|
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS, VS. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) 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 THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause THE WITNESS: I do. 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. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PETROCELLI: 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. (Laughter.) 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 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 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. That is correct. Q. And at the time that you were from -- with Mr. Simpson, there were a number 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. Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Okay. 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 -- And I'd just like you to authenticate that those indeed are the photographs 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 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 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 A. That is correct. Q. Is it fair to say that no material change had occurred in his hands between 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 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 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 A. This was the diagram that I drew initially, when I saw him on the 15th, of 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 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. 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 MR. PETROCELLI: You might try zooming in. THE WITNESS: On the fourth finger, we call this here, would be his -- And the initial half of it -- this was approximately a This initial portion appeared to have a point of entry something like 90 There was no flap or no indication at all it was a small, avulsed segment. It The second laceration was a relatively small, half of a centimeter or This, on my initial evaluation on the 15th, was still open. There wasn't This was the smoothest of the injuries. And it appeared that the -- that the And the third laceration was a fishhook-type laceration that was immediately And there did appear to be a little bit more of a sharp angle right here. It And it also wasn't particularly deep, but it was in an area where there was a 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 A. No, I am not. Q. That's just an expression that you use in describing a particularly sharp A. Correct. Q. Okay. MR. PETROCELLI: The next exhibit in order, Erin? THE CLERK: 2149. MR. PETROCELLI: 2149. (The instrument herein referred to as Robert Huzienga's report dated 6/15/96 MR. PETROCELLI: Just these two pages we're going to mark. They're from a report THE WITNESS: Okay. 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 Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Could you just briefly verify that these two diagrams of 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. PETROCELLI: Two. MR. LEONARD: I agree to the -- I don't have any objection to the first two 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 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 COURT: Okay. (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 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, Q. Okay. And you describe that, again, as a paper cut, but you didn't mean to 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 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 A. Correct. Q. It's supposed to be a sketching of the injuries you saw on the left hand; is 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. PETROCELLI: Okay. (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 THE CLERK: Yes. (The instrument herein referred to as left and right hand sketches by Robert 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, 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 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 Q. And this diagram shows -- the three cuts that you have just described 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 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 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 A. He had a very fine -- this is not a very good demonstration, as you'll see He had three dot abrasions, just a tiny, little, flecks over three areas, and 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 It was slightly irregular borders and relatively superficial, very fine wound, And he also had a very small, fine scab, indicating an abrasion in the medial 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 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 (The instrument herein referred to as photo of cuts to O.J. Simpson's hand was (The instrument herein referred to as photo of cuts to O.J. Simpson's hand was 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, You can see the sawtooth pattern here, and you can see how it was a blow, And you can see this U-shape that I discussed. And it continues on here, Then we get to this little area that I said wasn't exactly a laceration, but in 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 (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 Q. Speak up a little bit, please. A. Okay. Q. This is the laceration, the cut we described of -- described in the third And you can see the flap. The cut comes up and around and you can see the And then here's the third cut that we've discussed again, over -- almost And this also you can see from the tissue here, if this had been a straight-on 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 (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 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, (Indicating to displayed close-up of hand with ruler.) A. This is another picture that includes the very petite linear abrasion and MR. LEONARD: Can we pull that out a little so we can see? THE WITNESS: You can see that that linear abrasion measured approximately MR. LEONARD: Thank you. THE WITNESS: And again 1, 2, 3 is what we were discussing about those tiny MR. PETROCELLI: One more. (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 Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) All the cuts and lacerations and abrasions that you just 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, 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? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD: Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Dr. Huizenga, you also took photographs of the rest of Mr. 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 (Mr. Petrocelli is reading the questions, and Mr. Callan is reading the answers 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, "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 "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 "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 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 MR. PETROCELLI: I'm not -- MR. LEONARD: -- That elicit hearsay. MR. PETROCELLI: Where? 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 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 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 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 THE COURT: He's testifying that Phillips said he contacted somebody who said MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. THE COURT: Double hearsay. MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Your Honor, take a look at -- I want to cut through this 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 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. LEONARD: No. 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. LEONARD: Okay. 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 "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 "A. I think at the end of the hallway I believe there is -- there are emergency "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 "A. Mr. Phillips opened the door for us by means of the card key, and we "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 "... (sic) I'm going to show you a photograph of -- that I've marked as Berris "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 "Q. And these were photographers working under your direction and control in "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 "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 "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 (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 "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 "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 "A. Not disturbed, not unkempt, not unmade. It seemed to be in the condition it "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, "Q. And did you observe the area depicted by that in that photograph, exhibit , "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 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 "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 "A. It is a photograph of the bedroom of the mini suite of rooms. You went "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 "Q. What about the telephone? "A. The telephone -- there was a telephone on an end table next to the bed in "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 "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 "A. It's a photograph showing the bed in the bedroom of that mini suite of "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 "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 "Q. While we're in the bedroom, let me show you the next exhibit in sequence, (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 -- 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 "Q. Did you form an opinion as to what the red spots were? You may answer yes "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 "A. This is another photograph of bedding taken of the bed in room 915, also MR. PETROCELLI: Line 24. (Reading:) "Now, exhibit 18 is a picture of bedding on "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. PETROCELLI: Line 6. MR. CALLAN: Are we on the next page? MR. PETROCELLI: Yeah. (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 "Q. From your recollection of seeing the scene when you entered the bedroom, "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. (Recess.) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Your Honor, the bad news is, we have a bit more to read. The good news is, we THE COURT: Good. MR. PETROCELLI: Okay? MR. CALLAN: I don't take that personally, Mr. Petrocelli. (Laughter.) 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 "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 (Continued reading as follows:) "A. The bathroom -- The condition of the bathroom was that it had been used "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 "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 "A. No. "Q. Throughout the mini suite? "A. No." MR. PETROCELLI: Turning to page 52, line 8: (Reading:) "Q. Was there broken glass located anywhere else in the suite of rooms other "A. There was no other place in the room or in the mini suite of rooms was "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 "A. No, there were not." MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Going to page 53, the witness is pointing. (Reading:) "Q. And can you point to where the towels were on the vanity that you said MR. PETROCELLI: Line 14, page 53. MR. CALLAN: Right. MR. PETROCELLI: And going down to line 23. (Reading:) "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, "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 "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 "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 "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, "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 "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 (Continued reading as follows:) "A. Yes. This is a photograph of another angle of the bathroom in the mini "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 "A. Yes, they are." MR. PETROCELLI: Next page, Steve. (Reading:) Q. "What is Berris Exhibit 21?" "A. This is a photograph of the wash basin, vanity, and the wastebasket in the "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 "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 (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 "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." MR. PETROCELLI:. Next. (Reading:) "Q. Let me show you the next photograph, which has been marked as Berris "A. This is a -- still another photograph of the vanity and the wash basin. On (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: (Reading:) 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. MR. PETROCELLI: Line 24. And line 22. (Reading:) "Q. And where are you pointing on the other end of the vanity, just so the "A. Would be to -- would be the left, would be approximately in the vicinity of (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 "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 MR. PETROCELLI: Over to page 66. (Reading:) "Q. What does Exhibit 23 depict? "A. That is a photograph of the wash basin, of the sink close-up, showing the "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 "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 "It originally couldn't be seen because the towel had been on top of it. And "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. (Reading:) "A. Here's one of the chips here. That chip would have been hidden from view by the towel. That's why you "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 "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 MR. PETROCELLI: Go to page 69, Steve. (Reading:) "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? (Reading:) "A. This is another copy of the photograph of the washcloth which was shown in "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 "Q. And those green pieces of paper that are in the wastepaper basket were in "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 "Q. And the pieces of paper on the floor next to the waste-paper basket, did "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 "Another one had to do with an advertisement for, I think, a restaurant in the MR. PETROCELLI: And line 19: (Reading:) "Q. Were their" [sic] "any closets in this mini suite? "A. Closets, not closed, opened-type closets that you could -- I think there "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 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 (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 "A. No. "Q. And you found no broken glass anywhere else in this suite of rooms, right?" "A. Nowhere else in the entire mini suite, other than on the vanity and in the "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 "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 "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 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD: 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 "A. I personally did not. "Q. At some point, shortly after the call was received, you were assigned to "A. Yes, I was assigned with Detective Anthony Bojoirno for us together to go "Q. And you were attempting to do as thorough a job as you could in the task "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 (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 "Q. And do you feel that you and your colleagues did a thorough and accurate, "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, "A. As best I can recollect with what was said, with what I said over that "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 "A. Yes. "Q. Again, in your direct examination, have you described everything that the "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 "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 "A. I wear glasses. These are bifocals. Sometimes I just want to make sure I'm "Q. Just so in all fairness to everyone involved, you've been asked to look at "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 MR. LEONARD: Okay. Skipping over to 122, line and I've asked for some answer "Q. The photograph which has been marked as Exhibit 16, that represents a, more "A. Yes. "Q. And you've testified earlier that that was the condition that the bed was "A. Yes. "Q. And is it fair to say that the best you're able to tell us today with "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 "A. Yes. "Q. You're best recollection today is that these spots were somewhere in the "A. Yes, for the most part they're toward the center of the bed and not at the "Q. I think you testified earlier that there were spots on the bottom sheet and "A. Yes. "Q. Okay. Did you make any effort to specifically identify where those spots "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 "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 "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 "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 Could we have 22 up, please? Mr. Foster, can you do that for me? MR. FOSTER: Yes. 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 "A. Yes. "Q. Do you recall, when you saw that portion of the bottom of the glass, that "A. There was a small amount of what I described in the criminal trial as a "Q. What, if any, observations did you make with regard to the bottom of that "A. It was broken. "Q. Anything else with reference to whether it -- whether or not it had any "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 "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 "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 "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 "A. No, I can't say that I had. "Q. Are you aware of any techniques that are available to detect the presence "A. Not offhand, no. "Q. And to your knowledge, no such analysis was undertaken of any portion of "A. Not such as that, no. "Q. And in fact, the only analysis or examination for blood that was done was "A. Observation to detect such -- any kind of suspect blood which would be "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 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. THE COURT: Okay. MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, at this point in time I'd like to move into Berris depo Exhibit 11 is Exhibit 2151; berris depo, Exhibit 12, 2152; Berris (The instrument herein referred to as Berris Deposition Exhibit No. 11 was (The instrument herein referred to as Berris deposition exhibit No. 12 was (The instrument herein referred to as Berris Deposition Exhibit 13 was marked (The instrument herein referred to as Berris Deposition Exhibit 14 was marked (The instrument herein referred to as Berris Deposition Exhibit 15 was marked MR. PETROCELLI: Berris depo, Exhibit 16 is already premarked as 1319; Berris (The instrument herein referred to as Berris Deposition Exhibit No. 16 was (The instrument herein referred to as Berris Deposition Exhibit No. 17 was (The instrument herein referred to as Berris Deposition Exhibit No. 18 was 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 (The instrument herein referred to as Berris Deposition Exhibit Number 20 was (The instrument herein referred to as Berris Deposition Exhibit Number 21 was (The instrument herein referred to as Berris Deposition Exhibit Number 22 was (The instrument herein referred to as Berris Deposition Exhibit Number 23 was (The instrument herein referred to as Berris Deposition Exhibit Number 24 was (The instrument herein referred to as Berris deposition Exhibit Number 26 was 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 THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we will excuse you until tomorrow at 9 O'clock. Don't 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 Don't talk to one another either about this case. All right. And don't form or 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 THE COURT: Okay. Great. MR. BAKER: Are they the same? (Laughter.) THE COURT: All right. So at 1:30 we'll resume with the motions; is that right? MR. PETROCELLI: Sure. MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I advised are even that one of the motions as that we I asked Mr. Medvene to have those over here this afternoon so we can handle 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.
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (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. And before I call Dr. Dietz to the stand, we did submit a brief this morning on We think that under the People v. Stoll case, which is a California Supreme 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 We would like to proceed with the testimony subject to your ruling. THE COURT: Do you want to make an opening statement, too? MR. LEONARD: No. THE COURT: Okay. 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, THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause THE WITNESS: I do. 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, MR. GELBLUM: Hello again. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM: Q. Dr. Dietz, what is your current occupation? A. I'm a physician, specializing in psychiatry; and for some years, my practice 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 I received my medical degree and M.D. from Johns Hopkins University School of In the same year, I received a master's degree in public health, also from And upon completing a dissertation some years later, in 1984, I received a 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 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 A. I spent four years as assistant professor of psychiatry at the Harvard And my first assignment was as the director of forensic psychiatry for the Then I spent my third year at Harvard evaluating John Hinkley on behalf of the Then I spent a year studying mentally disordered offenders. My next position was at the University of Virginia, where I was originally an And I was medical director of the Institute of Law Psychiatry and Public Policy During those years, I also began an active association -- or actually, rather, And I have, for the years since then, been the psychiatrist for the unit that's And in 1988, I moved to southern California. Today, I am clinical professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at We also do some work for governmental agencies. It's preventative work for 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 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 Q. (BY MR. GELBLUM) Dr. Dietz, let me show you, so we can get this 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, Q. And does it contain your major publications and research and editorial 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 And because that's the nature of what the field is; it's an activity primarily Forensic psychiatry is rather a latecomer to the systematic analysis of crime 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 I continued to work with medical examiner's office in Philadelphia, when I And so I had already been interested in how much one could learn from crime 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 A. Yes. I'm the forensic psychiatrist for the New York State Police, and I have Many other agencies, possibly scores, have, over the years, consulted me on one Q. In your current work as the president of the Threat Assessment Group, do you A. We get involved in the analysis of many unsolved crimes; they don't always 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 It was meant to encompass the activity of psychological autopsies. That was -- It encompassed the work that was then called "profiling" being done by the FBI, And there are other examples, as well, of the activities that forensic 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 Q. Now, in this case, Dr. Dietz, are you prepared to render an opinion 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 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 Q. Can you describe the process for us? A. Yes. The process is a rather straightforward one of first looking at the crime scene And based on the information that comes from the scene and from the autopsies, Q. Does that person you're talking about now assume that Mr. Simpson is the 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 Q. And that's regardless of who you think may or may not have done it, has A. That's correct. That is one source of information as to motive. If one of And so with that other information, then it becomes possible to, of course, be 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 A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, when you're analyzing those, are you applying what you would call A. No. Q. Are the materials that you just described that you relied on in forming your A. Yes. And in any homicide case, a forensic psychiatrist ought to be concerned Q. What kind of people, in your experience, engage in that kind of analysis; A. Well, for crime-scene analysis and looking at all autopsies to learn about It's also done by medical examiners and the other investigators who work at 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 Probably the earliest psychiatric writings just talk specifically about crime 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 A. Well, it starts from the same place. Now, over the years, we have learned The first writing specifically about making behavioral inferences from crime And Dr. Brussel had been involved in solving the case known as "The Mad Q. Can you cite any additional publications in the area of forensic psychiatry 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 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 Q. Okay. (Laughter.) 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 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 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 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 So, backwards, from most recent homicide cases where we've talked about the 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 Q. Did you justify arriving -- determining -- trying to determine motive from 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 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 A. Yes. Q. Now, the other opinion you mentioned, opinion you said, assuming Mr. Simpson A. Yes. Q. And how did you -- what method did you use, or what did you do to arrive at A. To the information that I already had from the crime scene and autopsy Q. Are those kinds of materials the kinds of materials that are typically 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 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 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 Q. Okay. And is the method -- are the methods that you used in arriving at A. I think "method" may put it too strongly, but this approach is generally Q. How do you know that? A. Because I'm in touch often with colleagues. I'm the immediate past president MR. GELBLUM: I have nothing further, Your Honor. THE COURT: Cross. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD: Q. Nice to see you again. A. Hello. Q. Let me make sure I understand your testimony completely. You testified that 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. 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 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 A. In all but one, that's correct. That one of the named -- one of the cases Q. And -- but there were a number of uncharged offenses that were involved in A. Would you repeat the question? Q. Were there a number of uncharged offenses that were at issue in that 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 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 A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, let me see if I can understand how you compartmentalized your What you've done, essentially, and you use the word "profiling" several times, 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 A. Having reached an opinion, based on my own analysis, I then turned to the Q. And that's the kind of thing, for instance, that the behavioral science unit 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 A. I don't know what they originally did, and I'm unfortunately, not able to Q. Okay. You, in your testimony, and during your deposition, you indicated that 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 Q. Okay. Of course, it wasn't a perfect fit, was it? In other words, the MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: No. That's why this isn't an undertaking of trying to look for a Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Okay. 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 A. Well, the first thing you could do is test the logic of what I have to say You can probe whether they seem unreasonable. You can confront me with evidence In other words, you can do the things that cross examiners always do with Q. Okay. But there is no -- when you sat down and you decided that you could A. I think you misapprehend the pattern issue. When I sat down and looked at 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 Q. Thank you, Doctor. Now, you would agree with me that this type of profiling you're talking about 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 Q. Okay? A. I think evidence is admitted throughout criminal trials that does not in and Q. As a matter of fact, if I asked you, to a reasonable degree of medical 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 MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Irrelevant. This isn't cross-examination on his THE COURT: I assume you're going to be offering this witness for the objective MR. GELBLUM: Of course. THE COURT: And I think reasonable cross-examination would encompass this 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 Q. And by the way, when you were at your -- Have you done anything since your 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 A. I think that's true. Q. And you were willing to opine that point, that Mr. Simpson was the kind of Do you remember saying that? A. Actually what I repeatedly said was that my testimony about preoffense Q. Oh, okay. So what you're saying is that you can't say that he did it, but you can say 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, 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. PETROCELLI: Okay. MR. LEONARD: The question is (reading):. "Okay. "What I mean when I say that this preoffense behavior is such as to make him 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 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 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 But I did not say that that's an opinion that I intend to offer at trial. And And my understanding of what you've been asked in this respect about pretense Q. So I just wanted to make that clear for the Court that that's what your -- 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 In other words, you're relying on what third parties have said about Mr. 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 THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you -- did you -- did you look at any standardized A. No. That isn't available to me either. Q. Now, when you get this information that comes from third parties, you know, 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 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 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 My role is different from that of perhaps fact witnesses in that I'm required 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 Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Okay. No further questions. MR. GELBLUM: Just a couple, Your Honor. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM: Q. Dr. Dietz, you testified in cases other than the Davis case, as to motive or 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 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 And a second case that I can recall by the name South Carolina versus Register. I don't recall too much detail about it. And then the third case that I can 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 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 Q. A few of them have come to trial? A. Yes. Q. And finally, Doctor, can you describe just briefly and generally what you A. In that case, the defendant had denied having committed lewd acts against And each of those crime scenes revealed evidence related to the motivation of For example, at the residence where Polly and her friends were first approached At the second -- oh, and he took with him from that scene tights and a At the second scene, at the hillside, there was evidence of a clearing in the And at the third location, where her body was found, although she was in an Q. What conclusions did you come to and testify to on the basis of your 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 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 Q. Thank you, Doctor. MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, couple more. THE COURT: Go ahead. RECROSS-EXAMINATION. BY MR. LEONARD: Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) In the Davis case, it was assumed and known who the 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 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 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 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 THE COURT: Next. MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, plaintiffs' call Dr. Dutton. Dr. Donald Dutton. DONALD DUTTON, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiff Goldman, was duly THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause THE WITNESS: I do. 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. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM: 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 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. MR. GELBLUM: Yes. MR. LEONARD: Sure. 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 COURT: Okay. (The instrument herein referred to as Donald Dutton's curriculum vitae was Q. Dr. Dutton, have you ever testified or -- I'm sorry -- qualified in court 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 And the other is a study that we're currently doing on men who have been 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 Q. Are you prepared in this case, Dr. Dutton, to render an opinion regarding 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 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 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 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 Q. Are articles about family violence, including spousal homicide, included in A. Yes. American_Journal_of_Orthopyschology , criminology journals, from time Q. Do many of those articles and journals and books discuss factors that have 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 The American Society of Criminology presents research papers on family violence And the American Psychological Association also does the same. And there's a Division 41 of the American Psychological Association, which is Q. You said you formed an opinion regarding certain factors that are 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 Q. Say what you mean by "intimate homicide." A. Intimate homicide means any homicide that occurs in a relationship where And intimate femicide refers to the same thing, but where the victim of the 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 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 Q. Okay. Do the people who do the research, including yourself, in intimate 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 Q. Can you briefly describe the research method used. A. Well, in terms of examining spousal homicide, what you usually do is, to And wherever possible, to go back and talk to what is called a "proxy" for the Q. And in the peer reviewed articles that you discussed in the journals, is the A. Yes; it has -- you have to describe your methodology in order for the Q. And, Dr. Dutton, is it generally accepted in the field of family violence A. Yes, there are. MR. GELBLUM: Nothing further. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD Q. Nice to see you again. A. Hi. THE COURT: Apparently, it's not mutual. (Laughter.) MR. LEONARD: I resemble (sic) that remark. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) It sounds to me like you're testifying as an expert on A. Well, I'm testifying on a form of family violence, which is an extension of 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 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 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 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, MR. GELBLUM: Objection. Misstates the testimony. THE WITNESS: Well, I don't know what else I can say. I'm an expert in spousal And I would just like to add one thing to that: In examining the Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Well, that puzzles me. Because in your deposition, I tried I asked you questions about -- you mentioned something about wound appearance A. Yes. Q. Okay. And I asked you, "Well, wait a minute. Aren't there -- isn't that kind of 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 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 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 MR. GELBLUM: May I reopen, then? MR. PETROCELLI: Explain. MR. GELBLUM: I can have him, if you like, Your Honor. That's what I should do, THE COURT: The reason I mention that at this point is, Mr. Leonard has 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. DIRECT EXAMINATION (REOPENED) BY MR. GELBLUM: Q. Can you tell us, Dr. Dutton, what factors you have determined are A. Well, if we EXAMINE the research literature, we find, for example, that one In fact, it magnifies the risks by a factor of eight. That's one of the Another factor is descriptions of jealousy that come out of the reports and in Another factor is an estrangement, which is a major risk factor. Most women who That's pretty well established in at least five or six separate research 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 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 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 So stalking and threats would both be important. And stalking, of course, is Q. Is there a general acceptance in the family violence community that the A. Yes, there is. MR. GELBLUM: Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. You may cross-examine. CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. LEONARD 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 Your answer: "Well, there's a number of Stab wounds; the judgment being it's "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 "I mean, there are, for instance, serial murderers around that use a particular "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 "A. I'm aware. I'm not an expert." THE WITNESS: Um-hum. MR. LEONARD: (Reading:) "Q. I'm asking you -- obviously, there are other types of murders and other (Continued reading as follows:) "Q. Correct? "A. Yes." Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) At that point, Mr. Gelblum interjects and says, he's A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, my question is: If you're not an expert on other kinds 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 Secondly, in most of the research articles that I'm referring to, there are, in I am able and willing to comment on the conclusions drawn by the people who did Q. Now, you will -- you will acknowledge that what you're doing is, you're A. I wouldn't characterize it that way. I would say that I'm going to summarize 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 MR. GELBLUM: Objection. THE WITNESS: No, I didn't say that. I said that there are comparisons that are Q. Are you familiar with an article -- I think you mentioned in your 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 Q. It's something you relied on -- at least that's what you testified to in 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 A. Um-hum. Q. And is it fair to say that in each and every one of those cases, you were In other words, either for the defense that was asserting a 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 MR. GELBLUM: Objection. No foundation as to permit it. Irrelevant whether he 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 Do you agree with that or not, sir? A. I think that the whole issue of prediction is a red herring and is What you're trying to do is match up the characteristics of that event with 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, Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) And you want to -- you want to present the profile to the A. That's the intention. Q. And do you think that all of the significant factors in the profile exist in 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. GELBLUM: Fine. 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 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 MR. LEONARD: The question was, do the facts of this case, as you understand it, THE COURT: Go ahead and answer. THE WITNESS: Yes. 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 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 A. Yeah. MR. GELBLUM: Objection. It's not a question. He's making a speech. It's 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 WITNESS: Okay. THE COURT: Don't argue with him. THE WITNESS: Okay. A number of witnesses that I read, reported Nicole Brown Simpson describing Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Name one. A. Cora Fischman. Q. Okay. So if Cora Fischman doesn't testify at this trial that there were A. If none of the people who testified "there were threats made," testified at Q. Okay. And it wouldn't be fair to sit in front of a jury and talk about 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 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 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, A. I'm basing it on the domestic violence books from the criminal trial. I'm I'm basing it on testimony that was given at the criminal trial. I'm basing it Q. And when you do that, sir, you're making an independent judgment as to the MR. GELBLUM: Objection, Your Honor. It's beyond the scope of what this witness THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Again, you have never been permitted to testify in a court A. That is correct. MR. LEONARD: No further questions. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GELBLUM: Q. Have you ever been asked to testify on that subject before in a court of law 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. Under the California Supreme Court case People_v._Stoll, Kelly Frye does not 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. MR. GELBLUM: Okay. My position, of course, is that for each of them, neither of them is testifying In addition, neither Dr. Dietz nor Dr. Dutton -- I don't think their testimony This is not fingerprints or voice prints; it doesn't appear to have a single, 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 Dr. Dietz has been able to testify on many occasions on both of those issues THE COURT: I don't -- I haven't seen one case in which Dr. Dietz's type of 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 THE COURT: The child was in the care of the mother. The child died of a series MR. GELBLUM: To show that she did it, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. MR. GELBLUM: Good. That's exactly Dr. Dietz. THE COURT: It wasn't very much of a question, who was going to be responsible, 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. THE COURT: Right. MR. GELBLUM: Same thing here. If it's not Mr. Simpson, then we don't have THE COURT: And in Phillips, the question is whether or not she died of natural 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 That's exactly what Dr. Dietz proposes to testify about. Dr. Dietz himself Dr. Dietz also testified that there were -- I forget the number -- he cited In fact -- and the defense has taken the position in their opening statements, We obviously are not legally required to prove motive as a practical matter. He THE COURT: Wasn't this case where there's ample evidence on which a lay jury 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 I also, frankly, Your Honor, think this defendant is a different defendant than Because of his celebrity status, many of the jurors feel like they know this THE COURT: We're going through a whole bunch of motions in limine in which the 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 And this witness is capable of testifying, is qualified to testify, and has And that is not, I think, Your Honor -- I think to be fair, that is not within With a murder, those were people who may have been not on the jury. I don't They can benefit from Section 801. All we need to do, the testimony needs to be 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 MR. GELBLUM: Motivations for murder are. I don't think we have any jurors who 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 MR. GELBLUM: We're not offering them as the have-all, end-all of our case; it's THE COURT: I'm really concerned with the analysis of cases you offer compared MR. GELBLUM: Your Honor, Bledsoe and Bowker -- Bowker talks about Bledsoe being THE COURT: I think that's essentially what you're trying to -- that's what you 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 We have a completed crime here and we're trying to figure out what happened. Bledsoe, Your Honor, the key distinction to Bledsoe, as I recall it, was that syndrome -- child abuse syndrome when it disallowed the testimony because -- Dr. Dietz, as he testified, the crime-scene analysis, as well as the motives, There's a distinction. I think it's a proper distinction. It's right I decided I think it's not that if it was a be-all, end-all, we wouldn't put all this THE COURT: I think that's the -- MR. GELBLUM: No. There's two parts of his testimony, two very distinct parts: He can determine that by, we didn't go into it all day, but by the evidence The other -- and that's not saying Mr. Simpson. That's saying that I think it's Now, if it just so happens Mr. Simpson is the only person in the world with Secondly, the other opinion is quite distinct. I'm assuming Mr. Simpson is very And the jury will be told he's assuming he did it. Obviously, it's their Again, this is testimony that is admitted frequently, as Dr. Dietz testified, He's doing two very different things: One, assuming he did it, I can see a 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 I think everything that Mr. Leonard has brought up goes to the weight of that 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. With respect to Dr. Dutton, again from the completely different point of view, Dr. Dutton is a research psychologist; he's not even going to opine as to Again, helpful to the jury to try to analyze whether, in fact, these murders Again, not even close to representation of some infallible, scientific, And the jury can take that, and again, they can take it for what it is, and And Dr. Dutton can say when you have these factors present, the research shows And certainly, that's clearly something that would be far beyond the Thank you. MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, just very briefly. I think that, despite Mr. Gelblum's very brave attempt to characterize this And that is, that it does invade the province of the jury, particularly in the As he said, again, in his deposition, as I pointed out, he's basically trying And we obviously know that that is an absolute violation of basic principles in Propensity is an absolute; it's something that is absolutely barred and I also find it curious that Mr. Gelblum, on the one hand, says the jury is I think in a way, Dr. Dutton's testimony is more dangerous, if you will, and I 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 And the Court said while the improprieties in the admission of this type of And I think, again, I think that Dr. Dietz's testimony is clearly inadmissible 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. MR. LEONARD: Two Ds. Dr. Dietz is clearly inadmissible. Dr. Dutton, on the other hand, it's hard for me to understand how his testimony I found that strange in his deposition when he responded to my questions, and Now, obviously, that puts us in the position, Your Honor, of calling a So I think both the Dutton and Deitz testimony is inadmissible. I think that the Deitz testimony has the additional infirmation that he's I can't imagine that half of it is going to actually end up on the witness That evidence, that can't be admissible that has never been admissible in a 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 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 If you look at page 3 of our brief, that's precisely what was attempted in 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 Didn't the court feel that the expert who formulated this child sexual abuse MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, the expert in that case didn't even try to apply it to I mean, that's something that doesn't belong in a court of law. That's exactly 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 Court look at the previous paragraph, which is really the relevant paragraph, "It is one thing to say that child abuse victims often exhibit a certain And then the paragraph talking about the latter situation, which is not what That's not what Dr. Dutton did. Dr. Dutton says the former, which is what the Secondly, Mr. Leonard argued that we just cannot be permitted to say he's the They're saying he's not the kind of person who did it. We've got to be able to They're going to put that on in their case; I guarantee it. They've already We're entitled to prove he is the kind of person who can do it. That's part of And as to the relying on inadmissible evidence, the evidence code clearly says I think you listed each of those experts. They were relying on material that is Thank you. MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, if what he said -- this is double talk. What he's 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 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 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, MR. PETROCELLI: We have a lot of preparation in place. And for us to -- Dr. Spitz has come in from out of town, and we just heard about this today. MR. BLASIER: I notified yesterday. I'm saying we can't do it in a minute, is 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 The coroner, in the criminal trial, testified for eight days. Every single There's very little controversy about the number of wounds, about the type of I can see photographs would be appropriate for defense I have wound on the And it's our position that the photographs that are calculated to inflame the 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 The pictures go to those issues. And I might say, the examination, certainly compared to the criminal trial, So we intend to put in the pictures to show and to demonstrate our point; that There's also a question in terms of what wound or wounds were the fatal wound. THE COURT: Mr. Medvene, without cutting you short, we'll go through this MR. MEDVENE: We're talking about two different victims and two different crime 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? THE COURT: Yes. 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 |