DR. HUIZENGA: There was no clear walking sequence in this area, so I can't actually assess that, but he definitely does have a lot of the same disabilities I talked about.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, my question--excuse me.
DR. HUIZENGA: I didn't see a walking segment well enough to totally evaluate his gait.
MR. KELBERG: You saw him in a walking maneuver forward and backward during the course of the exercise, did you not?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: My specific question then to you again is, sir, did you see any evidence of the same kind of limp that you say you saw on June 15th that led you to describe Mr. Simpson as walking like Tarzan's grandfather?
DR. HUIZENGA: In this tape--
MR. KELBERG: Yes or no, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: In this tape he has an altered cadence but his limp more pronounced when I saw him on 6/15/94.
MR. KELBERG: Is your answer that you did not see the limp as you say you saw on June 15th?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: Is that correct, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would it be safe to say that none of the activity that you witnessed in this video segment would create the kind of adrenaline rush that you testified one might expect if a person like Mr. Simpson were enraged; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: This video would not create an adrenaline rush, this workout video, unless he was very, very nervous about going in front of the camera to give, you know, some of his prepared lines.
MR. KELBERG: Did Mr. Simpson appear nervous to you in delivering any of his lines?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, he did not.
MR. KELBERG: And so would it be accurate to say, doctor, that again no circumstance here would have caused the kind of adrenaline rush that can lead to exertion beyond normal capability that one might see if a person is in an enraged emotional state; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: When a person is in an enraged emotional state presumably they have more adrenaline than what he would have for this sort of exertion which the body would still need to call up some mechanism for the exercise, but no, I think that that is a fair statement, he wouldn't have the kind of adrenaline rush you would if hypothetically you are enraged.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, just a couple other follow-up things. No. 1, you found that document, the February 5th, 1995, letter that you sent to Mr. Douglas, you went through your files and you brought it to my attention this morning that you had found it. I just wanted to make sure that is on the record.
DR. HUIZENGA: Thank you.
MR. KELBERG: Is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: It was misfiled in--but it was in the chart, correct.
MR. KELBERG: No. 2, that you have provided to me--yesterday you provided one page, what is page 215 from some textbook describing as the topic "Clinical picturing of rheumatoid arthritis"?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. KELBERG: And you also provided to me two pages, pages 876 and 877, of a chapter--chapter 52 from a textbook of rheumatology. The chapter is by a physician, a rheumatologist, is he not, Dr. Edward D. Harris, Jr.?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, these are some of the materials you relied upon in giving your answers to some of my earlier questions?
DR. HUIZENGA: They were some of the materials, correct.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, do you consider Dr. Harris to be a preeminent rheumatologist?
DR. HUIZENGA: I don't know Dr. Harris. He obviously wrote this chapter, but I can't--I can't talk about his qualifications, but he certainly did write this chapter in the book.
MR. KELBERG: Assuming he is a board certified rheumatologist associated with Stanford University's school of medicine and presently he is on a sabbatical writing--part of a team of doctors writing a whole new textbook on rheumatology, if Dr. Harris had reviewed Mr. Simpson's records that you've provided and the report on x-ray examinations of Dr. Martel, and all of the other materials that you've reviewed, and concluded that Mr. Simpson was not suffering an acute episode of rheumatoid arthritis on June 12th, 1994, and was not suffering an acute episode of rheumatoid arthritis on June 15th, 1994, when you saw him, would you accept Dr. Harris' opinion over your own, given his specialty, assuming that that is in fact his finding?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, may I be heard on that briefly? People versus bush.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, again, you don't hold yourself out as a rheumatologist, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I don't.
MR. KELBERG: All right. One last thing before getting into another video. You talked about having a test done for toxoplasmosis, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And that was because of something related to a cat?
DR. HUIZENGA: There was a possibility that there had been a cat at some time.
MR. KELBERG: What was your information and the source of the information as well? That is a compound question so let me break it down. No. 1, did you receive some information regarding a cat exposure on the part of Mr. Simpson?
DR. HUIZENGA: I'm going to have to go review my notes. That is my recollection, that there was--that he did at some time have exposure to a cat, yes.
MR. KELBERG: Would you please review your notes and see what information you received.
DR. HUIZENGA: Okay. (Witness complies.)
THE COURT: Then maybe you can tell us what toxoplasmosis is.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sure the doctor can.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: Isn't this one of the last items on 507?
MR. KELBERG: It is--I don't know if it is the entry. The lab report--I can tell you what page, if you will give me just one--
THE COURT: Why don't you direct the doctor's attention so he doesn't have to spend the whole morning.
DR. HUIZENGA: I just found it on a note 6/17/94 he has a positive history of cat exposure.
MR. KELBERG: And what is that history, if you received it?
DR. HUIZENGA: That he has a positive history of cat exposure. I don't remember the exact situation, but apparently that was something that I noted down. Obviously in the differential of adenopathy of a swollen lymph node that would probably be a test that we ordinarily do anyway in a wide battery of tests looking for a cause of a swollen lymph gland. And the fact that he had cat exposure may have just heightened whatever small suspicion there existed initially.
MR. KELBERG: My question, though, doctor, is did you get specific information? Well, Mr. Simpson, do you have a cat in the house? Do you have friends whose house you visit where you have been exposed to a cat? When? Any specific information? Did you inquire of him?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. KELBERG: What specific information did he give you, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: He gave me enough information that I felt it was important to run tests that he had been exposed to a cat.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I will move to strike as nonresponsive. The question is what specific information did he give you?
MR. KELBERG: What specific information--
DR. HUIZENGA: I don't recall the specific information, just enough that I made that note, so I can't answer that exactly.
MR. KELBERG: You didn't write it down?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yeah, I did write that he had exposure to a cat.
MR. KELBERG: Even if you can't tell us specifically word for word--
DR. HUIZENGA: Uh-huh.
MR. KELBERG: --in substance what did he tell you as to when he had such exposure?
DR. HUIZENGA: Obviously in order for me to write it down my feeling must have been that he had had recent exposure to a cat. Typically I will write down exposure to a cat or I would have written down exposure to a kitten since obviously kittens have a higher incidence of transmitting toxoplasmosis. And if he had, I'm sure I would have noted it, or if he would have changed kitten litters I also would have noted that or whether he had exposure to various other sources, but that basically was something that I wrote down and that is all I really recall on it, just what is in the note.
MR. KELBERG: Just your custom and practice, though, to write it down, would indicate to you what proximity in time to June 15th are you focusing on for such exposure to cause you to run the test?
DR. HUIZENGA: Umm, my recollection that it was a minimal exposure and a relatively past exposure, but again, I don't remember the exact--I would have to speculate on that.
MR. KELBERG: And the--
DR. HUIZENGA: I know that we had results that we weren't--weren't that worried about.
MR. KELBERG: And there is nothing more that you can recall in substance, even if not specifically--
DR. HUIZENGA: No, there is not.
MR. KELBERG: --on Mr. Simpson's statement to you regarding cat exposure?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, there is not.
MR. KELBERG: One last thing. X-rays. I think you said on direct that at least you didn't use one x-ray, but you said x-rays, and I'm not sure it is one or meant to be more than one. Were x-rays taken on June 15th, 1994?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, they were.
MR. KELBERG: How many?
DR. HUIZENGA: Two x-rays.
MR. KELBERG: What area or areas of the body?
DR. HUIZENGA: Chest.
MR. KELBERG: Why did you take them?
DR. HUIZENGA: Trying to further evaluate a possible cause of his lymph node under his right arm.
MR. KELBERG: And what was the result--did you evaluate the x-rays?
DR. HUIZENGA: I did and I had them over read by a radiologist.
MR. KELBERG: A specialist in reading x-rays; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: Chest x-rays, correct.
MR. KELBERG: The results were?
DR. HUIZENGA: Normal.
MR. KELBERG: Do you have the reports?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I don't.
MR. KELBERG: Was a report generated?
DR. HUIZENGA: No. I physically brought it to the head chest radiologist at cedars and asked him.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did you ever on the 15th have x-rays taken of Mr. Simpson's knees?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I did not.
MR. KELBERG: Hands?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I did not.
MR. KELBERG: Elbows?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I did not.
MR. KELBERG: Any of the areas where he may have had past evidence of rheumatoid arthritis?
DR. HUIZENGA: We don't take orthopedic x-rays in our office, and basically, given the time constraints and the fact that he had no urgent need to see an orthopedist for those problems, given the prioritization of his health problems, those things weren't done.
MR. KELBERG: And no urgent need, including no evidence on June 15th, that suggested to you an acute onset of rheumatoid arthritis, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: There was evidence of significant joint problems. There was no evidence that getting x-rays would help those joint problems and that that was a cost efficacious appropriate thing to do given his schedule and his needs at that time.
MR. KELBERG: But my question is no evidence of an acute onset of symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis requiring you at that time to have him evaluated?
DR. HUIZENGA: At that time all I knew is that he had a rheumatologist and that he had continuing joint pains, and as I've told you before, my suspicion of a flare, slight or otherwise, really came later when the full details of the case became apparent to me. As I said, when he came in the office, he was limping, he had joint complaints that I elicited, but really that wasn't the focus of his complaints. And I proceeded accordingly based on my assessment of the prioritizations of his health problems.
MR. KELBERG: May I have just a moment, your Honor?
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. KELBERG: One last topic, doctor. Another video. I'm going to ask, your Honor, that a video which has on the label the letter "N" hyphen "Sat," S-A-T, "No. 1," 4-5-94. 60 minutes, NSA, William Bearden, Bearden Company, 31 March, 1994," be marked as I think it is 522.
THE COURT: 522, videotape. How long is this videotape?
(Peo's 522 for id = videotape)
MR. KELBERG: The significant amount I am going to play is, I would say, your Honor--I think it is about ten minutes or less.
THE COURT: All right. Proceed.
MR. KELBERG: And your Honor, if I don't do this now I will probably forget, there were several photographs duplicated off the elmo that I did not mark yesterday as exhibits. I'm going to ask that they be marked--perhaps we can do it at the recess with the appropriate designation.
THE COURT: Fine.
MR. KELBERG: So I will--Mr. Fairtlough. I have had it keyed up to the segment.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, I'm going to ask you to assume that this is Mr. Simpson at the end of March, 1994, at a motivational seminar for a product called Juice Plus and he is going to be introduced and he is going to be speaking to a group at this motivational seminar. And the portion I'm going to have Mr. Fairtlough play will include a discussion by Mr. Simpson of his past problems and his present health as he views it.
MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I'm going to object to his comment. It is improper. It is not a question.
THE COURT: Overruled. Proceed.
MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, may we approach?
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. SHAPIRO: May we approach just to make a record?
THE COURT: Proceed. You have made your objection and it is on the record. Proceed. I take it this is a set-up.
MR. SHAPIRO: I have another objection.
MR. KELBERG: It is, your Honor.
THE COURT: Your Honor, I have another objection.
THE COURT: All right. Then make it at the recess. Proceed.
(At 10:09 A.M., People's exhibit 522, a videotape, was played.)
(At 10:13 A.M. the playing of the videotape concluded.)
MR. KELBERG: I asked Mr. Fairtlough to stop the tape at that point.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you have had a chance obviously to listen to that, the history as given by Mr. Simpson of his premedical status where he no longer had to take any of the pain medication. Would that suggest somebody who is in a condition better than as you described him, based on his walk, Tarzan's grandfather?
DR. HUIZENGA: At the time he made this tape, which you have told me was 4/94--
MR. KELBERG: No, I said--sorry, doctor. I said at the end of March, 1994?
DR. HUIZENGA: The end of March? Okay.
MR. KELBERG: Or approximately two and a half months before you saw him.
DR. HUIZENGA: Okay. It sounded like based on his statements, if you can believe everyone that makes an advertisement, and certainly being around the raiders, we used to laugh about it in the locker room, the products that they would support, and do something totally different, including wearing shoes that were totally different than the sponsor that they were endorsing on TV and taping over the logo and various other vitamin products which they readily admitted were worthless, that they then went out and pitched. However, given--if you assume that pitchmen can be taken at your word, then I think obviously he was doing better, but it is very misleading when he says he had acute flares of rheumatoid arthritis, which is based on the history I have gotten from Dr. Maltz and Dr. Jobe, something that they both--again, I wasn't there. It is very difficult for your doctor, with all due respect, to make a diagnosis on paper. Medicine isn't practiced that way. Usually what you do is you take a history and you do an examination and then you come to a diagnosis and fortunately medicine hasn't gotten to the stage yet where you call up a professor that writes a chapter and over the phone you make a diagnosis. We still do rely on history and physical and medicine, at least to the best of my knowledge, based on my training at Harvard. However, it is very misleading, because if you believe the rheumatologist, if you believe the orthopedist, and I have no reason to doubt their reports, stating that when they both last saw him, in 1993 in July he was having an acute flare of rheumatoid arthritis which was so severe he had difficulty bending down to tie his shoe, but I have no reason to doubt their report. And if you believe that report and if you also believe that the medication he was on, sulfasalazine, has some disease remitting qualities, it is a disease modifying agent in rheumatoid arthritis, it is not surprising that he might be doing quite well, because at the time that he gave that motivational speech he was on a significant anti-rheumatoid arthritis medication. Also, the disease rheumatoid arthritis--again I'm just a jack-of-all-trades, and I probably wouldn't know--has a fluctuating course, and that really would be my comment on that tape.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you were apprised this tape was going to be played before you came into court this morning, didn't you?
DR. HUIZENGA: I have never seen that tape.
MR. KELBERG: Well, you were told that there was going to be a motivational speech made of Mr. Simpson making this, didn't you?
DR. HUIZENGA: I was never told this tape was going to be played by anyone.
MR. KELBERG: Did you prepare that answer in advance, expecting the question?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I didn't.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Let me ask the this way then, doctor: You are saying Mr. Simpson was merely a pitch man who was lying to the people, what he said about his health was not true based on your experience with the raiders? Is that what you are saying, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: I'm giving all those as possibilities.
MR. KELBERG: Are you saying--
DR. HUIZENGA: I do not know.
MR. KELBERG: Excuse me, your Honor.
THE COURT: He is entitled to finish his answer.
MR. KELBERG: Fit it is responsive. I suggest--
THE COURT: I didn't even hear. I heard four words out of the doctor's mouth.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry, I thought I heard the end of the sentence.
THE COURT: Doctor, go ahead and finish your answer.
DR. HUIZENGA: Could you repeat the question?
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you are saying, are you not, that Mr. Simpson, when he is giving his medical condition up there, is lying to those people, that in fact that does not represent his condition? Isn't that what you are saying by relating this to your experience with the NFL players.
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection to what Mr. Simpson said on the--
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you are suggesting that Mr. Simpson is not being truthful with these people regarding his medical condition because he views himself as a pitchman for a product as a result of which he is willing to say things that are not true to please the people paying him to make the speech? Is that what you are suggesting.
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection. It mischaracterizes what Mr. Simpson said.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor.
DR. HUIZENGA: I cannot get inside Mr. Simpson's head. I do know that he had a lack of understanding of his rheumatoid arthritis. He constantly denied the fact that he had rheumatoid arthritis. He did not want to see himself as an arthritic patient. And so I can't say whether it was, a, a full lack of understanding of his disease that led him to not understand the possible effect of the anti-rheumatoid arthritis medication he was taking at the time of that speech or whether he was knowingly misrepresenting to make money. I have no idea and I am not qualified to say.
MR. KELBERG: Well, doctor, if he was being truthful about his condition, that he wasn't making false statements just to please somebody paying him, then in fact he is saying his condition is such I don't need the pills any more as of this time? Isn't that what he is saying?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, your Honor. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, by the way, you were in the courtroom yesterday afternoon when I read a summary, a transcript summary of what was being--going to be played this morning when we were discussing this as being the last piece of evidence that I would use in cross-examining you? You were in the courtroom, weren't you, sir?
DR. HUIZENGA: I have no idea.
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, calls for speculation, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.
DR. HUIZENGA: I don't know if I was in the courtroom or not because I didn't hear what you said, so I'm not sure where I was since I didn't--how would I know if I was in the courtroom if I didn't hear what you said?
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did you leave the courtroom before the courtroom was cleared of all press yesterday afternoon at the completion of court business?
DR. HUIZENGA: I left.
MR. KELBERG: Had you left before the press left the courtroom?
DR. HUIZENGA: I left after everyone filed out.
MR. KELBERG: And so, doctor, is it your statement here that if there was a motion argued in the presence of the press, with a representation made by me to the Court as to what this videotape was going to say, if you were here, you didn't hear what I was saying at the time I was making this offer of proof to the Court?
MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, it has been asked and answered four times.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You may answer the question, doctor.
DR. HUIZENGA: I did not hear or follow any motion you made or follow that whatsoever, no.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, you said that you wouldn't rely upon a Dr. Harris, and I represent he is a board certified rheumatologist, and a preeminent expert in the field of rheumatology.
MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I'm going to object if this is testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: You said you wouldn't rely on that over Dr. Maltz and Dr. Jobe who saw him; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: I said I would not rely on any individual who reviewed a chart without doing an appropriate history and physical at that time and seeing the patient.
MR. KELBERG: In general, doctor, would you rely on a board certified rheumatologist over a doctor who held him out as a rheumatologist who was neither board certified in internal medicine or in rheumatology?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, your Honor, it is argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: As Dr. Maltz in fact is?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KELBERG: As an offer of proof--
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KELBERG: All right. I will leave out that phrase and ask the doctor to answer it.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question, counsel.
MR. SHAPIRO: May we approach?
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you, all things being equal, rely upon an evaluation by a board certified rheumatologist over an opinion offered on an issue of rheumatology--rheumatoid arthritis from a person who is an orthopedic surgeon or a person who held himself--held himself out as a specialist in rheumatology who was neither board certified in internal medicine or board certified in rheumatology?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, compound.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you accept the opinion of someone holding himself out as a rheumatologist who was not board certified in either internal medicine or in rheumatology over the opinion of a specialist board certified in rheumatology on the issue of a rheumatoid arthritis acute onset?
DR. HUIZENGA: The whole issue of experts is very difficult. In medicine you have to see the patient.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I move to strike as nonresponsive.
THE COURT: Overruled. He can answer the question.
MR. KELBERG: All right.
DR. HUIZENGA: There are very--various definitions of an expert, but basically any doctor, to be an expert, obviously needs to be very knowledgeable and needs to have appropriate training, needs to be--have shown proficiency in what he does, and needs to, in addition, have other traits, including caring about people and things of that nature. I mean, there are other definitions of an expert, and just to give you an idea, at Harvard, you know, there is a mean streak in there, and I remember as a student being told there an expert is a bastard from Boston with slides. Just because you've got a big degree doesn't mean everything. You need to see a patient, you need to do the building blocks of medicine, and that is a history and that is a physical examination and an evaluation of all the results. I still think that is the way to practice medicine. I do not know of the other specialist. All things considered, the more training, the more proficiency is superior, but I think it is very dangerous to compare credentials and base a diagnosis based on who has got the longest CV. I think that that is a dangerous step. That is my own personal opinion.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you have Dr. Jobe's records, do you not?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I do.
MR. KELBERG: Would you pull out, if you would, his one-page evaluation from July 13, 1993.
DR. HUIZENGA: If I can find it.
THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg, do you have that immediately available, an extra copy?
MR. KELBERG: Mine I marked which I have no problem in showing the doctor. May I stay up here to--
THE COURT: You may. Save us a little time here, Mr. Kelberg.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, this is the last report from Dr. Jobe, the orthopedic surgeon, prior to your evaluation of June 15th, 1994, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.
MR. KELBERG: And it is dated July 13th of 1993; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: And it indicates that certain x-rays were taken of Mr. Simpson's right elbow, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And it indicates that in the opinion of Dr. Jobe that the x-rays are within normal limits but show early findings of rheumatoid arthritis; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is what is says here, correct.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, did you receive a copy of a June 28th, 1995, two-page report from a Dr. William Martel, a doctor with the University of Michigan, the letter directed to Dr. Maltz?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I received a copy of that.
MR. KELBERG: And in essence, Dr. Martel is a specialist in radiology which you have identified already as people who specialize in reading x-rays?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And in essence what Dr. Maltz had asked is for Dr. Martel to review the available x-rays of Mr. Simpson from `91, `92 and `93; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: And there were no other x-rays after the `93 x-rays to provide that dealt with the areas in question; the hands, the wrists, the feet, the elbows, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: Now, with respect to what Dr. Jobe has indicated as x-ray findings of the right elbow showing normal limits but early finding of rheumatoid arthritis, was a reading of that x-ray also taken by Dr. Martel? And I will show you the report--and your Honor, may this be marked as 522, please?
THE COURT: How about 523.
MR. KELBERG: 533, I'm sorry.
THE COURT: What is the date on that letter?
MR. KELBERG: The letter is dated June 28th, 1995, to Dr. Maltz.
THE COURT: All right. This is by Dr. Martel, however?
MR. KELBERG: Correct.
THE COURT: All right. All right. 523.
(Peo's 523 for id = ltr dtd 6/28/95)
DR. HUIZENGA: These elbow x-rays, are those from Maltz' office or Jobe's office, do we know?
MR. KELBERG: Well, doctor, what is the date shown on those x-rays?
DR. HUIZENGA: The date is July 13, 1993, and he was seen by both Dr. Jobe and Dr. Maltz on that same day, so I don't know whose x-rays, but it probably doesn't make a difference.
MR. KELBERG: All right. So you've said it doesn't probably make a difference. Did you find any indication by Dr. Martel of his assessment of the elbows?
DR. HUIZENGA: He did make an assessment of the elbows.
MR. KELBERG: And what did he indicate in his assessment of the elbows?
DR. HUIZENGA: His assessment of the elbows, frontal and lateral views of both elbows, show no significant abnormalities; however, as I'm sure you are aware--
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I will move to strike as nonresponsive.
THE COURT: All right. Next question.
MR. KELBERG: Did you also, by the way, receive from Dr. Maltz a copy of a July handwritten chart entry for an evaluation of Mr. Simpson in the county jail?
DR. HUIZENGA: I assume I did.
MR. KELBERG: If I may have just a moment, your Honor, to find--I'm sorry, your Honor. May I just have a moment to find a report?
THE COURT: That is why we have post-its.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: That is why we have post-its.
MR. KELBERG: In the county it is sometimes tough to find them.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. KELBERG: I--umm, I believe this is the one I wish to use.
THE COURT: Is that it, Mr. Kelberg?
MR. KELBERG: Yes, I believe so, your Honor. I'm going to have to get a clean copy and I will get it from another source, but I would ask that this document, which has the accounting no. 505 be marked as 524.
THE COURT: All right. What is this?
MR. KELBERG: It appears to be a handwritten note of Dr. Maltz', a rheumatology note, and because of the copy that was provided to the Prosecution, I cannot be certain what the month date is, but the day is 2/94. And I'm going to show--perhaps, doctor, at a break, if we get there, if you have a chance to find your copy, maybe it will have the month.
(Peo's 524 for id = handwritten note)
MR. KELBERG: This is Dr. Maltz' handwritten note of an evaluation of Mr. Simpson; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And I want to invite your attention to the second paragraph. Can you read what Dr. Maltz has written there?
DR. HUIZENGA: The copy is a little bit poor. You are going to have to help me there.
MR. KELBERG: Does it appear to be: "Main problem presently is classical increased activity of his rheumatoid disease with the left knee being his major limiting factor in terms of pain," I can't make out the next word, "And swelling?
DR. HUIZENGA: Swelling.
MR. KELBERG: Word that we can't make out may be "Gel"?
DR. HUIZENGA: (No audible response.)
MR. KELBERG: Let me back it up. What is read to begin with, does that sound what it appears to you to be: "Main problem presently is classical increased activity of his rheumatoid disease with the left knee being his major limiting factor in terms of pain," the word we can't decipher, "And swelling."
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes.
MR. KELBERG: And that indicates to you, does it not, doctor, that Dr. Maltz, excuse me, believed that Mr. Simpson has evidence of rheumatoid arthritis in his left knee, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: I'm not sure that is what it said, no.
MR. KELBERG: Well, doctor, doesn't it say--
DR. HUIZENGA: It says he has evidence on--this is my interpretation. You will have to Dr. Maltz, it will probably be more appropriate, but if I read that, it says he has got evidence of rheumatoid arthritis with--and this is a different part his left knee--being his major limiting factor. That is how I read it, but you may have read it differently.
MR. KELBERG: Don't you read it as the relationship between the rheumatoid arthritis and the limiting aspect on his left knee?
DR. HUIZENGA: We have to ask Dr. Maltz that. I wouldn't assume that.
MR. KELBERG: Well, let's ask you to look then at Dr. Martel's report and see if in the summary he evaluates the left knee x-rays for evidence of inflammatory disease which rheumatoid arthritis would be; isn't that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: Rheumatoid arthritis is an inflammatory disease, right.
MR. KELBERG: And in the summary, with respect to the left knee, does he not say the following: "The abnormality noted in the left knee is degenerative rather than inflammatory in nature and probably secondary to earlier trauma."
DR. HUIZENGA: That is what is said here.
MR. KELBERG: And that would indicate that Mr. Simpson, at least based upon that x-ray, does not show evidence of rheumatoid arthritis in the left knee joint, but rather has the effects of osteoarthritis from previous trauma, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: There is definitely osteoarthritis in his left knee, but we have a biopsy that is strongly consistent of rheumatoid arthritis of the synovium taken in 1991, so I think there is some question about that, and there is some subtleties that I certainly am not in a position to discuss with you.
MR. KELBERG: Well, Dr. Martel, would you agree, is an expert in radiology, which you are not?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: According to his report the left knee does not show evidence of inflammatory disease; it shows osteoarthritis, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct; however, as the elbow, sometimes you can have rheumatoid arthritis in a joint and not have x-ray changes, so I would be very careful--and again, I don't want to present myself as an expert--but I wouldn't jump to simple conclusions based on the fact that an x-ray shows degenerative not rheumatoid arthritis that that joint cannot be involved with by and in rheumatoid arthritis.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Kelberg, we are going to take to take our break.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our mid-morning recess at this time. Remember all my admonitions to you. Doctor, you can step down. You are ordered to come back in fifteen minutes. Let me see counsel with the court reporter, please.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: Over at the side bar. Mr. Kelberg, you told me two more questions after the videotape.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I did not expect his answer to be--I did not expect his answer, which I think the Court will recognize, went on for probably about two and a half minutes, unabated, after I asked the simple question regarding the motivational video. He has thrown in the kitchen sink in an effort--as an advocate--as the jury will see, is as an advocate rather than as a physician.
THE COURT: Haven't we established that at this point?
MR. KELBERG: I think I have.
MR. COCHRAN: Exactly.
THE COURT: The only thing that I think we are going to do is we have the tape from yesterday, as I understand it, that will show--
MS. CLARK: We don't know.
MR. KELBERG: We are previewing it to see if it will show the doctor present when--
MS. CLARK: I'm sorry, depends on the camera pan.
MR. KELBERG: We are going to see if it shows him present. The Court may think it is collateral.
THE COURT: I think that is real collateral. Let's finish.
MR. KELBERG: I want to find the one document. There is a different document I was looking for.
THE COURT: I agree you can look for the document, but let's wind this up.
MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, may I be heard briefly?
THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Shapiro. I'm sorry, you needed to make your record on an objection previously.
MR. SHAPIRO: To paraphrase the former chief Judge of the federal district court, cross-examination is not a marathon, and this witness is called for limited purposes. This cross-examination is now approaching a record, just as the direct examination of Mr. Kelberg broke all existing records, that we also believe that under 352 that the Court should exercise its discretion in controlling the flow of this case, and that the only object of Mr. Kelberg's cross-examination, which sometimes in my opinion borders on the ludicrous, is to slow down the pace of the Defense, which we have told the Court we want to finish in three to four weeks, to throw off our flow of witnesses and to accomplish nothing other than to bore the jury and engage in some type of private conversation with the doctor.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Kelberg, how much more do you have left?
MR. KELBERG: If I can find the document, very, very, very brief.
THE COURT: One document?
MR. KELBERG: I just want to review the Martel report and see if there is any other--
THE COURT: All it is going to say--let's face it, it is really a fine point without a distinction. If it is rheumatoid arthritis in his knee or if it is osteoarthritis in his knee, it is still arthritis, and we agree that looking at the railroad tracks on the side of his knee and looking at the number of hits the guy took, he probably has got knee problems. He has got kneemonia.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I will accept all that, but the issue is this doctor now wants to make it out that he had an acute onset of rheumatoid arthritis that would have prevented him on June 12--
THE COURT: He hasn't said that.
MR. KELBERG: Well, he is suggesting it. That is the inference that he wants the jury to draw. And the question is, is he credible--is he credible in forming such an opinion? I find this doctor--
THE COURT: Counsel, you've got a videotape of Mr. Simpson walking down the sidewalk on June the 12th at the recital where he is not limping. You've got this exercise video where he is jumping around all day and he is making these arm motions and all this kind of stuff. The Prosecution's theory is that they cornered Mr. Goldman in that little cage. You don't need to chase the guy down. You caught him.
MR. KELBERG: I agree with all that, your Honor.
THE COURT: Let's wind this up.
MR. KELBERG: I will.
MS. CLARK: Can I just make one point, your Honor? Eight days of cross on Tom Lange.
THE COURT: No, no, no.
MS. CLARK: The Court remembers that so I want to put that in context.
THE COURT: Miss Clark, I'm not worried about that, but I think we've already made our point here is the point I'm trying to make.
MR. KELBERG: I agree, Judge.
THE COURT: You made the point that there were many other injuries on the back of the left hand. That was great stuff.
MS. CLARK: Right, right.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, may I be excused?
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MS. CLARK: I'm not disputing the Court's observations. I just think that Mr. Shapiro's outrageous statements--
THE COURT: Miss Clark, you don't need to call his comments outrageous.
MS. CLARK: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. SHAPIRO: I would also object, since they don't want to be here, to the playing of the Juice Plus video, as beyond the scope of direct examination as being--as being a 352 objection and that it should not be--we are practicing law while you are joking.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SHAPIRO: And we were--
MS. CLARK: I don't think I want to hear any more of this, and I think that the Court ought to shut Mr. Shapiro down before those personal remarks are made. I thought that was not going to be allowed.
THE COURT: Miss Clark, stop, please.
MS. CLARK: Is it only allowed on one side?
THE COURT: Stop it. The Court already ruled on that. The objection is overruled.
MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Just cleaning up our record here, Miss Clark.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. Mr. Kelberg, did you find that document?
MR. KELBERG: I'm satisfied that the document I showed him is the area I wanted to inquire on.
THE COURT: What area is this, Mr. Kelberg?
MR. KELBERG: I'm trying to suggest to the Court that I don't think I'm going to have any more examination.
THE COURT: Okay. Good. That is it?
MR. KELBERG: Just to mark the exhibit.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SHAPIRO: So stipulated.
THE COURT: 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 we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury. Mr. Kelberg, do you have some items you need to mark?
MR. KELBERG: I do, your Honor. These again are from the elmo that we had produced yesterday during the examination. The photograph of the formal diagram that Dr. Huizenga included in our exhibit 507 I ask to be marked as 507-A.
THE COURT: All right. 507-A.
(Peo's 507-A for id = diagram)
MR. KELBERG: The photograph with the two areas of abrasion that is a part of the sequence of--a part of the photograph of 516 I would ask to be marked as 516-A.
THE COURT: 516-A.
(Peo's 516-A for id = photograph)
MR. KELBERG: Another photograph that showed that abrasion to the left thumb from photograph 518-B be marked as 518 double B, as in boy.
THE COURT: So marked.
(Peo's 518-BB for id = photograph)
MR. KELBERG: And we have a clean copy of the July 13, 1993, report, your Honor--and I'm sorry, I did lose track of the designations--I believe that that was going to be 523, Dr. Jobe's one-page--
THE COURT: I have that--I have 523 as the 6/28, Dr. Martel--
MR. KELBERG: Okay. Then it is the exhibit number right after the video, I believe, should be the next in order, and the video--
THE COURT: Well, the--
MR. KELBERG: Motivational video.
THE COURT: The motivational video I have as 522. Mrs. Robertson, does that correlate?
MR. DOUGLAS: Correct, your Honor.
MR. KELBERG: 523, your Honor, would be Dr. Martel's report.
THE COURT: Right. I have 524, a handwritten note of Dr. Maltz.
MR. KELBERG: Okay. If I didn't specifically make Dr. Jobe's one-page July 13, 1993, typewritten document as 525--
THE COURT: 525. All right. Dr. Jobe's note.
(Peo's 525 for id = document/7-13-93)
MR. KELBERG: With that, your Honor, I have no further questions.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Shapiro.
MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you very kindly, your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO
MR. SHAPIRO: Good morning again, Dr. Huizenga.
DR. HUIZENGA: Good morning.
MR. SHAPIRO: Dr. Huizenga, are you familiar with the term "Forensic medicine"?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I am.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you familiar with the term "Forensic physician"?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I am.
MR. SHAPIRO: What is your understanding of that term or those terms?
DR. HUIZENGA: Those are terms that deal with the study of things that happen essentially after death with an obvious bent towards law, and you know, pathology of medicine as it relates to that.
MR. SHAPIRO: And the term "Forensic" as it applies in the court setting deals with people who deal with legal issues related to their specialty; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's right.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is that your understanding?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is that something you do?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, it is absolutely not what I do.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is that something you want to do?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, no desire whatsoever.
MR. SHAPIRO: I take it that your primary focus is the practice--the private practice of medicine?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: Now, you have indicated that you graduated from Harvard medical school. At the time you went to Harvard medical school how was that rated in the spectrum of medical schools in the country?
DR. HUIZENGA: I think in terms of the rating by the deans and the difficulty in getting in it was probably the hardest school to get in.
MR. SHAPIRO: And upon graduation you applied for a residency?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And are there different residencies around the country?
DR. HUIZENGA: There are many different residencies around the country, right.
MR. SHAPIRO: And just like schools, do residencies differ in their programs and their prestige?
DR. HUIZENGA: Again, it is difficult to exactly quantitate, but there is different levels of prestige and levels of quality and difficulty in getting in.
MR. SHAPIRO: And where did you take your residency?
DR. HUIZENGA: At Cedars-Sinai hospital, you know, is a sub-set of the UCLA medical system.
MR. SHAPIRO: And is that here in Los Angeles?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.
MR. SHAPIRO: And how--how was that program rated at the time you were accepted?
DR. HUIZENGA: It was very highly regarded at that time.
MR. SHAPIRO: How many residents were in the program when you were there?
DR. HUIZENGA: There were approximately thirty.
MR. SHAPIRO: And is there a position called chief resident?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, there is.
MR. SHAPIRO: What is that position?
DR. HUIZENGA: Typically two individuals from that class are chosen to teach the oncoming residents and to lead morning report and to round with the younger residents for educational purposes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And on what basis are the chief residents selected?
DR. HUIZENGA: Well, presumably they are chosen by the chief of medicine based on whoever shows the most promise in terms of teaching and other physician attributes.
MR. SHAPIRO: In terms of teaching, in addition to your private practice of medicine, have you maintained any teaching positions?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I have.
MR. SHAPIRO: What teaching positions have you maintained?
DR. HUIZENGA: As a clinical professor of medicine at UCLA.
MR. SHAPIRO: And what subjects have you taught to the students at UCLA in medical school?
DR. HUIZENGA: Umm, introduction to medicine, as well as attending for medical students and the residents on ward rounds.
MR. SHAPIRO: Now, you've told us also that you were a doctor for the Los Angeles raiders, a football team?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I was.
MR. SHAPIRO: How many other doctors had that position for teams in the Los Angeles area?
DR. HUIZENGA: There was one other team in Los Angeles area and there was one other internist for that team, and then during my tenure with the Los Angeles raiders there was also another football team that was there temporarily, so there was an internist for that team as well.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is that viewed as a prestigious position?
DR. HUIZENGA: I also believe it is viewed as a prestigious position.
MR. SHAPIRO: And it is the type of job many doctors would like to get?
DR. HUIZENGA: I believe that is true.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you resigned from that position?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you resigned because of your integrity?
DR. HUIZENGA: I resigned--
MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor, leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
MR. SHAPIRO: Why did you resign from that position after how many years--how many years did you serve in that position?
DR. HUIZENGA: I served in that position for eight years.
MR. SHAPIRO: And why did you resign from that position?
DR. HUIZENGA: I resigned from that position because the team owner would not listen when I described in detail an incident that happened with the team orthopedist regarding an incident where a player was temporarily paralyzed. And essentially, to make a very tragic story short, was told face-to-face by the orthopedic surgeon, after he had information that said there was a problem in his cervical spine, that he was potentially at higher risk, according to numerous specialists of the neck, orthopedic neck specialists and neurosurgeons, he was looked at by the team orthopedist in his face and said based on that x-ray you are okay, you know, you can play next week. And of course I, as all these types of problems, went behind the scenes and made sure he got other opinions, but when the owner didn't back my position on this, that is why I resigned.
MR. SHAPIRO: As a matter of personal integrity?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it was.
MR. SHAPIRO: And do you value that?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I do.
MR. SHAPIRO: How do you value that? How highly, how strongly are you concerned about your integrity?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is all I have as a physician is my reputation which I have worked hard to build over the last 21 years since I entered medicine.
MR. SHAPIRO: In the private practice of medicine do you function as an individual doctor for the purposes of your own income?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I do.
MR. SHAPIRO: And how long have you done that?
DR. HUIZENGA: I have been in a private practice since approximately 1983, 1984.
MR. SHAPIRO: I have been reminded that some people might have some difficulty hearing. Would be kind enough to maybe move the microphone a little bit further.
DR. HUIZENGA: Sure. (Witness complies.)
MR. SHAPIRO: And you are in what's called a group of doctors?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, we share office space.
MR. SHAPIRO: You share overhead?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: But your patients and your income is your own?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And one of the doctors that you share office space with is my personal physician, Dr. Robert Koblin?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's right.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are there other doctors there?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are they similarly involved in internal medicine?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, they are.
MR. SHAPIRO: What is the reputation of the group of doctors that you are with?
DR. HUIZENGA: I believe we have an absolutely impeccable reputation.
MR. SHAPIRO: What are the other doctors who are included in your group now that practice out of the same office?
MR. KELBERG: Objection, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. HUIZENGA: Dr. Derwin.
MR. SHAPIRO: What is his first name?
DR. HUIZENGA: Arnold.
MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. Who else?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is it for right now.
MR. SHAPIRO: So the three doctors?
DR. HUIZENGA: Right.
MR. SHAPIRO: As a private practitioner, the source of your income for which you rely upon a living is patients?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you advertise to get patients?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I do not advertise.
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you solicit patients?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I do not.
MR. SHAPIRO: How do you get patients to build a medical practice?
DR. HUIZENGA: Basically over a period of time individuals that feel you are providing them high quality medicine will refer acquaintances, friends or family members.
MR. SHAPIRO: And was that the case with OJ Simpson?
DR. HUIZENGA: That was the case with OJ Simpson.
MR. SHAPIRO: He was referred by someone who knew you?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And that was myself?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you have no experience in crime scene investigations, do you?
DR. HUIZENGA: None whatsoever.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you have told this jury already that you have never before testified in a case?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you ever want to testify again in a case?
DR. HUIZENGA: I think one may be enough here.
MR. SHAPIRO: What was your focus when you saw OJ Simpson on the 15th of June, 1994?
DR. HUIZENGA: I think my focus was the same focus I have with every patient and that is that I sit them down in my office and ask them, you know, what are your problems and try to figure out if there are any other things going on that they may not be aware of, and essentially formulate a plan for their health. I, you know, approached him like I approach every other patient in my office, and really, besides requesting from you a photographer, given the fact that you told me on the phone he had cuts, really did nothing else different than I would do for another first time office visit, thorough physical examination.
MR. SHAPIRO: So what you are saying is, in addition to the general examination that was requested by the patient, there was something additional and that was to take photographs--
MR. KELBERG: Objection, leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, in addition to the history and physical examination of Mr. Simpson, was there something additional that was requested by myself?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, there was.
MR. SHAPIRO: What was that?
DR. HUIZENGA: Photographs of his hands.
MR. SHAPIRO: Photographs of anything else, any other part of his body?
DR. HUIZENGA: The remainder of the body as well, to document whether or not there were any other injuries.
MR. SHAPIRO: Outside of that, was there anything else that was requested of you, when you saw Mr. Simpson as a patient, that was out of the ordinary?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, there was not.
MR. SHAPIRO: Has there been--have you met with anybody in preparation for your testimony here today?
DR. HUIZENGA: I met--I talked with you on the phone on Thursday for approximately--excuse me. You came to my office on Thursday evening for approximately fifteen to twenty minutes on Thursday night. I finished up seeing patients at approximately 7:30 to eight o'clock on Thursday night. I had not prepared whatsoever any special material and you came and gave me an idea what sorts of things you would be asking on Thursday evening. Before that I had one meeting at Mr. Cochran's office somewhere around the 1st, where there were a group of attorneys, you were present, as well as other attorneys, and I stood up and gave a brief summary of Mr. Simpson's medical problems.
MR. SHAPIRO: And then you also watched the video with the lawyers?
DR. HUIZENGA: And Sunday, which was in the middle of it, you said prepared before--Sunday in the middle of this testimony I went and watched the video that--actually didn't get to see this video; I saw the final product.
MR. SHAPIRO: Were you given any instructions by myself or any other lawyers as to how to testify in this case?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I was.
MR. SHAPIRO: What were those instructions?
DR. HUIZENGA: Tell the truth.
MR. SHAPIRO: Have you in any way tried to mislead this jury based on your medical findings and observations of Mr. Simpson on June the 15th?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I haven't.
MR. SHAPIRO: Have you in any way compromised your integrity?
DR. HUIZENGA: I don't believe I have.
MR. SHAPIRO: Now, as a physician do you develop a rapport with your patients?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I do.
MR. SHAPIRO: And do you care about your patients?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I do.
MR. SHAPIRO: And would you say that is true of your relationship with Mr. Simpson?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you care about Mr. Simpson?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I do.
MR. SHAPIRO: And do you care about his state of health?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I do.
MR. SHAPIRO: Based on the standard practices for physicians in the Beverly Hills West Los Angeles area, is there a general standard of practice for a first evaluation of a patient?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, there is.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would you relate to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what that is.
MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. HUIZENGA: Generally when you see a first time new patient you sit them down in your office and talk for approximately a half an hour to 45 minutes to even an hour, and essentially then move on and do a physical examination that typically takes somewhere around a half an hour to complete, and then the nurse gets the patient, either in the middle of that process or at the end, to do all the vital signs, to draw blood for tests, to do chest x-rays, to do a hearing test and a vision test, if that is needed. And then essentially occasionally, if it is appropriate, you know, other things may be done, such as seeing a dietitian in the office.
MR. SHAPIRO: Now, your specialty is internal medicine?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is that also known as general medicine?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would you explain to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what that entails, what your function is as a doctor in that area?
DR. HUIZENGA: Basically you are--someone--a family doctor, quote-unquote, is someone who did their four years of medical school, did one-year of internship and then he hangs his shingle. An internist basically does that first year where you kind of take all comers, but then you do an additional two years where do you essentially the same thing to hopefully get a little bit more understanding of those problems. And then in my case I did an extra year of chief residency, all basically evaluating every different sub-specialty, so my role is to try to see if I can take care of all of your problems. Obviously there are certain--I might be better in kidney disease and not so great in dermatology, or I might be very good in orthopedics for an internist and not so great in something like rheumatology. And then you basically, if you can handle their problems and you feel comfortable with their complaints, the buck stops there. You make the decisions and you devise a treatment plan. If that is not the case, then you make arrangements to have them see a second opinion, a sub-specialist who are going to know something about that area, but they hopefully will know somewhat more and then you refer them to that appropriate specialist.
MR. SHAPIRO: And approximately how many sub-specialists are there that you would refer people to, just generally?
DR. HUIZENGA: In terms of the classes of sub-specialties probably, you know, fifteen or twenty, although you can get very technical and you can break down some sub-specialties, even something like orthopedics, into people that do mostly ankles, knees or shoulders or neck or back, but I would say fifteen or twenty is a pretty good estimate.
MR. SHAPIRO: Now, regarding OJ Simpson, did you conduct the examination that you described to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury as being a proper initial patient's valuation?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did. Possibly because it, I believe, took about two hours, maybe in terms of doing the history and in terms of including time for the photographs, maybe it went an extra 15, 30 minutes over what I would normally spend, because we were pushed back, as I said, an hour into our afternoon.
MR. SHAPIRO: Now, in terms of a physical examination, is there any real limitation on what a doctor can do in examining a human being?
DR. HUIZENGA: No. Basically what you do is you start out and there is a standard examination. In other words, if you look at, say, something like the stomach, you can just do the routine things, which might be to listen to see if there is bowel sounds, to see if the intestines, the abdomen, is symmetrical, to feel if there are any masses or there is any tenderness or to--obviously I think I mentioned already--listen. If any of those are abnormal, that is the screening--let's just say, of the abdomen; look, listen, palpate. If any of those are abnormal, then for each abnormality there are ten more things that you could then move into, but there is--you know, you can't do every test and every person or you essentially would be there for twelve hours.
MR. SHAPIRO: I mean, there are some examinations that perhaps the president of the United States would get on a yearly examination or heads of other states that might require a hospitalization and a battery of tests over a period of days; isn't that correct?
MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor, leading, argumentative and irrelevant.
THE COURT: It is, but I will allow the answer because it will be yes or no.
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Okay. So there are limitations within an initial examination. Did you feel that within those limitations a proper initial examination was done of Mr. Simpson?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did, in addition to which again dictating the report would be a little bit unusual. Usually you take cryptic notes and just noting certain things, so that would be the only other unusual thing about this evaluation.
MR. SHAPIRO: Now, in doing an initial evaluation, are there certain areas that you do not go into in-depth until you find problems?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: And if you find problems, is it then your job to see if the person is being treated by somebody in those areas?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you find--first let me ask you: When people see--do you have patients that see on you a routine basis?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I do.
MR. SHAPIRO: You are called their regular doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And do they come in for annual examinations?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, they do.
MR. SHAPIRO: In your history did you find out whether OJ Simpson had such a doctor in the last five years?
DR. HUIZENGA: I did find that information out.
MR. SHAPIRO: And what was that information?
DR. HUIZENGA: He does not have a regular doctor that he saw on regular basis for internal medicine.
MR. SHAPIRO: But did he have specialists that he saw?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, he did.
MR. SHAPIRO: Now, you've told us that you are--in response to a question by Mr. Kelberg, are you board certified in emergency medicine?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I am not.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you board certified in any type of medicine?
DR. HUIZENGA: Internal medicine.
MR. SHAPIRO: And that is what you practice?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And that is the reason Mr. Simpson saw you?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: Objection, leading and suggestive and calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase that last question.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did Mr. Simpson see you for sutures, on an emergency basis, of his finger?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, he did not.
MR. SHAPIRO: What did you see you for?
DR. HUIZENGA: Mr. Simpson saw me for an acute stress reaction, situational depression, difficulty sleeping.
MR. SHAPIRO: And from that you took a history?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And did that lead you to investigate other areas of his health during that history?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it did.
MR. SHAPIRO: And investigating other areas of his health you have told us that he had a condition and a disease known as arthritis?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: Now, you have been cross-examined for about two days by Mr. Kelberg on arthritis?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you a specialist in arthritis?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I am not.
MR. SHAPIRO: If Mr. Simpson had no other doctor and you were the first person who saw this condition, would you have referred him to someone else?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I would.
MR. SHAPIRO: And what would you have referred him for?
DR. HUIZENGA: Arthritis.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you would refer him to a specialist in that area?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And regarding the orthopedic--now, let me just ask you this: Was there--after that examination for two days is there any question in your mind, as of June 15th, 1994, whether or not OJ Simpson suffered from arthritis?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, there is no question in my mind.
MR. SHAPIRO: How certain are you of that?
DR. HUIZENGA: I am a certain as I can be.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would you say within a reasonable degree of medical certainty?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I would. You know, they say something, you know, in medicine, you know, when you standing in Montana and you hear hoof beats coming behind you, it could be zebras, but it is horses, and that is what you have to see. And in his case he had absolutely without question multiple areas where he had arthritis.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is there anything in the two days of examination by Mr. Kelberg going over all minutia, all the reports--
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I will object, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained. It is argumentative. Rephrase the question.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is there anything in the two days of examination of Mr. Kelberg on the issue of arthritis that changes your opinion as to whether or not on June 15th Mr. Simpson suffered from arthritis?
DR. HUIZENGA: No.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you do a physical examination of the joints of Mr. Simpson?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. SHAPIRO: And did you come to any conclusions regarding his orthopedic condition?
DR. HUIZENGA: He had abnormal joints on examination.
MR. SHAPIRO: If Mr. Simpson did not have a specialist in orthopedics--an orthopedist, would you have referred him to one?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I would have.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you familiar with the name of the orthopedist that Mr. Simpson was seeing, Dr. Frank Jobe?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I am.
MR. SHAPIRO: What is his reputation?
DR. HUIZENGA: He is by reputation one of the best sports orthopedic surgeons in the country.
MR. SHAPIRO: If, as a hypothetical, that a doctor of Dr. Jobe's reputation, education and experience, evaluated Mr. Simpson and referred him to a rheumatologist named Dr. Bertram Maltz, would you as a doctor, expect your patient, Mr. Simpson, to follow that advice and go see Dr. Maltz?
MR. KELBERG: Objection, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I would.
MR. SHAPIRO: And to your knowledge was that done?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it was.
MR. SHAPIRO: Was that done three and a half years ago?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it was.
MR. SHAPIRO: And to your knowledge was Mr. Simpson treated for the last three and a half years for arthritis?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, he was.
MR. SHAPIRO: And do you believe that that was to set up some type of Defense for a crime that would be committed five years or four years later?
DR. HUIZENGA: I would not believe that, no.
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you believe it was some type of charade to fool Dr. Maltz three and a half years ago that he was suffering from a condition and treated for a condition that he didn't have?
DR. HUIZENGA: No.
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you have any doubt about that?
DR. HUIZENGA: No.
MR. SHAPIRO: You have told us that as a team doctor many athletes don't want to admit injuries because that would prevent them from playing; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And that would be your job whether or not somebody was capable of playing or not; isn't that true?
DR. HUIZENGA: If it was on a non-orthopedic non-joint problem, yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: So you are used to people not giving you a complete accurate history; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I am.
MR. SHAPIRO: And would you say you may be more used to that than ordinary doctors who practice internal medicine because of your experience in the NFL?
MR. KELBERG: Objection, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. HUIZENGA: I believe that is an accurate statement.
MR. SHAPIRO: And your experience in the NFL as an internist, how many other doctors were acting in a professional capacity advising teams in the national football league when you were involved?
DR. HUIZENGA: There were somewhere in the seventy to eighty range in terms of doctors that were affiliated with the 28 professional NFL football teams.
MR. SHAPIRO: And is there an organization of those doctors--was there an organization of doctors?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, there is.
MR. SHAPIRO: And did you maintain any position within that organization?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. SHAPIRO: What position did you maintain?
DR. HUIZENGA: In 1987 I was elected vice-president, president-elect and was president of the NFL physician's society from 1989 to 1991.
MR. SHAPIRO: Now, Mr. Kelberg went through part of your curriculum that I did not bring up and that was things that you have done on television and on radio?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: Were you selected to appear in certain venues on radio and television because of your expertise?
MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor, calls for speculation and hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you know why you were selected to appear on certain radio and television shows?
DR. HUIZENGA: I believe so.
MR. SHAPIRO: And what is your belief?
MR. KELBERG: Same objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SHAPIRO: What areas did you discuss on radio and television?
DR. HUIZENGA: Typically issues revolving around medicine and sports.
MR. SHAPIRO: And is that something that you also believe you have an expertise in?
DR. HUIZENGA: I believe I do.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you have told that to the jury, what your experience is?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I have.
MR. SHAPIRO: And were there any other areas that you talked about periodically in the media?
DR. HUIZENGA: In the recent years it has been essentially all sports as it contains medicine.
MR. SHAPIRO: Anything in the past that you talked about on radio or television?
DR. HUIZENGA: In the past I have been hired by several shows to go on for a two or three-minute blurb to talk about general medical issues on a revolving basis.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would you say that substantially almost all of your income come from your private practice of medicine, not from talking on radio or television?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And not from writing a book?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: In fact, were people highly critical in the football league of the book that you wrote?
DR. HUIZENGA: Actually not. I think that on one team they were critical.
MR. SHAPIRO: What team was that?
DR. HUIZENGA: The Los Angeles raiders.
MR. SHAPIRO: Why were they critical?
MR. KELBERG: Objection. Calls for hearsay, lack of foundation and speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained. I think the jury can figure that out.
MR. SHAPIRO: Well, maybe they don't know Mr. Davis, your Honor.
THE COURT: They can figure it out.
MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. They are all nodding, yes, they've figured it out.
MR. SHAPIRO: Now, Mr. Kelberg made a big issue and waved this--
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I will object, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. SHAPIRO: Mr. Kelberg showed you a letter that is dated February 5th, 1995--may I show this to the witness which had post-it over it and that post-it was a question to my colleague, Mr. Carl Douglas; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: Now, did you send that letter to myself and Mr. Douglas?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. SHAPIRO: With the post-it?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. SHAPIRO: And as part of discovery were you aware that we turned that letter over to Mr. Kelberg?
DR. HUIZENGA: I had no idea what your discovery processes are.
MR. SHAPIRO: But he had the same copy of the letter that we had, didn't he?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, he did.
MR. SHAPIRO: And he had the same post-it on it?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, he did.
MR. SHAPIRO: You weren't trying to hide anything from the jury about that, were you?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I wasn't.
MR. SHAPIRO: And did you demonstrate some concern about not being able to find that in your file when Mr. Kelberg asked you about that yesterday?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. SHAPIRO: And what did you do in that regard?
DR. HUIZENGA: I had reviewed my chart on that late Thursday night when I--after talking to you, and I remembered that it wasn't in the part of my notes that I reviewed, but in fact it was misfiled in a different part of this chart here, hadn't seen it.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you take time on your own to try to find that?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did, last night.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did anybody ask you to do that?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, they didn't.
MR. SHAPIRO: And did you find that?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. SHAPIRO: And did you give to it Mr. Kelberg this morning?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. SHAPIRO: And is that the same copy of the letter that Mr. Kelberg already had?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.
MR. SHAPIRO: Had you ever been asked by a criminal lawyer before to write a summary of your findings so that they could be turned over in a procedure we call discovery?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I had never participated in that.
MR. SHAPIRO: Were you asked to do that?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I was.
MR. SHAPIRO: Was it a truthful summary of your findings that you wrote to Mr. Douglas?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it was absolutely truthful.
MR. SHAPIRO: Why did you ask that question is this letter?
DR. HUIZENGA: I had no idea how long he wanted the summary to be, whether he wanted it a half a page or five pages. I made it one page and I wasn't sure whether that was the type of in-depth presentation of the problems that he felt was appropriate, given the report he wanted me to generate.
MR. SHAPIRO: Your question had nothing to do with accuracy or integrity of the report, but more the form of the report?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: What we would call form over substance?
MR. KELBERG: Objection as argumentative and leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SHAPIRO: You have never done any type of report like that before, have you?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I have not.
MR. SHAPIRO: Have you ever done any since?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I have not.
MR. SHAPIRO: And that is not something you do when you do your patient evaluation the way you did for Mr. Simpson in the ordinary course of your practice; isn't that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: Now, in examining Mr. Simpson, you told us that you diagnosed a lymph node under his armpit?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did that concern you as a doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: Very much so.
MR. SHAPIRO: Why did that concern you?
DR. HUIZENGA: Because given the whole constellation of his complaints, I was concerned that that could indicate some sort of infection, cancer or other acute process that needed to be resolved in the middle of everything else that was going on. And it presented many medical, as well as organizational problems to properly treat that problem. When you see an ordinary patient, you don't have the pressures that were faced in this case in terms of time, availability of the patient and other issues.
MR. SHAPIRO: Were you later advised that Mr. Simpson was going to be charged with a crime?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I was.
MR. SHAPIRO: And did that have any effect on speeding up your next examination of Mr. Simpson?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it did.
MR. SHAPIRO: What effect did that have?
DR. HUIZENGA: Well, we needed to get in and draw more blood tests and put skin tests on to evaluate some of the possibilities for that abnormal lymph node.
MR. SHAPIRO: That wasn't to prepare any type of Defense in this case, was it?
DR. HUIZENGA: None whatsoever.
MR. SHAPIRO: That was because you were told that Mr. Simpson would be going to jail?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And in your experience in this case, have you found it is more difficult to treat a patient in jail?
DR. HUIZENGA: It is more difficult to treat a patient in jail than in the usual Beverly Hills setting.
MR. SHAPIRO: And did you continue your treatment of Mr. Simpson for this lymph node?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. SHAPIRO: Tell the jury what you did regarding that.
DR. HUIZENGA: Well, it was a very difficult situation because I was told when he went into jail that the admitting doctor who examined him said he didn't have a lymph node.
MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor. I will move to strike as nonresponsive. The question is what did he do.
THE COURT: Yes. What did you do?
MR. SHAPIRO: What did you do to follow up on that lymph node, if anything?
DR. HUIZENGA: Followed up on the blood test and tried to gain access into the hospital so that I could have a cancer specialist evaluate the patient.
MR. SHAPIRO: So this isn't--is not something you did on your own, but you again went to a sub-specialist?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct, after initially going to an infectious disease specialist with the initial batch of results, and feeling that that probably wasn't our first line of attack.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you also consult with the jail physician?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. SHAPIRO: On this very issue?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. SHAPIRO: And was there a difference of opinion between yourself and the jail physician?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, there was.
MR. KELBERG: Object as calling for hearsay, lack of foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SHAPIRO: And how did that opinion differ?
DR. HUIZENGA: That opinion differed because I was told the doctor that evaluated him on the night he went into the hospital felt there was no lymph node.
MR. SHAPIRO: And you believed there was?
DR. HUIZENGA: And I had believed that there was, correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: Tell the jury what you had to do to follow up on this and what steps you had to go through to properly treat Mr. Simpson?
THE COURT: That is not particularly relevant. What he actually did, what treatment he got is relevant.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would you answer the Judge's question, what you actually did and what treatment he got?
THE COURT: What kind of testing did you arrange for and where and when?
DR. HUIZENGA: After initially going through all his first batch of tests with an infectious disease specialist informally, since it was very difficult to gain access into the jail, I made arrangements first to get myself back in the jail to try to assess his lymph node as well as other continuing problems with the night sweats. And then when I ascertained that the lymph node was in fact still there, over a period of time arranged to have a cancer specialist get admittance into the jail and feel the lymph node to feel whether he felt it was a benign node or a pathological node based on his examination.
MR. SHAPIRO: And what took place after that?
DR. HUIZENGA: Well, Dr. Greg Sarnus saw him in the jail and felt that there was, given his history and physical examination that he conducted in the jail infirmary, that there was up to a ten percent chance that given this history and physical condition, he had something in the range of a Hodgkin's type cancer and a ninety percent chance that it was some other benign or infectious disease.
MR. SHAPIRO: And what was the recommendation that was made based on this evaluation?
DR. HUIZENGA: The recommendation made was to have him hospitalized and to excise this index right axillary node.
MR. SHAPIRO: Was that done?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it was.
MR. SHAPIRO: And did the node in fact exist?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it did.
MR. SHAPIRO: The jail doctor was wrong?
DR. HUIZENGA: The initial admitting jail physician was incorrect in his initial assessment.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did this have anything whatsoever to do with the Defense of OJ Simpson in this case?
DR. HUIZENGA: None whatsoever.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you do any further studies relating to any issues regarding the Defense of OJ Simpson in this case?
DR. HUIZENGA: The only other issues that I did were on the evaluation of the cancer on the 17th. I drew extra blood relating to his hematologic status, whether or not he had any proclivity to bleed or clot more quickly than the normal, at the request of Dr. Baden.
MR. SHAPIRO: And what was the result of that?
DR. HUIZENGA: The result of that was that it appeared likely--coagulation studies were normal, although there are a couple very esoteric tests that were borderline and suggested a possibility of a very minor tendency to bleed more than a--what would be considered normal.
MR. SHAPIRO: And Dr. Baden is a forensic pathologist?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, he is.
MR. SHAPIRO: And his job is--do you know what his job is?
DR. HUIZENGA: (No audible response.)
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you know what he does for a living?
DR. HUIZENGA: He is a forensic pathologist, to my understanding.
MR. SHAPIRO: And he does autopsies for the state of New York?
DR. HUIZENGA: That was my understanding, right.
MR. SHAPIRO: Have you ever done an autopsy?
DR. HUIZENGA: I have--
MR. SHAPIRO: Outside of medical school?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I have not. We have watched limited autopsies as part of a teaching process in the hospital, occasionally patients that expire in the teaching situation in the hospital, we will go down and have early morning autopsy viewings and discussions of organs.
MR. SHAPIRO: You didn't do an autopsy of the decedents in this case?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I did not.
MR. SHAPIRO: You didn't see any photographs of the decedents in this case?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I did not.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did this have anything to do with your examination of OJ Simpson?
DR. HUIZENGA: It did not.
MR. SHAPIRO: Have you ever been asked to give an opinion of a decedent's injuries on a hand the way Mr. Kelberg asked you to?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I never have.
MR. SHAPIRO: Was that your purpose in coming here, to give an opinion on the injuries of a decedent?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, it wasn't.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you go to the crime scene in this case?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I have not.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you talk to criminalists in this case?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I have not.
MR. SHAPIRO: That is not your function, is it?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, it is not.
MR. SHAPIRO: Before you were asked these questions, other than on general knowledge, did you have any specific knowledge as to how these murders took place?
DR. HUIZENGA: None whatsoever.
MR. SHAPIRO: Let me ask you a general question: Describe to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury the basic range of patients you see by age.
DR. HUIZENGA: Well, we probably see individuals all the way from 15 up to I think my oldest patient is 101, 102.
MR. SHAPIRO: Excluding the young and the very old and the infirmed, is there any patient that you treat that would not be capable of handling a knife?
DR. HUIZENGA: I really don't believe that there is. I think all of them could.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is there any patient that you treat that would not be capable of cutting someone with a knife?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, not unless they had a fracture on that arm or some type of obvious deformity.
MR. SHAPIRO: And would you give the same answer to the general population of southern California with the exclusion of the young, the old and the infirmed?
DR. HUIZENGA: I think that would be a fair statement.
MR. SHAPIRO: You saw the video here, obviously?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. SHAPIRO: And that is only part of the video, isn't it?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is true.
MR. SHAPIRO: You saw a complete video that we showed you; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And in that complete video it shows Mr. Simpson drinking lots of water?
DR. HUIZENGA: (No audible response.)
MR. SHAPIRO: Does it not?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is true.
MR. SHAPIRO: And it shows Mr. Simpson talking about flights on airplanes?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's true.
MR. SHAPIRO: And jet lag?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is true.
MR. SHAPIRO: Could you--do you recommend for your patients, between the ages of 15 and 101, any type of physical exercise?
DR. HUIZENGA: I recommend physical exercise to all my patients.
MR. SHAPIRO: Why?
DR. HUIZENGA: Because I think it is very good for your health.
MR. SHAPIRO: And are there different levels of physical exercise that you recommend?
DR. HUIZENGA: Absolutely.
MR. SHAPIRO: And what do they range from?
DR. HUIZENGA: Well, they range from basically in the case of my 101 year old patient, tell her to walk around her house on her walker on a daily basis, to discussing workout plans with professional athletes.
MR. SHAPIRO: Regarding the video that you just saw, would you recommend that to any particular age group of patients you have?
DR. HUIZENGA: I think that that is a very low impact and it is a relatively straightforward aerobically, and so that sort of level of exercise would probably be more appropriate for very healthy individuals, maybe all the way up to, you know, both men and women, assuming that you did kind of knee push-ups, all the way in the mid-seventies or higher certainly should be able to do what we saw on that tape.
MR. SHAPIRO: The actual push-ups would take additional shoulder strength?
DR. HUIZENGA: I think additional pec strength, you know, if we expected people of that age to do push-ups.
MR. SHAPIRO: I noticed you taking some notes during the playing of the video. Did you notice any breaks within that video?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. SHAPIRO: And would you describe those to the jury as to what affect that would have on somebody doing the movements in that video?
DR. HUIZENGA: Well, obviously when you take a break, you know, you recharge your batteries in terms of your aerobic mechanism and your heart rate is going to come way down and so you are not going to--you know, like running a treadmill, you are not going to poop out when you have those rest periods in terms of the movement. For certain types of arthritis, actually moving may help limber the joints. Certainly osteoarthritis, you know, sometimes after moving somewhat, you can warm up the joint a little bit.
MR. SHAPIRO: Now, Mr. Kelberg spent a lot of time talking to you about your--
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I will object again as argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. SHAPIRO: Asked a lot of questions--is that okay? Asked you questions about professional football players?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you know when the last time Mr. Simpson played in a professional football game was?
DR. HUIZENGA: I assume it was somewhere around 1980.
MR. SHAPIRO: About fifteen years ago?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: As somebody who is familiar with sports, are you familiar with the oldtimers baseball game?
DR. HUIZENGA: I've heard it mentioned. I have never seen that.
MR. SHAPIRO: Have you ever heard of an oldtimers football game?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I do not.
MR. SHAPIRO: Do you know why they don't have one?
DR. HUIZENGA: Because they are all in an orthopedist's office.
MR. SHAPIRO: Regarding your experience with professional football players, are there positions known as skilled positions?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, there are.
MR. SHAPIRO: And what does that refer to?
DR. HUIZENGA: A skilled position is something in terms of a wide receiver, quarterback, running back.
MR. SHAPIRO: Mr. Simpson was a running back?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, he was.
MR. SHAPIRO: He would qualify in a skilled position?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And in your experience do players in skilled positions have to be mad to play football?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, they don't.
MR. SHAPIRO: Do they have to be angry to play football?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, they don't.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you aware that Mr. Simpson, through his four years of college and fifteen years in the NFL, carried the ball more times than any other runner in that period of history?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is what I understand, right.
MR. SHAPIRO: And was his job to tackle people?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, it wasn't.
MR. SHAPIRO: Was his job to block people?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, it wasn't.
MR. SHAPIRO: Was his job to try to run away from people and score a touchdown?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And if he didn't score a touchdown what would happen to him when he was carrying the ball?
DR. HUIZENGA: He would get hit from various angles.
MR. SHAPIRO: And if he carried the ball more than any other player in the history of the NFL, up until that period of time, and in college up until that period of time, would you say then he was hit more than any other player?
MR. KELBERG: Objection. That would call for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. HUIZENGA: He would be hit certainly while playing games more, and you know, practices would certainly add to that toll.
MR. SHAPIRO: What is the effect on a running back carrying a football, being hit by one or more other players in a tackle?
MR. KELBERG: Objection, irrelevant in the abstract.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. HUIZENGA: When you get hit, in terms of the joints, you may occasionally damage ligaments and bony structures.
MR. SHAPIRO: And is that something that you would expect to find in a retired running back?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is something that may occur in a retired running back, sure.
MR. SHAPIRO: Was Mr. Simpson the type of player who had the reputation of being a friendly football player?
DR. HUIZENGA: I think that is a correct statement.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you aware that in the fifteen years that he played football he was only involved in one fight?
MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor. That assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SHAPIRO: I can make an offer of proof, your Honor.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you aware that football players would pick him up after he was tackled?
MR. KELBERG: Same objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE COURT: You can answer that question.
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I believe that is also correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: In fact, that happened when UCLA played USC, didn't it?
DR. HUIZENGA: (No audible response.)
MR. SHAPIRO: He was a friendly sort--
MR. KELBERG: I didn't hear an answer, I'm sorry, to the last question.
THE COURT: They didn't have to pick him up. Next question.
MR. SHAPIRO: He was not the type of player that would play with anger--
DR. HUIZENGA: I don't believe--
MR. SHAPIRO: --in your opinion?
DR. HUIZENGA: In my opinion that is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: About this--this type of adrenaline rush, would that be the same for anyone who is in an emergency situation?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: That is human behavior? That is not limited to football players, is it?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And in fact you talked about the fear syndrome. Would you say that adrenaline reaction would be the same if somebody was being attacked by more than one person with a knife?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: And would that cause them to fight back?
DR. HUIZENGA: I would certainly expect that.
MR. SHAPIRO: And would you expect that they might fight back with more strength than they ordinarily would have?
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I will object, outside the field of expertise. He said he is not a forensic pathologist.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. HUIZENGA: That is a very logical assumption to me.
MR. SHAPIRO: You were asked a hypothetical question by Mr. Kelberg and he listed a series of ten witnesses and he said if some of these witnesses or one of these witnesses did not see Mr. Simpson limping. Do you remember that question?
DR. HUIZENGA: Correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: Let me ask you another hypothetical. If an individual by the name of Jim McKay came to this court and testified that he had never met OJ Simpson before and on June the 8th of 1994 he played golf with him, and as a complete stranger he observed Mr. Simpson to be limping, would that confirm the conclusions you reached on June the 15th?
DR. HUIZENGA: That would certainly corroborate what I saw on the 15th.
MR. SHAPIRO: And do you believe that as a doctor with a trained eye you might be able to detect something that a lay person would call a limp more easily than a lay person who is not trained with your background, experience and education?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes.
MR. SHAPIRO: You talked--you were asked questions about a doctor Martel and x-rays of the elbow?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you review any other x-rays that Mr. Kelberg didn't ask you about from Dr. Martel?
DR. HUIZENGA: I did not review those particular x-rays. I--
MR. SHAPIRO: Go ahead. I'm sorry.
DR. HUIZENGA: I got sent a copy of Dr. Martel's findings.
MR. SHAPIRO: There were some other findings that you wanted to relate in response to a question from Mr. Kelberg relating to Dr. Martel; is that correct?
MR. KELBERG: Objection, leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. HUIZENGA: Dr. Martel basically read the elbows as being normal and basically what I was starting to say, when he asked me that question or read that thing off the report, was that you can have rheumatoid arthritis of the elbow and you can have flexion contractures that is a possibility and still have a normal x-ray appearance. It is a very--it is a difficult call. This is why you have specialists. That certainly isn't in my bailiwick, but that is certainly what I was starting to bring up with him.
MR. SHAPIRO: After two days of cross-examination--
MR. KELBERG: Same objection, your Honor, as argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SHAPIRO: --is your opinion any different as to whether or not Mr. Simpson had any bruises on him when you observed him on the 15th of June?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, it is not.
MR. SHAPIRO: After two days of cross-examination is your opinion that the cut on the top of the middle finger of the left hand was more consistent with glass?
DR. HUIZENGA: I felt that was more consistent with glass because as it came around, it curved initially. If you remember the picture over his third--let's go to the left hand and do it the right way--as it curved, it came right over the joint and then it took an acute angle, approximately sixty degrees, and then that acute angle to me said, sure, it could be a five, there could be movement, but to me that said that is why I fell off of the fence on that cut as being more consistent with glass.
MR. SHAPIRO: Assume that on Monday, June the 13th, Mr. Simpson--let me just check this date for a second.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SHAPIRO: On June the 13th in the afternoon a nurse employed by the County of Los Angeles named Mr. Peratis was called upon to examine Mr. Simpson's left hand, and assume that the only injury that he talked about was the cut that you have just described as a fishhook cut. Would that cause you to conclude that the injuries on the side of the finger were not there at that time?
MR. KELBERG: Objection, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SHAPIRO: Would a nurse be in a position, a county nurse be in a position to see the cuts that you've described to the jury, in your opinion, if he was properly trained and certified?
DR. HUIZENGA: I believe that would be true.
MR. SHAPIRO: And if the nurse did not observe those cuts on the 12th, would that indicate that they occurred sometime after the 12th and that would be--would that be consistent with your finding?
MR. KELBERG: That misstates the hypothetical. It is the 13th.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. KELBERG: Not the 12th.
DR. HUIZENGA: That would be consistent.
MR. SHAPIRO: Is the cut on the index finger of Mr. Simpson consistent with somebody who broke a drinking glass that you would find in a hotel bathroom?
DR. HUIZENGA: The fourth finger? You said index.
MR. SHAPIRO: The middle finger?
DR. HUIZENGA: The middle finger, this cut--the proximal or the distal? There is two cuts on that third finger.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SHAPIRO: I made a mistake. Mr. Cochran has corrected me. He works for the city of Los Angeles, the nurse. Would that change your opinion, rather than the county?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, it would not.
MR. SHAPIRO: Let's get back to the glass. When you traveled with the football teams, do you guys stay had hotels around the country?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, we did.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you go in the bathroom?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, you would.
MR. SHAPIRO: They have little glasses there with kind of little doilies and a little kind of thing on top that says "Sanitary" with a little blue insignia on it?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. SHAPIRO: Are you familiar with those glasses?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I am.
MR. SHAPIRO: If that glass was broken when somebody was informed of the death of their ex-wife, could that type of glass cause that type of injury?
MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor, as an improper hypothetical.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SHAPIRO: Could a drinking glass, similar to those glasses that you've observed, account for that type of injury?
DR. HUIZENGA: On the proximal third--
MR. SHAPIRO: Yes.
DR. HUIZENGA: --finger? Yes, that cut is consistent.
MR. SHAPIRO: Now, Mr. Kelberg asked you questions--and I don't remember the name of them--I'm not that familiar with them, about some kind of cells. He had one name for it you had another name for some kind of monocytes?
DR. HUIZENGA: He named it phagocytes.
MR. SHAPIRO: You called it monocytes?
DR. HUIZENGA: Well, he said that you start out with a wound and you have phagocytes there, but really you start out in an inflammatory phase with neutrocils and it moves to monocytes with another name for it can be phagocytes.
MR. SHAPIRO: In any event, whatever they are called in the healing process. He talked about confusion. Are you confused as to whether the jagged edges were caused by cutting glass or by the healing process?
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, that misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I am not.
MR. SHAPIRO: What is your opinion?
DR. HUIZENGA: My opinion is that those injuries were caused by a sharp object and they are more consistent with glass than a knife, but they were caused by a sharp object.
MR. SHAPIRO: May I have one moment to confer with my colleagues before I finish, your Honor?
THE COURT: Certainly.
MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel and the Defendant.)
MR. SHAPIRO: In your experience, doctor, would professional football players--have you seen occasions when they act irrational?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I have.
MR. SHAPIRO: And do you have any opinion as to the cause of those types of actions?
MR. KELBERG: Objection, your Honor, as to the relevancy.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, anabolic steroids.
MR. SHAPIRO: Did you run a test on Mr. Simpson to see whether or not he was using anabolic steroids when you saw on him June the 15th?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, I did.
MR. SHAPIRO: And what was the result of that test?
DR. HUIZENGA: Negative.
MR. SHAPIRO: Thank you. Nothing further.
THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg, how much time do you need to cross-examine?
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. KELBERG: May I have just a moment?
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. How much time do you need to cross-examine.
MR. KELBERG: I'm not going to finish by noon I'm quite sure.
THE COURT: How much time do you need to cross-examine?
MR. KELBERG: Maybe 20 minutes, 25 minutes.
THE COURT: Proceed.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KELBERG
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, did you prescribe the Xanax for the stress that you assessed on June 15th for Mr. Simpson?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, improper redirect--recross examination. It was not brought up.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I did not.
MR. KELBERG: To your knowledge did someone prescribe for him Xanax?
DR. HUIZENGA: I referred him to a psychiatrist so I can't speak for that.
MR. KELBERG: Is Xanax a depressant?
DR. HUIZENGA: Xanax is an anit-anxiety drug.
MR. KELBERG: And doctor, is one of its side effects that it can make people sleepy?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, I want to discuss a few things that were touched upon by Mr. Shapiro. First of all, when you said no oldtimers NFL, there are oldtimer hockey games, aren't there?
DR. HUIZENGA: I am not aware of that. That is possibly true.
MR. KELBERG: Hockey is a pretty violent sport, isn't it?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.
MR. KELBERG: And people sustain severe knee injuries in that sport; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And in fact one of these typical defensive actions in hockey is something called checking, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: And one type of checking is to slam your body into the body of the opposing player and the two bodies go slamming into the boards, right?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: And that--
THE COURT: Mr. Kelberg, whether or not other sports have oldtimer games is interesting but not real productive here.
MR. KELBERG: All right. Perhaps I should have objected as irrelevant on the NFL, but I will move to something else.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, you were talking about getting patients. Do you accept insurance?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I do not.
MR. KELBERG: So I thought you said you billed Mr. Simpson's insurance company for the care you provided. That is a misstatement?
DR. HUIZENGA: We billed sag and then typically, you know, we ask the patient to pay the remainder.
MR. KELBERG: Are you on any kind of HMO panel?
DR. HUIZENGA: No, I am not.
MR. KELBERG: So all of your patients have to be patients who can pay your bills; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: And your practice is in Beverly Hills; is that correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: Yes, it is.
MR. KELBERG: Do you have like a hourly rate or how do you charge patients for general exam?
DR. HUIZENGA: You charge--charge based on examinations or lab tests that are done in the office.
MR. KELBERG: And if I came to you--maybe I better not choose myself--if somebody came to you for a first evaluation, what would be the typical cost of such an evaluation?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. HUIZENGA: It would be quite variable. It would all depend on exactly what was done.
MR. KELBERG: Well, in general, doctor, you described what is a general initial evaluation Beverly Hills standards Mr. Shapiro asked you about. What is the cost of that?
DR. HUIZENGA: I would say something like for a thorough physical exam, somewhere around a thousand dollars, 600, a thousand.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, you said in response to Mr. Shapiro's question that you cared about Mr. Simpson?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: Correct. You cared about his health?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: Do you care if he is acquitted?
DR. HUIZENGA: I--I have--you build a bond with patients. When you see a patient and you evaluate them, you have to care about them. If you don't care about them, you really wouldn't be able to be their doctor.
MR. KELBERG: And isn't it that care, that closeness you develop with the patient, that can subconsciously influence those subjective evaluations that you admitted on cross-examination doctors make, such as in Mr. Simpson's case?
MR. SHAPIRO: Objection, your Honor, calls for speculation and expert opinion of a psychiatrist.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, when you develop a closeness and fondness for a patient, in your opinion can that affect your objectivity in evaluating the patient's case?
DR. HUIZENGA: Anything is possible, but you have to fight to try to minimize that or eliminate it.
MR. KELBERG: For example, doctor, isn't it the case that physicians are taught to send family members to independent doctors for evaluations because of concern that your relationship with the patient may cloud your judgment?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: Incidentally, you talked about a family doctor. There is a specialty of medicine, a board certified specialty called family medicine; isn't that correct, doctor?
DR. HUIZENGA: Umm, I am lacking in my knowledge of that exact fact.
MR. KELBERG: Are you--well, you talked about some residency program. Are you familiar with whether cedars has a residency program in family medicine?
DR. HUIZENGA: They did not when I was there in my training.
MR. KELBERG: That is `83 you ended your training?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: Now, doctor, you were asked some questions about whether or not Mr. Simpson went to Dr. Jobe and to Dr. Maltz before June 12th of 1994 in some effort to set up a Defense to the crimes, and you indicated to your belief he did not, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That's correct.
MR. KELBERG: On the other hand, doctor, if you assume, hypothetically, Mr. Simpson murdered his ex-wife and Mr. Goldman, would you agree that he would have a motive after the crime to come limping into your office for the visit arranged by his lawyer, Mr. Shapiro, in an effort to make it appear that he may have physical limitations to his ability to have acted on June 12th?
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SHAPIRO: Object.
THE COURT: Sustained. Improper hypothetical. Rephrase the question.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, would you agree that you did not--there was no way that you could determine objectively on June 15th whether Mr. Simpson's limp, that caused you to believe he moved like Tarzan's grandfather, was legitimate or one that was put on in an effort to convey a condition that was weaker than he truly was? You had no objective way to determine that, did you?
DR. HUIZENGA: There is an objective way to attempt to evaluate that by looking at joints, and it appeared to me, given his left knee and what didn't appear to be a problem in the video, his right ankle, sometimes a limp can intensify when you have two weight-bearing joints that are affected, as you point out. And I absolutely have to agree with you, there can be malingering on certain levels in orthopedics, but that was my best determination at the time.
MR. KELBERG: By the way, doctor, you talked about some difficulties with the jail. You were able to get Mr. Simpson to Cedars-Sinai medical center for the biopsy, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is correct.
MR. KELBERG: And in your opinion his care was not compromised in any way, was it, with respect to evaluation of that lymph node for possible sign of cancer, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: Umm, if there had been an acute problem it might have been because I really couldn't get access for several weeks into the jail.
MR. KELBERG: And it turned out that it was benign, correct?
DR. HUIZENGA: That is absolutely correct.
MR. KELBERG: Your Honor, I'm going to ask Mr. Fairtlough--I was going to ask Mr. Fairtlough--could I ask Mr. Harris to help me out to put something on?
THE COURT: Show this to counsel first.
MR. KELBERG: Doctor, I'm going to show you a couple of pictures--I am going to do so right now.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. SHAPIRO: I haven't had a chance to review this text yet, your Honor. It is going to take me a little bit of time. I am not an expert.
THE COURT: All right. Use the photographs, Mr. Kelberg.
MR. KELBERG: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. KELBERG: If Mr. Shapiro will give me--I'm sorry, may I proceed with the photographs?
THE COURT: What is it a photograph of?
MR. DARDEN: A photograph of hands of sufferers of rheumatoid arthritis.
THE