NOVEMBER 7, 1996





8:58 A.M.



THE COURT: Morning.

JURORS: Good morning, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You may proceed.

MR. PETROCELLI: Good morning, Your Honor.

Plaintiffs call Dr. Robert Huizenga.

ROBERT HUIZENGA, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiffs, was duly sworn
and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause
now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?


THE CLERK: Please be seated.

Would you please state and spell your name for the record.

THE WITNESS: Robert Huizenga, R-O-B-E-R-T H-U-I-Z-E-N-G-A.


Q. Good morning, Doctor.

A. Morning.

Q. You and I don't know each other, do we?

A. No, we don't.

Q. We just met this morning in the men's room, right?

A. That's correct.


Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You're a licensed physician?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. What is -- you're an internist, right?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Okay. Now, you were requested by Mr. Simpson's lawyer, Robert Shapiro, in
the criminal action, to consult with O.J. Simpson on June 15, 1994 correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And Mr. Shapiro is a patient of your partner, right?

A. That is correct.

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Hearsay; lack of relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) He's a friend of yours, also?

A. No, he's not.

Q. Social acquaintance?

A. I wouldn't say he's a social acquaintance.

Q. In any event, Mr. Simpson was brought to your office on the 15th of June and
you examined him, correct?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you then examined him on the 17th of June, two days later, correct?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. 1994, right.

Now, the examination on the 15th occurred at your office, right?

A. Yes, it did.

Q. And the examination on June 17th occurred at the home of Robert Kardashian,
a friend of Mr. Simpson's, right?

A. That is correct.

Q. And at the time that you were from -- with Mr. Simpson, there were a number
of other folks present, as well, right?

A. That is correct.

Q. People involved with -- involved with Mr. Simpson's criminal defense team,

A. That is correct.

Q. Dr. Michael Baden, a forensic pathologist, was there, right?

A. Yes, he was.

Q. Dr. Henry Lee, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And a lot of lawyers, right?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague and leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: A lot of lawyers.


Now, you took some photographs of Mr. Simpson on the 15th, correct?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you also take some on the 17th, right?

A. No, I did not.

Q. But you saw others taking photographs on the 17th right?

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay. Just to simplify this, let me show you what has been marked as --

MR. PETROCELLI: May I approach, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) -- Exhibits 714 and 715.

And what they are collectively, are photographs from the June 15 and June 17 --
the first group are photographs of the fingers and hands; the second group are
photographs of the rest of Mr. Simpson's body.

And I'd just like you to authenticate that those indeed are the photographs
that you took or saw being taken.

A. This is a combination of the pictures that were taken on the 15th and the

Q. And you want to just take a quick look at the ones in it, the notebook, as
well, just to make sure?

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, we offered to stipulate those are the photographs.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. They've stipulated. There's no further need for you to
look at these.

You want to put these back in order and put them up on the Elmo?

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Now, on the 15th and on the 17th, you made observations
about the -- about the physical condition of Mr. Simpson's hands, right?

A. That is correct.

Q. Is it fair to say that no material change had occurred in his hands between
the 15th and the th, correct?

A. There was subtle healing, but no material changes had occurred in those two

Q. No new injuries or marks, correct?

A. There were no new injuries on the hands.

Q. So when asking the questions about the marks and injuries on the hands, you
refer to your observations both on the 15th and the 17th; that would be fair,

A. That would be fair, in my opinion.

Q. Okay.

This way, I don't have to do each one separately.

Okay. We can speed it up a little bit.

Let me show you what we will mark as the next exhibit in order.

THE CLERK: 2148.

MR. PETROCELLI: Which will be 2148.

(The instrument herein referred to as diagram left hand drawn by Robert
Huzienga dated 6/15/94 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.

MR. PETROCELLI: See if this will show up on the Elmo.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) First, let me show it to you. And why don't you identify
it for the record.

A. This was the diagram that I drew initially, when I saw him on the 15th, of
his left hand.

Q. And it is a diagram with notes on it, correct?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And the notes describe injuries to his left hand, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay.

I can't read your writing, Doctor.

I guess that's not unusual.

I think you'll have to translate for us.

MR. PETROCELLI: Steve will that show on the Elmo?

You want to give it a shot?

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Can you walk us through those injuries?

That pointer opens up too.

MR. PETROCELLI: It might be easier, maybe, if you can move beside the
television and the jurors can see a little bit better, over to that end or that

Can you all see?

JURORS: Um-hum.

THE COURT: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: That's a laceration.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Speak up, Doctor.

A. You would like me to describe each --

Q. Yeah.

A. -- laceration initially, or --

Q. You -- the two days combined, you observed three cuts or lacerations on Mr.
Simpson's hand; is that correct.

Left hand?

A. Left hand; that is correct.

Q. And you observed seven abrasions, correct?

A. On his left hand; that is correct.

Q. So three cuts and seven abrasions on the left hand, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And on the right hand, you observed one cut, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay. So a total of eleven on both hands?

A. Correct.

Q. Can you -- now, this is the left hand. And could you please describe what
your observations were.

MR. PETROCELLI: You might try zooming in.

THE WITNESS: On the fourth finger, we call this here, would be his --
approximately where the fingernail ends; and he had just under the fingernail,
what we call the distal interphalangeal joint, on the left fourth finger, on
the medial -- the inside side, he had a -- the beginning of a relatively easily
sloped U-shape laceration that extended from that distal interphalangeal joint
to the proximal interphalangeal joint.

And the initial half of it -- this was approximately a
two-and-a-half-centimeter laceration -- the initial half of that, the initial
centimeter and a quarter, was a very superficial laceration, and then it went
to a slightly deeper, but actually more of an avulsion-type laceration, or the
more proximal half of that lesion.

This initial portion appeared to have a point of entry something like 90
degrees to the plane of the hand. If this is the plane of the hand
(indicating), there seemed to be a flap-type of injury, so that the injury
seemed to be coming from 90 degrees in this direction and parallel to the
access of the fingers. So it appeared to be an area right here, where you had
this very thin, very small, serrated, undulating edge flap here.

There was no flap or no indication at all it was a small, avulsed segment. It
wasn't necessarily a laceration, where you can take the wound and slap both
edges together. There was a tiny piece of skin missing.

The second laceration was a relatively small, half of a centimeter or
three-eighths of an inch, semicircular laceration that appeared, when you
matched the hands together, to almost come contiguous with this other injury.

This, on my initial evaluation on the 15th, was still open. There wasn't
necessarily a closure of that, but it was very superficial. It looked like,
kind of, you could call it a bad paper cut.

This was the smoothest of the injuries. And it appeared that the -- that the
cut came something more in this direction to the plane of the hand, so that it
was more in, say, a 20-degree angle where this seemed to have been cut open.
And then the point of entry seemed to be, instead of parallel, it seemed to
have been coming in this direction, perpendicular, actually, to the finger.

And the third laceration was a fishhook-type laceration that was immediately
over his left third proximal interphalangeal joint, this proximal finger joint.
And it was, if I remember correctly, approximately a bit over a centimeter, to
a centimeter and a half, which would be something like a bit under a half of an
inch. And it had an angulated, almost fishhook appearance if you looked at it
coming from the other direction.

And there did appear to be a little bit more of a sharp angle right here. It
took a sharp angle at the very end. There was a little, tiny dissel (sic). And
this injury seemed to be something coming more, again, at about 20 or 30
degrees, because it was a beveled, flat-like injury, again relatively
superficial, but in a bad area because it was right smack in a moving joint.

And it also wasn't particularly deep, but it was in an area where there was a
little bit more erythema or redness heaped up in the lateral areas.

And that was the three lacerations.

Q. You may resume the witness stand.

When you indicated in reference to one of the cuts that it seemed like a paper
cut, you were not suggesting that the cut was caused by paper, correct?

A. No, I am not.

Q. That's just an expression that you use in describing a particularly sharp
cut, right?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay.

MR. PETROCELLI: The next exhibit in order, Erin?

THE CLERK: 2149.


(The instrument herein referred to as Robert Huzienga's report dated 6/15/96
was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2149.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Just these two pages we're going to mark. They're from a report
that you gave on June 15, 1994.


MR. PETROCELLI: I'm really only interested in these two pages.

I showed you these before court.

MR. LEONARD: I didn't know which part you're --

(Counsel reviews exhibit.)

MR. PETROCELLI: These are the other ones I'm going to show him. You might as
well take a look at them. Okay.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Could you just briefly verify that these two diagrams of
the left and right hands were prepared by you after your visit on the 15th with
Mr. Simpson?

A. Yes, they were.

Q. Okay. And then we'll talk about them.

You have there exhibit --

MR. PETROCELLI: Move this into evidence, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It's three pages? How many pages is it?


MR. LEONARD: I agree to the -- I don't have any objection to the first two
pages. There's more pages attached to the exhibit.

THE COURT: That's what I was concerned about.

MR. PETROCELLI: If it please Your Honor, I'll put the whole report in. I was
only interested in the two pages.

MR. LEONARD: That's all I'm interested in.

THE COURT: Receive the two and we'll have to detach the two.

MR. PETROCELLI: I'll detach the two.


(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2148 was received in

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2149 was received in

MR. PETROCELLI: Can you put the first one up, Steve.

(Mr. Foster complies.)

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Can you see that okay?

A. Yeah.

Q. Is that the diagram that you made after Mr. Simpson left your office on the
15th, after you had made your notes in the office, when you were typing things
up and transposing [sic] them, right?

A. Correct.

Q. And there's the right hand, correct?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And you see a notation there to a cut on the right hand, right?

A. Yes, there is.

Q. You want to point that out?

A. There is a small, half of a centimeter, four to five millimeter, fine,
linear laceration in the pulp area of that fourth finger.

Q. Okay. And you describe that, again, as a paper cut, but you didn't mean to
imply it was caused by paper, correct?

A. No. Only that it was a very sharp cut with very sharp linear lines.

Q. Okay.

MR. PETROCELLI: Now, could you, Steve, put the next page up of that exhibit.

(Mr. Foster complies.)

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Now, this is intended, Doctor, to be a diagram of the
left hand, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. But accidentally, you gave us another picture of the right hand?

A. Right.

Q. So, just so the record is clear, this second page does indicate at the top
"L hand" meaning left hand?

A. Correct.

Q. It's supposed to be a sketching of the injuries you saw on the left hand; is
that correct?

A. That's correct.

MR. PETROCELLI: We can take that off.

You have the other ones I gave you?

MR. LEONARD: I gave them back.


(Mr. Foster hands document to Mr. Petrocelli.)

MR. PETROCELLI: What's the next one?

Going to put these in next. These are the ones on the 17th. All right.

THE WITNESS: That's right.

MR. PETROCELLI: We'll wait until the Judge is ready.

We're going to mark as 2150, the next two pages -- that's the next one in
order, correct, 2150?


(The instrument herein referred to as left and right hand sketches by Robert
Huzienga from report of 6/17/95 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2150.)

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Is Exhibit 2150 a document prepared by you?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And Exhibit 2150 consists of two pages sketching the left and right hands,
based on your observations on June 17, correct?

A. That is correct.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I move 2150 into evidence.

THE COURT: Received.

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2150 was received in

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Now, you made some notations in blue ink on the
left-hand sketch, correct?

A. That I did.

Q. And you did that last night?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Just to reorient yourself?

A. No. I just wrote out the things that I had put in chicken scratch a little
more legible.

Q. And this diagram shows -- the three cuts that you have just described
previously on the left hand, right?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. It also shows the seven abrasions, correct?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. Okay. And the right-hand sketch shows the cut that you just talked to us
about on the right hand, right?

A. Right.

Q. Let me put the left hand up, and you can talk to us about the abrasions.

Without going through a description, can you point out on the sketch where the
three cuts or lacerations are on the left hand that you previously testified

A. It's the fourth index -- ring-finger laceration.

Here is the distal third-finger laceration.

Here is the more proximal third left finger P.I.P. laceration.

Q. Okay. And could you point out each of the seven lacerations and briefly
describe each one.

A. He had a very fine -- this is not a very good demonstration, as you'll see
from the picture -- but a very fine, small, linear abrasion over the base of
his third finger.

He had three dot abrasions, just a tiny, little, flecks over three areas, and
he had two other abrasions in the lateral aspect of his left hand.

And this circle right here indicates the ulnar styloid which is this bone right

He had approximately a one-centimeter abrasion right here, and a
half-a-centimeter abrasion, a bit proximal for that ulnar styloid.

It was slightly irregular borders and relatively superficial, very fine wound,
with a little tiny bit of scabbing, but the scabbing covered that area.

And he also had a very small, fine scab, indicating an abrasion in the medial
-- excuse me the lateral portion of his thumb, distal interphalangeal joint. So
something approximately in that location.

Q. Okay. Thank you.

MR. PETROCELLI: I'll put up some photographs.

Let me put up some photographs that we have been talking about. We'll see if it
shows up on the Elmo.

If not ... hmmmm.

Start with this one.

(Mr. Foster complies.)

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) You recognize the photo?

A. Yes.

Q. We previously marked these as 714 and 715. These are photos depicting some
of the cuts you've told us about.

(The instrument herein referred to as photo of cuts to O.J. Simpson's hand was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 714.)

(The instrument herein referred to as photo of cuts to O.J. Simpson's hand was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 715.)

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Why don't you describe in sort of simple terms what that

A. This is the cut on his left fourth ring finger. That, as you can see,
extends from his distal finger joint in a very fine, ratty, irregular fashion.

You can see the sawtooth pattern here, and you can see how it was a blow,
almost, coming at degrees to the finger here.

And you can see this U-shape that I discussed. And it continues on here,
although this is difficult to see in the picture, in a very fine area.

Then we get to this little area that I said wasn't exactly a laceration, but in
fact, a little chunk of skin had been avulsed off.

Q. Is that another shot of the same thing?

(Photo displayed with finger and ruler.)

A. That is essentially the same photo. You can see the continuity here. Q. You
want to give us a wider shot first Steve, so we can get the context and then
you can zoom it in.

(Photo displayed of hands with knuckles of two fingers facing camera with a

Q. These -- why don't you describe those?

A. These are the cuts on the left third finger. First is the cut in the lateral
aspect, the side aspect of his third finger.

Q. Speak up a little bit, please.

A. Okay.

Q. This is the laceration, the cut we described of -- described in the third
finger, in the lateral, the outside side of the finger that seemed to come at
this angle that we discussed.

And you can see the flap. The cut comes up and around and you can see the
initial part of the healing phase has thickened this little area of skin and
made it come up a little bit.

And then here's the third cut that we've discussed again, over -- almost
directly over his left third proximal interphalangeal joint and coming down in
a relatively linear fashion, then taking almost a sharp 60 degree turn here and
then a little tiny dissel at the end coming off.

And this also you can see from the tissue here, if this had been a straight-on
cut, you wouldn't have this amount of tissue swelling here. And you can see
that that also is a beveled, angulated laceration.

This is a photograph on the 17th, of the lateral aspect of his left hand.

And here you can see the light off his ulnar styloid this protubrant bone right
here. You can see proximal or closer to the body, upstream. You can see the
smaller irregular shaped, tiny little scab that we talked about and down stream
or distal. You can see the slightly larger scab that we discussed in that

(Indicating to photo of a hand with a prominent knuckle and a ruler.)

A. And there you can see what I talked about as a dot abrasion. Just a tiny
little dot type of scab.

Q. So by the time you observed some of these abrasions, they had begun to scab

A. That is correct.

Q. You want to put the next one up, Steve?

(Mr. Foster displays photo of hand with knuckle facing down.)

THE WITNESS: This is this very fine linear abrasion we discussed.

This is the left hand (indicating to his own hand), coming in this direction,
the same place as my pointer. And here is what they -- the little tiny dots.
Look like -- I believe that's the third dot. I'd have to study that picture but
. . .

(Indicating to displayed close-up of hand with ruler.)

A. This is another picture that includes the very petite linear abrasion and
one of the dot hemorrhages, and I believe this is another one of the dot
hemorrhages that we were discussing.

MR. LEONARD: Can we pull that out a little so we can see?

THE WITNESS: You can see that that linear abrasion measured approximately
one-half of an inch.

MR. LEONARD: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: And again 1, 2, 3 is what we were discussing about those tiny
little dots with a tiny little piece of scab.


(Photo displayed dorsal side of hand with thumb and finger visible.)

THE WITNESS: Again, I can see the half of the small linear abrasion there and
one of the dot hemorrhages. I'm not sure I can see anything else. He had
numerous scar and other discolorations from past football injuries and trauma
on his hands.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) All the cuts and lacerations and abrasions that you just
testified about were not from prior football injuries, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. These were things that had been caused recently, correct?

A. That --

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: These injuries had occurred within the last five days at least,
five to days to a week.

Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Five to seven days?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. That's going from the 17th, right?

A. I would say that's going from the 15th, 17th.

Q. That would include June 12, 1994, correct?

A. That would be within five days, that's correct.

Q. Okay. Thank you.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Doctor.

MR. LEONARD: Can I have one minute?


Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Dr. Huizenga, you also took photographs of the rest of Mr.
Simpson's body basically; is that right?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you were there when those photographs were taken?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And you observed Dr. Baden, Michael Baden examining Mr. Simpson; is that

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Including his hands?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Thanks a lot. I don't have any further questions.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. You're excused.

MR. PETROCELLI: We're going to read in some deposition testimony of Detective
Kenneth Berris of the Chicago police department, Your Honor. Mr. Callan will
play the role of Detective Berris.

(Mr. Petrocelli is reading the questions, and Mr. Callan is reading the answers
of the witness, Detective Berris.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 5, line 9.

"... (sic) Please state your name.

"A. Kenneth Berris. My last name is spelled B-E-R-R-I-S.

"Q. What is your occupation?

"A. I'm a Detective employed by the Chicago police department in Chicago,

"Q. Detective Berris, how long have you been a police officer?

"A. I've been a police officer for over 27 years and a detective for over 18

"Q. In the course of your employment as a police officer and as a detective,
have you investigated homicides?

"A. Yes, I have.

"Q. Approximately how many?

"A. Quite a few.

"Q. Hundreds?

"A. Hundreds. I would say yes.

"Q. And were you at some point in time assigned to participate in the
investigation of a double homicide involving Nicole Brown Simpson, the ex-wife
of O.J. Simpson?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And when did that occur?

"A. It occurred on the morning of Monday, June 13, 1994.

"Q. And beginning on June 13, 1994, you participated in that investigation here
in Chicago?

"A. Yes, sir."

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Next is page 12, line .

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I'd ask to approach.

MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me. That was a mistake on my part. Page 19, line 1.

We'll start at line 4. (Reading:)

"... (sic) Detective Bongiorno and you went to the O'Hare Plaza at around noon?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And that was in response to a call from the LAPD?

"A. Yes. It was a response to a request for assistance in their double homicide

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 21. Line 6. And we'll skip the objections, Your Honor, as
to form. We've agreed they're deemed overruled okay as to form only.

And when --

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, may I approach on this?

THE COURT: I guess not.

MR. PETROCELLI: We'll just ask the --

THE COURT: No. You can approach, but I guess they weren't deemed . . .

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

MR. LEONARD: Thought you weren't -- I thought we had an agreement, he wasn't
going to go into hearsay --

MR. PETROCELLI: I'm not --

MR. LEONARD: -- That elicit hearsay.


MR. LEONARD: Which one you going to do?

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 19, line 1 to page 19, line 10.

MR. LEONARD: No, you skipped that, didn't you? That is hearsay. We spoke to
general manager blah, blah, blah, blah.

MR. PETROCELLI: Did I just do it?

MR. LEONARD: No, you didn't. You skipped it.

MR. PETROCELLI: No. I read that one. That one wasn't the problem. I just read
that one. The next one I indicated was page 21, line 6.

MR. LEONARD: It was your understanding that's from hearsay. That part.

MR. PETROCELLI: That's his statement. Why don't you read the answer, Your
Honor, starting on page 18.

THE COURT: Starting at page 18?

MR. PETROCELLI: I want to read from page 21, line 6 through page 23, line 4.

MR. PETROCELLI: Just background.

MR. LEONARD: I don't care. It's hearsay. If you want that in here, I want my

MR. PETROCELLI: I don't think it's hearsay.

MR. LEONARD: That's -- he's responding to a call.

THE COURT: He's testifying about that he heard from Phillips that the room --

MR. PETROCELLI: One at time. I can't hear the Judge. I can't hear what the
Judge is saying.

THE COURT: He's testifying that Phillips said he contacted somebody who said
that the room wasn't made up. That's pretty clear hearsay.


THE COURT: Double hearsay.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Your Honor, take a look at -- I want to cut through this
now. Page --

THE COURT: It's hearsay of Phillips and hearsay of somebody who talked to them.

MR. PETROCELLI: What about 22, line 11, Your Honor?

MR. PETROCELLI: That question and answer. I'm trying to get him into the room.

MR. LEONARD: Well, get him into the room.

THE COURT: I -- you can get him in the room.

MR. PETROCELLI: I can't. This is how he described it. I can't make it up.

MR. LEONARD: I'll stipulate he went in -- he went in the room, made

THE COURT: I think Mr. Leonard's objecting to the fact that the answer includes
the statement that the room was made up.

MR. LEONARD: Right. They're just going right to that question.

MR. PETROCELLI: Which question?

MR. LEONARD: Line 20. Fine. I don't care about that.

MR. PETROCELLI: Do you have a problem with 23, line 9?


MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Then I'll read that, then I'm going to go to 26, line 18.

MR. LEONARD: Not really. I don't know what the relevance is.

MR. PETROCELLI: It's just establishing foundation.


MR. PETROCELLI: Then we're going to go to page . That starts his observations.

MR. LEONARD: Just -- I thought we had an agreement for hearsay. That's my only

MR. PETROCELLI: I'm trying to keep it out.

MR. LEONARD: Do a better job, will you?

(The following proceedings were resumed in open court in the presence of the

MR. PETROCELLI: We'll pick it up with page 33, line 1 (Reading:)

"... (sic) Now, when you went upstairs with Detective Bongiorno, you said you
were also accompanied by Detective -- by Joseph DiSalvo of the hotel?

"A. No.

"Q. Excuse me. By Peter Phillips, the general manager?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Okay. And describe what happened when you arrived -- was it the 9th floor?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And you walked to room 915?

"A. Yes.

"Q. By the way, on the 9th floor, were there any emergency exits?

"A. Yes, there are.

"Q. The normal passage way to the th floor was the elevator?

"A. Elevator.

"Q. Were there any emergency exits located -- Excuse me -- where were the
emergency exits located?

"A. I think at the end of the hallway I believe there is -- there are emergency
exit, yes.

"Q. And what were those exits?

"A. I'm sorry. By means of stairs.

"Q. Stairs?

"A. Stairs.

"Q. And those stairs led outside the hotel?

"A. Subsequently at the ground level they would."

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 35, line 2 (reading):

"... (sic) Why don't you describe to us what you did when you arrived at the
door of room 915?

"A. Mr. Phillips opened the door for us by means of the card key, and we
entered the room or the mini suite of rooms, . Upon entering the room --

"Q. Let me stop you right there."

MR. PETROCELLI: I'm going to need an exhibit, Steve.

MR. FOSTER: For which one?

MR. PETROCELLI: Exhibit 11.

Your Honor, after conclusion of reading this in, we'll give you the new exhibit
numbers. These exhibits, for the record, refer to the Berris Deposition
Exhibit. (Reading:)

"... (sic) I'm going to show you a photograph of -- that I've marked as Berris
exhibit 11 and can you tell me what that photograph depicts?

"A. It's a photograph of the front of O'Hare Plaza hotel showing the hotel's

"Q. In the photograph that I just showed you as Berris exhibit 11 was taken by

"A. Taken by crime lab technicians John Stella and John Naujokas. Stella spells
his last name S-T-E-L-L-A. Naujokas spells his name N-A-U-J-O-K-A-S.

"Q. And these were photographers working under your direction and control in
the course of this investigation?

"A. Yes.

"Q. Okay."

(Continued reading as follows:)

"Q. To process the crime scene and take photographs" -- Excuse me.

(Continued reading as follows:)

"... (sic) can you state what the responsibilities of these photographers

This is page 36 line 8.

"A. To process the crime scene and take photographs of a scene and to collect
evidence, things such as that nature.

"Q. And what was your role, if any, with regard to that?

"A. To direct them as to what should be processed.

"Q. And did they take photographs in the course of this investigation?

"A. Yes, they did.

"Q. These are the photographs that you brought with you today?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And I will show you now a series of photographs starting with exhibit and
these are photographs taken by these two investigators?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And the first photograph ... (sic) you said is outside of the O'Hare Plaza,

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, the next photograph which will be marked as Berris exhibit 12 is
a photograph of what?"

(Photo is displayed in courtroom.)

(Continued reading as follows:)

"Q. The entrance door to room 915 showing the locking mechanism and the room

"Q. You opened the door?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And used a card key to get in?

"A. Yes, a card key was used.

"Q. And you entered?

"A. And we entered the room or the mini suite of rooms.

"Q. This is a mini suite?

"A. Yes.

"Q. How many rooms?

"A. Two rooms and a bathroom.

"Q. Let me show you what has been marked as Berris exhibit 13."

(Photo is displayed in courtroom.)

"Q. What does that photograph depict?

"A. This photograph showing the -- from within the mini suite of rooms and what
I would refer to as a living/dining area, the angle of photographs showing the
front -- the entrance doors to the unit and also part of the living/dining

"Q. And this depicts the area once you enter the room?

"A. Once you enter the room.

"Q. And in this -- in the area depicted by exhibit 13 of the hotel suite, is
this an area that you visually examined when you entered?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And did you know whether there was anything that looked out of place?"

(Continued reading as follows:)

"A. No, it was quite orderly."

MR. PETROCELLI: Line 15, page 38 (reading):

"Q. Describe the condition of that part of the room depicted by exhibit 13 when
you observed it?

"A. Not disturbed, not unkempt, not unmade. It seemed to be in the condition it
probably would have been if nobody had ever occupied the room.

"Q. And the next exhibit is 14. And can you describe what this photograph

(Continued reading as follows:)

"A. This is another photograph in the living/dining area, this time facing,
rather than towards the entrance door, toward the window at the opposite side
of the room.

"Q. And did you observe the area depicted by that in that photograph, exhibit ,
when you entered?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And how did it appear to you?

"A. Orderly, as if no one disturbed anything in that area of the room or the
mini suite of rooms should I say."

MR. PETROCELLI: Now, we're -- Now we're going to go to page 40, line 14.

(Continued reading as follows:)

"... (sic) Now, you're picking up exhibit 13, and you describe that as what you
see when you first enter the mini suite, correct?

"A. Yes, it is.

"Q. Okay -- And that you describe as what, the dining room area?

"A. Yes.

"Q. Next is exhibit 15. Can you tell us what exhibit 15 depicts. It is a
photograph of course; and what does it depict?

"A. It is a photograph of the bedroom of the mini suite of rooms. You went
(sic) to the bedroom by walking through a doorway from the dining area.

"Q. Were you able to observe the bedroom when you entered it?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And could you describe the condition that you saw?

"A. Yes, I can.

"Q. Please do so.

"A. The bedroom -- the drapes were drawn closed. The lights were turned off and
the bed was unmade, covers tossed back as if someone had slept in the bed.

"Q. What about the telephone?

"A. The telephone -- there was a telephone on an end table next to the bed in
an area that would be between the bed and where the bathroom would be in the

"Q. Was the telephone in an area where it appeared it belonged?

"A. Yes."

(Continued reading as follows:)

"Q. Could you tell from the position of the telephone whether it had been used
or not?

"A. It appeared to be in the location where it should have been in the

MR. PETROCELLI: Skipping down to 18. (Reading:)

"... (sic) And that again is the beginning of the bedroom as you walk in,

"A. Yes.

"Q. And now let me show you the next exhibit in sequence which is exhibit ."

(Continued reading as follows:)

"... (sic) Anyway what is exhibit 16 that I've placed in front of you, a
photograph of what?

"A. It's a photograph showing the bed in the bedroom of that mini suite of
rooms, showing the covers tossed back, unmade, and also showing the telephone
in the bedroom on the end table next to the bed.

"Q. Is that the bed -- the scene of the bedroom that you just described?

"A. Yes, it is.

"Q. And that's how the bedroom appeared to you when you walked into it?

"A. Yes, it is.

MR. PETROCELLI: And can you read the answer on ?

(Continued reading as follows:)

"A. Yes, it is, with the exception that the draperies are now opened. They had
to be opened to allow lighting for the photographs. That is the only thing that
is changed.

"Q. When you entered the bedroom, the drapes were closed?

"A. The drapes were closed.

"Q. Now, were both drapes closed, the inner drape and the outer drape?

"A. I believe so, yes.

"Q. Were the lights on in the bedroom?

"A. No, they were off.

"Q. Were the lights off in the other rooms as well?

"A. The lights were off in the living/dining area. The lights were off in the
bedroom. But the lights were on in the bathroom.

"Q. While we're in the bedroom, let me show you the next exhibit in sequence,
exhibit 17, Berris exhibit 17, which is a photograph, and tell me what that
photograph depicts."

(Continued reading as follows:)

"... (sic) Again, Detective Berris, identify Berris exhibit 17?

"A. Yes this is a photograph of bedding from suite 915. The photograph shows --
bedding with a red stain which I felt was suspect blood when I observed it."

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor may we dim the lights in the back?

(Continued reading as follows:)

"... (sic) You saw blood on the bed?

"A. Yes."

MR. PETROCELLI: Could you read it at 14?

(Continued reading as follows:)

"A. I refer to it as suspect blood.

"Q. You saw a red spot, is that what you're saying?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And that red spot was located on what?

"A. On the bedding.

"Q. By bedding, what do you mean?

"A. Top sheet and bottom sheet, pillow cases.

"Q. And where on the bed in room --

"A. 15.

"Q. Excuse me. Where on the bedding in the bedroom of 915 did you see the red

"A. In different areas of bedding, primarily the center of the bed but on some
pillow cases too.

"Q. Did you form an opinion as to what the red spots were? You may answer yes
or no?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And what did you believe the red spots were?

"A. My experience, I suspected it to be blood.

"Q. And exhibit 17 depicts the bedding that you saw" --

MR. PETROCELLI: That's line 3 on page 47.

(Continued reading as follows:)

"A. Yes."

MR. PETROCELLI: Going to line 12. (Reading:)

"... (sic) Let me show you what's been marked as Berris exhibit 18. Can you
identify it please?

"A. This is another photograph of bedding taken of the bed in room 915, also
depicting another spot which after observing it and my experience I suspected
it to be blood."

MR. PETROCELLI: Line 24. (Reading:) "Now, exhibit 18 is a picture of bedding on
the bed from room 915?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And on that bed there is an object. What is that object?

"A. There's also a pen, ball point pen.

"Q. Was that pen found on the bed when you saw the room for the first time?

"A. Yes.

"Q. In the location where it is depicted in the photograph?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And did you also see on that bed, some red spots?

"A. Yes.

"Q. The spot you're pointing to when you entered the room, how did it appear to


MR. CALLAN: Are we on the next page?


(Continued reading as follows:)

"A. A red spot.

"Q. Did you form a belief as to what it was based on your experience?

"A. Yes, I did.

"Q. And what was your belief?"

(Continued reading as follows:)

"A. I suspected it to be blood.

"Q. And where in the bedding was the blood located?

"A. Yes. I'm not sure exactly where it was on the bedding from this photograph
right here.

"Q. From your recollection of seeing the scene when you entered the bedroom,
where on the bed did you see what you have testified to be red spots that in
your belief were blood?

"A. Toward the center of the bed rather than the head or the foot.

"Q. Thank you."

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, this would be a good time.

THE COURT: Ten minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case.
Don't form or express any opinion.


(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the


Your Honor, the bad news is, we have a bit more to read. The good news is, we
will not be reading depositions for a while.



MR. CALLAN: I don't take that personally, Mr. Petrocelli.


MR. PETROCELLI: No, you're doing a fine job.

Page 50.

(Continued reading as follows:)

"Q. The next photograph I will show you, we will mark as Berris Exhibit 19, and
could you identify Berris Exhibit 19 for us?

"A. Yes. This is a photograph of the bathroom in Room 915.

"Q. And does that photograph depict the bathroom as you saw it when you entered

"A. Yes.

"Q. The light was on you said?

"A. Yes, the light was on.

"Q. And can you generally describe the appearance of the bathroom when you
entered it?"

(Continued reading as follows:)

"A. The bathroom -- The condition of the bathroom was that it had been used
more than made up and awaiting the use by a guest. It appeared to have been
used by somebody.

"Q. On what did you base your conclusion that the bathroom had been used?

"A. Well, there was an unmade towel on the vanity top. There was a broken
drinking glass in the wash basin of the sink. There were chips of glass on both
sides of the wash basin. There was paper -- torn-up paper in the wastebasket
and papers on the floor.

"Q. There were papers on the floor in the bathroom?

"A. Yes.

"Q. What was in the wastepaper basket in the bathroom?

"A. There was a torn-up piece of green paper, torn up into about eight pieces.

"Q. Was there anything else in there?

"A. No.

"Q. Was there any glass in there?

"A. No.

"Q. Was there anything else in any of the other wastepaper baskets throughout
the room?

"A. No.

"Q. Throughout the mini suite?

"A. No."

MR. PETROCELLI: Turning to page 52, line 8:


"Q. Was there broken glass located anywhere else in the suite of rooms other
than the sink in the bathroom and on the vanity in the bathroom?

"A. There was no other place in the room or in the mini suite of rooms was
there any broken glass or chips or fragments of broken glass.

"Q. Was there a telephone in the bathroom?

"A. No.

"Q. Were there any glasses on the vanity in the bathroom or elsewhere in the
bathroom that were not broken?

"A. No, there were not."


Going to page 53, the witness is pointing.


"Q. And can you point to where the towels were on the vanity that you said
looked used?"

MR. PETROCELLI: Line 14, page 53.

MR. CALLAN: Right.

MR. PETROCELLI: And going down to line 23.


"Q. Okay. And the other towels were where?

"A. Well, they're here in the -- what I would consider their normal place.

"Q. Did they appear to be used?

"A. No. They appeared to be fresh.

"Q. And the glass, broken glass was where?

"A. The broken drinking glass for the most part was in the wash basin here,
including a white doily cover. There were chips on both sides of the wash basin
so far down as to here.

"Q. Now, could you describe all the other items on the vanity?

"A. An ashtray.

"Q. Yes.

"A. A basket, I believe, that had soap and some type of toiletries like -- such
as that, the unmade towel.

"Q. The towels that had been used?

"A. Right.

"Q. What's in front of that basket?

"A. There was one towel.

"Q. Is that a bar of soap?

"A. That's a bar of soap, still in the wrapper by its appearance. A coffee
maker, which had not been used, several cups for coffee, and different things
that you would use for coffee.

"Q. Had the coffee cups been used?

"A. No."

(Continued reading as follows:)

"Q. Could you tell from the appearance of the coffee cups and condiments
whether or not they had been used?

"A. No, they did not appear to be used.

"Q. Now, the picture of the vanity as you're now displaying it to the camera,
is that exactly how the vanity appeared when you entered the bathroom?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And all the items that appear on that vanity were in that exact location?

"A. Yes.

"Q. As depicted in the photograph that you're holding?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And there are some flowers behind the coffee pot?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And those were there as well?

"A. Yes, they were.

"Q. Did you have an opportunity to look into the shower?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And what did you see?"

(Continued reading as follows:)

"A. The shower appeared not to have been used. It was dry, and the shower
curtain was dry.

"Q. Was there any glass in the shower?

"A. No glass in the shower.

"Q. Did you see any blood in the shower?"

(Continued reading as follows:)

"A. No blood was observed in the shower.

"Q. Did you observe anything in the shower?

"A. Nothing.

"Q. Did you see any water?

"A. No."

(Continued reading as follows:)

"Q. I place in front of you a photograph marked as Berris Exhibit 20. Can you
please identify that photograph?"

(Continued reading as follows:)

"A. Yes. This is a photograph of another angle of the bathroom in the mini
suite of rooms, 915, O'Hare Plaza Hotel.

"Q. And that's another photograph depicting the vanity and the toilet in the

"A. Yes, it is.

"Q. And again, the items depicted on the vanity are in the same place as when
you came in the bathroom?

"A. Yes, they are."

MR. PETROCELLI: Next page, Steve.


Q. "What is Berris Exhibit 21?"

"A. This is a photograph of the wash basin, vanity, and the wastebasket in the
bathroom of 915. Also shows a -- some paper thrown on the floor -- on the
floor, I'll put it that way, in the bathroom.

"Q. And it shows a little more close-up of the glass in the sink?

"A. Yes, it does.

"Q. Now, is there anything else in the sink besides the glass?

"A. There's a white cover. I call it a white doily cover. Oftentimes you see
them on drinking glasses in the hotel rooms, sort of shows that they're not --
they're fresh, they haven't been used.

"Q. And You found the white doily in the sink?

"A. Yes. Along with the broken glass and pieces of glass.

"Q. Did you notice any blood or red spots that you thought might be blood in
the sink?"

(Continued reading as follows:)

"A. None.

"Q. Did you notice any red spots at all in the sink?"

(Continued reading as follows:)

"A. None.

"Q. Did you notice any red spots in the toilet?

"A. None whatsoever.

"Q. What about in the wastepaper basket?"

(Continued reading as follows:)

"A. None whatsoever.

"Q. Did you notice any red spots on any of the pieces of glass in the sink?

"A. None at all.

"Q. Was there any glass found anyplace else other than in the sink?

"A. There were small chips of glass found along the vanity on both the right
and left sides of the wash basin, very small chips.

"Q. Did you at some point in time pick up each of the pieces or chips of glass?

"A. I examined them.

"Q. Each of them?

"A. Yes.

"Q. What was your purpose in examining them?

"A. To see if they had any red substance that I might feel could be blood.

"Q. What did you conclude after examining each piece of glass, or chips of

(Continued reading as follows:)

"A. I found none, nothing that appeared to be blood on any of these chips."



"Q. Let me show you the next photograph, which has been marked as Berris
Exhibit number 22, and could you tell us what that photograph depicts?

"A. This is a -- still another photograph of the vanity and the wash basin. On
top of the vanity is a towel that appears wrinkled and having been used. It's
to the right of the wash basin."

(Continued reading as follows:)

"Q. Did you find chips of glass?

"A. Oh, yes.

"Q. Where?

"A. On top of the vanity."

MR. PETROCELLI: Moving over to page 63:


Q. "What I want to make clear is, I'm asking you, did you find chips of glass?

"A. Oh, yes, I did.

"Q. Where did you find them?

(Continued reading as follows:)

"A. On both sides of the wash basin. The exact spots, I can't recall right now.
But I remember they were on -- I point them out because you certainly can't see
them in this photograph, but they were on each side of the wash basin. I
remember they were -- there were some down as far as -- down this far on the
vanity (indicating)."

MR. PETROCELLI: Line 24. And line 22.


"Q. And where are you pointing on the other end of the vanity, just so the
record is clear?

"A. Would be to -- would be the left, would be approximately in the vicinity of
the coffee maker."

(Continued reading as follows:)

"Q. How many chips of glass did you find on the vanity?

"A. Total number, I can't recall. There were several. The exact number, I
really don't remember.

"Q. In the locations that you just described?"

(Continued reading as follows:)

"A. On each side of the wash basin along the vanity."

(Continued reading as follows:)

"Q. Let me show you the next exhibit, which is Berris Exhibit 23, and can you
please identify this exhibit?"

MR. PETROCELLI: Over to page 66.


"Q. What does Exhibit 23 depict?

"A. That is a photograph of the wash basin, of the sink close-up, showing the
broken drinking glass, white cover; and off in the upper right-hand corner, you
can see a -- partially see the face towel that was on top of the vanity to the
right of the wash basin.

"Q. Does that photograph depict the condition of the basin when you observed

"A. Yes.

"Q. So the broken glass that is depicted in the photograph was in the same
condition when you observed it?

"A. Yes."

(Continued reading as follows:)

"Q. Let me show you Berris Exhibit . Can you identify that Exhibit?"

(Continued reading as follows:)

"A. This --

"Q. What is it?

"A. This is a photograph of a wash cloth that was found underneath the hand
towel. Did I call it a face towel before? But the towel that was to the right
of the wash basin. This wash cloth was found underneath that towel after the
photographs had been taken by the Crime Lab Technicians Stella and Naujokas
processing the scene.

"It originally couldn't be seen because the towel had been on top of it. And
this being underneath it, we didn't move anything until after it was
photographed to show things in their original condition. After the photographs
were taken with the towel, the towel was picked up by the technicians and they
discovered this face -- this wash cloth with a red stain on it, which I
suspected to be blood.

"Also you can see one of the glass chips here."

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Page 68.

Can you read the answer on page 68, line .

MR. CALLAN: 68 line 6.


"A. Here's one of the chips here.

That chip would have been hidden from view by the towel. That's why you
couldn't see it before.

"At any rate, this red stain here that you can see on the washcloth was suspect

"Q. You observed that washcloth with the red stain on it and the chip, once the
towel was removed?

"A. Yes, after it was removed.

"Q. And that's when that photograph was taken?

"A. That's when this photograph was taken. The others were taken before. Now we
discovered something new, so we took a photograph of this so that it would be a
matter of record.

MR. PETROCELLI: Go to page 69, Steve.


"Q. Please identify Berris Exhibit number 25.

MR. CALLAN: Geez, I'm sorry. Excuse me, Mr. Leonard.

MR. LEONARD: On the okay

I think that was inadvertent.

MR. PETROCELLI: Yeah, that was.

MR. LEONARD: But your apology is accepted.

MR. CALLAN: Thank you.

MR. PETROCELLI: He was apologizing to me.

Can you read the answer on line 13?


"A. This is another copy of the photograph of the washcloth which was shown in
Exhibit 24, showing the red stain which I suspected to be blood at the time.

"And also the glass chip, with a bit of difficulty, can be seen here in the

(Continued reading as follows:)

"Q. The next Exhibit is Berris Exhibit 26. What is it?"

(Continued reading as follows:)

"A. That's a photograph of the wastebasket in the same bathroom, with pieces of
torn-up green paper in the wastebasket. On the floor next to the wastebasket
are some other papers that were found there.

"Q. And those green pieces of paper that are in the wastepaper basket were in
that condition in that location when you observed that?

"A. Yes.

"Q. Did you at any point in time take those pieces of paper out?

"A. Yes.

"Q. Were you able to observe what was written on them, if anything?

"A. There was a -- the words -- as best I could piece them together, the words
'Joe,' and I thought, 'Cocowitz' with a telephone number and the word 'work' on
it. But that was the best as I could piece it together at the time.

"Q. And the pieces of paper on the floor next to the waste-paper basket, did
you pick them up?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And did you observe what they were?

"A. One was a -- The card key of the -- a card key holder with the signature on
it resembling that of Mr. Simpson's registration card, O.J. Simpson, and the
number, room 915.

"Another one had to do with an advertisement for, I think, a restaurant in the
hotel. Something to do with pizza or something like that."

MR. PETROCELLI: And line 19:


"Q. Were their" [sic] "any closets in this mini suite?

"A. Closets, not closed, opened-type closets that you could -- I think there
were two areas that might be considered open closet areas where you could hang
clothes but they weren't with a door to be locked.

"Q. Did you look into those closets?

"A. Oh, yes.

"Q. What did you observe?

"A. I observed that there were no laundry bags.

"Q. What else did you observe? Were there any hangers in the closet?

"A. Yes.

"Q. Were there any hangers on the floor?

"A. No."

"Q. Were there any hangers found elsewhere in the mini suite other than in the

"A. No.

"Q. Were the hangers in the closet hanging on the bar?

"A. Yes.

"Q. By looking in the closet, could you form an opinion as to whether or not
they had been used?

MR. LEONARD: May we approach?

MR. PETROCELLI: I'll withdraw the question.

Skipping over to page 74, line 19. Did you find any laundry bags anywhere in
room 915?

(Continued reading as follows:)

"A. No, none were found.

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 78. (Reading.)

"Did you find any" -- excuse me. Line 17.

"Did you find any broken pieces or shards of glass or chips of glass on the
floor in the bathroom?

"A. No.

"Q. And you found no broken glass anywhere else in this suite of rooms, right?"
Page 79. "Is that correct?

"A. Nowhere else in the entire mini suite, other than on the vanity and in the
wash basin.

"Q. Did you find anything else in the mini suite of rooms that was broken?

"A. No.

"Q. Do you know what I mean by broken?

"A. Yes.

"Q. Like something else that had been ripped apart or torn apart or broken?

"A. Nothing at all.

"Q. Okay."

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 104. Depo Exhibit 22, Steve.

(Mr. Foster displays Depo Exhibit 22.)

"Q. Could you look at the photograph of the basin?

Let's pick one. Let's look at -- Exhibit 22 is from a stain on the basin?

"A. Yes, on the top.

"Q. Yes?

"A. Yes, there is.

"Q. And did you form an opinion as to what that was?

"A. There's a stain right here at the top of the basin. On the side, right-hand
side, that appeared to be a stain that would have been made by possibly someone
at some time, having laid a lit cigarette there and the nicotine staining the
porcelain on the sink top.

"Q. Did you form an opinion as to whether or not that stain was consistent with

"A. It was examined. It didn't appear to be.

"Q. It did not appear to be what?

"A. Blood.

"Q. Was there any furniture overturned over?

"A. No.

"Q. Was the furniture found in a neat and orderly condition?

"A. Yes.

"Q. The blood stains you saw on the sheets, were they located toward the
middle, center of the bed?

"A. Yes. They appear to be more centered than at the foot" --

MR. PETROCELLI: I'm sorry. Let me read that answer again. (Reading:)

"A. Yes. They appeared to be more centered than at the head or foot."

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 107 line 11. (Reading:)

"Q. Did you find any blood stains, blood-stained tissues inside the room?

"A. None.

"Q. Did you find any blood-stained toilet paper at all?

"A. None.

"Q. Did you find any blood drops on the bathroom floor?

"A. None.

"Q. Did you find any drops of blood around the wash basin or the vanity?

"A. None.

"Q. Did you find any drops of blood on the carpet?

"A. None.

"Q. Or next to the bed?

"A. None.

"Q. Or on the telephone?

"A. None.

"Q. Or on the counter where the telephone sits on the bed side table I should

"A. None."

MR. PETROCELLI: That's it, Your Honor.

(Mr. Leonard is reading the questions and Mr. Callan is reading the answers of
the witness.)


MR. LEONARD: Detective Berris.

MR. CALLAN: Good morning, Mr. Leonard.

MR. LEONARD: A little thinner on the top than last we met.

Okay. If we turn to 110, line 14. (Reading:)

"Q. Let me ask you first of all when you -- did you receive the initial call
from LAPD to assist in the investigation of Nicole Brown Simpson and Goldman

"A. I personally did not.

"Q. At some point, shortly after the call was received, you were assigned to
take the lead from the Chicago end; is that fair to say?

"A. Yes, I was assigned with Detective Anthony Bojoirno for us together to go
to O'Hare Plaza hotel.

"Q. And you were attempting to do as thorough a job as you could in the task
that you undertook in the investigation, correct?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And to some extent you were directed by the LAPD, is that fair to say?"

MR. LEONARD: Down to "question is read again." It's repeated. Over to 112, line
15. You with me?

(Continued reading as follows:)

"Q. Were you, to some extent, directed in what you were supposed to do by the

"A. We were requested to go to that location and to investigate Mr. Simpson's
presence there with respect to their investigation. To collect any possible
evidence and interview people who might have spoken with -- concerning his
presence there.

"Q. And do you feel that you and your colleagues did a thorough and accurate,
and a good job in doing that?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. You mentioned earlier that you -- you mentioned earlier that the room was

"A. Yes, it was.

"Q. 915, this suite, I should say?

"A. Yes, it was.

"Q. You have described in Mr. Petrocelli's direct examination of you,
everything that was done in what you called the processing of the room.

"A. As best I can recollect with what was said, with what I said over that
period of time in his questioning, yes, I think that covers everything.

"Q. You were there initially for about 20 minutes, correct?

"A. Initially to visually observe the interior of that room or the rooms.

"Q. And thereafter, you went someplace else and you came back with some
criminalist, correct?

"A. Yes.

"Q. Again, in your direct examination, have you described everything that the
criminalist did at the scene?

"A. As best I can recollect, I think I covered everything.

"Q. Well, you just testified, what, for about two hours just before I started
questioning, right?

"A. Right. Yes.

"Q. And you have a pretty good memory of what you testified to?

"A. Yes. Generally I think we covered just about everything I can think of.

"Q. All righty.

MR. LEONARD: Okay. Over to 11, line 1.

(Continued reading as follows:)

"... By the way, I notice you're lifting your glasses. Do you have any trouble
with your eyesight of any kind?

"A. I wear glasses. These are bifocals. Sometimes I just want to make sure I'm
looking at the picture correctly.

"Q. Just so in all fairness to everyone involved, you've been asked to look at
a lot of photographs throughout the deposition?

"A. Yes.

"Q. Have you had any difficulty seeing any of these photographs?

"A. No, I don't, none at all.

"Q. And just explain, why did you lift up the glasses like that?

"A. Sometimes I do that and sometime I don't. You know, I just -- I could look
at it this way out of the bifocals."

MR. LEONARD: Okay. Skipping over to 122, line and I've asked for some answer
assistance from Mr. Baker at this point. You ready? (Reading:)

"Q. The photograph which has been marked as Exhibit 16, that represents a, more
or less, full shot photographic shot of the bed from the bottom end of the bed.
Is that fair to say?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And you've testified earlier that that was the condition that the bed was
in when you first entered the room, correct?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And is it fair to say that the best you're able to tell us today with
regard to these red spots that you noticed, was that they were somewhere in the
middle and they weren't close to the head board. Is that fair to say?

"A. Yes.

"Q. That is fair to say, correct?

"A. Yes.

"Q. Now, let me make sure the question is clear, I'm directing your -- I'm
asking you to focus on the location on the bed, not at this point on which
sheet or on which pillow case or anything like that, but the location of the
spots on the bed. Are you following me?"

"A. Yes.

"Q. You're best recollection today is that these spots were somewhere in the
middle of the bed. Not down at one end and not close to the head board; is that

"A. Yes, for the most part they're toward the center of the bed and not at the
boot or the head. Although there were some spots on that pillow case or cases
-- excuse me. But for the most part, they were centered toward the center of
the bed more than at the end.

"Q. I think you testified earlier that there were spots on the bottom sheet and
the top sheet?

"A. Yes.

"Q. Okay. Did you make any effort to specifically identify where those spots
were or did you ask anyone else to do that by using any kind of diagram or
anything like that?

"A. No. That was not done.

"Q. For instance, you were shown an Exhibit earlier that you called a blot or

"A. Yes.

"Q. I would call it a diagram --

"A. Diagram.

"Q. -- Of the suite, correct?

"A. Yes.

"Q. You did not create any such diagram of the bed to show where the various
spots were; is that correct?

"A. No. That was not done.

"Q. You didn't ask anyone to do that?

"A. No.

"Q. Did you make any other, other than to have the spots photographed and other
than your visual observations of the spots, do you follow me so far? Did you
make any other effort of any kind to try to document where the spots were?

"A. No. Just the descriptions as they were made in the reports.

"Q. That's it?

"A. That's it.

"Q. And now those sheets were ultimately transferred to the LAPD?

"A. Yes.

"Q. What about the pillow cases?"

MR. LEONARD: Down to 20 on page --

(Continued reading as follows:)

"A. All bedding, the bedding which would include the top and bottom sheets and
the pillow cases were ultimately transported to Los Angeles by the Los Angeles
Police Department.

"Q. Okay."

MR. LEONARD: Over to 128, line 18. (Reading:).

"Now, directing your attention to the portion of the bottom of the glass that's
in the basin. Do you see that?"

Could we have 22 up, please?

Mr. Foster, can you do that for me?


MR. LEONARD: Hold on.

Line 22, page 128. Okay. Let me read the question again. (Reading:)

"Now directing your attentioon to the portion of the bottom of glass that's in
the basin, do you see that?

"A. Yes.

"Q. Do you recall, when you saw that portion of the bottom of the glass, that
there was a milky colored liquid in it? Do you recall that?

"A. There was a small amount of what I described in the criminal trial as a
clouded liquid or, by your description, milky colored liquid. That would be a
fair description. Very small amount, though.

"Q. What, if any, observations did you make with regard to the bottom of that
glass when you saw it in the basin?

"A. It was broken.

"Q. Anything else with reference to whether it -- whether or not it had any
type of liquid in it? Did you make any observations?

"A. It had this clouded liquid, a very small amount of that in there, just very

"Q. And what was the -- what was -- and what color was the liquid?

"A. Clouded, whitish liquid, not clear.

"Q. Would it, would you agree that that would -- that that liquid would be
consistent with the residue of water and tooth paste? Would you agree with

"A. It could have been. It could have been.

"Q. Do you know if that liquid was ever analyzed?

"A. It was not analyzed."

MR. LEONARD: Over to 131, page 14. (Reading:)

"Are you aware of any attempts by your police department to do any kind of
analysis of the sink traps or the toilet or anything like that to determine
whether there was the presence of blood in that room?"

"A. That was not done.

"Q. Was there any, your familiar with luminol. Do you know what luminol is?

"A. No I don't think so.

"Q. You do not?

"A. Can't recall.

"Q. Okay. Would it refresh your recollection if I suggested to you that luminol
is a chemical that can be spread to detect the presence of blood that is not
detectable to the human eye? Have you ever heard of that before?

"A. No, I can't say that I have."

THE COURT: It probably be easier on our reporter if you --

MR. LEONARD: Slow down.

THE COURT: -- Slow down just a touch.

MR. LEONARD: Let me read that last one. (Reading:)

"Would it refresh your recollection if I suggested to you that luminol is a
chemical that can be spread to detect the presence of blood that's not
detectable by the human eye? "Have you ever heard of that before?

"A. No, I can't say that I had.

"Q. Are you aware of any techniques that are available to detect the presence
of human blood such as that, in other words, chemical or otherwise, that is not
discernible by the human eye?

"A. Not offhand, no.

"Q. And to your knowledge, no such analysis was undertaken of any portion of
room 915; is that correct?

"A. Not such as that, no.

"Q. And in fact, the only analysis or examination for blood that was done was
simple observation, correct? Isn't that right?

"A. Observation to detect such -- any kind of suspect blood which would be
subsequently transported to the crime lab for analysis as such.

"Q. So the answer is the only technique that was used was?

"A. Visual.

"Q. Visual observation?

"A. Yes.

MR. LEONARD: I don't have any further questions.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, a few more questions. (Reading:)

"Q. Detective Berris, do you recall there -- you recall a witness in the
criminal trial by the defense" --

MR. CALLAN: What page are you on?

MR. PETROCELLI: Page 133, line 17. (Reading:)

"Q. You were called as a witness in the criminal trial by the defense?

"A. Yes.

"Q. By O.J. Simpson's lawyers?

"A. Yes.

"Q. And analysis an testing of items of evidence, was that beyond your scope of

"A. Yes, it is."

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.

MR. LEONARD: Nothing else.


MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, at this point in time I'd like to move into
evidence the various photographs which I will now read off for the record if I
may, please.

Berris depo Exhibit 11 is Exhibit 2151; berris depo, Exhibit 12, 2152; Berris
depo, Exhibit 13, 2153; Berris deposition Exhibit 14, 2154; Berris deposition
Exhibit 15, 2155.

(The instrument herein referred to as Berris Deposition Exhibit No. 11 was
marked for identification and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.

(The instrument herein referred to as Berris deposition exhibit No. 12 was
marked for identification and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.

(The instrument herein referred to as Berris Deposition Exhibit 13 was marked
for identification and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2153.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Berris Deposition Exhibit 14 was marked
for identification and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2154.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Berris Deposition Exhibit 15 was marked
for identification and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2155.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Berris depo, Exhibit 16 is already premarked as 1319; Berris
depo Exhibit 17, premarked as 1318; Berris depo Exhibit 18, premarked as
Exhibit 1317.

(The instrument herein referred to as Berris Deposition Exhibit No. 16 was
marked for identification and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.

(The instrument herein referred to as Berris Deposition Exhibit No. 17 was
marked for identification and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.

(The instrument herein referred to as Berris Deposition Exhibit No. 18 was
marked for identification and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.

MR. PETROCELLI: Berris depo Exhibit 19, 2156.

Berris depo Exhibit 20 is Exhibit 2157.

Berris depo Exhibit 21, is Exhibit 2158.

Berris depo Exhibit 22, is premarked as Exhibit 1315.

Berris depo Exhibit 23 is premarked as Exhibit 1316.

Berris depo Exhibit 24 is premarked as Exhibit 1313.

Berris depo Exhibit 26 is Exhibit 2159.

Berris -- that's the last one, 2159 and I would move all these items into

THE COURT: Okay. They're received.

(The instrument herein referred to as Berris Deposition Exhibit Number 19 was
marked for identification and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.

(The instrument herein referred to as Berris Deposition Exhibit Number 20 was
marked for identification and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.

(The instrument herein referred to as Berris Deposition Exhibit Number 21 was
marked for identification and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.

(The instrument herein referred to as Berris Deposition Exhibit Number 22 was
marked for identification and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.

(The instrument herein referred to as Berris Deposition Exhibit Number 23 was
marked for identification and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.

(The instrument herein referred to as Berris Deposition Exhibit Number 24 was
marked for identification and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.

(The instrument herein referred to as Berris deposition Exhibit Number 26 was
marked for identification and received in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.

MR. PETROCELLI: That concludes the presentation of evidence.

THE COURT: Was there a Berris 25?

MR. PETROCELLI: That was the same as Berris . And that would preclude the
evidence from today and we have our hearing.


Ladies and gentlemen, we will excuse you until tomorrow at 9 O'clock. Don't
talk the about the case. Don't form or express any opinions. We're going to not
be vacationing, but we will be conducting some matters that don't concern you

But there's no need for you to be around the Court house today so you will be

Let me again remind you not to read anything about this case, not watch
anything on television or listen to anything on the radio. Don't let anybody
talk to you or approach you about anything connected with this case or
yourselves as service or as jurors on this case.

Don't talk to one another either about this case. All right. And don't form or
express any opinions until this case is finally submitted to you.

See you tomorrow: Jurors exit courtroom.

MR. PETROCELLI: Can we take a short break?

THE COURT: Jurors are gone. Who's Werner Spitz on this list?

MR. PETROCELLI: Excuse me.

THE COURT: Warner Spitz.

MR. PETROCELLI: Tomorrow morning, first thing. He's a pathologist.

THE COURT: And you got another list for us?

MR. PETROCELLI: I've given Mr. Baker two weeks worth of witnesses. I'm filling
out your list now.

THE COURT: Okay. Great.

MR. BAKER: Are they the same?


THE COURT: All right. So at 1:30 we'll resume with the motions; is that right?


MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I advised are even that one of the motions as that we
want to exclude autopsy photographs and mannequins.

I asked Mr. Medvene to have those over here this afternoon so we can handle
that this afternoon.

THE COURT: All right. Fine.

MR. PETROCELLI: No problem.

THE COURT: See you at 1:30.

(At 10:54 A.M., a recess was taken until Thursday, October 7, 1996 at 1:30 P.M.
of the same day.)

2:05 P.M.



(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the

THE COURT: This is a 402 motion.

Plaintiff, go ahead.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, thank you.

We'd like to start with the issue of the admissibility of the testimony of Dr.
Park Dietz.

And before I call Dr. Dietz to the stand, we did submit a brief this morning on
this issue of the admissibility, and particularly on the applicability of the
Kelly Frye testimony.

We think that under the People v. Stoll case, which is a California Supreme
Court case, very recent chronologically, the Kelly Frye test is not even
applicable to this testimony because -- for two reasons:

It's not new to psychology, as you will hear from Dr. Dietz;

And secondly, it is not even conceivable for this testimony to be considered in
the words of Stoll, misleading of a scientific infallibility. It will be clear
that it's Dr. Dietz' testimony, his personal opinion based on his expertise,
there's no way the jury can say, oh, that must be the answer; we'll have to go
with that under Stoll. That means Kelly Frye doesn't apply.

We would like to proceed with the testimony subject to your ruling.

THE COURT: Do you want to make an opening statement, too?



MR. GELBLUM: We call Dr. Park Dietz.

THE CLERK: Sir, if you would, step up behind the court reporter.

Please raise your right hand to be sworn.

PARK DIETZ was called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiffs, was duly sworn,
and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause
now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth so help you God?


THE CLERK: Please be seated.

MR. GELBLUM: Afternoon, Doctor.

THE CLERK: Doctor, would you state and spell your name for the record.

THE WITNESS: My first name is Park, P-A-R-K, middle name Elliott,
E-L-L-I-O-T-T, surname Dietz, D-I-E-T-Z.

MR. GELBLUM: Hello again.


Q. Dr. Dietz, what is your current occupation?

A. I'm a physician, specializing in psychiatry; and for some years, my practice
has been limited to the subspecialty of forensic psychiatry.

Q. Okay.

Can you briefly tell the Court what your education is, your higher education?

A. I received my bachelor's degree in psychology and biology from Cornell
University in .

I received my medical degree and M.D. from Johns Hopkins University School of
Medicine in .

In the same year, I received a master's degree in public health, also from
Johns Hopkins.

And upon completing a dissertation some years later, in 1984, I received a
Ph.D. in psychology, also from Johns Hopkins.

Q. And have you had any training in the area of forensic psychiatry, Doctor?

A. Yes, I did.

Originally, as part of my residency training in psychiatry, I spent two years
as an assistant resident in psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore,
and then spent my third year of residency as the chief fellow in forensic
psychiatry and resident in psychiatry at the hospital of the University of
Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, stipulate as to his qualifications as a forensic

MR. GELBLUM: I'd like to go through a little bit more, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Dr. Dietz, can you tell us some of the positions you've
held that are particularly applicable to the testimony here?

A. I spent four years as assistant professor of psychiatry at the Harvard
Medical School.

And my first assignment was as the director of forensic psychiatry for the
hospital for the criminally insane, where I was responsible for the pretrial
evaluations of the more serious criminal defendants thought to have mental
disorders, for the trial courts of Massachusetts.

Then I spent my third year at Harvard evaluating John Hinkley on behalf of the
U.S. Attorney's office in connection with charges arising from the attempted
assassination of President Reagan.

Then I spent a year studying mentally disordered offenders.

My next position was at the University of Virginia, where I was originally an
associate professor, and later professor of law and professor of behavioral
medicine in psychiatry.

And I was medical director of the Institute of Law Psychiatry and Public Policy
at the University of Virginia. I taught half-time at a law school, teaching
courses in law and psychiatry, criminal behavior, crimes of violence, and
related fields; and half of my time, I spent directing the fellowship training
program in forensic psychiatry and bringing the forensic psychiatry clinic to
the university.

During those years, I also began an active association -- or actually, rather,
continued an association with the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. That had
begun in the late 1970s and was formalized in 1981.

And I have, for the years since then, been the psychiatrist for the unit that's
gone under a variety of names. Today it's called the profiling unit. It had
been the behavioral sciences unit. It is part of the National Center for the
Analysis of Violent Crime.

And in 1988, I moved to southern California.

Today, I am clinical professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at
U.C.L.A. And I divide my time between a forensic psychiatry practice which
occupies half my time, which is actually a group of -- a number of consultants
and another activity, which is called threat assessment group. And that's a
firm which provides consultation to employers for the prevention of workplace

We also do some work for governmental agencies. It's preventative work for
preventing people from getting hurt.

Q. Did you bring a copy of your curriculum vitae with you?

A. Yes.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, I submit that to the Court for his review and shortcut
the recitation.

THE COURT: I thought he gave it.

MR. GELBLUM: It's just the first couple pages.

MR. LEONARD: No. A lot more.

MR. GELBLUM: Would you like to mark it as an exhibit?

THE COURT: Whatever way you want to do it.

MR. GELBLUM: Shall we?

THE COURT: It's your witness.

MR. GELBLUM: Next in order?

THE CLERK: No; this is plaintiff. Can we mark it Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1 for this

(The instrument herein referred to as Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Park Dietz was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 1 to this 402 hearing.)

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Dr. Dietz, let me show you, so we can get this
authenticated, what we can mark as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1 for this hearing.

Is that a copy of your curriculum vitae?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And is this up to date?

A. It's up to date as of the date on it, which is October of 1995. So actually,
it's a year old now.

Q. And does it contain your major publications and research and editorial
boards you've sat on?

A. Yes.

Q. Doctor, do you have experience in the field of a crime-scene analysis?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And tell us a little bit about what that field is, crime-scene analysis.

A. Well, crime-scene analysis, of course, is the effort to learn information
from the study of a crime scene.

And because that's the nature of what the field is; it's an activity primarily
of criminal investigators. It's in the routine order of business for homicide
detectives, and has also been, for many years, indeed, centuries, some
physicians, coroners, who include nonphysicians, have always been involved in
crime-scene analysis; and forensic pathologists have more systematically
developed the medical aspects of crime-scene investigation over the decades.

Forensic psychiatry is rather a latecomer to the systematic analysis of crime
scenes. But that activity of learning from a crime scene what it has to tell is
not specific to medicine or to law enforcement, but rather, bridges both, and
indeed, other fields. There are other analysts who go to crime scenes and seek
to learn from them.

Q. Okay. And tell us a little bit about your experience in crime-scene

A. My experience actually began while I was still a medical student. I had a
laboratory at the medical examiner's office in Baltimore and began to go out to
crime scenes with the investigators for the ME's office.

I continued to work with medical examiner's office in Philadelphia, when I
moved there.

And so I had already been interested in how much one could learn from crime
scenes and from autopsies, about the manner of an offense and about the
behavior of the offender, even before I was formally in forensic psychiatry.

Q. Did you have any experience with crime-scene analysis at the FBI Academy?

A. Yes, beginning in 1979.

Q. How long?

A. I was done with my training.

Q. I'm sorry; how long were you there at the FBI Academy?

A. I've gone intermittently ever since 1979.

Q. And have you had experience with crime-scene analysis with other law
enforcement agencies?

A. Yes. I'm the forensic psychiatrist for the New York State Police, and I have
regular involvement both through the FBI and New York State Police.

Many other agencies, possibly scores, have, over the years, consulted me on one
case at a time, though I have no ongoing relationship with them.

Q. In your current work as the president of the Threat Assessment Group, do you
get involved in crime-scene analysis?

A. We get involved in the analysis of many unsolved crimes; they don't always
involve what ought to be regarded as a scene, but where there is a crime scene
to evaluate. We're involved in that.

Q. Are you familiar with the concept of indirect behavioral assessment?

A. Yes.

Q. What is that concept?

A. That's actually a concept I introduced in the mid-eighties to encompass a
range of activities that people in my field of forensic psychiatry and related
fields were often involved in.

It was meant to encompass the activity of psychological autopsies. That was --
had been ongoing since the 1960s, in fact, starting in the LA Coroner's Office,
where much of the original work was done on the concept of psychiatric
autopsies. It encompassed the efforts that physicians were making to evaluate
the mental state of testators who were already dead and no longer available to

It encompassed the work that was then called "profiling" being done by the FBI,
which was the effort to analyze a crime scene or series of crimes, to be able
to narrow the scope of the investigation toward a smaller group of suspects.
The term was also meant to encompass the analysis of threatening communications
or anonymous letters, bomb threats, death threats, et cetera, where one was
trying to infer about human behavior from evidence of a kind that didn't
include a face-to-face interview with the person whose behavior was being

And there are other examples, as well, of the activities that forensic
psychiatrists and law enforcement officers engage in, where we have to try to
reason from data, other than interview, data about human behavior.

Q. Is that something that forensic psychiatrists do routinely?

A. It is, as a matter of fact.

Unlike clinical psychiatry and forensic psychiatry, it's been long recognized
that because people who are parties to a matter are not always truthful, the
indirect evidence about behavior is often more reliable than the direct
evidence that might come from an interview. So whereas in clinical psychiatry,
doctors obviously rely greatly on what their patients tell them. In forensic
psychiatry, we have to rely on more than direct sources of information.

Q. Now, in this case, Dr. Dietz, are you prepared to render an opinion
regarding a likely motive that Mr. Simpson had for committing the two murders
at issue here?

A. Yes.

Q. And is that opinion based on any technique, process or theory that is new to

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: This being a 402 hearing, overruled.

THE WITNESS: Well, as a predicate to my -- and I want it to be clear that your
answer assumes that Mr. Simpson is indeed the killer.

And given that assumption, I'm prepared to offer an opinion as to motivation.

And that opinion would be based on a kind of analysis that is not new and that
is not one that I would characterize as a scientific technique.

Q. Can you describe the process for us?

A. Yes.

The process is a rather straightforward one of first looking at the crime scene
through photographs and diagrams, looking at the injuries to the victims as
portrayed in autopsy photographs, and then the protocol from each autopsy.

And based on the information that comes from the scene and from the autopsies,
looking at the behavior that was necessary in order for that scene to have
resulted and for those injuries to have resulted, and then reasoning about that
scene and those injuries to examine what inferences, if any, can be drawn
behaviorally about the offender.

Q. Does that person you're talking about now assume that Mr. Simpson is the
perpetrator, or is that simply trying to figure out whoever did it, what's the
motivation for this particular crime?

MR. LEONARD: Vague. I didn't understand it.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. LEONARD: It's up to you if you understand it.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: What I said in my last answer is not based on any assumption of
who did it; but rather, my first approach to look at motive is to look at the
crime scene and the autopsy information.

Q. And that's regardless of who you think may or may not have done it, has
nothing to do with Mr. Simpson?

A. That's correct. That is one source of information as to motive. If one of
them then changes ground and says, assuming that Mr. Simpson is the killer,
what is the motive, that brings into play other data that are specific to Mr.
Simpson and to Ms. Simpson and to Mr. Goldman and to the relationships.

And so with that other information, then it becomes possible to, of course, be
much more specific.

Q. Okay. Let's start just with the first one you described, which is the

As I understand what you're saying, it's based solely on the photographs that
you've seen of the crime scene and the autopsies and the autopsy protocols; is
that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, when you're analyzing those, are you applying what you would call
any kind of scientific technique or method?

A. No.

Q. Are the materials that you just described that you relied on in forming your
opinion, materials that are typically relied upon by other experts in this

A. Yes. And in any homicide case, a forensic psychiatrist ought to be concerned
with the crime scene and with the autopsies or autopsy of the victim. And that
kind of information is routinely relied on by those who pay attention to the
data as they should.

Q. What kind of people, in your experience, engage in that kind of analysis;
what kinds of occupations?

A. Well, for crime-scene analysis and looking at all autopsies to learn about
the behavior, that's possibly done most often by homicide detectives who, at
every homicide scene, are trying to do precisely that, and who attend autopsies
largely for that purpose.

It's also done by medical examiners and the other investigators who work at
medical examiners' offices, other people in the forensic sciences, including,
of course, forensic psychiatry.

Q. Is there published literature in this field?

A. Yes, there is.

Q. Can you cite any examples of it?

A. Certainly.

All textbooks of homicide investigation talk about crime-scene analysis. And
that's been true for more than a century.

Probably the earliest psychiatric writings just talk specifically about crime
scenes, which would be the writings of Richard von Krafft-Ebing, who, unlike
other forensic psychiatrists of his day, a century ago, had developed a close
friendship with the preeminent professor of criminology at the time, Hans
Gross, who was a student of crime scenes and wrote the most important textbook
of criminal investigation.

In fact, it's still in print today.

Q. When was that first published?

A. Sometime prior to 1875.

Q. Okay. And that's essentially the same kind of crime-scene analysis that
we're talking about in this case?

A. Well, it starts from the same place. Now, over the years, we have learned
something -- or at least we all like to think so -- that the techniques have
been that -- that existed then have become enhanced somewhat by further
information that's developed over the years, and it continues to evolve.

The first writing specifically about making behavioral inferences from crime
scenes might be a book by James Brussel, published in 1968, called

And Dr. Brussel had been involved in solving the case known as "The Mad
Bomber," involving George Matesti and that by looking at indirect evidence that
helped him point toward a particular suspect.

Q. Can you cite any additional publications in the area of forensic psychiatry
relating to crime-scene analysis?

A. Yes. Well --

Q. Do you have a list of them?

A. In my head, not in my hand.

Q. Just give us, perhaps, the leading few.

A. Probably the best known work today would be the
FBI_Crime_Classification_Manual, which is not a

forensic psychiatry work, but a law enforcement work.

Q. Okay. Any others of particular note?

A. I wouldn't want to characterize them as leading, but I should mention two of
my own.

Q. Okay.


THE WITNESS: I published an article called Sex Offender_Profiling_by_the_FBI.

Q. Where did you publish that?

A. It was originally in a Justice Department publication called
Symposium_on_the_Analysis_of_Sexual_Assault_Evidence. And it was reprinted in
Clinical_Chronicles, which was published by the University of Toronto.

Q. And what was the other article you were going to mention?

A. Another one of mine that I think is on point is entitled
Sexual_Fatalities_Behavioral_ Reconstruction_and_Equivocal_Cases.

Q. Where was that published?

A. Originally, in the Journal_of_Forensic_ Sciences.

Q. Doctor, have you ever qualified to testify as an expert in court on a
similar opinion; that is, testifying as to motive, based on an analysis of the
crime scene and autopsy?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you cite to us some cases?

A. Of course. That comes up as part of nearly every homicide case that I
testify in.

So, backwards, from most recent homicide cases where we've talked about the
crime scene and motive, would include California_versus_Ernesto_ Anguiano,
where I testified in October of '96.

One was Wisconsin versus -- sorry; that one's not a homicide.

California_versus_Sally_McNeil, where I testified at trial in March of '96.

California_versus_Erik_Menendez, where I testified in February of '96.

California_versus_Richard_Davis, which is the Polly Klaas case. I testified at
trial in May of '96.

Q. Did you justify arriving -- determining -- trying to determine motive from
an analysis of the crime scene in the Klaas case?

A. Yes. In fact, that was the principal purpose of my participation in the

United_States_versus_James_E._Swann,_Jr., where I testified at trial in
September '94.

Q. Please tell us how many others there are in the last, say, five years.

A. Nine others from that point back to the mid-90s.

Q. And each of those you were testifying -- part of your testimony had to do
with deriving motive from analysis of the crime scene and/or autopsy photos?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, the other opinion you mentioned, opinion you said, assuming Mr. Simpson
is the perpetrator, trying to determine a likely motive that he would have had;
is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And how did you -- what method did you use, or what did you do to arrive at
that opinion?

A. To the information that I already had from the crime scene and autopsy
information, I then added information specific to Mr. Simpson, which included
portions of his testimony; his prior statements; his writings; Nicole Simpson's
writings, including her diary; statements that were transcribed -- that is,
transcripts of statements made by witnesses; some transcribed trial testimony;
a 911 tape; and a surreptitiously made recording known as the Lally tape; a
transcript of the conversation during the so-called slow-speed chase between
Mr. Simpson and the law enforcement.

Q. Are those kinds of materials the kinds of materials that are typically
relied upon by forensic psychiatrists in assessing motive?

A. Yes.

Q. Is there a body of scientific literature regarding motives for homicide?

A. Yes, there is.

Q. Are you familiar with that body of knowledge?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Is that something you keep abreast of in your work?

A. Yes, reasonably well.

Q. Okay. And have you been qualified as an expert to testify in other cases
about a particular motive, that is likely to be the defendant's defense in the
case, had for committing the crime for which he's on trial?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Not relevant as phrased.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I have.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Can you give us a few examples?

A. I think all the cases that I just listed would be examples of that.

Q. You did -- you rendered both kinds of opinions in those cases? In other
words, an opinion that wasn't specific to the person on trial, as well as an
opinion it was specific to the motive of that person?

A. Well, they'd be opinions that were derived from both.

Q. Both from the crime scene and from the other information you just described?

A. Yes. I think of the cases I specifically mentioned, all have a known

Now, there are other instances where I testified as to motive, where the
offender was unknown. But I don't think I listed any by name.

Q. Okay. And is the method -- are the methods that you used in arriving at
these two opinions, methods that are generally accepted in the field of
forensic psychiatry?

A. I think "method" may put it too strongly, but this approach is generally
accepted and is routinely done throughout the field.

Q. How do you know that?

A. Because I'm in touch often with colleagues. I'm the immediate past president
of our national academy. And so I do have a good sense, I think, of what others
are doing.

MR. GELBLUM: I have nothing further, Your Honor.



Q. Nice to see you again.

A. Hello.

Q. Let me make sure I understand your testimony completely. You testified that
you that -- your testimony had been admitted in a number of cases -- and
correct me if I'm wrong, involving motive for an offense, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Your assessment of what the motive was, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And in each and every one of those cases the perpetrator was already known.
In other words, there was an assumption that an individual had committed the
crime, right?

A. In each one that I listed by name, that's correct.

Q. Yeah. You were testifying, for instance, in the -- when there was an
insanity defense or diminished capacity defense raised, correct, in most of
those cases?

A. In most of those, that would be true also.

Q. So, you weren't testifying as to whether or not a particular defendant was
guilty based on your motive analysis, you were just trying to gauge the motive
for purposes of determining whether the defendant had a diminished capacity. Is
that defined under the various laws and also whether -- whether or not there
was a legitimate insanity defense, correct?

A. In all but one, that's correct. That one of the named -- one of the cases
that I named earlier, the sole exception would be California_V.__Davis in which
my testimony did go specifically to his guilt to one charged offense that he
had denied committing.

Q. And -- but there were a number of uncharged offenses that were involved in
that case, correct or not? Correct me if I'm wrong.

A. Would you repeat the question?

Q. Were there a number of uncharged offenses that were at issue in that case,
in the Klaas case, Polly Klaas case?

A. I don't know what you mean by an uncharged offense being at issue.

Q. In that case, you had actually had some access to medical records of the
defendant, correct?

A. Many kinds of records of the defendant, including medical.

Q. Including medical records, right?

And you had -- you had had actually access to some evaluations that had been
done of the defendant by other psychologists or psychiatrists, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, let me see if I can understand how you compartmentalized your
opinions in this case. Let's focus on the crime scene analysis.

What you've done, essentially, and you use the word "profiling" several times,
and I think I know what that means, but as I understand it, what you do is that
you look at crime scene photographs. You look at the autopsy protocol and then
you determine whether or not that what you see in this information fits the
pattern or profile that you would expect to see in a certain kind of crime;
that is, a certain homicide that was motivated by a certain mental state of the
defendant, correct?

A. Not exactly, no.

Q. But in this case you, in fact, looked at the crime classification manual,

A. That is one thing I did, yes.

Q. You tried to determine whether the pattern that had been developed by the
behavioral science unit at the FBI was the facts, as you understood them, fit
into the pattern, correct?

A. Having reached an opinion, based on my own analysis, I then turned to the
manual and found that there was a correspondence between my analysis of this
case and their descriptions of a spontaneous domestic homicide.

Q. And that's the kind of thing, for instance, that the behavioral science unit
did in the Richard Jewell case; is that right?

A. No, I don't think so. I think they were doing something different there.

Q. They did a profile based on what they knew about the incident, the bombing
incident, correct?

A. I don't know what they originally did, and I'm unfortunately, not able to
discuss my current role in that case.

Q. Okay. You, in your testimony, and during your deposition, you indicated that
you had looked at crime classification manual, right; and you had also thought
about your own experience and your own -- The information you had about various
kinds of homicides and you decided that this homicide fit a certain pattern,

A. "You decided?"

Q. You decided it looked like a spousal homicide to you; is that right?

A. Based on my review of the autopsy information and the crime scenes, I
reached certain opinions about this crime. I then later turned to the manual
and found a correspondence between my own findings and their description of
spousal homicide, that's correct.

Q. Okay. Of course, it wasn't a perfect fit, was it? In other words, the
factors that were indicated in the crime classification manual, you didn't find
all of those with regard to spousal homicide, did you?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: No. That's why this isn't an undertaking of trying to look for a
one-size-fits-all pattern.


A. Instead, it's an analysis of a particular crime.

Q. Tell me, how can the judge, how can a jury, how could I, in cross-examining
you possibly test the accuracy of your opinion? What could I look to? Tell me.

A. Well, the first thing you could do is test the logic of what I have to say
about the relationship between the scene or the injuries and my conclusions.

You can probe whether they seem unreasonable. You can confront me with evidence
that seems to contradict what I've said. You can show me how I've relied on
incorrect information.

In other words, you can do the things that cross examiners always do with
expert witnesses; and in addition, you could point out information that shows
that I'm wrong, and that this crime wasn't a domestic homicide; that it was
committed by someone else.

Q. Okay. But there is no -- when you sat down and you decided that you could
render an opinion in this case, you had a pattern in mind, correct? It was in
your mind. It was in the crime classification manual, right?

A. I think you misapprehend the pattern issue. When I sat down and looked at
this case, I was looking at a crime scene that had a lot of information in it.

And my original opinions come from looking at that scene and what it has to

Just as I think any experienced investigator would look at that scene and reach
largely, similar opinions. Those opinions don't purport to prove who did it and
it would be an inappropriate use of that kind of analysis, to say this who did

Q. Thank you, Doctor.

Now, you would agree with me that this type of profiling you're talking about
or discerning appearance, that has no place in a court of law in determining
whether or not a defendant is guilty or innocent, would you agree with that,

A. I don't think that's for me to say. I think that's for the Court to decide.

Q. Isn't that what you just said?

A. I think I just said that this kind of analysis does not purport to prove
who, in fact, committed this crime.

Q. Okay?

A. I think evidence is admitted throughout criminal trials that does not in and
of itself, taken alone, prove who committed this particular crime. And the same
thing is true in a civil suit such as this in which no one piece of evidence
may prove who committed this particular crime.

Q. As a matter of fact, if I asked you, to a reasonable degree of medical
certainty, whether you can sit in front of this jury and tell them that Mr.
Simpson committed the crime, your answer is no; isn't that right?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Isn't that right?

A. My answer is even more helpful to you --

Q. Thank you.

A. I would say I wouldn't answer that question because that's not my role.

Q. It would be unethical, wouldn't it?

A. I think it's so far beyond the pail that it would be out of the question.

Q. Now, you also are of the opinion that based on everything you know about the
preoffense behavior of Mr. Simpson, that if you had to bet, you would bet that
he didn't commit the murder. Didn't you say that in your deposition?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Irrelevant. This isn't cross-examination on his
deposition. We're here to determine the Kelly Frye issues, not the test of

THE COURT: I assume you're going to be offering this witness for the objective
of proving your case.

MR. GELBLUM: Of course.

THE COURT: And I think reasonable cross-examination would encompass this
witness's opinion in that regard at that point.

This being a 402 hearing, overruled.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You remember testifying to that in your deposition?

A. That's a mischaracterization. I'll tell you what I did testify to that
you're misrepresenting. I testified that if the information available prior to
these homicides concerning an abusive relationship were addressed for the
purpose of prediction that one could safely bet that Mr. Simpson would continue
to abuse Ms. Simpson. But one could not safely bet that Mr. Simpson would
eventually, some day, kill Ms. Simpson.

Q. And by the way, when you were at your -- Have you done anything since your
deposition? You review any materials, got any additional information?

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor this is not a discovery tool here, Your Honor.

MR. LEONARD: It's a foundational question.

THE COURT: Okay. I'll strike it if it isn't.

THE WITNESS: Not about this case.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) What case did you think I was asking about?

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Isn't it true that at your deposition, that you had very
little knowledge at all about the prior history of Mr. Simpson and Nicole Brown
Simpson; isn't that true?

A. I think that's true.

Q. And you were willing to opine that point, that Mr. Simpson was the kind of
person to commit this crime; isn't that right?

Do you remember saying that?

A. Actually what I repeatedly said was that my testimony about preoffense
behavior would go to the point that there is nothing about Mr. Simpson's
preoffense behavior that would exclude him as the kind of person who would
commit this crime.

Q. Oh, okay.

So what you're saying is that you can't say that he did it, but you can say
that -- you can't say that he didn't do it, right?

Is that what you're saying?

A. What I'm saying is that I would not presume to say that he did it. I would,
however, be prepared to say that as to rebut any suggestion that he's the kind
of person who wouldn't have or couldn't have done it.

Q. Let me read you from page 77 of your deposition.

MR. PETROCELLI: What line?

MR. LEONARD: Line 11.

MR. PETROCELLI: One second.

(Pause for Plaintiff's Counsel to read.)


MR. LEONARD: The question is (reading):.


"What I mean when I say that this preoffense behavior is such as to make him
the prime suspect in the eyes of an experienced investigator, I mean to say
that from behavior of him and characteristics of him there for the offense that
are highly suggestive, that's exactly the kind of person who would do such a

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Do you remember testifying to that in your deposition, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. That's the basis to what you intend to elicit. That's what you intend to
tell this jury, correct? That's what you'd like the jury to note at the end of
your testimony?

MR. GELBLUM: Irrelevant what this witness wants this jury to know.

THE COURT: You may rephrase it.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Isn't that what you're trying to impart to this jury, that
Mr. Simpson is the kind of person that would commit this crime?

A. Not me, no.

Q. That's what you said in your deposition, didn't you?

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, it's a deposition. It's irrelevant.

Your Honor, may I be heard on this to the extent that this --

THE COURT: This a 402 hearing.

MR. GELBLUM: That's exactly what I was going to say, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Go ahead.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you or did you not say that?

A. I said that in my deposition in response to whatever this line of
questioning was.

But I did not say that that's an opinion that I intend to offer at trial. And
I, of course, do not have anything in particular that I care to tell this jury
about. I'm responding to questions as they're asked.

And my understanding of what you've been asked in this respect about pretense
behavior is to be able to rebut any suggestion that Mr. Simpson couldn't have
done it 'cause he's not the kind of person who would.

Q. So I just wanted to make that clear for the Court that that's what your --
that's what your intent here is, right?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Let me ask you something. I found this curious in your

When you -- when you're attempting to testify as to the behavioral
reconstruction, if you will, that is not just the -- not just the information
that's contained in the autopsy reports and the photographs? You're relying on
what you called -- what is -- what's another phrase you used? I haven't heard
that before, "indirect behavioral assessment."

In other words, you're relying on what third parties have said about Mr.
Simpson or what they've said about Nicole Brown Simpson; is that right? That's
part of what you rely on?

A. All sources of information other than what the defendant himself says are

Q. Yeah. Yeah. You wouldn't want to rely on the defendant, right?

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, he testified. He read the defendant's deposition.

THE COURT: This is getting a little argumentative. You know there's no jury

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You -- obviously you didn't interview Mr. Simpson, right?

A. No, I haven't had that opportunity.

Q. Did you ask these attorneys if they could petition the Court for an
independent medical report?

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you -- did you -- did you look at any standardized
tests or have any standardized tests administered to Mr. Simpson?

A. No. That isn't available to me either.

Q. Now, when you get this information that comes from third parties, you know,
statements or things they've said to the police or things they've said to other
third parties, how do you decide what to believe and what not to believe?

A. Well, I start by believing photographs and what I can see with my own eyes.

Q. I'll make the question very clear. I'm not talking about photographs. I'm
talking about information that you receive from third parties' statements and
so forth which you're relying on in rendering your opinion in this case, right?

Tell me what -- how would you assess the veracity of those kind of statements?

A. The same way anyone else does. That is by judging their internal
plausibility, by judging their consistencies with other information, by judging
whether they fit the other facts as they're known. By learning whether the
individuals have been discredited or have had their reliability called into
account in exactly the same way the fact-finder does.

Q. Isn't that what the jury's supposed to do in a trial?

A. Absolutely.

Q. That's not your job, is it?

A. Well, it's also necessary in order to draw any opinions to be able to look
at what the facts seem to be and all facts are in play in the midst of a legal

My role is different from that of perhaps fact witnesses in that I'm required
to be fair in my analysis of what to rely upon and by my view that I'm
ethically bound to disclose when I'm aware that there is an unreliable source
of information. Whereas fact witnesses don't have to worry themselves about
those things.

Q. How much you normally bill an hour?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: My customary private fee is $600 an hour. My government fee is
$400 an hour and it's the latter that I'm charging on this case.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Okay. No further questions.

MR. GELBLUM: Just a couple, Your Honor.


Q. Dr. Dietz, you testified in cases other than the Davis case, as to motive or
the issue was whether a person had committed a crime as opposed to an insanity

A. Yes.

Q. All right. You -- do you know how many other cases -- about how many other

A. There are three that I can point to specifically. I don't know how many
additional ones there may also be.

Q. Okay. Do you know the names of those three?

A. I know the name of two. Vance_versus_ Krause which was a civil case in
Georgia known as the civil murder trial, in which a man denied having killed
his wife. But I was plaintiffs' expert in a case designed to prove that he had
killed his wife so that he wouldn't receive the life insurance benefits from
his murder.

And a second case that I can recall by the name South Carolina versus Register.
There was no mental defense raised and my recollection is that it was based on
crime scene and other indirect evidence of his behavior that I testified as to
the motive of the offender.

I don't recall too much detail about it. And then the third case that I can
recollect was an Ohio case in which a man was involved in the asphyxia death of
a woman he knew and I don't remember too much about it.

But it was based on crime scene evidence and other indirect evidence that I

Q. You ever testified in premise liability cases?

A. Oh, yes. Well, I do that often. In many of those involved exactly the issue
of looking at a crime scene and talking about the behavioral reconstruction of
the offense and the motivation of the offender who may well be unknown.

Q. And approximately how many times have you done that?

A. I don't have a list of all those along, but I would imagine it's possibly
been, oh, I'd say a dozen or more in the last two or three years where I've
testified at a deposition about those issues and a few of them have come to

Q. A few of them have come to trial?

A. Yes.

Q. And finally, Doctor, can you describe just briefly and generally what you
testified to in the Richard Davis case on this subject of motive and identity?

A. In that case, the defendant had denied having committed lewd acts against
Polly Klaas which was one of the charged offenses. And there were three crime
scenes. The Klaas residence, from which she had been abducted; a location on a
hillside, where she was held for a time while he got his car out of a ditch;
and a third location where her body was recovered.

And each of those crime scenes revealed evidence related to the motivation of
the offender.

For example, at the residence where Polly and her friends were first approached
by the offender, were found precut length of a lingerie-like fabric that Davis
had brought with him and had used to restrain the three girls. The fact that he
used lingerie fabric, that he had precut it and brought with him a knife to the
scene indicated that he'd fantasized in advance about his crime and had
intended to restrain victims.

At the second -- oh, and he took with him from that scene tights and a
nightgown that he later put on Polly.

At the second scene, at the hillside, there was evidence of a clearing in the
woods. Davis had been seen there by witnesses with brush residue on, like,
leaves and pine, pine needles. There was a condom wrapper of a brand that's
unusual but to which Davis was known to have access.

And at the third location, where her body was found, although she was in an
advanced state of decomposition, there was additional evidence suggestive of
sexual assault in that her nightgown was inverted in a manner inconsistent with
her having been dragged and thereby having the nightgown removed because it was

Q. What conclusions did you come to and testify to on the basis of your
analysis of the physical evidence?

A. On the basis of that and more --

Q. Right?

A. -- I was able to conclude that Davis had, in fact, intended to commit a sex
offense against Polly Klaas and had, in fact, engaged in lewd acts with her.

Q. And you were permitted by the Court to testify to that subject?

MR. LEONARD: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. LEONARD: Lack of foundation.

THE COURT: He testified or he didn't.

Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Did you testify to those conclusions in court?

A. I testified about it being a sexually motivated offense and about his desire
to control a helpless, suffering victim.

Q. Thank you, Doctor.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, couple more.

THE COURT: Go ahead.


Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) In the Davis case, it was assumed and known who the
offender was, correct?

A. He had confessed to the murder.

Q. Right.

A. But not the sex.

Q. At issue was whether or not he had committed sexual acts in the course of
the murder, correct?

A. That was the issue for me, yes.

Q. It had nothing to do with whether or not he was the person who committed the
murder. He was -- he already confessed and was identified, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And was your testimony challenged in that case in any way, if you know?

A. Yes. There was a hearing prior to the -- to the trial that had to do with
what language I would be permitted to use.

Q. Oh, okay. Thanks. Nothing further.

MR. GELBLUM: Nothing.

THE COURT: You may step down.

(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the

MR. PETROCELLI: With the Court's permission, I'd like to move in Exhibit 204.

THE CLERK: It's actually 2148, the hand diagram.

MR. PETROCELLI: I'd like to move in Exhibit 21 --

THE CLERK: Next in order is 2160.

MR. PETROCELLI: From Detective Berris' examination.

Thank you.

THE COURT: Received.

(The instrument herein referred to was marked for identification and received
in evidence as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2160.)


MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, plaintiffs' call Dr. Dutton. Dr. Donald Dutton.

DONALD DUTTON, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiff Goldman, was duly
sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause
now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?


THE CLERK: Sir, if you would, please swing that microphone under your chin.

Thank you.

And would you please state and spell your name for the record.

THE WITNESS: Donald George Dutton. D-O-N-A-L-D, G-E-O-R-G-E, D-U-T-T-O-N.


Q. Afternoon, Dr. Dutton.

A. Afternoon.

Q. What is your occupation, sir?

A. I'm a psychologist.

Q. What kind of psychologist?

A. I'm a research psychologist with a specialty in forensic psychology and
specifically in spousal violence.

Q. And how long have you specialized in spousal violence?

A. Twenty-two years.

Q. Okay. Did you bring your curriculum vitae with you?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Okay.

MR. LEONARD: Stipulate he's an expert in forensic psychology, Your Honor.

MR. GELBLUM: And family violence, as well.

MR. LEONARD: Whatever.



Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Is this a copy of your C.V.?

A. Yes.

MR. GELBLUM: I'd Like to mark this Plaintiffs' 2 for this hearing.


(The instrument herein referred to as Donald Dutton's curriculum vitae was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2 to this 402 hearing.)

Q. Dr. Dutton, have you ever testified or -- I'm sorry -- qualified in court
before as an expert on family violence issues?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. How many times?

A. Twelve times.

Q. Are those cases listed in your C.V.?

A. Yes, they are.

Q. Okay. The -- you currently conducting any research in the area of family

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Will you describe that research, please.

A. One's a continuation of a project that develops profiles of abuse
perpetrators, looks at what their psychological profile looks like.

And the other is a study that we're currently doing on men who have been
convicted of spousal homicide. These are men who are federally incarcerated.

Q. Okay. And what are you studying them for?

A. We are attempting to ascertain if there's any sort of common pattern in the
modus operandi of the killing, if there's any common factors that would
characterize spousal killings, if there's any kind of psychological profile
that relates to either the modus operandi or other characteristics of the

Q. Are you prepared in this case, Dr. Dutton, to render an opinion regarding
factors that are characteristic of spousal homicide?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. Is there a substantial body of literature in the field of those types of

A. There is a substantial body. There's in the neighborhood of 40 separate
research papers, and several books have been written on the topic.

Q. Can you name some of the books?

A. Yes. As a matter of fact, I've got some of them here.

One of them is called Homicide_In_ Families by Ann Goetting, G-O-E-T-T-I-N-G.

One of them is called Femicide: Politics_of_Woman_Killing by Joe Radford and
Diana Russell.

One of them is called When_Battered_Women Kill, by Angela Brown.

And there's a compendium of research here called

Domestic_Acquaintance_and_Stranger_Aggression, that is an edit book that has 40
plus chapters on various forms of violence, including chapters on spousal
homicide and spousal violence.

Q. Are there any journals that are devoted to the issue of family violence?

A. There's at least three. One is called Violence_in_Victims; one is called
Journal Family Violence, and one called the Journal of Western Violence. They
are either exclusively or predominantly concerned with issues of family

Q. Are articles about family violence, including spousal homicide, included in
other journals?

A. Yes. American_Journal_of_Orthopyschology , criminology journals, from time
to time, will have articles on spousal homicide. The_New_England_Journal
of_Medicine and the Journal_of_the_Medical_Association have recently published
articles on spousal homicide.

Q. Do many of those articles and journals and books discuss factors that have
been found to -- in research to be present -- to be characteristics of spousal

A. Yes, they do.

Q. Are there conferences that are devoted to the issue of family violence?

A. Yes. There's an international family -- family violence research conference
held annually at the University of New Hampshire that's been held since . In
addition to that, there's -- the International Family Law Conference frequently
has discussion of issues on family violence.

The American Society of Criminology presents research papers on family violence
and spousal homicide.

And the American Psychological Association also does the same.

And there's a Division 41 of the American Psychological Association, which is
called Psychology and Law, which is a especially interested in issues of
spousal violence.

Q. You said you formed an opinion regarding certain factors that are
characteristic of spousal homicide?

A. Yes.

Q. How did you determine those factors?

How did you go about reaching that opinion?

A. Well, I examined the research literature that -- all of the empirical
studies that had been developed, which really examined the circumstances
surrounding the deaths of women, and in many cases compared that to nonintimate
homicide cases, and tried to ascertain what factors characterized or stood out
when one was examining intimate homicide or an "intimate femicide," as it's
sometimes called.

Q. Say what you mean by "intimate homicide."

A. Intimate homicide means any homicide that occurs in a relationship where
there's been an emotional or sexual intimacy between the perpetrator and the

And intimate femicide refers to the same thing, but where the victim of the
homicide is a woman.

Q. It's a little broader than spousal homicide; is that right?

A. Yes. That's -- it's broader.

Q. Are your familiar, Dr. Dutton, with the research methods used in literature
that you reviewed, to render your opinion, to form an opinion?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. And are those research methods new research methods?

A. No, they're not new research methods; they've been in use for some time.

Q. Do you have any idea how long they've been in use?

A. Well, the actual process of looking at both archival -- using archival
interview methods to study perpetrators has been in use since the '30s. The
specific application to spousal homicide and issues having to do with intimate
violence is new. We're -- because most of the research on intimate violence
really began in 1970s.

Q. Okay. Do the people who do the research, including yourself, in intimate
homicide, use the same methods of research that have been used since the '30s?

A. Yes, they have.

Q. There's no new scientific technique applied to that research?

A. No. It's -- no. Essentially, the techniques are pretty much the same.

Q. And do you use those methods?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And are those the research methods that you're familiar with?

Are those generally accepted in the field of research psychology?

A. They're generally accepted. They're published in the research journals. And
in order to be published in a journal, it has to pass peer review. If it's not
an acceptable method, it wouldn't get published.

Q. Can you briefly describe the research method used.

A. Well, in terms of examining spousal homicide, what you usually do is, to
start with a known group of offenders, and to obtain all the archival material
that's available, which means all of the police records, coroners' records, any
kind of medical or psychological or psychiatric records that would be in that
man's file.

And wherever possible, to go back and talk to what is called a "proxy" for the
victim. That is someone who knew the victim well and could speak to the
circumstances that were occurring in the relationship between the offender and
the victim prior to the victim's death.

Q. And in the peer reviewed articles that you discussed in the journals, is the
research methodology routinely laid out?

A. Yes; it has -- you have to describe your methodology in order for the
article to be published.

Q. And, Dr. Dutton, is it generally accepted in the field of family violence
that there are certain factors that are indeed characteristic of spousal
homicide, or intimate homicides, rather?

A. Yes, there are.

MR. GELBLUM: Nothing further.


Q. Nice to see you again.

A. Hi.

THE COURT: Apparently, it's not mutual.


MR. LEONARD: I resemble (sic) that remark.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) It sounds to me like you're testifying as an expert on
homicide; is that right, or you plan to testify?

A. Well, I'm testifying on a form of family violence, which is an extension of
other forms of family violence, but it's still an extreme form of family
violence, called homicide.

Q. Can you answer my question?

A. I thought I just did.

Q. Are you attempting to -- to tell this Court that you will be testifying at
the trial as an expert on homicide?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I will be testifying about characteristics of spousal homicides.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Are you an expert on homicide, generally, sir?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Irrelevant, not being offered on that.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Can you tell me what you mean by "homicide, generally?"

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Well, you testified at your deposition that you weren't an
expert on homicide, you were an expert on spousal homicide. Do you remember

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Okay.

That's what I meant.

A. Okay.

I consider myself to be an expert on spousal violence and spousal homicide.

Q. Okay. But what you're intending to do here is, you're intending to take the
stand, and as I understand it, testify as to a pattern or profile of spousal
homicide, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Without applying it to the facts in the case, right?

That's what the moving papers say.

A. I don't believe we'll be applying it specifically to facts in this case.

Q. Okay.

A. It will be characteristics of spousal homicides in general.

Q. Just in the abstract?

A. Compared to nonintimate homicide.

Q. Well, but you're not an expert in anything else. How can you compare it?

A. I can read the literature.

Q. If you do take the stand and I have the pleasure of cross-examining you,
you'll agree that you're not an expert in anything but spousal homicide, right?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Misstates the testimony.

THE WITNESS: Well, I don't know what else I can say. I'm an expert in spousal
violence, and that includes spousal homicide.

And I would just like to add one thing to that: In examining the
characteristics of spousal homicides, one compares them to nonintimate

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Well, that puzzles me. Because in your deposition, I tried
to do that. Do you remember?

I asked you questions about -- you mentioned something about wound appearance
or use of a knife or something. Do you remember that? Do you recall that?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

And I asked you, "Well, wait a minute. Aren't there -- isn't that kind of
weapon used in other types of homicides?"

Do you remember that question?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And you said, "I can't answer that. I'm not an expert in anything but
spousal homicide."

Do you remember that, sir?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. How are you going to be of any help to this jury if you can't answer
something as basic as that?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Irrelevant, argumentative.

THE WITNESS: I don't --

THE COURT: Excuse me.

Well, at this point, it would appear to me that, based upon the offer that the
plaintiff has made, the Court has not the foggiest notion of what this
witness's testimony is going to be and would tend to exclude.

MR. GELBLUM: May I reopen, then?


MR. GELBLUM: I can have him, if you like, Your Honor. That's what I should do,
probably, is have him testify about the factors that he identified as there --
that have been characteristics of spousal homicide.

THE COURT: The reason I mention that at this point is, Mr. Leonard has
intimated, by his question to this witness, something about use of knife and
appearance of injury. And I'm at a loss as to what the proffered testimony is
going to be, re factors -- characteristics of spousal homicide.

MR. GELBLUM: I'll be happy to elicit that.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. GELBLUM: Can you tell us, please, Dr. Dutton --

MR. LEONARD: You want me to sit down?

MR. GELBLUM: You can stay up.

MR. LEONARD: You want me to stay here?

THE COURT: You can sit down. You're possibly going to be standing for a long

MR. LEONARD: I don't think so.


Q. Can you tell us, Dr. Dutton, what factors you have determined are
characteristic of spousal homicide?

A. Well, if we EXAMINE the research literature, we find, for example, that one
factor that's characteristic of spousal homicide is a previous violence of --
previous history of violence in the family between the eventual perpetrator and
victim of the homicide.

In fact, it magnifies the risks by a factor of eight. That's one of the
characteristics or one of the factors that I will be testifying, or I'll been

Another factor is descriptions of jealousy that come out of the reports and in
the literature reports that -- where the perpetrator's described as jealous to
the point of obsessing over the eventual homicide victim.

Another factor is an estrangement, which is a major risk factor. Most women who
are killed are killed, first of all, by a man that they knew in an intimate
relationship during the first two months of estrangement.

That's pretty well established in at least five or six separate research
articles, including one of the books that Lenore Walker has written,
Terrifying_Love, where she talks about that being an especially dangerous and
risky time.

Q. Lenore Walker is a defense expert in this case?

A. That's right.

So, we'll be testifying about all of those particular issues.

And then, of course, there is an issue that I think Mr. Leonard was alluding
to, the use of overkill, and whether or not the pattern of killing is one that
-- well, it's described in the literature as being excessive, as more than is
required to dispatch or kill a victim. So there's numerous stab wounds or
numerous blows or numerous shots fired. So it's what's called a rage killing.

Q. That's one of the characteristics of spousal homicide in the literature?

A. That's right.

Q. You found that in your own research, as well?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Have you found it -- has the literature found -- and has your research
found that stalking is one of the characteristics?

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I know it's only you here, but I do object to the

THE COURT: It's only me.

Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: Stalking and threats are two other -- two other aspects that have
shown up and been described in most of the risk assessment lists that are
checklists, that are made to determine lethality.

So stalking and threats would both be important. And stalking, of course, is
important because it indicates a kind of obsession, where the perpetrators are
unwilling or unable to let go of at relationship with a subsequent victim.

Q. Is there a general acceptance in the family violence community that the
notion -- that these factors are characteristics of spousal homicide?

A. Yes, there is.

MR. GELBLUM: Thank you.

THE COURT: Okay. You may cross-examine.


Q. Do you recall at page 117 of your deposition, answering the following

Starting at 9: (Reading):

"Now, you talked about overkill, and by that you mean -- Describe that. What do
you mean by that?"

Your answer: "Well, there's a number of Stab wounds; the judgment being it's
more than sufficient to kill someone.

"Basically that's it."

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Do you recall that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Next question (reading):

"Now, each of these, what you've just described as factors in homicide, spousal
homicide, obviously, they could be factors in other types of homicide.

"I mean, there are, for instance, serial murderers around that use a particular
MO, where they will stab the victim multiple times.

"A. I'm not an expert on that."

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. (Reading:) "Q. You're not?

"A. No."

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. (Reading:) "Q. You're not aware of any other types of -- are you aware, in
general, of other types of homicides?

"A. I'm aware. I'm not an expert."


MR. LEONARD: (Reading:)

"Q. I'm asking you -- obviously, there are other types of murders and other
motives and other types of perpetrators where this MO could be seen at the
victim's home, right? ... Overkill as you describe it, correct?"

(Continued reading as follows:)

"Q. Correct?

"A. Yes."

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) At that point, Mr. Gelblum interjects and says, he's
already said he's not an expert in other kinds of homicide. And you agreed with
that. Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, my question is: If you're not an expert on other kinds of
homicide, how can you make the comparison between spousal homicide, as you've
described it, at least the profile of spousal homicide, and other types of

How can you do that and how can you testify to that in front of this jury?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection.

THE WITNESS: First of all, you're talking about one of several factors you've
outlined here, which is the modus operandi.

Secondly, in most of the research articles that I'm referring to, there are, in
fact, specific comparisons made between spousal homicide and other forms of

I am able and willing to comment on the conclusions drawn by the people who did
that research.

Q. Now, you will -- you will acknowledge that what you're doing is, you're
going to sit there and you're going to describe the typical pattern that you
believe exists in spousal homicide, and just leave it at that; and that will be
the end of your testimony, correct?

A. I wouldn't characterize it that way. I would say that I'm going to summarize
the findings of a number of independent researchers, which shows several
prevalent characteristics that are associated with spousal homicide.

Q. But you don't intend to apply those risk factors to the facts of this case,

A. Well, seems to me that's up to the jury to do that.

Q. Okay. And again, you're not able to make comparisons between other types of
homicides because you're not an expert.

MR. GELBLUM: Objection.

THE WITNESS: No, I didn't say that. I said that there are comparisons that are
made in the literature by other people who do, in fact, compare spousal and
other forms of homicide in that literature, and that I could make those
differences, those comparisons explicit.

Q. Are you familiar with an article -- I think you mentioned in your
deposition, prediction of homicide of and by battered women, by Jacqueline

A. Yes.

Q. Do you find that to be an authoritative treatise on the subject?

A. It's one study of many. I don't think it's necessarily one of the better
empirical studies.

Q. It's something you relied on -- at least that's what you testified to in
your deposition -- something you relied on in rendering your opinion?

A. I looked at it.

Q. Right?

A. Um-hum.

Q. And how often -- you say you've testified in what, eight or nine cases; is
that right?

A. Um-hum.

Q. And is it fair to say that in each and every one of those cases, you were
called as an expert on the question of the mental state of a defendant who had
already been identified; is that true, sir?

In other words, either for the defense that was asserting a
battered-woman-syndrome defense, correct?

A. Um-hum.

Q. Isn't that true?

A. Just running through the cases, yes, I believe that's true.

Q. You've never -- you've never been permitted to testify, based on your
pattern or your profile, as to the issue of whether or not a defendant did the
crime, that is, the identity of the defendant; isn't that correct, sir?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. No foundation as to permit it. Irrelevant whether he
ever tried to do that.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Do you agree with this proposition:

It is not appropriate for formal prediction -- strike that.

That the notion of danger assessment or risk assessment, okay, is not
appropriate for formal prediction as in court sentencing situations, in its
current state of development.

Do you agree with that or not, sir?

A. I think that the whole issue of prediction is a red herring and is
irrelevant. And what I -- what goes on in court has nothing to do with
prediction, and an event has already happened.

What you're trying to do is match up the characteristics of that event with
known characteristics of a similar event; you're not trying to predict

Q. What -- so what you're doing, you're profiling something. That's what it's

A. Well --

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE WITNESS: It's a little misleading because it talks about a profiler,
describing a set of prevalent and frequently occurring characteristics that
attend upon a particular kind of activity.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) And you want to -- you want to present the profile to the
jury, but you don't want to give an opinion as to whether or not the profile
applies to this case; is that your intention?

A. That's the intention.

Q. And do you think that all of the significant factors in the profile exist in
this case?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Vague. What profile?

THE COURT: Agree on "what profile."

MR. GELBLUM: He seems to be looking at some piece of paper.

MR. LEONARD: I'll put it down.


MR. LEONARD: That make you feel better?

Don't know.

THE COURT: Let's not talk among ourselves.

THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question?

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You talked about a profile. Does the situation in this case
fit the profile?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Irrelevant. He's not going to be asked to testify to

MR. LEONARD: If I may be heard.

THE COURT: Doesn't look right. The printout doesn't look like -- right. It's
not what I heard.

MR. LEONARD: The question was, do the facts of this case, as you understand it,
fit the profile that you have in your mind as to spousal homicide? That's the

THE COURT: Go ahead and answer.


Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) All of the significant factors --

A. Yes.

Q. -- is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Would you agree that one of the significant factors is the use of a
weapon in a prior abusive incident?

Do you agree with that, sir?

A. Now you're reading from -- you're reading from Jacqueline Campbell's list.

Q. I don't you know what -- I don't know what your profile is, so it's hard.

A. I'm talking about the factors that I just described.

Q. Okay. Describe them again.

A. History of family violence, jealousy, estrangement, stalking, threats,

Q. Okay. Let's start with threats.

Was there any evidence of threats in this case, sir?

A. I believe there was.

Are we going to get into all the evidence?

Q. I want to know if, when you sit in front of this jury and you describe what
you think is a pattern, that it's fair; that it actually applies to this case.
Because otherwise --

A. Yeah.

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. It's not a question. He's making a speech. It's
argumentative. It's irrelevant to this hearing. There's very narrow issues in
-- on this hearing. This isn't one of them.

THE COURT: I'll allow some cross-examination.

Go ahead.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) What evidence of threats is there in this case, sir?

A. Are we going to go into all the evidence now?

THE COURT: Just answer the question.


THE COURT: Don't argue with him.


A number of witnesses that I read, reported Nicole Brown Simpson describing
threats being made to her by O.J. Simpson.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Name one.

A. Cora Fischman.

Q. Okay. So if Cora Fischman doesn't testify at this trial that there were
threats made, what would you say about that, sir?

A. If none of the people who testified "there were threats made," testified at
the trial, then, we couldn't apply it.

Q. Okay. And it wouldn't be fair to sit in front of a jury and talk about
factors or part of a pattern that aren't applicable to the case; do you agree
with that?

MR. GELBLUM: It's irrelevant about what's fair and not fair.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) How did you determine, sir, that you could even sit on the
stand and talk about a pattern of spousal abuse if you're not applying it to
the facts in the case?

Tell me how you did that.

MR. GELBLUM: I -- objection. Vague, as I don't understand the question.

THE COURT: A bit argumentative.

I don't quite understand what you're getting at.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, can you testify to a reasonable degree of medical
certainty, that the factors that you've identified are applicable to this case?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Irrelevant. He's not a physician, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) A reasonable degree of psychological certainty?

A. I -- Yes.

Q. Okay. And you are basing that on third-party reports that you've read,
correct, primarily?

A. I'm basing it on the domestic violence books from the criminal trial. I'm
basing it on interviews that I made personally with Dennis Brown, Judith Brown,
Bruce Jenner, Giaconda Redfern.

I'm basing it on testimony that was given at the criminal trial. I'm basing it
on depositions that were given by O.J. Simpson, statements of him -- by him.
And I'm basing it on that material.

Q. And when you do that, sir, you're making an independent judgment as to the
veracity of these statements or as to the fact that some of the statements
aren't credible; isn't that right?

MR. GELBLUM: Objection, Your Honor. It's beyond the scope of what this witness
is being offered for. He is only being offered to describe the factors that

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Again, you have never been permitted to testify in a court
of law about factors relating to spousal homicide when the issue was the
identity of the perpetrator of a murder; is that correct, sir?

A. That is correct.

MR. LEONARD: No further questions.


Q. Have you ever been asked to testify on that subject before in a court of law
and been turned down?

A. Never.

MR. GELBLUM: Nothing further.

THE COURT: You may step down.

(The witness stood aside.)

THE COURT: You may proceed.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, we have no further witnesses. Those are the only

MR. LEONARD: I don't have any witnesses.

THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.

MR. GELBLUM: First of all, Your Honor, we discussed the appropriate standard.
And it is our very, very strong and firm position that the appropriate standard
is simply Evidence Code 801, and not the Kelly Frye standard, if the Kelly Frye
standard applies. We've been listening to testimony that meets all prongs of
that test.

Under the California Supreme Court case People_v._Stoll, Kelly Frye does not
apply unless you have two factors present: One, the opinion and methods used
are derived from new scientific techniques and procedures.

The testimony, I think, clearly shows that is not the case here.

THE COURT: Well, you're talking about two different people.

MR. GELBLUM: Yes, absolutely. And I do want to keep them separate.

THE COURT: I suggest you do.


My position, of course, is that for each of them, neither of them is testifying
to a matter that is developed from new scientific techniques and procedures.

In addition, neither Dr. Dietz nor Dr. Dutton -- I don't think their testimony
runs any risk, in the words of Stoll, carrying a misleading aura of scientific
infallibility. And if that's the case, Kelly Frye simply does not apply.

This is not fingerprints or voice prints; it doesn't appear to have a single,
clear-cut answer.

In Dr. Dutton's case from the research that are characteristics of spousal

In Dr. Dietz's case, his personal opinion based on his experience and all the
other things that he mentioned, the literature, in the field and his many years
of work in the field as to what you can tell from the crime scene as to motive
and what you can tell from the other features that he talked about the
relationship between the parties, prior relationship between priors -- prior
behavior of parties and what what you can determine from motive.

Dr. Dietz has been able to testify on many occasions on both of those issues
repeatedly. He cited some of those cases more in his C.V. This is more common
expert testimony which has been received in California courts and other courts.

THE COURT: I don't -- I haven't seen one case in which Dr. Dietz's type of
testimony has been offered to establish identity. Not one.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, we cited People_v._ Phillips.

THE COURT: I read it.

MR. GELBLUM: Okay. The Munchausen syndrome by proxy case.

THE COURT: That was not an identity case.

MR. GELBLUM: Defendant denied.

THE COURT: That was a mother case.

MR. GELBLUM: The mother; I'm sorry. The mother --

THE COURT: It wasn't an identity case.

MR. GELBLUM: The mother denied committing the acts. And the issue was, before
she had committed the acts; the issue here is whether Mr. Simpson committed
acts --

THE COURT: The child was in the care of the mother. The child died of a series
of medical conditions. And the expert testimony had to do with the
interpretation of those medical happenstances as her history progressed and the
testimony from the expert with regards to what constitutes Munchausen syndrome.
And that formed a possible basis for her motivation.

MR. GELBLUM: To show that she did it, Your Honor.


MR. GELBLUM: Good. That's exactly Dr. Dietz.

THE COURT: It wasn't very much of a question, who was going to be responsible,
if anybody at all, in this case, was it?

MR. GELBLUM: I don't know if that's the appropriate analysis.

THE COURT: Who else were they going to point the finger at? Anybody?

MR. GELBLUM: If it wasn't her, then they had nobody.


MR. GELBLUM: Same thing here. If it's not Mr. Simpson, then we don't have
anybody. The issue is, who did it? The issue is whether the person charged with
this committed it.

THE COURT: And in Phillips, the question is whether or not she died of natural
causes, natural progression of her illness, as opposed to maltreatment.

MR. GELBLUM: The issue was whether this defendant had deliberately --

THE COURT: We know what the victims of this case died of. It wasn't because of

MR. GELBLUM: It was whether she had done it -- it was whether she had done it

THE COURT: I don't agree with your argument.

MR. GELBLUM: We've also cited other issues in court in People v. Robbins and
People v. Poptoes (phonetic), where psychiatric testimony as to motive was

That's exactly what Dr. Dietz proposes to testify about. Dr. Dietz himself
talked about the Davis case, the Polly Klaas case, where he was permitted to
testify based on crime-scene analysis of whether the defendant had committed a
certain act, and what his motive would have been for committing that act.

Dr. Dietz also testified that there were -- I forget the number -- he cited
several cases where he had, in fact been permitted to testify may not be
recorded decision but there are trial courts that allow that testimony besides
the civil murder case cited it was an Atlanta case; the civil murder case of a
South Carolina case; an Ohio case in which he had been allowed to testify on
this exact same topic, as he said from the stand under oath. That's
unchallenged testimony; he has been allowed to testify.

In fact -- and the defense has taken the position in their opening statements,
Your Honor, that Mr. Simpson had no motive to kill; he never would have killed
the mother of his children; Mr. Baker said he had no motive.

We obviously are not legally required to prove motive as a practical matter. He
wants to put on evidence of motive; that's what Dr. Dietz is there for.

THE COURT: Wasn't this case where there's ample evidence on which a lay jury
can look to ascertain whether there was motive and they don't need an expert to
testify to matters of common experience with regards to the existence or
nonexistence of whether it would appear you're offering this expert to give
plaintiffs' version of their interpretation of what the evidence is with
regards to motive. And in essence, you're having somebody whose credentials
make a closing argument for you with regards to how they should review the

MR. GELBLUM: I think that hits the nail on the head, the issue on the head.

THE COURT: Exactly.

MR. GELBLUM: I'm going to come to a different conclusion than you do. I don't
think that motives for homicides are a part of ordinary jurors' knowledge.
They're certainly not part of mine I luckily never witnessed one, never been
part of one, and I don't know what motivates people to murder.

I also, frankly, Your Honor, think this defendant is a different defendant than
most defendants in cases like this.

Because of his celebrity status, many of the jurors feel like they know this
person, feel like they know something about him. In most cases, the defendant
is in court and the jurors know nothing about the defendant other than what
they see in court.

THE COURT: We're going through a whole bunch of motions in limine in which the
Court has already delineated what kind of evidence you're going to be able to
offer. And you certainly are aware that you're going to be offering a
considerable amount of evidence that the jury is not privy to.

So how do you say that?

MR. GELBLUM: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I don't understand what you're saying. I

THE COURT: Well, I don't think I can explain myself any better than what I did.

MR. GELBLUM: I apologize, but I think it is. I think it is particularly
important in this case with this particular defendant, and particularly with
the position that the defense is taking, that there just was no possible motive
for this man to do this; he wouldn't; there's no way he could have done this.

And this witness is capable of testifying, is qualified to testify, and has
been allowed to testify that, in fact, what you see isn't necessarily what you
get. People like this do have motives and can and are capable of killing.

And that is not, I think, Your Honor -- I think to be fair, that is not within
the experience of the jurors. I think that we probably weeded out people who
had direct contact with homicide.

With a murder, those were people who may have been not on the jury. I don't
think these jurors do know what drives people to kill. They can imagine, you
know, but this isn't a situation, you know, where the things you see in the
movies, where a husband comes home and sees the wife in bed with somebody else,
or they're trying to protect from immediate assault. This is something that I
think is outside of the understanding of the ordinary juror.

They can benefit from Section 801. All we need to do, the testimony needs to be
relevant and helpful to the jurors' understanding of the issues. And I don't
think there really can be any doubt of that.

THE COURT: You left out another thing that one talks about.

MR. GELBLUM: What's that?

THE COURT: It has to be beyond the common experience of jurors. Unless people
have been living in a vacuum for the totality of their lives, the motivations
that -- based upon your motion in limine, that the jurors' going to be exposed
to those, are not items that are out of the common experience of man.

MR. GELBLUM: Motivations for murder are. I don't think we have any jurors who
have had a family member murdered or a close friend murdered. I think we asked
those questions. I don't think we have anybody -- and frankly, I think that
murder obviously is an extreme form of human behavior, as extreme as it gets,
and it is not within the jurors' experience to know what drives somebody to do
that. It's just not.

You see a lot of movies, you can read books.

THE COURT: If Dr. Dietz's testimony is being offered to prove that, based upon
Dr. Dietz opinion as to motive, that you've made your case, I think we have a
real problem, in conjunction with all the cases that both sides have cited.

MR. GELBLUM: We're not offering them as the have-all, end-all of our case; it's
one more relevant piece of evidence in the Bledsoe case.

THE COURT: I'm really concerned with the analysis of cases you offer compared
to the analysis in People_v._Bowker,_203_Cal.App.3d,_385 and People_v.

MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, Bledsoe and Bowker -- Bowker talks about Bledsoe being
a predictor. And we're not talking about prediction here.

THE COURT: I think that's essentially what you're trying to -- that's what you
just finished talking to me about for ten minutes.

I don't know you realize it that's what you're talking --

MR. GELBLUM: I'm not talking about predicting what's going to happen. I'm
saying you have a crime; you have to figure out what happened; that's very
important. A distinction that the defense tries to muddy.

We have a completed crime here and we're trying to figure out what happened.
We're not going forward and predicting what may happen in the future.

Bledsoe, Your Honor, the key distinction to Bledsoe, as I recall it, was that
child abuse

syndrome -- child abuse syndrome when it disallowed the testimony because --
primarily because, if not solely, because the syndrome was developed for
therapeutic purposes, not to identify whether somebody was abused. It was
developed to help people who were identified as sufferers of child abuse to
deal with it. And the court said that's not what you're trying to do here. We
can't mix apples with oranges.

Dr. Dietz, as he testified, the crime-scene analysis, as well as the motives,
he's doing it exactly as he uses it in real life, exactly how law enforcement,
coroner, medical professionals use it in real life, to figure out who committed
the crime, to help figure out who did it, to help identify the perpetrator.
It's exactly how it's used in Bledsoe and Bowker.

There's a distinction. I think it's a proper distinction. It's right I decided
because they're not applicable here because we are using the methodology in
precisely the way it was meant to be used, which was to help to identify, or to
narrow the range of people who could have committed this. That's the response
on Bledsoe, Your Honor.

I think it's not that if it was a be-all, end-all, we wouldn't put all this
evidence up and get him out and say who you do think did it. Simpson he's not
even going to say what he said in his deposition. He's not going to say Simpson
did it.

THE COURT: I think that's the --

MR. GELBLUM: No. There's two parts of his testimony, two very distinct parts:
The crime-scene analysis part, this simply looks like this was committed by
somebody who was in a rage, as opposed to a burglary, drug hit, or any other
kind of thing. This looks like somebody who was in a rage and had an extreme
emotional reaction and attachment to one of the victims, probably Nicole.

He can determine that by, we didn't go into it all day, but by the evidence
found at the scene, by the wound pattern, the nature and extent of the wounds.

The other -- and that's not saying Mr. Simpson. That's saying that I think it's
clear that somebody like this.

Now, if it just so happens Mr. Simpson is the only person in the world with
that, well, that's the facts; those are the facts. But he's not saying Simpson
did it.

Secondly, the other opinion is quite distinct. I'm assuming Mr. Simpson is very
-- assuming Mr. Simpson did it. I'm saying is there some motive that I see in
all the information I have about the prior relationship between these people,
and the other things that he mentioned that would be based on my experience of
looking at thousands of homicides in my career, it would say that this person
had a motive or a likely -- had a motive to commit this crime.

And the jury will be told he's assuming he did it. Obviously, it's their
province. He's not going to mislead the jury in any way. He's not saying this
infallible. He's saying this is my opinion. He very carefully -- he's going to
be cross-examined -- lay out a foundation for his opinion.

Again, this is testimony that is admitted frequently, as Dr. Dietz testified,
where he is not going to ever say, unless Mr. Leonard wants him to, that he
thinks Mr. Simpson did it. It's not his job.

He's doing two very different things: One, assuming he did it, I can see a
likely motive here based on my vast experience and knowledge; and two, the
crime scene shows this is somebody who had an emotional attachment, was in a
rage against Nicole.

And that's it. And it's that simple. And it goes no further than that.

The jury is certainly capable. We have a very intelligent jury here. This jury
certainly is capable of taking that information for whatever it's worth; it
will be subject to rigorous cross-examination; and they can weigh it and

I think everything that Mr. Leonard has brought up goes to the weight of that
testimony. It's certainly admissible; it's relevant testimony; and if the jury
wants to discard it, they can discard it. It will be shown for exactly what it
is, nothing more, nothing less.

THE COURT: You're finished with everything?

MR. GELBLUM: That's Dr. Dietz.

MR. LEONARD: Can I respond?

THE COURT: Why don't you wait?

MR. GELBLUM: I did want to make sure, Your Honor, we did have a footnote.
Couple parts of his testimony may be offered in rebuttal, beyond what we -- but
I thought we'd save that for later. We didn't even talk about it today. That's
his analysis of Mr. Simpson's prehomicide and posthomicide demeanor. That would
be rebuttal, depending on what they put on in their case, Your Honor. We
weren't intending to address that today.

With respect to Dr. Dutton, again from the completely different point of view,
Dr. Dietz is a forensic psychiatrist. You have heard what he does.

Dr. Dutton is a research psychologist; he's not even going to opine as to
whether the factors are present here. He's going to opine, look, this is what I
do, I've been doing this for 23 years; I'm good at this. I wrote books on this.
People ask me to edit journals on this. I've read. I'm familiar with large
amounts of research on this. People have done empirical studies and then I
share good research methodologies. These are factors present in a spousal
homicide: Boom, boom, boom, boom.

Again, helpful to the jury to try to analyze whether, in fact, these murders
were a spousal or intimate homicide.

Again, not even close to representation of some infallible, scientific,
foolproof, scientific test. It's one man's opinion, as well as it's one man's
just -- really, disclosure of what the research out there shows, and there is a
general consensus of the research that these are the factors generally accepted
in the field that he testified to.

And the jury can take that, and again, they can take it for what it is, and
their reaction to it, and go to the weight of it. But it's beyond me that it's
not relevant; it certainly can help them understand these crimes.

And Dr. Dutton can say when you have these factors present, the research shows
that these are factors that are characteristic with spousal homicide. The jury
can decide whether those factors are present. The jury can also decide whether
Dr. Dutton is full of hot air. It's up to them. But he's certainly qualified to
render his opinion. He knows the material, and he would be offering this to
help the jury analyze the evidence in the case.

And certainly, that's clearly something that would be far beyond the
understanding of the jurors, as to what the characteristics are of spousal
homicide. There's no way they could possibly know that without all the research
Dr. Dutton has done.

Thank you.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, just very briefly.

I think that, despite Mr. Gelblum's very brave attempt to characterize this
evidence as something other than profiling, that's exactly what it is. Both of
the witnesses were very candid about that. That's precisely the kind of
evidence that has been found to be inadmissible time and again, for a very
important reason.

And that is, that it does invade the province of the jury, particularly in the
case of Dr. Dietz, where he quite candidly admits that he simply assimilates
all of this information, decides for himself on criteria that we could never
fathom what is true and what isn't, and then sort of pontificates to the jury
about his opinion as to what he believes and what he doesn't, and then applies
it to a set of facts to the case, and somehow at the end of this process,
renders an opinion that -- basically that Mr. Simpson did it because he had the
motive to do it.

As he said, again, in his deposition, as I pointed out, he's basically trying
to tell this jury that Mr. Simpson did it because he's the kind of person that
would do it.

And we obviously know that that is an absolute violation of basic principles in
our system of juris prudence, which is that if it's a tort or a crime, the
person that needs to be found liable or guilty of committing the crime not of
being someone who would commit the crime.

Propensity is an absolute; it's something that is absolutely barred and
inadmissible. That's precisely what Dr. Dietz is doing.

I also find it curious that Mr. Gelblum, on the one hand, says the jury is
intelligent enough to try to pick through what I found to be a little bit
confusing testimony by Dr. Dietz, in particular, and try to figure out what is
accurate and what isn't, and what they should believe and what they shouldn't,
and yet is not intelligent enough and doesn't have the common sense that we all
have to try to apply the facts, not opinions, but the facts that Your Honor
will permit them to elicit with regard to motive, whether it be the prior
relationships of the parties or activities of Mr. Simpson, so forth and so on.
I find that to be a little bit of talking out of both sides of his mouth.

I think in a way, Dr. Dutton's testimony is more dangerous, if you will, and I
think the court in Bowler stated that --

THE COURT: It's Bowker.

MR. LEONARD: Bowker. Excuse me.

But on page 3 of our memorandum or our brief, it was precisely this situation
where they tried to put on an expert, just to throw out the bare bones of the
syndrome, without applying it to the facts.

And the Court said while the improprieties in the admission of this type of
evidence is clear as to where the expert testimony applies this syndrome to the
facts of the case -- and I'm paraphrasing -- in fact, there may be more danger
-- this is a quote -- "where the application is left for the jury because
jurors' education and training may not have sensitized them to the dangers of
drawing predicted conclusions."

And I think, again, I think that Dr. Dietz's testimony is clearly inadmissible
under Bledsoe and Bowker, and in a number of other cases in other jurisdictions
that we've pointed out.

THE COURT: You talking about Deitz or Dutton?

MR. LEONARD: I'm talking about Deitz, but Dutton --

THE COURT: You started out with Dutton --

MR. LEONARD: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: -- and ended up with Dr. Dietz. I was wondering where you're going.


Dr. Dietz is clearly inadmissible.

Dr. Dutton, on the other hand, it's hard for me to understand how his testimony
is relevant. If they just throw out, put them on the stand, throw out the
syndrome, he says -- again he said a couple of times, as I pointed out, that he
apparently isn't in a very good position to compare homicides.

I found that strange in his deposition when he responded to my questions, and
yet, he's going to sit on the stand and just throw out the pattern for the
jury, leaving them to their devices.

Now, obviously, that puts us in the position, Your Honor, of calling a
counter-expert and, you know, if we have to, we will. And we'll -- you know,
this will extend the trial, I think. You have -- you have a -- certainly have
the power to limit testimony, for no other reason than it's really not going to
be that helpful for the jury; it could confuse the jury; and it's going to
extend the trial.

So I think both the Dutton and Deitz testimony is inadmissible.

I think that the Deitz testimony has the additional infirmation that he's
totally usurping the power and the duty of the jury by, you know, basically
telling them, oh, I thought about all these things; I weighed this evidence and
that evidence or this report and that report, and this deposition, many, many
of which are going to be inadmissible. He's looked at a whole bunch of

I can't imagine that half of it is going to actually end up on the witness
stand, or in admissible exhibits. And he's going to sit up there and tell the
jury what he believes. He's the expert. He believes this witness but not that

That evidence, that can't be admissible that has never been admissible in a
court of law. They haven't cited one case where it is.

MR. GELBLUM: We would never have him do that.

THE COURT: How about giving me a better understanding of your position on

MR. LEONARD: Well --

THE COURT: As I understand plaintiffs' offer of proof, they're going to offer
Dr. Dutton to show simply that a spousal homicide may have A, B, C, D, E, F, G
characteristics, period.

MR. LEONARD: Um-hum.

THE COURT: Nothing more.

MR. LEONARD: I don't know how to put it any more succinctly than the Court did
in Bowker.

If you look at page 3 of our brief, that's precisely what was attempted in
Bowker. It was found to be improper. And the reason was that there may be more
danger where the application of the syndrome is left for the jury, because
jurors' education and training may not have sensitized them to the dangers of
drawing predicted conclusions.

THE COURT: Let me take a look at your page 3.

MR. LEONARD: It's right in the offset quote, right in the middle.

THE COURT: That's where I'm looking.

(Pause in proceedings.)

THE COURT: Didn't the court have a problem in Bowker with the child sexual
abuse accommodation syndrome itself?

Didn't the court feel that the expert who formulated this child sexual abuse
accommodation syndrome was not able to support this syndrome or pattern with
sufficient foundation?

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, the expert in that case didn't even try to apply it to
the case. He just sat up there like they want Dutton to do; he didn't apply it
to the case. He just described precisely -- he did the precise thing that
Dutton wants to do; and that is, to sit on the stand and say, well, I have a
certain pattern in my head. It may not comport with the pattern in the
literature, and here it is. And, you know, knock yourself out, to the jury. You
apply it.

I mean, that's something that doesn't belong in a court of law. That's exactly
what they're doing here.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'll take it under submission.

MR. GELBLUM: Can I ask just a couple more in response to Mr. Leonard?

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. GELBLUM: I thought the Court was interested in Bowker. I don't know where
Mr. Leonard started quoting in his brief. I suspect it was, "While the

Court look at the previous paragraph, which is really the relevant paragraph,
which says Bledsoe must be read:

"It is one thing to say that child abuse victims often exhibit a certain
characteristic or that a particular behavior is not inconsistent with a child
having been molested. It is quite another to conclude that where a child meets
certain criteria, we can predict with a reasonable degree of certainty that he
or she has been abused. The former may be appropriate in some circumstances;
the latter -- given the current state of scientific knowledge -- clearly is

And then the paragraph talking about the latter situation, which is not what
Dr. Dutton said, the latter situation being where the testimony is, if a child
meets certain criteria, we can predict with a reasonable degree of certainty
that he or she has been abused.

That's not what Dr. Dutton did. Dr. Dutton says the former, which is what the
Court says is okay, which is that victims of spousal homicides often exhibit
these characteristics. That's exactly what he told you he is going to say.
Under Bowker, this testimony is admissible.

Secondly, Mr. Leonard argued that we just cannot be permitted to say he's the
kind of person who did it.

They're saying he's not the kind of person who did it. We've got to be able to
respond to say, they're wrong; yes, he is, at least in rebuttal.

They're going to put that on in their case; I guarantee it. They've already
said it in opening statement, he's not the kind of person who can do it.

We're entitled to prove he is the kind of person who can do it. That's part of
what the testimony is about.

And as to the relying on inadmissible evidence, the evidence code clearly says
experts can do that; they can rely on inadmissible evidence, as long as it's
the kind of evidence that's relied on by experts in the field.

I think you listed each of those experts. They were relying on material that is
typically relied on by experts in their field.

Thank you.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, if what he said -- this is double talk. What he's
saying is that there are certain factors that exist in spousal homicides. I
mean, obviously, the factors existed before the homicide occurred. If that
isn't predictive, what's the relevance of putting somebody up on the stand to
talk about factors that exist if there isn't the notion of predicting?

In other words, retroactively predicting. Why else would he be up there?

I mean, he's saying that these factors exist. And when these factors exist, we
can assume or predict, whatever word you want, that ultimately, there will be a
homicide. That's what this is all about; it's prediction. It's nothing else but
prediction. Otherwise, it's not relevant. Doesn't make any sense.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

MR. GELBLUM: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, we have the matter of the autopsy pictures we'd
like to take up now.

THE COURT: You've got one minute.

MR. PETROCELLI: Well, it's not our position, it's theirs. We intend to use them

MR. BLASIER: Perhaps -- maybe it might be best to do it first thing in the

I was going to ask the Court to go over photographs that they intended to use,
to make a ruling as to the admissibility of the various photographs.

MR. PETROCELLI: We have a lot of preparation in place. And for us to --
tomorrow morning, to get a ruling that we can't use a lot of the material,
would be really prejudicial to us.

Dr. Spitz has come in from out of town, and we just heard about this today.
They wanted a hearing today, and here's where we are.

MR. BLASIER: I notified yesterday. I'm saying we can't do it in a minute, is
all I'm saying.

THE COURT: Well, how many pictures are you objecting to?

MR. BLASIER: I'm objecting to all of them. They intend to use all of the
exhibits that were used in the criminal trial, essentially all of them, is what
Mr. Medvene told me.

The coroner, in the criminal trial, testified for eight days. Every single
wound was described. And sounds explicit to the jury, in my view for the
purpose of inflaming the jury, not informing the jury.

There's very little controversy about the number of wounds, about the type of
wounds. There are a couple of wounds where there are some issues involved.

I can see photographs would be appropriate for defense I have wound on the
hands, for instance, but there's really only one major ruling that there's
going to be controversy about: That's an abdominal wound to Mr. Goldman, which
I don't think they have photographs of tissue inside the wound, which is what
the relevant argument is going to be.

And it's our position that the photographs that are calculated to inflame the
jury, under 352, should be excluded.

THE COURT: How many are there?

MR. BLASIER: What's the total number?

Several boards with --

MR. MEDVENE: We have a number of boards.

THE COURT: How many pictures?

MR. MEDVENE: Approximately 35.

THE COURT: Why do you need 35 pictures?

MR. MEDVENE: Well, the pictures basically go to the issues that defendants put
in play. It's not just the cause of death, Your Honor. The defendants have
raised the length of the struggle, the nature of the struggle, the amount of
time that it took, could all of the wounds have been caused by one assailant.

The pictures go to those issues.

And I might say, the examination, certainly compared to the criminal trial,
will be brief. I estimate the total examination on direct would be -- with the
pictures, will be in the area of two and a half hours, give or take a few
minutes, Your Honor.

So we intend to put in the pictures to show and to demonstrate our point; that
the struggle was in the area of a minute and not twenty minutes, like the
defendants contend, and to show the placement of wounds and how the wounds
could have been caused and placed by the assailant within a relatively short
period of time.

There's also a question in terms of what wound or wounds were the fatal wound.
And the pictures --

THE COURT: Mr. Medvene, without cutting you short, we'll go through this
tomorrow. I'm concerned that 35 photographs seem somewhat excessive, without
having seen the photographs.

MR. MEDVENE: We're talking about two different victims and two different crime
scenes, in effect, Your Honor, so you have -- About --

THE COURT: Mr. Medvene, I've only been in this business since 1963.

MR. MEDVENE: I understand, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And I've handled more than one homicide.

MR. MEDVENE: I understand.

THE COURT: And I must confess, never, ever seen that many photographs in any

MR. MEDVENE: Fifteen pictures, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Autopsy photos? No, I haven't seen that many.

MR. PETROCELLI: Can we address this in the morning, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes, you may.

MR. PETROCELLI: Does court start at 9:00 tomorrow?


MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

(At 4:30 P.M., an adjournment was taken until Friday, November 8, 1996, at 9:00