Prosecutor tries to paint Simpson as a liar in road rage trial
Testimony wrapped up Tuesday in O.J. Simpson’s road rage trial with a prosecutor using some bizarre tactics to paint the notorious criminal defendant as a liar.
“When you were a football player, did you have to run with the ball and strategize how to get through?” asked prosecutor Abbe Rifkin, eliciting a confused look from Simpson and an objection from defense attorney Yale Galanter.
Rifkin then moved on to Simpson’s less celebrated career on the silver screen, asking questions about his acting career and whether he was proficient at convincing others he was someone else.
“That’s debatable … I don’t think I’ve ever been accused of being an actor,” responded a chuckling Simpson, 54, best known for his role as Officer Nordberg in the slapstick Naked Gun trilogy.
Finally, Rifkin just cut to the chase. “Do you think you’re a good liar?” she asked.
“I could be pretty convincing if I wanted to be,” replied Simpson after some thought.
“Especially if your life depended on it?”
“Well, I’ve never been in that position.”
The prosecutor attacked Simpson’s credibility following the football legend’s very different explanation of a traffic dispute with Jeffrey Pattinson last December 4, 2000, in which Pattison claimed Simpson assaulted him.
Simpson is charged with auto burglary and battery in connection with the incident and faces up to 16 years in jail. Authorities say the former running back blew a stop sign, stopped in anger when honked at, walked over to Pattinson’s car, reached into the vehicle, and forcefully grabbed the man’s glasses off his face.
The football player told a much different story on the stand Monday. He said he pulled to the side of the road to let Pattinson pass after the man inexplicably and repeatedly kept honking at him. Simpson says he then left his car to speak with Pattinson and was greeted by a nonsensical verbal assault that eventually caused him to depart in frustration.
Galanter rested his case after Simpson’s testimony, opting not to call either of the ex-running back’s children, who were in the car at the time of incident and reportedly support their father’s version of events.
Rifkin did call one rebuttal witness, Detective Carlos Menendez, who recounted speaking with Simpson in the days after the incident. The defendant had already given his recollections of their conversations, and the prosecutor jumped at the opportunity to show some discontinuities between Simpson’s story and Menendez’s version.
The former running back told the jury that Menendez and other officers were apologetic about having to ask him questions about the road rage incident and were more interested in talking about football.
But Menendez said sports were never discussed, nobody ever apologized to Simpson, and that he and other cops considered the investigation a serious matter.
Galanter also took advantage of Menendez’s time on the stand, however, as the officer recalled under cross-examination many details given by Simpson after the incident that matched up with the defendant’s story on the stand.
Closing arguments begin Wednesday morning at 9:30 a.m.