DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

(CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. THE DEFENDANT IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. DETECTIVE LUPER, WOULD YOU RETURN TO THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE.

ADALBERTO LUPER, (402) THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE EVENING ADJOURNMENT, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING AGAIN, DETECTIVE.

THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH, SIR.

THE WITNESS: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: DETECTIVE LUPER, ON FRIDAY WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF OFFICERS WHO WERE PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING OF THE VIDEO ON JUNE 13 OF 1994 AT ROCKINGHAM. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND DO YOU RECALL HOW MANY OFFICERS WERE ACTUALLY PRESENT?

A: UMM, LIKE I STATED, I BELIEVE THERE WAS FIVE TO SEVEN OFFICERS AND IN MY PREVIOUS TESTIMONY I THINK I GAVE FIVE OF THE OFFICERS.

Q: THERE WERE FIVE TO SEVEN?

A: YES, SIR, AND I HAVE SINCE CHECKED MY CRIME SCENE LOG AND I THINK THERE WAS ONLY FIVE.

Q: OKAY. WHO WERE THE FIVE?

A: THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN DETECTIVE HARPER, DETECTIVE HARO, DETECTIVE LEFALL, MYSELF AND DETECTIVE ROGERS, I BELIEVE IS THE FIFTH ONE, FROM WEST LOS ANGELES.

Q: ROGERS OR ROBERTS?

A: I'M SORRY, ROBERTS.

Q: ROBERTS IS FROM WEST L.A. AND WERE THERE OTHER NON-POLICE PERSONNEL ALSO PRESENT?

A: I BELIEVE MR. FUNG AND MISS MAZZOLLA, THE SID PHOTOGRAPHER, AND I BELIEVE THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE SID PHOTOGRAPHERS, BUT I'M NOT TOO CERTAIN ON THAT.

Q: YOU MEAN A PHOTOGRAPHER OTHER THAN MR. FORD WHO TESTIFIED BEFORE YOU ON THE STAND?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE THAT YOU RECALL BEING THERE?

A: THE PRINT PEOPLE HAD ALREADY LEFT AND THEN YOU HAD THE PATROL OFFICERS THAT WERE STATIONED OUTSIDE ON ROCKINGHAM.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT IS YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION, SIR, OF THE TIME OF THIS VIDEO SHOOT? WHAT TIME WAS IT BEING SHOT?

A: WELL, UMM, IT HAD TO HAVE BEEN SHOT BETWEEN 3:15 AND 6:45. I'M SORRY, 3:15 AND 4:45.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IN THAT TIME FRAME; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU REFERRED TO A LOG WHICH HELPS YOU VERIFY THAT ALSO, CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT SIR.

Q: OKAY. 3:15 TO 4:45. NOW, ON FRIDAY WE MENTIONED AND WE SAW ON THE VIDEO KIND OF A ZOOM-IN SHOT ON A GLOVE ON A TABLE WITH A PICTURE OF THE MINOR DAUGHTER OF MR. SIMPSON, SYDNEY. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND HOW WAS THAT GLOVE PLACED THERE ON THAT TABLE?

A: THAT WAS PLACED BY MYSELF INADVERTENTLY WHILE EXAMINING SOMEWHAT I THOUGHT WERE BLOOD SPOTS ON THE HALLWAY ON THE WOODEN FLOOR GOING FROM THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE INTO THE DEN AREA.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, THESE DID NOT TURN OUT TO BE BLOOD SPOTS; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: NO, SIR, THEY DID NOT.

Q: WHEN YOU SAY INADVERTENTLY WHAT HAPPENED? YOU HAD TAKEN THE GLOVE FROM SOMEPLACE IN THE HOUSE? YOU HAD IT IN YOUR HAND AND YOU PUT IT ON THIS TABLE?

A: YES, SIR. I HAD IT IN MY POSSESSION FROM THE TIME I PERFORMED THE SEARCH IN THE BEDROOM AND I WAS HOLDING IT BECAUSE THE INFORMATION I HAD WAS THAT WE HAD ONLY HAD ONE GLOVE AT THAT TIME AND I WANTED TO HOLD IT UNTIL DETECTIVE LANGE AND VANNATTER RESPONDED TO THE SCENE, SO WE COULD -- YOU KNOW THEY COULD MAKE A DETERMINATION WHETHER IT WAS NEEDED OR NOT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE THAT YOU HAD ONLY ONE GLOVE WAS THE ONE GLOVE THAT HAD BEEN FOUND AT HAD BUNDY LOCATION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: NO, SIR, THE ONE FOUND AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION.

Q: I SEE. SO YOU KNEW ABOUT THAT GLOVE AND SO YOU THOUGHT THE GLOVE THAT YOU HAD PICKED UP PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH WARRANT, YOU WERE TRYING TO SEE IF THAT WOULD BE A MATCH TO THE GLOVE THAT HAD BEEN FOUND AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: EITHER A MATCH OR THEY COULD COMPARE IT AS TO WHAT THEY HAD FOUND.

Q: WHERE HAD YOU FOUND THIS GLOVE?

A: IT WAS FOUND IN THE TOP DRAWER OF A CHEST OF DRAWERS LOCATED ON THE NORTH -- I'M SORRY -- ON THE NORTH WALL OF THE CLOSET, I THINK ON THE EAST SIDE, I BELIEVE, EAST OR WEST SIDE. I DON'T RECALL WHICH ONE. THERE WAS TWO CHEST OF DRAWERS THERE.

Q: AND PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH WARRANT YOU PICKED IT UP AND THEN YOU PLACED IT ON THIS TABLE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.

Q: THIS WAS FILMED THEN BY MR. FORD; IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: THAT'S CORRECT. IT WAS ALSO PHOTOGRAPHED BY STILL PHOTOGRAPHY ALSO.

Q: NOW, AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR TESTIMONY ALSO, THE VIDEO WAS SHOT AFTER THE RECOVERY OF ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE RESIDENCE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: NOW, DID YOU MAKE ANY NOTES OR DO YOU HAVE ANY POLICE REPORTS AT ALL WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR RECEIPT OF THE TAPE AND PLACING IT IN YOUR DRAWER AND THEN LATER IN THE FILE CABINET?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: HAVE YOU MADE ANY NOTES OR ANY REPORTS ABOUT YOUR SUBSEQUENT TURNING OVER OF THIS TAPE TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: AND SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, WHAT DATE WAS THAT THAT YOU TURNED IT OVER TO THE D.A.'S OFFICE?

A: THAT WAS -- I BELIEVE IT WAS TURNED OVER TO THEM ON MARCH 24TH.

Q: THAT WAS A FRIDAY?

A: YES, SIR.

MR. COCHRAN: VERY WELL. THANK YOU VERY KINDLY.

THE COURT: MISS LEWIS.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. LEWIS:

Q: GOOD MORNING, DETECTIVE LUPER.

A: GOOD MORNING.

Q: THE GLOVE THAT YOU RECOVERED FROM THE TOP DRAWER OF THAT -- ONE OF THOSE CHEST OF DRAWERS IN THE DEFENDANT'S CLOSET, WAS THAT IN THE DEFENDANT'S MASTER BEDROOM WALK-IN CLOSET?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.

Q: WAS THAT GLOVE ALONE OR DID IT HAVE A MATE WHEN YOU RECOVERED IT?

A: IT WAS A LONE GLOVE LOCATED IN THE LEFT CORNER OF THE DRAWER.

Q: AND THE FACT THAT IT WAS A LONE GLOVE IS WHAT CAUSED YOU TO HAVE SOME CONCERN THAT IT MIGHT MATCH THE OTHER GLOVE RECOVERED ON THE PROPERTY?

A: CERTAINLY WAS A CONSIDERATION, YES, SIR.

Q: DID YOU DETERMINE THAT THAT GLOVE -- WELL, FIRST, THE GLOVE THAT YOU RECOVERED WAS A RIGHT-HANDED GLOVE?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND YOU WERE AWARE THAT THE GLOVE RECOVERED ALONG THE SOUTH PATHWAY WAS ALSO A RIGHT-HANDED GLOVE?

A: NO.

Q: I'M SORRY, I MISSPOKE. YOU BECAME AWARE OF THAT AFTER SPEAKING TO DETECTIVE LANGE OR VANNATTER LATER ON?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.

Q: NOW, YOUR DUTY AT ROCKINGHAM WAS TO DIRECT THE EXECUTION OF THE SEARCH WARRANT WHICH DETECTIVE VANNATTER HAD OBTAINED; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND YOU WERE LEFT IN CHARGE OF THE SCENE FOR THAT PURPOSE BECAUSE DETECTIVES VANNATTER AND LANGE, THE MOST SENIOR LEAD DETECTIVES ON THE CASE, WENT DOWNTOWN FOR THE PURPOSE OF SPEAKING WITH MR. SIMPSON; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: WELL, I KNEW THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER HAD RESPONDED. I WAS UNAWARE THAT DETECTIVE LANGE HAD ALSO RESPONDED TO ROBBERY/HOMICIDE DIVISION.

Q: DO YOU RECALL AT THIS TIME WHAT TIME THE SID PHOTOGRAPHER ARRIVED ON THE PREMISES?

A: WHICH SID PHOTOGRAPHER?

Q: DID YOU CAUSE AN SID PHOTOGRAPHER TO COME TO TAKE CRIME SCENE PHOTOS FOR YOUR USE IN INVESTIGATING THAT LOCATION AS A CRIME SCENE?

A: THERE WAS ONE ALREADY AT THE LOCATION WHEN I ARRIVED.

Q: AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT TIME HE HAD ARRIVED, HE OR SHE HAD ARRIVED?

A: WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE CRIME SCENE LOG, I COULDN'T BE ACCURATE, BUT IT WAS IN THE MORNING SOMETIME.

Q: WOULD THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE ROCKINGHAM CRIME SCENE LOG?

A: YES, MA'AM, IT WILL.

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE A BLANK -- I MEAN AN UNMARKED UP COPY OF THAT WHICH I WILL SHOW DEFENSE COUNSEL.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, MAY THIS BE MARKED -- I'M NOT SURE WHAT EXHIBIT NUMBER -- FOR PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING?

THE COURT: FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS MOTION, I GUESS THE VIDEOTAPE IS --

MS. LEWIS: 1068 DEFENSE.

MR. COCHRAN: 1068.

THE COURT: LET'S MAKE THIS PEOPLE'S NEXT IN ORDER.

MR. COCHRAN: I'M NOT CLEAR ABOUT WHAT WE ARE SEEKING TO DO AT THIS TIME.

THE COURT: THIS IS TO REFRESH THE RECOLLECTION OF THE WITNESS IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

MS. LEWIS: YES.

THE COURT: AS TO THE TIMING OF WHEN CERTAIN PERSONNEL ARRIVED AT THE SCENE.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, THE PROBLEM IS IF HE WASN'T THERE, I'M NOT CLEAR IF JUST READING THAT DOCUMENT IS GOING TO REFRESH HIS RECOLLECTION.

THE COURT: BUT IT WAS THERE WAS MY UNDERSTANDING.

MR. COCHRAN: IT DEPENDS ON WHAT TIME. LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS, YOUR HONOR.

MS. LEWIS: AND PEOPLE'S NEXT IN ORDER WOULD BE?

THE CLERK: 158.

MS. LEWIS: I'M SORRY, 1058.

THE COURT: 158, PEOPLE'S 158. (PEO'S 158 FOR ID = CRIME SCENE LOG)

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: DETECTIVE LUPER, WHAT TIME DID YOU PERSONALLY ARRIVE AT THAT ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?

A: I ARRIVED AT ABOUT 12:10, 12:15 IN THE AFTERNOON ON THE 13TH.

Q: AND YOU INDICATED THAT THE SID PHOTOGRAPHER HAD INDEED ARRIVED PRIOR TO YOUR ARRIVAL?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.

Q: NOW, HOW -- WERE YOU IN THE PRESENCE OF SID PHOTOGRAPHER WHEN THAT PHOTOGRAPHER WAS TAKING PHOTOS AT THE SCENE?

A: ON THE EXTERIOR SHOTS, NO. ON THE INTERIOR SHOTS, YES.

Q: DID YOU ATTEMPT TO DIRECT THE PHOTOGRAPHER ON THOSE INTERIOR SHOTS --

A: THAT'S --

Q: -- OF WHAT TO PHOTOGRAPH?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND YOUR PURPOSE IN DOING SO WAS TO PRESERVE FOR INVESTIGATIVE PURPOSES THE CRIME SCENE -- THE ROCKINGHAM CRIME SCENE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.

Q: DO YOU RECALL APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME YOU STARTED -- WHAT TIME YOU NOTICED, FIRST NOTICED THE SID PHOTOGRAPHER TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE CRIME SCENE?

A: UMM, QUARTER TO 1:00. IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE INSIDE OF THE RESIDENCE, IT WAS ABOUT APPROXIMATELY A QUARTER TO 1:00.

Q: EVEN THE EXTERIOR, DO YOU RECALL ABOUT WHAT TIME THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN?

A: THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN 12:20 TO 12:30, I SUPPOSE, SOMEWHERE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

Q: WHEN THE SID PHOTOGRAPHER WAS TAKING PHOTOS, HAD ALL OF THE EVIDENCE WHICH YOU EVENTUALLY RECOVERED BEEN TAKEN INTO POSSESSION YET OR WAS MUCH OF IT STILL THERE, RECOGNIZING THERE WERE NOT A LOT OF THINGS BESIDES BLOOD RECOVERED ON THE 13TH?

A: THE PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WAS TO RECORD IT AS WE FOUND IT AND LATER ON, AS THE EVIDENCE WAS COLLECTED, IT WAS ALSO PHOTOGRAPHED.

MS. LEWIS: DO WE HAVE DEFENSE 1068, THE VIDEOTAPE? (BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. SHAPIRO: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH?

MR. COCHRAN: WE HAVE A QUESTION.

THE COURT: IT IS CUT. (BRIEF PAUSE.)

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO PLAY JUST THE BEGINNING OF DEFENSE 1068 FOR PURPOSES OF SHOWING TIMING OF THE ARRIVAL OF THE VIDEOGRAPHER. I TELL YOU WHAT --

THE COURT: THIS APPEARS TO BE MID TAPE.

MS. LEWIS: -- STOP IT AND REWIND IT ALL THE WAY. (BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: WHILE HE IS DOING THAT, DETECTIVE LUPER, AFTER COMPLETING THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE CRIME SCENE AND RECOVERING EVIDENCE, DID YOU MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO DO SOMETHING WITH REGARD TO THE PREMISES IN TERMS OF THE WAY YOU HAD FIRST FOUND THEM?

A: I RETURNED IT TO AS CLOSE AS THE WAY I HAD FOUND IT, MAYBE A LITTLE BETTER.

Q: AND THAT WAS PRIOR TO THE VIDEOTAPE BEING TAKEN?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, AND THE PURPOSE OF THAT WAS TO ENSURE THAT BOTH DETECTIVE LANGE AND VANNATTER GOT A PROPER FEEL FOR THE ROOMS AND RESIDENCE AS I HAD FOUND IT.

Q: SO THE WAY THAT SOMETHING APPEARS ON THE VIDEOTAPE MAY NOT REFLECT THE WAY IT APPEARED AT SOME POINT BETWEEN THE CRIME SCENE PHOTOS AND A POINT THEREAFTER WHEN THE EVIDENCE WAS ACTUALLY COLLECTED; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.

Q: SO YOU -- ONE COULD NOT TELL OR YOU COULD NOT TELL FROM LOOKING JUST AT THE CRIME SCENE VIDEOTAPE, IN RELATION TO THE CRIME SCENE PHOTOS, YOU COULD NOT NECESSARILY TELL WHEN ITEMS -- WHEN EVIDENCE WAS COLLECTED; IS THAT ACCURATE?

A: THAT WOULD BE ACCURATE, YES, MA'AM.

Q: NOW, WHAT IS YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION AS FAR AS WHEN THE ITEMS OF REAL EVIDENCE WERE COLLECTED FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE LOCATION?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: IN TERMS OF THE TIMING, WHETHER IT WAS PRIOR OR AFTER THE SHOOTING OF THE VIDEOTAPE?

A: IT WAS PRIOR TO THE SHOOTING OF THE VIDEOTAPE, ANYWHERE FROM 2:30 TO 4:15, I WOULD SAY.

Q: AND WAS IT YOUR BELIEF THAT THE SOCKS HAD BEEN RECOVERED FROM THE CARPET IN THE MASTER BEDROOM PRIOR TO THE VIDEOTAPE BEING SHOT?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE AT THIS POINT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES, MA'AM.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: YOU HAVE WATCHED THE VIDEOTAPE, HAVE YOU NOT?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: DID YOU NOTICE THAT THE TAPE HAPPENS TO STOP BEFORE SHOWING THE LOCATION WHERE THE SOCKS HAD BEEN RECOVERED FROM?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: SO IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE THE SOCKS WERE STILL THERE WHEN THE VIDEOTAPE WAS SHOWN?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. CALLS FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS SPECULATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED, SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: SO YOU CAN'T TELL FROM LOOKING AT THE VIDEOTAPE ALONE EXACTLY WHEN THE SOCKS WERE RECOVERED; IS THAT FAIR?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION. CROSS-EXAMINATION.

THE COURT: I HAVE SEEN THE TAPE NOW FIVE TIMES AND HERE IN COURT TWO ADDITIONAL TIMES.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: WERE YOU PRESENT WITH THE VIDEOGRAPHER WHEN HE WAS VIDEOTAPING THE MASTER BEDROOM?

A: NO, MA'AM.

MS. LEWIS: IS THE TAPE BACKED UP YET? JUST PLAY THE FIRST COUPLE OF MINUTES.

(AT 9:11 A.M., DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1068, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU NOTICE DETECTIVE LUPER? AS THE TAPE IS FLOWING, IT SHOWS 2:11 APPARENTLY ON THE EQUIPMENT ITSELF?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND IS THAT THE ARRIVAL OF MR. ADKINS WHO TESTIFIED EARLIER ABOUT THE SCENE? DOES IT APPEAR TO BE THAT?

A: IT WOULD APPEAR TO BE THAT, YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND THAT IS DETECTIVE JIM HARPER WHO WAS SHOWN GREETING HIM?

A: YES, MA'AM.

MS. LEWIS: ALL RIGHT. YOU CAN STOP IT NOW, PLEASE.

(AT 9:11 A.M. THE VIDEOTAPE STOPPED PLAYING.)

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: AND THE -- IS YOUR ARRIVAL TIME -- YOUR ARRIVAL TIME SHOWN ON THE CRIME SCENE LOG OF ROCKINGHAM, PEOPLE'S 158 FOR IDENTIFICATION?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND DO YOU HAVE AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF EXACTLY WHEN THE VIDEOGRAPHER ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE?

A: NOT AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE CRIME SCENE LOG.

Q: WOULD IT INDEED HELP REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT CRIME SCENE LOG?

A: IT CERTAINLY WOULD.

MS. LEWIS: MAY I APPROACH?

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: SHOWING YOU PEOPLE'S 158 FOR IDENTIFICATION, THE CRIME SCENE LOG, WOULD YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND SEE IF THAT REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO THE ARRIVAL OF MR. ADKINS AND MR. FORD?

A: IT WOULD APPEAR THAT IT WOULD, YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND WHAT TIME DID THEY ARRIVE?

A: TEN MINUTES AFTER 3:00 IN THE AFTERNOON.

Q: AND DO YOU HAVE AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF EXACTLY WHEN THEY LEFT AS WELL?

A: NOT AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE THEM LEAVE, BUT ACCORDING TO THE CRIME SCENE LOG IT SHOWS --

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THAT. HE ANSWERED THE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: WHEN IS YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION OF THE LAST TIME YOU PERSONALLY SAW MR. ADKINS AND MR. FORD AT THE CRIME SCENE AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?

A: PROBABLY 3:45 IN THE AFTERNOON.

Q: DURING THE TIME THAT THE VIDEO WAS BEING SHOT, WAS EITHER DETECTIVE LANGE OR DETECTIVE PHILLIPS THERE?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU RECALL WHAT TIME -- DO YOU HAVE AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF WHAT TIME DETECTIVE LANGE AND/OR DETECTIVE PHILLIPS ARRIVED AT THE -- I'M SORRY, DETECTIVE VANNATTER ARRIVED AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?

A: THEY ARRIVED APPROXIMATELY TEN MINUTES AFTER 5:00, TWENTY MINUTES AFTER 5:00, RIGHT IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MS. LEWIS AND MR. HARRIS.)

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: NOW, HOW DID IT COME ABOUT THAT THIS PARTICULAR VIDEOTAPE WAS SHOT? YOU WERE IN CHARGE OF THE SEARCH WARRANT EXCUSE THERE AT THE CRIME SCENE. DID SOMEONE GIVE YOU THAT IDEA AT SOME POINT IN TIME?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR, HOW DID IT COME ABOUT. VERY LONG AND VAGUE, UNINTELLIGIBLE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: DETECTIVE HARPER APPROACHED ME AFTER HIS ARRIVAL AND SUGGESTED THAT WE VIDEOTAPE THE VALUABLES IN THE RESIDENCE AND I AGREED.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: AND WHAT WAS YOUR PURPOSE IN DOING THAT?

A: THE PURPOSE WAS STRICTLY FOR CIVIL LITIGATION. WE KNEW THAT MR. SIMPSON HAD QUITE A FEW VALUABLE AND PERSONAL ARTICLES THAT HE HAD WON THROUGHOUT THE YEARS, AND WE CERTAINLY DIDN'T WANT TO BE ACCUSED AT A LATER DATE FOR EITHER BREAKING THEM UP OR STEALING THEM OR WHATEVER.

Q: SO WERE YOU THE PERSON WHO ACTUALLY MADE THE DECISION TO HAVE THAT DONE, TO HAVE THE VIDEO -- THE SCENE VIDEOTAPED?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND DID YOU DIRECT DETECTIVE HARPER, OR HARO OR SOMEONE ELSE, TO CALL SID AND HAVE SOMEONE COME OUT FOR THAT PURPOSE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND IN FACT IN TERMS OF YOUR CONCERN THAT THE CRIME SCENE NOT SUSTAIN DAMAGE WHEN THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS EXECUTED, DID YOU ENSURE THAT SOMETHING WAS DONE WITH REGARD TO THE VANITY IN THE MASTER BEDROOM AND FINGERPRINT DUST?

A: YES, MA'AM. THE VANITY -- WELL, NOT THE VANITY. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE LINEN CLOSET, I BELIEVE.

Q: WAS THERE A OCCASION WHERE NEWSPAPERS WERE PLACED TO ENSURE THAT THE DUST DID NOT HURT THE CARPETING?

A: YES, MA'AM. IT WAS A LINEN CLOSET OR A CABINET AT THE TOP OF THE STAIRS THAT PRIOR TO BEING FINGERPRINTED I REQUESTED THAT NEWSPAPER BE PUT ON THE GROUND SO AS NOT TO DAMAGE THE CARPET.

Q: YOU HAVE REVIEWED ALL OF THE CRIME SCENE PHOTOGRAPHS FROM ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES, MA'AM, I HAVE.

Q: AND OF COURSE YOU HAVE ALSO SEEN THE VIDEOTAPE AS YOU TOLD US; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: IS THERE ANYTHING SHOWN ON THE VIDEOTAPE, ANY AREA, AS BEST YOU CAN RECALL, THAT IS NOT ALSO SHOWN ON THE PHOTOGRAPHS THEMSELVES?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND WHAT AREA IS THAT?

A: THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE LINEN CLOSET AREA AT THE TOP OF THE STAIRS.

Q: THE ONE YOU JUST DESCRIBED?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND DID THAT LINEN CLOSET TURN OUT TO HAVE ANY PARTICULAR EVIDENTIARY SIGNIFICANCE?

A: IT HAD NO EVIDENTIARY SIGNIFICANCE AT THE TIME, NO, MA'AM.

Q: NOTHING WAS RECOVERED FROM THAT CLOSET?

A: NO PRINTS WERE RECOVERED, NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE WAS RECOVERED, NOTHING.

Q: AFTER THE VIDEOTAPE WAS COMPLETED, WAS THERE A TIME WHEN YOU PERSONALLY OBTAINED POSSESSION OF IT AGAIN OR I SHOULD SAY FOR THE FIRST TIME WHEN YOU PERSONALLY GOT THE TAPE?

A: I GOT IT ON THE 14TH IN THE MORNING.

Q: JUNE?

A: YES, MA'AM, JUNE, '94.

Q: DO YOU RECALL FROM WHOM YOU RECEIVED IT?

A: I RECEIVED IT FROM DETECTIVE HARO.

Q: AND WHERE WERE YOU AT THAT TIME?

A: I WAS IN MY OFFICE AT PARKER CENTER.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THE TAPE?

A: I WENT UPSTAIRS TO THE ELECTRONIC SECTION, VIEWED IT, AND RETURNED DOWN TO THE OFFICE TO PREPARE MY EMPLOYEE REPORT REGARDING THE SEARCH, AND I WAS INFORMED THAT IT WASN'T NECESSARY BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE CAPTAIN HAD BEEN AT THE SCENE.

Q: WASN'T NECESSARY TO DO AN EMPLOYEE REPORT OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE VIDEOTAPE?

A: NO, AN EMPLOYEE REPORT REGARDING THE EXECUTION OF THE WARRANT AND HOW THE PREMISES WAS -- WERE BEFORE WE ARRIVED, AS WELL AS HOW THEY WERE LEFT.

Q: YOU INDICATED "THE CAPTAIN." IS THAT CAPTAIN GARTLAND?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.

Q: YOU INDICATED HE HAD BEEN AT THE SCENE?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: A COUPLE OF MINUTES AGO YOU INFORMED DEFENSE COUNSEL THAT THERE WERE FIVE DETECTIVES AT THE SCENE, TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION. DO YOU RECALL WHEN CAPTAIN GARTLAND WAS THERE?

A: HE WAS THERE AFTER I LEFT AND I BELIEVE COUNSEL IS MAKING REFERENCE TO WHO WAS PRESENT DURING THE TAPING OF THE RESIDENCE.

Q: NOW, WHERE DID YOU PLACE THE VIDEOTAPE AFTER TAKING POSSESSION OF IT IN THE 14TH -- ON THE 14TH?

A: I PUT IT IN MY DESK DRAWER.

Q: DID THERE COME A POINT IN TIME WHEN YOU MOVED IT TO THE ROOM AT RHD WHICH WAS SET ASIDE FOR THE SIMPSON CASE?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: WHERE INSIDE THIS ROOM DID YOU PLACE IT?

A: IT WAS PLACED IN A FILING CABINET, A LOCKING FILE CABINET, ALONG WITH SEVERAL NOTEBOOKS THAT I HAD IN MY POSSESSION.

Q: UMM, HAVE YOU BEEN PRIMARILY INVOLVED SINCE THE TIME OF THE EXECUTION OF THAT SEARCH WARRANT, PRIMARILY INVOLVED WITH A CERTAIN ASPECT OF THE INVESTIGATION OF CLUES AND OTHER ITEMS RELATED TO THIS CASE?

A: YES, MA'AM, I HAVE.

Q: AND WHAT AREA OF THE INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN THE FOCUS OF YOUR INVOLVEMENT?

A: CHICAGO.

Q: AND HAVE YOU MADE SEVERAL OR NUMEROUS TRIPS TO CHICAGO OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THE QUESTION. WE CAN'T TELL WHAT THE ANSWER IS, SEVERAL OR NUMEROUS.

THE COURT: VAGUE.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: ROUGHLY HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU BEEN TO CHICAGO AS PART OF THE INVESTIGATION IN THIS CASE?

A: I HAVE BEEN THERE FOUR TIMES.

Q: AND IN ADDITION TO THE SIMPSON CASE, HAVE YOU HAD OTHER MURDER CASES WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR INVESTIGATING AND SOLVING?

A: YES, MA'AM, I HAVE FOUR OTHERS.

Q: AND DID -- IN TERMS OF WHEN THE MURDERS OCCURRED, HOW MANY OF THOSE -- IN HOW MANY OF THOSE DID THE MURDERS OCCUR PRIOR TO THE MURDERS HERE ON JUNE 12TH?

A: ALL BUT ONE.

Q: SO THREE OF THE FOUR WERE MURDER CASES WHICH CAME INTO EXISTENCE AFTER THE MURDERS IN THIS CASE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: NO, THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Q: THREE OF THE MURDERS OCCURRED AND ONE CAME INTO EXISTENCE OR ONE MURDER OCCURRED, I SHOULD SAY, AFTER THE MURDERS IN THIS CASE?

A: THAT'S RIGHT, YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND HAVE ANY OF THOSE FOUR CASES BEEN COMPLETED IN TERMS OF THROUGH CONVICTION OR ACQUITTAL OR SOME FINAL DISPOSITION?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, IT JUST GOES TO SHOW THAT HE WAS --

MR. COCHRAN: WE DON'T ARGUE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: SO YOU HAVE -- IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT YOU HAVE BEEN WORKING VERY HARD, NOT ONLY ON THE SIMPSON CASE, BUT ON OTHER MURDER CASES AS WELL?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: DID THERE COME A POINT IN TIME WHEN YOU RECALLED THE EXISTENCE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL LIABILITY VIDEOTAPE?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THAT QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. I WILL DECIDE WHAT IT IS.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE WITNESS: YES, MA'AM.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: AND I THINK YOU TOLD US FRIDAY, UNDER MR. COCHRAN'S QUESTIONING, THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER ALERTED YOU THAT YOU WOULD BE TESTIFYING WITH REGARD TO THE SEARCH IN THIS CASE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND SUBSEQUENT TO THAT YOU STARTED TO THINK OF CRIME SCENE PHOTOS AND ANYTHING ELSE THAT MIGHT BE AROUND IN THAT REGARD; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND WAS YOUR PURPOSE IN DOING THAT THINKING OF AIDS THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL IN REFRESHING YOUR RECOLLECTION OF THE EVENTS THAT TRANSPIRED DURING THE EXECUTION OF THE SEARCH WARRANT ON THE 13TH?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND IS THAT -- APPROXIMATELY AT SOME POINT AFTER THAT, IS THAT WHEN YOU THOUGHT OF THIS VIDEOTAPE AS WELL?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU THOUGHT OF IT, WHEN DID YOU -- OR WHAT DID YOU DO IN TERMS OF GOING LOOKING FOR THE VIDEOTAPE?

A: WELL, THE FIRST PLACE I WENT TO IS THE SID ELECTRONICS LAB FIGURING THAT IT HAD BEEN BOOKED; HOWEVER, I FOUND THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN BOOKED. THEN I REMEMBERED THAT I HAD SEEN IT IN THE FILING CABINET, ALONG WITH SEVERAL OTHER NOTEBOOKS, EARLY ON IN -- EARLY ON IN THE YEAR, SO I WENT UP THERE AND THERE IT WAS.

Q: SO IT WAS IN THE IDENTICAL LOCATION WHERE YOU HAD LEFT IT ON JUNE -- WELL, AT SOME POINT WHEN YOU MOVED IT INTO THE WAR ROOM?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: THE WAR ROOM MEANING THE ROOM SET ASIDE AT RHD FOR THE SIMPSON CASE?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: SO IT APPEARED THAT NO ONE ELSE HAD MOVED IT OR CERTAINLY IT DID NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN MOVED AT ALL WITHIN THAT FILE CABINET? IS THAT ACCURATE?

A: THAT WOULD BE ACCURATE, YES, MA'AM.

THE COURT: HOW WAS THIS TAPE MARKED?

THE WITNESS: IT WAS MARKED WITH THE STANDARD LABEL, JUST "O.J. SIMPSON'S HOUSE."

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: YOU INDICATED FRIDAY THAT YOU -- THAT SOMEONE NOTIFIED THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE TAPE?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: DID YOU DO THAT YOURSELF OR DID SOMEONE ELSE?

A: THAT WASN'T DONE BY ME, NO, MA'AM.

Q: ARE YOU AWARE OF WHAT THE PURPOSE WAS IN DOING SO?

A: NOT REALLY.

MR. COCHRAN: CALLS FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE SAID NOT REALLY.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: IS THE -- I'M SURE THE COURT KNOWS THIS, BUT FOR THE RECORD, IS THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE -- DO THE CITY ATTORNEYS REPRESENT THE DEPARTMENT WHEN IT IS SUED FOR THINGS SUCH AS DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY DURING SEARCH WARRANTS?

A: THAT'S RIGHT, YES, MA'AM.

Q: THEY ARE THE DEPARTMENT'S LAWYER SO TO SPEAK?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: NOT TO SO TO SPEAK, BUT THEY ARE?

A: YES, MA'AM.

MS. LEWIS: MAY I HAVE JUST A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY. (BRIEF PAUSE.)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MS. LEWIS AND DETECTIVE LANGE.)

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: DETECTIVE LUPER, WHY DIDN'T YOU HAVE THE VIDEOGRAPHER RECORD THE GLOVE ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF ROCKINGHAM?

A: WELL, THE PURPOSE OF THE -- OF THE TAPE WAS NOT TO RECORD WHERE EVIDENCE WAS LOCATED. IT WASN'T A CRIME SCENE, PER SE, TAPE. IF IT HAD BEEN, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN RECORDING THE INSIDE OF THE BRONCO AND OTHER AREAS AND JUST THAT WASN'T THE PURPOSE OF IT.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MOVE TO STRIKE THAT LAST QUESTION AND ANSWER. THE EVIDENCE -- ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. THE COURT WAS WELL AWARE THAT GLOVE HAD BEEN REMOVED EARLIER THAT MORNING.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: AND WERE THE BLOOD DROPS ON THE DRIVEWAY VIDEOTAPED?

A: NO, MA'AM.

Q: NOW, DID YOU NOTICE THAT APPARENTLY A COUPLE OF BLOOD DROPS ON THE FOYER OF THE INTERIOR OF THE HOUSE WERE VIDEOTAPED?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM, I SAW THAT.

Q: AND DID YOU NOTICE THAT THE WOOD WHERE THOSE DROPS APPEAR ALSO APPEARS TO BE LIGHT-COLORED WOOD?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.

Q: SO THOSE BLOOD DROPS WOULD REPRESENT, IN ADDITION TO PERHAPS CRIME SCENE PURPOSES, DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY, WHETHER CAUSED BY LAPD OR SOMEONE ELSE, BUT THEY WOULD REPRESENT SOME MINOR AMOUNT OF DAMAGE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.

MS. LEWIS: THANK YOU. I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: WITH REGARD TO THE GLOVE ALLEGEDLY FOUND ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, BY THE TIME YOU ARRIVED AT THE LOCATION IN THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 13, THAT GLOVE HAD LONG SINCE BEEN REMOVED; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: SO THERE WOULD BE NOTHING TO PHOTOGRAPH; ISN'T THAT CORRECT, SIR?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.

Q: NOW, BY THE WAY, WHILE YOU WERE OUT THERE ON JUNE 13TH IN THE AFTERNOON, DETECTIVE LUPER, DID YOU SEE MARCIA CLARK FROM THE D.A.'S OFFICE OUT THERE?

A: SHE WAS THERE, YES.

Q: SO SHE WAS ACTUALLY THERE? AT WHAT TIME WAS SHE THERE?

A: SHE HAD TO HAVE BEEN THERE SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF, EXCUSE ME, BETWEEN 2:20 AND THREE O'CLOCK, SOMEWHERE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

Q: AND HOW LONG DID SHE STAY, IF YOU RECALL?

A: SHE WAS THERE LONG ENOUGH TO GET A WALK-THROUGH AND THEN SHE LEFT. I DON'T KNOW. SHE WAS THERE PROBABLY FIVE, TEN, MAYBE FIFTEEN MINUTES. I DON'T KNOW.

Q: DID YOU SEE HER AT SOME TIME WHILE SHE WAS THERE SITTING AT A TABLE TALKING TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

MS. LEWIS: OBJECTION. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO, SIR, I DID NOT. I --

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU DID NOT SEE HER BEING BRIEFED BY DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AT ALL?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: WHO GAVE HER THIS WALK-THROUGH?

A: I DID.

Q: AND WHAT TIME DID THE WALK-THROUGH START, IF YOU RECALL?

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS HEARING.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. IT IS PROBABLY THE MOST RELEVANT QUESTION I'VE HEARD SO FAR THIS MORNING.

MS. LEWIS: OH.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MS. LEWIS: THE RELEVANCE JUST OCCURRED TO ME.

THE COURT: THERE IS A DISCOVERY SANCTIONS ISSUE I THINK.

MR. COCHRAN: COUNSEL IS NOT USED TO THE RULES EITHER, YOUR HONOR. WE DON'T ARGUE BACK AND FORTH.

THE COURT: WE ARE IN AN INFORMAL SETTING.

MR. COCHRAN: WE CAN DO IT, JUDGE. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: NO, WE CAN'T, BUT I WILL LET IT SLIDE AT THE MOMENT, BUT WE HAVE WASTED A LOT OF TIME. ALL I'M INTERESTED IN IS WHAT HAPPENED TO THE TAPE, WHY DID IT DISAPPEAR, WHEN DID IT COME TO LIGHT, HOW DID IT COME TO LIGHT, WHO KNEW IT EXISTED AND WHEN?

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. OKAY. LET'S SEE IF WE CAN ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS REAL QUICKLY.

Q: DETECTIVE LUPER, LET'S START WITH WHO KNEW ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF THIS TAPE. WE KNOW THAT YOU KNEW ABOUT IT, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: MR. FORD KNEW ABOUT IT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: MR. ADKINS KNEW ABOUT IT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: CAPTAIN GARTLAND KNEW ABOUT IT?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE BOG -- I MEAN CAPTAIN GARTLAND KNEW ABOUT IT.

Q: WELL, DID YOU TALK TO HIM ABOUT HAVING TO FILL OUT THIS REPORT OR NOT HAVING TO FILL OUT THIS REPORT?

A: NO. I WAS INFORMED THAT HE HAD BEEN AT THE SCENE, AND KNOWING THE PROCEDURE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT, IF THE CAPTAIN IS THERE, THAT NEGATES THE 15.7 OR THE EMPLOYEE REPORT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE FIVE DETECTIVES THAT WE TALKED ABOUT WHO WERE AT THE SCENE KNEW ABOUT THIS TAPE; HARO, HARPER, ET CETERA.

MS. LEWIS: WELL, OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THEY SAW THE TAPE BEING SHOT, DIDN'T THEY?

A: I KNOW THAT DETECTIVE HARO AND HARPER WERE AWARE OF THE TAPE. I WAS AWARE -- I WAS AWARE OF THE TAPE. I DON'T BELIEVE MY PARTNER WAS AWARE OF IT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF DETECTIVE ROBERTS FROM WEST L.A. WAS AWARE OF IT OR NOT.

Q: IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE WERE SOME PATROL OFFICERS ALSO AT THE LOCATION; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR.

Q: AND SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, PART OF THIS TAPE WAS SHOT OUTSIDE SO PEOPLE OUTSIDE COULD SEE THAT IT WAS BEING SHOT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

MS. LEWIS: OBJECTION. THAT DOES CALLS FOR SPECULATION. IT IS LARGE GROUNDS IN TERMS OF --

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ANYBODY OUTSIDE CLOSE ENOUGH COULD SEE THAT THE VIDEOTAPE WAS BEING SHOT OUTSIDE; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: YOU WOULD ASSUME.

Q: YOU CANNOT TELL US ABOUT LEFALL, YOUR PARTNER, WHETHER HE KNEW OR NOT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DID YOU TALK TO HIM ABOUT IT AT ALL?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: YOU CAN'T TELL US WHETHER OR NOT ROBERTS KNEW?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, BACK TO MISS CLARK. MISS CLARK WAS THERE AND YOU TOOK HER ON A WALK-THROUGH AFTER THE SEARCH WARRANT HAD BEEN COMPLETED?

A: AFTER THE EVIDENCE HAD BEEN LOCATED, YES.

Q: RIGHT. SO THE SEARCH WARRANT HAD BEEN EXECUTED AT THIS POINT AND YOU TOOK HER -- TELL THE COURT BRIEFLY WHERE YOU TOOK HER ON THE WALK-THROUGH.

A: I TOOK HER ON THE BOTTOM LOCATION OF THE RESIDENCE, THE FIRST FLOOR, TO SHOW WHERE SOME OF THE PRESUMPTIVE TESTS I WANTED DONE, TOOK HER UPSTAIRS, SHOWED HER THE VANITY -- I MEAN NOT THE VANITY, I'M SORRY, THE LINEN CLOSET, AND SHOWED HER THE SOCKS AND THE BLOOD EVIDENCE THAT HAD BEEN FOUND IN THE BATHROOM, AND TOOK HER I THINK TO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, SHOWED HER A WIRE THAT I WANTED CHECKED AND WHAT WAS IN THE TRASH CAN THERE BY THE ENTRYWAY TO THE OFFICE, I BELIEVE THERE WAS AN AIRLINE TICKET. AND THEN ON THE EXTERIOR THERE WAS A BENCH SEAT RIGHT THERE BY THE FRONT DOOR THAT HAD A LUGGAGE TAG THROWN ON ONE END OF IT, AND THAT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT TO HER.

Q: DID YOU MAKE A REPORT OF ALL OF YOUR OBSERVATIONS WITH MISS CLARK?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: DO YOU KNOW -- HAVE YOU SEEN ANY REPORT WITH REFERENCE TO YOUR TAKING HER THROUGH THE PREMISES AND NOTING THESE OBJECTS?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: YOU NEVER MADE A REPORT LIKE THAT, DID YOU?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: DID MARCIA CLARK SIGN IN ON THE LOG WHEN SHE CAME TO THAT RESIDENCE?

A: YOU WON'T FIND HER ON THAT LOG, NO, SIR.

Q: WHY WON'T WE?

A: GOOD QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW.

Q: WELL, WAS THERE ANY OTHER LOG THAT SHE SIGNED IN ON WHEN SHE CAME THERE?

A: TO THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?

Q: YES, SIR, ROCKINGHAM?

A: NO, SIR, NOT THAT I AM AWARE OF.

Q: SO YOU HAVE NO REPORTS WHICH TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT TIME SHE GOT THERE, SO YOU HAVE TO GIVE US ONLY YOUR INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR.

Q: WITHOUT REPORTS? SO YOU ARE NOT SURE OF THE EXACT TIME SHE GOT THERE AND THE EXACT TIME SHE LEFT, ARE YOU?

A: I'M AS SURE AS WITHIN 45 MINUTES OF WHEN SHE DID ARRIVE AND WHEN SHE MIGHT HAVE LEFT BASED ON THE SIGN-OUT LOG OF BUNDY.

Q: BUT WHY IS BUNDY RELEVANT? SHE WENT TO BUNDY AFTER SHE WAS AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: SHE WENT TO BUNDY FIRST AND THEN CAME OUT TO OUR LOCATION IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

Q: HAD YOU SEEN HER AT BUNDY?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: YOU KNOW THROUGH SUBSEQUENT INFORMATION YOU FOUND OUT SHE HAD BEEN TO BUNDY AND THEN SHE CAME TO ROCKINGHAM?

MS. LEWIS: OBJECT TO THIS AS HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: BASICALLY, YES.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: BASICALLY YOU CANNOT TELL US WHAT TIME SHE GOT THERE OR WHAT TIME SHE LEFT, CAN YOU?

A: I CAN JUST GIVE YOU AN APPROXIMATION.

Q: WHAT IS YOUR APPROXIMATION?

A: SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 1420 OR 2:20 IN THE AFTERNOON TO THREE O'CLOCK.

Q: THAT SHE ARRIVED?

A: THAT IS HOW MUCH TIME SHE SPENT. THAT IS APPROXIMATE TIME.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IS THAT THE APPROXIMATE TIME THAT SHE ARRIVED OR THE TIME SHE SPENT?

A: THE ENTIRE TIME WHEN SHE ARRIVED, SPENT AND LEFT, IS JUST APPROXIMATION ON MY PART.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WAS MISS CLARK ACCOMPANIED BY ANYONE ELSE WHEN SHE ARRIVED THERE?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: SHE WAS BY HERSELF?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR.

Q: DID YOU DIDN'T SEE ANY OTHER DEPUTY D.A.'S THERE AT THAT TIME?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU SEE HER TALKING TO ANY OTHER DETECTIVES, OTHER THAN YOURSELF, WHILE SHE WAS THERE, DETECTIVE LUPER?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, YOU STAYED UNTIL ABOUT 6:35 IN THE AFTERNOON OR EVENING, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR.

Q: PER THE LOG, AND YOU WERE STILL THERE WHEN LANGE AND VANNATTER CAME; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND THEY CAME SOME TIME AFTER ABOUT 5:15 OR 5:20, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR.

Q: NOW, WITH REGARD TO THE SHOOTING OF THIS TAPE, IT IS TRUE, IS IT NOT, THAT WITH REGARD TO VIDEOTAPE, ONE THE BEST WAYS OF PRESERVING EVIDENCE FOR LATER PRESENTATION TO A JURY IN A CASE WOULD BE A VIDEOTAPE OF THE CRIME SCENES; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: WELL, I THINK THAT IS A MATTER OF OPINION.

Q: WELL, I'M JUST ASKING YOU. AS A DETECTIVE --

A: NO, I DISAGREE WITH THAT.

Q: YOU DON'T THINK OF AN ACTUAL VIDEOTAPE OF WHAT WENT ON WOULD BE MORE ACCURATE THAN, SAY, STILL PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: I THINK STILL PHOTOGRAPHS ARE A LOT MORE EFFECTIVE THAN VIDEO.

THE COURT: THIS AREA OF INQUIRY, ALTHOUGH INTERESTING, IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE.

MR. COCHRAN: I WILL MOVE RIGHT ON, THOUGH, YOUR HONOR. IT IS INTERESTING, THOUGH.

THE COURT: IT IS.

MR. COCHRAN: SO STIPULATED.

Q: IN THIS INSTANCE, HOWEVER, YOU SHOT THIS VIDEO PRIMARILY FOR PURPOSES OF CIVIL LIABILITY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WAS THERE A CITY ATTORNEY AT THE SCENE?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: WOULD YOU AGREE WITH MR. ADKINS IF HE INDICATED, HOWEVER, THE VIDEOTAPE ALSO SERVED A PURPOSE OF HELPING DETECTIVES IN THE COURSE OF THEIR INVESTIGATION IF THEY WANTED TO COME BACK AND SERVE ANOTHER SEARCH WARRANT AS TO THE LOCATION OF CERTAIN ITEMS?

A: WELL, I HAVE NEVER HAD AN OCCASION TO USE IT, SO I REALLY WOULDN'T WANT TO EVEN SPECULATE.

Q: YOU WOULDN'T SPECULATE ON THAT?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: SO THAT WE ARE CLEAR, YOU TOOK MISS CLARK ON A TOUR OF THE OUTSIDE OF THE PREMISES AND THE INSIDE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR.

Q: WHEN LANGE AND VANNATTER ARRIVED AT THE PREMISES, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO TALK WITH THEM?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: AND YOU AND DETECTIVES LANGE AND VANNATTER ALL WORKED OUT OF ROBBERY/HOMICIDE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MS. LEWIS: JUST BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. LEWIS:

Q: DETECTIVE LUPER, ACTUALLY AT THAT POINT IN TIME YOUR ONLY PURPOSE IN HAVING THAT VIDEOTAPE TAKEN WAS FOR CIVIL LIABILITY REASONS; ISN'T THAT TRUE?

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION IS THAT MARCIA CLARK LEFT THE PREMISES AT ABOUT THREE O'CLOCK OR BY THREE O'CLOCK, WITHIN THAT TIME FRAME?

A: IN THAT APPROXIMATE TIME FRAME, YES, MA'AM.

Q: AND THE VIDEOGRAPHER ARRIVED APPROXIMATELY, AS WE KNOW FROM SEEING THE VIDEOTAPE, APPROXIMATELY 3:11 OR; SO, ISN'T THAT TRUE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, MA'AM.

MS. LEWIS: THANK YOU. NOTHING FURTHER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE LUPER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION, YOUR HONOR, OF MR. LUPER BEFORE HE LEAVES.

THE COURT: SURE.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: YOU RECALL -- DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT MR. ADKINS AND MR. FORD HAD ARRIVED PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT MISS CLARK ARRIVED?

A: NO. THEY ARRIVED AFTER MISS CLARK HAD BEEN THERE AND GONE, SIR.

Q: ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: DOES YOUR LOG -- OF COURSE THERE IS NO LOG THAT REFLECTS THAT, IS THERE?

MS. LEWIS: OBJECTION, VAGUE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IS THERE ANY LOG THAT REFLECTS THAT?

A: AS I INDICATED EARLIER, I DON'T HAVE HER CHECKED IN OR CHECKED OUT AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION AND I AM GIVING YOU THE BEST RECOLLECTION THAT I CAN.

Q: JUST ONE MORE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. SO IF YOU HAVE THEM IN AT 3:10 IN THE AFTERNOON, IT IS POSSIBLE MISS CLARK MAY HAVE BEEN THERE AS LATE AS 3:10, ISN'T IT?

MS. LEWIS: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

MR. COCHRAN: I AM ASKING.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: IT IS POSSIBLE, ISN'T IT?

A: NO, BECAUSE SHE WASN'T THERE -- SHE AND I STUCK TOGETHER -- EXCUSE ME -- "STUCK TOGETHER" IS A POOR USE OF THE WORD. WE WERE TOGETHER THROUGH THAT TIME WHILE SHE WAS THERE AND I DID SEE HER LEAVE BEFORE THEY ARRIVED ON THE SCENE, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU ARE SURE ABOUT THAT, RIGHT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THAT WHEN SHE TOLD US THAT SHE CAME PERHAPS AT 2:00, 2:10, STAYED UNTIL THREE O'CLOCK, THOSE ARE JUST ESTIMATES?

MS. LEWIS: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. HE STATED 2:20.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: 2:20?

A: THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION, YES.

Q: THE LOG INDICATES THEY ARRIVED ABOUT 3:10; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

MS. LEWIS: OBJECTION, VAGUE AS TO WHO.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: ADKINS AND FORD?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MS. LEWIS: NOTHING FURTHER, JUDGE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE LUPER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU ARE EXCUSED, SIR.

THE WITNESS: YOU ARE WELCOME, SIR.

THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, ANY OTHER WITNESSES ON THIS ISSUE?

MR. COCHRAN: YES. DETECTIVE HARPER BRIEFLY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. (BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE HARPER.

JAMES ARTHUR HARPER, (402) CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE DEFENDANT, PURSUANT TO EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 402, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

THE CLERK: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND TO BE SWORN. YOU DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD.

THE WITNESS: I DO.

THE CLERK: PLEASE STATE AND SPELL BOTH YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD.

THE WITNESS: JAMES ARTHUR HARPER, H-A-R-P-E-R.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: GOOD MORNING, DETECTIVE HARPER. HOW ARE YOU THIS MORNING?

A: HOW YOU DOING.

Q: SIR, I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION BACK TO THE DATE OF JUNE 13, 1994, IN THE AFTERNOON HOURS. YOU WERE ASSIGNED AS A DETECTIVE FROM ROBBERY/HOMICIDE AND WERE AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION, WERE YOU?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION WHAT TIME DID YOU ARRIVE AT THAT LOCATION ON THAT DATE?

A: AT TEN MINUTES TO 2:00 IN THE AFTERNOON.

Q: AND DID YOU ARRIVE IN THE COMPANY OF SOME OTHER OFFICERS?

A: YES.

Q: WHO DID YOU COME WITH?

A: MY PARTNER, DETECTIVE RICHARD HARO, AND DETECTIVE CLIFF LEFALL.

Q: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER OFFICERS?

A: WE CAME IN THE SAME CAR, SO I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS ANYONE ELSE.

Q: SO THE THREE OF YOU CAME TOGETHER?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: HARO, YOURSELF AND LEFALL?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE LOCATION, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO SEE SOME OTHER OFFICERS THERE, SOME DETECTIVES FROM ROBBERY/HOMICIDE?

A: YES.

Q: WHO DID YOU SEE THERE?

A: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, ROBERTS, AND DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, DETECTIVE LUPER AND IT WAS -- IT WAS QUITE A FEW OTHER PEOPLE THERE, TOO. I DON'T RECALL ANY OTHER NAMES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO WOULD I BE CORRECT IN ASSUMING THERE WERE AT LEAST SEVEN DETECTIVES THERE AFTER YOU ARRIVED WITH YOUR THREE?

A: AT LEAST SEVEN, YES.

Q: SO IT WOULD BE AT LEAST THE THREE OF YOU, LUPER, FUHRMAN, PHILLIPS, ROBERTS, WERE ALL THERE AT THAT POINT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: NOW, AT SOME TIME AFTER YOU ARRIVED WERE YOU AWARE OF THE ARRIVAL OF A MR. ADKINS AND MR. FORD FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHIC LAB OF THE SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION DIVISION?

A: YES.

Q: TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION WHAT TIME DID THEY ARRIVE?

A: I BELIEVE THEY GOT THERE ABOUT TEN MINUTES AFTER 3:00.

Q: ABOUT 3:10?

A: ABOUT 3:10, YES, SIR.

Q: AND WHEN THEY ARRIVED, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO SPEAK WITH MR. FORD, AN ACTUAL PHOTOGRAPHER, YOURSELF?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID YOU GIVE HIM SOME INSTRUCTIONS, SIR?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WOULD YOU TELL THE COURT WHAT YOU TOLD MR. FORD UPON HIS ARRIVAL AT OR ABOUT 3:10 IN THE AFTERNOON ON JUNE 13.

A: I MET MR. FORD AND MR. ADKINS OUT FRONT AT THE ROCKINGHAM GATE AND I TOLD THEM THAT WE NEEDED THEM TO PHOTOGRAPH FIRST THE OUTSIDE OF THE -- THE ESTATE AND ALSO INSIDE AND IT WAS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES AND THAT IS BASICALLY WHAT I TOLD THEM. WE STARTED OUTSIDE. I DIRECTED THEM TO SHOOT THE OUTSIDE AND THE SIDES OF BOTH THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU SPECIFICALLY TOLD FORD TO SHOOT THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE?

A: YES, THE GARAGE AREA.

Q: AND DID YOU SEE HIM SHOOT THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE?

A: YES. I WAS STANDING RIGHT -- RIGHT NEXT TO HIM.

Q: AND THAT -- AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, THAT IS IN THE VIDEO, THE SHOOTING OF THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE SIMPSON RESIDENCE?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: WITH REGARD TO THIS ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES THAT YOU SPOKE ABOUT, THE POLICE DIDN'T DO ANY DAMAGE TO THE OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE, DID THEY?

A: NO.

Q: YOU JUST HAD THE OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE SHOT THOUGH; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE -- THERE IS A WALKWAY DOWN THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. WAS THERE ANY SHOTS MADE OF THAT PARTICULAR PART OF THE HOUSE, THE WALKWAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE?

A: I BELIEVE IT WAS DONE FROM A DISTANCE, FROM THE STREET AS HE WAS WALKING TOWARD -- HE WAS SHOOTING AS HE WAS WALKING TOWARD THE HOUSE.

Q: OKAY. THAT WAS DONE BY FORD?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN HOW LONG, IF YOU KNOW, DID HE SPEND SHOOTING THE EXTERIOR OF THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE?

A: PROBABLY -- HE WAS THERE A TOTAL OF PROBABLY MAYBE AN HOUR AND TEN MINUTES, BUT I THINK IT WAS ONLY LIKE 25 MINUTES OF ACTUAL FILM, FROM WHAT I REMEMBER WATCHING IT. IT WAS ONLY LIKE 25 MINUTES LONG.

Q: 25 MINUTES OF OUTSIDE AND INTERIOR?

A: YES, THE WHOLE SHOT.

Q: THE WHOLE THING? ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHILE MR. FORD WAS THERE AND SHOOTING, MARCIA CLARK CAME, DID SHE NOT?

A: I BELIEVE I REMEMBER SEEING HER THERE AT SOME POINT.

Q: AND YOU RECALL THAT WHILE SHE WAS THERE WAS FORD SHOOTING THE VIDEO DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME, IF YOU RECALL?

A: I DON'T -- I DON'T RECALL IF HE WAS OR NOT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND TELL US WHAT TIME IS YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION THAT MARCIA CLARK ARRIVED ON THE SCENE?

A: WE GOT THERE -- LIKE I SAID, WE GOT THERE AT TEN MINUTES OF 2:00. WE LEFT AT 4:30, I BELIEVE, SO SHE GOT THERE SOMETIME DURING THAT TIME. I JUST REMEMBER SEEING HER BRIEFLY.

Q: BETWEEN 1:50 AND 4:30?

A: YES.

Q: HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO REVIEW ANY LOGS OR ANYTHING THAT MIGHT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHAT TIME SHE ACTUALLY ARRIVED?

A: NO, I HAVE NOT.

Q: IF SHE DOESN'T APPEAR ON THE LOG, THAT IS AN INDICATION THAT SHE JUST DIDN'T SIGN IT WHEN SHE GOT THERE?

A: THAT IS A POSSIBILITY.

Q: DO YOU RECALL -- ONCE SHE GOT THERE, TELL THE COURT WHAT YOU OBSERVED HER DOING, IF ANYTHING?

A: I BELIEVE AT ONE POINT I SAW HER TALKING TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

Q: SHE WAS SITTING AT A TABLE, WASN'T SHE, SITTING DOWN OUTSIDE TALKING TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: AT ONE POINT, YES.

Q: AND HOW LONG HAD SHE BEEN THERE AT THE TIME THAT SHE WAS SEATED AT THIS TABLE TALKING TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: I DON'T RECALL, BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING HER COME IN.

Q: SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHEN SHE HAD GOTTEN THERE?

A: NO.

Q: YOU JUST SAW HER TALKING TO HIM?

A: YES.

Q: HOW LONG DID YOU SEE THEM TALKING, IF YOU KNOW?

A: THEY STARTED OUTSIDE AND THEN I BELIEVE THEY CAME INSIDE BECAUSE OF THE HELICOPTERS AND THE NEWS PEOPLE WERE ABOVE.

Q: TAKING PICTURES OF THEM, RIGHT?

A: I ASSUME, YES.

Q: SO THE --

A: THEY CAME --

Q: SORRY?

A: THEY CAME INSIDE AND STARTED TALKING, SO TOTAL PROBABLY THAT I SAW, THE CONVERSATION HAD NOT STOPPED, SO I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG SHE TALKED TO THEM.

Q: JUST TELL THE COURT THEN HOW MUCH TIME DID YOU SEE THEM TALKING KEEPING IN MIND YOU DIDN'T SEE THEM WHEN THEY STARTED, AND KEEPING IN MIND YOU DIDN'T SEE THEM WHEN THEY FINISHED, HOW LONG DID YOU SEE THEM TALKING?

A: MAYBE FIVE MINUTES.

Q: AND PART OF THAT CONVERSATION WAS OUTSIDE AND THEN PART WAS INSIDE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. WAS SHE ACCOMPANIED BY ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, IF YOU KNOW?

A: I BELIEVE MR. HODGMAN WAS THERE, BUT I'M NOT SURE.

Q: YOU THINK BILL HODGMAN WAS THERE?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: AND DID HE SEEM TO COME WITH HER?

A: I HAVE NO IDEA.

Q: AND WHEN SHE WAS TALKING TO FUHRMAN, WAS HODGMAN PRESENT?

A: IF IN FACT HE WAS THERE, YES, I BELIEVE THAT IS WHERE I SAW HIM.

Q: OKAY. NOW, DID YOU SEE HER TALKING WITH ANY OF THE OFFICERS WHILE SHE WAS THERE?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU EVER SEE ANY OF THE OFFICERS TAKE HER ON A WALK-THROUGH OF THE PREMISES AT ROCKINGHAM WHILE SHE WAS THERE?

A: NO.

Q: WERE YOU -- DURING MOST OF THIS TIME, FROM THE TIME YOU ARRIVED THERE AT 1:50 TO 4:30, WERE YOU OUTSIDE THE PREMISES AND ALSO INSIDE?

A: YES, ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND OUTSIDE IN THE YARD BY THE GARAGE. MOSTLY IN THE GARAGE AREA.

Q: AS I UNDERSTAND IT, INSTRUCTIONS TO MR. FORD WAS TO SHOOT ANY AND EVERYTHING THAT WAS RECOVERED IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH WARRANT, RIGHT?

A: NO.

Q: YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THAT WAS -- DID YOU COME TO KNOW THAT WAS HIS UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT DAY?

MS. LEWIS: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY AND ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS WHAT FORD SAID.

THE WITNESS: THAT IS NOT WHAT I TOLD HIM.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU TOLD HIM?

A: NO.

Q: YOU TOLD HIM TO SHOOT OUTSIDE?

A: CORRECT.

Q: WHEN YOU WENT INSIDE DID YOU SEE SOME OTHER DETECTIVE TALK TO HIM?

A: YES.

Q: WHO WAS THAT?

A: MY PARTNER, DETECTIVE RICHARD HARO.

Q: HARO? WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN HARO SPOKE TO HIM?

A: NO. I BELIEVE I HAD ANOTHER ASSIGNMENT IN THE GARAGE AREA SO I JUST LEFT AND TURNED HIM OVER TO HARO, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY DISCUSSED.

Q: YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY DISCUSSED, RIGHT? WHEN MARCIA CLARK WAS OUT THERE DID YOU TALK WITH HER AT ALL THAT DAY?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU KNOW WHO SHE WAS AT THAT POINT?

A: YES, I KNOW MARCIA.

Q: YOU KNEW HER FROM BEFORE?

A: YES.

Q: HAVE YOU SEEN ANY REPORTS, ANY POLICE REPORTS GENERATED IN THIS CASE THAT WOULD HELP US OUT ON THE TIMES AS TO WHEN MISS CLARK ARRIVED AND WHO SHE TALKED TO AND WHAT SHE OBSERVED?

A: I HAVE NOT PERSONALLY, NO.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I HAVE JUST A SECOND, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR TESTIMONY, DETECTIVE HARPER, YOU NEVER, WHILE YOU WERE THERE, YOU DON'T RECALL SEEING MARCIA CLARK LEAVE AT THE TIME SHE LEFT?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: DID YOU SEE WHETHER -- HOW SHE AND MR. HODGMAN GOT THERE?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: THANK YOU VERY KINDLY, SIR.

THE COURT: MISS LEWIS.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. LEWIS:

Q: DETECTIVE HARPER, WERE YOU PRESENT DURING JUNE 28TH AT ROCKINGHAM DURING THE EXECUTION OF THAT SEARCH WARRANT?

A: YES.

Q: MISS CLARK WAS PRESENT ON THAT OCCASION AS WELL?

A: YES.

Q: ARE YOU SURE WITHIN YOUR OWN MIND THAT IT WAS ON THE 13TH THAT YOU SAW HER TALKING TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN RATHER THAN ON THE 28TH?

A: NOW THAT I REFLECT ON IT, IT COULD HAVE BEEN ON THE 28TH, BUT I REMEMBER SEEING HER ONE OF THOSE DAYS, EITHER THE 13TH OR THE 28TH.

Q: YOU ARE NOT POSITIVE WHICH OCCASION IT WAS?

A: NOW THAT I THINK ABOUT IT, NO.

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE LOG HAS ALREADY BEEN MARKED AS AN EXHIBIT IN THIS CASE. WHAT IS IT? IT HAS NOT? I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBER. I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBER BUT I DO HAVE ANOTHER COPY. IT WILL BE A LITTLE BIT MARKED UP.

MS. LEWIS: MAY I APPROACH?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: DETECTIVE HARPER, LOOKING AT THIS OTHER COPY OF WHAT WE KNOW AS THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE LOG FROM JUNE 13TH, DO YOU SEE AN ENTRY THERE OF MARCIA CLARK ARRIVING THERE AT APPROXIMATELY I THINK THAT SAYS TWO O'CLOCK OR 2:02 AND LEAVING AT 2:15?

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I SEE THIS REPORT? WHAT IS SHE SHOWING HIM?

THE COURT: BUNDY LOG.

MR. COCHRAN: IS THAT MARKED? SHE DIDN'T SHOW IT TO ME.

MS. LEWIS: THIS COPY IS NOT THE MARKED COPY.

MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU MIND IF I SEE IT, PLEASE?

MS. LEWIS: I'M SORRY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE LANGE HAS THE MARKED -- THE COURT'S COPY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MS. LEWIS: MAY I APPROACH?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

THE COURT: WHAT EXHIBIT NUMBER IS THAT?

MS. LEWIS: THIS IS EXHIBIT -- I GUESS IT IS DEFENSE 1006, ONE ZERO ZERO SIX.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: AND SHOWING YOU THIS ONE, DETECTIVE HARPER, IT SHOWS THE SAME AS THE COPY I JUST SHOWED YOU, THAT MISS CLARK ARRIVED AT BUNDY AT 2:02 AND LEFT BUNDY AT 2:15?

A: IS THAT BUNDY OR ROCKINGHAM?

Q: BUNDY.

A: I WAS NEVER AT --

Q: IS THAT WHAT THIS SHOWS?

A: BUT I NEVER WAS --

MR. COCHRAN: I OBJECT, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS CROSS-EXAMINATION. I RECORD SPEAKS FOR ITSELF AND IT DOESN'T HELP HIM. HE WAS NEVER THERE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I ALREADY HAVE IT HERE.

MS. LEWIS: THE COURT HAS HEARD PREVIOUS TESTIMONY WITH REGARD TO THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE LOG, SO I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO CONSIDER THAT EVIDENCE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS HEARING AS WELL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE IS IT APPROXIMATELY A FIVE-MINUTE DRIVE FROM BUNDY TO ROCKINGHAM?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: AND I THINK YOU JUST EXPLAINED TO US THAT YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO THE -- BETWEEN THE 13TH AND THE 28TH IS NOT REAL CLEAR AS FAR AS WHEN MISS CLARK WAS THERE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND IS IT -- COULD IT ALSO BE TRUE THAT MR. HODGMAN WAS NOT PRESENT ON THE 13TH BUT WAS PRESENT ON THE 28TH?

MR. COCHRAN: THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR. SPECULATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED, SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: YOUR RECOLLECTION OF SEEING MR. HODGMAN IS SHAKY AS FAR AS THE -- AS FAR AS WHETHER YOU SAW HIM THERE ON THE 13TH OR THE 28TH; IS THAT FAIR?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE USE OF THE WORD "SHAKY," YOUR HONOR. I'M NOT SURE --

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND WHAT "SHAKY" MEANS. I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT, DETECTIVE?

A: YES.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN MS. LEWIS AND DETECTIVE LANGE.)

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE THE CRIME SCENE LOG FROM THE 28TH OF JUNE WHICH I WOULD LIKE MARKED PEOPLE'S NEXT IN ORDER, 159.

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS IRRELEVANT AND MATERIAL. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE 13TH.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

(PEO'S 159 FOR ID = CRIME SCENE LOG)

MS. LEWIS: COUNSEL HAS HAD IT FOR MANY MONTHS. I'M SURE HE HAS NOT HAD OCCASION TO LOOK AT IT RECENTLY.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MS. LEWIS: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

Q: BY MS. LEWIS: DETECTIVE HARPER, SHOWING YOU THE LOG FROM ROCKINGHAM ON JUNE 28TH, IT SHOWS YOUR ARRIVAL TIME ON HERE AS 1500 HOURS OR THREE O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON. IS THAT AN ACCURATE ASSESSMENT OF THE TIME THAT YOU ARRIVED?

A: YES.

Q: AND IT SHOWS YOUR LEAVING AT 1816 I BELIEVE, WHICH WOULD BE 12 -- 6:16 P.M.; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT IS THE TIME THAT YOU ACTUALLY DID LEAVE ON THE 28TH?

A: YES.

Q: SO THE TIME THAT YOU WERE THERE ON THE 13TH ROUGHLY CORRESPONDS TO THE TIME YOU WERE THERE ON THE 28TH IN TERMS OF BOTH BEING IN THE AFTERNOON HOURS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND COULD THAT BE ONE CAUSE FOR YOUR LACK OF PERFECT RECOLLECTION AS FAR AS WHAT TOOK PLACE ON WHICH OCCASION AS FAR AS WHO WAS PRESENT?

A: THAT'S TRUE, BECAUSE I DON'T -- I KNOW I WAS THERE ON BOTH DAYS AND MAYBE I GOT THEM CONFUSED. OBVIOUSLY I DID.

MS. LEWIS: THANK YOU. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN:

Q: JUST FINALLY, AS YOU SIT HERE NOW, YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION IS THAT MARCIA CLARK ARRIVED AT SOME TIME IN THE AFTERNOON HOURS AT THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: ON JUNE 13TH?

A: I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS THE 13TH OR THE 28TH NOW THAT I THINK ABOUT IT, BUT I KNOW ONE OF THOSE DAYS SHE WAS THERE, AND IT WAS IN THE AFTERNOON AFTER I GOT THERE.

Q: ALL RIGHT --

A: SO --

Q: BEFORE ON DIRECT EXAMINATION YOU WERE FAIRLY CLEAR THAT SHE HAD ARRIVED, YOU JUST WEREN'T SURE ABOUT HODGMAN; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: BECAUSE YOU REMEMBER THAT ON THE 13TH SHE HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?

MS. LEWIS: OBJECTION. MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: YOU REMEMBER SHE TALKED TO FUHRMAN ON THE 13TH?

A: ONE OF THOSE DAYS, EITHER THE 28TH OR THE 13TH, AND I'M NOT SURE WHICH DAY.

Q: WAS FUHRMAN THERE ON THE 28TH?

A: I BELIEVE SO. I SAW HIM BOTH DAYS THAT I WAS THERE, THE 13TH AND THE 28TH.

Q: AND WAS ROBERTS THERE ON THE 28TH, IF YOU KNOW?

A: THE 28TH?

Q: YES, SIR.

A: I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT.

Q: AT ANY RATE, NOW I WANT YOU TO THINK BACK SO THAT WE CAN GIVE THE COURT YOUR ABSOLUTE BEST RECOLLECTION. ON THE 13TH, THE DAY THIS VIDEO WAS SHOT, THE DAY AFTER THESE BODIES WERE FOUND, YOU RECALL THAT MISS MARCIA CLARK WAS THERE AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION BETWEEN 2:30 AND THREE O'CLOCK OR SO IN THE AFTERNOON? DO YOU RECALL THAT?

MS. LEWIS: OBJECTION, THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU RECALL?

A: I CAN'T LOCK MYSELF INTO -- ONE OF THOSE DAYS, THE 13TH OR THE 28TH BECAUSE NOW THAT I HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT IT, IT COULD HAVE BEEN THE 13TH OR IT COULD HAVE BEEN THE 28TH.

Q: ISN'T IT POSSIBLE SHE WAS THERE ON BOTH TIMES?

A: THERE IS A POSSIBILITY, BUT I DON'T RECALL.

Q: DO YOU RECALL HER WEARING A LIGHT-COLORED DRESS ON THE 13TH?

A: I REMEMBER HER WEARING A WHITE DRESS, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHICH DATE IT WAS.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER AT THIS POINT, YOUR HONOR, OF THIS WITNESS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DETECTIVE HARPER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU ARE EXCUSED ALSO.

MS. LEWIS: JUST A SECOND, YOUR HONOR, BRIEFLY. MAY I APPROACH JUST REAL BRIEFLY?

THE COURT: KEEPING IN MIND WHAT THE ISSUES ARE HERE.

MS. LEWIS: YES, YOUR HONOR. JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. LEWIS:

Q: DOES THE LOG FROM ROCKINGHAM REFLECT FUHRMAN WAS PRESENT ON THAT DATE FROM 2:45 TO 6:40 IN THE EVENING?

A: YES, IT DOES.

MS. LEWIS: THANK YOU. NOTHING FURTHER.

MR. COCHRAN: NOTHING FURTHER OF DETECTIVE HARPER, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, DETECTIVE.

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE ONE OTHER WITNESS I WOULD LIKE TO CALL, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. COCHRAN: I WOULD LIKE TO CALL MARCIA CLARK.

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO MARCIA CLARK TESTIFYING. SHE IS THE LEAD TRIAL LAWYER IN THIS CASE. IT IS NOT NECESSARY. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO SUPPORT THAT SHE WAS EVER PRESENT WHEN THE VIDEOGRAPHER WAS THERE.

MR. COCHRAN: I DON'T WANT HER MAKING THIS ARGUMENT IN FRONT OF MISS CLARK.

MS. LEWIS: MISS CLARK KNOWS THE ISSUES. THE TESTIMONY IS SHE LEFT AT 2:50 OR 3:00 --

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD OBJECT TO HER MAKING THE STATEMENT IN FRONT OF MISS --

MS. LEWIS: -- AND THE VIDEOGRAPHER ARRIVED AT 3:10.

THE COURT: NOTED. OVERRULED. ALL RIGHT. I DON'T NEED MISS CLARK'S TESTIMONY AS A WITNESS. I SIMPLY NEED HER STATEMENT TO THE COURT AS TO HER RECOLLECTION WHEN SHE WAS THERE, AND MORE PERTINENTLY, WHEN SHE FOUND OUT THIS TAPE EXISTED.

MS. LEWIS: I ASSUME MISS CLARK --

THE COURT: I ACCEPT THE REPRESENTATION OF ANY COUNSEL HERE AS OFFICERS OF THE COURT.

MR. COCHRAN: THAT IS FINE.

THE COURT: I DON'T NEED IT UNDER OATH FROM THE WITNESS STAND. GOOD MORNING, MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. I THOUGHT I HAD A DAY OFF. YES. I CAN TELL THE COURT EXACTLY WHEN I ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS STATEMENT TO MR. LEVIN AS WELL, BUT I ARRIVED AT APPROXIMATELY -- AT ABOUT 12:30 OR QUARTER TO 1:00. I HAD EARLIER SPOKEN TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER WHO INDICATED HE WAS GOING TO SEEK A WARRANT.

THE COURT: THIS IS THE FAMOUS HARVEY LEVIN MIS-TIME-STAMPED?

MS. CLARK: EXACTLY. EXACTLY, YOUR HONOR. AND DETECTIVE VANNATTER HAD BRIEFLY TOLD ME WHAT HE HAD IN TERMS OF PROBABLE CAUSE AND I SAID IT SOUNDS LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT IT. HE SAID HE WOULD PRESENT IT TO THE JUDGE AND HE ASKED ME TO MEET HIM AT ROCKINGHAM. I SAID THERE IS NO POINT IN MY GOING OUT THERE UNTIL YOU HAVE THE WARRANT SIGNED AND DELIVERED, PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHEN THAT IS DONE. HE CALLED AND HE TOLD ME THAT. THAT WAS AT ABOUT 10:45 I BELIEVE. I WAS WORKING ON ANOTHER CASE AND I DIDN'T LEAVE THE OFFICE UNTIL ABOUT 12:00, AND I ARRIVED I BELIEVE AT 12:30 OR QUARTER TO 1:00 AT ROCKINGHAM. I MET DETECTIVE LUPER THERE. THERE WERE VERY FEW PEOPLE THERE, IT WAS VERY QUIET, AND APPARENTLY THE DEFENDANT HAD ALREADY COME AND GONE BY THE TIME I GOT THERE. DETECTIVE LUPER WALKED ME AROUND A LITTLE BIT, I THINK ROBERTS DID, I THINK DETECTIVE FUHRMAN DID. ON THE 13TH I NEVER SAT OUTSIDE AT A TABLE WITH ANYBODY. I WAS THERE BRIEFLY. I MADE REQUESTS OF THEM CONCERNING WHAT TO PHOTOGRAPH AND IN WHAT SEQUENCE, AND THESE ARE STILL PHOTOGRAPHS, IN WHAT SEQUENCE TO PHOTOGRAPH SO THAT IT WOULD BE UNDERSTANDABLE AND CLEAR. AND I ASKED THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY PICKED UP CERTAIN ITEMS IN THE SEARCH AND HE INDICATED TO ME, DETECTIVE LUPER, THAT THERE WAS NO SEARCH TEAM AVAILABLE AT THE TIME, THEY WERE IN A HOLDING PATTERN FOR AWHILE. I HAD OTHER WORK TO DO SO I DIDN'T WAIT FOR THE SEARCH TEAM, AND I LEFT ROCKINGHAM AT ABOUT FIVE MINUTES TO 2:00. I HAD TO GO BACK DOWN TO THE 10 FREEWAY GOING EAST, SO I TOOK BUNDY DOWN AND THE CRIME SCENE WAS ON MY WAY, AND AS IS MY HABIT, I ALWAYS VISIT CRIME SCENES TO GET A FEELING FOR THE SPACIAL CONNECTIONS OF EVERYTHING AND THE DIMENSIONS AND I STOPPED BY BUNDY ON MY WAY BACK TO THE OFFICE AT ABOUT TWO O'CLOCK. I MET WITH THE OFFICER WHO HAD THE PERIMETER AT THAT TIME. I DON'T REMEMBER HIS NAME, BUT THE TAPE WAS STILL UP AND HE INDICATED NO ONE WAS ALLOWED INSIDE, AND I SAID FINE, AND I LEFT VERY SHORTLY THEREAFTER. AND I THINK THE CRIME SCENE LOG REFLECTS THAT I LEFT BUNDY. I WAS AT BUNDY FROM 2:00 TO 2:15, THAT'S CORRECT, AND I LEFT BUNDY AT LEAST AT 2:15, IF NOT 2:10, WENT BACK TO THE OFFICE. AT NO TIME DID I SEE A VIDEOGRAPHER PRESENT AT ROCKINGHAM. I CAN ASSURE THE COURT THAT IF I HAD, I WOULD BE DELIGHTED AND I WOULD HAVE ASKED THEM TO DO ONE AT BUNDY AS WELL, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW THEY WERE DOING THAT. I DID NOT LEARN OF THAT VIDEOTAPE UNTIL A COUPLE DAYS AGO WHEN ALL OF THIS -- WHEN THE DEFENSE APPARENTLY INDICATED TO US THAT IT KNEW ABOUT A VIDEOTAPE, AND THEN I ASKED, AFTER HAVING HEARD FROM SOMEONE ELSE ABOUT IT, THAT WAS IN THE LAST FEW DAYS, VERY RECENT, SO I NEVER KNEW THEY HAD ONE AND I ASKED ABOUT IT. I ASKED WHY -- FOR WHAT PURPOSE THEY PERFORMED IT AND WHY WE DIDN'T KNOW AND IF THEY DID ONE AT ROCKINGHAM, WHY DIDN'T THEY DO ONE AT BUNDY? AND THE REASON FOR THAT THEY EXPLAINED --

THE COURT: I DON'T NEED TO KNOW THE REASON.

MS. CLARK: YOU ALREADY KNOW. SO I LEARNED IT WAS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES AND THAT IS ALL I KNOW, SO I WENT TO ROCKINGHAM FIRST AND THEN I WENT TO BUNDY. AND THE CRIME SCENE LOG SHOWS WHEN I WAS AT BUNDY AND INDICATES VERY CLEARLY THAT I WAS NOT AROUND WHEN THE VIDEOGRAPHER WAS THERE. AND I SAW THE MAN COME IN TO TESTIFY. WAS THAT ON FRIDAY? I HAD NEVER SEEN HIM BEFORE IN MY LIFE, SO THAT WAS THE FIRST DAY I HAD EVER SEEN HIM.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE BEFORE ME -- I TAKE IT, MISS -- EXCUSE ME. MR. COCHRAN, HAVE YOU COMPLETED PRESENTING EVIDENCE?

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE NO OTHER FURTHER WITNESSES AT THIS POINT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PEOPLE WISH TO PRESENT ANYTHING?

MS. LEWIS: WISH TO PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE?

THE COURT: YES.

MS. LEWIS: NO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I HAVE BEFORE ME A DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AND INCLUDING MONETARY SANCTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY. I WILL HEAR ARGUMENT.

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, I DO WANT TO MAKE -- NOTE THAT I JUST RECEIVED THIS AT A QUARTER OF 9:00 THIS MORNING. I BARELY HAD TIME TO READ IT, LET ALONE TO CONFER WITH OTHER COUNSEL ON THE CASE IN TERMS OF RESPONDING TO IT. SO I WOULD REQUEST AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, A PERIOD OF TIME DURING WHICH TO CONFER WITH MY COLLEAGUES BEFORE RESPONDING.

MR. COCHRAN: I HAVE NO OBJECTION. IT WAS FILED THIS MORNING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN I WILL HEAR ARGUMENT. HOW ABOUT AT 4:30?

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, 4:30 TODAY MAY BE A LITTLE TOUGH, YOUR HONOR, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS.

THE COURT: OH, I FORGOT.

MR. COCHRAN: 4:30 WILL BE TOUGH TODAY. 1:30 OR -- 4:30 IS A BAD DAY.

THE COURT: YOU ARE RIGHT.

MS. LEWIS: THERE IS ANOTHER HEARING, I BELIEVE, AT 1:30.

THE COURT: RIGHT, AND WE NEED TO BE SOMEWHERE AT 5:40.

MR. COCHRAN: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. TOMORROW THEN WE WILL TAKE IT UP.

MR. COCHRAN: WHEN WAS THAT?

THE COURT: TOMORROW.

MS. LEWIS: IN THE MORNING, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: WE HAVE THE MOTION ON THE CORONER'S TESTIMONY AND MOTION ON CORONER'S PHOTOGRAPHS TODAY AT 1:30.

MR. COCHRAN: 1:30 TODAY?

THE COURT: YEAH.

MR. COCHRAN: DO YOU WANT TO DO IT AT 1:30 ALSO?

THE COURT: LET'S DO THAT TOMORROW.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO REJOIN US?

MS. LEWIS: OH, YOUR HONOR. I WOULD MOVE THAT PEOPLE'S 159 BE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE FOR PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING AND DEFENSE 1006 BE CONSIDERED FOR THE HEARING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEY WILL BE.

MS. LEWIS: AS WELL AS PEOPLE'S 158.

THE COURT: THEY WILL BE ACCEPTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE MOTION.

(PEO'S 159 = IN EVID)

(PEO'S 158 = IN EVID)

(DEFENSE 1006 = IN EVID)

MR. NEUFELD: YOUR HONOR, I THINK YOU WANT TO TAKE UP THE BOARDS ALSO BEFORE THEY ARE INTRODUCED TO DENNIS FUNG.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. WHO IS GOING TO BE PRESENTING MR. FUNG?

MS. LEWIS: HANK GOLDBERG WILL BE AND I BELIEVE WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF NOTIFYING HIM. AND I ALSO OFFER DEFENSE 1068 FOR PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(DEFT'S 1068 = IN EVID)

MS. LEWIS: HE AND THE BOARDS ARE ON THE WAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WHAT IS THE ETA?

MS. LEWIS: THE LENGTH OF TIME THE ELEVATORS TAKE, WHICH CAN BE FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT MINUTES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MADAM REPORTER, DO WE NEED TO CHANGE?

REPORTER OLSON: YES, SIR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S CHANGE COURT REPORTERS AND THEN WE WILL START WITH THE BOARDS.

(RECESS.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL THE PARTIES ARE PRESENT. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF BOARDS APPARENTLY THAT ARE GOING TO BE USED. MR. NEUFELD, YOU HAD SOME OBJECTIONS TO SOME OF THE BOARDS?

MR. NEUFELD: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHICH BOARD? WHAT'S YOUR OBJECTION?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. NEUFELD: YOUR HONOR, AS YOU MAY RECALL, THERE WAS A RULING BY YOUR HONOR THAT THE LUMINAL TESTING AND OTHER PRESUMPTIVE TESTS WOULD NOT BE ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD IN THIS CASE, AND ONE OF THE BOARDS -- UNLESS -- I'M SORRY -- UNLESS THERE'S INDEPENDENT CONFIRMATORY EVIDENCE OF ONE SORT OR ANOTHER. ONE OF THE BOARDS DEPICTS MR. FUNG STANDING NEXT TO A DRAIN IN THE SINK HOLDING UP A Q-TIP WITH A PINK COLOR ON IT TO SUGGEST THAT THIS WAS A POSITIVE RESULT FROM A PHENOLPHTALEIN TEST FOR PRESENCE OF BLOOD. NUMBER ONE, THERE WAS NO CONFIRMATORY TEST DONE EITHER OF THOSE ITEMS. NUMBER TWO, AS IT'S BEEN ALREADY BROUGHT OUT TO THE COURT, I THINK WAS THE BASIS FOR THE COURT'S RULING, THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT COULD TEST POSITIVE UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. PARTICULARLY FOR THE TWO DRAINS, YOUR HONOR, THERE IS A VAST BODY OF LITERATURE WHICH SUGGESTS THAT JUST NORMAL BACTERIA AND OTHER MICROORGANISMS, THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT COLLECT IN WET DRAINS AND DAMP DRAINS WOULD TEST POSITIVE, AND IT JUST HAS NO BASIS BEING INTRODUCED OR BROUGHT INTO THIS CASE AT THIS TIME. THE CORRECT PROCEDURE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO TAKE THE CONTENTS OUT OF THOSE DRAINS AND BRING THEM BACK TO THE LABORATORY AND DO SOME KIND OF TEST TO CONFIRM THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD OR TO REJECT THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD, AND TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, THAT WAS NEVER DONE. AND I BELIEVE A LOT OF THIS YOU ALREADY KNOW ABOUT FROM YOUR INITIAL RULING. SO I WOULD SIMPLY ASK THE COURT TO INSTRUCT THE PEOPLE TO REMOVE THOSE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THE BOARD.

THE COURT: THOSE ARE YOUR OBJECTIONS?

MR. NEUFELD: WELL, AS TO THAT ONE BOARD, YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHICH BOARD IS THAT?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S THE ROCKINGHAM BOARD.

MR. NEUFELD: WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE IT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES. SOMEBODY WANT TO GIVE MR. FAIRTLOUGH A HAND HERE SO WE DON'T WASTE ALL OUR TIME?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: CAN YOU SEE THAT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: IS THIS THE ONE YOU'RE SPEAKING OF?

MR. NEUFELD: YES, YOUR HONOR. IT'S THIS PHOTOGRAPH HERE (INDICATING) WHICH DOESN'T HAVE A NUMBER ON THE PHOTOGRAPH. SO I CAN'T SAY FOR THE RECORD, BUT IT'S IN THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER AND IT'S -- HE'S HOLDING UP A Q-TIP NEXT TO A -- THE DRAIN IN THE SINK. I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE Q-TIP ITSELF HAS A REDDISH COLOR WHICH WOULD SUGGEST BLOOD, BUT IT'S NOT. THE REDDISH COLOR IS THE CHEMICAL REACTION FROM THE HYDROGEN PEROXIDE. SO IT'S EVEN MORE PREJUDICIAL FOR THAT REASON AS WELL, YOUR HONOR. SO IT'S -- IT'S THE DRAIN SHOT HERE (INDICATING), AND THEN THERE'S A SECOND DRAIN SHOT AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE LOWER -- THERE'S TWO DRAIN SHOTS ACTUALLY IN THE LOWER LEFT-HAND CORNER, AND I WOULD ASK THAT ALL THREE OF THOSE BE TAKEN OUT. I -- NUMBER 14, WHICH IS STRAIGHT DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE DIAGRAM, IS IN A DIFFERENT CATEGORY BECAUSE IN 14, THEY ACTUALLY DID DO FOLLOW-UP TESTING AT THE LABORATORY, AND SO I THINK NUMBER 14 WOULD FIT WITHIN YOUR HONOR'S EXCEPTION. BUT THE DRAIN PICTURES DO NOT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG.

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, YOUR HONOR, IT WOULD BE NICE IF COUNSEL WOULD HAVE GIVEN US SOME NOTICE AS TO SPECIFICALLY WHAT HE HAD TO OBJECT TO ON THIS BOARD SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY PLOTTED OUT WHAT OUR DIRECT EXAMINATION IS GOING TO BE, AND AS THE COURT CAN NOW TELL, IT DOES INVOLVE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE THROUGH THESE BOARDS. AS TO THE PHENOLPHTALEIN TEST RESULTS, I DID NOT BRING DOWN MY LEGAL NOTEBOOK BECAUSE AGAIN, I DID NOT KNOW THAT THEY WERE GOING TO ADDRESS THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY. WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THIS PRELIMINARILY. FIRST OF ALL, BOTH SIDES HAVE BEEN INTRODUCING PHENOLPHTALEIN TESTING THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL IN FRONT OF THE JURY LEFT AND RIGHT. I POINT THAT OUT TO THE COURT, AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE A LITTLE BIT SURPRISED BY COUNSEL'S NOW OBJECTING TO IT WHEN I THINK BOTH SIDES ELICITED THAT KIND OF EVIDENCE FROM THE DETECTIVES. THE OTHER THING THAT I'D SAY IS THAT THE COURT DID RULE ON THE LUMINAL TEST. I DON'T RECALL THE COURT MAKING ANY RULING ON PHENOLPHTALEIN. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BECAUSE THE PHENOLPHTALEIN TEST IN THIS CASE IS ACTUALLY A TWO-STAGE PROCESS WHICH INVOLVES THE USE OF PHENOLPHTALEIN AND THEN THE ADDITION OF HYDROGEN PEROXIDE. SO IT IS MORE SPECIFIC THAN ANY OF THE OTHER PRESUMPTIVE BLOOD TESTS INCLUDING LUMINAL. SO THE COURT'S RULING ON ONE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY APPLICABILITY TO THE OTHER. AND FINALLY IN THE CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS COLEMAN -- AND AGAIN, I DIDN'T BRING DOWN MY LEGAL NOTEBOOK, BUT IT'S A CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT CASE -- THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT DISCUSSED THE ISSUE OF PRESUMPTIVE BLOOD TESTING. IT SAYS THAT IT DOES COME IN, BUT THERE HAS TO BE SOME EVIDENCE AS TO WHAT KIND OF A TEST YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. IN THAT CASE, A POLICE OFFICER, WHO WAS NOT A CRIMINALIST, USED SOMETHING THAT WAS CALLED A HEME STICK, AND HE DIDN'T REALLY KNOW WHAT IT WAS AND THE SUPREME COURT DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ANYTHING IN THE RECORD; AND THEY SAID THAT ALTHOUGH IN CALIFORNIA THERE IS A VERY LENGTHY HISTORY -- AND THEY CITED SEVERAL MUCH EARLIER CASES OF FORENSIC BLOOD TESTING OR PRESUMPTIVE BLOOD TESTING COMING IN -- THAT YOU HAD TO HAVE SOME EVIDENCE AS TO WHAT THE TEST WAS SO THAT THE COURT COULD DETERMINE WHETHER IT WAS ONE OF THE TESTS OR ONE OF THE NATURES -- NATURE OF TESTS THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN PREVIOUS CASES AND HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR A WHILE. SO I THINK THAT THE ISSUE IS PRETTY DISPOSITIVELY RESOLVED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY OUR SUPREME COURT.

THE COURT: WHAT'S THE CITE ON COLEMAN?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, AGAIN, AS I SAID, I DIDN'T BRING DOWN MY LEGAL NOTEBOOK BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY THAT WE WERE GOING TO ADDRESS THIS. PERHAPS I COULD CALL UP AND HAVE SOMEONE --

THE COURT: DO YOU ANTICIPATE GETTING TO THIS BOARD BY THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS -- BY THE CLOSE OF OUR SESSION THIS MORNING?

MR. GOLDBERG: I DON'T THINK I ANTICIPATE GETTING TO THIS BOARD BY THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS, YOUR HONOR, THIS MORNING. BUT I DO ANTICIPATE POSSIBLY DISCUSSING OTHER PHENOLPHTALEIN TESTS SUCH AS ON THE BRONCO. NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE DEFENSE HAS ANY OBJECTION TO THOSE. IN FACT, I THINK THAT WAS ALREADY ELICITED.

MR. NEUFELD: NO.

THE COURT: MY RECOLLECTION OF OUR LUMINAL TESTING IS THAT WE DID NOT DISCUSS PHTALEIN TESTING, PHENOLPHTALEIN TESTING. ALL RIGHT. MR. NEUFELD.

MR. NEUFELD: I'M SORRY. YOUR HONOR, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO A REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT PHENOLPHTALEIN TESTING WAS DONE. WE'RE OPPOSED TO THEM INTRODUCING ANY OF THE RESULTS OF THAT PHENOLPHTALEIN TESTING. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE HERE. TO SIMPLY SAY THAT THEY TESTED VARIOUS ITEMS, I MEAN THAT GOES WITHOUT SAYING. IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THEY DID. ONE OF THE -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE GENTLEMAN'S POINT ON THE ISSUE OF THE POWER OF THIS PRESUMPTIVE TEST. IT IS WIDELY KNOWN IN THE LITERATURE THAT THIS PARTICULAR TEST IS NO MORE POWERFUL OR SENSITIVE BECAUSE IT'S A TWO-STAGE TEST. THAT'S JUST THE NATURE OF THE TEST, THAT THE SECOND THANK YOU DO IS SUBJECT IT TO HYDROGEN PEROXIDE TO GET A REACTION. THERE IS LITERATURE THAT NOT ONLY TALKS ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF BACTERIA READILY SETTING OFF A POSITIVE RESULT, WHICH IS WHY MOST PRACTITIONERS WOULD NEVER DARE TO USE IT IN CONNECTION WITH A DRAIN; BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, YOUR HONOR, THERE IS ADDITIONAL LITERATURE THAT SUGGESTS THAT COPPER, COPPER PIPES FOR INSTANCE WILL GIVE YOU THAT SAME KIND OF POSITIVE HIT. IT'S VERY DIFFERENT TO USE A PHENOL TEST WITH DRAINS AND DRAIN PIPES THAN IT IS TO USE IT WITH THE WOODEN FLOOR FOR INSTANCE. HOWEVER, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT SAME RISK INVOLVED WHERE YOU SEE THE SMALL REDDISH SMEAR THAT YOU SEE IN NUMBER 14. WE DON'T HAVE THAT SITUATION HERE. MY RECOLLECTION WAS -- AND I'LL HAVE TO CHECK WITH THE TRANSCRIPT -- BUT THAT YOUR HONOR DID RULE ON THE PHENOL TEST AS WELL AS THE LUMINAL TEST. AND I MAY BE MISTAKEN ABOUT THAT, BUT THAT'S THE INFORMATION I HAD BEFORE I STOOD UP THIS MORNING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT DOES NOT COMPORT WITH MY RECOLLECTION. HOWEVER, MY RECOLLECTION COULD BE INACCURATE ON THAT. BUT SINCE MR. GOLDBERG INDICATES THAT HE WON'T GET TO THAT BY THE NOON HOUR, WE'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHECK. ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG, I'M GOING TO DIRECT YOU NOT TO USE THIS BOARD UNTIL WE HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESOLVE BOTH THE RECORD AND CHECKING THE COLEMAN CASE. AND, MRS. ROBERTSON, WOULD YOU ASK ONE OF THE LAW CLERKS TO LOCATE THE COLEMAN CASE FOR ME, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT.

MR. NEUFELD: YOUR HONOR, ALSO, WE WERE SHOWN ANOTHER BOARD DEALING WITH SEROLOGY RESULTS. AND NOT TO WASTE THE COURT'S TIME AT THIS POINT, IF MR. GOLDBERG CAN ASSURE US THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET TO THE SEROLOGY RESULT BOARD THIS MORNING, I CAN TAKE IT UP LATER ALSO. THERE ARE A VARIETY OF PROBLEMS WITH CERTAIN SPECIFIC RESULTS AND MORE BROADLY WITH THE FACT THAT HE INCLUDES IN THE BOARD INCONCLUSIVE RESULTS. AND SINCE I HAVE BEEN PRACTICING LAW, I'VE NEVER SEEN A SCIENTIST REPORT OUT RESULTS THAT HE OR SHE THEMSELVES DEEMED INCONCLUSIVE. IN FACT, EVEN IN THE REPORTS IN THIS CASE, TECHNICIANS SUCH AS YAMAUCHI, FOR INSTANCE, WILL SAY SINCE THE RESULTS WERE INCLUSIVE, I WILL NOT MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT THEM IN HIS REPORTS. YET ON THEIR BOARD, THEY'LL SAY THINGS LIKE INCONCLUSIVE AND THEN HAVE IN PARENTHESIS WHAT THE TENTATIVE RESULTS WERE, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT TENTATIVE RESULTS WHICH ARE INCONCLUSIVE TO THE TECHNICIAN SHOULD SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY IN THE COURTROOM IN FRONT OF THE JURY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG, WHICH BOARD IS THIS?

MR. GOLDBERG: THEY'RE BRINGING IT OUT NOW. IT'S THE SEROLOGY RESULTS BOARD. YOUR HONOR, ON THIS PARTICULAR BOARD, THE ONLY INCONCLUSIVE RESULTS THAT HAVE BEEN REPORTED, AS THE COURT CAN SEE, WITH ONE EXCEPTION ARE UNDER THE CATEGORY OF EAP OR THE ERYTHROCYTE ACID PHOSPHATASE. THE COURT MAY RECALL THAT IN MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT, HE CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS BLOOD UNDER OR SOME BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL UNDER THE NAILS OF NICOLE SIMPSON. THAT IS ITEM NUMBER 84 ON THIS BOARD, AND THAT IT WAS A EAP TYPE B, WHICH WAS INCONCLUSIVE WITH THE DEFENDANT WHO'S A BA. THE PROSECUTION'S POSITION IS GOING TO BE THAT WE WILL DEMONSTRATE IN A VARIETY OF WAYS, NOT ONLY WITH CONVENTIONAL SEROLOGY, BUT ALSO WITH DNA TESTING, IS THAT IN FACT WHAT WAS TESTED UNDERNEATH THE FINGERNAILS OF NICOLE WAS HER OWN BLOOD. IT CAN BE DONE IN A VARIETY OF WAYS, BUT PART OF THAT IS WHAT IS REPRESENTED ON THIS BOARD IN THE EAP CATEGORY. ERYTHROCYTE ACID PHOSPHATASE IS DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER GENETIC MARKERS THAT ARE USED IN THE CONVENTIONAL SYSTEMS IN THAT UNLIKE PGM SUBTYPE, IT INVOLVES NOT ONLY LOOKING AT THE BANDING PATTERN, BUT ALSO THE RELATIVE INTENSITY OF THE BANDS, WHICH MEANS THERE'S A LEVEL OF SUBJECTIVITY THAT'S INVOLVED IN INTERPRETING IT THAT'S NOT INVOLVED IN PGM SUBTYPE. THE QUESTION OF WHETHER SOMETHING IS INCONCLUSIVE OR NOT INCONCLUSIVE THEREFORE INVOLVES A QUESTION THAT IS SOMEWHAT SUBJECTIVE AND IT'S RESOLVED BY THE ANALYST. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO SHOW HERE AND WILL SHOW IS THAT THERE IS A SITUATION GOING ON AT THE CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY WHERE WE HAVE A NUMBER OF SPECIMENS THAT ARE IN STATES OF DEGRADATION WITH RESPECT TO THE EAP SYSTEM AND THAT WE CAN DEMONSTRATE CIRCUMSTANTIALLY THAT WHAT IS HAPPENING IS THAT THE EAP SUBTYPE IS DEGRADING FROM A BA TO A B, AND THIS BOARD DOES THAT ALMOST CONCLUSIVELY. THE SCIENCE ARTICLES INDICATE THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO OR ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COMMON SENSE WILL TELL YOU YOU CAN DO IS, YOU CAN LOOK AT A POOL OF BLOOD UNDER THE VICTIM OR BLOOD ON THE VICTIM'S CLOTHING WHICH YOU KNOW CIRCUMSTANTIALLY HAS TO BE HERS; AND IF YOU CAN SEE EVIDENCE OF DEGRADATION IN THAT SAMPLE IN THE EAP SYSTEM, IT GIVES YOU A VERY CLEAR INDICATION OF WHAT WOULD BE GOING ON WITH OTHER BLOOD OF THE VICTIMS SUCH AS UNDERNEATH HER FINGERNAILS. SO WE SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, ON THIS BOARD THAT ITEM 42, WHICH IS BLOOD UNDERNEATH NICOLE, IS AN INCONCLUSIVE B. WELL, WE KNOW THAT'S HERS. IT'S HER BLOOD. SO THIS PROVIDES VERY POWERFUL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO THE DEFENDANT'S -- AS TO THE PEOPLE'S POSITION THAT WHAT WE HAVE UNDER THE FINGERNAILS IS IN FACT DEGRADED BLOOD OF THE VICTIM. THIS IS A LEGITIMATE THING TO DO. IT'S LEGITIMATE CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL INFERENCES FOR A JURY TO CONSIDER AND IT'S LEGITIMATE SCIENTIFICALLY FOR OUR EXPERTS TO CONSIDER THIS. I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THERE'S NOT A SINGLE INSTANCE HERE WHERE AN INCONCLUSIVE RESULT IS BEING REPORTED THAT INCULPATES THE DEFENDANT. IN OTHER WORDS, WE DON'T HAVE ANY REPORTS OF INCONCLUSIVE RESULTS WHICH ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE DEFENDANT'S EAP TYPE AND PGM SUBTYPE, WHICH IS A BA AND ITS PGM SUBTYPE IS A TWO PLUS, TWO MINUS. SO IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE NOT USING ANY INCONCLUSIVE RESULTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING THAT HIS BLOOD IS AT THE SCENE. WE'RE USING IT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING THAT NICOLE'S BLOOD IS UNDER HER FINGERNAILS AND IT'S COMPLETELY UNOBJECTIONABLE. I FIND --

THE COURT: WHAT IF I ALLOW TENTATIVE RESULTS?

MR. GOLDBERG: WHAT?

THE COURT: WELL, YOU SAY THESE ARE INCONCLUSIVE, BUT INDICATING, INDICATIVE OF.

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, NO. INC STANDS FOR INCONCLUSIVE. WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT WHEN THE ANALYST LOOKS AT THE PGM SUBTYPE PLATE OR THE EAP PLATE, IT'S A GEL, AND THERE'S A CERTAIN BANDING PATTERN THAT RESULTS -- THAT HE IS NOT COMFORTABLE ENOUGH WITH THAT SUBJECTIVELY TO SAY IN FACT IT IS A B, IN FACT, IT IS A BA. WHAT HE IS SAYING IS, THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, BUT I'M NOT COMFORTABLE ENOUGH TO MAKE THAT CALL WITH CERTAINTY." WHAT HE WILL BE ABLE TO SAY IS, HE WILL BE ABLE TO SAY THAT BASED UPON A VARIETY OF RESULTS -- AND I'M NOT TELLING IT TO THE COURT IN AS MUCH DETAIL AS WILL BE PRESENTED. I -- HOPEFULLY, I WON'T NEED TO FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS LEGAL ARGUMENT. WHAT HE WILL BE ABLE TO SAY IS THAT BASED UPON THE COMBINATION OF WHAT HE SEES HAPPENING WITH THE EAP RESULTS AT THIS SCENE, THAT THERE IS VERY POWERFUL CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE EAP RESULTS UNDER NICOLE'S FINGERNAILS IN FACT IS LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN OR MAY HAVE BEEN A BA THAT DEGRADED INTO A B; AND WHEN THE JURY SEES IT, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO COME TO THAT CONCLUSION ON THEIR OWN EVEN WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF EXPERT TESTIMONY. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS BOARD DOES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, MAY I RESPOND ON PART OF THAT --

THE COURT: NO. MR. NEUFELD.

MR. NEUFELD: YOUR HONOR, ONE SECOND. HE IS MISSING A FUNDAMENTAL POINT HERE, AND THE FUNDAMENTAL POINT IS THAT SCIENTISTS DO NOT MAKE A HABIT, IN FACT THEY NEVER REPORT OUT IN A COURT OF LAW -- AND I'M SURE THIS IS YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE AS WELL -- ON RESULTS THAT THEY DON'T -- THAT THEY CAN'T STAND BEHIND PERIOD. WHETHER IT'S TO SOME DEGREE OF REASONABLE SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY OR SOME OTHER COMPARABLE STANDARD, THEY DON'T REPORT OUT ITEMS WHICH TO THEMSELVES ARE INCONCLUSIVE. IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF EVEN BEING TENTATIVE. LET ME GIVE YOU JUST AS AN EXAMPLE --

THE COURT: WELL, MR. NEUFELD, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE SPECIFIC HERE. DON'T WE HAVE A PROBLEM CREATED BY THE FACT THAT IN THE DEFENSE OPENING ARGUMENT, THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF EVIDENCE WAS ARGUED TO BE SOMETHING AND THEN AN EXCERPT OF A POLICE REPORT OR THE CRIMINALIST REPORT IS PUT UP AND DISPLAYED TO THE JURY AND PURPORTED TO HAVE A CERTAIN RESULT INCONSISTENT WITH THE PARTIES HERE WHEREAS THE ACTUAL TESTING INDICATES SOMETHING THAT'S DIFFERENT.

MR. NEUFELD: NO, IT DOESN'T. IT DOESN'T, YOUR HONOR. THAT'S THE POINT. HERE, FOR INSTANCE, IS THE ANALYZED EVIDENCE REPORT IN THIS CASE. AND YOU CAN JUST TAKE A LOOK AT IT. WHAT'S THE PROPER --

THE COURT: NO. I'VE SEEN IT.

MR. NEUFELD: OKAY. AND WHAT IT SAYS IS THAT THE SEROLOGISTS THEMSELVES CALL THE BLOOD SCRAPINGS UNDERNEATH HER FINGERNAILS A B. NOT AN INCONCLUSIVE, NOT A TENTATIVE. A B. WHEREAS ALL THESE OTHER ITEMS, THEY DIDN'T CALL AT ALL. AND THEY SAID, "WE WILL NOT MAKE A STATEMENT ON THEM BECAUSE IN OUR OPINION, THEY ARE INCONCLUSIVE." SO THERE'S A VERY SIGNIFICANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE SEROLOGISTS' PROFESSIONAL APPROACH TO CALLING THE BLOOD SCRAPINGS BENEATH HER FINGERNAILS AS A B AND ALL THESE OTHER CHARACTERIZATIONS WHICH ARE INCONCLUSIVE AND FOR WHICH THE SEROLOGISTS DID NOT WANT TO MAKE ANY CALL AT ALL.

THE COURT: BUT SHOULDN'T THE JURY KNOW THAT THESE ITEMS WERE TESTED AND THE RESULTS OF THESE ARE INCONCLUSIVE? ISN'T THE JURY ENTITLED TO KNOW THAT?

MR. NEUFELD: OH, THE JURY IS ENTITLED TO KNOW THAT THEY'RE INCONCLUSIVE. I'M NOT DISPUTING THAT. THEY CAN JUST SAY INCONCLUSIVE. OUR DISPUTE, YOUR HONOR, IS THE SUGGESTION THEY WERE INCONCLUSIVE, BUT LOOKS LIKE AN A, INCONCLUSIVE BUT LOOKS LIKE A B, INCONCLUSIVE BUT LOOKS LIKE A BA AS REFLECTED ON THAT BOARD. THE FACT THAT THE EXAMINER SAID IT'S INCONCLUSIVE MEANS THAT HE OR SHE IS NOT WILLING TO REPORT OUT THE ACTUAL RESULT OTHER THAN TO SAY IT'S INCONCLUSIVE. THAT'S HOW SCIENTISTS WORK, THAT'S HOW TECHNICIANS WORK, AND THIS DOCUMENT BELIES THAT PROFESSIONAL APPROACH WHICH IS USED NATIONWIDE BY ALL TECHNICIANS AND SCIENTISTS WHO DO THIS EXACT KIND OF TESTING. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. IN FACT, IN THE ACTUAL REPORT HERE, THEY DON'T SAY IT LOOKS A LITTLE BIT LIKE A B OR IT LOOKS A LITTLE BIT LIKE AN AB ON THE INCONCLUSIVES. THEY GIVE NO ANSWER. THEY JUST SAY INCONCLUSIVE, WHEREAS FOR THE TYPING OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S FINGERNAILS, THEY SAY SPECIFICALLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY AT THIS POINT IN THIS STATEMENT IT'S A B. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. SO I HAVE -- WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEM SIMPLY SAYING INCONCLUSIVE. THE PROBLEM IS THEM TRYING TO HOOK THE INCONCLUSIVE WITH THE TENTATIVE RESULT WHEN THE SCIENTISTS THEMSELVES WOULD NEVER DO THAT AND DON'T DO THAT.

THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG.

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, THE -- WELL, SEE, THEY WANT TO TRY TO STRUCTURE WHAT MR. MATHESON'S OPINION IS GOING TO BE AND WHAT HE BASES THAT OPINION ON. THAT'S FOR THE EXPERT TO DECIDE. THAT'S NOT REALLY A LEGAL ISSUE. IT IS A SCIENTIFIC ONE. WHAT THEY WANT -- WHY ARE THEY SO UPSET ABOUT THIS? BECAUSE THIS ALMOST CONCLUSIVELY PROVES THAT OUR THEORY IS RIGHT AND THEIRS IS WRONG BECAUSE THE MERE FACT THAT THESE ARE INCONCLUSIVE B'S OR BA'S SHOWS THAT THERE'S DEGRADATION, WHICH IS THE VERY THING THAT WE WANT TO SHOW. SO SAYING IT'S INCONCLUSIVE, THAT DOESN'T SHOW ANYTHING. IT DOESN'T DEMONSTRATE --

THE COURT: WHEN DO YOU PLAN ON USING THIS?

MR. GOLDBERG: WHAT?

THE COURT: WHEN DO YOU PLAN ON USING THIS BOARD?

MR. GOLDBERG: THIS WILL BE USED WITH MR. MATHESON WHICH WILL BE TOWARDS THE VERY TAIL END OF MY PORTION OF THE EVIDENCE THAT I'M PRESENTING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'LL THINK ABOUT THIS ONE THEN.

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, COULD I FINISH?

THE COURT: WE'RE NOT EVEN GOING TO GET TO MR. FUNG -- THROUGH MR. FUNG THIS WEEK I SUSPECT.

MR. NEUFELD: MR. MATHESON.

THE COURT: WHO'S FIRST?

MR. GOLDBERG: MR. FUNG. WELL, I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE THEY'VE NEVER GIVEN ME CLEAR INDICATION OF OF HOW LONG THEY FEEL IT'S GOING TO TAKE ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. BUT OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD LIKE THE PROBLEM RESOLVED, YOUR HONOR, AND WE FEEL VERY, VERY STRONGLY ABOUT THIS BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO GIVE MISS CLARK THE OPPORTUNITY IN HER CLOSING ARGUMENT TO STAND BEFORE THE JURY AND SAY, LOOK, WE CAN SHOW YOU WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE SCENE AND WE CAN SHOW YOU THAT THE BLOOD UNDER HER FINGERNAILS DEGRADED. IT'S THE ONLY COMMON SENSE, LOGICAL EXPLANATION.

THE COURT: MY INCLINATION, MR. GOLDBERG, IS TO WAIT UNTIL I HEAR MR. MATHESON'S TESTIMONY.

MR. GOLDBERG: IN A PRETRIAL TYPE, OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY?

THE COURT: RIGHT. DO YOU INTEND ON USING THIS IN FRONT OF THE JURY?

MR. GOLDBERG: WITH MR. MATHESON ONLY.

THE COURT: YES.

MR. GOLDBERG: WITH MR. MATHESON ONLY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S PROCEED WITH MR. FUNG, I UNDERSTAND IS YOUR NEXT WITNESS.

MR. NEUFELD: FINALLY, YOUR HONOR, THE ONLY OTHER OBJECTION WE HAVE AT THIS TIME ON THE BOARDS IS, THERE'S A SERIES OF BOARDS WHICH TRY AND REFLECT THE MOVEMENT OF CERTAIN ITEMS OF EVIDENCE BEGINNING ON JUNE 13TH RIGHT THROUGH AUGUST, SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER. AND IT WOULD BE OUR OBJECTION TO DISPLAYING THE BOARD TO THE JURY OR AT LEAST ADMITTING THOSE PORTIONS OF THE BOARD UNTIL A PROPER FOUNDATION IS LAID BY THE PROSECUTOR. IN OTHER WORDS, IF MR. FUNG CAN ONLY TESTIFY ABOUT THE HANDLING OF EVIDENCE ON JUNE 13TH AND JUNE 14TH, THEN THE REST OF THE BOARD WHICH TALKS ABOUT THOSE ITEMS THAT HE COLLECTED BEING SENT OFF IN AUGUST, SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER OR WHENEVER OF THE LABORATORIES, THAT THAT SHOULD NOT BE ON THE BOARD WHEN IT'S SHOWN TO THE JURY AT THAT TIME.

THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG.

MR. GOLDBERG: I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE LEGAL BASIS OF THE OBJECTION. IS THIS LIKE THE PEEKABOO RULE IN THE EVIDENCE CODE? YOUR HONOR, PERHAPS WE CAN SHOW THE COURT THE BOARD THAT COUNSEL IS REFERRING TO. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT IS REMOTELY PREJUDICIAL OR FOR THAT MATTER, EVEN TERRIBLY INTERESTING ABOUT THESE BOARDS. IT IS SIMPLY A WAY OF BEING ABLE TO ESTABLISH SOMETHING THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE EXTREMELY TEDIOUS, BORING AND TIME-CONSUMING AND THIS WAY IS ONLY GOING TO BE SLIGHTLY TEDIOUS, BORING AND TIME-CONSUMING; AND THAT IS WHEN THE EVIDENCE CAME IN AND WHEN IT WENT OUT. AND WE JUST HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS TO DEPICT ALL THE EVIDENCE INDICATING ITS ORIGINAL PACKAGING, WHEN IT WAS RECEIVED AND THE TRANSMITTAL ENVELOPES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'M LOOKING AT A LARGE DISPLAY BOARD ENTITLED "LAPD EVIDENCE DISPOSITION SUMMARY."

MR. GOLDBERG: THIS BOARD IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE TESTIFIED TO IN PART BY A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WITNESSES INCLUDING MR. FUNG AND MISS MAZZOLA WOULD BE TESTIFYING MOSTLY TO THE ITEMS OR EXCLUSIVELY TO ITEMS IN THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THE COLUMN NEXT TO THEIR NAMES. THEN MR. MATHESON WOULD BE TESTIFYING TO CERTAIN ITEMS. MR. YAMAUCHI WOULD BE TESTIFYING TO MOSTLY TO ITEMS IN THE CELLMARK, DOJ AND FBI COLUMNS, WHICH WERE THE ONES THAT HE PREPARED, AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY WHEN THE WITNESSES COME IN FROM THOSE LABORATORIES, THEY WILL BE TESTIFYING OFF -- IT'S JUST THIS SORT OF A BOARD THAT IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE FOUNDATION FOR -- THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE TO DO IT. BUT I SEE NO REASON TO COVER UP THOSE PARTS THAT PERTAIN ONLY TO THE WITNESS THAT IS TESTIFYING AT THE GIVEN TIME WHILE WE DO IT. THE JURY CAN'T EVEN SEE WHAT'S ON THE OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS.

MR. NEUFELD: MR. GOLDBERG IS SUGGESTING THERE'S A TEDIOUS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE. ALL WE ARE SIMPLY SAYING IS THAT UNDER THE LAWS OF CALIFORNIA, ONE HAS TO LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION BEFORE EVIDENCE CAN BE INTRODUCED AND EXHIBITED TO THE JURY. AND OBVIOUSLY, MR. FUNG AND MISS MAZZOLA ARE NOT THE WITNESSES WHO CAN LAY THE PROPER FOUNDATION SUGGESTING THIS CONTINUAL CHAIN OF CERTAIN ITEMS TO THESE OTHER LABORATORIES. AS YOUR HONOR IS WELL AWARE, THE DEFENSE IS GOING TO VIGOROUSLY CHALLENGE THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN THIS CASE, HAS SO IN PRIOR PROCEEDINGS AND WILL CONTINUE TO DURING THIS TRIAL. AND THIS EXHIBIT MAKES IT ALL SEEM LIKE IT HAPPENED IN A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD FASHION, BUT OBVIOUSLY THE INITIAL WITNESSES ARE NOT COMPETENT TO TESTIFY TO THE SUBSEQUENT CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN TRANSFER OF VARIOUS ITEMS AT A TIME AND PLACE WHERE THEY WEREN'T INVOLVED.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED AT THIS TIME. PROSECUTION CAN USE THIS EXHIBIT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WILL BE A MOTION TO STRIKE IF THEY DON'T TIE IT ALL UP AT THE END OF -- CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, CAN WE ADDRESS ONE MORE ISSUE UNLESS COUNSEL HAS OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE BOARDS?

THE COURT: NO. HE SAT DOWN, SO I ASSUME THAT MEANS NO.

MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY.

THE COURT: AND ALSO, BEFORE WE START WITH THIS NEW PHASE, MR. SHAPIRO AND MISS CLARK, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU INTRODUCE OR REINTRODUCE TO THE JURY THE NEW MEMBERS OF THE TEAMS SO TO SPEAK SITTING AT COUNSEL TABLE SO THAT THEY KNOW WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEIR PURPOSE IS FOR BEING HERE.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG.

MR. GOLDBERG: THANK YOU. ONE OF THE WITNESSES THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE CALLING IS COLIN YAMAUCHI WHO DID SOME TESTING IN THIS CASE ON THE 14TH AND 15TH AND ALSO SOME CONVENTIONAL TESTING LATER IN JUNE, AND IN ADDITION, IS ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY THE WITNESS THAT WILL TESTIFY TO THE BULK OF THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN TERMS OF PACKAGING ITEMS FOR THE PURPOSES OF BEING SHIPPED OUT TO CERTAIN OTHER -- CERTAIN LABORATORIES WITH ONLY A FEW EXCEPTIONS. WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS, WE WOULD LIKE TO DIVIDE HIS TESTIMONY UP, AS I'VE DISCUSSED WITH COUNSEL ON FRIDAY, INTO TWO PARTS AND CALL HIM ONCE DURING THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY PORTION OF THE CASE AND THEN AGAIN LATER ON TO DISCUSS HIS DNA RESULTS THAT OCCURRED ON THE 14TH AND 15TH. THE WAY THAT I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WORKING, AND I DISCUSSED THIS PROPOSAL WITH COUNSEL, WAS, MR. YAMAUCHI WOULD TESTIFY THAT ON THE 14TH OF JUNE, HE WENT INTO THE EVIDENCE CONTROL UNIT -- EXCUSE ME -- THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM WHERE THE EVIDENCE WAS LOCATED AND HE TOOK CERTAIN SAMPLINGS OF THAT EVIDENCE AND THEN TOOK THAT EVIDENCE TO THE SEROLOGY LABORATORY TO BEGIN HIS ANALYSIS. HIS DIRECT EXAMINATION WOULD EFFECTIVELY THEN END AT THAT POINT AND THEN SKIP TO THE 15TH WHEN HE TOOK AN ADDITIONAL SET OF SAMPLES, DESCRIBED HOW HE SAMPLED THEM, WALKED THEM UP TO THE LABORATORY DOOR IN EFFECT AND THEN SKIP OVER TO THE NEXT RELEVANT POINT IN HIS TESTIMONY WITH THOSE TWO SPOTS, THE BLANK SPOTS SO TO SPEAK INVOLVING THE ACTUAL TESTING TO BE PRESENTED LATER. SO WE WOULD ASK THE COURT'S PERMISSION TO ALLOW US TO DO THAT. I'M NOT SURE WHETHER COUNSEL OBJECTS TO THAT. AND IF THE COURT IS INCLINED TO ALLOW US TO DO THAT, AND I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY THE COURT WOULDN'T BE, THERE IS ANOTHER ISSUE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER A CERTAIN --

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS WHEN WE HAVE MR. YAMAUCHI TESTIFY. I'VE HAD THE JURY SITTING BACK HERE NOW FOR ALMOST TWO HOURS AND THIS IS SOMETHING WE DON'T NEED TO DECIDE RIGHT NOW.

MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS.

MR. HARMON: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS -- 15 SECONDS, IF I COULD.

THE COURT: DOES IT HAVE TO DO WITH MR. FUNG?

MR. HARMON: NO. YOUR HONOR. NO? SAVE ME A MINUTE THIS AFTERNOON.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE'VE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: MY APOLOGIES TO YOU FOR HAVING KEPT YOU SO LONG. AS I INDICATED TO YOU LAST WEEK, WE ARE GOING TO NOW CHANGE THE FOCUS OF THE CASE TO THE ACTUAL COLLECTION AND TESTING OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE. AND I INDICATED TO YOU THERE WERE A NUMBER OF PRELIMINARY ISSUES THAT I HAD TO DETERMINE TO SEE WHAT EVIDENCE WAS GOING TO BE PRESENTED TO YOU, AND JUST FOR AN EXAMPLE, THIS MORNING, I'VE TAKEN SIX PAGES OF NOTES JUST ON THE HEARINGS THAT WE'VE HAD TODAY. SO WE'VE BEEN HARD AT WORK SINCE 8:30 THIS MORNING AND I JUST WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT WE KNOW THAT YOU'RE BACK THERE WAITING FOR US. WE HAVE SOME NEW ATTORNEYS PRESENT IN THE COURTROOM FOR THIS PHASE OF THE TRIAL. AND, MISS CLARK, LET ME START WITH YOU. DO YOU WISH TO INTRODUCE THE MEMBERS OF YOUR TEAM WHO WILL BE PRESENTING THIS EVIDENCE?

MS. CLARK: YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

MS. CLARK: I'VE INTRODUCED THESE MEMBERS OF THE TEAM AT THE TIME OF OUR OPENING STATEMENT, BUT IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE THEN. YOU'VE PROBABLY FORGOTTEN. THIS IS MR. HANK GOLDBERG.

MR. GOLDBERG: GOOD MORNING.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

MS. CLARK: AND THIS IS MR. WOODY CLARKE.

MR. CLARKE: GOOD MORNING.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

MS. CLARK: AND THIS IS MR. ROCK HARMON.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

MS. CLARK: THESE GENTLEMEN WILL BE PRESENTING THE EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, THE COLLECTION OF IT AND THE ANALYSIS OF IT BOTH FOR CONVENTIONAL SEROLOGY AND FOR THE ANALYSIS OF DNA.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, MISS CLARK. MR. SHAPIRO.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

MR. SHAPIRO: WE HAVE THREE LAWYERS WHO WILL BE ASSISTING US IN THIS PHASE OF THE EVIDENCE, MR. PETER NEUFELD, WHO HAS BEEN WITH US SINCE THE BEGINNING BUT IS MAKING HIS FIRST APPEARANCE BEFORE THE JURY.

MR. NEUFELD: GOOD MORNING.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

MR. SHAPIRO: MR. BARRY SCHECK, WHO HAS ALSO BEEN WITH US FROM THE BEGINNING AND MAKING HIS FIRST APPEARANCE HERE.

MR. SCHECK: GOOD MORNING.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

MR. SHAPIRO: AND MR. ROBERT BLASIER WHO HAS BEEN A MEMBER OF OUR TEAM AND WILL BE AIDING IN THE PRESENCE OF EVIDENCE AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES.

MR. BLASIER: GOOD MORNING.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PEOPLE'S NEXT WITNESS.

MR. GOLDBERG: PEOPLE CALL DENNIS FUNG TO THE STAND.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DENNIS FUNG, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PEOPLE, WAS SWORN AND TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

THE CLERK: RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE. YOU DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU MAY GIVE IN THE CAUSE NOW PENDING BEFORE THIS COURT, SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD?

THE WITNESS: I DO.

THE CLERK: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT ON THE WITNESS STAND AND STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD.

THE WITNESS: MY NAME IS DENNIS FUNG, D-E-N-N-I-S F-U-N-G.

THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG.

MR. GOLDBERG: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG:

Q: GOOD MORNING, MR. FUNG. WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION AND YOUR ASSIGNMENT?

A: I AM A CRIMINALIST EMPLOYED BY THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT. I'M ASSIGNED TO THE FIREARMS ANALYSIS UNIT OF THE SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION DIVISION.

Q: AND THAT'S FOR THE LAPD?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WERE YOU SO EMPLOYED ON JUNE THE 13TH OF 1994?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: SIR, ON JUNE THE 13TH OF 1994, WERE YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR COLLECTING CERTAIN EVIDENCE AT 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM AND 875 BUNDY IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES?

A: YES.

Q: AND LATER ON JUNE THE 14TH, WERE YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR COLLECTING CERTAIN EVIDENCE IN A BRONCO THAT HAD BEEN IMPOUNDED FROM THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, BEFORE GETTING INTO THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE. FIRST OF ALL, YOU SAID YOU WERE A CRIMINALIST?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT IS A CRIMINALIST, SIR?

A: A CRIMINALIST IS SOMEBODY WHO EMPLOYS THE PRINCIPLES OF THE NATURAL AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES TO IDENTIFY, DOCUMENT, PRESERVE AND ANALYZE EVIDENCE THAT IS RELATED TO A CRIME. HE LATER TESTIFIES TO HIS FINDINGS IN A COURT OF LAW.

Q: AND IS A CRIMINALIST SOMEONE THAT IS INVOLVED IN THE AREA OF FORENSIC SCIENCES?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT DOES THAT TERM "FORENSIC SCIENCES" INCLUDE?

A: THE FORENSICS OR FORENSIC SCIENCES IS THE DISCIPLINE THAT EMPLOYS OR USES NATURAL AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES SUCH AS CHEMISTRY, BIOLOGY, PHYSICS AND JUST ABOUT ANY OTHER SCIENCE YOU CAN THINK OF TO DETERMINE ISSUES RELATED TO A COURT OF LAW.

Q: SO IT'S BASICALLY A BROAD GROUP OF DIFFERENT KIND OF SCIENCES THAT ARE BROUGHT TO BEAR TO RESOLVE ISSUES REGARDING EVIDENCE IN A COURTROOM?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IN ORDER TO BECOME A CRIMINALIST, DID YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME FORMAL EDUCATION?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WHERE -- WHERE DID THAT TAKE PLACE?

A: I RECEIVED A BACHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN CRIMINALISTICS FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY AT LONG BEACH.

Q: SO IT'S A FOUR-YEAR DEGREE?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: OKAY. AND DID YOU RECEIVE ANY OTHER BACHELOR'S DEGREE AT THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH?

A: YES, I DID. I ALSO RECEIVED A BACHELOR OF ARTS DEGREE IN CHEMISTRY FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY AT LONG BEACH.

Q: AND WHEN WAS THAT?

A: THAT WAS IN 1985.

Q: WHEN YOU WERE GOING THROUGH COLLEGE, PARTICULARLY DURING THE CRIMES -- THE CRIMINALISTICS PORTION OF YOUR FORMAL EDUCATION, DID YOU PROCESS MOCK CRIME SCENES?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHILE YOU WERE GOING TO COLLEGE, DID YOU HAVE ANY INTERNSHIP THAT YOU WENT THROUGH?

A: YES. I DID AN INTERNSHIP AT THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE CRIME LAB.

Q: APPROXIMATELY WHEN WAS THAT?

A: THAT WAS APPROXIMATELY SEPTEMBER OF 1982 TO DECEMBER OF 1982.

Q: OKAY. AND DID THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT IN ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOY CRIMINALISTS?

A: YES, THEY DID.

Q: DID YOU EVER HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY WHEN YOU WERE INTERNING WITH THEM TO GO OUT TO CRIME SCENES AND SEE THE WAY CRIME SCENES WERE PROCESSED?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN YOU WENT OUT TO CRIME SCENES THAT WERE PROCESSED BY THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT IN ORANGE COUNTY, WERE THEY PROCESSED BY CRIMINALISTS OR DID THEY USE SOME OTHER CATEGORY OF PERSONNEL?

A: THEIR CRIME SCENES THAT WERE NOT HOMICIDES WERE PROCESSED BY FORENSIC SPECIALISTS.

Q: OKAY. IS THAT WHAT THEY CALLED THEM?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT IS A FORENSIC SPECIALIST?

A: A FORENSIC SPECIALIST IS SOMEBODY WHO GOES OUT TO CRIME SCENES AND TAKES PHOTOGRAPHS AND COLLECTS EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS THE EVIDENCE ALSO.

Q: DO THEY HAVE THE SAME FORMAL EDUCATION THAT YOU HAVE IN ORDER TO BECOME A CRIMINALIST?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE THE REQUIREMENTS ARE THE SAME, NO.

Q: OKAY. IS THERE ANY SIMILAR CATEGORY OF PERSON THAT'S EMPLOYED BY THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. SO LAPD IS USING CRIMINALISTS AT THEIR CRIME SCENES?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, WITHIN THE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY HERE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ARE THERE ALSO PEOPLE THAT ARE CALLED EVIDENCE TECHNICIANS?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT ARE THEY?

A: EVIDENCE TECHNICIANS ARE PEOPLE WHO WILL GO OUT TO CRIME SCENES AND COLLECT EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENT THE EVIDENCE ALSO.

Q: OKAY. WHEN YOU WERE ORANGE COUNTY, DID YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE CRIMINALISTS WORKING IN THE LABORATORY SETTING?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU JUST DIDN'T SEE THEM WORKING IN THE FIELD?

A: THAT'S CORRECT. YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, IN ADDITION TO THE FORMAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING THAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED, HAVE YOU ALSO CONTINUED TO TAKE COURSES RELATED TO THE FIELD OF CRIMINALISTICS SINCE YOU GRADUATED?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: OKAY. AND HAVE YOU TAKEN SEMINARS BY THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF FORENSIC SCIENCES?

A: YES.

Q: AND BY THE -- WHAT IS THAT?

A: THE ACADEMY -- AMERICAN ACADEMY OF FORENSIC SCIENCES IS A PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION OF FORENSIC SCIENCES. THEY DEAL SPECIFICALLY WITH TOPICS RELATED TO MY FIELD.

Q: OKAY. AND HAVE YOU ALSO TAKEN COURSES THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINALISTS?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT IS THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINALISTS?

A: THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINALISTS IS ANOTHER PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION DEALING WITH FORENSIC SCIENCES.

Q: DO YOU HAVE THE CURRICULA VITAE THAT SUMMARIZES YOUR FORMAL EDUCATION AND SOME OF THE COURSES THAT YOU'VE TAKEN SINCE YOU GRADUATED?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: AND DO YOU HAVE MEMORIZED ALL THE COURSES YOU TOOK AND WHEN YOU TOOK THEM OR WOULD YOU NEED TO REFER TO THAT TO GIVE US SOME MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION?

A: I WOULD HAVE TO REFER TO THEM.

Q: CAN YOU PLEASE DO SO?

A: YES (WITNESS COMPLIES).

Q: SIR, HAVE YOU TAKEN QUITE A FEW COURSES SINCE YOU GRADUATED IN THE AREA OF CRIMINALISTICS?

A: YES.

Q: I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU ABOUT JUST SELECTED COURSES FROM YOUR CURRICULA VITAE AND HAVE YOU GIVE A LITTLE INFORMATION ABOUT THESE, THE ONES THAT ARE RELEVANT TO CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION. IN 1985, DID YOU TAKE A COURSE IN BLOOD SPATTER INTERPRETATION AT LAPD?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THAT?

A: THAT INVOLVED THE RECOGNITION OF DIFFERENT BLOOD PATTERN INTERPRETATION THAT WE MIGHT FIND OUT AT CRIME SCENES.

Q: LIKE BLOOD DROPS AND BLOOD SPATTERS AND THE LIKE?

A: YES.

Q: AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO CRIMINALISTS LOOK AT THAT KIND OF INFORMATION?

A: CRIMINALISTS WOULD -- A CRIMINALIST WOULD LOOK AT THAT TYPE OF INFORMATION TO DETERMINE THE DIRECTION FROM WHICH A BLOOD WAS TRAVELING OR WHETHER IT WAS MADE BY A GUNSHOT OR MAYBE A SMALLER OR -- EXCUSE ME -- A GUNSHOT OR WAS MADE BY AN OBJECT SWIMMING AND HAVING THE BLOOD FALL OFF OF THAT OBJECT.

Q: OKAY. AND IN FEBRUARY OF 1985, DID YOU TAKE A COURSE IN FORENSIC MICROSCOPY?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHAT WAS THAT COURSE ABOUT?

A: THAT COURSE DEALT WITH THE TRACE OR TRACE EVIDENCE SUCH AS FIBERS AND MINERALS AND EXPLOSIVES.

Q: OKAY. AND WHAT'S TRACE EVIDENCE?

A: TRACE EVIDENCE IS SMALL PARTICLES OF EVIDENCE SUCH AS HAIR, FIBER, SOIL AND GLASS, THAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE.

Q: WHAT PURPOSE DO CRIMINALISTS LOOK AT TRACE EVIDENCE? IS IT -- ARE YOU COMPARING IT TO SOMETHING, KNOWNS TO UNKNOWNS OR --

A: YES. IT'S COMPARING KNOWNS TO UNKNOWNS OR IDENTIFYING WHAT SOMETHING IS IN CERTAIN OTHER CASES.

Q: OKAY. AND THEN IN 1989, YOU TOOK AN ADVANCED COURSE IN FORENSIC MICROSCOPY; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: SO THAT WOULD BE A CONTINUATION OF WHAT WE'VE JUST -- WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED IN TERMS OF LEARNING ABOUT TRACE EVIDENCE?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND THESE KINDS OF COURSES, THE TWO COURSES IN FORENSIC MICROSCOPY, HOW DO THOSE EQUATE WITH THE COLLEGE LEVEL CRIMINALISTICS COURSE?

A: THEY'RE JUST AS RIGOROUS.

Q: SO HOW MANY UNIT EQUIVALENT WOULD YOU SAY, IF YOU CAN GIVE US THAT KIND OF INFORMATION, WOULD THESE COURSES BE TO THE ONES THAT YOU TOOK AT CAL STATE LONG BEACH?

A: FOUR-UNIT CLASS.

Q: HOW MANY?

A: FOUR-UNIT CLASS.

Q: OKAY. AND IN 1987, YOU TOOK A COURSE IN FOOTWEAR IDENTIFICATION?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT WAS THAT COURSE ABOUT?

A: THAT WAS A COURSE TO IDENTIFY SHOEPRINT IMPRESSIONS TO A KNOWN SOURCE. IF -- FOR INSTANCE, IF I HAD A SHOEPRINT AT A CRIME SCENE AND A KNOWN SHOE OR AN UNKNOWN SHOE THAT CAME INTO THE LAB, I WOULD BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THAT SHOE AS HAVING MADE THAT SHOEPRINT.

Q: OR BEING CONSISTENT WITH IT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU ALSO TOOK SOME SEMINARS WITH THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF FORENSIC SCIENCES. ONE OF THOSE WAS IN 1991; IS THAT TRUE?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID THAT PARTICULAR SEMINAR DISCUSS TO YOUR RECOLLECTION CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IN 1990, YOU TOOK A SEMINAR AT THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINALISTS?

A: YES.

Q: DID THAT DISCUSS ANY ASPECT OF CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION TO YOUR RECALL?

A: YES, IT DID.

Q: DO YOU REMEMBER AT ALL WHAT WAS DISCUSSED THERE?

A: IN THE 1991?

Q: 1990.

A: 1990? I BELIEVE THAT WAS ONE THAT WAS INVOLVED WITH THE NIGHT STALKER CASE. THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT THAT SEMINAR.

Q: OKAY. AND THEN IN '88, YOU ALSO ATTENDED A CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINALISTS MEETING?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID THAT DISCUSS CRIME SCENE PROCESSING THAT YOU RECALL?

A: YES, IT DID.

Q: NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER MEETINGS THAT YOU ALSO ATTENDED OF EITHER THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OR THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINALISTS THAT WE DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY MENTION BUT THAT ARE LISTED ON YOUR CURRICULA VITAE, DO YOU RECALL ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WHETHER THEY DISCUSSED CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION PARTICULARLY?

A: NO. I DON'T RECALL ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

Q: WHAT KINDS OF THINGS IN GENERAL ARE DISCUSSED AT THESE MEETINGS IN THE SEMINAR PORTIONS?

A: IN THE SEMINARS, ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF EVIDENCE ARE DISCUSSED AS WELL AS LEGAL ISSUES AND SOMETIMES CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION IS ALSO DISCUSSED.

Q: OKAY. AND ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINALISTS?

A: YES, I AM.

Q: AND WHEN DID YOU BECOME A MEMBER?

A: I BECAME A MEMBER IN LATE 1984.

Q: ARE YOU A MEMBER OF ANY OTHER PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS?

A: YES, I AM.

Q: WHICH ONE OR ONES?

A: I AM A MEMBER OF THE ASSOCIATION OF FIREARM AND TOOL MARK EXAMINERS.

Q: HOW MANY YEARS HAVE YOU BEEN A MEMBER OF THAT?

A: SINCE 1992.

Q: NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS SOME OF YOUR ON-THE-JOB EXPERIENCE AT LAPD. FIRST OF ALL, WHEN DID YOU BECOME A CRIMINALIST AT THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?

A: I BECAME A CRIMINALIST IN OCTOBER OF 1984.

Q: AND YOU ALSO LISTED THE VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE LABORATORY THAT YOU'VE BEEN ASSIGNED TO AT VARIOUS TIMES ON YOUR CURRICULA VITAE?

A: YES.

Q: IN 1994 THROUGH '97 -- THROUGH '87 -- EXCUSE ME -- WHERE WERE YOU ASSIGNED?

A: I WAS ASSIGNED TO THE TOXICOLOGY UNIT FROM 1984 TO 1987.

Q: AND WHAT IS TOXICOLOGY?

A: TOXICOLOGY IS THE ANALYSIS OF BIOLOGICAL FLUIDS FOR THE PRESENCE OF TOXINS OR DRUGS.

Q: WHEN YOU SAY BIOLOGICAL FLUIDS, WHAT KINDS OF FLUIDS WERE YOU TYPICALLY ANALYZING?

A: IN OUR LAB, WE TYPICALLY ANALYZE URINE AND BLOOD.

Q: SO YOU WERE DEALING WITH BIOLOGICAL SPECIMENS WHILE YOU WERE AT TOXICOLOGY?

A: YES.

Q: AND WAS THERE ANY TRAINING OR EXPERIENCE THAT YOU FEEL WAS PARTICULARLY RELEVANT IN TERMS OF CRIME SCENE PROCESSING THAT YOU GOT AS A RESULT OF BEING IN TOXICOLOGY?

A: IN TOXICOLOGY, BASIC LABORATORY PRINCIPLES WERE EMPLOYED SUCH AS LABELING, CLEANLINESS, HYGIENE AND THE APPRECIATION FOR THE -- BEING AWARE OF CROSS CONTAMINATION ISSUES.

Q: WHEN YOU SAY CROSS CONTAMINATION, WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

A: THAT REFERS TO MIXING ONE SAMPLE WITH ANOTHER OR CONTAMINATING ONE SAMPLE WITH ANOTHER SAMPLE.

Q: YOU MEAN LIKE ONE BLOOD SAMPLE WITH ANOTHER BLOOD SAMPLE?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND IN 1987 THROUGH '89, YOU WERE ASSIGNED TO TRACE?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU'VE ALREADY DESCRIBED TO US WHAT TRACE EVIDENCE IS?

A: YES.

Q: IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT BEING ASSIGNED TO THE TRACE EVIDENCE SECTION OF THE LABORATORY THAT YOU FEEL WAS RELEVANT IN TERMS OF YOUR EXPERIENCE INVESTIGATING A CRIME SCENE?

A: THE TRACE ANALYSIS UNIT GAVE ME APPRECIATION

FOR WHAT TRACE EVIDENCE CAN DO FOR AN INVESTIGATION SUCH AS HAIR, FIBER AND PAINT. THAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE CAN BE VERY HELPFUL SOMETIMES IN A -- IN AN INVESTIGATION.

Q: DO YOU ALSO HAVE TO BE AWARE OF THE PROPER PACKAGING AND HANDLING OF SPECIMENS?

A: YES.

Q: WOULD THAT ALSO BE TRUE OF TOXICOLOGY, THAT THAT'S IMPORTANT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. WHAT ABOUT CROSS CONTAMINATION OF SAMPLES; IS THAT AN ISSUE IN TRACE?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: OKAY. AND AFTER YOU WERE ASSIGNED TO TRACE, YOU THEN WENT TO FIREARMS?

A: YES.

Q: IS THAT WHERE YOU ARE NOW?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT IS YOUR EXACT TITLE POSITION IN THE CRIMINALISTICS LABORATORY?

A: I AM THE CRIMINALIST III ASSIGNED TO THE FIREARMS ANALYSIS UNIT.

Q: OKAY. AND ARE THERE ALSO CRIMINALISTS I'S AND CRIMINALIST II'S?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN DID YOU BECOME A CRIMINALIST III?

A: I BECAME A CRIMINALIST III IN JANUARY OF 1994.

Q: WHAT ARE THE LAPD REQUIREMENTS FOR BECOMING A CRIMINALIST III?

A: THE REQUIREMENTS ARE THREE UNITS OF EXPERTISE IN THE FIELD OF CRIMINALISTICS AND FIVE YEARS ON THE JOB.

Q: WELL, WHEN YOU SAY THREE UNITS OF EXPERTISE, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?

A: THE LAB IS BROKEN UP INTO DIFFERENT SECTIONS AND TO BE A CRIMINALIST III, YOU HAVE TO BE COURT QUALIFIED IN THREE OF THOSE DIFFERENT SECTIONS.

Q: SO IN YOUR CASE, WAS IT TOXICOLOGY, TRACE AND FIREARMS?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND IS THERE ANY TEST THAT'S REQUIRED OR EXAMINATION PROCESS THAT'S REQUIRED IN ORDER TO BECOME A CRIMINALIST III?

A: YES. THERE'S A WRITTEN AND ORAL EXAMINATION GIVEN BY THE LABORATORY.

Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CRIMINALIST III AND A CRIMINALIST I AND CRIMINALIST II?

A: A CRIMINALIST I IS A ENTRY LEVEL POSITION, A CRIMINALIST II IS A JOURNEY LEVEL POSITION AND A CRIMINALIST III IS A LEAD POSITION.

Q: OKAY. SO WHEN YOU FIRST CAME TO THE LABORATORY, YOU'RE A CRIMINALIST I?

A: YES.

Q: ON THE DATE OF JUNE THE 13TH, YOU WERE WORKING WITH ANDREA MAZZOLA?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: AND WAS SHE A CRIMINALIST I?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. IN TERMS OF THE DUTIES OF CRIMINALISTS AT CRIME SCENES, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CRIMINALIST I AND A CRIMINALIST II AND III?

A: A CRIMINALIST I KNOWS THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION. HOWEVER, IN OUR LABORATORY, THEY WILL -- A CRIMINALIST I WILL GO OUT WITH A CRIMINALIST III AND IF ANY DISCRETIONARY CALLS ARE NEEDED TO BE MADE, A CRIMINALIST III WILL MAKE THEM.

Q: OKAY. SO A CRIMINALIST I HAS TO BE PAIRED WITH A CRIMINALIST III AT CRIME SCENES UNDER THE CURRENT POLICIES OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN YOU WERE FIRST STARTING OUT AND YOU WERE A CRIMINALIST I, WAS THAT ALSO TRUE?

A: THE STRUCTURE WAS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THEN, BUT I WAS ALWAYS ESCORTED BY EITHER A SUPERVISOR OR A MORE EXPERIENCED CRIMINALIST IN THE LABORATORY.

Q: MEANING SOMEONE II OR HIGHER?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DURING THAT PROCESS WHEN YOU WERE A CRIMINALIST I, WERE YOU RECEIVING ON-THE-JOB EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING THEN FROM THE MORE EXPERIENCED PEOPLE IN TERMS OF HOW TO INVESTIGATE A CRIME SCENE?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. HAVE YOU YOURSELF PARTICIPATED IN ANY TRAINING OTHER THAN IN YOUR CAPACITY AS A CRIMINALIST III SUPERVISING OF A CRIMINALIST I IN TERMS OF CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION OR FORENSICS?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: AND WHERE WAS THAT?

A: I -- AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, I DID A INTERNSHIP WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

Q: NO. I MEAN WHERE YOU WERE DOING THE TRAINING.

A: OH, WHERE WHY I WAS TRAINING?

Q: HAVE YOU DONE ANY TRAINING WITHIN LAPD?

A: YES, I HAVE. I DID -- I WAS A ASSISTANT INSTRUCTOR IN A -- THE VALLEY BUREAU DETECTIVES FOR CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION BACK IN 1989.

Q: WHAT WERE YOU -- WHAT KINDS OF PRINCIPLES WERE YOU COVERING THERE? JUST GENERAL CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION OR WAS IT MORE SPECIFIC?

A: WE COVERED GENERAL THINGS. HOWEVER, BIOLOGICAL FLUID COLLECTION AND THE -- WHAT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THOSE BIOLOGICAL FLUIDS WERE WERE DISCUSSED AS WELL AS SHOEPRINT, FOOTPRINT AND TOOL MARK EXAMINATIONS WERE ALSO DISCUSSED AT THAT.

Q: AND YOU WERE CONDUCTING THIS TRAINING WITH DETECTIVES?

A: THAT TRAINING WAS DONE WITH OTHER CRIMINALISTS FOR DETECTIVES WHO WERE THE STUDENTS.

Q: OKAY. WHY WOULD DETECTIVES BE TAUGHT HOW TO -- WELL, ARE DETECTIVES TAUGHT HOW TO COLLECT A STAIN IN CERTAIN INSTANCES?

A: YES.

Q: WHY IS THAT DONE?

A: IN SOME CASES, DETECTIVES WILL COLLECT THEIR OWN EVIDENCE IN OUR DEPARTMENT.

Q: OKAY. SO THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE COLLECTED BY A CRIMINALIST EVEN IF IT IS BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN ANY OTHER TRAINING WHERE YOU WERE PROVIDING TRAINING TO PEOPLE WITHIN LAPD?

A: YES. I ALSO WAS AN INSTRUCTOR IN THE FORENSIC PRINT SPECIALIST SCHOOL IN 1989.

Q: WHAT WERE YOU TEACHING THEM?

A: I WAS TEACHING FOOTWEAR EVIDENCE, IMPRESSION, CASTING.

Q: OKAY. WHAT ARE THE FORENSIC PRINT SPECIALISTS?

A: THE FORENSIC PRINT SPECIALISTS ARE PEOPLE WHO DO OUR FINGERPRINT ANALYSIS.

Q: ARE THEY PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION?

A: YES, THEY ARE.

Q: ARE THEY ALSO CRIMINALISTS?

A: NO, THEY ARE NOT.

Q: OKAY. SO WHAT IS THEIR BACKGROUND?

A: THEIR BACKGROUND IS SEVERAL YEARS IN THE -- WORKING WITH FINGERPRINT ANALYSIS IN THE IDENTIFICATION SECTION AND THEN THEY GO THROUGH A TRAINING PROGRAM WITHIN SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION DIVISION.

Q: OKAY. APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY CRIME SCENES WOULD YOU SAY THAT YOU'VE INVESTIGATED OVER THE COURSE OF YOUR CAREER?

A: OVER THE COURSE OF MY CAREER, I'VE INVESTIGATED APPROXIMATELY 500 CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATIONS.

Q: OKAY. AND APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY TIMES WOULD YOU SAY YOU'VE QUALIFIED AS AN EXPERT IN COURT TESTIFYING ABOUT CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION?

A: APPROXIMATELY 20 TIMES.

Q: NOW, WE'VE BEEN USING THE TERM "CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION." DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU'RE INTERVIEWING WITNESSES AND LOOKING FOR EYEWITNESSES AND THE LIKE AND WHAT DOES THAT ALL INCLUDE?

A: THE CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION IN -- AS IT PERTAINS TO A CRIMINALIST INVOLVES THE IDENTIFICATION AND DOCUMENTATION IN GATHERING OF EVIDENCE.

Q: OKAY. SO YOU'RE STRICTLY DEALING WITH THE EVIDENCE PORTION OF THE CASE?

A: YES. YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, IN GENERAL, WHEN YOU'RE WORKING AT A CRIME SCENE WITH DETECTIVES AND THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS AT THE CRIME SCENE, WHO IS IN CHARGE BETWEEN THE CRIMINALIST AND THE DETECTIVE REGARDING THE COLLECTION OF THE EVIDENCE?

A: THE DETECTIVE IS IN CHARGE OF THE CRIME SCENE.

Q: SO HOW DOES THAT WORK?

A: THE DETECTIVE WILL TELL THE CRIMINALIST THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE -- OR WHAT HE KNOWS ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CRIME AND POINT OUT ITEMS OF EVIDENCE HE FEELS ARE SIGNIFICANT TO HIS INVESTIGATION.

Q: DOES THE CRIMINALIST DECIDE, HOWEVER, WHAT TECHNIQUES ARE GOING TO BE USED TO COLLECT THAT EVIDENCE?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WAS THAT THE CASE WITH RESPECT TO THE ROCKINGHAM CRIME SCENE IN THIS CASE?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: WHAT ABOUT THE BUNDY LOCATION?

A: SAME FOR THE BUNDY LOCATION ALSO.

Q: OKAY. NOW, AS A CRIMINALIST, DO YOU HAVE SOME DISCRETION TO DETERMINE WHAT TO COLLECT AND WHAT NOT TO COLLECT?

A: YES.

Q: IS THERE ANY PARTICULAR DANGER IN TERMS OF COLLECTING TOO LITTLE EVIDENCE?

A: YES, THERE IS.

Q: WHAT IS THAT?

A: IF TOO LITTLE EVIDENCE IS COLLECTED, A GOOD REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF WHAT HAPPENED MAY NOT BE UNCOVERED AND CERTAIN ITEMS WHICH WOULD EITHER EXONERATE OR PROVE SOMEBODY'S GUILT COULD BE MISSED.

Q: IS THERE ANY PROBLEM WITH COLLECTING TOO MUCH EVIDENCE?

A: THERE IS SOME PROBLEM IN THAT IF EVERYTHING WAS COLLECTED AT A CRIME SCENE IN EVERY CASE, THERE WOULDN'T -- WOULDN'T BE ENOUGH ROOM TO STORE ALL THE EVIDENCE.

Q: WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO INUNDATE THE LABORATORY WITH EVIDENCE TO COLLECT -- I MEAN TO ANALYZE AND TO LOOK OVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER IT SHOULD BE ANALYZED?

A: THAT'S A POSSIBILITY ALSO, YES.

Q: SO DO YOU HAVE TO MAKE SOME DECISIONS BASED UPON YOUR BACKGROUND AND COMMON SENSE AS TO WHAT TO TAKE AND WHAT NOT TO TAKE?

A: YES.

Q: IN TERMS OF MAKING THAT KIND OF A DECISION, HOW DO YOU GO ABOUT DOING IT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE, PARTICULARLY BLOOD?

A: WITH BLOOD EVIDENCE, I WILL TRY TO COLLECT A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE, AND FACTORS THAT GO INTO MAKING OR DETERMINING WHAT IS REPRESENTATIVE ARE THE LOCATION OF THE BIOLOGICAL SAMPLE, THE QUALITY OF IT AND THE QUANTITY OF IT.

Q: OKAY. WELL, LET'S BREAK THAT DOWN. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY LOCATION?

A: BY LOCATION, I MEAN WHERE IT IS IN RELATION TO WHERE THE CRIME OCCURRED. IF THERE WAS A BLOODSTAIN, FOR INSTANCE, THREE MILES AWAY AND THEY THEN -- THAT WOULD BE A LESS SIGNIFICANT STAIN IF IT WAS NOT -- IF IT CANNOT BE RELATED BACK TO THE CRIME.

Q: OKAY. SO YOU'RE TRYING TO LOOK FOR STAINS THAT WOULD APPEAR TO BE MORE RELEVANT THAN OTHER STAINS WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LOCATION?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. WHAT ABOUT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT QUANTITY? WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO THERE?

A: BY QUANTITY, I'M -- I WOULD BE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO ANALYZE, A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT WOULD BE -- THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO MAKE SOME TYPE OF DETERMINATION.

Q: OKAY. AND WHAT ABOUT QUALITY?

A: BY QUALITY, I MEAN SOMETHING THAT IS NOT LIKELY TO BE CONTAMINATED OR DEGRADED.

Q: WHEN YOU USE THE TERM "CONTAMINATED," WHAT DOES THAT TERM MEAN?

A: CONTAMINATION IN THE BROADEST SENSE CAN BE BRINGING SOMETHING INTO AN ENVIRONMENT THAT IS UNWANTED OR UNDESIRABLE.

Q: WELL, IF YOU WERE USING THE BROADER DEFINITION OF CONTAMINATION THAT YOU'VE JUST PROVIDED US WITH, COULD YOU LOOK AT THE SUSPECT'S BLOOD AT A CRIME SCENE ITSELF AS BEING CONTAMINATION IN THAT SENSE?

A: IN THAT SENSE, YES.

Q: IS BLOOD NOW CLASSIFIED AS BEING A BIO-HAZARD?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, IS THERE A MORE NARROW OR PRECISE DEFINITION OF CONTAMINATION THAT IS ALSO USED IN THE AREA OF CRIMINALISTICS?

A: YES. AS IT RELATES TO THE EVIDENCE, CONTAMINATION CAN ALSO MEAN BRINGING A SUBSTANCE TO A CRIME SCENE THAT WOULD COMPROMISE THE EVIDENCE AND SOMEHOW AFFECT THE CONCLUSIONS OF AN ANALYSIS.

Q: OKAY. SO THOSE ARE THE VARIOUS FACTORS THAT YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT YOU JUST DISCUSSED WITH US IN TERMS OF DECIDING WHAT BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE TO COLLECT AND NOT TO COLLECT?

A: YES.

Q: IF YOU HAVE A TRAIL OF BLOOD DROPS, DO YOU NECESSARILY COLLECT EVERY DROP IN THE TRAIL?

A: NOT NECESSARILY, NO.

Q: OKAY. SO -- THEN DO YOU USE THE REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE RULE THAT YOU DISCUSSED EARLIER?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT ABOUT DEBRIS AT A CRIME SCENE? HOW DO YOU GO ABOUT DECIDING WHAT TYPES OF DEBRIS TO COLLECT OR NOT TO COLLECT?

A: WITH DEBRIS, I WILL TRY TO COLLECT THINGS THAT ARE FOREIGN OR OUT OF PLACE TO THE LOCATION.

Q: SO YOU WOULDN'T PICK UP EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF TRASH THAT HAPPENED TO EXIST AT A CRIME SCENE?

A: NO.

Q: OR DO YOU DRAW A CERTAIN DIAMETER AROUND THE BODY AND PICK UP EVERY PIECE OF TRASH WITHIN A CERTAIN DIAMETER?

A: IN CERTAIN INSTANCES, I MAY, BUT NOT NECESSARILY, NO.

Q: SO IF SOMETHING LOOKS OUT OF PLACE, YOU MIGHT COLLECT IT?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT ABOUT CLOTHING? HOW DO YOU GO ABOUT DECIDING WHAT CLOTHING TO COLLECT OR NOT TO COLLECT?

A: WITH CLOTHING, I WILL TRY TO IDENTIFY ITEMS THAT SEEM OUT OF PLACE OR IN A STRANGE LOCATION OR MAY HAVE SOME HELP IN THE INVESTIGATION OF A CRIME.

Q: OKAY. SO AGAIN, IT SOUNDS LIKE THESE KINDS OF DECISIONS ARE COMMON SENSE DECISIONS. WOULD THAT BE CORRECT?

A: EDUCATED -- EDUCATED GUESSES, YES.

Q: OKAY. DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION NOW BACK TO JUNE THE 13TH OF 1994, AT APPROXIMATELY 5:30 OR SO IN THE MORNING, DID YOU RECEIVE A CALL?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHERE WERE YOU WHEN YOU RECEIVED THAT CALL?

A: I WAS AT HOME.

Q: OKAY. AND WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF THE CALL?

A: IT WAS A CALL FROM CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA INFORMING ME THAT THERE WAS A HOMICIDE WE WERE REQUESTED TO RESPOND TO IN THE WEST L.A. DIVISION.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU HAVE TO DO AFTER RECEIVING THAT CALL?

A: AFTER RECEIVING THE CALL, I MADE ARRANGEMENTS WITH CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA TO MEET ME AT THE LABORATORY.

Q: OKAY. IF YOU'RE THE SUPERVISOR, WHY DID CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA CALL YOU?

A: CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA WAS THE PRIMARY CRIMINALIST ON CALL THAT WEEKEND.

Q: INCIDENTALLY, IS THAT HER OFFICIAL DESIGNATION, CRIMINALIST?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND IS SHE A TRAINEE?

A: NO. SHE'S A CRIMINALIST.

Q: SO WHEN YOU JOIN THE LAB AND BECOME A CRIMINALIST I, YOU'RE A FULL-FLEDGED CRIMINALIST?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHERE DID YOU MEET UP WITH CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA?

A: I MET CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA AT THE -- AT THE PIPER TECH LABORATORY THAT MORNING.

Q: WHERE IS PIPER TECH?

A: PIPER TECH IS AT 555 RAMIREZ STREET. IT'S ABOUT A MILE AWAY FROM PARKER CENTER.

Q: WHY DID YOU HAVE TO MEET THERE AS OPPOSED TO GOING DIRECTLY TO THE CRIME SCENE DID YOU SAY?

A: I MET HER THERE SO WE COULD MEET AND GET THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK TO RESPOND TO THE LOCATION.

Q: OKAY. HOW MANY CRIME SCENE TRUCKS DOES THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT HAVE?

A: FOR THE HOMICIDE CRIMINALISTS, THERE'S ONLY ONE TRUCK.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO MARK PEOPLE'S NEXT IN ORDER.

THE COURT: 160.

MR. GOLDBERG: 160. AND IT IS A PICTURE OF THE -- WHAT WOULD APPEAR TO BE THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIMINALISTICS TRUCK, WHICH COUNSEL HAS A COPY OF.

(PEO'S 160 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PROCEED.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO PLACE A 160 ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THIS PHOTOGRAPH. MAY I PLACE THIS ON THE ELMO SO THAT THE WITNESS AND JURY CAN SEE?

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY. SIR, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE PICTURE THAT'S ABOVE YOU -- I GUESS YOU CAN SEE THAT FROM WHERE YOU'RE SITTING?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. WHAT IS THAT?

A: THE TRUCK TO THE LEFT IS THE CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION TRUCK.

Q: OKAY. WHAT ABOUT THE ONE THAT'S OVER TO THE RIGHT THAT SAYS "HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS"? WHAT'S THAT?

A: THAT IS ANOTHER RESPONSE TEAM IN THE LABORATORY FOR HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL RESPONSE.

Q: SO THE TRUCK THAT YOU WERE TAKING WITH CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA WAS THE ONE THAT'S PRIMARILY FEATURED ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH ON THE LEFT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND WHERE DID YOU -- THAT'S FINE. THANK YOU. WHERE DID YOU TAKE THAT TRUCK TO?

A: WE BROUGHT THAT TRUCK TO 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM.

Q: NOW, WHILE YOU WERE IN TRANSIT, WAS THERE ANY PAPERWORK THAT YOU BEGAN FILLING OUT AT THE LOC -- AT THE -- IN THE TRUCK?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT WAS THAT?

A: THAT WAS THE CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION CHECKLIST.

Q: OKAY.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO MARK AS PEOPLE'S 161 A DOCUMENT THAT'S ENTITLED CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION CHECKLIST.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. 161.

(PEO'S 161 FOR ID = CHECKLIST)

MR. GOLDBERG: AND FOR COUNSEL'S BENEFIT, IT'S L-10. IT'S JUST THE FACE PAGE. CAN WE SEE IT UP HERE?

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE DOCUMENT THAT WE'VE JUST MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 161 FOR IDENTIFICATION, DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: OKAY. AND ON THAT DOCUMENT, THERE IS A NOTATION THAT SAYS "OIC NAME." IT'S ABOUT SIX LINES DOWN FROM THE TOP.

A: YES.

Q: WHO IS FILLED IN THERE?

A: THAT IS A. MAZZOLA OR CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA'S NAME.

Q: OKAY. AND WHAT DOES OIC MEAN?

A: OIC IS THE ACUMEN FOR OFFICER IN CHARGE.

Q: OKAY. BY THE WAY, WHY DO YOU CALL IT OIC OR OFFICER IN CHARGE?

A: THAT'S JUST POLICE VERNACULAR FOR WHO'S TAKING RESPONSIBILITY.

Q: BUT TECHNICALLY YOU'RE NOT SWORN PERSONNEL, ARE YOU, CRIMINALIST?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHY WAS ANDREA MAZZOLA'S NAME PUT IN THAT LOCATION WHERE IT SAYS OIC?

A: MISS MAZZOLA WAS THE PRIMARY CRIMINALIST ON CALL THAT WEEKEND AND IT WAS GOING TO BE HER RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE CARE OF THE PAPERWORK AND DIRECT SOME OF THE SID PEOPLE TO PERFORM THEIR FUNCTIONS.

Q: WELL, WHAT OTHER SID PEOPLE WOULD BE AT A CRIME SCENE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DIRECTING?

A: THE PHOTOGRAPHER AND THE PRINT SPECIALIST ARE UNDER SID.

Q: AND DID YOU ANTICIPATE WHILE YOU WERE DRIVING TO THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION THAT ANDREA MAZZOLA WAS IN FACT GOING TO BE THE OFFICER IN CHARGE IN THAT SENSE?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. THANK YOU. NOW, AT SOME POINT, MR. FUNG, DID THAT ANTICIPATION CHANGE?

A: YES, IT DID.

Q: WHEN WAS THAT?

A: AFTER I HAD RECEIVED THE BRIEFING BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT I WOULD BE THE OIC AT THAT CRIME SCENE.

Q: OKAY.

A: AS FAR AS THE SEARCH TEAM WAS CONCERNED.

Q: WHAT TIME DID YOU ARRIVE AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?

A: I ARRIVED THERE AT 7:10 IN THE MORNING.

Q: OKAY. AND WHY DID YOU DECIDE THAT YOU WERE GOING TO BECOME THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION AS OPPOSED TO ANDREA MAZZOLA?

A: WHEN I FIND OUT -- FOUND OUT THAT IT WAS A HIGH PROFILE CASE AND IT WAS A -- WOULD BE A COMPLICATED SCENE, I DECIDED THAT SHE SHOULD IN THE SENSE TAKE THE BACKSEAT.

Q: NOW, JUST SO I CAN UNDERSTAND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A CRIMINALIST I AND A CRIMINALIST III, LET'S SAY THAT YOU HAD ARRIVED AT A CRIME SCENE WITH CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA THAT WAS FAIRLY SIMPLE, ROUTINE, VERY LITTLE EVIDENCE TO COLLECT. WHAT WOULD THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA AND YOURSELF HAVE BEEN AT THAT KIND OF A SCENE?

A: CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA WOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE TYPE OF EVIDENCE THAT SHE WOULD HAVE COLLECTED AND TAKEN ABOUT THE MORE PROCEDURAL FUNCTIONS SUCH AS DIRECTING THE PHOTOGRAPHER AS TO WHAT TYPE OF PHOTOGRAPHS HE SHOULD TAKE AND DIRECTING THE PRINT EXAMINERS TO THE SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE PRINTED AT THE SCENE.

Q: OKAY. SO IF IT HAD BEEN A SIMPLE SCENE, YOU WOULD HAVE ALLOWED CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA TO MAKE THESE KINDS OF DISCRETIONARY TYPE DECISIONS THAT YOU DESCRIBED EARLIER IN YOUR TESTIMONY REGARDING WHAT TO COLLECT AND WHAT NOT TO COLLECT?

A: UNDER MY SUPERVISION, YES.

Q: OKAY. WELL, WHAT IF YOU SAW HER MAKING A MISTAKE?

A: IF I SAW HER MAKING A MISTAKE, I WOULD TELL HER -- TELL HER ABOUT IT AND CORRECT HER PROCEDURE.

Q: OKAY. NOW, LET'S SAY THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A VERY SIMPLE SCENE WHERE THERE WASN'T A LOT OF EVIDENCE TO COLLECT, YOU WERE WORKING WITH ANDREA MAZZOLA AND THERE WAS A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU. SHE SAYS, "WHY DON'T YOU COLLECT THAT?" YOU SAY, "NO, YOU COLLECT THAT." "NO, YOU COLLECT THAT." "NO, YOU COLLECT --" OR ANY OTHER KIND OF A DISPUTE. WHO IS GOING TO WIN IN THAT KIND OF DISPUTE?

A: CRIMINALIST III TAKES PRECEDENT AND THE CRIMINALIST I WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE CRIMINALIST -- THE CRIMINALIST I WILL HAVE TO DO WHAT THE CRIMINALIST III SAYS.

Q: SO EVEN AT A SIMPLE CRIME SCENE, ARE YOU STILL DESIGNATED THEN AS BEING ANDREA MAZZOLA'S SUPERVISOR IN THAT SENSE?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, AT THIS PARTICULAR CRIME SCENE AT ROCKINGHAM, WAS THERE EVER A TIME WHERE ANDREA MAZZOLA DID DIRECT CRIME SCENE PHOTOGRAPHERS?

A: NO.

Q: OR PRINT PEOPLE?

A: NO.

Q: OR ANYONE ELSE THAT YOU SAW?

A: NO.

Q: WHAT ABOUT AT THE LOCATION AT ROCKING -- AT BUNDY?

A: NO.

Q: SHE WAS -- SHE DID NOT HAVE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO DIRECT ANYBODY AT THAT SCENE.

Q: AT BOTH SCENES, WERE YOU TELLING HER WHAT ITEMS TO COLLECT AND WHAT NOT TO COLLECT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, AFTER YOU ARRIVED AT THE LOCATION AT ROCKINGHAM AT APPROXIMATELY YOU SAID 7:10 A.M., WHAT WAS THE VERY FIRST THING YOU DID WHEN YOU GOT THERE?

A: FIRST THING I DID WAS, I WAS MET BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER, AND HE GAVE ME A BRIEFING AS TO WHAT HE HAD AT THE CRIME SCENE AND WHAT HE WANTED ME TO DO.

Q: DID HE SHOW YOU ANY EVIDENCE?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: WHAT DID HE SHOW YOU?

A: HE SHOWED ME A RED STAIN ON THE DRIVER DOOR OF THE BRONCO AND A BLOOD TRAIL LEADING FROM THE BRONCO TOWARDS THE FRONT ENTRANCE OF THE RESIDENCE.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU NOTICE ANYTHING ABOUT THE TEMPERATURE AT THAT TIME OF THE WEATHER?

A: IT WAS FAIRLY COOL.

Q: WHAT ABOUT THE LAWNS? DID YOU NOTICE ANYTHING THAT LOOKED LIKE IT COULD HAVE BEEN DEW ON THE LAWNS?

A: I DID NOTICE THAT THERE WAS SOME -- THAT THE GRASS WAS WET.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AFTER THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE WERE POINTED OUT BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER, HOW DID YOU GO ABOUT COLLECTING THEM? WERE -- DID YOU DO IT ALONE OR DID MISS MAZZOLA HELP YOU? HOW DID THAT WORK?

A: MISS MAZZOLA AND I WORKED AS A TEAM TO DOCUMENT AND COLLECT THE EVIDENCE.

Q: NOW, IN TERMS OF COLLECTING BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE, PARTICULARLY BLOOD, HAVE YOU BEEN TRAINED IN HOW TO DO THAT IN THE STANDARD TECHNIQUE THAT'S USED WITHIN THE LAPD?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND DID YOU USE THAT TECHNIQUE AT THE LOCATION OF ROCKINGHAM FOR THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTING THE EVIDENCE?

A: YES, I DID.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO MARK AS PEOPLE'S 162 FOR IDENTIFICATION A BOARD THAT IS ENTITLED "COLLECTING A STAIN DEMONSTRATION."

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PEOPLE'S 162.

(PEO'S 162 FOR ID = BOARD)

MR. GOLDBERG: I WOULD LIKE TO PUT UP -- AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MARK AS PEOPLE'S 163 FOR IDENTIFICATION A BROWN PAPER BAG AND ITS CONTENTS, AND I'D LIKE THE -- THERE'S A DOCUMENT IN THERE THAT I WOULD LIKE MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 163-A. THIS DOCUMENT IS INVENTORY, YOUR HONOR, THAT ITEMIZES ALL OF THE CONTENTS OF THE BAG AS BEING A THROUGH L, PEOPLE'S 163, B AND B THE EXHIBIT ITSELF, THE INVENTORY.

THE COURT: YES.

(PEO'S 163 FOR ID = BAG CONTG 163-A THROUGH 163-L)

(PEO'S 163-A FOR ID = INVENTORY)

MR. GOLDBERG: AND I ALREADY PREMARKED THE ITEMS INSIDE THE BAG.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: MR. FUNG, CAN YOU SEE THIS BOARD FROM WHERE YOU'RE STANDING?

A: I CAN'T SEE. I WOULD HAVE TO GET UP.

Q: WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION, CAN THE WITNESS --

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY. SIR --

MR. SCHECK: CAN I STAND OVER THERE, YOUR HONOR, SO I'M NOT BLOCKING THE JURORS?

MR. GOLDBERG: PERHAPS WE CAN PULL UP THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT'S MARKED NO. 1 ON PEOPLE'S 163.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, DOES PEOPLE'S 163 DEMONSTRATE MOST OF THE MAJOR STEPS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN COLLECTING A STAIN?

A: YES, IT DOES.

Q: AND DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT'S NUMBERED 1 ON THIS BOARD THAT SAYS NUMBER OF MEASURED STAINS, WHAT DOES THAT PHOTOGRAPH DEPICT?

A: THAT DEPICTS THE DOCUMENTATION PORTION OF THE COLLECTION OF A STAIN. WE WILL NUMBER THE STAIN WITH AN IDENTIFICATION NUMBER AND THEN MEASURE THE STAIN AS TO ITS LOCATION AND THEN HAVE IT PHOTOGRAPHED.

Q: AND THIS PARTICULAR DEMONSTRATION, WHO IS PORTRAYED IN THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT'S MARKED -- THAT'S LABELED AS 2 AND THE REST OF THE PHOTOGRAPH?

A: THAT'S CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA.

Q: CAN WE SEE NO. 2? DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO PHOTOGRAPH NO. 2, WHAT STEP DOES THIS INVOLVE?

A: THIS INVOLVES THE COLLECTION OF THE -- OF A CONTROL. IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, SHE IS SELECTING A CLOTH SWATCH AND DAMPENING IT WITH DISTILLED WATER.

Q: SIR, I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU WHAT WE'VE MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 163-E FOR IDENTIFICATION. IT'S A COIN ENVELOPE CONTAINING A BINDLE. CAN YOU OPEN UP THAT BINDLE AND TELL US WHAT'S INSIDE OF IT?

A: I'M OPENING UP THE BINDLE, UNFOLDING IT, AND WITHIN THE BINDLE ARE THREE CLOTH SWATCHES.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, PERHAPS I CAN PUT THIS ON THE ELMO AS WELL SO THAT THE JURY CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S GIVE IT A TRY.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY. YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THEM. WELL, NOW I GUESS THEY LOOK MORE LIKE TABLECLOTHS THAN SWATCHES. BUT, MR. FUNG, WHAT IS REPRESENTED HERE ON THE -- THIS EXHIBIT?

A: YOU CAN SEE THREE CLOTH SWATCHES IN THAT -- I GUESS IT'S A PROJECTION.

MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY. YOUR HONOR, PERHAPS WE COULD PASS IT AROUND TO THE JURY JUST SO THEY CAN GET A SENSE OF HOW SMALL THE ITEM IS.

THE COURT: SURE.

MR. GOLDBERG: THEY SHOULD BE WARNED THEY HAVE TO BE CAREFUL. OTHERWISE, THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE SOME OF OUR SWATCHES.

THE COURT: NOT TO SNEEZE. START WITH JUROR NO. 1, PLEASE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT ALL OF THE JURORS HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE THE CONTENTS OF 163-E.

MR. GOLDBERG: MAYBE YOU CAN REFOLD THAT FOR US, MR. FUNG, SO WE DON'T LOSE THEM.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY. SO IN PHOTOGRAPH NUMBER 2 -- MAYBE WE CAN GET THAT BACK UP AGAIN -- YOU ARE -- THAT'S SHOWING HER DAMPENING THESE LITTLE TINY SWATCHES THAT THE JURY HAS JUST SEEN.

A: YES. YES.

Q: AND HOW IS SHE HOLDING THE SWATCHES?

A: THE SWATCHES ARE HELD WITH A PAIR OF TWEEZERS.

Q: OKAY. AND WHAT DOES SHE DAMPEN THEM WITH?

A: SHE'S DAMPENING THEM WITH DISTILLED WATER.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE CELL NUMBER 3 ON OUR COLLECTING THE STAIN BOARD, PEOPLE'S 162.

A: AFTER SHE DAMPENS THE CLOTH SWATCH, SHE APPLIES THAT SWATCH TO AN AREA VERY CLOSE TO THE STAIN.

Q: OKAY. SO ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH, IT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE SHE'S MISSING THE STAIN NO. 5 BY WHAT COULD BE ABOUT AN INCH OR SO?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHY IS SHE DOING THAT?

A: SHE'S DOING THAT SO THAT SHE WILL GET A REPRESENTATIVE SUBSTRATE CONTROL.

Q: OKAY. WHAT DOES THE TERM "SUBSTRATE" REFER TO IN THIS TERM THAT YOU'VE JUST USED, SUBSTRATE CONTROL?

A: THE SUBSTRATE IS THE OBJECT FROM WHICH WE ARE COLLECTING A STAIN. IN THIS CASE, IT'S A SIDEWALK. HOWEVER, IT COULD BE A WALL OR A TABLE. IT'S WHATEVER WE'RE COLLECTING THE STAIN FROM.

Q: AND WHAT DOES THE TERM "CONTROL" REFER TO?

A: CONTROL REFERS TO THE PROCESS OF LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT WILL SOMEHOW AFFECT THE CONCLUSIONS OF AN ANALYSIS. SO IF THERE WAS SOME TYPE OF INTERFERING SUBSTANCE ON THE SIDEWALK HERE, IT SHOULD SHOW UP IN THE SUBSTRATE CONTROL.

Q: DOES THE SUBSTRATE CONTROL SERVE ANY OTHER PURPOSE OTHER THAN TRYING TO TELL YOU WHAT MIGHT BE ON THE SUBSTRATE, IF ANYTHING?

A: THERE ARE OTHER SIDE BENEFITS IN THE -- IN PERFORMING A SUBSTRATE CONTROL. ONE OF THEM IS THAT OUR INSTRUMENTS AND MATERIALS USED TO COLLECT THE SAMPLES ARE ALSO CHECKED DURING THIS PROCESS AND OUR TECHNIQUE TO SOME DEGREE IS CHECKED BY THE PERFORMANCE OF COLLECTING A SUBSTRATE CONTROL.

Q: OKAY. SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE SUBSTRATE CONTROL CAME UP CLEAN, THAT MIGHT PROVIDE SOME INDICATION THAT YOUR TECHNIQUES IN TERMS OF COLLECTING THE STAINS WERE PROPER?

A: YES.

Q: BUT IF IT COMES UP DIRTY, DOES THAT NECESSARILY MEAN -- WELL, I'M NOT SURE OF "DIRTY" IS THE SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT WORD, BUT IF YOU TEST IT AND YOU FIND SOME BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE ON THERE, WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU, IF ANYTHING?

A: THAT COULD INDICATE THAT THERE WAS ALSO SOME TYPE OF BIOLOGICAL SUBSTANCE ON THE SUBSTRATE ITSELF.

Q: MEANING ON THE SIDEWALK IN THIS PARTICULAR DEMONSTRATION?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A SUBSTRATE CONTROL, IT'S INTENDED PURPOSE?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHY IT'S CALLED SUBSTRATE CONTROL?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, AFTER THE SUBSTRATE CONTROL IS COLLECTED, WHAT DOES SHE DO WITH THE SUBSTRATE CONTROL?

A: THE CLOTH SWATCH USED TO CREATE THE SUBSTRATE CONTROL IS PUT IN A PLASTIC BAGGIE.

Q: OKAY. SIR, I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU A PLASTIC BAGGIE THAT I'VE JUST REMOVED FROM PEOPLE'S 162 -- EXCUSE ME -- 163-E FOR IDENTIFICATION. DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT PARTICULAR TYPE OF MATERIAL?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: AND WHAT'S THAT?

A: THIS IS THE TYPE OF BAG THAT WE USE TO PLACE THE CLOTH SWATCH IN ONCE IT HAS BEEN APPLIED TO THE SIDEWALK.

Q: OKAY. SO AFTER COLLECTING THIS CLOTH SWATCH THAT MAY HAVE NOTHING ON IT, SHE THEN PUTS IT INTO THE PLASTIC BAGGIE?

A: YES.

Q: AND IS THAT SHOWN IN PHOTOGRAPH NO. 4, IF WE COULD HAVE THAT UP?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: AND SO SHE HAS THE PLASTIC BAGGIE THERE IN HER RIGHT HAND IT APPEARS AND SHE'S PUTTING IT IN THE COIN ENVELOPE THAT'S BEING HELD IN HER LEFT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, HOW DOES SHE GET THE CLOTH SWATCH INTO THE PLASTIC BAGGIE?

A: SHE PUTS THEM IN WITH A PAIR OF TWEEZERS.

Q: OKAY. AND THEN WHAT DOES SHE DO WITH IT?

A: THE PLASTIC BAG IS PLACED IN THE LABELED COIN ENVELOPE AND SHE GOES ON TO THE NEXT STEP.

Q: OKAY. MAYBE YOU CAN REPLACE THE PLASTIC BAGGIE IN THERE NOW THAT WE'VE SEEN WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. NOW, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO CELL 5 LABELED "CLEAN TWEEZERS."

MR. GOLDBERG: COULD WE HAVE THAT UP THERE?

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: WHAT IS DEPICTED IN THIS CELL?

A: THAT DEPICTS CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA CLEANING HER TWEEZERS.

Q: OKAY. AND HOW DOES SHE CLEAN THEM?

A: SHE WILL WET A TISSUE WITH DISTILLED WATER AND WIPE THE TWEEZERS ON THE MOISTENED PART OF THE TISSUE TO WIPE AWAY THE -- ANY TYPE OF MATERIAL THAT MAY BE PRESENT ON THE TWEEZERS.

Q: SO WHY DO YOU HAVE TO CLEAN THE TWEEZERS NOW IF YOU'VE ONLY COLLECTED THE SUBSTRATE CONTROL?

A: THE TWEEZERS ARE CLEANED JUST AS A MATTER OF HYGIENE AND/OR LAB PRACTICE, GOOD LAB PRACTICE.

Q: ARE YOU HANDLING THE SUBSTRATE CONTROL THEN IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY YOU HANDLE A STAIN JUST AS IF IT WERE A STRAIN?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE CELL THAT'S NUMBERED 6 THAT SAYS TAKE NEW SWATCH, THEN DAMPEN IT, WHAT DOES THAT SHOW?

A: THAT DEPICTS CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA SELECTING A SWATCH WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY THE CORRECT SIZE TO TRANSFER THE STAIN ONTO -- ONTO IT. SHE WILL SELECT A SWATCH, DAMPEN IT AND WITH A PAIR OF TWEEZERS APPLY IT TO THE STAIN AND LET THE STAIN ABSORB ONTO THE CLOTH SWATCH.

Q: OKAY. NOW, IN NUMBER 6, SHE APPEARS TO HAVE TAKEN A SWATCH OUT OF A LITTLE -- LOOKS LIKE A PILL BOTTLE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU SAY THAT SHE HAS TO SELECT ONE THAT'S THE RIGHT SIZE. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?

A: IN -- WHEN SHE'S COLLECTING OR WHEN WE COLLECT BLOODSTAINS, IT'S IMPORTANT NOT TO COLLECT THE STAIN ONTO A SWATCH THAT'S TOO LARGE. OTHERWISE, THE STAIN WILL BE DILUTED AND MORE DIFFICULT TO ANALYZE.

Q: IS THAT WHY YOU'RE USING THESE LITTLE TINY SWATCHES THAT THE JURY HAS JUST SEEN?

A: YES.

Q: BECAUSE YOU WANT IT TO BE AS CONCENTRATED AS IT CAN BE?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE CELL THAT'S LABELED NO. 6 THAT SAYS COLLECT STAIN AND IN PARENTHESIS HAS NUMBER CARD REMOVED. IF WE COULD HAVE THAT. WHAT IS MISS MAZZOLA DOING HERE?

A: MISS MAZZOLA IS APPLYING THE CLOTH SWATCH TO THE STAIN ITSELF.

Q: SO NOW SHE'S ACTUALLY COLLECTING THE STAIN?

A: YES.

Q: AND IN THIS CASE, IT WAS THE ONE THAT WAS NUMBERED 5?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND SHE DOES THAT SIMPLY BY APPLYING THE DAMPENED CLOTH SWATCH TO THE STAIN ITSELF?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT'S IN CELL 8, WHAT DOES THAT DEPICT HER DOING?

A: THAT DEPICTS HER PLACING THE CLOTH SWATCH IN A PLASTIC BAG AND THEN PLACING THE PLASTIC BAG IN THE COIN ENVELOPE.

Q: AND DOES THAT GO IN THE VERY SAME COIN ENVELOPE --

A: YES.

Q: -- THAT YOU ALREADY PUT THE SUBSTRATE CONTROL IN?

A: YES.

Q: AND SO YOU HAVE A COIN ENVELOPE THAT HAS A STAIN IN ONE PLASTIC BAG AND THEN A CONTROL IN ANOTHER PLASTIC BAG?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE COIN ENVELOPE WOULD BE NUMBERED TO CORRESPOND WITH THE NUMBER CARD?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU MAY RESUME YOUR SEAT. SIR, JUST FOLLOWING UP THEN ON THE COLLECTION PROCEDURE, IF YOU'RE COLLECTING CONSECUTIVE STAINS, LET'S SAY 5, AND THEN YOU WENT ON TO COLLECT STAIN 6, USING THE STANDARD PROCEDURE THAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED, HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO CLEAN THE TWEEZERS BETWEEN COLLECTING STAIN NO. 5 AND STAIN NO. 6?

A: ALL TOLLED?

Q: YES.

A: FOUR TIMES.

Q: NO. BETWEEN THE TWO STAINS?

A: OH, BETWEEN THE TWO STAINS?

Q: YEAH.

A: ONCE.

Q: WELL, IF YOU COLLECT -- LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GET THE SEQUENCE DOWN BETWEEN THE TWO STAINS. LET'S SAY THAT YOU'VE COLLECTED THE STAIN NO. 5?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. THEN THE NEXT THING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO ON NO. 6 IS TO COLLECT THE SUBSTRATE CONTROL?

A: YES.

Q: WILL YOU HAVE CLEANED YOUR TWEEZERS BEFORE DOING THAT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEM YOU WOULD PACKAGE UP SUBSTRATE CONTROL NO. 6?

A: YES.

Q: AND NOW YOU'RE GOING TO COLLECT STAIN NO. 6?

A: YES.

Q: BEFORE COLLECTING STAIN NO. 6, WILL YOU HAVE CLEANED YOUR TWEEZERS AGAIN?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO IT'S TWICE UNDER THE STANDARD PRACTICE THAT YOU CLEAN THE TWEEZERS?

A: YES.

Q: BETWEEN STAINS?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IF SOMEONE VARIES THAT PRACTICE BY COLLECTING THE TWEEZERS AN EXTRA TIME --

THE COURT: COLLECTING?

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: I'M SORRY -- CLEANING THE TWEEZERS AN EXTRA TIME, IS THAT SOMETHING OVER AND ABOVE THE STANDARD PRACTICE THAT YOU'RE USING AT LAPD?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. OKAY. SO IS THE PROCEDURE THAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED THE SAME GENERAL PROCEDURE THAT WAS USED TO COLLECT THE STAINS AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO MARK AS MY NEXT EXHIBIT PEOPLE'S 164 FOR IDENTIFICATION, A DIAGRAM -- I'M SORRY. IT'S ALREADY BEEN MARKED. I WOULD LIKE TO USE WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 120 WHICH IS A DIAGRAM OF ROCKINGHAM.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PEOPLE'S 120.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: MR. FUNG, PERHAPS YOU CAN STEP DOWN IF YOU NEED TO TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THIS BOARD. HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THIS BOARD BEFORE TODAY?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: AND THE PHOTOGRAPHS IN IT AS WELL?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO PHOTOGRAPH A ON THIS BOARD, THERE ARE IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH WHAT APPEAR TO BE LITTLE TINY CARDS IN THE STREET AND ON THE DRIVEWAY. WHAT DO THOSE CARDS REPRESENT?

A: THOSE REPRESENT ITEMS OF EVIDENCE OR TAGS FOR ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT WE WERE GOING TO DOCUMENT.

Q: SO THESE ARE THE CARDS THAT YOU USE WHEN YOU WERE PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBING I THINK WHAT WAS STEP NO. 1 ON THE DEMONSTRATION, NUMBERING AND MEASURING THE STAINS?

A: YES.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD OBJECT THAT TESTIMONY HAS BEEN CONCLUSIONARY. HE HAS TO TESTIFY SPECIFICALLY TO WHAT HE OR SOMEONE --

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: THESE ARE THE CARDS THAT YOU USED?

A: YES.

Q: AND ARE THESE CARDS CARDS THAT YOU PUT OUT OR THAT ANDREA MAZZOLA PUT OUT IN YOUR PRESENCE?

A: YEAH.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO THAT AS BEING VAGUE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. SCHECK: HE SHOULD SAY WHO DID WHAT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. THAT'S NOT -- WAIT. IT'S NOT AN APPROPRIATE OBJECTION. PROCEED.

MR. GOLDBERG: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE WERE THESE CARDS PUT OUT?

A: THE CARDS WERE PUT OUT TO MARK ITEMS OF EVIDENCE OR LOCATIONS THAT WE WANTED DOCUMENTED.

Q: OKAY. NOW, THERE'S ALSO A CALL OUTLINE THAT GOES FROM THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT ARE LABELED A AND B ON THIS DIAGRAM. WHAT DOES -- DOES THAT CALL OUTLINE PORTRAY THE GENERAL AREA THAT YOU SAW THESE TWO STAINS, THE STAINS IN A AND B?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. BUT ONE'S IN THE STREET, THE OTHER ONE IS IN THE DRIVEWAY?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY NOW AT THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT'S MARKED C ON THIS DIAGRAM. MAYBE WE CAN HAVE THAT ONE. I DON'T KNOW IF THE RESOLUTION ON THE LARGE ONE IS GOOD ENOUGH, BUT, MR. FUNG, MAYBE YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THE SMALLER PHOTOGRAPH HERE WHICH IS C. CAN YOU ACTUALLY SEE THE NUMBERS ON THE CARD?

A: YES, I CAN.

Q: AND DO THOSE CARDS REPRESENT STAIN NO. --

A: 5.

Q: -- 5 AND 6? WELL, THERE'S 5, 6 AND THEN THERE'S A LETTER?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE CALL OUTLINE FROM THAT PHOTOGRAPH, DOES THAT DEMONSTRATE THE GENERAL AREA WHERE THESE THREE STAINS WERE LOCATED?

A: YES, IT DOES.

Q: AND WITH RESPECT TO THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT'S MARKED D ON THIS DIAGRAM, DOES THAT REPRESENT STAIN NO. 8 AS PORTRAYED IN THE -- IS THAT AN 8?

A: THAT'S A B.

Q: OH, I'M SORRY. A B. OKAY. AND DOES THE CALL OUTLINE SHOW WHERE B WAS?

A: YES. APPROXIMATELY, YES.

Q: OKAY. AND NOW LOOKING AT THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT'S MARKED F ON THIS DIAGRAM --

A: YES.

Q: -- WHAT DOES THAT SHOW?

A: THAT SHOWS THE STAIN THAT WE LABELED C.

Q: OKAY. AND NOW LOOKING AT PHOTOGRAPH I -- MAYBE WE CAN HAVE I. WHICH STAIN IS DEPICTED IN I?

A: THAT WOULD -- THAT IS NO. 7.

Q: OKAY. AND DOES THE CALL OUTLINE REPRESENT THE GENERAL AREA WHERE 7 WAS COLLECTED FROM?

A: YES, IT DOES.

Q: AND NOW DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO PHOTOGRAPH K, WHAT DOES THAT DEPICT?

A: THAT DEPICTS THE LOCATION WHERE NO. 8 WAS COLLECTED.

Q: OKAY. AND THE CALL OUTLINE ON THAT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. YOU CAN RESUME YOUR SEAT. NOW, DID YOU COLLECT A STAIN ON THE CAR DOOR OF A BRONCO THAT WAS LOCATED AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU HAVE TO IN ORDER TO TELL US TIMES THAT VARIOUS STAINS WERE COLLECTED REFER TO SOMETHING OR DID YOU MEMORIZE THAT?

A: I WOULD HAVE TO REFER TO NOTES.

Q: WHAT TYPE OF DOCUMENT WOULD YOU HAVE TO REFER TO?

A: THERE'S AN EVIDENCE COLLECTION SHEET THAT WE FILL OUT.

Q: IS THAT THE CRIME SCENE IDENTIFICATION CHECK -- PART OF THE CRIME SCENE IDENTIFICATION CHECKLIST?

A: YES.

Q: THAT WAS THE DOCUMENT THAT WE PUT UP EARLIER THAT HAD -- THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF WHO WAS IN THE BOX OR THE LINE LOCATED ACROSS FROM WHERE IT SAYS OIC, OFFICER IN CHARGE?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN IS THAT PARTICULAR DOCUMENT FILLED OUT? IS IT AT THE CRIME SCENE OR AFTER OR --

A: THE -- CERTAIN PORTION -- WELL, MOST EVERY PORTION IS FILLED OUT AT THE CRIME SCENE.

Q: OKAY. SO THE PORTIONS DOCUMENTING THE NUMBERS THAT YOU COLLECTED AND THEIR LOCATIONS, WHEN ARE THEY FILLED OUT?

A: THOSE ARE FILLED OUT AT THE CRIME SCENE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU KNOW WHO TOOK THE MEASUREMENTS OF THE VARIOUS ITEMS HERE THAT ARE LISTED IN THE CRIME SCENE IDENTIFICATION CHECKLIST?

A: BOTH CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA AND MYSELF WERE WORKING AS A TEAM TO MEASURE THESE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE.

Q: SO YOU WORKED TOGETHER IN THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WITH RESPECT TO THE TIMES THAT ARE WRITTEN DOWN THERE, AS TO THE EVIDENCE COLLECTION THAT OCCURRED AT ROCKINGHAM THE MORNING OF THE 13TH, WHEN WERE THOSE FILLED OUT?

A: THOSE WERE FILLED OUT AT APPROXIMATELY THE SAME TIME THAT THEY WERE COLLECTED.

Q: SO THEY ARE NOT EXACT?

A: NO, THEY'RE NOT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY PAGES OF DOCUMENTATION INCLUDING THE CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION CHECKLIST DID YOU GENERATE IN THIS CASE IN CONNECTION WITH THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED WOULD YOU SAY?

A: THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY 80 SHEETS OF NOTES AND REPORTS GENERATED.

Q: HAVE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK THOSE OVER PRIOR TO YOUR TESTIMONY?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: AND ARE THERE SOME CLERICAL ERRORS IN SOME OF THOSE REPORTS AND NOTES?

A: YES, THERE ARE.

Q: OKAY. WHEN YOU'RE AT THE CRIME SCENE, DO YOU FILL THESE PARTICULAR DOCUMENTS OUT -- WELL, DID YOU FILL THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT OUT -- I'M REFERRING TO THE ROCKINGHAM CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION CHECKLIST -- IN PEN OR IN PENCIL?

A: THIS I BELIEVE WAS DONE IN PENCIL.

Q: AND WHY -- WHY WOULD YOU USE A PENCIL AS OPPOSED TO A PEN?

A: IF A MISTAKE WAS MADE, THEN YOU COULD EASILY ERASE IT AND PUT IN THE CORRECT INFORMATION.

Q: SO IT'S A DOCUMENT THAT YOU ARE FILLING OUT IN THE FIELD?

A: YES.

Q: AND IF THERE'S A MISTAKE, YOU SIMPLY ERASE AND THEN WRITE OVER IT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, CAN YOU TELL US AT APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME THE ITEM ON THE BRONCO DOOR WAS RECOVERED?

A: THAT WAS RECOVERED AT APPROXIMATELY 8:15 IN THE MORNING.

Q: NOW, PERHAPS I CAN PUT THAT EXHIBIT UP. IT'S PEOPLE'S 62-B I BELIEVE. WHAT DOES PEOPLE'S 62-B FOR IDENTIFICATION DEPICT?

A: THAT DEPICTS ME POINTING AT THE STAIN THAT WAS ON THE DOOR HANDLE OR NEAR THE DOOR HANDLE.

Q: AND THAT'S WHAT WAS COLLECTED AT APPROXIMATELY 8:15 OR SO IN THE MORNING?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU WERE AT THE BRONCO THAT MORNING, COULD YOU SEE ANY OTHER BLOOD INSIDE OF THE BRONCO?

A: I DID SEE WHAT APPEARED TO BE STAINS IN THE INTERIOR PORTION OF THE VEHICLE.

Q: WHERE WERE YOU STANDING WHEN YOU SAW THOSE?

A: I WAS STANDING AT THE FRONT PASSENGER WINDOW.

Q: SO ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE VEHICLE AS DEPICTED IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, PEOPLE'S 62-B?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT DID YOU SEE WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING IN?

A: I SAW SOME REDDISH STAINS ON THE CONSOLE AND NEAR THE WINDOW LEDGE OF THE DRIVER DOOR.

Q: WAS THERE ENOUGH LIGHT FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE FLOORBOARD ON THE DRIVER'S SIDE?

A: I COULD SEE THE DRIVER'S FLOORBOARD, BUT I COULDN'T MAKE ANYTHING OUT.

Q: ON IT.

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO STAINS 4 THROUGH 6, WHAT TIME WERE THOSE COLLECTED APPROXIMATELY?

A: STAINS 4 THROUGH 6 WERE COLLECTED APPROXIMATELY 9:00 O'CLOCK.

Q: AND 7 THROUGH 8, APPROXIMATELY WHEN WERE THOSE COLLECTED?

A: 7 AND 8 WERE COLLECTED APPROXIMATELY 9:15.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING AT THE VARIOUS BLOOD DOTS THAT YOU PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED THAT ARE DEPICTED ON THE DIAGRAM HERE THAT'S BEEN PREVIOUSLY MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 120 FOR IDENTIFICATION, DID ANY OF THOSE BLOOD DOTS APPEAR TO BE STEPPED IN?

A: NO.

Q: WHAT CONDITION DID THEY APPEAR TO BE IN?

A: THEY APPEARED TO BE DRY AND THEY HAD A REDDISH TINGE TO THEM AND THEY APPEARED FRESH.

Q: OKAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG, WOULD THIS BE AN APPROPRIATE POINT?

MR. GOLDBERG: IT WOULD, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HOW ABOUT IF YOU TAKE THAT EXHIBIT DOWN FOR ME. ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE MORNING SESSION. PLEASE REMEMBER ALL OF MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU; DO NOT DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, DO NOT FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT IT, DO NOT CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU, DO NOT ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE. COUNSEL, WE WILL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL 1:30. AND LET ME SEE COUNSEL WITHOUT THE REPORTER AT THE SIDEBAR. MR. FUNG, YOU ARE ORDERED TO RETURN AT 1:30.

(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)

(AT 12:05 P.M., THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, APRIL 3, 1995 1:34 P.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

(APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED, MR. KELBERG AND MR. LYNCH, ALSO APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.)

(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

(CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. THE DEFENDANT IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED. LET'S SEE. WE HAVE A NEW ADDITION, BRIAN KELBERG --

MR. KELBERG: YES, YOUR HONOR. GOOD AFTERNOON.

THE COURT: -- ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE. GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE TWO MOTIONS ON FOR THIS AFTERNOON. ONE HAS TO DO WITH -- ONE HAS TO DO WITH THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DR. GOLDEN AND THE OTHER HAS TO DO WITH ADMISSIBILITY OF AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS. MR. KELBERG.

MR. KELBERG: YOUR HONOR, IF IT WOULD PLEASE THE COURT AND COUNSEL, I WOULD PREFER TO ADDRESS THE DR. GOLDEN MOTION FIRST.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. TWO ISSUES AS TO DR. GOLDEN.

MR. KELBERG: CORRECT, AND I DID RECEIVE COUNSEL'S RESPONSE FILED I BELIEVE ON FRIDAY. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, DEFENSE'S RESPONSE WAS NOT FILED UNDER SEAL. I HAVE HEARD SOME PUBLIC COMMENTARY REGARDING IT. OURS WAS FILED UNDER SEAL. AND OF COURSE I ASSUME THE COURT HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW WHAT WE SAY IN OUR BRIEF. LET ME BEGIN BY ACKNOWLEDGING WHAT IS A SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT POSITION FOR ME, AND ESPECIALLY SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT BECAUSE MY COLLEAGUE, MR. HARMON, IS SITTING RIGHT BEHIND ME. I THINK THE COURT PROBABLY RECOGNIZED, IF IT REVIEWED MR. HARMON'S MOTION REGARDING THE SCOPE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXPERTS AND REVIEWED MY MOTION CONCERNING THE SCOPE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXPERTS, THAT WE SEEM TO BE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME TOPIC BUT SEEM TO REACH VERY DIFFERENT VIEWS OF WHAT THE LAW IS IN THIS AREA. AND I THINK IT IS CLEAR TO SAY THAT MR. HARMON DIDN'T CONSULT ME WHEN HE FILED HIS MOTION, AND I THINK IT IS CLEAR THAT I DID NOT CONSULT HIM WHEN MR. LYNCH, WHO IS SITTING -- I DON'T KNOW IF THE COURT HAS MET MR. LYNCH, BUT MR. LYNCH IS MY COLLEAGUE WHO HAS ASSISTED ME ABLY ON THESE MOTIONS, ALONG WITH MS. LEWIS ON THE PHOTOGRAPHIC MOTION, THAT WE DID NOT CONSULT MR. HARMON. I SAY THIS BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT IN TESTING EXPERT TESTIMONY ONE SHOULD TEST IT ON THE MERITS OF THE SCIENCE OR THE MEDICINE AND I BELIEVE THE LAW SPORTS THAT POSITION. AND AS A RESULT OF MY PERSPECTIVE I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ONE'S PERSONAL USE OF DRUGS, WHEN THE PERSON IS NOT A PERCIPIENT WITNESS AND THE QUESTION MAY BE WHETHER THE PERSON'S PERCEPTIONS OR ABILITY TO PERCEIVE AND RECOLLECT WERE AFFECTED BY DRUGS, THAT THAT BECOMES AN ISSUE, AND I CARRY THAT OVER, AND I REALIZE THAT THERE IS THIS DICHOTOMY, AND PROBABLY I WON'T RIDE IN THE SAME ELEVATOR BACK WITH MR. HARMON AFTER COURT THIS AFTERNOON. HE HAS GIVEN VALUED ASSISTANCE TO OUR OFFICE, FROM ALAMEDA, BUT THE LAW IS THE LAW, AT LEAST AS I SEE IT, AND IT APPLIES WHETHER IT IS MY MOTION, MR. HARMON'S MOTION OR A DEFENSE MOTION. SO I HAVE TO BEGIN WITH THAT CAVEAT. IT IS A SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT PROCEEDING. I BELIEVE OUR POSITION ON THE LAW IS THE STATE OF THE LAW ON SCOPE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION OF AN EXPERT. LET ME BEGIN THEN WITH THE ALLEGED GUN INCIDENT OF DR. GOLDEN. THE FACT THAT JUST A WEEK AGO THE ACADEMY AWARDS WERE GIVEN OUT AND TOM HANKS WON FOR THE SECOND YEAR IN A ROW CAUSED ME TO REVIEW THE MOVIE FOR WHICH HE WON THE OSCAR THE YEAR BEFORE, PHILADELPHIA STORY, AND THE COURT MAY HAVE SEEN THE MOVIE A YEAR AGO. WHEN TOM HANKS IS DYING OF AIDS, HE IS AT HIS HOSPITAL BED DYING WHEN HIS LAWYER, DENZEL WASHINGTON, COMES TO REPORT THE SUCCESS FROM A BIG VERDICT THAT THE JURY HAS RENDERED IN HIS WRONGFUL DISCHARGE SUIT. AND AT THAT TIME TOM HANKS WHISPERS A JOKE TO DENZEL WASHINGTON, WHICH AS DENZEL WASHINGTON IS LEAVING THE HOSPITAL HE ENTERS AN ELEVATOR WHERE THERE IS A PATIENT IN A WHEELCHAIR AND A CERVICAL COLLAR, AND HE REPEATS THE JOKE TO THAT PATIENT. WHAT DO YOU CALL A THOUSAND LAWYERS CHAINED TOGETHER AT THE BOTTOM OF THE OCEAN? AND BEFORE DENZEL WASHINGTON CAN EVEN GIVE THE PATIENT THE PUNCHLINE, THE PATIENT, WITH A BIT OF A SARDONIC SMILE PROVIDES IT, "A GOOD START." IT IS UNFORTUNATE, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE LEGAL PROFESSION HAS A PERCEPTION IN THE POPULATION AT LARGE THAT IS SOMETHING LESS THAN FAVORABLE. IT IS CLEAR THAT WE HAVE PERHAPS ONLY OURSELVES TO BLAME THAT WE SOMETIMES USE TRICK AND ARTIFICE, IT SEEMS, IN CROSS-EXAMINATION OR DIRECT EXAMINATION AND CAUSE WITNESSES TO BE MADE TO LOOK FOOLISH WHEN IN FACT IT IS A VERY CREDIBLE AND TRUTHFUL WITNESS. SO WE DO HAVE ONLY OURSELVES TO BLAME FOR THIS PERCEPTION. AND THE INCIDENT INVOLVING DR. GOLDEN, EVEN IF THE INCIDENT OCCURRED IN A WAY WHICH IS THE MOST FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENSE, THAT IS A REAL WEAPON, AND THE THREAT BEING MADE REGARDING TAKING OUT LAWYERS, THAT DOES NOT SHOW BIAS AGAINST THESE LAWYERS. AFTER ALL, MR. HODGMAN, THE PROSECUTOR AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, IS A LAWYER. WE ARE LAWYERS. IF ANYTHING, AT ITS BEST SUCH EVIDENCE MERELY SUGGESTS WHAT IS A NATIONALLY HELD VIEW, THAT YOU COULD TAKE A THOUSAND AND A WHOLE LOT MORE LAWYERS, CHAIN THEM TO THE BOTTOM OF THE OCEAN AND SOCIETY MIGHT BE THE BETTER FOR IT. I HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW. THIS COURT WAS A LAWYER FOR MANY YEARS. I HAVE BEEN A LAWYER FOR MANY YEARS. DEFENSE COUNSEL HAVE BEEN LAWYERS FOR FAR MANY YEARS MORE THAN I HAVE. AND I DON'T THINK ANY OF US WOULD BE IN THIS IF IT WERE NOT AN HONORABLE PROFESSION. AND I SPEAK OF THAT BOTH FROM THIS SIDE OF THE TABLE AND FROM THAT SIDE OF THE TABLE BECAUSE SOMEONE WHO IS VERY NEAR AND DEAR TO ME PRACTICES LAW FROM THAT SIDE OF THE TABLE; NOT THIS SIDE OF THE TABLE. AND SO WHEN THE PUBLIC HAS THIS CONCERN ABOUT LAWYERS, IT BOTHERS ME, BUT IF THE ISSUE IS DID DR. GOLDEN MAKE MISTAKES IN THE WAY HE PERFORMED THE AUTOPSY, HOW IS THIS VIEW OF LAWYERING GOING TO ASSIST A JURY IN DECIDING WHETHER MISTAKES WERE MADE OR NOT? LET ME TELL THIS COURT, THERE IS NO QUESTION MISTAKES WERE MADE AND WE ARE GOING TO BRING OUT THOSE MISTAKES. THERE IS NOTHING TO HIDE. WHEN ONE LOOKS AT THE EVIDENCE -- AND WE HAVE NO FEAR THAT WHEN ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IS OUT AND ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED TO THIS JURY THAT THEY WILL MAKE A FAIR AND RATIONAL DECISION, BECAUSE ALTHOUGH IN DEAN UELMEN'S RESPONSE, I THINK TO THE PHOTOGRAPHIC MOTION, HE USED THE PEJORATIVE TERM "INCOMPETENCY," NO. 1, THAT IS NOT A TERM WE USE AND THAT IS NOT A TERM WHICH IS GOING TO APPLY TO WHAT DR. GOLDEN DID, BUT WHEN YOU USE A TERM LIKE "INCOMPETENCY" AS A PEJORATIVE, IT CONVEYS AN IMAGE THAT NOT ONLY WERE MISTAKES MADE, BUT THEY REALLY MATTER. THEY GO TO THE HEART OF CAUSE OF DEATH, MANNER OF DEATH, WAS THERE ONE KILLER, MULTIPLE KILLERS, HOW DID THESE PEOPLE BLEED, SHOULD BLOOD BE ON THE PERPETRATOR AND SO FORTH. WELL, WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS GOING TO SHOW, AND I HAVE THE UTMOST CONFIDENCE MY COLLEAGUES WILL BE ABLE TO ARGUE SUCCESSFULLY TO THIS JURY, IS THAT WHATEVER MISTAKES DR. GOLDEN MADE, THEY DO NOT IMPACT ON ANY ISSUE IN THIS CASE. LET ME USE THE MOST WELL-KNOWN EXAMPLE. EVERYBODY TALKS ABOUT, MY GOD, HE THREW AWAY THE STOMACH CONTENTS OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON. WHAT AN IDIOTIC THING TO DO. WELL, I THINK IT IS FAIR TO SAY THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW SHE DID NOT DIE OF FOOD POISONING FROM MEZZALUNA RESTAURANT AND SHE DID NOT DIE FROM DRUG INTOXICATION FROM TAKING TOO MANY BARBITURATES THAT ARE STILL IN HER STOMACH. IF ONE WANTS TO LOOK AT THE MEDICAL REASONS WHY ONE WOULD SAVE THE STOMACH CONTENTS, THEN THAT IS A PERFECTLY FAIR ISSUE TO PRESENT TO THIS JURY. AND I SUBMIT WHEN THE EVIDENCE IS OUT, THERE IS NO MEDICAL ISSUE THAT WARRANTED SAVING THOSE CONTENTS. BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW THAT DR. GOLDEN DID WHAT ANY SOUND FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST EXAMINING A BODY IN THIS SITUATION WOULD DO; HE OPENED THE STOMACH, HE EXAMINED ITS CONTENTS. HE WROTE IT DOWN CONTEMPORANEOUSLY TO HIS EXAMINATION AND THE FORM WILL BE IN EVIDENCE FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE THAT HE, NOT BY JUST LUCK, BUT BY COMPETENCY, EXAMINED AND FOUND RIGATONI IN NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S STOMACH AND FOUND THE VOLUME TO BE 500 CC'S. AND THIS COURT MAY REMEMBER WHEN MS. CLARK WAS EXAMINING, I BELIEVE TIA GAVIN IS THE SERVER'S NAME, SOMEBODY CAME IN I GUESS AT THE LUNCH HOUR WITH SOME DOCUMENT IN RESPONSE TO AN SDT WHICH MISS CLARK DIDN'T HAVE THE FOGGIEST IDEA ABOUT, AND THAT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY, BECAUSE I THOUGHT, GETTING INTO THE CASE SOMEWHAT BELATEDLY, THAT, GEE, IT MIGHT BE INTERESTING TO SEE WAS IT A LUCKY GUESS BY DR. GOLDEN THAT SHE HAD RIGATONI IN HER STOMACH, OR DID HE IN FACT MAKE AN ACCURATE OBSERVATION. AND LO AND BEHOLD, AS THE EVIDENCE HAS ALREADY SHOWN, HE MADE AN ACCURATE OBSERVATION. AND THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL FURTHER SHOW, YOUR HONOR, THAT WHEN SOMEONE IS ABLE TO IDENTIFY INTACT FOOD IN THE STOMACH, NOT WHAT I SAY, NOT WHAT DR. GOLDEN SAYS, BUT, FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE MOST RECOGNIZED FORENSIC PATHOLOGY TEXTS IN USE IN THIS COUNTRY, SPITZ AND FISHER -- I WILL GIVE THEM A PLUG, SPITZ AND FISHER MEDICAL LEGAL INVESTIGATION OF DEATH, THIRD EDITION -- WHAT DO THEY SAY AND WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE GOING TO SHOW? IT IS GOING TO SHOW: "IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT STOMACH CONTENTS WHICH ARE READILY IDENTIFIABLE BY NAKED EYE INSPECTION WERE USUALLY INGESTED WITHIN A TWO-HOUR PERIOD." AND OF COURSE THE COURT WILL RECALL THE TESTIMONY IS THAT MS. BROWN LEFT THE RESTAURANT BETWEEN 8:30 AND 9:00, ONE WITNESS SAID 8:45'ISH, AND I ASSUME THAT MY COLLEAGUES WILL ARGUE TO THE JURY THAT IT IS REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT ONE DOESN'T PUT IN THE LAST BITE OF FOOD AND IN THE NEXT BREATH TAKE THE FIRST STEP OUT OF THE RESTAURANT. IF ONE IS TALKING ABOUT 10:15 VERSUS ELEVEN O'CLOCK, WE DON'T NEED DR. GOLDEN'S INCIDENT WITH THE GUN TO TEST THE STOMACH CONTENTS AND TO TEST THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT STOMACH CONTENTS. AND IN FACT WHAT IS SOME OF THE STRONGEST EVIDENCE ON STOMACH CONTENTS COME FROM THE WORDS UNDER OATH OF THE DEFENSE EXPERT THAT MR. COCHRAN HAS INDICATED TO THIS JURY THEY WILL HEAR FROM, DR. BADEN, WHO IN A 1988 CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION SAID THAT THE TIME OF DEATH WHERE HE WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY INTACT PIECES OF POTATO AND MEAT WITH CLEAR MARGINS AROUND THE FOOD INDICATING LACK OF DIGESTIVE PROCESS, THAT INDICATED DEATH LESS THAN ONE HOUR FROM THE TIME OF EATING. AND DR. BADEN'S VIEW IS THAT THE STOMACH EMPTIES IN SOMETHING LIKE OR LESS THAN TWO HOURS, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE MEDICALLY CORRECT, BUT NEVERTHELESS, FROM THE WORD OF THEIR OWN EXPERT, THE EVIDENCE OF THE STOMACH CONTENTS WILL SHOW THAT THE TIME OF DEATH IS IN FACT CONSISTENT WITH 10:15 AND NOT CONSISTENT WITH ELEVEN O'CLOCK. SO IN SPITE OF EVERYBODY TALKING ABOUT STOMACH CONTENTS AND THROWING THEM AWAY, THERE IS ONLY ONE REASON THE STOMACH CONTENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED IN THIS CASE, AS THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW, TO COVER THE BACK SIDE OF DR. GOLDEN SO THAT DR. BADEN COULD HAVE EXAMINED IT. IT IS DEFENSIVE MEDICINE IN THE PRACTICE OF CLINICAL MEDICINE. IT IS DOING UNNECESSARY TESTS TO PROTECT THE DOCTOR FROM BEING SUED WHEN THERE IS AN ADVERSE OUTCOME. BUT IF THE ISSUE IS GOING TO BE THE MEDICAL JUDGMENT AND THE MEDICAL FINDING THAT THAT EVIDENCE CAN SUPPORT, THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT THE EVIDENCE WILL SUPPORT THE VIEW THAT THE STOMACH CONTENTS, IF TO BE USED AT ALL FOR ESTIMATING TIME OF DEATH, SUPPORTS 10:15 AND REFUTES ELEVEN O'CLOCK. WE DON'T NEED THIS ALLEGED ANIMOSITY TOWARDS LAWYERS TO TEST THAT. NOW, THIS IS ASSUMING THAT THE INCIDENT OCCURRED THE WAY IT DID. THE EVIDENCE IS ANYTHING BUT CLEAR THAT THE INCIDENT OCCURRED THAT WAY. IN FACT, THERE IS AN ISSUE IS IT A REAL GUN OR A TOY GUN, IS IT SAID IN JEST, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, WHO IS IT IN REFERENCE TO? THE LAWYERS IN THE SIMPSON CASE? THIS IS A COMMENT ALLEGEDLY MADE 13 DAYS AFTER DR. GOLDEN TESTIFIED AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING; 13 DAYS. NOW, IF DR. GOLDEN FELT THAT HE WAS SUBJECTED TO WHAT DEAN UELMEN CALLS A BLISTERING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SHAPIRO, I HAVE TO SAY I HAVE READ IT, I HAVE WATCHED IT, AND IF THAT IS BLISTERING, I CAN ONLY IMAGINE HOW DEAN UELMEN WOULD CHARACTERIZE MR. DOUGLAS' CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. SHIPP OR MR. BAILEY'S CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE TWO POLICE OFFICERS. I WOULD ASSUME HE WOULD USE A TERM LIKE THERMONUCLEAR. THE POINT IS THAT IF DR. GOLDEN WERE SO UPSET, YOU WOULD HAVE HAD AN INCIDENT THAT DAY, THAT NIGHT, THE NEXT DAY. WE KNOW -- I THINK THE COURT COULD ALMOST TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE -- THAT CORONERS PERFORM AUTOPSIES, ONE, PERHAPS TWO AUTOPSIES, EVERY WORKING DAY THEY ARE THERE WHEN THEY ARE NOT TESTIFYING IN COURT. AND SO WHEN THEY ARE TESTIFYING IN COURT, THEY ARE BEING HASSLED BY A LOT OF LAWYERS, D.A.'S, DEFENSE ATTORNEYS. THEY WANT THEM THERE AT A PARTICULAR TIME. THE DOCTOR CAN'T BE THERE. THEY WANT TO TALK TO THEM IN ADVANCE TO SEE WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO SAY. THE DOCTOR DOESN'T HAVE THE TIME. THERE IS THIS INHERENT TENSION BETWEEN THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES AND OUR RESPONSIBILITIES AND I SAY "OUR," I MEAN THE LEGAL PROFESSION, NOT JUST PROSECUTORS. AND SO ANY ANIMOSITY HE MIGHT HAVE, IF IT IN FACT EXISTS, IS AGAINST THE PROCESS IN GENERAL, IS NOT SHOWN TO BE AGAINST THESE LAWYERS, AND IN FACT THIS IS A CLASSIC 352 CIRCUMSTANCE FOR WHICH CROSS-EXAMINATION SHOULD BE PRECLUDED. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LITIGATE WHAT HAPPENED. DR. GOLDEN DOES IN FACT HAVE A 5TH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE. AND IN FACT ONE OF THE CASES THAT I PULLED UP THIS MORNING, THE JENNINGS CASE, I THINK IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT, 53 CAL.3D 334, PAGE 371, WHERE THE COURT NOTED THAT THE FACT THAT EVIDENCE WOULD CONSUME A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD OF TIME, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OF THE WITNESSES, WOULD PROBABLY INVOKE THE 5TH AMENDMENT NECESSITATING THE APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FOR THEM WAS A VALID BASIS FOR THE COURT TO SAY FORGET IT, 352, LET'S KEEP IT OUT. AND INCIDENTALLY, DEAN UELMEN IN HIS RESPONSE DOES NOT POINT OUT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS, SUCH AS DELAWARE VERSUS VANARSDALE, WHICH I CAN GIVE THE COURT THE CITATION TO.

THE COURT: I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE CASE.

MR. KELBERG: AND THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT CASES WHICH FOLLOW IT WHICH SAY THAT THERE IS NOTHING INHERENTLY INCONSISTENT BETWEEN A COURT EXERCISING ITS DISCRETION UNDER 352 TO EXCLUDE BASICALLY IRRELEVANT, PREJUDICIAL, IN THE WRONG SENSE OF THE TERM, PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE, AND GIVING THE DEFENDANT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION UNDER THE 6TH. THERE IS NO INCONSISTENCY. WHAT IF WE ARE GOING TO SPEND THE TIME LITIGATING THE FACTS THAT SURROUND THE INCIDENT WITH DR. GOLDEN, THEN I SUGGEST TO THE COURT WE DIVERT THE ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE JURY'S --

THE COURT: GO AHEAD.

MR. KELBERG: -- THE JURY'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE MEDICAL ISSUES INVOLVED. NOW, PERHAPS THE DEFENSE PREFERS THAT, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME WHERE ON DIRECT EXAMINATION MANY MISTAKES WILL BE BROUGHT OUT FROM DR. GOLDEN AND WE WILL ASSESS THE MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC IMPACT OF THOSE MISTAKES, THAT THIS INCIDENT INVOLVING ANIMOSITY IS SIMPLY THE KIND OF THING THAT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED. AND IF IT IS NOT EXCLUDED, THINK WHAT THE COURT BUYS ITSELF INTO. PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS, 791, 1236, BECAUSE THE CONTENTION IS THAT THE BIAS AROSE AS A RESULT OF BLISTERING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. SHAPIRO. THEREFORE, HIS PRELIMINARY HEARING TESTIMONY, HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, WHERE THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH HIS TESTIMONY AT TRIAL, AND PRIOR TO THE FORMATION OF THE ALLEGED BIAS THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS COLLATERAL MATTER, BECOME ADMISSIBLE UNDER 791 AND 1236. I DON'T THINK IT HELPS ANYONE TO SPEND THE TIME GOING OVER THAT. WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT SCIENCE AND MEDICINE, NOT TALKING ABOUT PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS ABOUT MATTERS THAT REALLY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BOTTOM LINE ISSUES OF THE RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE FINDINGS. THAT IS MY VIEW ON THE INCIDENT INVOLVING THE GUN. DOES THE COURT WANT ME TO GO ON THEN TO THE OTHER TWO?

THE COURT: YES. PLEASE GO ON TO THE OTHER INCIDENTS.

MR. KELBERG: OKAY. THE OTHER INCIDENTS AGAIN, 1990 INCIDENTS WHERE DR. GOLDEN MADE CERTAIN MISTAKES. HE MISDIAGNOSED -- AND I'M NOT SURE IS THE CORRECT WORD -- HE OPINED REGARDING ENTRY AND EXIT WOUNDS IN AN INCORRECT FASHION AND HE WAS INVOLVED IN A DETERMINATION OF DISTANCE REGARDING WHERE A GUN WAS AT THE TIME THE SHOT WAS FIRED WHICH TURNED OUT TO BE ERRONEOUS. OUR POSITION ON THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR, YOUR HONOR. THESE ARE SPECIFIC ACTS OF ALLEGED CONDUCT WHICH DO NOT REFLECT OF COURSE ON CREDIBILITY, MORAL TURPITUDE. THEY ARE NOT PRIOR FELONY CONVICTIONS, ET CETERA, SO THEY ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE THEY ONLY SERVE TO CREATE THE IMPRESSION THAT HE HAS A CHARACTER TRAIT FOR BEING AN INCOMPETENT PHYSICIAN, A NEGLIGENT PHYSICIAN AND THAT HE ACTED IN CONFORMITY WITH THAT, THE CLASSIC 1104 OF THE EVIDENCE CODE PROHIBITION. NOW, I THOUGHT IT WAS INTERESTING THAT DEAN UELMEN CITES A FEDERAL CASE -- AND BY THE WAY, THERE IS A SUBSEQUENT COLORADO CASE, I CAN GIVE THE COURT THE CITATION, WHICH REFUSES TO FOLLOW IT -- BUT THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THE FEDERAL CASE IS YOU HAVE GOT AN EXPERT TESTIFYING FOR THE PLAINTIFF IN A MALPRACTICE ACTION AND THE EXPERT IS GOING TO BE ASKED AND IS ASKED, NO. 1, IF HE HAD INFLATED HIS INVOICES WHEN BEING AN EXPERT WITNESS AND HE TESTIFIED HE HAD. NOW, THAT I HAVE NO DISAGREEMENT WITH. IF SOMEBODY DOES THAT, THAT IS AN ACT THAT REFLECTS ON TRUTH AND VERACITY UNDER WHEELER, SPECIFIC ACT, NOT BARRED BECAUSE OF PROP 8, AND IT BEARS ON TRUTH AND VERACITY. THAT IS FRAUD. I MEAN PLAIN AND SIMPLE. THE OTHER THING WAS HE HAD BEEN SUED THREE TIMES IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS AND THE COURT SAID THAT WAS FAIR GAME ON CREDIBILITY, BUT THE RULE THAT WAS CITED, THE RULE THAT WAS CITED BY THE COURT IS 608(B) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE. 608(B) IS A RULE ANALOGOUS TO THE WHEELER DECISION. IT DEALS WITH SPECIFIC ACTS OF MISCONDUCT OFFERED ON THE ISSUE OF TRUTH AND VERACITY. AND WHAT IS INTERESTING IS THIS DECISION IS I THINK '91. IN 1986 THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, IN A CASE CALLED U.S. VERSUS ABLE, WHICH I CAN GIVE THE COURT THE CITATION IF IT WISHES, HAD TO DO WITH A DECISION WHETHER 608(B) AND THE LIMITS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION WITH SPECIFIC ACTS OF MISCONDUCT ON TRUTH AND VERACITY ALSO BARRED CROSS-EXAMINATION ON SPECIFIC ACTS THAT REFLECTED NOT ON TRUTH AND VERACITY, BUT ON BIAS. WHICH IS THE ARGUMENT THAT DEAN UELMEN MAKES IN HIS RESPONSE PAPERS, THAT THIS -- THESE -- I'M SORRY, IN RESPONSE TO THE FIRST INCIDENT OF THE GUN, THAT IT REFLECTS HIS BIAS. THE DECISION IN THE FEDERAL CASE IS DEALING WITH THE MALPRACTICE ACTIONS, AND YET THE COURT CITES 608(B) AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY SUGGESTS THAT BEING SUED IN A MALPRACTICE ACTION REFLECTS A LACK OF TRUTH AND VERACITY ON THE PART OF THE DOCTOR. BUT BY RELYING ON THAT SECTION THE COURT HAS, I BELIEVE, MISCHARACTERIZED WHAT THE LEGITIMATE PURPOSE WOULD BE, IF THERE WERE A LEGITIMATE PURPOSE. OUR POSITION IS THAT THE CASE WE CITE, HINSON, ADDRESSES THIS CLEARLY FOR WHAT IT IS. IT IS MISTAKES THAT ARE MADE IN THE PAST CREATE AN IMPRESSION THAT I HAVE A CHARACTER TRAIT TO ACT IN A SLOPPY FASHION, YOU ACTED IN CONFORMITY WITH THAT CHARACTER TRAIT; IPSO FACTO, YOU MUST HAVE BEEN NEGLIGENT IN THIS CASE. WELL, THIS STUFF IS SO EXCLUDABLE UNDER 352 FOR THE VERY REASON THAT DR. GOLDEN IS GOING TO ADMIT TO HIS MISTAKE OR THAT HIS MISTAKES ARE GOING TO BE SHOWN. THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HE MADE MISTAKES. YOU DON'T NEED THIS EVIDENCE. IT IS THE VERY KIND OF EVIDENCE 352 IS INTENDED TO EXCLUDE. IT IS NOT THE ISSUE FOR THIS JURY. THIS JURY IS GOING TO HAVE TO DECIDE NOT WHETHER MISTAKES WERE MADE, BY THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ANY MISTAKES, IF THERE IS ANY SIGNIFICANCE. AND ON THAT HIS PRIOR MISTAKES WILL SHED NO LIGHT WHATSOEVER. NOW, OF COURSE YOU GOT CLASSIC 352 PROBLEMS AND THESE ARE OLD, FOUR AND A HALF, FIVE YEARS AGO. THEY DEAL WITH TWO CASES OUT OF 6500 THAT HE HAS DONE. THEY DEAL WITH GUNSHOT WOUNDS; NOT STAB WOUNDS. WHAT DO WE DO? DO WE LITIGATE THE MERITS OF THOSE TWO CASES, LITIGATE THE MERITS OF THE 6498 THAT THE DEFENSE DOESN'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST HE DID ANYTHING IMPROPERLY? OR DO WE LITIGATE THE MERITS OF WHAT HE DID IN THIS CASE, AND FOCUS, AS I BELIEVE WE CAN, ON WHAT THE LITERATURE SHOWS, WHAT THE RESEARCH MATERIAL SHOWS, AND WHAT OTHER PEOPLE WHO PRACTICE IN THE AREA BELIEVE WITH RESPECT TO THESE ISSUES, AS WELL AS DR. GOLDEN'S VIEW. SO BOTTOM LINE, YOUR HONOR, IS HINSON IS APPOSITE, NOT INAPPOSITE. THE FEDERAL CASE IS OBVIOUSLY NOT A RULING THAT REALLY REFLECTS WHAT THE TRUE STATE OF THE LAW IS THAT THEY CITE FOR THEIR PROPOSITION THAT THIS EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE, PAST MEDICAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINTS, AND THE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED SO THAT WE CAN FOCUS ON WHAT IS IMPORTANT AND LET THE JURY MAKE AN HONEST CALL WHATEVER WAY IT IS, BECAUSE I WON'T BE HERE AT THE END OF THE CASE WHEN IT IS ARGUED AND THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE IN THIS OFFICE THAT HAVE A LOT OF INTEREST IN HOW IT COMES OUT. BUT I'M GOING TO BE PERFECTLY CANDID WITH THIS COURT, SINCE I'M NOT ARGUING THE CASE, ONCE I'M DONE, I'M OUT OF HERE, AND IT IS NOT SOON ENOUGH FOR ME. I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED MR. HODGMAN'S HEALTH HAD PERMITTED HIM TO BE DOWN HERE. SO I DON'T CARE WHICHEVER WAY THE JURY GOES AS LONG AS THEY MAKE AN HONEST DECISION ON THE EVIDENCE AND NOT BE MISLED. SO THE LAST THING I LEAVE YOU WITH IS JUST I HAVE CONSIDERED HOW SOME OF THESE WITNESSES MUST HAVE FELT AFTER THEY LEFT THEIR EXPERIENCE AS WITNESSES IN THIS CASE. AND YOU KNOW, I GOT A FEELING MR. KAELIN IS NOT GOING TO SEND MS. CLARK A CHRISTMAS CARD UNLESS HE DOES SO BECAUSE HE HEARS SOME D.A. MAKING A COMMENT THAT HE WOULDN'T DO SO AND HE WILL SHOW OTHERWISE. AND THERE ARE OTHER WITNESSES WHO I'M SURE FEEL THAT THEY WERE EXCORIATED BY THE DEFENSE IN CROSS-EXAMINATION AND IN AN UNFAIR WAY. DO WE HONOR THE PROFESSION? DO WE HONOR THE PRACTICE OF LAW AND WHAT THE LAW IS SUPPOSED TO STAND FOR? IF WE DEVIATE IN THAT, THESE LITTLE TRIBUTARIES OF IRRELEVANT BALONEY, I SUGGEST THAT IF THE DEFENSE CAN PROVE THAT DR. GOLDEN MADE MISTAKES THAT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTED ON ANY ISSUE IN THIS CASE, THEY HAVE GOT THE RESOURCES TO BRING IN SOME TOP GUNS TO TRY AND SHOW THAT AND WE WILL CROSS-EXAMINE THEM AND TEST THEIR ABILITY. ONE LAST THING, I'M SORRY, THAT I FORGOT, BECAUSE I THINK IT IS A BIBLE -- I DO NOT HOLD MYSELF AS AN EXPERT ON THE BIBLE, BUT I BELIEVE THERE IS A PHRASE THAT SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT "LET HE WHO HAS NOT SINNED CAST THE FIRST STONE." DR. BADEN, OUR FOREMOST PATHOLOGIST, ACCORDING TO MR. COCHRAN, HAS MADE A FEW MISTAKES OF HIS OWN, AS THE EVIDENCE WOULD SHOW. LET ME FOCUS ON ONE THAT I THINK MAY BE RELEVANT, IF THE COURT BELIEVES DR. GOLDEN'S MISTAKES ARE RELEVANT. DR. BADEN, WHEN HE WAS IN NEW YORK AS A MEDICAL EXAMINER, SIGNED OFF ON A DEATH OF AN ALCOHOLIC --

THE COURT: WELL, LET ME JUST INTERRUPT YOU JUST -- I DON'T REALLY WANT TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD AT THIS POINT.

MR. KELBERG: OKAY. THAT'S FINE, YOUR HONOR. I THINK THE COURT CLEARLY UNDERSTANDS WHAT WE SUBMIT SHOULD BE THE REAL ISSUES AND WHY WE BELIEVE THESE EXTRANEOUS MATTERS DO NOT SERVE A SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH WHICH I HAVE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD, AT LEAST IN OUR IZAZAGA, PROSECUTORIAL DISCOVERY TODAY IS WHERE IS A TRIAL IS INTENDED TO GO, A SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH. SO ON THAT BASIS WE BELIEVE THAT OUR MOTION IS WELL TAKEN AND IT SHOULD BE GRANTED AS IT IS SPELLED OUT.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. KELBERG: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MR. UELMEN.

MR. UELMEN: WE, OF COURSE, ARE INTERESTED IN A SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH AS WELL AND WE SUBSCRIBE TO THE APHORISM THAT THE BEST ENGINE IN THE SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH IS CROSS-EXAMINATION. AND WHAT THIS MOTION REALLY ADDRESSES IS WHAT OPPORTUNITY THE DEFENSE WILL BE GIVEN TO CROSS-EXAMINE AN EXPERT WITNESS AS TO AREAS WITH RESPECT TO HIS QUALIFICATIONS, HIS BIAS, THE CREDIBILITY AND THE WEIGHT THAT THE JURY SHOULD GIVE TO HIS TESTIMONY. THERE ARE ESSENTIALLY TWO ITEMS OF EVIDENCE IN QUESTION HERE. FIRST, ON JULY 21, 1994, 13 DAYS AFTER HE GOT OFF OF THE WITNESS STAND IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING OF THIS MATTER, DR. GOLDEN WAS SEEN DISPLAYING A FIREARM ON THE PREMISES OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CORONER'S OFFICE AND WAS HEARD TO REMARK, "YOU KNOW, WE OUGHT TO GO OUT AND KILL NINE OR TEN OF THOSE ATTORNEYS." THE OTHER ITEM RELATES TO THE FACT THAT, AND IT IS CONCEDED, ON TWO PRIOR AUTOPSIES DR. GOLDEN MADE SERIOUS ERRORS IN EXAMINING THE CHARACTER OF WOUNDS; IN ONE CASE MISCHARACTERIZING ENTRY WOUNDS AND EXIT WOUNDS COMPLETELY BACKWARDS AND IN THE OTHER CASE INDICATING THAT A SHOT WAS FIRED FROM SEVERAL FEET AWAY WHEN IN FACT IT WAS A CONTACT WOUND. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE, WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS THE WEIGHT AND THE CREDIBILITY THAT THE JURY IS GOING TO GIVE TO THE TESTIMONY OF DR. GOLDEN WITH RESPECT TO SOME VERY KEY ISSUES IN THIS CASE, INCLUDING THE TIME OF DEATH, INCLUDING THE NATURE OF THE WOUNDS, WHETHER THE WOUNDS INDICATE THAT THEY WERE MADE BY TWO DIFFERENT WEAPONS, AS DR. GOLDEN INDICATED IN HIS PRELIMINARY TESTIMONY. AND WHEN ULTIMATELY WHAT WE WERE JUST TREATED TO REALLY WAS AKIN TO WHAT WE ARE GOING TO HEAR IN CLOSING ARGUMENTS. I KNOW MR. KELBERG INDICATES HE WON'T BE HERE FOR THE CLOSING ARGUMENT, BUT I THINK WE GOT A PRETTY GOOD PREVIEW OF WHAT WE CAN EXPECT WHEN THE JURY IS ASKED TO WEIGH THE CREDIBILITY OF OPPOSING EXPERT WITNESSES. AND I ASSUME THAT YOUR HONOR WILL INSTRUCT THE JURY IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 2.80 OF THE CALJIC INSTRUCTIONS, THAT: "YOU MAY CONSIDER THE OPINION, WITH THE REASONS GIVEN FOR IT, IF ANY, BY THE EXPERT WHO GIVES THE OPINION. YOU MAY ALSO CONSIDER THE QUALIFICATIONS AND CREDIBILITY OF THE EXPERT. YOU ARE NOT BOUND TO ACCEPT AN EXPERT OPINION AS CONCLUSIVE, BUT SHOULD GIVE TO IT THE WEIGHT TO WHICH YOU FIND IT TO BE ENTITLED." NOW, THE ONLY GUIDE THAT THE JURY IS GOING TO HAVE TO APPROACH THAT FUNCTION OF DETERMINING WHAT WEIGHT THEY SHOULD GIVE TO THE OPINIONS OF THE EXPERTS IS WHAT THEY HEARD IN CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THOSE EXPERTS WITH RESPECT TO THEIR QUALIFICATIONS AND WITH RESPECT TO THEIR CREDIBILITY. AND THE EVIDENCE CODE CLEARLY RECOGNIZES THAT WHEN WE ARE DEALING WITH EXPERT WITNESSES WE HAVE TO TEST THEIR CREDIBILITY IN WAYS THAT WE DON'T TEST THE CREDIBILITY OF NORMAL WITNESSES. SECTION 721 OF THE EVIDENCE CODE PROVIDES THAT: "A WITNESS TESTIFYING AS AN EXPERT MAY BE CROSS-EXAMINED TO THE SAME EXTENT AS OTHER WITNESSES, AND IN ADDITION, MAY BE FULLY CROSS-EXAMINED AS TO HIS QUALIFICATIONS, THE SUBJECT TO WHICH HIS EXPERT TESTIMONY RELATES, AND THE MANNER UPON WHICH HIS OPINION IS BASED AND THE REASONS FOR HIS OPINION." AND THE CALIFORNIA CASES MAKE IT QUITE CLEAR IN APPLYING THAT RULE THAT WE GIVE THE GREATEST AND WIDEST LATITUDE TO THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES, MORE THAN WE DO IN THE CASE OF ANY OTHER WITNESS. NOW, MR. KELBERG REPEATEDLY MISCHARACTERIZES THE NATURE OF THIS EVIDENCE AS BAD CHARACTER EVIDENCE AND THAT IS SIMPLY IS NOT THE PRINCIPLE GROUNDS OF RELEVANCE, ALTHOUGH EVEN ON THAT ISSUE HIS ARGUMENT IS SIMPLY INCORRECT. HE IS ARGUING THAT THE ONLY BAD CHARACTER THAT CAN BE USED TO ATTACK A WITNESS IS A FELONY CONVICTION AND THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE ANY MORE IN THE WAKE OF PROPOSITION 8 WHICH PROVIDES THAT ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE.

THE COURT: I DON'T THINK THAT IS WHAT I HEARD.

MR. KELBERG: I CAN ASSURE THE COURT THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID. WHEELER --

THE COURT: COUNSEL, I AM NOT ADDRESSING YOU, MR. KELBERG.

MR. KELBERG: SORRY, YOUR HONOR.

MR. UELMEN: ALL RIGHT. WELL, THE THEORY ON WHICH THIS EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE OFFERED IS NOT THAT IT IS EVIDENCE OF DR. GOLDEN'S BAD CHARACTER, AND THAT THE JURY SHOULD DISBELIEVE HIM BECAUSE HE IS A BAD MAN WHO DOESN'T CONFORM TO THE REGULATIONS ABOUT BRINGING FIREARMS TO HIS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT.

THE COURT: DEAN UELMEN, LET'S CUT TO THE CHASE. WHAT IS INTERESTING ABOUT THIS IS AN EXPRESSION OF BIAS AGAINST PERHAPS THESE ATTORNEYS AND A DEMONSTRATION OF PROFESSIONAL INCOMPETENCE.

MR. UELMEN: WELL, THE -- LET ME ADDRESS THOSE SEPARATELY. FIRST OF ALL, THE EXPRESSION OF BIAS. IT IS MORE THAN JUST AN EXPRESSION OF BIAS. I THINK IT IS RELEVANT TO BOTH 780(F) WHICH RELATES TO BIAS AND HOSTILITY, AND 780(J) WHICH RELATES TO AN ATTITUDE TOWARD THE GIVING OF TESTIMONY WHICH DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO RELATE TO A SPECIFIC FEELING OF HOSTILITY OR FAVOR OF ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER. 780(J) ADDRESSES THE MORE GENERAL ATTITUDE ABOUT THE GIVING OF TESTIMONY. NOW, WHAT -- WHAT MR. KELBERG IS SAYING ESSENTIALLY IS WE HAVE AN EXPLANATION FOR WHAT DR. GOLDEN DID. OUR EXPLANATION IS THAT ALL HE WAS EXPRESSING IS GENERAL ANIMOSITY TOWARD THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN GENERAL OR PERHAPS HE WAS -- HE WAS MAKING A JOKE. WELL, THAT IS AN EXPLANATION THAT SHOULD COME FROM DR. GOLDEN. WE CERTAINLY HAVE A GOOD FAITH BASIS TO ASK HIM WHAT HE MEANT BY A STATEMENT ABOUT "WE OUGHT TO GO OUT AND KILL NINE OR TEN OF THOSE ATTORNEYS." WE THINK THERE IS AMPLE INDICATION IN THE RECORD THAT AT THE TIME THAT STATEMENT WAS MADE IT WAS SHORTLY AFTER DR. GOLDEN HAD BEEN SUBJECTED TO CROSS-EXAMINATION. WE HAVE INFORMATION, NOT REFLECTED IN THESE STATEMENTS, THAT AT THE TIME THIS INCIDENT OCCURRED DR. GOLDEN MENTIONED MR. SHAPIRO BY NAME. WE KNOW THAT AT THE VERY MOMENT THIS STATEMENT WAS MADE DR. GOLDEN WAS BEING SUBJECTED TO INTENSE MEDIA SCRUTINY, THAT A TELEVISION SPECIAL WAS BEING PREPARED ABOUT DR. GOLDEN AND HIS -- HIS COMPETENCE IN A LONG SERIES OF CASES, SO THERE IS AMPLE REASON FOR US -- IT IS NOT PARANOIA, YOUR HONOR, FOR US TO BELIEVE THAT DR. GOLDEN WAS TALKING ABOUT US WHEN HE SAID, "I OUGHT TO GO OUT AND SHOOT NINE OR TEN OF THOSE ATTORNEYS," THAT THOSE ATTORNEYS ARE THE NINE OR TEN ATTORNEYS WHO ARE ENGAGED IN REPRESENTING MR. SIMPSON IN THE DEFENSE OF THIS CASE. BUT EVEN IF WE CAN CHARACTERIZE THIS AS SOME BROADER HOSTILITY ABOUT ATTORNEYS IN GENERAL, WE BELIEVE THERE IS AMPLE BASIS TO CONCLUDE THAT THAT HOSTILITY ARISES FROM THE ROLE THAT DR. GOLDEN PLAYS AS AN EXPERT WITNESS AND HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION IN THE COURSE OF PRESENTING HIS OPINIONS.

THE COURT: WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO MR. KELBERG'S ARGUMENT REGARDING 352 AND 5TH AMENDMENT PROBLEMS?

MR. UELMEN: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WE DON'T BELIEVE THE 5TH AMENDMENT IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM FOR THE PROSECUTION. THEY HAVE AVAILABLE TO THEM IMMUNITY IF DR. GOLDEN INSISTS THAT HE IS NOT GOING TO TESTIFY IN THIS CASE. BECAUSE HIS TESTIMONY MAY INCRIMINATE HIM OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, THERE ARE NUMEROUS WAYS THAT THE -- THAT THE PEOPLE CAN DEAL WITH THAT, INCLUDING A STRATEGY GRANT OF IMMUNITY.

THE COURT: BUT THAT IS COMPLETELY WITHIN THEIR DISCRETION, AND TACTICALLY I WOULD BE ASTONISHED IF THEY DID THAT, SO THAT DOESN'T HELP US MUCH.

MR. UELMEN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, WHETHER THERE IS ANY REALISTIC INTEREST IN THE PROSECUTION OF DR. GOLDEN, I THINK CAN BE GLEANED FROM THE RECORDS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. YOU HAVE AN OPINION ALREADY RENDERED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, INCIDENTLY WITHOUT EVEN TALKING TO DR. GOLDEN, INDICATING THAT THEY WERE NOT GOING TO PURSUE PROSECUTION OF THIS CASE. SO WHETHER THERE IS ANY REALISTIC FEAR OF SELF-INCRIMINATION OR WHETHER THAT WOULD SIMPLY BE USED AS SOME SORT OF TACTICAL TOOL TO AVOID CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THIS WITNESS, IT CAN BE DEALT WITH THROUGH THE DEVICE OF IMMUNITY, BUT I DON'T EVEN THINK WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT UNTIL THERE HAS BEEN AN INVOCATION OF THE PRIVILEGE. AND THERE IS NO INDICATION IN ANYTHING THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COURT THAT THERE IS ANY RISK OF SELF-INCRIMINATION, MUCH LESS ANY RISK THAT THE WITNESS WILL REFUSE TO TESTIFY ON THAT GROUND.

THE COURT: BUT DON'T WE HAVE AN ETHICAL ISSUE TO BROACH BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, THAT IF WE HAVE A SUSPICION THAT THE WITNESS MAY CLAIM THE 5TH WE HAVE A PROBLEM.

MR. UELMEN: WELL, WE CAN CALL HIM OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY AND ASCERTAIN WHETHER HE IS GOING TO INVOKE THE PRIVILEGE SO IT ISN'T DONE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY, BUT I BELIEVE THAT IS THE ONLY ETHICAL PROBLEM WE HAVE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. UELMEN: YOUR HONOR ALSO ASKED WITH RESPECT TO ANOTHER ASPECT OF --

THE COURT: 352 ARGUMENT.

MR. UELMEN: 352 ARGUMENT. 352 OF COURSE HAS TO BE APPROACHED FROM THE THEORY OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS EVIDENCE TO SHOW BIAS, AND YOUR HONOR HAS ALREADY ADDRESSED THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN'S TESTIMONY, THE EXTENT TO WHICH 352 IS APPROPRIATE WHERE THE RELEVANCE OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION GOES DIRECTLY TO THE BIAS OF THE WITNESS. AND WE BELIEVE THAT WHETHER THE BIAS ARISES FROM RACIAL ANIMOSITY OR WHETHER IT ARISES TO ANIMOSITY TO ANY SORT OF PROFESSIONAL GROUP IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE.

THE COURT: SO WE WANT TO PUT LAWYERS IN A PROTECTED CLASS LIKE WE DO RACE?

MR. UELMEN: WELL, IN TERMS OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS.

THE COURT: THAT WAS A JOKE. THAT WAS A JOKE, DEAN UELMEN.

MR. UELMEN: WELL, WE SEEM TO BE PLAGUED WITH JOKES IN THIS CASE, AND FRANKLY, EVEN IF THIS WAS INTENDED AS A JOKE, A CORONER WHO WOULD MAKE A JOKE ABOUT KILLING NINE OR TEN LAWYERS ONE YEAR AFTER THE TRAGEDY OF WHAT HAPPENED IN SAN FRANCISCO WHEN A GUNMAN WENT INTO THE OFFICES OF A LAW FIRM AND SHOT EIGHT OR NINE PEOPLE, IT IS JUST NOT A FUNNY JOKE. AND IF IT IS A JOKE, LET THE JURY HEAR IT AND LET THEM DECIDE WHAT BEARING THAT HAS ON WHETHER THEY SHOULD GIVE WEIGHT AND CREDIBILITY TO THE OPINIONS OF THIS EXPERT WITNESS. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE -- THE PRIOR MISTAKES, WHICH ARE CONCEDED, THEY OF COURSE GO DIRECTLY TO THE QUESTION OF THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THIS WITNESS TO GIVE AN EXPERT OPINION. WE HAVE TO NOTE THAT ONE OF THE KEY AREAS IN WHICH DR. GOLDEN IS GOING TO BE TESTIFYING IS HIS EXAMINATION OF THE WOUNDS OF THE VICTIMS AND RENDERING OPINIONS ABOUT WHETHER THOSE WOUNDS ARE CONSISTENT WITH A PARTICULAR KNIFE, WHICH HE WAS GIVEN BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WHETHER THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH MORE THAN ONE KNIFE AND WHETHER THEY ARE DIFFERENT MORPHOLOGICAL WOUNDS.

THE COURT: AREN'T WE TALKING APPLES AND ORANGES HERE, GUNSHOT WOUNDS --

MR. UELMEN: NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO AT ALL.

THE COURT: LET ME TELL YOU MY TWO CONCERNS HERE. MY TWO CONCERNS ARE APPLES AND ORANGES, GUNSHOT WOUNDS VERSUS CUTTING WOUNDS. AND MY SECOND CONCERN IS THE ARGUMENT BROUGHT UP BY MR. KELBERG. LET'S ASSUME THAT DR. GOLDEN IN HIS CAREER HAS PERFORMED APPROXIMATELY SIX OR 7000 AUTOPSIES AND THE PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS ISSUE THAT HE RAISES. DO I THEN HAVE TO -- IF I ALLOW YOU TO GO INTO THAT, THEN DO I HAVE TO ALLOW THE PROSECUTION TO THEN BRING IN EVIDENCE OF 6000 OTHER AUTOPSIES THAT HE HAS DONE WHERE NOTHING HAS BEEN WRONG?

MR. UELMEN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, YOU KNOW VERY FREQUENTLY AN EXPERT WHO IS ON A WITNESS STAND TESTIFYING AS TO AN EXPERT OPINION IS ASKED, "MR. EXPERT, HAVE YOU EVER MADE A MISTAKE?" I'M SURE YOU HAVE HEARD THAT QUESTION POSED A HUNDRED TIMES AND I'M SURE YOU'VE HEARD THE SAME ANSWER ALL 100 TIMES. THE EXPERT SAYS, "WELL, NOT THAT I AM AWARE OF." HERE WE HAVE TWO CONCEDED MISTAKES. WE HAVE AN EXPERT WHO HAS ADMITTED THAT ON TWO PRIOR OCCASIONS HE RENDERED AN OPINION AND THAT OPINION WAS WRONG. AND HOW WAS THE OPINION, THE WRONG OPINION, CORRECTED? BY AN ADDENDUM TO THE AUTOPSY REPORT. HOW MANY OF THE 6500 AUTOPSIES PERFORMED BY DR. GOLDEN HAVE ADDENDUMS ATTACHED TO HIS REPORT IN WHICH HE MAKES CORRECTIONS IN HIS CONCLUSIONS? WE KNOW ONE OF THEM DOES, AND THAT IS THE AUTOPSY REPORT IN THIS VERY CASE IN WHICH NUMEROUS ADDENDUMS HAVE BEEN ATTACHED, AND WE ARE GOING TO HEAR, I'M CONFIDENT, DR. GOLDEN SUGGESTING THAT ON RECONSIDERATION SOME OF THE OPINIONS HE PREVIOUSLY RENDERED MAY NOT HAVE BEEN CORRECT, THAT HE NOW HAS CHANGED HIS OPINION. WHEN THE JURY WEIGHS WHAT CREDIBILITY THEY SHOULD GIVE TO THIS DOCTOR'S OPINIONS, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW THAT ON TWO PRIOR OCCASIONS HE WAS WRONG AND IT WAS CONCEDED THAT HE WAS WRONG. SO WE ARE NOT FISHING AROUND THROUGH LOTS OF PRIOR AUTOPSIES LOOKING FOR MISTAKES. WE KNOW GOING IN THAT THERE ARE TWO CONCEDED MISTAKES THAT THE JURY SHOULD KNOW ABOUT, AND THOSE MISTAKES ARE RELEVANT MISTAKES. THEY ARE MISTAKES THAT RELATE DIRECTLY TO THE EXAMINATION OF WOUNDS AND THE NATURE OF WOUNDS. NOW, DR. GOLDEN MAY HAVE AN EXPLANATION. HE MAY SAY, WELL, I MAY BE INCOMPETENT IN EXAMINING FIREARM WOUNDS, BUT I'M NOT INCOMPETENT IN EXAMINING KNIFE WOUNDS. THAT IS FINE. THE JURY SHOULD HEAR THAT EXPLANATION AND THEY SHOULD WEIGH IT IN TERMS OF DECIDING WHAT CREDIBILITY AND WEIGHT THEY WANT TO GIVE TO DR. GOLDEN'S OPINION. OUR EXPERTS WILL SUGGEST THAT THE SAME KINDS OF SKILLS ARE BEING EMPLOYED IN THE EXAMINATION OF WOUNDS THAT PEOPLE ORDINARILY AREN'T EXPERTS JUST IN GUNSHOT WOUNDS OR KNIFE WOUNDS, THAT A PATHOLOGIST SHOULD BE AN EXPERT IN THE EXAMINATION OF ANY WOUND, AND HIS INABILITY TO DISTINGUISH AN EXIT WOUND FROM AN ENTRY WOUND OR TO IDENTIFY A CONTACT WOUND GOES DIRECTLY TO THE CREDIBILITY AND WEIGHT WE SHOULD GIVE TO HIS OPINIONS ABOUT WHAT KIND OF -- OF KNIFE SLASHING PRODUCED A PARTICULAR WOUND, WHAT KIND OF WEAPON PRODUCED IT, OR WHETHER MORE THAN ONE WEAPON MAY HAVE PRODUCED THE WOUND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. THESE ARE AREAS THAT WE SHOULD EXPLORE ON CROSS-EXAMINATION. WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE AND THEN WE WILL GET TO THE QUESTION OF ARGUING TO THE JURY, AS MR. KELBERG WAS DOING, ABOUT WHETHER THEY SHOULD GIVE GREATER WEIGHT TO DR. GOLDEN OR TO DR. BADEN OR TO OTHER EXPERTS WHO MAY TESTIFY IN THIS CASE. BUT THAT FUNCTION IS A FUNCTION RESERVED TO THE JURY, AND IF YOUR HONOR IS GOING TO TELL THAT JURY, IN YOUR INSTRUCTIONS, GIVE TO THE EXPERT'S OPINION WHATEVER WEIGHT YOU THINK THEY DESERVE, THEN THE JURY IS ENTITLED TO HEAR CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT THESE HIGHLY RELEVANT ISSUES.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. KELBERG: DOES THE COURT WISH TO HEAR A BRIEF RESPONSE OR IS THE COURT SUFFICIENTLY EDUCATED ON THIS ISSUE THAT IT HAS HEARD ENOUGH?

THE COURT: DO YOU FEEL COMPELLED TO RESPOND?

MR. KELBERG: I DON'T FEEL COMPELLED TO DO ANYTHING IN THIS COURT, YOUR HONOR, OTHER THAN TO HOPEFULLY BE COURTEOUS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. COUNSEL, WE HAVE USED UP -- WE HAVE ONE OTHER ISSUE, THE ISSUE AS TO THE USE OF THE AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS, AND I DID RECEIVE FROM THE PROSECUTION A COMPLETE SET OF AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS THAT ARE PLACED INTO TWO GROUPS: PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THEY DO NOT WISH TO USE AND THOSE THAT THEY DO WISH TO USE. HOWEVER, THE -- I MUST SAY THAT THE LETTER THAT ACCOMPANIED THE PHOTOGRAPHS WAS NOT -- DID NOT TELL ME FOR WHAT PURPOSE THE PROSECUTION WISHED TO USE PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPHS, AND MY GUESS AT THIS POINT IS THAT WE WILL NOT SEE THE AUTOPSY TESTIMONY FOR QUITE SOME TIME, PERHAPS THREE TO FOUR WEEKS, IF I AM LUCKY. DO WE AGREE ON THIS? AND DEAN UELMEN, I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO STANFORD.

MR. UELMEN: WELL, I WAS GOING TO ARGUE THE SANCTIONS ISSUE, SO I MAY REMAIN OVER UNTIL TOMORROW MORNING TO DO THAT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THE SANCTIONS ISSUE? CAN YOU DO IT IN FIVE OR TEN MINUTES?

MR. UELMEN: CERTAINLY.

MS. LEWIS: YOUR HONOR, IF YOU RECALL, I HAD ASKED FOR TIME ON THAT.

THE COURT: YES.

MS. LEWIS: THAT IS WHY YOU SET IT FOR TOMORROW MORNING, SANCTIONS FOR LATE DISCLOSURE ON THE VIDEOTAPE.

THE COURT: YOU ARE RIGHT. I DID DO THAT.

MR. UELMEN: I WILL BE ABLE TO REMAIN UNTIL TOMORROW MORNING. WITH RESPECT TO THE AUTOPSY PHOTOS, WE BELIEVE THAT THE COURT NEEDS TO ENGAGE IN THE 352 BALANCE WITH RESPECT TO EACH INDIVIDUAL PHOTO AND THAT PERHAPS THIS COULD BEST BE DONE IN CHAMBERS WHERE BOTH COUNSEL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EACH PHOTO AND THE AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE PHOTOS WHICH MAY NOT CREATE THE SAME PROBLEMS.

THE COURT: I MIGHT ADD AS WELL, IT WOULD BE TREMENDOUSLY HELPFUL TO ME IF I HAD A ONE-SENTENCE EXPLANATION AS TO EACH PHOTOGRAPH, WHY IT IS RELEVANT OR WHY YOU SEEK TO INTRODUCE IT OR AS TO WHAT ISSUE, BECAUSE TO MERELY GIVE ME A LIST AND EXPECT ME TO FIGURE OUT -- I MEAN, I CAN GUESS AS TO A LOT OF THESE THINGS, BUT SOME OF THEM, THE INTENT MAY NOT BE CLEAR TO ME, SO IT WOULD HELP ME TREMENDOUSLY IF I HAD A ONE-SENTENCE EXPLANATION AS TO EACH ONE OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS.

MR. KELBERG: THAT DOES NOT PRESENT A PROBLEM FOR US TO DO, YOUR HONOR. OBVIOUSLY WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO THAT TODAY. AND PERHAPS WE CAN COORDINATE A SCHEDULE WITH DEAN UELMEN THAT IS CONVENIENT TO HIM, TO THE COURT. I THINK THE COURT IS CORRECT, THAT YOU WON'T HAVE TO SEE ME AGAIN, AT LEAST FOR A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME, SO PERHAPS WE CAN JUST PUT IT OVER. OUR PRIMARILY PURPOSE IN BRINGING THE MOTION WAS TO ALLOW US TO KNOW WHICH PHOTOGRAPHS WE WERE GOING TO BE PERMITTED TO USE SO THAT WE CAN PREPARE THE APPROPRIATE EXHIBITS, RATHER THAN AT THE LAST MINUTE. AS THE COURT PROBABLY REMEMBERS FROM ITS DAYS OF TRYING CASES, GETTING THE PHOTO MOUNTS OUT AT THE LAST SECOND AND STICKING PHOTOS ON A BOARD --

THE COURT: I SAW IT THIS MORNING.

MR. KELBERG: I HAVE NO DOUBT OF THAT.

THE COURT: YES.

MR. KELBERG: BUT IF THAT IS GOOD WITH THE COURT, THAT IS FINE WITH US.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. KELBERG: DOES THE COURT JUST WANT TO TAKE IT OFF CALENDAR?

THE COURT: I WOULD LIKE AN ADDITIONAL BRIEFING FROM THE PROSECUTION AS TO EACH INDIVIDUAL PHOTOGRAPH THEY INTEND ON USING.

MR. KELBERG: DOES THE COURT HAVE A TIME FRAME WHEN THE COURT WANTS TO HAVE THE HEARING HELD ON THIS?

THE COURT: HOW ABOUT IF YOU SUBMIT THAT TO ME IN TEN DAYS' TIME.

MR. KELBERG: THAT'S FINE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN WE WILL SCHEDULE IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH DEAN UELMEN'S SCHEDULE, BUT I HAVE A FEELING WE WILL BE MIRED IN THIS STUFF FOR A WHILE. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE, COUNSEL?

MR. KELBERG: NO, YOUR HONOR.

MR. UELMEN: NO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

MR. KELBERG: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED. MR. FUNG, WOULD YOU PLEASE RESUME THE WITNESS STANDS. DENNIS FUNG, THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE NOON RECESS, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG, MR. FUNG IS ON THE WITNESS STAND UNDERGOING DIRECT EXAMINATION. GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, MR. FUNG.

THE WITNESS: GOOD AFTERNOON.

THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. MR. GOLDBERG, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. GOLDBERG:

Q: MR. FUNG, I JUST WANTED TO GO BACK FOR A MINUTE TO THE COLLECTION OF BLOOD STAINS AND SUBSTRATE CONTROLS. WHEN YOU COLLECT A STAIN, IF YOU APPLY A SWATCH TO THAT STAIN, AND IT DOES NOT COLLECT THE ENTIRE STAIN, WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

A: I WOULD SELECT ANOTHER SWATCH, WET IT, APPLY IT TO THE STAIN AND PUT IT IN THE SAME PLASTIC BAG AS THE FIRST CLOTH SWATCH FOR THAT ITEM.

Q: AND ON SOME OF THE STAINS THAT WERE COLLECTED IN THIS CASE, SIR, IN FACT MOST OF THE STAINS, WERE THERE MORE THAN ONE SWATCH THAT WAS USED TO COLLECT THE STAIN ITSELF? I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SUBSTRATE CONTROL, BUT THE STAIN.

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DO ALL THOSE GO INTO THE SAME PLASTIC BAGGIE TOGETHER?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN THAT BAGGIE OR THAT PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING THE VARIOUS STAIN SWATCHES AND THE OTHER PLASTIC BAG CONTAINING THE CLOTH CONTROL GO WHERE?

A: THOSE TWO BAGS GO INTO A COIN ENVELOPE WITH THE PHOTO I.D. NUMBER CORRESPONDING TO THE STAIN.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WHEN YOU SAY THE PHOTO I.D. NUMBER CORRESPONDING TO THE STAIN, FOR EXAMPLE, RIGHT BEFORE WE BROKE, WE WERE DISCUSSING THE CHART DEPICTING THE STAIN AT ROCKINGHAM AND THERE WERE ITEMS THAT WERE LABELED, FOR INSTANCE, 7 OR 8, SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE COIN ENVELOPE INTO WHICH 7 WENT IN WOULD BE LABELED 7?

A: YES.

MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. I THINK THAT IS LEADING AND --

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY. WELL, WITH RESPECT TO THE STAIN THAT HAS A PHOTOGRAPH, A LITTLE CARD IN THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT SAYS NO. 7, WHAT WOULD THE COIN ENVELOPE BE NUMBERED?

A: THE COIN ENVELOPE WOULD ALSO BE LABELED 7.

Q: OKAY. AND WITH RESPECT TO A STAIN THAT HAS A LITTLE MARKER NEXT TO IT THAT SAYS 8, WHAT WOULD THE COIN ENVELOPE BE?

A: THE COIN ENVELOPE WOULD BE 8.

Q: OKAY. NOW, AT APPROXIMATELY 9:30 OR SO IN THE MORNING ON THE 13TH OF JUNE -- IF YOU NEED TO REFER BACK TO YOUR CRIME SCENE CHECKLIST YOU MAY DO SO -- DID YOU COLLECT ANOTHER PIECE OF EVIDENCE AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THAT ONE THAT YOU PERSONALLY DID?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU RECALL WHETHER ANDREA MAZZOLLA WENT WITH YOU ON THIS PARTICULAR OCCASION TO COLLECT THIS PIECE OF EVIDENCE?

A: I RECALL THAT SHE WAS NOT PRESENT WHEN I COLLECTED IT.

Q: OKAY. DID ANYONE GO WITH YOU TO SHOW YOU WHERE THIS WAS?

A: YES.

Q: WHO WAS THAT?

A: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT WAS IT THAT YOU WENT TO SEE AT APPROXIMATELY THIS TIME?

A: AT 9:30 OR APPROXIMATELY AT 9:30, THE GLOVE WAS COLLECTED AT THAT TIME.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHERE WAS THAT?

A: THE GLOVE WAS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE RESIDENCE AT ROCKINGHAM.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU ARE COLLECTING ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT CONTAIN POSSIBLE BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL, BUT OTHER THAN BLOOD DROPS, WHAT TECHNIQUE OR TECHNIQUES WILL YOU USE?

A: I WILL USE ONE OF TWO TECHNIQUES: ONE IS TO WEAR A PAIR OF GLOVES AND PICK UP THE ITEM AND PLACE IT INTO A PAPER BAG, OR I WILL USE A SCOOP TECHNIQUE WHERE I WILL PLACE THE BAG NEXT TO THE ITEM TO BE COLLECTED AND PUSH IT IN WITH A CARD OR PENCIL.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE A PAIR OF GLOVES THAT IS MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 163-C FOR IDENTIFICATION. MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: SHOWING WHAT YOU WE'VE MARKED AS 163-C, WHAT IS THAT?

A: THOSE ARE A PAIR OF LATEX GLOVES.

Q: AND ARE THOSE THE TYPE OF GLOVES THAT YOU WOULD USE AT A CRIME SCENE?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO COULD YOU HAVE USED EITHER A GLOVE TECHNIQUE OR THIS CARD TECHNIQUE WHERE YOU HAVE DESCRIBED, WHERE YOU DON'T TOUCH THE ITEM AT ALL?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU RECALL SPECIFICALLY WHICH ONE YOU USED IN THIS INSTANCE WITH REGARD TO THE GLOVE THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN SHOWED YOU?

A: I DON'T RECALL WHICH ONE I USED.

Q: OKAY. BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE OR THE OTHER, ACCORDING TO YOUR ORDINARY PRACTICE?

A: YES.

Q: THERE IS NO THIRD WAY THAT YOU DO IT?

A: NOT THAT I CAN RECALL, NO.

Q: OKAY. SO WITH RESPECT TO THIS ITEM, DO YOU RECALL HOW YOU PACKAGED IT?

A: THE GLOVE WAS PLACED IN A PAPER BAG AND THE BAG WAS LABELED.

Q: IS THAT WHAT IS DONE WITH ITEMS OF CLOTHING LIKE THAT, THE GLOVE, IT IS PUT IN A PAPER BAG, GENERALLY?

A: DEPENDING ON THE SIZE, YES.

Q: BUT YOU DON'T PUT IT IN PLASTIC, A PLASTIC BAG AS OPPOSED TO A PAPER ONE?

A: GENERALLY, NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHEN YOU SAW THIS ITEM PRIOR TO YOU COLLECTING IT, WHICHEVER TECHNIQUE YOU USED, WHAT DID THE ITEM APPEAR LIKE?

A: THE ITEM APPEARED TO HAVE SOME BROWNISH REDDISH STAINS ON THEM. IT WAS -- APPEARED TO ME TO BE SOMEWHAT DRY WITH SOME SHINY AREAS ON IT.

Q: WHEN YOU FIRST SAW IT, BEFORE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO INSPECT IT AT ALL, CAREFULLY, I MEAN, WHEN YOU FIRST GLANCED AT IT, HOW SHINY DID IT APPEAR?

A: THERE WERE JUST SOME AREAS THAT HAD A SHEEN TO THEM.

Q: A WHAT TO THEM?

A: A SHEEN, A SHININESS.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU DO SOMETHING FURTHER TO DETERMINE -- TO LOOK AT IT TO DETERMINE WHETHER IN YOUR OPINION IT WAS DRY OR WET AT THAT TIME?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT IT WAS MORE LIKELY TO BE -- WELL, MAYBE I AM MISSTATING YOUR TESTIMONY. DIDN'T YOU TESTIFY THAT IN YOUR OPINION IT WAS MORE LIKELY TO BE DRY THAN WET?

A: YES.

Q: WHY DO YOU THINK THAT?

A: MY EXPERIENCE WITH BLOODIED CLOTHING AND THEIR APPEARANCE LENT ME TO THAT ESTIMATION OF WHETHER IT WAS WET OR DRY. IT APPEARED TO ME TO BE DRY.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, MOVE TO STRIKE. WITHOUT FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO MARK AS PEOPLE'S 165 FOR IDENTIFICATION PART OF THE CONTENTS OF A BOX THAT HAS A NUMBER OF ITEMS IN IT. I DON'T KNOW HOW THE COURT WANTS ME TO DO THAT, WHETHER THE COURT WANTS ME TO MARK THE ENTIRE THING AS 165. I WON'T BE INTRODUCING ALL OF THEM.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HOW IS THE BOX LABELED AT THIS POINT?

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, THE BOX IS LABELED WITH AN EVIDENCE TAG THAT SAYS, "BOOKED -- DATE BOOKED 6/13/94" AND IT APPEARS TO CONTAIN THE DR NUMBER IN THIS CASE, 94-0817431. THAT SAYS, "NAME BOOKED TO: SIMPSON, NICOLE," AND IT HAS CONTENTS "9, 10, 18, 27" AND 40 AND 53 ARE CROSSED OUT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHICH ITEM NUMBER IN THAT BOX ARE YOU INTENDING ON OFFERING?

MR. GOLDBERG: 9 AT THIS TIME.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, MAY I MAKE A SUGGESTION IN THIS REGARD?

THE COURT: SURE.

MR. SCHECK: IF WE CAN MARK THE BOX FOR IDENTIFICATION AND THEN HE CAN JUST SIGNIFY WHAT HE IS TAKING OUT. IF WE COULD MARK THE BOX WITH A SEPARATE NUMBER FOR IDENTIFICATION AND THEN THE INDIVIDUAL ITEM CAN BE SEPARATELY MARKED.

THE COURT: 165, BOX AND CONTENTS AT THIS POINT.

MR. GOLDBERG: I'M SORRY. IT IS 164.

THE COURT: 164.

MR. GOLDBERG: I MADE A MISTAKE ON MY NOTES.

(PEO'S 164 FOR ID = BOX & CONTENTS)

MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I ALSO PLACE A "164" ON IT?

THE COURT: YES, YOU MAY. THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, I'M SHOWING YOU A BOX THAT HAS BEEN MARKED AS 164. CAN YOU JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THE NUMBER THAT SAYS "DR NUMBER" FOR US AND TELL US WHAT THAT NUMBER REFERS TO OR WHAT SIGNIFICANCE THAT HAS IN THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?

A: THERE IS A NUMBER IN A BOX LABELED, "DR NUMBER" THAT IS "94-08 17431." THAT NUMBER IS USED TO IDENTIFY DIFFERENT CASES WITHIN THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT.

Q: SO EACH CASE HAS ITS OWN DR NUMBER ASSIGNED TO IT?

A: YES.

Q: IS THAT THE DR NUMBER OF OUR CASE?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN YOU PACKAGED UP VARIOUS EVIDENCE, WOULD YOU HAVE USED THAT DR NUMBER?

A: YES.

Q: COULD YOU NOW OPEN THE BOX FOR US AND DESCRIBE WHAT YOU ARE DOING FOR THE RECORD.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) I AM USING A POCKET KNIFE TO CUT THE TAPE ALONG THE TOP SEAM OF THE BOX. I AM OPENING UP THE BOX. DO YOU WANT ME TO REMOVE ANYTHING?

Q: IF THERE IS AN ITEM NO. 9 IN THERE?

A: THERE IS A BAG WITH THE ITEM NO. 9 AND THE DR NUMBER 94-0817431.

Q: OKAY. NOW, TAKING A LOOK AT THAT PACKAGING, IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THE PACKAGING THAT YOU RECOGNIZE?

A: YES. IN BLACK I SEE THE ITEM NUMBER THAT I WROTE ON IT AND MY INITIALS.

Q: OKAY. THE ITEM NUMBER BEING "9"?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT IS WHAT YOU ASSIGNED TO THE NUMBER -- THE GLOVE THAT WAS FOUND ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: OKAY. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE IN THAT PACKAGE? I MEAN IN THE BOX, RATHER?

A: IN THE BOX? THERE IS A COIN ENVELOPE WITH ITEM NO. 10.

Q: DO YOU RECOGNIZE ANYTHING ON THAT?

A: YES. THERE IS THE ITEM NO. 10 AND MY INITIALS.

Q: OKAY.

A: AND UNDERNEATH THE TAPE I CAN KIND OF MAKE OUT THE DR NUMBER. ALSO IN THE BOX IS A BAG WITH THE NO. 18 ON IT, MY INITIALS AND AGAIN THE DR NUMBER, AND THE LAST ITEM IN THE BOX IS A BAG WITH THE NO. 27, THE DR NUMBER AND MISS MAZZOLLA'S INITIALS.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, DO WE HAVE ANY LATEX GLOVES? THE COURT HAS? I DON'T WANT TO USE MY EXHIBIT OVER THERE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: I GUESS YOU WEREN'T A BOY SCOUT.

MR. GOLDBERG: EXCUSE ME. WELL, I TRIED TO BE BUT --

THE COURT: MRS. ROBERTSON HAS SOME LATEX GLOVES.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, COULD YOU OPEN UP THE ENVELOPE THAT IS NO. 9 FOR IDENTIFICATION AND TELL US WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) I AM UNFOLDING THE BAG AND BREAKING THE SEAL, REACHING IN THE BAG AND WITHIN THE BAG IS AN ENVELOPE. CONTINUE?

Q: YES.

THE COURT: SCISSORS OR A KNIFE?

THE WITNESS: SCISSORS ARE FINE. THANK YOU. CUTTING ALONG THE BOTTOM EDGE OF THE BAG AND WITHIN THE BAG IS A GLOVE.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE PACKAGE THAT YOU JUST TOOK THAT OUT OF, CAN YOU HOLD THAT UP SO THAT WE CAN SEE IT WITH THE EVIDENCE TAGS ON IT?

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

Q: OKAY. NOW, DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE A PACKAGE THAT WAS A TRANSMITTAL PACKAGE THAT SOMEONE ELSE PUT IT IN OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU PUT IT IN?

MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY. IS THAT YOUR PACKAGE OR SOMEONE ELSE'S?

A: THIS IS SOMEBODY ELSE'S PACKAGE.

Q: SO THE PACKAGE THAT YOU USED IS THE BROWN PAPER BAG THAT HAS THE ITEM NO. 9 AND YOUR INITIALS ON IT?

A: YES.

Q: AND DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE THE ITEM THAT YOU RETRIEVED FROM THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PACKAGE; I'M TALKING ABOUT THE GLOVE.

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU HOLD THAT UP FOR US SO WE CAN SEE.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

Q: IS THERE A SIZE LABEL IN THERE, MR. FUNG?

A: THERE IS NOT ONE APPARENT.

Q: OKAY. THAT IS ALL RIGHT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK ANY FURTHER. CAN YOU REPACKAGE THAT FOR US NOW DESCRIBING WHAT YOU ARE DOING FOR THE RECORD.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) I AM PLACING THE GLOVE BACK IN THE WHITE FREEZER STORAGE ENVELOPE AND I AM PLACING THE ENVELOPE AND THE GLOVE INTO THE BROWN PAPER BAG AND PLACING THE BAG BACK INTO THE BOX.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, MAY I REQUEST THAT HE RESEAL IT AND SIGN IT.

THE COURT: I WILL HAVE THE CLERK RESEAL IT. MRS. ROBERTSON, AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PROCEEDINGS, RESEAL IT, PLEASE. EXCUSE ME. THE PAPER BAG. MR. GOLDBERG.

MR. GOLDBERG: THANK YOU.

Q: NOW, IN ADDITION TO THE GLOVE, AT APPROXIMATELY 9:30 OR SO, WAS THERE ANY OTHER ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT WAS COLLECTED BY EITHER YOURSELF OR ANYONE ELSE IN YOUR PRESENCE?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT WAS THAT?

A: THAT WAS A BLUE PLASTIC BAG OR CONTAINER OF SOME SORT.

Q: AND WHAT ITEM NUMBER DID YOU ASSIGN THAT?

A: THAT WAS ITEM NO. 10.

Q: DID YOU SEE THE PACKAGING FOR THAT BEING THE ITEM THAT YOU TOOK OUT AND DESCRIBED AS NO. 10 A LITTLE EARLIER?

A: YES.

MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY. FOR THE RECORD, HE IS HOLDING UP WHAT APPEARS TO BE A COIN ENVELOPE WITH RED -- RED TAPE AND BLUE TAPE ON IT.

THE WITNESS: RED, YELLOW AND BLUE.

MR. GOLDBERG: KIND OF FESTIVE LOOKING.

Q: AND HOW DID YOU FIRST GET POSSESSION OF THAT ITEM, 10, BACK AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: ITEM 10?

Q: YEAH.

A: THAT ITEM WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN COLLECTED IT AND HANDED IT TO ME OVER THE FENCE.

Q: AND WHAT WAS IT?

A: THE --

Q: THE ITEM THAT HE COLLECTED?

A: IT WAS A BLUE PLASTIC CONTAINER OF SOME SORT, BAGGIE OR SOMETHING. I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY WHAT EXACTLY IT WAS.

Q: OKAY. BUT WAS IT A HARD TYPE PACKAGE OR A SOFT BAG-LIKE PACKAGE?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: WHEN I SAY "HARD" I MEAN LIKE TUPPERWARE OR IS IT MORE LIKE A BAGGIE TYPE MATERIAL?

A: NO, IT IS MORE OF A SOFT PLASTIC.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WAS THAT THE LAST ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED OR WAS COLLECTED IN YOUR PRESENCE AT ROCKINGHAM THAT MORNING?

A: YES.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I JUST HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, YOU SAID THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE BAGGIE WAS, ITEM NO. 10. DID IT LOOK SIMILAR TO ANYTHING THAT YOU HAVE EVER SEEN BEFORE?

A: NO. IT MAY HAVE BEEN -- IT MAY HAVE BEEN A GAUZE WRAPPER, BUT I'M NOT SURE.

Q: COULD IT HAVE BEEN A SANITARY NAPKIN TYPE WRAPPER?

MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED, LEADING.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: COULD IT HAVE BEEN ANYTHING OTHER THAN A GAUZE?

A: IT COULD HAVE BEEN.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME DID YOU LEAVE THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?

A: WE LEFT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION AT APPROXIMATELY TEN O'CLOCK THAT MORNING.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN YOU LEFT THIS LOCATION, WOULD YOU HAVE KEPT ON ANY LATEX GLOVES THAT YOU WERE WEARING DURING THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING AND COLLECTION?

A: NO.

Q: WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED TO THOSE?

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION TO "WOULD HAVE".

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, DO YOU HAVE A CUSTOM AND PRACTICE WITH RESPECT TO WHAT YOU DO WITH LATEX GLOVES THAT YOU ARE WEARING AT A CRIME SCENE AFTER YOU LEAVE THE SCENE?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THEM?

A: I WILL REMOVE THE GLOVES AND PLACE THEM IN A DESIGNATED TRASH BAG.

Q: OKAY. WHEN YOU ARE AT A SCENE, DO YOU WEAR THE SAME PAIR OF GLOVES THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE SCENE?

A: NO.

Q: WHAT DO YOU DO?

A: I WILL CHANGE MY GLOVES FAIRLY OFTEN.

Q: OKAY. HOW DO YOU DECIDE WHEN TO CHANGE THEM?

A: WHEN THE GLOVES GET DIRTY OR I HAVE TO USE SOME OF MY INSTRUMENTS OR PERSONAL ITEMS, I WILL REMOVE THE GLOVES SO AS NOT TO CONTAMINATE MYSELF OR OTHER ITEMS OF EVIDENCE.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WHEN YOU LEFT ROCKINGHAM THAT MORNING, DID YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION TO THE EFFECT THAT YOU WERE GOING TO RETURN?

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU JUST GIVE US IN GENERAL TERMS WHAT YOU WERE TOLD?

A: I WAS TOLD THAT A SEARCH WARRANT WAS BEING OBTAINED AND I MAY BE REQUIRED TO COME BACK TO DO THE INSIDE OF THE RESIDENCE.

Q: OKAY. SO YOU DID NOT GO INSIDE THE RESIDENCE ON JUNE THE 13TH IN THE MORNING?

A: NOT IN THE MORNING.

Q: OKAY. WHERE DID YOU GO AFTER YOU LEFT ROCKINGHAM THAT MORNING?

A: AFTER ROCKINGHAM I PROCEEDED ON TO 875 SOUTH BUNDY.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU WENT TO 875 SOUTH BUNDY, WHERE WERE THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAD COLLECTED, ITEM NO. 1 THROUGH 10, FROM ROCKINGHAM THAT MORNING?

A: ITEMS 1 THROUGH 10 WERE IN BAGS LOCKED IN THE BACK OF THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK.

Q: OKAY. NOW, BEFORE YOU LEAVE AND ACTUALLY LOOK THOSE BAGS AWAY, INTO THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK, DO YOU DO ANY INVENTORY OR DID YOU DO ANY INVENTORY TO SEE WHAT YOU HAD PRIOR TO LOCKING THEM AWAY?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: EACH ITEM THAT WE HAD WRITTEN IN OUR NOTES WAS ACCOUNTED FOR.

Q: SO WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?

A: WE IDENTIFIED EACH NUMBER INDIVIDUALLY, ITEM NO. 1, ITEM NO. 2, ITEM NO. 3. WE MADE SURE THAT THERE WEREN'T TWO NUMBER 3'S OR MISSING -- MISSING NUMBERS EITHER.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, EXCUSE ME. MOVE TO STRIKE THE ANSWER AS BEING NOT RESPONSIVE WITH THE USE OF THE WORD "WE."

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: DID YOU DO THIS ALONE OR DID YOU DO IT WITH SOMEONE?

A: I DID IT WITH MISS MAZZOLLA.

Q: OKAY. AND WHEN YOU SAY YOU ARE GOING THROUGH TO MAKE SURE YOU DON'T HAVE TWO ITEM NUMBER 1'S OR TWO 2'S OR WHATEVER, DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU ARE MAKING SURE THAT YOU HAVE ONE COIN ENVELOPE THAT HAS NO. 1 ON IT, ONE COIN ENVELOPE THAT HAS NO. 2, ET CETERA?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND THAT YOU HAVE A TOTAL OF AT THAT TIME TEN ITEMS?

A: YES. NOW, YOU TESTIFIED EARLIER THAT IN THE EIGHTY SOME ODD PAGES OF REPORTS THAT YOU GENERATED IN THIS CASE, AND NOTES, THAT THERE WERE SOME CLERICAL ERRORS?

A: YES.

Q: IS IT REASONABLY POSSIBLE TO MAKE A CLERICAL ERROR OF WRITING DOWN THE WRONG NUMBER ON A COIN ENVELOPE USING THE PROCEDURES THAT YOU USE?

MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY.

Q: COULD YOU MAKE A MISTAKE ON THE COIN ENVELOPE BY WRITING THE WRONG NUMBER ON IT?

MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: COULD YOU MAKE A MISTAKE ON THE COIN ENVELOPE BY WRITING THE WRONG NUMBER WITHOUT HAVING CAUGHT IT DURING THIS INVENTORY PROCEDURE?

MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. I DIDN'T HEAR THE GROUNDS.

THE COURT: IT IS LEADING.

MR. GOLDBERG: WHAT?

THE COURT: IT IS LEADING.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY. SIR, HOW CAREFUL IS THIS PROCEDURE OF WRITING THE NUMBERS ON THE COIN ENVELOPES AND THEN INVENTORYING THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT NUMBERS?

A: WE ARE VERY CAREFUL WHEN WE COLLECT EVIDENCE. WE COLLECT EVIDENCE ONE AT A TIME MAKING SURE THAT THE ENVELOPE THAT WE PUT THE EVIDENCE IN IS THE SAME NUMBER AS THE ONE NEXT TO THE CARD.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, AGAIN OBJECT. MOVE TO STRIKE AS BEING NOT RESPONSIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. GOLDBERG: THANK YOU.

Q: HOW CAREFUL ARE YOU WHEN YOU DO THIS INVENTORY AT THE END PRIOR TO LEAVING THE SCENE?

MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: IT IS VAGUE, "HOW CAREFUL."

MR. GOLDBERG: I MEAN --

THE COURT: JUST HAVE HIM DESCRIBE THE PROCEDURE.

MR. GOLDBERG: EXCUSE ME.

THE COURT: DESCRIBE THE PROCEDURE.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: WHY DON'T YOU TELL US THE PROCEDURE.

THE COURT: WHAT SAFEGUARDS ARE THERE?

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: LET ME START WITH THIS, MR. FUNG: WITH RESPECT TO THE ITEMS IN EVIDENCE AND THEIR PACKAGING, WHERE ARE THOSE WHEN YOU ARE DOING THIS INVENTORY?

A: THE ITEMS ARE IN THE BACK OF THE TRUCK TOGETHER.

Q: OKAY. DO YOU PUT THE ITEMS IN NUMERICAL ORDER OR THEY IN RANDOM ORDER WHEN DO YOU THIS INVENTORY?

MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION. YOUR HONOR, MAY I REQUEST THE WITNESS JUST TESTIFY TO WHAT HE DID?

THE COURT: OVERRULED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION, THOUGH.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY. WHAT ORDER ARE THE ITEMS IN WHEN DO YOU THIS INVENTORY?

A: THE ITEMS ARE IN NUMERICAL ORDER.

Q: AND THEN HOW DO YOU GO THROUGH THEM?

A: I GO THROUGH THEM SEQUENTIALLY.

Q: FROM 1 TO 10?

A: YES.

Q: APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME DID YOU ARRIVE AT THE BUNDY LOCATION?

A: I ARRIVED AT THE BUNDY LOCATION AT 10:15 IN THE MORNING.

Q: OKAY. AND WHAT WAS GOING ON THERE AT THE TIME THAT YOU ARRIVED AT 10:15 THAT MORNING OR SO?

A: THE AREA HAD QUITE A BIT OF NEWS MEDIA AROUND AND DETECTIVES AND CORONER PERSONNEL WERE PRESENT.

Q: DID YOU SEE THE CORONER PERSONNEL DOING ANYTHING AT THE SCENE, AS YOU ARRIVED?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID THEY APPEAR TO BE DOING?

A: THEY APPEARED TO BE PROCESSING THE BODY OF MISS SIMPSON.

Q: AND WHEN YOU SAY "PROCESSING," WHERE WAS THAT TAKING PLACE?

A: THAT WAS TAKING PLACE AT THE EAST OF THE FRONT GATE.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER YOU SAW HER IN HER ORIGINAL CONDITION OR DO YOU KNOW WHETHER SHE HAD ALREADY BEEN MOVED BY THE TIME YOU ARRIVED?

MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER -- DID YOU SEE WHETHER THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATORS -- DID YOU SEE WHETHER -- WHEN THE CORONER'S INVESTIGATORS FIRST GOT THERE AND STARTED TOUCHING THE BODY OR WERE THEY ALREADY DOING IT WHEN YOU ARRIVED?

A: THEY WERE ALREADY --

MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THEY WERE ALREADY DOING SOMETHING WHEN I ARRIVED.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY. WHAT WERE YOU DOING WHILE THAT WAS OCCURRING?

A: I WAS WAITING FOR A BRIEFING FROM DETECTIVE LANGE.

Q: AND AT SOME POINT DID YOU ALSO SEE SOMETHING OCCURRING WITH THE BODY OF RON GOLDMAN?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID YOU SEE IN THAT REGARD?

A: I HAD -- I SAW THE -- AT ONE POINT THE BODY OF RON GOLDMAN BEING PROCESSED ALSO. I DIDN'T STAY AROUND FOR THE WHOLE THING. AND THEN I WAS BACK AND FORTH AT THE TRUCK.

Q: OKAY. AT SOME POINT IN TIME DID YOU GET A WALK-THROUGH OF THE LOCATION FROM DETECTIVE LANGE?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT HAPPENED DURING THE WALK-THROUGH?

A: DETECTIVE LANGE TOLD ME OF DIFFERENT ITEMS OF EVIDENCE HE WANTED ME TO COLLECT. HE SHOWED ME SOME CLOTHING IN THE CAGE AREA, SHOWED ME A TRAIL OF WHAT APPEARED TO BE BLOODY FOOTPRINTS AND A TRAIL OF BLOOD LEADING TOWARDS THE WEST END OF THE LOCATION.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THESE ITEMS OF BLOOD DROPS THAT YOU DESCRIBED AS BEING THE TRAIL, WHAT CONDITION DID THEY APPEAR TO BE IN?

A: THEY APPEARED TO BE FRESH BLOOD STAINS.

Q: DID THEY APPEAR STEPPED IN?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, DID YOU BEGIN TO PROCESS THE CRIME SCENE FOR COLLECTING THE EVIDENCE THAT MORNING?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU DO THAT ALONE OR DID YOU ALSO DO THAT WITH ANDREA MAZZOLLA?

A: I DID THAT WITH MISS MAZZOLLA, YES.

Q: IN TERMS OF COLLECTING THE BLOOD STAINS, DID YOU DO THAT AS A TEAM, AS YOU DESCRIBED AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION?

A: YES.

MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS ANY DESCRIPTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: HOW DID YOU DO IT?

THE COURT: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: HOW DID YOU DO IT? HOW WERE THE BLOOD ITEMS COLLECTED?

A: THE BLOOD ITEMS WERE COLLECTED IN THE SAME MANNER THAT WAS DESCRIBED EARLIER ON THE BOARD.

Q: OKAY. USING THE SAME PROCEDURE?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU WERE ACTUALLY DOING THE EVIDENCE COLLECTION, I MEAN YOU AND MISS MAZZOLLA, WERE YOU WEARING ANYTHING ON YOUR FEET?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT WERE YOU WEARING ON YOUR FEET?

A: WE WERE -- WE WERE WEARING PROTECTIVE BOOTIES.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW THE WITNESS AN ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 163-B FOR IDENTIFICATION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. 163-B.

MR. GOLDBERG: THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO, WHAT APPEAR TO BE TWO PAPER-LIKE OBJECTS.

Q: SIR, SHOWING YOU THOSE ITEMS, WHAT ARE THEY?

A: THESE ARE THE TYPE OF BOOTIES THAT WE WERE WEARING THAT DAY.

Q: HOW ARE THEY WORN?

A: THEY ARE PLACED OVER OUR SHOES.

Q: CAN YOU JUST HOLD ONE OF THEM UP SO THE JURORS CAN SEE IT ALL?

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

Q: WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF WEARING THOSE BOOTIES?

A: I WEAR THEM TO PROTECT MY SHOES FROM BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE.

Q: SO THE BOOTIES ARE TO PROTECT THE WEARER?

A: THAT IS THE MAIN USE FOR THEM, YES.

Q: OKAY. AND DO THE BOOTIES SERVE ANY FUNCTION IN TERMS OF PROTECTING THE CRIME SCENE?

MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION, LEADING.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

MR. GOLDBERG: I WILL WITHDRAW THE QUESTION AND ASK ANOTHER QUESTION, YOUR HONOR, IF I MIGHT.

Q: SIR, IF YOU WERE TO STEP IN SOME BLOOD AND WITH THE BOOTIES ON AND THEN STEP IN SOME EVIDENCE, DO THE BOOTIES HAVE SOME SORT OF PROPERTY THAT WOULD PREVENT CROSS-CONTAMINATION FROM OCCURRING?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. ARE THERE ANY DISADVANTAGES TO WEARING BOOTIES AT A CRIME SCENE?

A: YES. BOOTIES ARE SOMEWHAT CUMBERSOME IN THAT THEY ARE MUCH LARGER THAN YOUR REGULAR SHOE, AND THEY COULD TRACK -- THERE IS MORE CHANCE FOR TRACKING OR STEPPING IN SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO STEP IN. ALSO, THEY ARE QUITE SLIPPERY AND YOU COULD INJURE YOURSELF IF YOU ARE NOT CAREFUL.

Q: SO GIVEN THOSE DISADVANTAGES, WHY WERE THEY WORN AT THE BUNDY LOCATION?

A: I WORE THEM BECAUSE I FELT THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF BLOOD OUT AT THE SCENE AND I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO GET THE BLOOD ON MY SHOES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WHEN YOU WERE AT THE LOCATION WERE YOU OR MISS MAZZOLLA WEARING ANY LAB COATS?

A: NO.

Q: WERE THE FINGERPRINT PEOPLE WEARING LAB COATS?

A: YES, THEY WERE.

Q: AND YOU TESTIFIED THAT AT CRIME SCENES YOU WOULD BE IN CHARGE OF THE FINGERPRINT PEOPLE?

A: IN SOME CRIME SCENES, YES.

Q: OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHY THE FINGERPRINT PEOPLE WEAR LAB COATS AT A CRIME SCENE?

A: THE FINGERPRINT PEOPLE WEAR LAB COATS BECAUSE THEY DEAL WITH FINGERPRINT DUST WHICH GETS ALL OVER THE PLACE AND THE DUST CAN RUIN YOUR REGULAR CLOTHES, SO THEY WILL WEAR THE LAB COAT TO PROTECT THEIR CLOTHING.

Q: OKAY. NOW, DID YOU USE THE PROCEDURE THAT YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT HOW A STAIN IS COLLECTED OF LAYING OUT THE NUMBER AND DOING THE MEASURING?

A: YES.

MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: AND SINCE YOU KNEW THAT YOU WERE GOING TO GO BACK TO ROCKINGHAM LATER, WHAT NUMBER DID YOU START WITH AT THE BUNDY LOCATION?

A: I STARTED WITH PHOTO I.D. NO. 100.

Q: WHY WAS THAT?

A: THE -- WELL, AS I STATED BEFORE, I KNEW I WOULD HAVE TO RETURN TO ROCKINGHAM, AND I WANTED TO KEEP THE NUMBERS THERE IN SEQUENTIAL ORDER.

Q: OKAY. DOES THAT MEAN THAT WHEN YOU WENT BACK TO ROCKINGHAM YOU WANTED TO -- ITEM NO. 11 TO BE YOUR FIRST ITEM OF EVIDENCE?

A: UPON RETURN, YES.

Q: OKAY. SO WHY DID YOU CHOOSE STARTING WITH 100 INSTEAD OF 50 OR SOME OTHER NUMBER?

A: I FELT THAT THAT WAS A SAFE NUMBER TO USE BECAUSE I DIDN'T BELIEVE I WOULD BE -- I WOULD HAVE ANOTHER NINETY ITEMS OF EVIDENCE TO GO THROUGH AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION THAT DAY.

Q: OKAY. SO THE NUMBER CARDS THAT YOU LAID OUT STARTED WITH 100. WHAT WAS THE LAST ONE?

A: THE LAST ONE --

Q: AT THE BUNDY LOCATION?

A: THE LAST PHOTO I.D. CARD WE USED WAS 119.

Q: AND THOSE ARE PHOTO I.D.'S IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, AT SOME LATER POINT DID YOU ASSIGN PROPERTY ITEM NUMBERS TO REPLACE THOSE PHOTO I.D. NUMBERS OR IN ADDITION TO THE PHOTO I.D. NUMBERS?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN DID THAT TAKE PLACE?

A: THAT OCCURRED BACK AT THE LABORATORY.

Q: DID YOU ENTER THE PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS THAT YOU EVENTUALLY PLACED ON ITEMS ON THE CRIME SCENE IDENTIFICATION CHECKLIST?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. SO DOES THAT LIST THEN CORRELATE THE PROPERTY NUMBERS WITH THE PHOTO NUMBERS?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, IN ORDER TO GIVE US SPECIFIC TESTIMONY AS TO THE ITEM NUMBERS, IN OTHER WORDS, PROPERTY NUMBERS, OF VARIOUS PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED AT THE LOCATION AT BUNDY, WOULD YOU HAVE TO REFER TO YOUR CRIME SCENE IDENTIFICATION CHECKLIST?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. WITH RESPECT TO THE CAGED OFF AREA THAT YOU REFERRED TO, DID YOU -- WHAT DID YOU -- DID YOU COLLECT AN ITEM NO. 36 FROM THAT -- 35 FROM THAT LOCATION?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THAT?

A: THAT WAS A SET OF KEYS.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU COLLECT AN ITEM NO. 36 OR WAS ONE COLLECTED IN YOUR PRESENCE?

MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION TO -- COMPOUND QUESTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: DID YOU SEE AN ITEM NO. 36 BEING COLLECTED?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT WAS THAT?

A: THAT WAS A PAGER.

Q: AND WHAT ABOUT ITEM NO. 37? WHAT WAS THAT?

A: 37 WAS A GLOVE.

Q: DO YOU REMEMBER WHO SPECIFICALLY COLLECTED THAT ITEM?

A: CRIMINALIST MAZZOLLA COLLECTED THAT.

Q: DID YOU SEE AN ITEM NO. 38 COLLECTED?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT WAS THAT?

A: THAT WAS A BLUE KNIT HAT.

Q: AND AN ITEM NO. 39?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT WAS -- WHAT WAS THAT?

A: ITEM NO. 39 WAS AN ENVELOPE CONTAINING A CLIP -- A PAIR OF GLASSES.

Q: AND WHAT ABOUT 40?

A: 40 WAS A RING.

Q: NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THESE ITEMS, HOW DID YOU PACKAGE THOSE? WERE THOSE IN COIN ENVELOPES OR SOME OTHER TYPE OF PACKAGE?

A: THE KEYS AND THE PAGER WERE PLACED IN COIN ENVELOPES. THE GLOVE, THE HAT AND THE ENVELOPE WITH THE GLASSES WERE PLACED IN PAPER BAGS AND THE RING WAS PLACED IN A COIN ENVELOPE.

Q: AND EVENTUALLY WERE THOSE THEN ASSIGNED A DR NUMBER IN OUR CASE THAT YOU PREVIOUSLY READ OUT?

A: YES.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO MARK AS PEOPLE'S NEXT IN ORDER, IT IS 165, A MAP OF THE BUNDY LOCATION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. 165. HAVE YOU SHOWN THAT TO COUNSEL?

MR. GOLDBERG: YES.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: THIS IS A CHART, MR. GOLDBERG?

MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR.

(PEO'S 165 FOR ID = CHART)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. FAIRTLOUGH, WHY DON'T YOU KEEP THAT CLOSED FOR JUST A SECOND. WHY DON'T YOU CLOSE THAT UP FOR JUST A SECOND. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I'M GOING TO TAKE A TEN-MINUTE RECESS AT THIS TIME TO CHANGE COURT REPORTERS. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS, DO NOT ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU. JUST STEP BACK IN THE JURY ROOM AND RESUME IN TEN MINUTES AFTER WE CHANGE COURT REPORTERS. MR. FUNG, YOU CAN STEP BACK.

(RECESS.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: ARE WE READY TO PROCEED? BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, WAS THE COURT GOING TO RESOLVE THE PHENOL ISSUE BEFORE THIS AFTERNOON?

THE COURT: ARE WE THERE YET?

MR. GOLDBERG: WE'RE GETTING THERE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT WE'VE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. MR. DENNIS FUNG IS STILL ON THE WITNESS STAND UNDERGOING DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG. GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, MR. FUNG.

THE WITNESS: GOOD AFTERNOON.

THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH, SIR. AND, MR. GOLDBERG, YOU MAY CONTINUE WITH YOUR DIRECT EXAMINATION.

MR. GOLDBERG: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE DIAGRAM THAT'S BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 165 FOR IDENTIFICATION, DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: AND WHAT DOES THAT DEPICT?

A: THIS DEPICTS THE DIFFERENT AREAS FROM WHICH I HAD COLLECTED VARIOUS ITEMS OF EVIDENCE, BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE.

Q: HAVE YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS DIAGRAM PRIOR TO TODAY TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN THIS DIAGRAM WAS BEING MADE, DID YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT VERSIONS OF IT IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE CORRECT IN TERMS OF THE MEASUREMENTS AND THE LOCATIONS THAT ITEMS WERE FOUND?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, STARTING WITH ITEM NO. 41 ON THIS CHART, CAN YOU TELL US WHERE THAT IS? OH, I'M SORRY. WHAT WAS THE FIRST ITEM, SIR, THAT YOU COLLECTED, THE FIRST STAIN THAT WAS COLLECTED AT BUNDY?

A: THAT WOULD BE ITEM 41 WHICH IS --

Q: IT'S NOT ON -- IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE ON HERE.

A: NO.

Q: WHERE WAS ITEM 41 COLLECTED FROM?

A: THAT WAS COLLECTED FROM A STUMP IN THIS AREA HERE (INDICATING).

MR. GOLDBERG: FOR THE RECORD, HE'S REFERRING TO THE AREA THAT HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS THE FENCED-OFF AREA THAT'S ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE WALKWAY.

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE WAS ITEM 41 COLLECTED?

A: ITEM 41 WAS COLLECTED AS A REFERENCE FOR THE MALE VICTIM.

Q: WELL, WHEN YOU SAY --

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: NOW, WHEN YOU SAY THAT IT WAS COLLECTED FOR A REFERENCE FOR THE VICTIM, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?

A: THAT WAS WHERE THE MALE VICTIM WAS -- HAD BEEN AND THAT WAS WHERE HE HAD BLED.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO ITEM NO. 42, IS THAT DEPICTED ON THIS CHART?

A: YES. ITEM 42 IS DEPICTED HERE (INDICATING).

Q: NOW, THAT HAS A LITTLE PHOTO CARD. MAYBE WE CAN HAVE THAT ONE UP THERE, ITEM 42.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, THAT HAS A CARD IN IT --

THE COURT: HOLD ON.

MR. SCHECK: WE'RE NOT GETTING --

THE COURT: SMALL MONITOR DOWN BELOW.

JUROR NO 1, CAN YOU SEE THAT?

JUROR NO. 1: YES.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: THAT HAS A CARD IN IT THAT SAYS 107; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, WHAT DOES THAT 107 REPRESENT?

A: 107 IS A PHOTO ID CARD REPRESENTING THE STAIN AT THE BASE OF THE STEP RIGHT HERE (INDICATING).

Q: AND THAT WAS EVENTUALLY ASSIGNED ITEM NO. 42?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, WHERE SPECIFICALLY WAS THAT TAPE TAKEN FROM?

A: UMM, YOU WANT ME TO SHOW YOU ON THE NOTES OR I MEAN ON THE PHOTOGRAPH OR --

Q: MAYBE YOU CAN SHOW US ON THE DIAGRAM.

A: ON THE DIAGRAM, IT WAS COLLECTED FROM RIGHT WHERE THIS DOT HERE INDICATES (INDICATING).

Q: WHERE THE CALL OUTLINE IS THAT LEADS TO 42?

A: YES.

Q: WELL, HOW CLOSE TO THE RISER OF THE FIRST STEP WAS THAT STAIN COLLECTED?

A: WITHIN INCHES. ONE OR TWO INCHES.

Q: AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE WAS THE STAIN COLLECTED?

A: THAT WAS COLLECTED AS A REFERENCE FOR THE FEMALE VICTIM.

Q: SO WHEN YOU SAY "REFERENCE FOR THE FEMALE VICTIM," IS THAT AGAIN SOMETHING THAT YOU BELIEVE TO REPRESENT THE FEMALE VICTIM'S BLOOD?

A: YES.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: NOW, SIR, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO ITEM 44 FOR IDENTIFICATION -- PERHAPS WE COULD HAVE THAT PHOTO -- WHERE WAS THAT COLLECTED FROM?

A: THAT WAS COLLECTED FROM THE NORTH GATE OR THE NORTH FENCE AREA RIGHT HERE (INDICATING).

Q: OKAY. AND THAT WAS ORIGINALLY ASSIGNED PHOTO ID NUMBER?

A: 109.

Q: OKAY. DOES THE CALL OUTLINE ACCURATELY PORTRAY WHERE THAT WAS TAKEN FROM, THE FENCE WHERE THAT WAS TAKEN FROM?

A: YES.

Q: NEXT DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO ITEM NO 47. IF WE COULD HAVE THAT PICTURE.

A: 47 WAS COLLECTED ALONG THE NORTH WALKWAY AND IT IS -- IT WAS COLLECTED RIGHT HERE (INDICATING).

Q: SO AGAIN, THE CALL OUTLINE SHOWS WHERE THAT WAS COLLECTED?

A: PRETTY CLOSE. WITHIN -- ON THIS DIAGRAM, WITHIN SIX INCHES.

Q: OKAY. AND WHAT ABOUT THE PHOTO ID NUMBER? WAS THAT ITEM 112 AS SHOWN ON THE PHOTOGRAPH?

A: YES.

Q: AND DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION NOW TO 48, ITEM 48.

A: ITEM 48 WAS COLLECTED HERE (INDICATING).

Q: IN THE AREA WHERE THE CALL OUTLINE SUGGESTS?

A: YES.

Q: AND BY THE WAY, WHAT IS THE MARGIN OF ERROR WOULD YOU SAY ON THE CALL OUTLINES ON THIS DIAGRAM?

A: THEY'RE WITHIN INCHES, MAYBE A FOOT AT THE MOST OF DIFFERENCE.

Q: OKAY. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FAIRLY GENERAL -- WELL, NOT GENERAL LOCATIONS, BUT THERE IS SOME MARGIN OF ERROR ON THIS CHART?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WITH RESPECT TO ITEM 49 FOR IDENTIFICATION, DOES THIS CHART DEPICT WHERE THAT WAS LOCATED?

A: YES, IT DOES. 49 WAS COLLECTED FROM THE STEPS, AND THAT IS RIGHT HERE (INDICATING).

Q: OKAY. AND NOW DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO ITEM 52 FOR IDENTIFICATION -- EXCUSE ME. LET'S DO 50 FIRST FOR IDENTIFICATION. I MEAN ITEM NO. 50. DOES THIS CHART SHOW WHERE THAT WAS LOCATED?

A: YES, IT DOES.

Q: WAS THAT LOCATED ON -- WHERE IN REFERENCE TO THE BACK GATE WAS THAT?

A: THAT IS EAST OF THE BACK GATE.

Q: OKAY. AND NOW ITEM NO. 52 ON THIS CHART, WHERE WAS --

A: ITEM 52 WAS RECOVERED FROM THE DRIVEWAY THAT IS DEPICTED HERE (INDICATING).

Q: AND AGAIN, AS WITH THE REST OF THE ITEMS THAT I'VE ASKED ABOUT, THE PHOTO ID NUMBER IS REPRESENTED IN THE PHOTO ITSELF?

A: YES.

Q: AND NOW WITH RESPECT TO ITEM NO. 54 FOR IDENTIFICATION, WHERE WAS THAT COLLECTED FROM?

A: ITEM 54 WAS COLLECTED FROM THE CORNER OF THE FRONT GATE.

Q: OKAY. NOW, THERE ARE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS ON THE DIAGRAM THAT'S BEEN MARKED 165 THAT APPEAR TO HAVE A CARD IN THEM WITH 119. DO BOTH OF THOSE DEPICT WHAT WAS EVENTUALLY ASSIGNED ITEM NO. 54?

A: YES.

Q: ONE IS A CLOSE-UP OF THE OTHER?

A: YES.

Q: AND 51, WHERE WAS THAT COLLECTED FROM?

A: 51 WAS COLLECTED FROM THIS SOUTH FENCE RIGHT HERE (INDICATING).

Q: OKAY. NOW, WHICH SIDE -- IF YOU CAN LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT HAS THE 160 CARD. IS THAT 160 CARD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE FENCE OR ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE FENCE?

A: THAT'S ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE FENCE.

Q: OKAY. THE SIDE CLOSEST TO WHERE NICOLE BROWN'S BODY WOULD HAVE BEEN?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, THERE'S ALSO AN ITEM THAT WE DON'T HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH FOR, ITEM NO. 57 THAT SAYS LABEL IN THE RIGHT-HAND CORNER OF THE CHART JUST ABOVE WHERE IT SAYS ITEM NO 54.

A: YES. THERE WAS A -- SOME TYPE OF LABEL COLLECTED FROM THE WALKWAY, AND THAT WAS LOCATED RIGHT HERE (INDICATING).

Q: SO THE CALL OUTLINE AGAIN INDICATES THE GENERAL LOCATION THAT THAT WAS FOUND?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE AGAIN OF -- WHY WAS THIS LABEL COLLECTED?

A: THAT LABEL WAS COLLECTED AT THE REQUEST OF DETECTIVE LANGE.

Q: AND WHAT DID THE LABEL SAY ON IT?

A: REFERRING TO MY NOTES, THE LABEL SAID BONITA ECUADOR.

Q: NOW, WE ALSO HAVE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS UP HERE THAT APPEAR TO DEPICT SHOEPRINTS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: LOOKING FIRST AT ITEM NO. 55. MAYBE WE COULD HAVE 55. DOES THE CALL OUT INDICATE ON THE CHART, PEOPLE'S 165, THE LOCATION WHERE THIS STAIN WAS COLLECTED FROM?

A: IT'S FAIRLY CLOSE. IT WAS MORE -- A LITTLE MORE EAST.

Q: OKAY. NOW, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO ITEM NO. 56.

A: 56 WAS ALSO JUST A LITTLE MORE EAST.

Q: EAST OF WHERE THE CALL OUTLINE SAYS IT WAS?

A: YES.

Q: SO IN REVIEWING THESE PHOTOGRAPHS, ALL THE PHOTOGRAPHS ON THIS BUNDY DRIVE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE BOARD, PEOPLE'S 165, DID YOU COMPARE THEM AGAINST YOUR NOTES TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PHOTO ID NUMBERS AND THE ITEM NUMBERS CORRESPONDED?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT THE GENERAL LOCATIONS THAT THE CALL OUTLINES HAD THEM WERE DEPICTED, THE GENERAL LOCATION WHERE IT WAS FOUND?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, AT SOME LATER POINT ON JULY THE 3RD OF 1994, DID YOU RETURN TO THE BUNDY LOCATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLLECTING SOME ADDITIONAL STAINS?

A: YES.

Q: AND HOW WAS IT THAT YOU GOT NOTIFIED TO RETURN TO THE LOCATION?

A: I WAS REQUESTED TO RESPOND TO 875 SOUTH BUNDY BY TELEPHONE. LIEUTENANT OR DETECTIVE LANGE CALLED ME.

Q: APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME DID YOU ARRIVE AT BUNDY ON THIS DATE?

A: I ARRIVED THERE AT 11:30.

Q: WHAT DID YOU SEE WHEN YOU ARRIVED?

A: I SAW BROWN COLORED STAINS ON THE REAR GATE.

Q: ON THE REAR GATE, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ON THIS DIAGRAM, PEOPLE'S 165, THAT HAS BEEN LABELED THE BACK GATE?

A: YES. RIGHT HERE (INDICATING).

Q: APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME DID YOU COLLECT THOSE STAINS?

A: I COLLECTED THEM AT APPROXIMATELY 1:45 IN THE AFTERNOON.

Q: OKAY. NOW, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION BACK TO THE DIAGRAM, 165 FOR IDENTIFICATION, ITEM NO. 50 HAS A CARD IN IT, PHOTO NO. 115; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND ITEM NO. 115 AND 116 ALSO CONTAINS A CARD WITH A NUMBER 115; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: SO THERE ARE TWO 115'S?

A: YES.

Q: ONE 115 IS FROM THE 13TH AND THE OTHER FROM JULY THE 3RD?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION, MR. FUNG, TO TAKE A LOOK AT SOME PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE SHOT ON JUNE THE 13TH PRIOR TO TESTIFYING HERE TODAY?

A: YES.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO MARK AS PEOPLE'S 166 FOR IDENTIFICATION --

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. 166.

MR. GOLDBERG: -- WHAT APPEARS TO BE A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE REAR GATE, AND I'LL PLACE A 166 ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF THAT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(PEO'S 166 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

MR. GOLDBERG: PERHAPS WE COULD HAVE ITS --

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SCHECK: CAN WE APPROACH?

MR. GOLDBERG: APPARENTLY COUNSEL WANTS TO APPROACH, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE. MR. FUNG, WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A SEAT.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE'RE OVER AT THE SIDEBAR.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS APPARENTLY A BLOWUP OF A PHOTOGRAPH. WE HAVE A SMALL VERSION OF THAT PHOTOGRAPH, BUT WE NEVER HAD A BLOWN UP VERSION OF THIS PHOTOGRAPH. OBVIOUSLY IT'S BEING USED AT THIS POINT IN TIME TO TRY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT SOME STAINS ON THIS REAR GATE WHICH WERE FOUND ON JULY 3RD WERE THERE ON JUNE 13TH, AND I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE HAD PRIOR NOTICE THEY WERE GOING TO ENGAGE IN THIS KIND OF BLOWUP SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE AN EXPERT STUDY IT AND PERHAPS DO OUR OWN OR GET ACCESS TO THE NEGATIVES.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, FOR THE RECORD, THIS IS ONE OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN ON JULY THE 13TH AND THEY ALL HAVE HAD IT IN DISCOVERY FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS. I MEAN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE BASIS OF THE OBJECTION.

MR. SCHECK: THE BASIS OF THE OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, IS, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT PROCESSES THEY USED. THEY ARE GOING TO BE OFFERING IT TO THIS JURY. WE, OF COURSE, HAVE LOOKED AT A SMALLER VERSION OF THIS PHOTOGRAPH AND ATTEMPTED TO SEE IF WE CAN SEE SOMETHING THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH BOTH 115 AND 116 THERE AND FROM THE SMALLER VERSION, YOU KNOW, COULD NOT REACH SUCH CONCLUSIONS. AND THE PROBLEM IS, WE HAVE NO IDEA HOW THIS WAS BLOWN UP. WE HAD NO OPPORTUNITY -- ACCESS TO NEGATIVES AND EXAMINE OUR OWN OR FIGURE OUT WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THIS KIND OF PHOTOGRAPHY. THAT'S ALL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG.

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM DISCOVERY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. WE'VE GIVEN THEM THE PHOTOGRAPHS. THEY'VE HAD IT FOR MONTHS. THEY HAVE KNOWN THIS EXISTED. WHAT THEY ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT IS, THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR TRIAL TACTIC IS GOING TO BE. WE DON'T HAVE TO GIVE THEM NOTICE OF HOW BIG THE PHOTOGRAPH -- WILL YOU PLEASE WAIT -- OF HOW BIG THE PHOTOGRAPH IS GOING TO BE. AND THEY DON'T HAVE ANY -- WE DON'T HAVE TO GIVE THEM NOTICE OF SPECIFICALLY WHAT WE ARE GOING TO USE, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE ARE GOING TO USE TO HANDLE ISSUES THAT THEY'VE RAISED PER SE AS LONG AS THEY HAVE THAT DISCOVERY, AS LONG AS THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE MATERIAL. WHAT THEY ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT IS, THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT MY STRATEGY WAS GOING TO BE.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, WHAT I'M COMPLAINING ABOUT IS THE FACT THAT OBVIOUSLY THIS IS BEING OFFERED FOR A VERY MATERIAL PURPOSE. THAT IS TO SAY THAT YOU CAN SEE SOMETHING THERE THAT'S VERY, VERY FAINT AND SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAD DIFFICULTY SEEING IN A SMALL PHOTOGRAPH. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT PROCESSES WERE USED TO BLOW THIS UP. THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE NEGATIVES. IF THEY WERE GOING TO BE ENGAGING IN BLOWING UP A PHOTOGRAPH OF THIS KIND, PARTICULARLY FOR THIS IMPORTANT PURPOSE, THEY WERE REQUIRED TO TELL US, SHOW US SO THAT WE CAN INVESTIGATE THIS PHOTOGRAPH, GET ACCESS TO THE NEGATIVES OURSELVES AND BLOW IT UP EVEN FURTHER. YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS IS A SURPRISE TACTIC AND THEY'RE OBLIGATED TO SHOW US THIS. THEY CAN'T GIVE US A PHOTOGRAPH WHERE YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE ANYTHING AND TRY TO PROVE THAT THERE'S REALLY BLOODSTAINS ON A GATE ON JUNE 13TH THAT THEY CAME BACK AND FOUND JULY 3RD. I DON'T THINK THAT'S FAIR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPH. IT DOES APPEAR TO BE A ROUGHLY EIGHT BY TEN COLOR PHOTOGRAPH THAT APPEARS TO DEPICT THE BOTTOM PORTION OF THE FENCE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUNDY WALKWAY. AND BY USING A MAGNIFYING GLASS, I CAN SEE FROM THIS BLOWN-UP PHOTOGRAPH WHAT APPEARS TO BE A REDDISH STAIN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE GATE WHICH APPARENTLY IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT HERE. I DON'T NOTICE ANYTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THE MANNER IN WHICH THIS HAS BEEN BLOWN UP. IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE DISTORTED IN ANY WAY, AND I'LL OVERRULE THE OBJECTION.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I MAKE A STATEMENT?

THE COURT: BUT I WOULD ASK COUNSEL BEFORE WE START EVERY DAY THAT YOU LET EVERYBODY KNOW WHAT EXHIBITS ARE GOING TO COME IN.

MR. COCHRAN: ALSO, THEY'RE NOT SHOWING EXHIBITS TO US.

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, YOU KNOW, I'VE SHOWN THEM ALL. THIS WAS A EXHIBIT WHERE I DID NOT SHOW THEM IN ADVANCE, BUT I HAVE SHOWN THEM SEVERAL DAYS IN ADVANCE. I APOLOGIZE TO THAT.

MR. SCHECK: I REALLY THINK THAT'S THE POINT. THEY DIDN'T SHOW US --

THE COURT: COUNSEL, I'VE RULED. THANK YOU.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG, YOU MAY CONTINUE. PEOPLE'S 166.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, SHOWING YOU PEOPLE'S 166 FOR IDENTIFICATION, DID YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS PHOTOGRAPH PRIOR TO YOUR TESTIMONY HERE?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU LOOK AT IT WITH A MAGNIFYING GLASS?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND IS THIS A PHOTOGRAPH THAT WAS TAKEN ON THE 16TH OF JUNE? I MEAN THE 13TH OF JUNE. SORRY.

A: 13TH OF JUNE, YES.

Q: DID YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMPARE THAT PHOTOGRAPH TO THE PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH WERE TAKEN ON JULY THE 3RD AT THE TIME THAT YOU COLLECTED 15, 16 AND 17 -- 115, 116 AND 117?

A: YES.

Q: DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE IN THE SAME LOCATION AND THE SAME CONFIGURATION AS THE STAIN THAT WAS COLLECTED ON THE 13TH?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

MR. SCHECK: EXCUSE ME. ON THE 13TH?

THE COURT: THAT'S WHAT I HEARD.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: I MEAN, DOES THE STAIN IN THE 13TH PHOTOGRAPH APPEAR TO BE IN THE SAME CONFIGURATION AND SAME LOCATION AS THE STAIN THAT WAS COLLECTED ON JULY THE 3RD?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DO YOU SPECIFICALLY RECALL HAVING SEEN THAT STAIN WHEN YOU WERE AT THE LOCATION ON THE 13TH?

A: NO, I DO NOT.

Q: OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER ANY -- DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC RECALL OF WHETHER IT WAS POINTED OUT TO YOU?

A: NO, I DO NOT.

Q: YOU DON'T RECALL ONE WAY OR THE OTHER?

A: NO, I DON'T.

Q: HAD YOU KNOWN OF THAT, HAD YOU SEEN IT YOURSELF, WOULD YOU HAVE COLLECTED THAT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, YOU SAID THAT IT WAS YOUR PRACTICE TO COLLECT REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES. WHY WOULD YOU HAVE COLLECTED THIS STAIN?

A: THIS STAIN WAS ON A DIFFERENT MEDIUM THAN THE GROUND AND IT WAS A LOCATION THAT WAS RELEVANT TO THE CRIME.

Q: OKAY. SO IF YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK AND REPROCESS THE CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY, IF YOU COULD DO THE 13TH ALL OVER AGAIN, WOULD OF YOU HAVE LIKED TO HAVE COLLECTED THE STAIN?

A: ABSOLUTELY.

Q: NOW, GETTING BACK TO THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE TAKEN ON JULY THE 3RD SHOWING 115, CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHY THERE'S A PHOTOGRAPH NO. 115 TAKEN ON THE 13TH AND A NO. 115 IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS ON JULY THE 3RD?

A: THE PHOTO ID 115 WHICH CORRESPONDS TO ITEM 50 WAS TAKEN ON -- WAS DONE ON JUNE 13TH WHEN -- BEFORE ITEM NUMBERS COULD BE ASSIGNED.

Q: AND THAT WAS WHEN YOU WERE ASSIGNING PHOTO NUMBERS 100 THROUGH I THINK YOU SAID 119; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU CONTINUE YOUR EXPLANATION AS TO THE TWO 115'S?

A: BY JULY THE 3RD, 114 ITEMS OF EVIDENCE HAD BEEN BOOKED INTO PROPERTY DIVISION AND THAT WAS THE NEXT ITEM NUMBER THAT WAS GOING TO BE USED, AND IT IS PREFERABLE TO HAVE THE ITEM NUMBERS AND THE PHOTO ID NUMBERS COINCIDE SO WHEN WE GET TO THE TRIAL PHASE, THE JURY ISN'T CONFUSED.

Q: AND THE ATTORNEYS TOO.

A: YES.

Q: OKAY.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, PERHAPS I COULD MAKE A PEOPLE'S 166-A OF THE ITEM THAT WAS SHOWN ON THE COURT'S SCREEN OF 166.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. 166-A, HARD COPY.

(PEOPLE'S 166-A FOR ID = HARD COPY OF SCREEN.)

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE THREE STAINS THAT WERE COLLECTED ON JULY THE 3RD, DID YOU USE THE SAME TECHNIQUE IN TERMS OF WHAT HAPPENED TO THE STAINS TO TRY TO DRY AND PACKAGE THEM AS YOU DID WITH THE STAINS YOU COLLECTED ON THE 13TH?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, GETTING BACK TO JUNE THE 13TH AND THE LOCATION OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY, DID ANY OF THE BLOOD DROPS AT THAT LOCATION APPEAR TO BE STEPPED IN?

A: ALONG THE TRAIL, NO.

Q: OKAY. AND ALONG THE TRAIL, YOU MEAN WHICH ITEM NUMBERS THROUGH WHICH ITEM NUMBERS?

A: I AM REFERRING TO ITEM NOS. 112 OR -- EXCUSE ME. THOSE ARE PHOTO ID NUMBERS. ITEMS NOS. 47, 48, 49, 50 AND 52.

Q: WHEN YOU WERE OUT AT THE SCENE AND LOOKING AT THESE VARIOUS BLOOD DOTS AS WELL AS THE SHOEPRINTS, DID DETECTIVE LANGE ASK YOU TO DO ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR IN TERMS OF DOCUMENTING OR ANALYZING THOSE SHOEPRINTS AND THE BLOOD DOTS?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: WHAT DID HE ASK YOU TO DO?

A: HE ASKED ME TO MEASURE AND DOCUMENT THE DIFFERENT SHOE -- SHOEPRINTS.

Q: AND HOW DID YOU MEASURE THE SHOEPRINTS?

A: I PLACED A TAPE MEASURE DOWN AND MEASURED THEM WITH REFERENCE TO ITEMS THAT ARE IMMOVABLE WITHIN THE RESIDENCE.

Q: SO YOU DOCUMENTED THE MEASUREMENTS OF THE VARIOUS SHOEPRINTS?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU ALSO DOCUMENT THE MEASUREMENTS OF THE VARIOUS BLOOD DOTS ON WHAT YOU'VE DESCRIBED AS THE TRAIL?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE DID DETECTIVE LANGE SAY HE WANTED YOU TO LOOK AT IT, TO DETERMINE WHAT?

MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, I ASKED HIM WHAT HE SAID.

THE COURT: BUT -- WHY DON'T YOU REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY. WHEN DETECTIVE LANGE SAID SOMETHING TO YOU, SAID HE WANTED YOU TO LOOK AT THOSE, WHAT DID HE SAY HE WANTED YOU TO LOOK AT THEM FOR?

A: HE WANTED ME TO DO A -- I THINK HIS TERM IS -- THE WORD HE USES ESCAPES ME RIGHT NOW. I'M SORRY.

Q: DID HE USE A TERM THAT WASN'T TYPICALLY USED ANY LONGER -- THAT YOU DO NOT USE AS A CRIMINALIST?

A: YES.

Q: DID IT HAVE TO DO WITH THE STRIDES?

A: STRIDE ANALYSIS, YES.

Q: OKAY. AND WHAT, IF ANYTHING, WERE YOU TRYING TO DETERMINE BY MEASURING THE FOOTPRINTS AND THE BLOOD DOTS?

A: I WAS -- I WAS ASKED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PERSON WAS RUNNING OR WALKING.

Q: OKAY. AND WHAT KINDS OF FACTORS DID YOU LOOK AT IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION?

A: I LOOKED AT THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SHOEPRINTS. I LOOKED AT THE PRINTS -- SHOEPRINTS THEMSELVES TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY SPLASHING EFFECT AND I LOOKED AT THE BLOODSTAINS TO THE LEFT OF THE SHOEPRINTS TO DETERMINE IF THERE WAS ANY TRAILING OR NOT.

Q: OKAY. WELL, LET'S BREAK THAT DOWN FOR A SECOND. FIRST OF ALL, DID YOU MAKE ANY PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION AS TO THE SHOE SIZE?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT WAS YOUR PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION?

A: THE PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION WAS THAT IT WAS A LARGE SHOE SIZE CONSISTENT WITH BEING WORN BY AN ADULT.

Q: OKAY. AND YOU SAID THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU LOOKED AT WAS WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS SPLATTERS OFF THE SHOEPRINTS?

A: YES.

Q: WHY WERE YOU LOOKING AT THAT?

A: WHEN A PERSON RUNS, THEY WILL HAVE MUCH MORE FORCE WHEN THEY HIT THE GROUND WITH THEIR FOOT AND THERE WILL BE SOMEWHAT OF A SPLASHING EFFECT ON THE -- ON THE SURFACE.

Q: DID YOU SEE THAT KIND OF SPLASHING EFFECT?

A: NO.

Q: AND ANOTHER THING YOU SAID YOU WERE LOOKING AT WAS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN SHOEPRINTS?

A: YES.

Q: FOR WHAT PURPOSE WERE YOU LOOKING AT THAT?

A: WHEN A PERSON RUNS, THEY WILL HAVE A LONGER DISTANCE BETWEEN EACH SHOEPRINT THAN WHEN THEY WALK.

Q: AND WAS THE DISTANCE HERE FOR AN ADULT RELATIVELY LONG CONSISTENT WITH RUNNING OR SHORTER?

A: IT WAS RELATIVELY SHORTER.

Q: OKAY. AND FINALLY, YOU SAID THAT YOU LOOKED AT THE TRAILING OR TAILING --

A: YES.

Q: -- OF THE BLOOD DOTS. WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?

A: WHEN A DROP OF BLOOD HITS AN OBJECT, WHEN IT HAS SOME TYPE OF VELOCITY BESIDES GOING DOWN, IT WILL TYPICALLY HAVE A SPLASHING EFFECT IN THE DIRECTION THAT IT IS TRAVELING AND YOU CAN DETERMINE DIRECTION BY ANALYZING THAT.

Q: DID YOU SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF SIGNIFICANT TAILING ON THESE BLOOD DOTS?

A: THERE WAS NO SIGNIFICANT TRAILING, NO, OR TAILING, NO.

Q: AND WOULD THAT BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH SOMEONE THAT WAS RUNNING OR MOVING MORE SLOWLY?

A: THERE WOULD BE MORE TAILING WITH SOMEONE WHO WAS RUNNING.

Q: OKAY. NOW, RESPECTING THE SHOEPRINTS AND THE BLOOD DOTS, DID YOU NOTICE WHERE IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE SHOEPRINTS THE BLOOD DOTS WERE?

A: GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE DROPS WERE TO THE SOUTH OF THE SHOEPRINTS OR TO THE LEFT IF THE PERSON WAS WALKING IN THE WEST DIRECTION.

Q: OKAY. SO IF A PERSON WERE WALKING TOWARDS THE WEST DIRECTION, THE BACK GATE, THE DOTS WERE GENERALLY TO THE LEFT?

A: YES.

Q: RESPECTING THE BOARD THAT WE'RE MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 165 FOR IDENTIFICATION, ITEMS NO. 48 -- PERHAPS YOU NEED TO GET -- TO TAKE A STEP OFF THE WITNESS STAND. CAN WE SEE THIS AGAIN? IS ONE OF THE SHOEPRINTS THAT YOU OBSERVED AT THE SCENE ON THE 13TH LOCATED IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH?

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU TELL US WHERE IT IS BY POINTING ON THE DIAGRAM? I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO POINT OVER HERE.

A: IT IS RIGHT HERE (INDICATING).

Q: BUT CAN YOU TELL US WHERE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH THE SHOEPRINT IS?

A: UP IN THE RIGHT -- UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER.

Q: CAN YOU DESCRIBE IT A LITTLE BIT FOR US SO WE CAN SEE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT? IS IT A WHOLE SHOEPRINT OR PART OF A SHOEPRINT?

A: IT APPEARS TO BE A PARTIAL SHOEPRINT RIGHT HERE AND THIS IS THE OUTLINE OF IT (INDICATING).

Q: AND THE BLOOD DOT IS ALSO LOCATED IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH NEXT TO THE CARD 113?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, CAN YOU TELL US HOW ON THE DIAGRAM THIS ITEM WOULD BE ORIENTED? IN OTHER WORDS, WHICH WAY IS WEST ON THE PHOTOGRAPH?

A: ON THE PHOTOGRAPH, GOING UP IS WEST. SO TO ORIENT THIS PROPERLY, YOU WOULD HAVE TO TURN IT ON ITS SIDE.

Q: SO WHEN YOU'RE AT THE SCENE AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS PARTIAL SHOEPRINT, IF THE PERSON WERE HEADED IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION TOWARDS THE BACK GATE, THE BLOOD DOT IS TO THE LEFT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, REGARDING ITEM NO. 47 -- WE DON'T NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. BUT JUST REFERRING TO THE DIAGRAM, PEOPLE'S 165, WAS THERE ALSO A SHOEPRINT IN THE VICINITY OF THAT BLOOD DOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHERE WAS THAT USING THE DIAGRAM?

A: THERE WAS A SHOEPRINT UP IN THIS AREA HERE (INDICATING).

MR. GOLDBERG: ON THE DIAGRAM, HE'S POINTING TO ONE TILE TO THE NORTH OF WHERE THE BLOOD DOT IS, YOUR HONOR, AND IT'S ADJACENT TO THE BLOOD DOT ITSELF.

THE COURT: YES.

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, HE'S POINTING TO A ROW OF TILES AGAIN FOR THE RECORD. THAT'S THE ROW ABOVE THE BLOOD DOT TO THE NORTH ON THIS DIAGRAM.

MR. SCHECK: IT'S NOT DIRECTLY ABOVE IT. IT'S TO THE LEFT OF IT AS WE'RE LOOKING.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: MR. FUNG, WHY DON'T YOU POINT TO IT AGAIN.

A: OKAY. (INDICATING).

MR. SCHECK: MAYBE HE CAN COUNT THE NUMBER OF TILES STARTING FROM --

THE WITNESS: THERE (INDICATING).

MR. SCHECK: MAYBE WE CAN COUNT THE NUMBER OF TILES STARTING FROM THE BEGINNING AND YOU CAN INDICATE WHAT TILE HE'S POINTING TO.

THE COURT: HE APPEARS TO BE INDICATING A LOCATION THAT'S APPROXIMATELY ONE FOOT ON THE DIAGRAM SLIGHTLY ABOVE AND SLIGHTLY TO THE LEFT.

MR. FUNG: YES.

THE COURT: HE AGREES. PRETTY GOOD FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE IT, ISN'T IT?

MR. SCHECK: CAN YOU SEE IT FROM THERE?

THE COURT: I CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH IT.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY. IS WHAT THE JUDGE JUST SAID CORRECT?

A: ABSOLUTELY.

MR. SCHECK: OF COURSE.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY. NOW, WHEN YOU PACKAGED THE VARIOUS ITEMS THAT YOU COLLECTED THAT ARE REPRESENTED ON THIS BOARD, 165, INTO THE COIN ENVELOPES, WERE THE COIN ENVELOPES GIVEN THE -- AND I'M TALKING ABOUT THE ONES ON THE 13TH -- WERE THEY GIVEN THE PHOTO ID NUMBER OR THE ITEM NUMBER.

MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION. COMPOUND.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. WHY DON'T YOU REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, WITH RESPECT TO EVERY ITEM THAT YOU COLLECTED ON THE 13TH, WAS IT GIVEN THE PHOTO NUMBERS OR THE ITEM NUMBERS?

A: WITH RESPECT TO THE ITEMS THAT I COLLECTED ON JUNE 13TH AT BUNDY, THE EVIDENCE WAS MARKED FIRST WITH PHOTO ID NUMBERS.

Q: AND THEN LATER ON, YOU ASSIGNED THE ITEM NUMBERS?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHERE WAS THAT? WAS THAT AT BUNDY OR BACK AT THE LAB?

A: THAT WAS DONE AT THE LABORATORY.

Q: AND THEN WERE THOSE COIN ENVELOPES GIVEN THE DR NUMBER THAT YOU READ OFF IN THIS CASE?

A: YES.

Q: PRIOR TO LEAVING THE BUNDY LOCATION, DID YOU DO ANYTHING TO RECHECK THE ITEMS THAT YOU HAD COLLECTED?

A: PRIOR TO LEAVING BUNDY, I CONDUCTED A -- AN EVIDENCE INVENTORY FOR THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE WE COLLECTED AT BUNDY.

Q: OKAY. AND WAS THAT THE SAME PROCEDURE THAT YOU DESCRIBED EARLIER WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT DOING THE INVENTORY AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES.

Q: YEAH. WHERE DID YOU PUT THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAD COLLECTED FROM THE BUNDY LOCATION?

A: THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE WERE PLACED IN BAGS.

Q: NO. I MEAN -- BUT WERE THEY TAKEN AND PUT IN THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK LOCKED?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU WERE PROCESSING THE BUNDY LOCATION, WHERE WAS THE ROCKINGHAM EVIDENCE FROM THE MORNING?

A: THE ROCKINGHAM EVIDENCE WAS ALSO -- ALSO LOCKED IN THE BACK OF THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK.

Q: OKAY. APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME DID YOU LEAVE THE BUNDY LOCATION ON THE 13TH?

A: I LEFT THE BUNDY LOCATION AT APPROXIMATELY 3:00 O'CLOCK, 3:15.

Q: WHERE DID YOU GO AFTER YOU LEFT?

A: I RETURNED TO THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS.

Q: WHAT TIME DID YOU ARRIVE BACK AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: I ARRIVED BACK AT ROCK -- AT THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS AT APPROXIMATELY 3:30.

Q: SO WHEN YOU LEFT ROCKINGHAM IN THE MORNING, YOUR LAST PHOTO NUMBER AND ITEM NUMBER WAS 10; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: SO WOULD THE NEXT ITEM YOU COLLECTED HAVE BEEN 11?

A: YES.

Q: WAS 11?

A: YES.

Q: WHO COLLECTED NO. 11 PHYSICALLY? WAS IT YOU OR WAS IT MISS MAZZOLA?

A: THAT WAS PHYSICALLY COLLECTED BY MISS MAZZOLA.

Q: DO YOU RECALL WHO SPOTTED IT FIRST?

A: NO, I DON'T.

Q: DID YOU SEE IT?

A: YES.

Q: WHERE WAS IT?

A: THAT WAS LOCATED ON A WIRE THAT WAS HANGING DOWN ALONG THE SOUTH WALKWAY AT THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS.

Q: THAT WAS THE SAME SIDE THAT THE GLOVE WAS COLLECTED FROM?

A: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG, DO YOU NEED PEOPLE'S 165 AT THIS POINT SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ROCKINGHAM?

MR. GOLDBERG: NO, I DON'T, BUT I'M GOING TO NEED TO GET TO THE -- THE ROCKINGHAM EXHIBIT AND THERE'S AN ISSUE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS WITH THAT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK THE JURORS THEN TO STEP BACK INTO THE JURY ROOM. THERE'S SOMETHING I NEED TO DETERMINE WITH REGARDS TO THE NEXT EXHIBIT.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG -- THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT THE JURY HAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE COURTROOM. DO YOU WANT TO SHOW ME THIS EXHIBIT?

MR. GOLDBERG: YES. WELL, THIS IS THE EXHIBIT THAT CONTAINS THE TWO ITEMS THAT COUNSEL OBJECTED TO EARLIER OF THE SINK I BELIEVE AND THE SHOWER. THEY WERE OBJECTING ON THE GROUND OF SHOWING THAT THE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST THAT WAS CONDUCTED. SO THAT'S THE ISSUE. WE'VE NOW ARRIVED AT THAT POINT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. WE DISCUSSED THIS MATTER BRIEFLY THIS MORNING AND, MR. GOLDBERG, YOU CITED TO THE COURT THE COLEMAN CASE. THE COURT HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE COLEMAN CASE AND I HAVE REVIEWED EACH OF THE CASES THAT COLEMAN CITES. DO YOU WISH TO BE HEARD?

MR. GOLDBERG: I DON'T WISH TO BE HEARD FURTHER, YOUR HONOR. I MAY RESPOND TO WHAT COUNSEL HAS TO SAY.

MR. NEUFELD: ONE SECOND, YOUR HONOR.

MR. GOLDBERG: I MEAN, AS I UNDERSTAND THE OBJECTION, IT'S RELEVANCY, AND I THINK WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT OBJECTION.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. NEUFELD: YOUR HONOR, I DID HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT COLEMAN OVER THE RECESS. I THINK THERE'S THREE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES WHICH THE COURT SHOULD BEAR IN MIND AT THIS TIME, YOUR HONOR. ONE IS THAT -- WELL, FIRST OF ALL, IN THE COLEMAN CASE, THE EVIDENCE -- IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS ERROR TO THE EVIDENCE ALTHOUGH IT WAS DEEMED TO BE HARMLESS ERROR, WHICH HAD NOT BEEN POINTED OUT THIS MORNING DURING DISCUSSION. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, YOUR HONOR, THE CRIMINALIST WHO TRIED TO INTRODUCE THE EVIDENCE IN COLEMAN, LIKE MR. FUNG IN THIS CASE, IS NOT AN EXPERT IN SEROLOGY, WAS NOT AN EXPERT IN SEROLOGY, AND THAT WAS A FACTOR CONSIDERED BY THE COURT AS TO WHY HE WAS NOT THE APPROPRIATE WITNESS TO INTRODUCE THAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE, AND WE WOULD SUBMIT TO THE COURT THAT LIKEWISE IN THE INSTANT SITUATION, MR. FUNG WOULD NOT BE THE APPROPRIATE WITNESS TO INTRODUCE THE EVIDENCE OF ANY PRESUMPTIVE TESTS DONE ON THE SINKS OR DRAINS IN THE HOUSE. SECONDLY, YOUR HONOR, IN THE COLEMAN CASE, ONE OF THE REASONS THEY FELT IT WAS NOT -- THAT IT WAS HARMLESS ERROR -- EXCUSE ME -- IS THAT THE ACTUAL ITEMS WERE BROUGHT IN SO THE DEFENSE COULD DO INDEPENDENT TESTING. IN THIS INSTANCE, THOSE TWO ITEMS WERE NEVER PRESERVED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND FRANKLY IT'S IN THAT SENSE A GRIFFIN SITUATION HERE AS WELL, YOUR HONOR, WHERE WE ARE BASICALLY PRECLUDED FROM HAVING DONE ANY TESTING AT ALL ON THOSE DRAINS. AS I POINTED OUT THIS MORNING, YOUR HONOR, THE APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO SIMPLY COLLECT SOME OF THE LIQUID IN THOSE DRAINS SO ANY KIND OF CONFIRMATION TESTING COULD HAVE BEEN DONE BACK AT THE LABORATORY. THAT WAS NOT DONE HERE. ALL THE OTHER STAINS FOR WHICH LAW ENFORCEMENT RECEIVED A POSITIVE PRESUMPTIVE TEST WERE ACTUALLY COLLECTED, AND THERE'S NO REASON WHY THESE SAMPLES WERE TREATED DIFFERENTLY. THEY CERTAINLY COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT BACK AND CONFIRMATION COULD HAVE BEEN DONE. BUT FRANKLY, YOUR HONOR, THE THIRD CONCERN WE HAVE HERE IS AGAIN UNDER 352, WHICH IS THAT LITTLE PINK Q-TIP THAT YOU SEE THERE IS NOT PINK BECAUSE IT'S SHOWING BLOOD. IT'S PINK BECAUSE THAT IS THE CHEMICAL REACTION FROM THE PHENOLPHTHALEIN FOLLOWED BY THE HYDROGEN PEROXIDE. THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE TEST. AND THERE IS THIS SUGGESTION THAT HE'S REACHING IN WITH THAT Q-TIP AND PULLING OUT BLOOD, WHICH HE'S NOT. AS I POINTED OUT THIS MORNING, YOUR HONOR, THERE IS A WEALTH OF INFORMATION IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY THAT SHOWS THAT THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION IS FOUGHT WITH THE DANGERS OF A FALSE POSITIVE. ONE ARTICLE THAT COMES TO MIND IS BY BLAKE AND DILLON ENTITLED MICROORGANISMS AND THE PRESUMPTIVE TESTS FOR BLOOD. IT'S A 1973 PUBLICATION AND TALKS ABOUT THIS KIND OF SITUATION WHERE YOU --

THE COURT: THE SAME BLAKE?

MR. NEUFELD: WHAT?

THE COURT: THE SAME BLAKE?

MR. NEUFELD: THE SAME BLAKE AS REFERRED TO IN THE COLEMAN CASE IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT BLAKE AND DILLON POINT OUT IN THAT RESEARCH IN THE 1970'S IS THAT -- IS THAT IN DAMP, MOIST AREAS SUCH AS A DRAIN WHERE YOU HAVE A LOT OF MICROORGANISMS GROWING AND BACTERIA, YOU CAN EASILY GET A FALSE POSITIVE, COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT IN PIPES, IF THEY'RE COPPER PIPES, COPPER ALSO GIVES A FALSE POSITIVE FOR THE PHENOL TEST. AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT OTHER KINDS OF VEGETABLE MATTER, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT CAN GIVE A FALSE POSITIVE HERE COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT THEY DIDN'T PRESERVE THAT LIQUID SO YOU COULD HAVE A CONFIRMATORY TESTING BACK AT THE LABORATORY, I THINK WHEN YOU BALANCE THAT, YOUR HONOR, THAT THE PREJUDICIAL IMPACT DOES OUTWEIGH ANY REASONABLE PROBATIVE VALUE THAT IT HAS GIVEN ITS PRESUMPTIVE TEST. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG.

MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I JUST HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, YOUR HONOR, THE ONLY REASON THAT THIS IS AT ALL DIFFICULT FOR THE PROSECUTION IS BECAUSE THERE'S A TACTICAL AS WELL AS A LEGAL ISSUE INVOLVED. COUNSEL -- AS I'M SURE COUNSEL IS AWARE, THE DEFENSE HAS ALSO DONE SOME PRESUMPTIVE BLOOD TESTING AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION, AND THEY'RE USING THE SAME CLASS OF TESTS AS WE DID IN THE PHENOLPHTHALEIN CASE -- WITH THE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST. SO IF THE COURT'S RULING IS PRESUMPTIVE BLOOD TESTING DOESN'T COME IN PERIOD REGARDLESS OF WHO IS OFFERING IT, MAYBE THAT'S A DECISION THAT WE CAN LIVE WITH. BUT I JUST THINK MAYBE WE SHOULD CLARIFY THAT'S COUNSEL POSITION, BECAUSE IF IT IS, THEN PERHAPS WE DON'T NEED TO PUT IN THIS EVIDENCE OF THE PHENOLPHTALEIN TEST. WHAT I WOULD SAY, YOUR HONOR, THOUGH, IS THAT WE DO HAVE SOME PATCHES FOR THIS PARTICULAR ITEM THAT WE COULD AFFIX AND I WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY IF THE COURT IS GOING TO RULE, IF INDEED THIS IS THE DEFENSE POSITION, TO BE ABLE TO FIX THE EXHIBIT UP. IT SHOULDN'T TAKE THAT LONG. I BELIEVE MR. FAIRTLOUGH CAN DO THAT FOR US. AND IF THAT ISN'T THE DEFENSE POSITION, I'LL RESPOND TO THEIR LEGAL ARGUMENTS.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: COUNSEL, LET ME SUGGEST THIS. LET ME SUGGEST THAT MR. FAIRTLOUGH APPLY HIS BANDAGES AT THIS POINT. I'LL ALLOW YOU TO CONSIDER THE TACTICAL MATTERS OVER THE EVENING HOURS. WE DO HAVE A ABSOLUTE STOP TIME OF 4:30. I THINK -- AND THEN TOMORROW -- I HAVE A FEELING WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET TO THAT JUST YET ANYWAY IN THE NEXT 15 MINUTES, BUT WE DO NEED TO QUIT AT 4:30 TODAY.

MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I JUST HAVE A MOMENT?

THE COURT: SURE. AND THAT WILL GIVE COUNSEL, BOTH SIDES AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THEIR CHESS MATCH.

MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY. THE PROBLEM WITH THE PATCHES, AS I'VE JUST BEEN ADVISED, IS THAT THEY ARE ON AN ADHESIVE, THE ONES THEY USE. SO THEY CAN'T BE REMOVED ONCE APPLIED.

THE COURT: WELL, I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH POST-IT'S TO -- THE COUNTY GIVES ME THESE LITTLE ONES ANYWAY. MR. GOLDBERG, DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH THAT YOU CAN JUST GET THROUGH THE NEXT 15 MINUTES SO WE DON'T LOSE COURT TIME?

MR. GOLDBERG: THAT'S WHAT I'M STARTING TO LOOK AT RIGHT NOW, YOUR HONOR. I MAY JUST BE ABLE -- I HATE TO TAKE THESE OUT OF ORDER, BUT I SUPPOSE I COULD SKIP OVER THE ROCKINGHAM EVIDENCE AND MOVE ON TO --

THE COURT: WELL, YOU DON'T NEED THIS EXHIBIT TO DO ROCKINGHAM JUST YET, DO YOU? AND YOU DO HAVE AVAILABILITY OF THE LASER DISK PHOTOS SCRUPULOUSLY, CORRECT? MR. FAIRTLOUGH INDICATES YES. I'M SURE WE COULD DO THE BLOOD SPOTS IN THE FOYER AND THE SOCK COLLECTION IN THE MASTER BEDROOM BEFORE WE GET TO ANYTHING ELSE.

MR. GOLDBERG: IT COULD BE DONE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: LET'S DO IT THAT WAY. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURY.

MR. COCHRAN: IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO USE THAT, CAN IT BE MOVED ALSO, THE STAND?

MR. GOLDBERG: WHERE ARE WE KEEPING THIS? OVER HERE?

THE COURT: LET'S HAVE THE JURORS COME IN.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE'VE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. MR. GOLDBERG, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

MR. GOLDBERG: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: AFTER THE COLLECTION OF ITEM NO. 11, DID YOU GO INSIDE THE HOUSE?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THE FIRST ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU SAW INSIDE THE HOUSE?

A: THE FIRST ITEM OF EVIDENCE WAS A -- WERE THREE RED OR A SERIES OF RED STAINS IN THE FOYER.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT NO. 121.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO WHAT'S BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT 121 FOR IDENTIFICATION, DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT'S DEPICTED THERE?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: WHAT IS THAT?

A: THAT IS THE RED STAINS THAT I PREVIOUSLY WAS SPEAKING ABOUT.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU COLLECTED THESE THREE STAINS, WERE THEY COLLECTED AS A SINGLE ITEM OR AS INDIVIDUAL ITEMS?

MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION. ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THEY WERE COLLECTED AS A SINGLE ITEM.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: AND IN THIS CASE, I TAKE IT THAT THE NUMBER IN THE PHOTOGRAPH ALSO CORRESPONDS TO THE ITEM NUMBER THAT IT WAS EVENTUALLY ASSIGNED; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WAS ITEM NO. 12 COLLECTED?

A: THAT WAS COLLECTED AT APPROXIMATELY 4:30.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AFTER COLLECTING ITEM NO. 12, DID YOU GO UPSTAIRS IN THE LOCATION?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DO YOU RECALL WHAT WAS THE NEXT ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED?

A: THE NEXT ITEM WAS A PAIR OF SOCKS IN THE MASTER BEDROOM.

MR. GOLDBERG: APPARENTLY THAT HAS NOT YET BEEN MARKED, YOUR HONOR. SO I WOULD LIKE TO MARK AS PEOPLE'S 167 A PICTURE OF THE SOCKS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PEOPLE'S 167.

(PEO'S 167 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO WHAT'S BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 167 FOR IDENTIFICATION, DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT PHOTOGRAPH?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: I CAN'T SEE FROM HERE, BUT IS THERE A TAG IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, AN EVIDENCE TAG?

A: YES, THERE IS.

Q: WHAT NUMBER IS THAT?

A: THAT WOULD BE ITEM NO. OR THAT WOULD BE NO. 13.

Q: TO YOUR RECOLLECTION, WHO PHYSICALLY PICKED THESE SOCKS UP? YOURSELF OR ANDREA MAZZOLA?

A: THAT WAS ME. I PICKED IT UP. I PICKED THEM UP.

Q: AND YOU DESCRIBED TWO TECHNIQUES THAT YOU USED TO COLLECT THIS KIND OF EVIDENCE. DO YOU RECALL WHICH ONE YOU USED HERE?

A: NO.

Q: SO IT WAS EITHER THE SCOOP TECHNIQUE OR THE GLOVE HAND TECHNIQUE?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT KIND OF PACKAGING DID YOU PUT THESE IN?

A: THOSE WERE PLACED IN A PAPER BAG.

Q: AND THAT WAS ASSIGNED ITEM NO. 13, THE PAPER BAG?

A: YES.

Q: AND GIVEN THE DR NUMBER IN THIS CASE?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AT APPROX -- AND DID YOU THEN COLLECT ANOTHER STAIN FROM THE UPSTAIRS AREA AFTER COLLECTING THE SOCKS?

A: YES.

Q: WHERE WAS THAT FROM?

A: THAT WAS COLLECTED ON THE FLOOR IN THE MASTER BATHROOM.

MR. GOLDBERG: THAT'S GOING TO BE PEOPLE'S 168 FOR IDENTIFICATION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. 168.

(PEO'S 168 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: WHAT DOES 168 PORTRAY?

A: 168 PORTRAYS CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA PERFORMING THE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST ON ITEM NUMBER 14.

Q: AND CAN YOU TELL US WHERE IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH THE STAIN IS LOCATED?

A: THE RESOLUTION ON THE -- ON THE MONITOR ISN'T THAT GOOD, BUT THE STAIN IS CLOSE TO WHERE SHE IS POINTING WITH THE APPLICATOR.

Q: DID SHE PHYSICALLY COLLECT THAT STAIN OR DID YOU?

A: SHE PHYSICALLY COLLECTED IT.

Q: WAS THAT IN YOUR PRESENCE?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID SHE USE THE SAME PROCEDURE THAT YOU PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED IN TERMS OF COLLECTING STAINS?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT WAS ASSIGNED ITEM NO. 14?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: AND DO YOU HAVE AN APPROXIMATE TIME FRAME FOR WHEN 14 WOULD HAVE BEEN COLLECTED?

A: THAT WAS COLLECTED AT APPROXIMATELY 4:40 IN THE AFTERNOON.

Q: NOW, ACCORDING TO YOUR CRIME SCENE IDENTIFICATION CHECKLIST, DID YOU PICK UP ANOTHER PIECE OF EVIDENCE AROUND 5:00 O'CLOCK?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT WAS THAT?

A: THAT WAS AN AIRLINE LUGGAGE TICKET AND THAT WAS ON THE -- LOCATED ON THE -- OR AN AIRLINE TICKET RECEIPT AND THAT WAS LOCATED IN THE GARBAGE CAN SOUTH OF THE FOYER IN THE BATHROOM.

Q: AND THAT WAS PICKED UP AT WHAT TIME?

A: THAT WAS PICKED UP AT AROUND 5:00 O'CLOCK.

Q: AND WHAT ITEM NUMBER WAS THAT ASSIGNED?

A: THAT WAS ASSIGNED NO. 15.

Q: AND WHAT WAS THE LAST PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU CAME INTO POSSESSION OF WHILE YOU WERE AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION IN THE AFTERNOON?

A: THAT I COLLECTED DIRECTLY OR --

Q: THAT YOU CAME INTO POSSESSION OF.

A: THAT WAS A AIRLINE LUGGAGE TICKET ON THE BENCH OUTSIDE THE FRONT DOOR.

Q: OKAY. BUT DID SOMEONE GIVE YOU SOMETHING LATER AFTER THE --

MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION. LEADING.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: DID YOU GET ANYTHING FROM ANYONE ELSE?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT TIME?

A: THAT WAS AT 5:20 IN THE AFTERNOON.

Q: AND IS THAT AN APPROXIMATE TIME AGAIN?

A: WELL, I LOOKED AT MY WATCH FOR THIS ONE AND I REMEMBER DOING THAT. SO IT'S FAIRLY ACCURATE.

Q: SO THE OTHER TIMES THAT YOU'VE TESTIFIED TO AT ROCKINGHAM IN THE AFTERNOON ARE APPROXIMATE EXCEPT FOR THIS ONE?

A: YES. BECAUSE I DEFINITELY REMEMBER LOOKING AT MY WATCH FOR THIS ONE.

Q: WHAT WAS GIVEN TO YOU AT APPROXIMATELY -- AT 5:20 IN THE AFTERNOON?

A: AN ENVELOPE CONTAINING A VIAL OF BLOOD LABELED O.J. SIMPSON.

Q: WHO GAVE IT TO YOU?

A: THAT WAS GIVEN TO ME BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER.

Q: AND DO YOU RECALL WHETHER IT WAS A VIAL ITSELF THAT YOU RECEIVED OR WAS IT ALREADY IN SOME SORT OF PACKAGING?

A: IT WAS IN A GRAY ENVELOPE.

Q: OKAY.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO MARK AN EXHIBIT THAT WE'VE PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED. IT'S PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT 163 AND THIS WOULD BE H. IT'S A WHITE, GRAY AND YELLOW ANALYZED EVIDENCE ENVELOPE. THEY'RE ALL STAPLED TOGETHER, AND I MARKED THEM COLLECTIVELY AS H.

THE COURT: SO MARKED.

MR. GOLDBERG: AND COUNSEL HAS SEE THEM. MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: SIR, SHOWING YOU THESE ANALYZED EVIDENCE ENVELOPES, HAVE YOU SEEN THAT KIND OF ENVELOPE BEFORE?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: AND WHAT ARE THOSE THREE TYPES OF ENVELOPES?

A: THE WHITE ONE IS THE ENVELOPE WE USE FOR STORING FROZEN EVIDENCE. THE GRAY ONE IS USED TO STORE REFRIGERATED EVIDENCE AND THE YELLOW ONE IS USED TO STORE THINGS AT ROOM TEMPERATURE.

Q: AND SO THE ITEM THAT YOU RECEIVED WAS IN THE GRAY ENVELOPE?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHERE ANDREA MAZZOLA WAS AT THE TIME THAT YOU RECEIVED THAT ITEM FROM DETECTIVE VANNATTER?

A: NO, I DON'T.

Q: WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER YOU RECEIVED THAT ITEM FROM DETECTIVE VANNATTER?

A: I LABELED THE -- OR I WROTE DOWN ON THE PACKAGE THAT I HAD RECEIVED IT FROM HIM AND THEN I PROCEEDED TO THE CRIME LAB.

Q: DID YOU USE THE SAME INVENTORY PROCEDURE FOR THE ITEMS THAT YOU HAD COLLECTED IN THE AFTERNOON AT ROCKINGHAM BEFORE YOU LEFT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, AT THE TIME THAT YOU RECEIVED THE EVIDENCE FROM DETECTIVE VANNATTER, THE BLOOD VIAL, WHERE WAS THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED FROM ROCKINGHAM IN THE MORNING?

A: THE EVIDENCE THAT I COLLECTED FROM ROCKINGHAM IN THE MORNING WAS IN THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK. IT WAS LOCKED IN THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK.

Q: AND SO THAT IS YOUR PROCEDURE WHEN YOU HAVE EVIDENCE IN YOUR TRUCK AND YOU'RE STILL WORKING AT THE CRIME SCENE; THAT THE TRUCK'S LOCKED?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHERE WAS THE EVIDENCE AT THAT TIME THAT YOU HAD COLLECTED AT BUNDY?

A: THE BUNDY EVIDENCE WAS ALSO LOCKED IN THE REAR OF THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK.

Q: AND AT THAT TIME WHEN YOU RECEIVED THIS VIAL FROM DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WHERE WAS THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAD JUST COLLECTED IN THE AFTERNOON AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: THAT EVIDENCE WAS NEXT TO THE CRIME SCENE KIT.

Q: WHAT IS THE CRIME SCENE KIT?

A: THE CRIME SCENE KIT IS THE PACKAGE OR LUGGAGE THAT WE USE TO CARRY ABOUT ALL OUR INSTRUMENTS AND BAGS AND CHEMICALS TO PROCESS CRIME SCENES.

Q: SO WERE YOU MAINTAINING PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE ITEMS THAT HAD BEEN COLLECTED AT ROCKINGHAM IN THE AFTERNOON IN YOUR CRIME SCENE KIT AS YOU COLLECTED THEM?

A: I BELIEVE THEY WERE PLACED IN BAGS, CARRIED ALONG WITH THE CRIME SCENE KIT.

Q: BUT AGAIN, THEY WERE IN YOUR PHYSICAL POSSESSION?

A: YES.

Q: SO AT THE TIME THAT YOU RECEIVED THE BLOOD VIAL FROM DETECTIVE VANNATTER, ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE HAD EITHER BEEN COLLECTED OR PLACED IN THE TRUCK OR WAS IN YOUR PHYSICAL POSITION?

A: YES.

MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION. LEADING.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY. WAS ALL THE ITEM -- WERE ALL THE ITEMS THAT YOU COLLECTED EITHER IN THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK OR IN YOUR PHYSICAL POSSESSION AT THE TIME THAT YOU RECEIVED THE VIAL.

MR. SCHECK: OBJECTION. LEADING.

THE COURT: COMPOUND. LEADING. WHERE WAS THE EVIDENCE AFTER YOU COLLECTED IT.

MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S OKAY. I THINK IT'S ALREADY CLEAR, SO I'LL WITHDRAW THE QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. GOLDBERG: NOW, AFTER THIS EVIDENCE HAD BEEN GIVEN TO YOU BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WHAT DID YOU DO WITH IT AND THE REST OF THE ITEMS?

A: COULD YOU REPHRASE THE QUESTION?

Q: AFTER YOU GOT THE VIAL FROM DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THE VIAL AND ALL THE OTHER ITEMS THAT YOU COLLECTED IN THE AFTERNOON AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: I PLACED THE ITEMS FROM ROCKINGHAM AND THE VIAL IN THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK.

Q: WHERE DID YOU GO?

A: AND I WENT BACK TO THE CRIME LAB.

Q: OKAY. WAS MISS MAZZOLA WITH YOU AT THIS TIME?

A: YES, SHE WAS.

Q: OKAY. AND APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME WOULD YOU SAY YOU ARRIVED BACK AT THE CRIME LAB?

A: I ARRIVED BACK AT THE CRIME LAB AT AROUND 6:30 IN THE EVENING.

Q: WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THE VARIOUS PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED FROM ROCKINGHAM AND BUNDY AFTER YOU ARRIVED BACK AT THE CRIME LAB?

A: I TRANSFERRED THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE INTO THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM.

Q: AND IS THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM AT PIPER TECH?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: WHAT DID YOU DO WITH IT ONCE YOU GOT INTO THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM?

A: THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE WAS FURTHER PROCESSED SO THAT IT COULD BE DRIED AND ANOTHER INVENTORY OF ALL THE EVIDENCE WAS TAKEN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WOULD THIS BE A GOOD SPOT?

MR. GOLDBERG: YES, IT WOULD, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MISS CLARK, IS THERE SOMETHING WE CAN AGREE UPON AT THIS MOMENT?

MR. COCHRAN: REGARDING -- YES. SHALL I STATE IT?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: WELL, WHY DON'T WE --

MR. COCHRAN: UCLA WILL WIN.

MS. CLARK: I WILL AGREE WITH THAT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE GOING TO STAND IN RECESS AT THIS TIME. PLEASE REMEMBER ALL MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU; DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS, DON'T ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL 9:00 O'CLOCK TOMORROW MORNING. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE APPROACH ON ONE THING?

THE COURT: SURE. ALL RIGHT. MR. FUNG, 9:00 O'CLOCK.

MR. FUNG: YOUR HONOR, DID YOU WANT ME TO SEAL THIS?

THE COURT: PLACE THE ITEMS BACK IN THE BOX AND GIVE IT TO THE CLERK.

(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)

(AT 4:35 P.M., AN ADJOURNMENT WAS TAKEN UNTIL, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 4, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )

)
PLAINTIFF, )
)
) VS.
) NO. BA097211
)
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, )
)
)
DEFENDANT. )

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

MONDAY, APRIL 3, 1995
VOLUME 119
PAGES 21308 THROUGH 21586, INCLUSIVE
APPEARANCES: (SEE PAGE 2)
JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR #4588
CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR #2378
OFFICIAL REPORTERS
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PEOPLE: GIL GARCETTI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
BY: MARCIA R. CLARK, WILLIAM W.
HODGMAN, CHRISTOPHER A. DARDEN,
CHERI A. LEWIS, ROCKNE P. HARMON,
GEORGE W. CLARKE, SCOTT M. GORDON
LYDIA C. BODIN, HANK M. GOLDBERG,
ALAN YOCHELSON AND DARRELL S.
MAVIS, BRIAN R. KELBERG, AND
KENNETH E. LYNCH, DEPUTIES
18-000 CRIMINAL COURTS BUILDING
210 WEST TEMPLE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012
FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT L. SHAPIRO, ESQUIRE
SARA L. CAPLAN, ESQUIRE
2121 AVENUE OF THE STARS
19TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067
JOHNNIE L. COCHRAN, JR., ESQUIRE
BY: CARL E. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE
SHAWN SNIDER CHAPMAN, ESQUIRE
4929 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 1010
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010
GERALD F. UELMEN, ESQUIRE
ROBERT KARDASHIAN, ESQUIRE
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, ESQUIRE
F. LEE BAILEY, ESQUIRE
BARRY SCHECK, ESQUIRE
PETER NEUFELD, ESQUIRE
ROBERT D. BLASIER, ESQUIRE
WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, ESQUIRE

I N D E X
INDEX FOR VOLUME 119 PAGES 21308 - 21586
-----------------------------------------------------
DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.
MONDAY APRIL 3, 1995 A.M. 21308 119
P.M. 21463 119
-----------------------------------------------------
PROCEEDINGS
402 MOTION (RESUMED) 21308 119 MOTION
IN LIMINE RE DR. GOLDEN 21463 119
LEGEND:
MS. CLARK - MC
MR. HODGMAN - H
MR. DARDEN D
MS. LEWIS - L
MS. KAHN - K
MR. GOLDBERG - GB
MR. GORDON - G
MR. SHAPIRO - S
MR. COCHRAN - C
MR. DOUGLAS - CD
MR. BAILEY - B
MS. CHAPMAN - SC
MR. UELMEN - U
MR. SCHECK - BS
MR. NEUFELD - N
-----------------------------------------------------
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
DEFENSE (402)
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.
LUPER, ADALBERTO

(RESUMED) 21309C 21314L 21335C 21345L 119

(FURTHER) 21346C
HARPER, JAMES 21349C 21359L 21365C 21368L 119
ARTHUR
-----------------------------------------------------
PEOPLE'S
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.
FUNG, DENNIS 21403GB 119
ARTHUR

(RESUMED) 21501GB
ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.
FUNG, DENNIS 21403GB 119
ARTHUR

(RESUMED) 21501GB
HARPER, JAMES 21349C 21359L 21365C 21368L 119
ARTHUR
LUPER, ADALBERTO

(RESUMED) 21309C 21314L 21335C 21345L 119

(FURTHER) 21346C
EXHIBITS
PEOPLE'S FOR IN EXHIBIT
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.
158 - CRIME SCENE LOG 21317 119 21375 119
FOR 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM
159 - CRIME SCENE LOG 21363 119 21375 119
DATED JUNE 28, 1994
160 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 21430 119
LAPD CRIMINALIST TRUCK
161 - DOCUMENT 21432 119
IDENTIFIED AS CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION
CHECKLIST
162 - POSTERBOARD 21439 119
ENTITLED "COLLECTING A STAIN" WITH EIGHT
PHOTOGRAPHS
163 - BROWN PAPER BAG 21439 119
AND CONTENTS
163-A - INVENTORY OF 21439 119
IN EXHIBIT 163
163-B - TWO WHITE PAPER 21439 119
SHOE COVERINGS
163-C - TWO LATEX GLOVES 21439 119
163-D - COIN ENVELOPE 21439 119
WITH TWO BINDLES
163-E - SMALL COIN 21439 119
ENVELOPE WITH PLASTIC BAG AND BINDLE WITH 3
CLOTH SWATCHES
163-F - DISPOSABLE GLASS 21439 119
PIPETTES
163-G - GLASS TEST TUBES 21439 119
163-H - 3 ANALYZED 21439 119
EVIDENCE ENVELOPES, (WHITE, GRAY AND MANILA)
163-I - LAPD EVIDENCE 21439 119
SEAL
EXHIBITS

(CONTINUED)
PEOPLE'S FOR IN EXHIBIT
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.
163-J - RIBBED BACK 21439 119
SURGICAL BLADE
163-K - PLACTIC 21439 119
MICROCENTRIFUGE TUBE
163-L - FITZCO CARD IN 21439 119
WHITE ENVELOPE
164 - BOX AND CONTENTS 21508 119
165 - POSTERBOARD 21431 119
ENTITLED "875 SOUTH BUNDY DRIVE BIOLOGICAL
EVIDENCE WITH 16 PHOTOGRAPHS
166 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 21545 119
THE REAR GATE AT THE CRIME SCENE
166-A - PHOTOGRAPH OF 21554 119
A CLOSE-UP THE REAR GATE AT THE CRIME SCENE
167 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 21576 119
THE MASTER BEDROOM AT 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM WITH
SOCKS ON THE FLOOR
168 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 21577 119
AN INDIVIDUAL COLLECTING A SAMPLE ON THE FLOOR;
AT 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM
-----------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE FOR IN EXHIBIT
IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.
1006 - 21375 119
1068 - 21375 119