|
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 1995 10:04 A.M.
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.) (PAGES 21822 THROUGH 21856, VOLUME 121A, TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL. ANYTHING WE NEED TO PUT ON THE RECORD BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO JOIN US? ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY JEX, LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE. (BRIEF PAUSE.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE HAVE BEEN JOINED BY ALL REMAINING MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. MRS. ROBERTSON, WOULD YOU PLEASE DRAW THE NUMBER OF AN ALTERNATE JUROR. THE CLERK: JUROR NO. 795, PLEASE HAVE A SEAT IN SEAT NO. 9. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE MORNING SESSION THIS MORNING MRS. ROBERTSON WILL RENUMBER THE SEATS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. MR. FUNG, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE. DENNIS FUNG, 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, MR. FUNG. YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. MR. SCHECK, YOU MAY CONTINUE WITH YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION. MR. SCHECK: GOOD MORNING, MR. FUNG. THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING. MR. SCHECK: GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY. THE JURY: GOOD MORNING. CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. SCHECK: Q: MR. FUNG, YOU MENTIONED YESTERDAY IN YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU WERE AWARE THAT THERE WAS A PROTOCOL AND PROCEDURES MANUAL AT SID? MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE SAID HE WAS AWARE OF IT; HE HADN'T SEEN IT. YES OR NO, ARE YOU AWARE OF IT? THE WITNESS: I AM AWARE OF A MANUAL. I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS IN EFFECT OR NOT, THOUGH. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: JUST TO BE PRECISE, I THINK I ASKED YOU: "ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE FIELD PROCEDURES MANUAL?" AND YOU ANSWERED: "I AM. I KNOW ONE HAS BEEN WRITTEN. I -- BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN PUT INTO EFFECT." IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID YESTERDAY? A: I MAY HAVE SAID THAT. I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY. Q: OKAY. AND, UMM, NOW, ARE YOU TELLING US, SIR, THAT AS FAR AS YOU KNOW THERE IS NO MANUAL IN EFFECT THAT ESTABLISHES PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES FOR YOUR CRIME LABORATORY? MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, THAT IS OVERBROAD. THE COURT: OVERRULED. IS THERE A MANUAL? THE WITNESS: I AM NOT AWARE OF ONE. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, I THINK YOU SAID BEFORE YOU KNOW ONE HAS BEEN WRITTEN, RIGHT? A: I KNOW A DRAFT HAS BEEN WRITTEN. MR. SCHECK: OKAY. YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO MARK THIS VOLUME. THE COURT: YOU CAN MARK IT. MR. SCHECK: NEXT IN ORDER. THE CLERK: 1071. (DEFT'S 1071 FOR ID = MANUAL) Q BY MR. SCHECK: WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE -- THAT VOLUME, SIR, AND THE TABLE OF CONTENTS AND LEAF THROUGH IT AND SEE IF IT REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE SEEN ANY OF THOSE DOCUMENTS BEFORE. A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) YES, I HAVE. Q: SO YOU HAVE SEEN THIS? A: YES. Q: OH, OKAY. SO ARE YOU TELLING US THAT YOU ARE -- YOU HAVE SEEN THAT BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER THOSE PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES ARE IN EFFECT? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? A: I DON'T KNOW THAT THESE -- THAT THIS MANUAL IS -- IS A -- IS POLICY FOR OUR LABORATORY. IT MAY BE JUST A ROUGH DRAFT RIGHT NOW SUBJECT TO REVIEW. Q: WELL, IT CONTAINS VARIOUS PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES FOR CRIMINALISTS, DOES IT NOT? A: IT CONTAINS PROPOSED PROCEDURES FOR CRIMINALISTS, YES. Q: SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU HAVE SEEN THESE WRITTEN PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES, BUT AS FAR AS YOU ARE CONCERNED YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO FOLLOW THEM? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? A: THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M SAYING, NO. Q: OKAY. ARE THE PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES IN THAT MANUAL RULES THAT YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW? A: I HAVE NOT REVIEWED THE ENTIRE MANUAL, SO I CAN'T STATE YES OR NO FOR THAT. Q: OKAY. THEN AS THEY COME UP PERHAPS WE WILL LOOK AT THEM ONE AT A TIME, AND IF YOU WANT, THAT VOLUME IS YOURS AND YOU CAN TAKE IT OVER THE LUNCH PERIOD AND LOOK AT IT. FAIR ENOUGH? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS NOT A PROPER QUESTION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. MR. GOLDBERG: I MAKE A MOTION TO STRIKE. THE COURT: THAT LAST COMMENT IS STRICKEN. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD IT. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, IS IT YOUR POSITION, SIR, THAT THE PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES AT THE CRIME LAB ARE COMMUNICATED ORALLY? A: THEY ARE COMMUNICATED THROUGH A SID ACADEMY THAT IS GIVEN TO CRIMINALISTS IN OUR DIVISION. SOME OF THE PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN HANDED OUT AND MUCH OF IT IS ORAL AND THROUGH EXPERIENCE, ON-THE-JOB TRAINING. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THERE ARE SOME WRITTEN HANDOUTS THAT YOU GET? A: I HAVE RECEIVED HANDOUTS BEFORE, YES. Q: AND SOME OF THEM, JUST IN YOUR QUICK PERUSAL, SEEM TO BE IN THAT MANUAL? A: YES. Q: AND OTHERS ARE SORT OF COMMUNICATED ORALLY? A: SOME OF THEM ARE COMMUNICATED ORALLY, YES. Q: SORT OF AN ORAL TRADITION WITHIN THE LABORATORY? A: YES. Q: OKAY. NOW, THIS DOCUMENT, THIS MANUAL, UMM, THAT IS IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM FOR PURPOSES OF REFERENCE, ISN'T IT? A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION I THINK IT IS KEPT IN THERE, BUT I DON'T -- Q: AND THE REASON IT IS KEPT THERE IS IN CASE SOMEBODY NEEDS TO LOOK AT IT, IT WOULD INFORM THEM AS TO THE PROCEDURES AND PROTOCOLS CONTAINED WITHIN IT? MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. DO YOU KNOW? THE WITNESS: THAT IS POSSIBLE. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND THERE IS ALSO ONE OF THESE MANUALS IN YOUR CRIME SCENE RESPONSE TRUCK? A: I'M NOT SURE OF THAT. Q: WELL, WHY DON'T YOU LOOK AT -- MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: YES. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: VOLUME 1, PAGE 1, LET ME CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO -- MR. GOLDBERG: WAIT A MINUTE. MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: YOU MAY. MR. SCHECK: PLEASE DO. MR. GOLDBERG: BEFORE COUNSEL READS ANYTHING? MR. SCHECK: I'M NOT GOING TO READ ANYTHING. I'M JUST GOING TO DIRECT THE WITNESS' ATTENTION TO A PARAGRAPH AND ASK HIM TO READ IT AND SEE IF IT REFRESHES HIS RECOLLECTION. MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD OBJECT TO THE PROCEDURE BECAUSE THERE IS NO FOUNDATION THAT HIS RECOLLECTION NEED TO BE REFRESHED. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, DO YOU RECALL WHETHER OR NOT IT IS REQUIRED THAT THIS MANUAL IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE CRIME SCENE RESPONSE TRUCK? A: I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE OR NOT. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO PERHAPS YOU COULD LOOK AT THE FIRST PARAGRAPH THERE AND SEE IF IT REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A COPY OF THIS MANUAL IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE CRIME SCENE RESPONSE TRUCK. MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. THE SAME OBJECTION. THE COURT: OVERRULED ON THAT GROUND. THE WITNESS: ACCORDING TO THE PARAGRAPH IT SAYS IT SHOULD BE. MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, WAIT. YOUR HONOR, I DON'T BELIEVE THE WITNESS WAS ASKED TO READ, SO I WOULD ASK -- OUT LOUD, SO IT IS NONRESPONSIVE. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SUSTAINED. WE HAVE A MAJOR FOUNDATION PROBLEM HERE. MR. SCHECK: I THINK HE INDICATED HE WASN'T SURE. THE COURT: THAT'S RIGHT. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU SPENT HOW LONG IN THE TRACE ANALYSIS UNIT? A: APPROXIMATELY THREE AND A HALF YEARS. Q: AND THAT WOULD BE WHAT PERIOD? A: THAT WOULD BE FROM 1987 TO 1990. Q: UMM, ARE YOU AWARE OF WHETHER OR NOT A COPY OF THIS MANUAL IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE TRACE ANALYSIS UNIT? A: AT THAT TIME? Q: AT ANY TIME, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE? A: TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE THIS WAS NOT CREATED UNTIL AFTER I HAD LEFT THE UNIT. Q: WELL, WHEN WAS THIS MANUAL CREATED? A: I DON'T KNOW. Q: WELL, YOU SAID YOU LEFT IN 1990? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. WOULD THIS MANUAL HAVE BEEN PULLED TOGETHER IN 1992? MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR SPECULATION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: THERE IS A DATE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE THAT SAYS "REP A, 1992." Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING, SIR, THAT THIS MANUAL IS SUPPOSED TO ESTABLISH THE PROTOCOLS AND PROCEDURES FOR THE DAILY OPERATION OF THE CRIME SCENE FIELD UNIT? THE COURT: LET ME SEE COUNSEL AT THE SIDE BAR WITH THE REPORTER. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE AT THE SIDE BAR. THE PROBLEM YOU HAVE, MR. SCHECK, IS YOU CANNOT CROSS-EXAMINE SOMEBODY ON SOMETHING THEY HAVE NOT REFERRED TO IN FORMING THEIR OPINIONS ABOUT THIS CASE. ALL RIGHT. IF YOU ARE GOING TO ATTEMPT TO CROSS-EXAMINE HIM ON THIS DRAFT MANUAL, YOU CAN'T DO IT. MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, MAY I BE HEARD FOR A MINUTE? THE COURT: BE MY GUEST. MR. SCHECK: I THINK THAT HIS TESTIMONY AT THE PRESENT TIME, AND I'M GOING TO EXPLAIN MY INTENTIONS, IS THAT HE HAS INDICATED THAT THIS IS A MANUAL THAT HE IS AWARE OF, HE HAS PERUSED THROUGH IT, HE HAS SEEN VARIOUS HANDOUTS. THIS MANUAL IS COMPOSED OF HANDOUTS ON VARIOUS DIFFERENT SUBJECTS. THE COURT: YOU DON'T HAVE THE FOUNDATION. MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, MAY I JUST -- THE COURT: NO, THANK YOU. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED. MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. Q: I BELIEVE YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY, SIR, THAT YOU GOT A CALL TO RESPOND ON THIS CASE AT ABOUT 5:00 A.M. FROM MISS MAZZOLA? A: NO. Q: WHAT TIME WAS IT? A: APPROXIMATELY 5:30. Q: 5:30. AND AT THAT TIME WHAT DID SHE TELL YOU? A: SHE INFORMED ME THAT THERE WAS A SCENE WE NEEDED TO RESPOND TO IN WEST L.A. DIVISION. Q: ANYTHING MORE THAN THAT? A: I DON'T -- SHE MAY HAVE SAID IT WAS A HOMICIDE. Q: AND YOU THEN MET HER NEXT AT THE SID LABORATORY? A: YES. Q: SHE PICKED YOU UP I GUESS AT HOME. WAS THAT IT? A: NO. WE MET AT THE LABORATORY. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND ABOUT WHAT TIME WAS THAT? A: IT WAS APPROXIMATELY 6:45, AROUND THERE. Q SO THE FIRST CALL THAT YOU GOT ABOUT THIS CASE WAS YOU ARE SAYING AT 5:35? A: I BELIEVE I SAID AROUND 5:30. Q: AROUND 5:35. AND YOU NOW REALIZE THAT THAT IS FIVE HOURS -- ABOUT FIVE HOURS, FIVE AND A HALF HOURS AFTER OFFICER RISKE FIRST DISCOVERED THE VICTIMS AT THE SCENE ON BUNDY? MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR SPECULATION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, DID -- WHEN YOU CONFERRED WITH THE DETECTIVES LATER IN THIS CASE, DID YOU EVER LEARN WHEN THE FIRST OFFICER ARRIVED AT THE SCENE? MR. GOLDBERG: HEARSAY. THE COURT: OVERRULED. YES OR NO? THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL BEING INFORMED OF THE EXACT TIME THAT THE BODIES WERE FOUND. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, WERE YOU INFORMED AS TO WHEN THE SCENE WAS SECURED? MR. GOLDBERG: I'M SORRY, COULD I HAVE THAT QUESTION READ BACK? THE COURT: YOU HAVE GOT IT RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU. MR. GOLDBERG: I'M SORRY, I'M NOT USED TO THIS. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU EVER INFORMED OF WHEN THE CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY WAS FIRST SECURED? A: THE -- IT MAY HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED BY DETECTIVE LANGE WHEN HE GAVE ME MY WALK-THROUGH. Q: ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU ARRIVED, YOU ARRIVED AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION AT ABOUT 7:15? A: ACCORDING TO MY NOTES I ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM AT 7:10. Q: 7:10. AND WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM DID DETECTIVE VANNATTER TELL YOU THAT THERE WAS ANOTHER CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY? A: YES, HE DID. Q: AND HE TOLD YOU THAT TWO PEOPLE HAD BEEN MURDERED THERE? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT CALLS FOR HEARSAY. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU LEARN, IN YOUR DISCUSSIONS WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER, THAT THERE WERE TWO VICTIMS AT BUNDY AND THE BODIES HAD BEEN DISCOVERED AT 12:00? MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENT THAT THE CRIMINALISTS SHOULD ARRIVE AT THE CRIME SCENE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE? A: A REQUIREMENT? Q YES. ANY RULES OR PROCEDURES AS TO HOW LONG IT SHOULD TAKE FOR A CRIMINALIST TO ARRIVE AT A CRIME SCENE ONCE YOU RECEIVE A CALL? A: ONCE WE RECEIVE A CALL WE TRY TO RESPOND WITHIN AN HOUR, IF IT IS POSSIBLE. Q: WITHIN AN HOUR? A: WE TRY TO, YES. Q: OKAY. SO MISS MAZZOLA CALLED YOU AT 5:30? A: YES. Q: AND YOU GOT TO THE SCENE AT ROCKINGHAM AT WHAT TIME YOU ARE TELLING US? A: 7:10. Q: 7:10. SO WHAT IS THAT, AN HOUR AND FIFTEEN MINUTES FROM THE TIME YOU WERE CALLED? A: AN HOUR AND FORTY MINUTES. Q: FORTY MINUTES. BETTER. SO ABOUT TWO HOURS, RIGHT? A: NO, AN HOUR AND FORTY MINUTES. Q: AN HOUR AND FORTY MINUTES. MISS MAZZOLA WAS CALLED, YOU REALIZE, AT FIVE O'CLOCK, RIGHT? MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR HEARSAY; SPECULATION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU EVER INFORMED THAT MISS MAZZOLA RECEIVED HER FIRST CALL AT 5:00 A.M.? MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: SO YOUR RESPONSE TIME TO ROCKINGHAM WAS AN HOUR AND FORTY MINUTES? A: YES, IT WAS. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHEN YOU GOT TO ROCKINGHAM YOU HAD A CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER, DID YOU NOT? A: YES, I DID. Q: AND IT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE A DISCUSSION IMMEDIATELY WITH THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION? A: A REQUIREMENT? Q: YEAH. AREN'T YOU SUPPOSED TO START YOUR ACTIVITIES AT THE CRIME SCENE WITH A CONVERSATION WITH THE OFFICER THAT IS IN CHARGE OF THE SCENE? A: IT IS PREFERABLE. Q: WELL, ON YOUR CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION CHECKLIST ISN'T THERE A CATEGORY INDICATING "CRIME SCENE DISCUSSED WITH OFFICER IN CHARGE"? A: THERE IS A PLACE FOR A CHECK MARK, YES. Q: AND ISN'T THAT THE FIRST THING YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO, IS HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE DETECTIVE OR THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE SCENE? A: NO. Q: YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO THAT? A: NO. Q: WHEN ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO DO THAT? A: AFTER YOU CHECK IN WITH THE LOG-IN OFFICER. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU LOG IN AND THEN THE FIRST THING YOU DO IS HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE DETECTIVE IN CHARGE OF THE SCENE? A: IF IT IS POSSIBLE, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THE REASON THAT YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE DETECTIVE IN CHARGE OF THE SCENE IS TO FIND OUT WHAT IT IS YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE INVESTIGATING? A: YES. Q: AND TO FIND OUT WHAT POSSIBLE EVIDENCE EXISTS AT THE SCENE THAT MAY NEED TO BE COLLECTED? A: YES. Q: AND YOU HAD SUCH A DISCUSSION WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM? A: YES. Q: AND DID YOU LEARN THAT YOU WEREN'T JUST GOING TO BE COLLECTING EVIDENCE AT ROCKINGHAM, THAT YOU WOULD SOON HAVE TO GO TO BUNDY? A: YES. Q: AND THAT THERE WERE TWO VICTIMS AT BUNDY? A: YES. Q: AND WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE VICTIMS AT BUNDY BEING VERY CLOSE TO EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF THEIR PHYSICAL PROXIMITY? MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR HEARSAY. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WOULD IT BE IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO NEED TO KNOW -- WOULD IT BE IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF CRIME SCENE YOU WERE GOING TO HAVE TO BE GOING TO AFTER ROCKINGHAM? A: COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? Q: YEAH. WHEN YOU GOT TO ROCKINGHAM, ALL RIGHT, YOU KNEW YOU WOULD BE HAVING TO GO TO BUNDY NEXT, CORRECT? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. WERE YOU TOLD THAT DETECTIVE LANGE WAS WAITING FOR YOU AT BUNDY? MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION, CALLS FOR HEARSAY. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHAT DID -- HOW -- WERE YOU GIVEN INSTRUCTIONS BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER TO JUST COLLECT ONE STAIN AT ROCKINGHAM AND THEN MOVE ON TO BUNDY? A: NO. Q: WERE YOU EVER INFORMED THAT THERE WAS A PLAN FOR THE CRIMINALISTS FIRST TO GO TO BUNDY, JUST COLLECT A RED STAIN OFF THE BRONCO AND THEN MOVE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE TO BUNDY? MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR HEARSAY. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH FOR A MINUTE? THE COURT: SURE, WITH THE REPORTER. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ALSO, COUNSEL -- WE ARE AT THE SIDE BAR -- FROM THIS POINT ON WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A TWO-LAWYER LIMIT ON SIDE BARS PER SIDE. THERE ARE TOO MANY LAWYERS UP HERE. MS. CLARK: RIGHT. THE COURT: MR. SCHECK. MR. SCHECK: I THINK THAT WHAT I'M TRYING TO ELICIT FROM THE WITNESS, THESE QUESTIONS ARE NOT HEARSAY, THEY ARE NOT BEING OFFERED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED. THEY ARE ONLY BEING OFFERED FOR THE FACT THAT IT WAS SAID TO THIS WITNESS IN TERMS OF INSTRUCTIONS OF WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO NEXT AND WHAT HE WAS -- THE COURT: WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE CODE EXCEPTION? MR. SCHECK: I DON'T THINK IT IS -- IT IS WHATEVER THE EXACT EVIDENCE CODE IS FOR HEARSAY IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. I'M PRETTY SURE THAT THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT BEING OFFERED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED; IT IS ONLY BEING ELICITED FOR THE FACT THAT IT WAS SAID TO MR. FUNG AS TO HIS STATE OF MIND AS TO WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO IN PROCEEDING WITH HIS INVESTIGATION AT ROCKINGHAM AND THEN HIS SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION AT BUNDY. THE COURT: SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT THIS IS A SUBSEQUENT-CONDUCT-IN-LIGHT-OF-WHAT-WAS-SAID-TO-HIM EXCEPTION? MR. SCHECK: I THINK THAT IS. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG. MR. GOLDBERG: I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE RELEVANCY IN THAT CASE. WELL, I CAN UNDERSTAND MR. FUNG'S STATE OF MIND BEING RELEVANT ON CERTAIN ISSUES, IT IS, BUT AT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE AS TO WHAT HIS STATE OF MIND WAS WITH RESPECT TO WHERE HE WAS GOING TO GO AND WHEN, I DON'T SEE WHY THAT IS RELEVANT. MR. SCHECK: ALSO, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT I THINK WE'VE HAD PREVIOUS TESTIMONY FROM DETECTIVE LANGE THAT WHEN HE LEFT THE CRIME SCENE AT ROCKINGHAM HE WENT TO BUNDY, THAT IT WAS HIS EXPECTATION THAT THE CRIMINALISTS WOULD BE FOLLOWING SOON AFTER. AND I WANT TO EXPLORE WITH THIS WITNESS WHETHER OR NOT ANYBODY EVER TOLD HIM, NOT FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED, FOR THE FACT OF WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS SAID. I DON'T THINK THAT THOSE TYPES OF STATEMENTS ARE HEARSAY AND I REALLY NEEDED TO ESTABLISH WHAT HE DID. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: TAKE HIM OUT. TAKE HIM OUT. TAKE HIM OUT. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. REASK THE QUESTION. MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, OBVIOUSLY YOU ARE TO DISREGARD ANY DISRUPTIONS IN THE AUDIENCE. I THINK THAT PARTICULAR INCIDENT SPOKE FOR ITSELF. MR. SCHECK. MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU. Q: MR. FUNG WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE ROCKINGHAM CRIME SCENE DID DETECTIVE VANNATTER TELL THAT YOU DETECTIVE LANGE WAS WAITING FOR YOU AT BUNDY? A: I DON'T SPECIFICALLY RECALL IF HE MENTIONED IT WAS DETECTIVE LANGE HIMSELF, BUT HE DID MENTION THERE WAS ANOTHER SCENE AT BUNDY. Q: AND DID HE TELL YOU THAT AT THAT SCENE THERE WERE -- IT WAS A DOUBLE HOMICIDE AND THERE WERE TWO VICTIMS' BODIES THERE? A: YES. Q: AND WAS THERE A DISCUSSION OF THE NEED TO ARRIVE AT BUNDY BEFORE THE CORONERS, FOR THE CRIMINALISTS TO GET THERE BEFORE THE CORONERS? A: NO. Q: GENERALLY SPEAKING, ISN'T IT CERTAINLY DESIRABLE FOR THE CRIMINALISTS TO ARRIVE AT A HOMICIDE SCENE BEFORE THE CORONERS? A: FROM MY POINT OF VIEW? Q: YES. A: YES. Q: AND THE REASON THAT YOU WANT TO ARRIVE AT A HOMICIDE SCENE BEFORE THE CORONERS IS YOU WANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE SCENE AND THE EVIDENCE AT THE SCENE BEFORE THE BODIES ARE REMOVED? A: YES. Q: AND THAT IS BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO DOCUMENT THAT SCENE IN ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION AS BEST YOU CAN? A: THAT IS PREFERABLE. THAT IS PREFERABLE THAT THAT IS DONE, YES. Q: SO YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO TAKE MEASUREMENTS? A: YES. Q: YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO DIRECT THE FORENSIC PHOTOGRAPHER ABOUT WHERE TO TAKE PICTURES? A: YES. Q: YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO PRESERVE FRAGILE TRACE EVIDENCE AS BEST YOU CAN? A: YES. Q: COLLECT IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE INTEGRITY OF THE EVIDENCE IS PRESERVED? A: IF NECESSARY, YES. Q: GET TO THAT CRIME SCENE BEFORE ANYBODY WALKS THROUGH IT WHO IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE THERE? A: YES. Q: SO WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM NOW, YOU ARE TELLING US YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHEN THE FIRST OFFICER HAD ARRIVED AT THE SCENE AT BUNDY; IS THAT RIGHT? A: YES. Q: BUT DID YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF HOW MANY HOURS IT WAS, WITHOUT KNOWING THE PRECISE TIMES, HOW MANY HOURS THE VICTIMS HAD BEEN AT BUNDY WITHOUT ANY CRIMINALISTS ARRIVING AT THE SCENE? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION AND HEARSAY. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I ONLY KNEW THAT THE CRIME SCENE FROM BUNDY WAS FROM THE NIGHT BEFORE, SOME -- IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OR THE NIGHT BEFORE. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: SO YOU KNEW IT WAS THE EARLY MORNING HOURS AND NOW YOU WERE ARRIVING AT ROCKINGHAM AT AROUND 7:15, 7:20? MR. GOLDBERG: I OBJECT. THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. THE COURT: SUSTAINED AGAIN. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, IN YOUR DISCUSSION WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER DID HE EXPRESS ANY URGENCY TO YOU THAT YOU SHOULD FINISH YOUR WORK AT ROCKINGHAM QUICKLY TO GET TO BUNDY? A: HE DID INFORM ME THAT I DID HAVE ANOTHER CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY AND HE DIDN'T RUSH ME ALONG, NO. Q: WELL, DID HE TELL YOU THAT -- DID HE INDICATE TO YOU IN ANY WAY THAT IT WOULD NOT BE A GOOD IDEA TO TAKE A VERY LONG TIME AT ROCKINGHAM BECAUSE YOU MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO GET TO THE BUNDY SCENE BEFORE THE CORONERS? DID HE EXPRESS THAT CONCERN TO YOU? A: I DON'T RECALL THAT. Q: DID YOU HAVE THAT CONCERN? A: YES. Q: DID YOU EXPRESS THAT CONCERN TO HIM? A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT. Q: DID YOU TELL DETECTIVE VANNATTER THAT YOU THOUGHT YOU MIGHT NEED SOME EXTRA HELP BECAUSE YOU HAD THESE TWO CRIME SCENES? A: I BELIEVE I ASKED HIM IF HE WANTED ANOTHER -- ANOTHER TEAM. Q: YOU ASKED HIM THAT? A: I THINK I DID. Q: AND YOU ASKED HIM IF HE WANTED ANOTHER TEAM BECAUSE YOU BELIEVED THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO GET CRIMINALISTS TO BUNDY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE? A: IT WAS A RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO HIM IF HE WANTED IT. Q: WELL, YOU THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO GET A SET OF CRIMINALISTS TO BUNDY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, DIDN'T YOU, AS YOU WERE TALKING WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER WHEN YOU FIRST ARRIVED AT THAT SCENE? A: I LEFT IT UP TO HIS DISCRETION. Q: HE TOLD YOU THAT THAT WASN'T NECESSARY? A: HE NEVER SAID THAT. Q: WELL, DID HE SAY, "NO, WE DON'T NEED THE HELP, THE EXTRA HELP"? A: I DON'T RECALL IF HE EVER SAID THAT. Q: WELL, DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION AS TO HOW HE RESPONDED TO YOUR SUGGESTION THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO GET SOME BACK-UP TO GET ANOTHER TEAM TO BUNDY? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS IRRELEVANT. IT CALLS FOR HEARSAY. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: BEFORE YOU SPOKE TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER YOU PLACED A CALL TO SID, DID YOU NOT? A: YES, I DID. Q: TO NOTIFY SUPERVISORS? A: YES. Q: AND THAT IS BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS A CASE THAT REQUIRED IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION OF SUPERVISORS? A: YES. Q: AND WHEN YOU PLACED THAT CALL AT 7:15 YOU KNEW THAT THERE WERE TWO CRIME SCENES? A: I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS EXACTLY AT 7:15, BUT I KNEW THERE WERE TWO CRIME SCENES WHEN I MADE THE CALL. Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, DID YOU CALL SID AND SPEAK TO A WOMAN NAMED LISA SIBETTA, S-I-B-E-T-T-A, SOMEBODY FROM TOXICOLOGY? DO YOU REMEMBER MAKING A FIRST CALL TO HER? A: I BELIEVE MY FIRST CALL WAS TO CRIMINALIST FLAHERTY IN TOXICOLOGY. Q: YOU WERE LOOKING FOR A SUPERVISOR? A: YES, I WAS. Q: YOU WERE LOOKING FOR MICHELE KESTLER? A: YES, I WAS. Q: SHE IS THE HEAD OF THE LABORATORY OR WAS THE ACTING HEAD AT THAT TIME? A: SHE WAS A CO-ACTING. Q: CO-ACTING HEAD? ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU WERE LOOKING TO TALK WITH HER, WERE YOU NOT? A: I WAS LOOKING TO SPEAK WITH A SUPERVISOR. Q: RIGHT. BECAUSE YOU -- AND THAT IS BECAUSE -- WELL, YOU TELL US. WHAT WAS IT THAT WAS GOING ON IN YOUR MIND THAT LED YOU TO CALL FOR A SUPERVISOR BEFORE YOU EVEN ARRIVED AT THE ROCKINGHAM SCENE? A: THERE ARE GUIDELINES WITHIN OUR LABORATORY THAT IF THERE IS A HIGH-PROFILE CASE OR A DOUBLE OR TRIPLE HOMICIDE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT SUPERVISORS BE NOTIFIED. Q THOSE WERE THE POLICIES YOU AND I DISCUSSED YESTERDAY? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: PRESS, UNUSUAL CASE? DO YOU REMEMBER DISCUSSING THOSE? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A WRITTEN HANDOUT IN THE MANUAL WITH RESPECT TO THOSE POLICIES? A: NO, I HAVEN'T. Q: WELL, MOVING ON, SO YOU -- YOU FELT THE NEED TO CALL FOR THE SUPERVISOR AT 7:15 BEFORE YOU SPOKE TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER, RIGHT? A: BEFORE I SPOKE TO HIM? Q: YES, BEFORE YOU SPOKE TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER, YOU MADE THIS FIRST CALL TO SID LOOKING FOR MICHELE KESTLER? A: NO. Q: THAT FIRST NOTIFICATION CALL WAS NOT BEFORE YOU SPOKE TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER? A: IT WAS AFTER. Q: IT WAS AFTER? A: YES. Q: UMM, DIDN'T YOU ALSO THEN HAVE A CONVERSATION AT 7:50 WITH GREG MATHESON? A: I -- IN THAT TIME FRAME, YES. Q: AND AT THAT TIME -- AND HE WAS A SUPERVISOR, WAS HE NOT? A: YES, HE WAS. Q: AND YOU HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH -- A: OR HE IS. Q: -- WITH GREG MATHESON AFTER YOU SPOKE WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER? A: YES. Q: WE WILL GET TO THAT CONVERSATION IN A MINUTE, BUT GOING BACK TO YOUR INITIAL CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER, DID HE TELL YOU THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE DOING SOME PROCESSING OF THE BRONCO? A: YES. Q: AND THAT THE BRONCO WAS PART OF THE CRIME SCENE? A: YES. Q: AND AFTER THIS -- AND THAT WAS AFTER -- YOU REALIZED THAT AFTER THIS INITIAL CONVERSATION YOU HAD WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER, RIGHT, THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE BRONCO? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT BEFORE YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE, DID YOU? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND, UMM, IT WAS AFTER YOUR CONVERSATION, YOUR INITIAL CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER, UMM, THAT YOU REALIZED THAT, UMM, ANDREA MAZZOLA COULD NOT ACT AS THE, QUOTE, OFFICER IN CHARGE, OF THIS CASE? A: I THOUGHT IT MORE PRUDENT THAT I BE THE OFFICER IN CHARGE. Q: I THINK YOUR PHRASE ON DIRECT EXAMINATION IS THAT AFTER YOUR CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER YOU REALIZED THAT MISS MAZZOLA SHOULD TAKE SOMETHING OF A BACKSEAT? ARE THOSE YOUR WORDS? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR -- I WILL WITHDRAW THE OBJECTION. THE WITNESS: YES. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND YOU GAVE THAT EXPLANATION ON DIRECT EXAMINATION, THAT PRIOR TO GOING TO THE SCENE, WHEN YOU WERE FILLING OUT YOUR CRIME SCENE CHECKLIST, ANDREA MAZZOLA'S NAME WAS WRITTEN IN AS OFFICER IN CHARGE BEFORE YOU GOT THERE? REMEMBER THAT? A: YES. Q: AND THAT WAS BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT THAT SHE WAS GOING TO BE THE OFFICER IN CHARGE ON THIS HOMICIDE CASE UNTIL YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE AND SPOKE WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER, RIGHT? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT IT WAS AFTER YOUR CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER THAT YOU FIRST REALIZED THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE DOING A VEHICLE SEARCH OF THE BRONCO, CORRECT? A: YES. Q: SIR, WOULD YOU PLEASE TURN TO YOUR -- YOU HAVE A FORM THAT IS KNOWN AS A VEHICLE CHECKLIST, CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND YOU FILLED ONE OUT WITH RESPECT TO THE SEARCH OF THE BRONCO, DID YOU NOT? A: ONE WAS FILLED OUT, YES. Q: DO YOU HAVE THAT BEFORE YOU? A: YES, I DO. Q: COULD YOU TURN TO THE FIRST PAGE OF IT. A: YES. MR. GOLDBERG: COULD I JUST HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: CERTAINLY. (BRIEF PAUSE.) MR. GOLDBERG: I APOLOGIZE, COUNSEL. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, THIS VEHICLE CHECKLIST FORM, WAS THAT -- WITHDRAWN. ON THIS VEHICLE CHECKLIST FORM THERE IS ALSO A BOX THAT INDICATES WHO IS THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE VEHICLE SEARCH, CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND ON THAT BOX IT IS LISTED AS ANDREA MAZZOLA AS BEING IN CHARGE -- THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE VEHICLE SEARCH, CORRECT? A: YES. Q: SO ARE YOU SURE THAT YOU HADN'T GIVEN UP THE IDEA THAT MAYBE MISS MAZZOLA WOULD STILL BE SORT OF ACTING AS THE OFFICER IN CHARGE WHEN YOU GOT TO ROCKINGHAM? A: I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU TOLD US THE ONLY REASON THAT ANDREA MAZZOLA'S NAME WAS WRITTEN IN AS THE OFFICER IN CHARGE ON THE ROCKINGHAM CHECKLIST IS THAT IT WAS FILLED OUT BEFORE YOU GOT TO THE SCENE, RIGHT? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: THAT IS WHAT YOU SAID ON DIRECT. A: THAT WAS THE REASON WHY SHE WAS PUT IN THE "OFFICER IN CHARGE" SPACE, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND -- BUT AFTER YOU HAD GOTTEN TO THE SCENE AND AFTER YOU FIRST LEARNED THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE SEARCHING THE BRONCO, ANDREA MAZZOLA WAS STILL LISTED ON THE VEHICLE CHECKLIST FORM AS THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, RIGHT? A: YES. Q: NOW, WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION YESTERDAY ABOUT THE USE OF THIS WORD "TRAINEE" WITH RESPECT TO MISS MAZZOLA. DO YOU RECALL THAT? A: YES. Q: AND UMM, YOU DON'T LIKE THE DESCRIPTION OF MISS MAZZOLA AS A TRAINEE? YOU DON'T THINK THAT IT IS FAIR TO DESCRIBE HER ON JUNE 13TH AS A TRAINEE; IS THAT RIGHT? MR. GOLDBERG: I OBJECT. THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I THINK A BETTER DESCRIPTION OF HER IS CRIMINALIST 1. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: CRIMINALIST 1, BUT IN TERMS OF HER LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE, YOU DON'T FEEL THAT IT IS -- WHAT WORD WOULD YOU LIKE TO USE, IF NOT TRAINEE? WOULD YOU FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE WORD "NOVICE," THAT SHE WAS A NOVICE IN PROCESSING CRIME SCENES? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE. THE COURT: IT IS VAGUE, TOO. MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. Q: YOU UNDERSTAND THAT HER -- WHEN YOU HIRE ON AT SID YOU AUTOMATICALLY DAY ONE ON THE JOB YOU ARE A CRIMINALIST 1, RIGHT? A: IF YOU ARE HIRED IN THAT CAPACITY, YES. Q: RIGHT. SO WHEN YOU GET ON THE JOB YOU ARE IMMEDIATELY A CRIMINALIST 1, FAIR TO SAY? A: YES. Q: BUT BEING A CRIMINALIST 1 DOESN'T TELL ONE MUCH ABOUT THE LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE THAT YOU HAVE, CORRECT? A: IN REGARD TO? Q: HOW MANY CRIME SCENES YOU HAVE PROCESSED, WHAT YOU KNOW? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND SO IT IS A PERIOD -- WOULD YOU SAY THAT THE COURSE OF -- THERE IS A COURSE OF TRAINING AS A CRIMINALIST 1 THAT ONE GOES THROUGH IN TERMS OF EXPERIENCE? A: YES. Q: YOU LEARN BY EXPERIENCE? A: YES. Q: AND IN TERMS OF LEARNING BY EXPERIENCE, MISS MAZZOLA WAS AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS PROCESS? FAIR ENOUGH? A: SHE WAS AT THE BEGINNING, YES. Q: WOULD IT BE FAIR TO CALL HER A ROOKIE IN PROCESSING CRIME SCENES? MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. WHY DON'T YOU JUST TRY "ENTRY LEVEL." MR. SCHECK: I AM LOOKING FOR A WORD THAT THE WITNESS IS COMFORTABLE WITH. THE COURT: THERE HAVE BEEN ROOKIES OF THE YEAR WHO HAVE BEEN MVP'S. MR. SCHECK: SURE THING. Q: WELL, WOULD YOU CALL HER A NOVICE? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ENTRY LEVEL? HOW ABOUT THAT? A: YES. Q: SHE IS AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON AT THE BEGINNING OF HER LEARNING BY EXPERIENCE PROCESS, AT THE BEGINNING OF IT? A: SHE IS STARTING IT, YES. Q: SHE WAS STARTING OUT? A: YES. Q: NOW, DID YOU TELL DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WHEN YOU WERE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION WITH HIM ABOUT WHETHER HELP WAS NEEDED, THAT MISS MAZZOLA WAS THIS ENTRY LEVEL PERSON WHO WAS STARTING OUT? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL THAT, NO. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU DIDN'T TELL HIM? A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT. Q: MEANING YOU ARE NOT SURE? A: I'M NOT SURE. Q: DID YOU FEEL THAT YOU HAD A RESPONSIBILITY TO TELL HIM THAT THE PERSON THAT YOU ARRIVED WITH AT THE CRIME SCENE WAS AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON THAT WAS STARTING OUT? A: NO. Q: WELL, WHEN YOU WERE MAKING YOUR SUGGESTION TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER THAT YOU MIGHT NEED SOME HELP IN THIS CASE, DIDN'T YOU THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO TELL HIM THAT ONE OF THE REASONS YOU NEEDED HELP IS THAT YOU WERE WITH A PERSON THAT WAS ENTRY LEVEL AND JUST STARTING OUT? A: NO. Q: WERE YOU RELUCTANT TO TELL THAT TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER? A: NO. Q: WERE YOU AT ALL INTIMIDATED BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER? A: NO. Q: WERE YOU AT ALL RELUCTANT TO QUESTION HIS JUDGMENTS? A: NO. Q: WHEN HE TURNED DOWN YOUR SUGGESTION THAT YOU OUGHT TO GET SOME EXTRA HELP IN THIS CASE, WERE YOU RELUCTANT TO QUESTION THAT DECISION? MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, YOU MADE THE SUGGESTION THAT EXTRA HELP MIGHT BE NECESSARY? A: I ASKED HIM IF ANOTHER TEAM -- IF HE WANTED ANOTHER TEAM. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU -- AS I THINK YOU JUST TOLD US, AND ONE OF THE REASONS WAS YOU KNEW THERE WERE TWO CRIME SCENES? A: YES. Q: AND YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT GETTING THE CRIMINALISTS TO BUNDY BEFORE THE CORONERS? A: NOT -- THAT WASN'T THE SPECIFIC REASON, NO. Q: WELL, THAT WAS ONE REASON? DIDN'T YOU JUST TELL US THAT, THAT WAS ONE REASON? A: I DON'T THINK I SAID THAT, NO. Q: NO? WELL, WHEN YOU MADE THIS SUGGESTION THAT MORE HELP MIGHT BE NECESSARY TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER, DID HE JUST IGNORE THAT SUGGESTION, NOT RESPOND TO YOU AT ALL? A: NO. Q: HE DIDN'T IGNORE IT? A: NO, HE DIDN'T. Q: HE SAID NO, WE DON'T NEED ANY EXTRA HELP? A: I BELIEVE HE SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE PREFERRED THAT ONE TEAM HANDLE BOTH CRIME SCENES SO THAT THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY WOULD NOT BE MESSED UP. Q: THAT IS WHAT HE SAID? A: SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN HE SAID THAT, DID YOU THEN RESPOND TO HIM, "WELL, UMM, WE HAVE A SITUATION HERE WHERE ONE OF THE PEOPLE I'M WORKING WITH IS ENTRY LEVEL, JUST STARTING OUT"? DID YOU SAY THAT TO HIM AT THAT POINT? A: NO. Q: DID YOU EXPRESS ANY CONCERN TO HIM THAT WHATEVER WORRIES HE HAD ABOUT CHAIN OF CUSTODY, UMM, IT WAS STILL MORE IMPORTANT TO GET ANOTHER TEAM OF CRIMINALISTS TO BUNDY BEFORE THE CORONERS ARRIVED? A: I DID NOT SAY THAT TO HIM. Q: DID YOU HAVE THAT CONCERN WHEN HE SAID TO YOU, NO, I JUST WANT TO CONTINUE WITH ONE TEAM? DID YOU HAVE THAT CONCERN? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT THAT IT ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. MAYBE I COULD BE HEARD ABOUT THAT TO EXPLAIN IT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE WITNESS: COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION AGAIN? Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHEN DETECTIVE VANNATTER -- MAYBE WE BETTER HAVE THE COURT REPORTER REPEAT THE QUESTION. THE COURT: WERE YOU CONCERNED AT THAT TIME THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR A CRIMINALIST TO ARRIVE AT THE BUNDY SCENE BEFORE THE CORONERS MOVED THE BODY? THE WITNESS: NOT AT THAT TIME. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: UMM, NOW, WERE YOU WORRIED WHEN DETECTIVE VANNATTER TURNED DOWN YOUR SUGGESTION THAT OTHER CRIMINALISTS BE CALLED IN TO HELP? WERE YOU WORRIED ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU WERE WORKING WITH THIS PERSON WHO WAS ENTRY LEVEL AND STARTING OUT? A: NO. Q: WERE YOU WORRIED THAT WHEN YOU WERE WORKING WITH THE PERSON WHO IS ENTRY LEVEL AND STARTING OUT THAT PROCESSING THE CRIME SCENE WOULD BE SLOWER? MR. GOLDBERG: IT IS VAGUE, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL -- I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD. ARE YOU FINISHED? A: WHEN TWO PEOPLE ARE WORKING, SOMETIMES IT GOES FASTER. Q: BUT WHEN YOU ARE WORKING WITH -- HAD YOU EVER WORKED WITH ANDREA MAZZOLA BEFORE THIS DAY? A: YES, I HAD. Q: HOW MANY CRIME SCENES HAD YOU DONE WITH HER? A: ONE. Q: HOW LONG AGO WAS THAT? A: THAT WAS THE -- THAT WAS TWO DAYS BEFORE. Q: TWO DAYS BEFORE DID YOU A CRIME SCENE WITH ANDREA MAZZOLA? A: YES. Q: WHERE SHE COLLECTED EVIDENCE? A: WHERE SHE -- WE WERE WORKING AS A TEAM, YES. Q: WHERE SHE COLLECTED EVIDENCE? YOU DID A CRIME SCENE TWO DAYS BEFORE WITH ANDREA MAZZOLA? ARE YOU SURE OF THAT? A: YES. Q: NOW, YOU HAD NO CONCERN -- WERE YOU WORRIED -- WITHDRAWN. WHEN YOU ARE WORKING WITH A PERSON WHO IS ENTRY LEVEL AND STARTING OUT, DON'T YOU FEEL IT IS REQUIRED FOR YOU TO OBSERVE WHAT SHE IS DOING MORE THAN YOU WOULD IF IT WERE SOME OTHER CRIMINALIST 2 OR 3? A: YES. Q: SO WOULDN'T THE NEED TO OBSERVE WHAT THIS ENTRY LEVEL PERSON WAS DOING MAKE PROCESSING THE CRIME SCENE SLOWER? A: NOT NECESSARILY. Q: WELL, IF YOU HAVE TO OBSERVE HER, YOU CAN'T BE OFF DOING SOMETHING ELSE? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND YOU DON'T THINK THAT WOULD MAKE IT SLOWER? A: WHERE I WOULD LOSE TIME IN ONE AREA, I COULD MAKE UP TIME IN ANOTHER AREA, BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO PEOPLE THERE. Q: WELL, IF THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE THERE, BOTH OF WHOM WERE TRAINED, IT WOULD GO FASTER, RIGHT? A: NOT NECESSARILY. Q: NO? WERE YOU WORRIED THAT WORKING WITH AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON IN A HIGH-PROFILE CASE WOULD PUT A LOT OF PRESSURE ON HER? A: WAS I WORRIED ABOUT IT? Q: YEAH. A: I WAS AWARE OF IT. Q: WERE YOU WORRIED ABOUT IT? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I WILL OBJECT. IT IS IRRELEVANT WHETHER HE WAS WORRIED ABOUT IT. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU WORRIED THAT WORKING WITH AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON IN THIS KIND OF A HIGH-PROFILE CASE WHEN YOU WERE AT ROCKINGHAM WOULD PUT MORE PRESSURE ON YOU? MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: THAT WAS NOT A CONCERN TO ME AT THAT TIME. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DIDN'T CROSS YOUR MIND? A: I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT IT, NO. Q: WERE YOU CONCERNED THAT WORKING WITH AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON IN THIS KIND OF CASE WOULD PRODUCE A GREATER CHANCE OF MISTAKES? WAS THAT A CONCERN OF YOURS THAT MORNING AT ROCKINGHAM? A: THAT WOULD BE FOR ANY CASE, NOT JUST FOR ANY -- FOR A HIGH-PROFILE CASE. IF THERE IS AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON OR A PERSON JUST STARTING OUT, I WOULD WATCH THEM MORE CLOSELY THAN SOMEONE WHO IS EXPERIENCED. Q: SO IN YOUR MIND THAT MORNING AT ROCKINGHAM YOU REALIZED THAT WORKING WITH AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON THERE WAS A GREATER CHANCE OF MISTAKES, RIGHT? THAT IS WHAT YOU JUST SAID? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WEREN'T YOU CONCERNED, WHEN DETECTIVE VANNATTER TURNED DOWN YOUR REQUEST FOR HELP, THAT THERE WAS A GREATER CHANCE OF MISTAKES BECAUSE YOU WERE WORKING WITH AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON AND THIS WAS A HIGH-PROFILE CASE? A: YOU HAVE GOT A LOT OF FACTORS IN THERE. COULD WE GO THROUGH THEM ONE AT A TIME? Q: SURE. I'M ASKING YOU, YOU HAVE -- WE AGREED THAT YOU KNEW, WHEN DETECTIVE VANNATTER TURNED DOWN YOUR SUGGESTION FOR EXTRA HELP, THAT THIS WAS A HIGH-PROFILE CASE, RIGHT? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: YOU KNEW THAT? A: YES. Q: YOU KNEW THAT YOU HAD TO GO TO ANOTHER CRIME SCENE WHERE THERE WAS A DOUBLE HOMICIDE? A: YES. Q: YOU KNEW THAT THERE WOULD BE PRESS PEOPLE AT THESE CRIME SCENES? A: I DIDN'T KNOW THAT. I WOULD -- I ASSUMED THERE WOULD BE. Q: YOU ANTICIPATED IT, DIDN'T YOU? A: YES. Q: YOU ANTICIPATED THAT THERE WOULD BE POLICE BRASS AT THESE SCENES WATCHING YOUR EVERY MOVEMENT? A: NOT NECESSARILY, NO. Q: DIDN'T ANTICIPATE THAT? A: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "BRASS"? Q: HIGHER-UPS IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AT THE SCENE WATCHING? MR. GOLDBERG: THAT IS VAGUE AS TO "HIGHER-UPS." THE COURT: SUSTAINED. MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. Q: UMM, HIGH LEVEL OFFICERS IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, PEOPLE OF HIGH RANK? DID YOU ANTICIPATE THAT THEY MAY COME TO THE SCENES? MR. GOLDBERG: STILL VAGUE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: PEOPLE OF HIGH RANK CAN ALWAYS COME TO A SCENE. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, DIDN'T YOU ANTICIPATE THAT THEY WOULD BE COMING TO THESE TWO SCENES? A: THEY COULD HAVE COME, YES. Q: I'M ASKING YOU WHAT YOUR STATE OF MIND WAS. DIDN'T YOU ANTICIPATE THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN HERE? A: I KNEW IT WAS A POSSIBILITY. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO PUTTING THESE FACTORS TOGETHER, SHE IS AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON, IT IS A HIGH-PROFILE CASE, THERE WILL BE PRESS AT THE SCENES, THERE WILL BE HIGH-RANKING PEOPLE AT THE SCENES, DIDN'T YOU BECOME CONCERNED, WHEN DETECTIVE VANNATTER REFUSED YOUR REQUEST FOR EXTRA HELP, THAT THERE WOULD BE A GREATER POSSIBILITY OF MISTAKES HERE BECAUSE YOU WERE USING AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON? MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE AND UNINTELLIGIBLE. THE COURT: IT ASSUMES ONE FACT THAT IS NOT IN EVIDENCE AS WELL, ALSO MISSTATES ONE PIECE OF THE EVIDENCE. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID -- MAYBE THE WORD "REFUSED" IS A PROBLEM HERE. DETECTIVE VANNATTER DID NOT TAKE YOUR SUGGESTION FOR EXTRA HELP, RIGHT? A: I DID NOT SUGGEST TO HIM -- MR. GOLDBERG: THE SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU MADE A SUGGESTION TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER THAT EXTRA HELP WAS NEEDED, RIGHT? A: NO, I ASKED HIM. Q: YOU ASKED HIM IF HE WANTED EXTRA HELP? A: YES. Q: AND HE TOLD YOU NO? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: WE ARE FOCUSING ON THAT MOMENT. NOW, AT THAT MOMENT, REVIEWING THE FACTORS AGAIN, ENTRY LEVEL PERSON, PRESS CASE, HIGH-RANKING OFFICERS AT THE SCENE, DIDN'T YOU THINK AT THAT MOMENT THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A GREATER CHANCE OF MISTAKES BEING MADE UNLESS YOU GOT EXTRA HELP? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, SAME OBJECTIONS. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL THINKING ABOUT THAT WHEN I WAS AT THE SCENE. THE COURT: MADAM COURT REPORTER, WHAT IS YOUR STATUS? REPORTER OLSON: I'M FINE. THE COURT: CAN YOU FINISH THE HOUR? REPORTER OLSON: YES. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU THINK IT WAS A MISTAKE NOT TO FOLLOW UP WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND SAY, "DETECTIVE VANNATTER, I THINK THAT WE REALLY OUGHT TO GET MORE HELP IN THIS CASE"? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. ARGUMENTATIVE, ASKED AND ANSWERED. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THIS CASE WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER SINCE JUNE 13TH? A: YES. Q: HAVE YOU DISCUSSED WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER THIS ISSUE OF TELLING HIM THAT YOU WERE AT THE SCENE WITH AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON? A: NO. Q: THAT HASN'T ARISEN? A: I DON'T RECALL DISCUSSING THAT WITH HIM. Q: HAS DETECTIVE VANNATTER EVER CRITICIZED YOU FOR NOT TELLING HIM THAT YOU WERE THERE AT THE SCENE WITH AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON? MR. GOLDBERG: I OBJECT. THAT MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID DETECTIVE VANNATTER EVER TELL YOU THAT HE DIDN'T THINK AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON WAS THE KIND OF PERSON HE WOULD LIKE WORKING ON THIS CASE? A: DID HE EVER STATE THAT? Q: YES. DID HE EVER STATE THAT TO YOU? A: NO. Q: NOW, DETECTIVE VANNATTER ASKED YOU TO PROCESS A RED STAIN ON THE BRONCO? A: YES. Q: AND HE TOLD YOU THAT THE BRONCO WAS PART OF THE CRIME SCENE? A: YES. Q: BUT THERE WAS NO YELLOW TAPE AROUND THAT BRONCO, WAS THERE? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN? A: NOT NECESSARILY. Q: WASN'T IT PROPER TO HAVE A YELLOW TAPE SURROUNDING THAT BRONCO SO THAT NOBODY COULD GET TO IT, SECURE IT AS BEING WITHIN THE CRIME SCENE? A: IT IS NOT ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO PUT UP YELLOW TAPE TO DENOTE A CRIME SCENE. Q: WELL, ISN'T IT APPROPRIATE TO PUT UP YELLOW TAPE TO SURROUND IMPORTANT ITEMS OF EVIDENCE TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE DON'T APPROACH IT AND TOUCH IT? A: IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRE IT, YES. Q: WELL, IN YOUR JUDGMENT DIDN'T THE CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRE PUTTING A YELLOW TAPE AROUND THAT BRONCO TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THAT IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE? A: IN THE MORNING? Q: THAT MORNING. A: NO. Q: YOU DIDN'T THINK SO? A: NO. Q: WELL, WEREN'T THEY ASKING YOU TO TAKE A RED STAIN OFF THE DOOR HANDLE OF THAT BRONCO? A: YES. Q: DIDN'T YOU TELL US ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU LOOKED INTO THAT BRONCO AND YOU SAW WHAT YOU THOUGHT WERE BLOOD STAINS IN THE BRONCO? A: YES. Q: AND DID ANYBODY EXPRESS CONCERN TO YOU THAT LATER THAT BRONCO WAS GOING TO HAVE TO BE PROCESSED FOR FINGERPRINTS? A: YES. Q: AND YOU DIDN'T THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE AT THAT TIME TO PUT A YELLOW TAPE AROUND THAT BRONCO TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE DIDN'T WALK OVER AND TOUCH THAT CAR? MR. GOLDBERG: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY AS TO THE WORD "APPROPRIATE." THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: AT THAT TIME IN THE MORNING THERE WAS VIRTUALLY NOBODY OUT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT WAS VERY QUIET AND YELLOW TAPE MAY HAVE ATTRACTED EVEN MORE PEOPLE, SO THAT -- THE USE OF IT WASN'T NECESSARY. THERE WAS NOBODY AROUND. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ISN'T IT TRUE THAT INVESTIGATORS ARE SUPPOSED TO ADHERE TO THE CRIMINALIST'S ADVICE AND DIRECTION RELATING TO THE GATHERING OF EVIDENCE? A: YES. Q: THAT HAS BEEN A LONG-STANDING POLICY IN THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, HASN'T IT? A: YES. Q: YOU ARE AWARE OF A MEMO FROM A PERSON NAMED DARRYL GATES? HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A MEMO BY DARRYL GATES ABOUT THIS ISSUE? A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT MEMO, BUT I -- I AM AWARE OF ONE THAT TOUCHES THAT TOPIC. Q: YOU HAVE THAT MANUAL -- WHO IS DARRYL GATES, INCIDENTALLY? I AM NOT FROM AROUND HERE. A: DARRYL GATES IS THE PREVIOUS POLICE CHIEF. Q: HE WAS A POLICE CHIEF HERE FOR A LONG TIME, WASN'T HE? A: YES. Q: AND WERE -- TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE IN YOUR EIGHT YEARS AT SID HAS THERE EVER BEEN ANY CONFLICT BETWEEN CRIMINALISTS WHO GO TO INVESTIGATE THE SCENES AND THE DETECTIVES WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF THE SCENES IN TERMS OF PROPER PROCEDURES FOR COLLECTING EVIDENCE? MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I HAVE BEEN WITH SID FOR TEN YEARS. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: I'M SORRY? A: AND I AM NOT AWARE OF CONFLICTS AS YOU HAVE STATED. Q: IN YOUR TEN YEARS AT SID YOU HAVE NEVER HAD A DISAGREEMENT WITH A DETECTIVE AT A CRIME SCENE AS TO HOW EVIDENCE SHOULD BE GATHERED? MR. GOLDBERG: THAT IS IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: IN MY EXPERIENCE? Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YEAH. A: IN MY EXPERIENCE I WILL MAKE MY SUGGESTIONS -- THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, MR. SCHECK. YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO STAND SOME PLACE WHERE YOU DON'T BLOCK THE JURORS. MR. SCHECK: OH, I'M VERY SORRY. THE COURT: THANK YOU. THE WITNESS: IN MY EXPERIENCE I WILL MAKE MY SUGGESTIONS TO THE DETECTIVE AND I HAVE ALWAYS HAD THE DETECTIVES COOPERATE WITH MY SUGGESTIONS. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN IN THIS CASE, DID IT? A: HOW DO YOU MEAN? Q: WELL, YOU MADE A SUGGESTION TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER THAT YOU WERE GOING TO NEED MORE HELP AND HE DIDN'T TAKE IT? MR. GOLDBERG: I OBJECT. THAT MISSTATES -- THE COURT: SUSTAINED. MR. SCHECK: MAYBE IT IS EASIER -- GIVE ME A MINUTE, YOUR HONOR. I THINK IT IS EASIER TO FIND IT IN MY BOOK. (BRIEF PAUSE.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: I SHOW YOU THAT DOCUMENT. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT DOCUMENT BEFORE? A: YES. Q: AND THAT IS A DOCUMENT CONCERNING THE RELATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE INVESTIGATORS AND THE CRIMINALISTS? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IT INDICATES THAT THE INVESTIGATORS ARE SUPPOSED TO ADHERE TO THE CRIMINALIST'S ADVICE? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, MAY I OBJECT FOR A MOMENT? I DON'T THINK IT IS PROPER FOR COUNSEL TO READ FROM THE DOCUMENT. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT INVESTIGATORS ARE SUPPOSED TO ADHERE TO THE CRIMINALIST'S ADVICE AND DIRECTION RELATING TO THE GATHERING OF EVIDENCE? A: SPECIFICALLY RELATING TO THE GATHERING OF EVIDENCE? Q: YES. A: YES, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT POLICE MANUAL, ARE YOU NOT? A: I HAVEN'T COMMITTED IT TO MEMORY. Q: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH A -- ANY REQUIREMENT THAT IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PEOPLE FROM SID TO INSTRUCT ALL OFFICERS IN THE DEPARTMENT REGARDING CURRENT METHODS OF COLLECTING, MARKING AND PRESERVING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE? A: I DON'T KNOW WHAT SECTION YOU ARE READING THAT FROM. Q: YES. BUT IT SOUND -- DOES THAT SOUND TO YOU LIKE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR -- Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY IS? MR. GOLDBERG: THAT IS NOT RELEVANT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE WITNESS: IT -- YES. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, YOU WERE SAYING TO US THAT YOU DIDN'T THINK IT WAS NECESSARY TO PUT UP YELLOW TAPE TO PROTECT THE BRONCO IN THE MORNING? A: YES. Q: BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T THINK THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE ON THE STREET IN THE MORNING? A: YES. Q: WELL, DIDN'T YOU ANTICIPATE THAT LATER IN THE DAY THERE WOULD BE PEOPLE GOING TO THAT SCENE? A: YES. Q: I MEAN, YOU KNEW AT THIS POINT THAT ONE OF THE VICTIMS IN THIS CASE WAS THE FORMER WIFE OF MR. SIMPSON? MR. GOLDBERG: VAGUE AS TO "THIS POINT." THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AT 7:15 WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT ROCKINGHAM YOU KNEW THAT ONE OF THE VICTIMS IN THIS CASE WAS MR. SIMPSON'S EX-WIFE? A: NO. Q: DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU WERE AT MR. SIMPSON'S HOUSE? A: I KNEW THAT WAS HIS RESIDENCE. Q: DID YOU KNOW THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER REGARDED MR. SIMPSON AS A SUSPECT? A: I DON'T RECALL IF HE RELAYED THAT TO ME OR NOT. Q: HE MIGHT HAVE? A: HE MIGHT HAVE. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU DID NOT ANTICIPATE THAT AS THE DAY WENT ON THAT PEOPLE WOULD BE GOING TO THAT ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE AND WOULD BE AROUND THAT SCENE? A: I ANTICIPATED THAT THE BRONCO WOULD HAVE BEEN TOWED AWAY AND PUT INTO IMPOUND. Q: YOU WERE AT ROCKINGHAM FROM AROUND 7, WAS IT 15 OR 7:20? A: 7:10. Q: 7:10 IN THE MORNING UNTIL YOU LEFT AT WHAT TIME? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: AROUND 10:15, TEN O'CLOCK? A: I LEFT ROCKINGHAM AT APPROXIMATELY TEN O'CLOCK. Q: TEN O'CLOCK. SO YOU ARE THERE TWO HOURS AND 50 MINUTES? I THINK I HAVE GOT THAT ONE RIGHT. A: TWO HOURS AND 50 MINUTES, YES. Q: AND DURING THAT TWO HOURS AND 50 MINUTES WERE MORE PEOPLE ARRIVING AT THE SCENE AND WATCHING WHAT WAS GOING ON? A: NO. Q: IN THOSE THREE HOURS YOU STILL -- WHEN YOU LEFT THERE WAS NO YELLOW TAPE ON THAT -- SURROUNDING THAT BRONCO, RIGHT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND DIDN'T IT OCCUR TO YOU THAT THAT WAS NOT A SOUND PROCEDURE, AS YOU LEFT ROCKINGHAM? A: TWO OFFICERS WERE IN CHARGE OF PROTECTING THAT EVIDENCE AND YELLOW TAPE IS NOT A -- IS NOT AS GOOD A PROTECTION AS AN ACTUAL OFFICER. Q: ISN'T THE BEST POSSIBLE PROTECTION THE STANDARD PROTECTION, TO HAVE YELLOW TAPES AND OFFICERS? A: THAT IS ONE METHOD. Q: ISN'T IT TRUE THAT -- WITHDRAWN. WAS IT YOUR DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A YELLOW TAPE SHOULD BE PUT AROUND THAT BRONCO? A: NO. Q: WELL, AREN'T YOU THE PERSON THAT IS SUPPOSED TO ESSENTIALLY BE CALLING THE SHOTS WITH RESPECT TO HOW EVIDENCE IS GATHERED? A: WITH RESPECT TO HOW EVIDENCE IS GATHERED, YES. Q: WELL, ISN'T THE PROTECTION OF IMPORTANT ITEMS OF EVIDENCE WITHIN THAT PROVINCE, THE GATHERING OF EVIDENCE, PROTECTING IT WITH YELLOW TAPE? A: THAT -- IN MY OPINION THAT IS THE -- UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE SCENE. Q: SO THAT IS NOT YOUR DECISION; THAT IS THE OFFICER'S DECISION? A: YES. Q: AND THAT IS WHY YOU DIDN'T QUESTION IT, BECAUSE IT WAS THEIR DECISION? A: IF I THOUGHT IT WAS NECESSARY, I WOULD HAVE SUGGESTED IT TO THEM. Q: YOU DIDN'T THINK IT WAS NECESSARY? A: NOT AT THAT TIME. Q: YOU DON'T THINK IT WAS A MISTAKE -- WELL, AT WHAT TIME? AT WHAT TIME WOULD IT HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE TO PUT YELLOW TAPE AROUND THAT BRONCO? A: WHEN THERE WERE MORE PEOPLE AROUND THAN MAY HAVE -- WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE PREFERABLE. Q: ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU LEFT, DID YOU MAKE THE SUGGESTION TO ANY OFFICERS AT THE SCENE, YOU KNOW, "GUYS, MAYBE YOU SHOULD PUT SOME YELLOW TAPE AROUND THAT BRONCO SOON"? THE COURT: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. MR. SCHECK: I'M ASKING, DID YOU? THE COURT: "GUYS." MR. SCHECK: WHAT? THE COURT: "GUYS." MR. SCHECK: I'M SORRY. Q: DID YOU, WHEN YOU LEFT, TELL ANY MALE OR FEMALE OFFICERS AT THE SCENE THAT PERHAPS IT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO PUT SOME YELLOW TAPE AROUND THAT BRONCO? A: I DID NOT STATE THAT, NO. Q: WASN'T THAT A MISTAKE? A: I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS A MISTAKE OR NOT. Q: AT 7:50, AFTER YOUR CONVERSATION WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER, YOU SPOKE TO GREG MATHESON, DID YOU NOT? A: YES. Q: DID YOU -- GREG MATHESON IS A SUPERVISOR AT SID? A: YES. Q: AND YOU -- AT THAT TIME DID YOU EXPRESS CONCERN TO HIM THAT YOU HAD TWO CRIME SCENES? A: YES. Q: DID YOU EXPRESS CONCERN TO HIM THAT THE VICTIMS AT BUNDY, TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, HAD BEEN THERE SINCE THE EARLY MORNING HOURS AND YOU WERE NOW TALKING TO HIM AT 7:50 IN THE MORNING? A: I DID SPEAK TO HIM REGARDING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE -- AS I KNEW THEM. I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT CONVERSATION. Q: DID YOU EXPRESS TO HIM A CONCERN THAT THE CRIMINALISTS MAY NOT GET TO THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE BEFORE THE CORONERS? A: I DON'T THINK I EXPRESSED THAT TO HIM, NO. Q: DID YOU EXPRESS TO HIM A CONCERN ABOUT USING AN ENTRY LEVEL PERSON WHO WAS JUST STARTING OUT TO DO THE WORK IN THIS CASE? A: I TOLD HIM WHO WAS WITH ME. Q: DID HE TELL -- DID YOU TELL HIM ANYTHING ABOUT THE LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE OF MISS MAZZOLA? A: I DON'T THINK I HAD TO. Q: AND THAT IS BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT HE HAD KNOWLEDGE OF MISS MAZZOLA'S EXPERIENCE LEVEL? A: YES. Q: DID YOU DISCUSS WITH HIM THE FACT THAT YOU HAD SUGGESTED TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER THAT MORE HELP WAS NEEDED? A: I DON'T KNOW IF I DISCUSSED THAT WITH HIM OR NOT. Q: DID YOU -- MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I WILL -- I'M SORRY, COUNSEL. I WILL MAKE AN OBJECTION THAT THAT ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE AND MOTION TO STRIKE THE WITNESS' TESTIMONY. THE COURT: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY, BUT THE ANSWER WAS SUCH THAT -- THE ANSWER WILL STAND. PROCEED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU -- DID YOU SUGGEST TO GREG MATHESON THAT MORE HELP WAS NEEDED? A: I DON'T KNOW IF I SAID THAT OR NOT. I DON'T THINK I DID. Q: DID HE ASK YOU IF YOU NEEDED MORE HELP? A: HE MAY HAVE. Q: AND DID YOU SAY NO? A: AT THE TIME I DIDN'T -- I DIDN'T THINK I DID. Q: NOW -- (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MAYBE WE COULD TURN NOW TO THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED AT ROCKINGHAM FOR A MINUTE. YOU INDICATED THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF RED BLOOD DROPS; IS THAT CORRECT, THAT YOU OBSERVED? A: YES. Q: NOW, DID YOU -- IN TERMS OF HOW YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA APPROACHED THIS, DID YOU PERFORM ANY WHAT IS KNOWN AS PHENOLPHTALEIN TESTS ON THOSE BLOOD DROPS? MR. GOLDBERG: I WILL OBJECT BASED UPON THE EARLIER RULINGS. THE COURT: OVERRULED. PROCEED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU? A: YES. Q: AND WAS THAT ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS YOU DID? A: IT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID. Q: ALL RIGHT. THEN IN TERMS OF APPROACHING THESE RED STAINS, THERE IS ONE THAT I THINK IS ITEM NO. 1, THE ONE ON THE DOOR; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND BEFORE YOU SWATCHED THAT STAIN YOU DID A PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON IT? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND BEFORE YOU TOOK A PICTURE OF THAT STAIN YOU DID A PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON IT? A: I'M NOT SURE WHICH ORDER THAT OCCURRED IN. Q: WELL, WITH RESPECT TO, UMM, THE NEXT -- THIS IS ITEM NO. 4, CORRECT, THAT IS A RED STAIN THAT YOU FOUND? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU FIRST GO OUT AND MEASURE THAT BEFORE YOU TOOK A PICTURE OF IT? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: MEASURE ITS LOCATION? A: I'M NOT SURE IF THE PICTURE WAS TAKEN FIRST OR THE MEASUREMENT WAS TAKEN FIRST. Q: DID YOU DO THE PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON NO. 4 BEFORE YOU TOOK THE PICTURE? A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU DID THAT WITH ITEM NO. 5 AS WELL, FIRST THE PRESUMPTIVE TEST AND THEN THE PICTURE? A: YES. Q: AND ITEM NO. 6, I BELIEVE? A: YES. Q: AND ITEM NO. 7? A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION. Q: AND ITEM NO. 8? A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES. Q: AND INCIDENTALLY, ON THE -- WHEN YOU WENT TO BUNDY AND YOU -- YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA WERE DEALING WITH ITEMS 47, 48, 49, 50 AND 52, DID YOU FOLLOW ESSENTIALLY THE SAME PROCESS? A: ESSENTIALLY, YES. Q: SO YOU DID THE PRESUMPTIVE TESTS ON THOSE ITEMS FIRST AND THEN THE PICTURES WERE TAKEN? A: I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT ORDER. Q: IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED THAT WAY? A: YES. Q: NOW, IN TERMS OF THESE RED STAINS THAT YOU FOUND, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE PATTERN OF RED STAINS THAT YOU FOUND WAS LEADING FROM THE RESIDENCE TO THE BRONCO OR THE BRONCO TO THE FRONT DOOR OF THE RESIDENCE? A: YES. Q: AND THERE IS -- WHY DON'T WE TRY USING THIS -- ONE OF THESE DIAGRAMS FIRST. LET ME START WITH -- LET ME START WITH ONE OF THE PROSECUTION'S BOARDS, IF I MIGHT. THE COURT: CERTAINLY. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) (BRIEF PAUSE.) MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, MAYBE I COULD HELP. (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK, THIS IS PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT WHICH? MR. SCHECK: YES. IT IS PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT NO. 169, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: THANK YOU. PROCEED. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: OKAY. SORRY FOR THE DELAY. MR. FUNG, COULD YOU STEP DOWN HERE WITH ME FOR ONE MINUTE. A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) Q: NOW, YOU FOUND ITEM NO. 4, A RED STAIN, SOMEWHERE, UMM -- MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, COULD I JUST HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK TO COUNSEL FOR A SECOND? (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, THE JURORS ARE HAVING TROUBLE SEEING. IT IS TOO LOW. IT HAS BEEN CHANGED. HE NEEDS TO MOVE IT UP. MR. GOLDBERG: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: MUCH BETTER. THANK YOU, MR. DOUGLAS. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, NOW YOU FOUND DROP NO. 4 ON ROCKINGHAM; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES, I DID. Q: ALL RIGHT. UMM, AND YOU MEASURED THAT TO BE I GUESS 83 NINE (SIC) INCHES SOUTH OF THE SOUTH CURB, TWO FEET WEST OF THE SOUTH CURB? A: YES. Q: APPROXIMATELY WHERE I'M POINTING HERE ON THE DIAGRAM; IS THAT CORRECT? A: APPROXIMATELY HERE, (INDICATING). Q: THEN YOU FOUND A RED STAIN THAT YOU IDENTIFIED AS NO. 5. COULD YOU POINT APPROXIMATELY TO WHERE THAT IS ON THE DIAGRAM. IF IT HELPS -- A: I'M REFERRING TO A SKETCH. Q: ALL RIGHT. IN FACT, IS IT THIS SKETCH THAT YOU HAVE RIGHT HERE, (INDICATING)? A: YES. Q: OKAY. THAT IS THE SKETCH THAT YOU FILLED OUT -- THIS WAS FILLED OUT AT THE TIME THIS WAS RECOVERED, CORRECT? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. IF YOU WANT TO COME OVER YOU CAN LOOK AT MY SKETCH AND I WILL JUST HOLD IT OUT FOR YOU. A: APPROXIMATELY HERE, (INDICATING). Q: APPROXIMATELY HERE? THAT IS IN FRONT OF THE GATE, RIGHT? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. THEN YOU FOUND DROP NO. 6. COULD YOU SHOW US WHERE THAT IS? A: (INDICATING). Q: WHICH IS -- A: APPROXIMATE. Q: APPROXIMATELY. NOW, WOULD YOU NOT AGREE THAT THERE WERE ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE FEET BETWEEN DROPS NO. 4 AND 5? A: APPROXIMATELY. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IF ONE WERE TO START ON A LINE TO THE PLACE THAT I'M POINTING HERE, WHAT WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THAT IN TERMS OF THE GATE? WHAT DIRECTION WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THAT AS BEING ON THIS DIAGRAM? THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF THE GATE? A: THIS IS NORTHWEST -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND. Q: NORTHWEST IS AS IT IS DEPICTED ON THIS DIAGRAM, I GUESS? A: AND YOU ARE REFERRING TO THE FENCE OR THE GATE? Q: JUST THE GATE? A: THE GATE ITSELF? Q: ON THIS LINE, YEAH. IF ONE WERE TO BASICALLY -- A: RIGHT HERE -- RIGHT HERE WOULD BE THE NORTH END OF THE GATE, (INDICATING). Q: OKAY. FROM THE NORTH END OF THE GATE, IF ONE WERE TO WALK IN A LINE TO THE AREA WHERE THERE IS -- THE GARAGE IS DEPICTED, OKAY, YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? A: YOU ARE SAYING FROM HERE, (INDICATING), TO HERE, (INDICATING)? Q: NO, FROM HERE TO THE PATHWAY, (INDICATING). A: FROM HERE TO HERE, (INDICATING)? Q: THAT'S RIGHT. IF YOU WERE TO DRAW A LINE, WALK ON A LINE FROM THAT ENTRYWAY TO THE GATE DIRECTLY TO THE PATHWAY, OKAY, HOW MANY FEET WOULD YOU ESTIMATE THAT ROUGHLY TO BE? A: I DON'T RECALL THE DIMENSIONS. I WOULD HAVE TO SEE SOMETHING. Q: HAS DETECTIVE VANNATTER EVER DISCUSSED A THEORY WITH YOU THAT MR. SIMPSON CAME HOME IN THIS CASE AND WENT -- OPENED THE GATE, ALL RIGHT, AND THEN WALKED ALONG THE SOUTH PATHWAY TO THE AREA WHERE THE GLOVE WAS RECOVERED? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS IRRELEVANT AND IT IS ALSO HEARSAY. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, JUST GOING ON A LINE, ALL RIGHT, FROM WHERE YOU FOUND DROP NO. 6, OKAY, TO THE SOUTH PATHWAY, RIGHT -- A: YES. Q: -- YOU DIDN'T FIND -- THAT IS ABOUT HOW MANY FEET WOULD YOU ESTIMATE? A: I TOLD YOU I DON'T -- I COULDN'T GIVE YOU AN ESTIMATE. Q: WELL, THE DISTANCE FROM THE GATE TO WHERE THE GLOVE WAS RECOVERED WAS APPROXIMATELY 250 FEET? A: FROM THE GATE TO THE GLOVE? Q: YEAH. A: I -- I WILL HAVE TO TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT. THE COURT: ARE YOU TESTIFYING, MR. SCHECK? MR. SCHECK: I ASKED HIM THAT QUESTION. THE COURT: HE SAID I WILL HAVE TO TAKE WHAT YOU SAY. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: TELL YOU WHAT, LET'S TRY IT THIS WAY: I WOULD LIKE TO MARK THIS DOCUMENT AS PEOPLE'S -- PEOPLE'S -- AS DEFENSE NEXT IN ORDER. THE COURT: 1072. (DEFT'S 1072 FOR ID = DOCUMENT) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: HAVE YOU SEEN THIS DOCUMENT BEFORE, MR. FUNG? A: YES, I HAVE. Q: AND WHAT IS IT? A: THIS IS A SKETCH -- NO, IT IS A -- IT IS A SURVEYOR'S DRAWING OF THE ROCKINGHAM RESIDENCE. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THAT GIVES DISTANCES WITH RESPECT TO, UMM -- HOW FAR IT IS FROM ROCKINGHAM AVENUE TO THE GARAGE AND THE GUEST HOUSE AREAS? A: YES, IT DOES. Q: AND THAT WAS DRAWN BY A SURVEYOR? YOU ARE AWARE OF THIS? A: YES. Q: AND AS FAR AS YOU ARE CONCERNED IT IS ACCURATE? MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT WHAT THIS WITNESS' CONCERN WAS. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: UMM, DOES THIS PERSON WORK WITH YOU AT SID? A: NOT ANY MORE. Q: DID AT THE TIME HE DID THIS? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU WERE AWARE THAT THAT WAS BEING PREPARED? A: FOR -- MR. GOLDBERG: IT IS VAGUE AS TO TIME. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: THAT IT WAS BEING -- EVENTUALLY IT WOULD BE PREPARED? MR. SCHECK: YES. MR. GOLDBERG: IT IS ALSO IRRELEVANT. I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO STRIKE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: PART OF THE NORMAL PROCEDURES AT SID IN SOME CASES IS TO HAVE SUCH A SURVEYOR COME OUT AND MEASURE THE SCENE? A: IN SOME CASES, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IN THIS CASE THAT WAS DONE? A: YES. Q: IT IS DONE IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS AT SID WHEN APPROPRIATE? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO STRIKE. I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY FOUNDATION, PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. AND IN APPROPRIATE CASES IT IS -- IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS AT SID THESE KIND OF SURVEYOR'S DIAGRAMS ARE PREPARED? A: YES. Q: AND THE PERSON THAT PREPARES IT, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, HAS AN OBLIGATION TO MAKE THOSE MEASUREMENTS ACCURATE? MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: TO THE BEST OF HIS ABILITY, YES. MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD OFFER THIS DIAGRAM AND ASK THAT IT BE PUT ON THE ELMO. THE COURT: DO THE MEASUREMENTS ON THAT APPEAR TO BE ACCURATE? THE WITNESS: THEY APPEAR TO BE. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PROCEED. (BRIEF PAUSE.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: OKAY. NOW, LOOKING AT THAT, WOULDN'T YOU AGREE THAT THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE GATE AND WHERE THE GLOVE WAS FOUND IS APPROXIMATELY 250 FEET? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT AS IT CALLS FOR SPECULATION. THE WITNESS CAN ONLY TESTIFY WHAT HE SEES. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU TOOK MEASUREMENTS, DID YOU NOT, MR. FUNG, ON JUNE 13TH? A: YES, I DID. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WITH THE -- LET ME ASK YOU: IN TERMS OF THIS DIAGRAM OVER HERE, (INDICATING), THIS IS THE -- I'M POINTING NOW AND I'M REFERRING TO PEOPLE'S 169, THIS IS THE GARAGE? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THIS AREA HERE, (INDICATING), YOU TELL ME, THIS IS THE -- WHERE IS THE BEGINNING OF THE GUEST HOUSE AS DEPICTED IN THIS DIAGRAM? WOULD IT BE THE AREA I'M POINTING RIGHT HERE, (INDICATING)? MR. GOLDBERG: WAIT A MINUTE. NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW WHAT PART IS THE GUEST HOUSE. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, LOOKING AT THE DIAGRAM ON THE ELMO, OKAY, DO YOU SEE A BOX THERE THAT INDICATES "GUEST ROOMS"? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS IRRELEVANT WHAT HE SEES IN REGARD TO THE GUEST ROOMS. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: YES, I DO. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU LOCATE THAT FOR US ON PEOPLE'S 169? A: IT APPEARS TO BE THIS AREA HERE, (INDICATING). Q: WHERE DOES IT START? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: THE AREA DESIGNATED "GUEST ROOMS," WOULD THAT BEGIN AS WHAT IS MARKED ON PEOPLE'S 169 AS THE AREA THAT SAYS "OFFICE"? A: THIS DIAGRAM APPEARS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT FROM THE DIAGRAM UP ON THE BOARD. Q: IN WHAT RESPECT? A: THERE IS NO INDENTATION IN THIS AREA HERE, (INDICATING). MR. SCHECK: LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT THE WITNESS IS INDICATING THAT THERE IS AN INDENTATION BETWEEN THE -- I GUESS THE HORIZONTAL AREA BETWEEN WHAT IS THE OFFICE AND THE AREA WHERE THERE IS A CALL OUT FOR NO. 14. Q: IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, FOR THE RECORD, I BELIEVE HE INDICATED THAT THERE WASN'T AN INDENTATION. THE COURT: YES. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: THERE WASN'T AN INDENTATION ON 169, BUT THERE IS ONE ON THE DEFENSE EXHIBIT THAT YOU SEE PROJECTED ON THE ELMO? A: YES. Q: WHICH IS ACCURATE? A: I WOULD HAVE TO REFER TO PHOTOGRAPHS OR VISIT THE SCENE AGAIN. I DON'T RECALL. Q: BUT OTHER THAN THAT INDENTATION, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET YOU TO TELL US IF -- WHERE THE AREA THAT IS INDICATED AS "GUEST ROOMS" ON THE DIAGRAM ON THE ELMO IS ON PEOPLE'S 169? A: THIS WOULD BE VERY ROUGH. APPROXIMATELY IN THIS AREA HERE, (INDICATING). Q: INDICATING THE AREA BY WHAT IS MARKED AS "OFFICE"; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. THE COURT: ON 169. MR. SCHECK: ON 169. Q: NOW, YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA WORKED TOGETHER TO MAKE THE MEASUREMENTS ON JUNE 13TH? A: YES. Q: AND YOU KNEW AT THAT TIME THAT OTHERS WOULD LATER BE RELYING ON YOUR MEASUREMENTS AS TO WHERE VARIOUS PIECES OF EVIDENCE WERE FOUND? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU KNEW THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT LATER IF PEOPLE WERE TO MAKE ANALYSES -- SUBSEQUENT ANALYSES OF THE SCENE? A: IT COULD BE BECOME A FACTOR, YES. Q: JUST LIKE AT BUNDY YOU MADE MEASUREMENTS AS TO WHERE THE FOOTPRINTS WERE? A: YES. Q: AND YOU KNEW THAT THOSE MEASUREMENTS WOULD BE RELIED UPON LATER FOR ALL KIND OF ANALYSIS? A: POSSIBLY, YES. Q: NOW, ON JUNE 13TH YOU MEASURED THE GLOVE AS BEING LOCATED 118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL OF THE GUEST HOUSE. NOW, COULD YOU SHOW US WHERE THE WEST WALL OF THE GUEST HOUSE IS? A: THE GUEST HOUSE? Q: YES. A: I BELIEVE MY DESCRIPTION OF THE LOCATION WAS 118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL. Q: DOESN'T YOUR EVIDENCE COLLECTION READ "THE GLOVE" -- UNDER "LOCATION OF ITEM," "118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL GUEST HOUSE, ONE FOOT FOUR INCHES SOUTH OF THE SOUTH WALL"? ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU WROTE? A: THAT IS WHAT CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA WROTE, YES. Q: OH. WELL, 100 -- LOOKING AT THE DIAGRAM ON THE ELMO, 118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL OF THE GUEST HOUSE, WHERE WOULD THAT BE ON THE DIAGRAM IN THE ELMO? A: THAT IS NOT THE POINT OF REFERENCE THAT IS REFERRED TO -- Q: I DIDN'T ASK YOU THAT QUESTION. MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR -- THE COURT: THAT IS INAPPROPRIATE. MR. SCHECK: MOVE TO STRIKE HIS ANSWER AS BEING NONRESPONSIVE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MY QUESTION, MR. FUNG, IS FROM LOOKING AT THE DIAGRAM ON THE ELMO, WHERE WOULD A LOCATION 118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL OF THE GUEST HOUSE, ONE FOOT FOUR INCHES SOUTH OF THE SOUTH WALL BE? MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, THE MEASUREMENT HERE IS WRONG, ISN'T IT? A: AS YOU ARE INTERPRETING IT IT IS WRONG, BUT FROM WHERE I KNOW THE POINT OF REFERENCE IS, THE MEASUREMENT IS CORRECT OR VERY CLOSE TO WHERE IT WAS. Q: WELL, LET'S PUT IT THIS WAY: IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT THE ENTRY HERE OF 118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL OF THE GUEST HOUSE, ONE FOOT FOUR INCHES SOUTH OF THE SOUTH WALL, THAT ENTRY, AS WRITTEN, IS AN INCORRECT ENTRY? A: THAT IS INCORRECT. MR. GOLDBERG: THERE WAS NO -- THE WITNESS: YOUR STATEMENT IS INCORRECT. MR. GOLDBERG: EXCUSE ME, MR. FUNG. I OBJECT. THERE WAS NO TESTIMONY TO THAT FACT. MOTION TO STRIKE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE ANSWER WILL STAND. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION? A: YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THAT ENTRY IS INCORRECT. Q: WELL, THE ENTRY ITSELF, IF ONE WERE TO MEASURE 118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL OF THE GUEST HOUSE, THAT WOULD BE A LOCATION, UMM, THAT IS FAR BEYOND THIS AIR CONDITIONER ALL THE WAY SOMEWHERE INTO THE PLANTING AREA OUT BACK, RIGHT? MR. GOLDBERG: I OBJECT. THAT IS IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, IF ONE WERE TO CALL THE GUEST HOUSE -- AS I THINK YOU PREVIOUSLY DID, THIS OFFICE AREA; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. THE COURT: COUNSEL, COUNSEL -- Q: BY MR. SCHECK: -- AS DEPICTED ON 169 -- THE COURT: COUNSEL, I HAVE SUSTAINED FOUR IRRELEVANCY OBJECTIONS IN A ROW AS TO THAT QUESTION. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ARE YOU SAYING THAT MISS MAZZOLA, WHEN SHE MADE AN ENTRY HERE, WAS INCORRECT? A: I AM NOT SAYING THAT. Q: YOU ARE SAYING THAT -- WELL, WHAT WAS THE GUEST HOUSE THEN? A: THE GUEST HOUSE IS THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OR AREA TO LOCATE WHERE THE GLOVE WAS. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU ARE SAYING 118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL OF THE GUEST HOUSE? A: NO. Q: IS THAT YOUR REFERENCE POINT? MR. GOLDBERG: WAIT A MINUTE. THE WITNESS: NO, THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M SAYING. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHAT ARE YOU SAYING? A: WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE GUEST HOUSE IN THAT ENTRY DEPICTS THE GENERAL LOCATION OF WHERE THE GLOVE WAS. THE 818 (SIC) FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL IS FROM THIS POINT HERE, (INDICATING). Q: SO YOU ARE SAYING 118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL AND THEN GUEST HOUSE THAT FOLLOWS IT? THAT IS NOT THE WEST WALL OF THE GUEST HOUSE YOU ARE REFERRING TO? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, HE IS MISREADING WHAT THE WITNESS IS -- THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION. MR. SCHECK: COULD WE PUT UP ON THE ELMO THE ENTRY THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, JUST SO EVERYBODY CAN SEE IT? OKAY. (BRIEF PAUSE.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU SEE WHERE IT SAYS "118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL"? MR. GOLDBERG: WAIT A MINUTE. IT DOESN'T SAY "OF." MR. SCHECK: I THINK THE DOCUMENT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. Q: YOU SEE THE ENTRY WHERE IT SAYS "LOCATION OF ITEM"? A: YES, I DO. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DOESN'T IT READ ACROSS THE TOP LINE "118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL GUEST HOUSE, ONE FOOT FOUR INCHES SOUTH OF SOUTH WALL"? A: IT DOES STATE THAT. Q: ALL RIGHT. SO WHAT YOU ARE TELLING US NOW IS THAT THE WEST WALL YOU ARE REFERRING TO WAS NOT THE WEST WALL OF THE GUEST HOUSE? A: THE WEST WALL I'M REFERRING TO IS THIS WALL HERE, (INDICATING). Q: ALL RIGHT. THE COURT: INDICATING THE WALL -- EXCUSE ME. INDICATING THE WALL OF THE GARAGE ON PEOPLE'S 169. MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I WAS ABOUT TO INDICATE THAT. Q: SO THE WEST WALL THAT YOU ACTUALLY ARE REFERRING TO IN THAT ENTRY WAS THE WEST WALL OF THE GARAGE; NOT THE GUEST HOUSE? A: YES. Q: AND IF ONE WERE TO READ JUST LITERALLY WHAT IT SAYS THERE, "118 FEET EAST OF THE WEST WALL OF THE GUEST HOUSE" AND START MEASURING FROM THE GUEST HOUSE, THAT WOULD BE AN INCORRECT ENTRY, AN INCORRECT LOCATION FOR WHERE THE GLOVE WAS FOUND? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: THAT IS WHY THEY ARE NOTES AND THAT IS WHY I PREPARE A PROPERTY REPORT. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: I UNDERSTAND, BUT THAT IS -- IF ONE WERE TO LITERALLY READ IT, THAT WOULD BE AN INCORRECT IDENTIFICATION? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE WITNESS: THAT WOULD BE AN INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF WHAT IS THERE. MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. A FEW MORE QUESTIONS WHILE WE ARE HERE. Q: NOW, IF ONE GOES ON A LINE FROM WHERE YOU LAST FOUND DROP NO. 6, OKAY, ALONG THIS SOUTH WALL, ALL RIGHT, THIS IS -- THE COURT: COUNSEL, IS THERE A WALL THERE? MR. SCHECK: WELL, IT IS ACTUALLY SHRUBBERY, THANK YOU. Q: ALONG THIS SHRUBBERY ON A LINE TO THE SOUTH WALKWAY, IS THAT A DRIVEWAY AREA? A: YES, IT IS. Q: ON THAT LINE YOU FOUND NO RED STAINS? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: RIGHT? A: FROM APPROXIMATELY THIS POINT TO THIS POINT, I FOUND NO RED STAINS IN THIS LOWER AREA. Q: NO RED STAINS IN THIS AREA, (INDICATING), CORRECT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG: FOR THE RECORD PERHAPS -- Q: BY MR. SCHECK: THAT IS THE AREA FROM THE DRIVEWAY TO WHERE THE PINK ENDS ON PEOPLE'S 169? MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, FOR THE RECORD, IT WAS FROM THE "Y" IN THE WORD "DRIVEWAY" OVER TO THE RIGHT-HAND -- ON THIS EXHIBIT -- THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER OF WHERE THE PINK ENDS, AND THEN I THINK HE ALSO POINTED TO A POINT THAT IS JUST ABOVE THE "Y" IN WHAT WOULD BE SORT OF A TRIANGLE. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS THAT -- WHAT MR. GOLDBERG IS SAYING CORRECT? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, THERE IS NOW AN AREA THAT IS IN YELLOW, OKAY? A: YES. Q: NOW, AS ONE WALKS DOWN IN THE AREA, THAT IS YELLOW ON PEOPLE'S 169, THERE IS ABOUT FOUR STEPS? A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN THERE IS A CEMENT AREA, CEMENT WALKWAY AREA? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND ON JUNE 13TH THERE WERE MUCH FEWER LEAVES IN THAT CEMENT WALKWAY AREA THAN THERE WAS IN THE NARROWER WALKWAY AREA THAT I'M POINTING TO AND THE AREA WHERE THE GLOVE WAS RECOVERED, RIGHT? A: I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY WHICH HAD MORE -- MORE LEAVES. I DO RECALL THERE WAS AREAS THAT HAD A LOT OF LEAVES AND AREAS THAT HAD LESS LEAVES, BUT I DIDN'T MAKE A NOTE OF IT. Q: WELL, IN TERMS OF THE -- THERE WERE MORE TREES OVERHANGING THE AREA THAT I'M POINTING TO NOW THAT STARTS WITH -- WHAT WOULD YOU CALL THIS POINT, (INDICATING)? HOW DO YOU WANT TO DESCRIBE IT? DO YOU WANT TO CALL IT -- WHAT DEMARCATION DO YOU WANT TO USE? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: THIS POINT, I'M OVER HERE, THAT IS JUST TO THE LEFT OF THE CALL OUT BOX THAT IS 14? A: I -- Q: THAT IS WHERE THE ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT IS, ELECTRICAL DOOR? A: YEAH. THERE IS SOME KIND OF BOX. Q: ALL RIGHT. FROM THE ELECTRICAL DOOR BOX THERE IS A NARROW AREA, CORRECT? A: YES, IT IS. Q: THERE IS MORE TREES OVERHANGING THAT AREA? A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION. Q: AND THERE WERE MORE LEAVES THERE, WEREN'T THERE, ON JUNE 13TH, THAN THERE WAS FROM THE CEMENT AREA THAT STARTS WITH THE GARAGE AND GOES UP TO THE POINT WHERE THE ELECTRICAL BOX IS? A: I -- AGAIN, I CAN'T RECALL THE AMOUNT OF LEAVES. Q: AND YOU FOUND NO RED STAINS FROM THE POINT WHERE THE YELLOW BEGINS ON THE GARAGE AT -- ON PEOPLE'S 169 TO THE POINT WHERE YOU FOUND THE GLOVE? A: THAT IS CORRECT. Q: ALL RIGHT. NONE? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: NO RED STAINS? A: ON THE PATHWAY ITSELF? Q: ON THE PATHWAY ITSELF? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND UMM, IN THE AREA, UMM, OF THE AIR CONDITIONER, UMM, THERE IS A WALL? A: THERE IS A WALL, YES. Q: AND IT IS MADE OF A STUCCO TYPE MATERIAL? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THAT STUCCO TYPE MATERIAL IS THE KIND OF THING WHERE IF YOU BRUSH AGAINST IT WITH CLOTHING, IF ONE BRUSHES AGAINST IT WITH CLOTHING, THREADS OR FIBERS CAN GET STUCK TO IT? A: THAT IS A POSSIBILITY. Q: OR YOU CAN GET AN ABRASION IF ONE WERE TO BANG UP AGAINST IT WITH BARE SKIN, THAT KIND OF STUCCO CAN CAUSE AN ABRASION ON ONE'S HAND? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: POSSIBLY. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, YOU FOUND NO HAIR OR FIBER ON THE STUCCO WALL AREA NEAR THE AIR CONDITIONER ON JUNE 13TH? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: YOU EXAMINED THE FENCE IN THE AREA WHERE THE GLOVE WAS RECOVERED? A: YES, I DID. Q: YOU FOUND NO FIBERS ON THAT FENCE, NO HAIR OR FIBERS ON THAT FENCE? A: I DID NOT SEE ANY. Q: YOU DID NOT SEE ANY? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND WERE YOU CONSIDERING THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOMEBODY MIGHT HAVE GONE OVER THAT FENCE? A: YES. Q: AND WERE YOU CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY MIGHT HAVE BANGED INTO THAT WALL? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: THAT STUCCO WALL? A: I LOOKED -- I DID LOOK AT THE WALL, YES. Q: SO YOU WERE LOOKING AT THAT CAREFULLY BECAUSE THE DETECTIVES WERE INSTRUCTING YOU TO DO SO? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) MR. GOLDBERG: THAT IS A COMPOUND QUESTION, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: WELL, IT ACTUALLY CALLS FOR SPECULATION. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU LOOKING AT THAT AREA -- WERE YOU INSTRUCTED BY THE DETECTIVES TO EXAMINE THAT AREA CAREFULLY? A: YES. Q: AND YOU FOUND NO FIBERS ON THAT STUCCO WALL? A: THAT'S CORRECT. MR. SCHECK: I THINK WE ARE FINISHED WITH THIS DIAGRAM, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. (BRIEF PAUSE.) (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT THE SIMPSON RESIDENCE? A: I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS OR NOT. Q: SO YOU WOULDN'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS DEW ON THE LAWN OR WATER FROM THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM? A: THAT'S CORRECT. (BRIEF PAUSE.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, YOU INDICATED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU WERE THE PERSON THAT WENT BACK AND RECOVERED THE GLOVE, ITEM NO. 9? A: YES. Q: AND YOU WERE THE PERSON THAT WAS DOING ALL THIS INVESTIGATING ON THE WALKWAY LEADING UP TO ITEM NO. 9? MR. GOLDBERG: VAGUE AS TO TIME. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: INVESTIGATION IN WHAT SENSE? Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, YOU WERE LOOKING FOR RED STAINS, YOU WERE LOOKING FOR FIBERS, YOU WERE LOOKING FOR CLUES ALONG THE SOUTH WALKWAY LEADING UP TO THE GLOVE? A: YES. Q: AND WHEN YOU WENT TO DO THIS INVESTIGATION, WHO ACCOMPANIED YOU? A: DIFFERENT PEOPLE ACCOMPANIED ME AT DIFFERENT TIMES. Q: ALL RIGHT. HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU GO THERE? A: APPROXIMATELY FOUR, FOUR THAT I CAN REMEMBER. Q: WHO WAS THERE THE FIRST TIME YOU WENT? A: THE FIRST TIME WAS WITH MY -- WAS WITH THE WALK-THROUGH AND I DON'T RECALL WHETHER IT WAS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN AND DETECTIVE VANNATTER WHO WERE BOTH AT THAT WALK-THROUGH AT THAT TIME OR JUST DETECTIVE VANNATTER OR JUST DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, BUT ONE OF THE DETECTIVES DID ESCORT ME BACK THERE ON MY WALK-THROUGH. Q: THIS WAS ABOUT HOW LONG AFTER YOU GOT TO THE SCENE? A: MAYBE FIVE MINUTES INTO THE SCENE. Q: AND WAS MISS MAZZOLA WITH YOU? A: I DON'T RECALL IF SHE WAS WITH ME OR NOT. Q: ALL RIGHT. HOW LONG AFTER THAT DID YOU THEN GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT AREA AGAIN, WALKING TOWARD THE GLOVE? A: UNTIL THE NEXT TIME I WENT TO THAT AREA? Q: YEAH. A: I DON'T HAVE A -- Q: ABOUT HOW MANY MINUTES? A: I COULDN'T GIVE YOU A GOOD ESTIMATION. Q: WHO WENT WITH YOU? A: THE NEXT TIME WAS WITH MISS MAZZOLA. Q: JUST THE TWO OF YOU? A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION. Q: AND YOU WERE CAREFULLY WALKING DOWN THAT PATH LOOKING FOR EVIDENCE? A: YES. Q: AND AT THAT TIME WERE YOU TAKING MEASUREMENTS? A: YES. Q: AND YOU HAD NOT -- HOW CLOSE DID YOU GET TO THE GLOVE? A: WITHIN FEET -- FEET OF IT. Q: HOW MANY? A: ONE OR TWO OR THREE. Q: AND HAD YOU NOTICED THE BLUE OBJECT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE THAT YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED AS ITEM NO. 10? A: I MAY HAVE SEEN IT, BUT I DIDN'T IDENTIFY IT AS BEING RELEVANT EVIDENCE. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND TELL US ABOUT THE THIRD TIME YOU WENT. A: THE THIRD TIME I WENT WAS WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER. Q: AND WHO WAS THAT? MR. ROKAHR? A: I BELIEVE SO. Q: AND WHEN HE WAS WALKING DOWN THAT PATH, DID HE BANG INTO THE AIR CONDITIONER? A: NO. Q: YOU DON'T RECALL THAT? A: NO, I DON'T. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THAT WAS MR. ROKAHR WENT WITH YOU AND YOU DIRECTED HIM TO TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH? A: I BELIEVE SO. Q: AND THAT IS PART OF YOUR JOB? YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DIRECT THE FORENSIC PHOTOGRAPHY? A: YES. Q: AND THEN THE FOURTH TIME YOU WENT THERE, YOU WENT WITH WHOM? A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION IT WAS MYSELF. I WENT BY MYSELF AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WENT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE. Q: SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU WERE WALKING DOWN THE SOUTH WALKWAY AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS WALKING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE? A: THAT'S HOW I REMEMBER IT. Q: THE TWO OF YOU WERE WALKING PARALLEL? A: WELL, WE ENDED UP AT THE OPPOSITE ENDS OF THE FENCE, YES. Q: AND THEN IT WAS DETECTIVE FUHRMAN THAT POINTED OUT THIS BLUE OBJECT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE? A: I THINK HE HAD INDICATED TO ME THAT THERE WAS ONE BEFORE THAT POINT AND HE WENT OVER TO -- AT THAT POINT TO HELP ME COLLECT IT SO I WOULDN'T HAVE TO WALK ALL THE WAY AROUND. Q: WAIT A SECOND. YOU ARE THE CRIMINALIST, RIGHT? A: YES. Q: AND YOU ARE SAYING THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN VOLUNTEERED, HE RUSHED DOWN THAT SOUTH WALKWAY -- HE WALKED DOWN THAT SOUTH WALKWAY, RIGHT? A: I DON'T KNOW IF HE RUSHED OR WALKED. Q: ALL RIGHT. HE WAS THE FELLOW THAT WENT DOWN THERE AND HE PICKED UP THE EVIDENCE? A: AT MY REQUEST. Q: WHAT ABOUT MISS MAZZOLA? YOU COULDN'T USE HER? A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION MISS MAZZOLA WAS PICKING UP THE BLOOD EVIDENCE, 7 -- OR THE RED STAINS 7 AND 8 AT THAT TIME. Q: WELL, DID YOU PERFORM ANY MEASUREMENTS AT THAT POINT ON THE -- THAT BLUE ITEM, THAT BLUE PLASTIC ITEM? A: YES. Q: WELL, DID YOU MEASURE IT -- HOW DID YOU DO THAT? YOU DID IT WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN? A: THE PLASTIC THING -- CONTAINER WAS ALMOST PARALLEL TO THE GLOVE, SO I MADE AN ESTIMATE AS TO ITS LOCATION. Q: AND YOU DIDN'T GO AROUND THE FENCE TO TAKE A LOOK AT ANYTHING AROUND THAT PLASTIC CONTAINER? YOU LEFT THAT TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN? A: YES, I DID. Q: BUT IT IS YOUR JOB, I GUESS -- WELL, ISN'T IT YOUR JOB AS THE CRIMINALIST TO BE COLLECTING THE EVIDENCE? A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) Q: YOU ARE THE ONE IN CHARGE OF GATHERING THE EVIDENCE? A: I AM IN CHARGE OF GATHERING EVIDENCE. Q: AND DID DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WEAR ANY RUBBER GLOVES WHEN HE WAS PICKING UP THAT BLUE PLASTIC BAG? A: I BELIEVE HE USED THE SCOOP METHOD THAT I ALSO USE SOMETIMES. Q: WELL, YOU ARE SAYING HE DIDN'T HAVE GLOVES? A: I'M SAYING HE USED A SCOOP METHOD. Q: WELL, IN USING THE SCOOP METHOD, DO YOU KNOW IF HE HAD GLOVES? A: I DON'T KNOW IF HE HAD GLOVES. I DON'T THINK HE DID. Q: DO YOU KNOW ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? A: NO, I DON'T. I DON'T THINK HE DID, THOUGH. Q: WAIT A SECOND. YOU DON'T KNOW ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? A: I'M NOT SURE -- Q: YOU DON'T HAVE AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF WHETHER HE HAD GLOVES OR NOT; ISN'T THAT RIGHT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. I THINK THIS IS A GOOD TIME FOR A BREAK. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE MORNING SESSION. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, 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. SEE YOU BACK HERE AT 1:30. MR. FUNG, YOU MAY STEP DOWN. YOU ARE ORDERED TO BE HERE AT 1:30. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS, 1:30. (AT 12:02 P.M. THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.) LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 1995 1:40 P.M. DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.) (JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.) (CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL. BACK ON THE RECORD ON THE SIMPSON MATTER. ANYTHING WE NEED TO CHAT ABOUT BEFORE WE ASK THE JURORS TO REJOIN US? COUNSEL, TODAY WE'RE GOING TO GO TO 3:15 FOR OUR BREAK, CHANGE COURT REPORTERS, GO TO 4:00 AND THEN TAKE UP THE MOTION REGARDING THE CORONER'S REPORTS AT ABOUT 4:10. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:) THE COURT: THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED. LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE'VE NOW BEEN REJOINED BY ALL MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON. THE COURT: MR. FUNG, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. MR. DENNIS FUNG IS AGAIN ON THE WITNESS STAND UNDERGOING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK. DENNIS FUNG, THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE LUNCH RECESS, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS: THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, MR. FUNG. THE WITNESS: GOOD AFTERNOON. THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH, SIR. AND, MR. SCHECK, YOU MAY RESUME YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION. MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY. CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. SCHECK: Q: GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. FUNG. A: GOOD MORNING. Q: MR. FUNG, WHEN WE LEFT, YOU WERE TELLING US ABOUT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN COLLECTING ITEM NO. 10. I THINK YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY, DID YOU NOT, THAT HE TRANSFERRED, THAT HE HANDED THAT TO YOU OVER THE FENCE? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT YOUR RECOLLECTION NOW IS NOT VERY CLEAR ON EXACTLY WHETHER HE USED THE SCOOP METHOD OR GLOVES? MR. GOLDBERG: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU HAVE A CLEAR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD GLOVES? A: NO. Q: AND DO YOU HAVE A CLEAR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER HE USED THE SCOOP METHOD? A: NO. Q: AND IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT HE PICKED THIS ITEM UP AND HE HANDED IT TO YOU OVER THAT FENCE? IS THAT HOW IT HAPPENED OR DO YOU RECALL? A: IT WAS IN A COIN ENVELOPE AND HE HANDED IT TO ME OVER THE FENCE (INDICATING). Q: OKAY. SO IT WAS ONE OF THOSE LITTLE COIN ENVELOPES? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT'S A LITTLE COIN ENVELOPE, WOULD IT NOT BE DIFFICULT TO BE USING THE SCOOP METHOD WITH THE COIN ENVELOPE? MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR SPECULATION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ORDINARILY, WOULD YOU USE THE SCOOP METHOD WITH ONE OF THOSE SMALL COIN ENVELOPES? A: I'VE DONE IT BEFORE. Q: IT'S FAIRLY DIFFICULT, ISN'T IT, AS OPPOSED TO A LARGE PAPER BAG? A: NO. Q: NO? A: IT IS MORE DIFFICULT, BUT IT'S NOT A LOT MORE DIFFICULT. Q: OKAY. SO IT'S MORE DIFFICULT? A: A LITTLE BIT, YES. Q: OKAY. AND THIS -- MR. SCHECK: ASK THIS PHOTOGRAPH BE MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER. THE COURT: 1073. MR. SCHECK: 1073. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DEFENSE 1073. (DEFT'S 1073 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH) MR. SCHECK: MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: YOU MAY. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, IS THIS A PHOTOGRAPH OF ITEM NO. 10 AS YOU SAW IT ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH? A: YES. MR. SCHECK: MAY I PUT THIS ON THE ELMO, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: YOU MAY. MR. SCHECK: MR. HARRIS, CAN YOU PULL BACK FROM THAT A LITTLE BIT? Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, GIVEN THE LOCATION OF THAT ITEM NO. 10, ONE WOULD -- TO USE THE SCOOP METHOD THERE, YOU MIGHT GET SOME LEAVES OR DEBRIS INTO THE COIN ENVELOPE? A: PERHAPS. Q: PERHAPS? DON'T YOU THINK THAT'S LIKELY GIVEN ITS LOCATION? A: NOT NECESSARILY, NO. Q: NO? AND TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION, THERE ARE NO LEAVES IN THAT COIN ENVELOPE, ARE THERE? A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YEAH, THERE ARE NO LEAVES IN THERE, RIGHT. Q: SO IF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WERE TO HAVE USED GLOVES AND PICKED THAT UP AND PUT IT INTO THE COIN ENVELOPE, IT WOULD BE LESS LIKELY TO HAVE LEAVES IN IT; WOULDN'T YOU THINK? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT'S IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: CALLS FOR SPECULATION. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE. YOU ARRIVED THERE AT ABOUT WHAT TIME? A: I ARRIVED THERE AT 10:15 IN THE MORNING. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND BEFORE YOU GOT THERE, STILL -- DID IT COME TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT A STILL PHOTOGRAPHER HAD ALREADY BEEN ON THE SCENE AND HAD TAKEN PICTURES? A: YES. Q: AND THERE WAS NO VIDEO CAMERA AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE, WAS THERE? A: THERE WAS A LOT OF NEWS MEDIA WITH VIDEO CAMERAS. Q: I UNDERSTAND THAT. YOU'VE SEEN A NUMBER OF THESE TAPES; HAVE YOU NOT, SIR? A: YES. Q: YOU HAVE REVIEWED THEM VERY CAREFULLY BEFORE YOU CAME TO TESTIFY? A: I'VE REVIEWED THEM. Q: ABOUT HOW MANY TIMES? A: ONCE, TWICE. Q: ONCE, TWICE? WITH THE -- ANY MEMBERS OF THE PROSECUTION TEAM? A: YES. Q: AND WHO WAS THAT? A: THAT WAS MR. GOLDBERG. Q: ANYONE ELSE? A: HE'S THE ONLY ONE I RECALL BEING THERE. Q: AND HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU DO THAT? A: ONCE. Q: AND ABOUT HOW MANY HOURS DID IT TAKE YOU? A: TOOK AWHILE. I DON'T REMEMBER. MAYBE THREE HOURS. I DON'T RECALL. Q: AND YOU STUDIED THEM CAREFULLY; DID YOU NOT? A: WE LOOKED AT THEM. Q: AND INCIDENTALLY, BEFORE YOU CAME AND TESTIFIED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION, DID YOU UNDERGO A NUMBER OF PREPARATION SESSIONS? A: YES. I MET WITH MR. GOLDBERG A FEW TIMES. Q: ABOUT HOW MANY? A: MORE THAN 10. Q: MORE THAN 10? A: YES. Q: AND ABOUT HOW LONG DO YOU -- DID EACH OF THESE SESSIONS TAKE IF YOU RECALL? A: THEY VARIED ANYWHERE FROM FIVE MINUTES TO THREE OR FOUR OR FIVE HOURS. Q: AND DID YOU EVER HAVE A SESSION WHERE PEOPLE WERE BROUGHT IN THAT CROSS-EXAMINED YOU IN PREPARATION? A: NO. Q: NOW, THERE ARE VIDEO CAMERAS AVAILABLE AT THE SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION DIVISION; ARE THERE NOT? A: YES, THERE ARE. Q: AND ON OCCASION, THESE VIDEO CAMERAS ARE USED TO TAKE VIDEOTAPES OF CRIME SCENES? A: ON OCCASION, YES. Q: AND THAT IS DONE AT THE REQUEST OF THE CRIMINALIST? A: NO. USUALLY THAT'S DONE AT THE REQUEST OF A DETECTIVE. Q: DETECTIVE. SOMETIMES AT THE REQUEST OF THE CRIMINALIST? A: I HAVE NEVER HAD OCCASION TO REQUEST ONE. Q: BUT SOMETIMES DETECTIVES HAVE? A: YES. Q: AND IF ONE TAKES A VIDEO CAMERA TO A CRIME SCENE, THERE ARE SOME ADVANTAGES TO USING IT? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I'LL OBJECT, THAT IT'S IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: THERE MAY BE. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND THE ADVANTAGE -- ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES IS THAT YOU CAN PAN THE ENTIRE SCENE IN ONE CONTINUOUS SWEEPING SHOT TO SEE WHERE THE EVIDENCE LIES? A: THAT WOULD BE ONE ADVANTAGE, YES. Q: AND THAT'S -- IT CUTS DOWN ON THE SELECTIVITY THAT ONE GETS WHEN YOU TAKE STILL PHOTOGRAPHS? A: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY SELECTIVITY? Q: WELL, WHEN ONE CHOOSES TO TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH AT A CERTAIN ANGLE, A STILL PHOTOGRAPH, ONE IS MAKING A SELECTION ABOUT THE ANGLE AT WHICH THE PICTURE IS TAKEN? A: YES. Q: AND ORDINARILY WHEN YOU DIRECT THE FORENSIC PHOTOGRAPHERS AT A CRIME SCENE, YOU MAKE YOUR BEST JUDGMENT ABOUT WHAT ANGLES TO TAKE TO ILLUSTRATE THE EVIDENCE WELL? A: I WILL GIVE PHOTOGRAPHERS THE INSTRUCTIONS TO TAKE OVERALLS OF THE CRIME SCENE, AND THEN AFTER THAT IS DONE, THAT THERE ARE SPECIFIC SHOTS THAT I WILL DIRECT THEM TO TAKE. Q: BUT AN ADVANTAGE OF VIDEO IS THAT WHEN YOU TAKE AN OVERALL OF THE CRIME SCENE WITH A VIDEO, ONE GETS MORE THAN IF YOU TAKE AN OVER -- YOU TAKE A SERIES OF STILL SHOTS? A: THAT'S POSSIBLE. MAY NOT BE -- NOT IN ALL CASES THOUGH. Q: WELL, IF DONE WELL WITH A VIDEO, WOULDN'T THAT ORDINARILY BE TRUE IN YOUR JUDGMENT? A: IF DONE WELL WITH PHOTOGRAPHY, THAT'S JUST AS GOOD. Q: YOU THINK IT'S JUST AS GOOD TO DO A SERIES OF STILL PHOTOGRAPHS AS OPPOSED TO A VIDEO? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: IT'S ARGUMENTATIVE AS WELL. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU KNOW IF, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE AS A CRIMINALIST, WHETHER OTHER MAJOR METROPOLITAN AREAS ROUTINELY USE VIDEOTAPES FOR CRIME SCENES? A: I'VE HEARD IT MENTIONED THAT SOME PEOPLE OR SOME JURISDICTIONS DO USE THEM ON OCCASION. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY USE THEM ON A ROUTINE BASIS THOUGH. Q: WELL, THERE WAS A VIDEO USED IN THIS CASE, WASN'T THERE? A: YES, THERE WAS. Q: THAT THAT VIDEO WAS A VIDEOTAPE TAKEN AT ROCKINGHAM? A: YES. Q: THAT WAS A VIDEOTAPE OR AT LEAST ONE PURPOSE OF IT WAS TO TAKE SHOTS OF THE INTERIOR OF MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE? MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, THERE'S NO FOUNDATION, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU KNOW IF A VIDEO WAS TAKEN AT ROCKINGHAM ON THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 13 OF THE INTERIOR OF MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE? A: YES. Q: AND DO YOU KNOW IF ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THAT VIDEOTAPE WAS TO PROTECT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FROM CIVIL LIABILITY? A: I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THE VIDEO. Q: AND -- BUT THERE WAS NO VIDEO CAMERA TO RECORD THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE, WAS THERE? A: I DID NOT OBSERVE ONE. Q: NOW, WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT BUNDY, IT WAS WHAT TIME? 10:15? A: YES. Q: AND YOU TOLD US THAT YOU HAD HEARD OR YOU BELIEVED AT THAT TIME THAT THE VICTIMS WERE FIRST DISCOVERED SOMETIME IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS? A: YES. Q: SO BY THE -- EXCUSE ME. BY THE TIME YOU ARRIVED AT BUNDY, IT WAS SOMETHING ON THE ORDER OF 10 HOURS TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE FROM WHEN THE BODIES WERE FIRST FOUND? A: SOMETHING LIKE THAT. Q: AND ISN'T THAT, MR. FUNG, FAIRLY LATE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF HOMICIDE INVESTIGATIONS FOR CRIMINALISTS TO ARRIVE AT THE CRIME SCENE? A: I HAVE ARRIVED AT CRIME SCENES WHEN THE BODIES ARE MONTHS OLD. Q: WELL, THAT'S BECAUSE NOBODY FOUND THEM FOR MONTHS, RIGHT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: BUT WHEN YOU GET A HOMICIDE CALL, YOU TOLD US THAT YOU TRY TO GET TO THE SCENE WITHIN AN HOUR OF THE CALL? A: THAT'S OUR -- THAT'S OUR GOAL FOR OUR RESPONSE TIME, YES. Q: AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO GET THE CRIMINALISTS AT THE SCENE BEFORE THE CORONERS? THE COURT: I THINK WE'RE ASKED THIS QUESTION ABOUT THE FIFTH TIME. MR. SCHECK: I UNDERSTAND THAT. I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOUR HONOR. I'M JUST FOUNDATIONALLY LEADING TO SOMETHING ELSE. THE COURT: WELL, LET'S GET THERE. THE WITNESS: IT'S PREFERABLE. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, YOU HAVE OBSERVED PHOTOGRAPHS IN YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE THAT WERE TAKEN BEFORE YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE? A: COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? Q: HAVE YOU LOOKED AT PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE TAKEN OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE BEFORE YOU ARRIVED? A: YES. Q: AND YOU HAVE CONSIDERED THOSE IN YOUR ATTEMPTS TO DO CRIME SCENE RECONSTRUCTION IN THIS CASE? MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION. MISSTATES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU ATTEMPTED DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS MATTER TO RECONSTRUCT THE CRIME SCENE THAT YOU FOUND AT BUNDY? MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S VAGUE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHAT IS CRIME SCENE RECONSTRUCTION? I THINK YOU TALKED ABOUT THIS -- A: RECONSTRUCTION -- CRIME SCENE RECONSTRUCTION IS USING THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AT THE SCENE TO TRY TO COME UP WITH A SCENARIO AS TO WHAT HAS HAPPENED. Q: AND IN DOING THAT -- YOU DID THAT IN THIS CASE, TRIED TO DO THAT IN THIS CASE? A: ONLY IN A VERY LIMITED FASHION. Q: BUT YOU TRIED? A: IN A LIMITED FASHION. Q: AND YOU PARTICIPATED WITH THE DETECTIVES IN THEIR EFFORTS TO DO SO? MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S VAGUE, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: IN A VERY LIMITED FASHION. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND OTHER EXPERTS HAVE COME AND DISCUSSED THE CRIME SCENE AS YOU FOUND IT AT BUNDY WITH YOU IN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO DO RECONSTRUCTION IN THIS CASE? A: YES. MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR ONE MOMENT ABOUT THE PHOTOGRAPH? THE COURT: DO YOU NEED THE REPORTER? MR. SCHECK: YES, I THINK SO. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH WHICH I BELIEVE THE PEOPLE HAVE VARIOUS DIFFERENT FORMS OF IT THAT THE PEOPLE PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED. THE COURT: YEAH. THIS IS A PICTURE OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN. MR. SCHECK: POINTING AT THE GLOVE. THE COURT: POINTING AT THE GLOVE AND PERHAPS THE SKI CAP AND BODY OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AS PRESENT IN THE RIGHT -- LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER. MR. SCHECK: YES. FROM MY READING OF THE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, I THINK THAT MR. FUNG HAD ACTUALLY BEEN DISPLAYED THIS PICTURE, HAD BEEN SHOWN THIS PICTURE OR ONE OF THE VERSIONS OF IT. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS SHOW THIS PICTURE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MR. HARRIS TO FOCUS IN, USING THE COMPUTER SYSTEM, ON ONE PART OF IT THAT DOESN'T -- AND CROP OUT THE PICTURE OF HER BODY, AND THAT'S WHAT I PROPOSE TO DO RIGHT NOW. MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE NO IDEA FOR WHAT PURPOSE MR. SCHECK WANTS TO USE IT, BUT IF HE IS GOING TO BE ASKING THE WITNESS QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER HE RECOGNIZES IT, IT COULD BE VERY MISLEADING TO THE WITNESS IF HE DOESN'T SEE THE PICTURE, PHOTOGRAPH OF THE VICTIM. MR. SCHECK: LET ME DO THIS. LET ME SHOW THE WITNESS THE ENTIRE PHOTOGRAPH AND THEN CROP OFF THE VICTIM. MR. COCHRAN: JUDGE, YOU CAN CUT THE FEED. THERE'S PROBABLY SOME OTHER PICTURE WE COULD GET IF YOU WANT. MR. SCHECK: THIS IS THE ONE I HAVE TO USE FOR THIS FIRST SHOT, AND WE'VE WORKED IT OUT WITH MR. HARRIS. MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, JUST ONE MORE STATEMENT. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A LEGAL OBJECTION, BUT MISS CLARK TELLS ME THIS SCENE IS ALREADY IN EVIDENCE. SO I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE COURT WOULD PREFER THEM TO REFER TO THE EXHIBIT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN MARKED. I MEAN, THAT'S THE KIND OF THING THAT'S DISCRETIONARY WITH THE COURT. THE COURT: I THINK IT WOULD TAKE SOME TIME TO FISH IT OUT, FIND IT. SO LET'S USE THIS ONE. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) MR. SCHECK: NEW YORKERS, WE TALK FAST, WE MOVE FAST. THE COURT: NOT FAST ENOUGH. MR. SCHECK: NOT FAST ENOUGH, I KNOW. I'M TRYING, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PLEASE DISREGARD ANY BANTER. ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK. MR. SCHECK: I WOULD LIKE TO MARK THIS PHOTOGRAPH DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER AND SHOW IT TO THE WITNESS. MR. SCHECK: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: YOU MAY. COUNSEL, ANY COUNSEL WHO'S QUESTIONING THE WITNESS AND OPPOSING COUNSEL CAN APPROACH THE WITNESS WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE COURT. MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: HAVE YOU SEEN THIS PHOTOGRAPH BEFORE? A: NO, I HAVE NOT. Q: HAVE YOU SEEN ANY VERSION OF THIS PHOTOGRAPH BEFORE OR CLOSE-UP SHOT OF THAT PHOTOGRAPH? A: THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN THIS PHOTOGRAPH OR ANY VERSION OF IT. Q: MR. FUNG, HAVE YOU EVER OBSERVED A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE GLOVE AND ENVELOPE AT BUNDY WITH A PICTURE OF SOMEBODY POINTING AT IT? A: NOT TO MY RECOLLECTION. Q: MR. FUNG, YOU RECALL TESTIFYING AT THE GRAND JURY ON JUNE 22ND? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU RECALL BEING ASKED SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BROWN MEN'S LEATHER GLOVE THAT YOU OBSERVED AT THE BUNDY LOCATION? A: YES. Q: AND YOU WERE SHOWN SOME PICTURES OF THAT? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND I'M AT LINE 8, PAGE 337. "QUESTION: WAS ONE OF THOSE ITEMS A BROWN MEN'S --" MR. GOLDBERG: CAN I HAVE A MOMENT? MS. CLARK: CAN WE HAVE A MOMENT TO GET THAT? (BRIEF PAUSE.) MR. SCHECK: 377. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: "QUESTION:" MR. GOLDBERG: WAIT A MINUTE. MAY I HAVE A MOMENT? (BRIEF PAUSE.) MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE COURT HAS ACCESS TO A TRANSCRIPT, BUT I WOULD OBJECT TO THIS. THIS IS IMPROPER IMPEACHMENT. THE COURT: OVER AT SIDEBAR WITH THE REPORTER AND THE TRANSCRIPT. MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, BEFORE THIS, LET ME TRY ONE OTHER THING THAT MAYBE CAN AVOID THIS PROBLEM. THE COURT: OKAY. MR. SCHECK: I WOULD ASK THAT THIS PHOTOGRAPH BE MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER. THE COURT: 1074. (DEFT'S 1074 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THIS PHOTOGRAPH? A: I'VE SEEN PHOTOGRAPHS LIKE IT, BUT I DON'T RECALL IF I'VE SEEN THAT PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH. Q: HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A PHOTOGRAPH DEPICTING THE GLOVE AT BUNDY THAT INCLUDED A PERSON POINTING AT IT? A: I DON'T RECALL. Q: ALL RIGHT. MR. FUNG, WE'RE NOW BACK TO THE GRAND JURY PAGES. WERE YOU ASKED THESE QUESTIONS -- MR. GOLDBERG: NOW CAN WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WITH THE COURT REPORTER. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE'RE OVER AT THE SIDEBAR. MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, GRAND JURY TESTIMONY INDICATES HERE MR. FUNG WAS SHOWN AN EXHIBIT, ALL RIGHT, PICTURE OF THE GLOVE, PICTURE OF PHOTOGRAPH B, AND THE ANSWER SAYS YES. THE GLOVE I'M REFERRING TO SHOWN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH, A PERSON IS POINTING TO IT. THERE'S ALSO A GLOVE AT THE BOTTOM LEFT-HAND CORNER OF PHOTOGRAPH C. IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR TO ME THAT MR. FUNG WAS SHOWN EITHER WHAT IS PEOPLE'S 55 IN EVIDENCE, WHICH IS A PICTURE OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN POINTING TO A GLOVE, OR THE CLOSE-UP SHOT THAT I THINK HAS JUST BEEN MARKED. THE COURT: FOR THIS TO BE INCONSISTENT, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE EXHIBIT FROM THE GRAND JURY. MR. SCHECK: I DON'T HAVE THE EXHIBIT FROM THE GRAND JURY. MAYBE MISS CLARK WILL RECOLLECT -- I'M NOT SURE THIS OBJECTION IS REALLY IN GOOD FAITH UNLESS THEY HAVE THOSE PICTURES. IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THERE'S NO OTHER PICTURE IN THIS CASE OF DETECTIVE -- ANYONE POINTING AT THE GLOVE. THE COURT: THE PROBLEM IS, WHEN YOU READ THE TRANSCRIPT, IT'S GOING TO SAY "EXHIBIT B," WHICH IS NOT HERE. MR. SCHECK: WELL, THE TRANSCRIPT REFERS TO A PERSON POINTING TO A GLOVE. THAT'S WHAT I ASKED HIM ABOUT; HAS HE EVER SEEN A PICTURE OF A PERSON POINTING OUT A GLOVE, IF THE PROSECUTION IN THIS CASE, IF THEY SHOWED HIM THE PICTURE, IF THERE IS ANY OTHER PICTURE. THE COURT: COUNSEL, WE HAVE A PRETTY STRICT RULE HERE. IF YOU'RE GOING TO USE A TRANSCRIPT TO IMPEACH THAT REFERS TO AN EXHIBIT, THAT EXHIBIT HAS TO BE HERE. THAT'S JUST COMMON SENSE. NOW, YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE GRAND JURY EXHIBITS HERE. ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS ASK THE CLERK. MR. SCHECK: ARE THEY HERE? THE COURT: I DON'T THINK THEY ARE HERE. WE HAVE TO GET THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE GRAND JURY EXHIBITS. MR. COCHRAN: ARE THEY HERE? THE COURT: WE'LL ASK MRS. ROBERTSON. MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I'LL DO IT WITH THE PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT. MR. COCHRAN: MAYBE WE CAN STIPULATE, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: CAN WE STIPULATE. MR. GOLDBERG: PERHAPS, YOUR HONOR, THAT DIDN'T REALLY GO TO THE GRAVAMEN OF MY OBJECTION. THE REASON -- THE BASIC REASON WHY I WAS OBJECTING WAS THAT WHAT THE WITNESS SAID WAS -- HE WAS ASKED TWO QUESTIONS -- WAS, HE MAY HAVE SEEN SOME VERSION OF THIS PHOTOGRAPH AND HE DOESN'T RECALL WHETHER IT WAS THAT ONE. THE COURT: THAT'S WHAT HE SAID. MR. GOLDBERG: SO I JUST DON'T SEE IT AS BEING INCONSISTENT. THE COURT: BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHICH PHOTOGRAPH HE WAS SHOWN. MR. SCHECK: MAY I PROCEED IN THIS FASHION BECAUSE I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO GET ON WITH IT. THE COURT: PLEASE. MR. SCHECK: THE FOCUS OF MY EXAMINATION IS GOING TO BE ITEMS THAT ARE HERE, INCLUDING THIS PIECE OF PAPER. I WILL USE THE PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT AND CUT OFF THE BODY. THE COURT: YOU DON'T NEED TO CUT OFF THE BODY BECAUSE I'M NOT LETTING IT OUT. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SHOW IT TO THE JURY. MR. SCHECK: WHAT I'M REALLY ASKING FOR IS PERMISSION TO SHOW THIS PHOTOGRAPH FOCUSING ON THE AREA ON THE ELMO. THE COURT: HERE'S THE PROBLEM THOUGH. IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THIS IS, I THINK THEY NEED TO SEE THE FULL PHOTOGRAPH IS MY POINT. I WOULD SUGGEST YOU USE THE WHOLE PHOTOGRAPH. MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, I WOULD PREFER -- THE COURT: YOU DO IT HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DO IT, BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT -- MR. SCHECK: NO, YOUR HONOR. WE'RE UP AT THE BENCH HERE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO MISLEAD ANYBODY. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE AN UNFAIR PRESENTATION ON THE OTHER HAND, A 352 PROBLEM. THE COURT: COUNSEL, IF ALL YOU'RE DOING IS GOING AFTER, WHAT IS THIS, WHY WAS IT COLLECTED, BE MY GUEST. MR. SCHECK: THAT'S WHAT I'M DOING. I WANT TO EXHIBIT THAT WITHOUT SHOWING HER BODY. THE COURT: SHOW THE ORIGINAL TO HIM FIRST, AND THEN ON THE ELMO, CUT IT OFF. MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU. MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, DID THE COURT RULE ON MY -- THE COURT: YEAH. RIGHT NOW, I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S INCONSISTENT. MR. SCHECK: MAY I MAKE A REQUEST TO HAVE THE GRAND JURY EXHIBITS? THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE PROBLEM IS, I HAVE TO SIGN AN ORDER. SEE, THE GRAND JURY IS AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY. WE CAN DO THAT LATER. I AM TELLING YOU, WE NEED A HALF DAY'S NOTICE BEFORE GETTING THEIR EXHIBITS AND WE HAVE TO INDIVIDUALLY ORDER EACH ONE. MR. SCHECK: I ONLY WANT THE ONES INDICATED HERE. THIS IS MY NOTICE. THE COURT: WELL, MR. SCHECK, YOU NEED TO LET THE CLERK KNOW. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, WHY DON'T WE TRY THIS WITH PEOPLE'S 55. HAVE YOU SEEN THIS PHOTOGRAPH BEFORE? A: BEFORE TODAY? Q: YES. A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING THAT PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH. I DO RECOGNIZE THE LOCATION THOUGH. Q: RECOGNIZE THE LOCATION AS BEING THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE? A: YES. Q: AND BASED ON OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU SAY YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH, WOULD IT BE YOUR VIEW THAT THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN POINTING AT THE BUNDY GLOVE? MR. GOLDBERG: THAT WOULD CALL FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR. MR. SCHECK: BASED ON THE OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS HE SAYS HE IS AWARE OF. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I CAN'T MAKE OUT IF THAT'S DETECTIVE FUHRMAN THERE OR NOT. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: BUT YOU SEE IT AS SOME -- INDIVIDUAL POINTING AT THAT GLOVE, RIGHT? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND I TAKE IT JUST LOOKING AT THE -- AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE AS IT'S DEPICTED IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, THIS IS NOT IN EXACTLY THE SAME FORM, THIS CRIME SCENE IS NOT IN EXACTLY THE SAME CONDITION AS WHEN YOU FIRST SAW IT ON JUNE 13TH? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: OKAY. MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I ASK PERMISSION FOR MR. HARRIS TO PUT THIS ON THE ELMO AND -- THE COURT: OKAY. HOLD ON JUST A SECOND. WE NEED TO -- MR. SCHECK: -- CUT THE FEED. THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG, DO YOU WANT TO WARN ANY FAMILY MEMBERS? MR. SCHECK: WELL, WE'RE GOING TO -- WE'RE TRYING TO-- HE'S GOING TO FOCUS IN ON A SEGMENT OF THIS PHOTOGRAPH. THE COURT: MUCH AS I TRUST MR. HARRIS, JUST AS A FOREWARNING. MR. SCHECK: I KNOW HE'LL DO THIS RIGHT. (BRIEF PAUSE.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: OKAY. MR. FUNG, YOU CAN -- SEE THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT'S PEOPLE'S 55 IN EVIDENCE? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DO YOU SEE A PIECE OF PAPER IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH THAT YOU DID NOT SEE WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE ON JUNE 13TH? A: I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. Q: YOU DON'T? A: I MEAN, IS THERE SOMETHING IN PARTICULAR YOU WANT ME TO -- Q: YES. MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO ATTEMPT TO USE THE TELESTRATOR. ACTUALLY I THINK I'M BETTER OFF HAVING MR. HARRIS USE IT. THE COURT: HAVE HIM PUT THE ARROW AT THE ITEM YOU'RE DIRECTING MR. FUNG TO. MR. SCHECK: YES. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU SEE WHERE THE ARROW IS POINTING TO, MR. FUNG? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. DOES THAT APPEAR TO YOU TO BE A PIECE OF PAPER? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU DIDN'T SEE THAT PIECE OF PAPER WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE, DID YOU? A: I DON'T RECALL IF I SAW IT OR NOT. Q: DID YOU RECOVER THAT PIECE OF PAPER? A: NO. Q: GIVEN THE LOCATION OF THAT PIECE OF PAPER IN RELATION TO THE CRIME SCENE, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IT MIGHT HAVE SOME RELEVANCE? MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION, CALLS FOR -- THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IN YOUR VIEW AS A CRIMINALIST, IF YOU HAD SEEN THAT PIECE OF PAPER AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE, WOULD YOU HAVE COLLECTED IT AS RELEVANT EVIDENCE? A: I MIGHT HAVE. Q: MIGHT HAVE? A: YES. Q: WELL, THAT PIECE OF PAPER IS CLOSE TO THE ENVELOPE? A: YES. Q: IT IS CLOSE TO THE BODY OF MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON? A: YES. Q: THAT IS THE -- WHAT IS BEING OBLITERATED BY THE POST-IT ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE PICTURE, CORRECT? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU WOULD HAVE COLLECTED IT, WOULD YOU NOT, BECAUSE IT COULD HAVE THE SHOE IMPRESSION ON IT OF ONE OF THE ASSAILANTS? A: IF I HAD SEEN -- IF -- ASSUMING THAT I HAD SEEN THE PAPER, I WOULD HAVE MADE A DETERMINATION WHETHER IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A GOOD PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT WOULD LIKELY TO HAVE HAD SOME TYPE OF SIGNIFICANCE TO IT. Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU -- IF YOU HAD BEEN AT THE SCENE -- IF YOU HAD SEEN THAT PIECE OF PAPER, YOU WOULD HAVE EXAMINED IT TO SEE IF IT HAD SHOE IMPRESSIONS? A: POSSIBLY, YES. Q: POSSIBLY? A: FOR POSSIBLE SHOE IMPRESSIONS. Q: YOU WOULD HAVE LOOKED AT IT, RIGHT? A: YES. Q: FOR THAT PURPOSE. THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE PURPOSES? A: THAT IS ONE OF THE PURPOSES, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU WOULD ALSO WANT TO SEE, IF YOU HAD BEEN ABLE TO, WHETHER OR NOT THAT PIECE OF PAPER HAD ANY WRITING ON IT? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. THIS IS IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: YES. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IN TERMS OF BASIC CRIME SCENE RECONSTRUCTION, WOULD YOU HAVE CONSIDERED THE POSSIBILITY THAT THAT PIECE OF PAPER COULD HAVE BEEN RIPPED OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE KILLER? A: POSSIBLY. Q: IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO EXAMINE IN YOUR JUDGMENT THAT PIECE OF PAPER FOR FINGERPRINTS? A: YES. IN THE STATE THAT IT APPEARS IN THE PICTURE, YES. Q: AND FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A CRIMINALIST, SIR, IT WAS A MISTAKE NOT TO COLLECT THAT PIECE OF PAPER? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I'LL OBJECT BECAUSE THERE'S NO FOUNDATION THAT HE SAW IT. MR. SCHECK: HE'S SEEING IT NOW. THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE WITNESS: POSSIBLY, YES. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: SERIOUS MISTAKE? A: COULD HAVE BEEN A MISTAKE. MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION. THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE. MOTION TO STRIKE. THE COURT: NO. HE'S ANSWERED THE QUESTION. PROCEED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU'VE ADMITTED YES, IT'S A MISTAKE? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS THERE ANY QUESTION IN YOUR MIND, MR. FUNG, THAT IF YOU HAD BEEN AT THIS CRIME SCENE AND SEEN THAT PIECE OF PAPER WHERE IT WAS LOCATED, THAT YOU WOULD HAVE ATTEMPTED TO COLLECT IT WITH GREAT CARE? ANY QUESTION? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, PERHAPS THE WITNESS NEEDS TO LOOK AT A PHOTOGRAPH WITH BETTER RESOLUTION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. MR. SCHECK: WELL, I HAD ONE. THE WITNESS: CAN I ANSWER? THE COURT: ANSWER. THE WITNESS: LOOKING AT THE PICTURE AND THE CONDITION OF THE PAPER, I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE COLLECTED IT. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU'RE SAYING PROBABLY. MY QUESTION TO YOU, IS THERE ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER IN YOUR MIND THAT YOU WOULD HAVE PICKED UP THAT PIECE OF PAPER IF YOU HAD BEEN THERE TO SEE IT? MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU DON'T KNOW? THE COURT: THAT'S ARGUMENTATIVE. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHEN YOU EXAMINED THE CRIME SCENE LATER, MR. FUNG, YOU OBSERVED A BONITA ECUADOR LABEL; DID YOU NOT? A: YES, I DID. Q: AND CAN YOU POINT OUT WHERE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT BONITA ECUADOR LABEL WAS? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR HIM TO SEE THE REST OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. MS. CLARK: MATTER OF FACT, THIS PHOTOGRAPH DOESN'T SHOW THAT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. CAN YOU TELL FROM THIS PHOTOGRAPH WHERE THAT LABEL WAS? THE WITNESS: IN A GENERAL SENSE, YES. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: CAN YOU GIVE US A GENERAL SENSE OF WHERE IT WAS LOCATED? A: IT WAS LOCATED SOMEPLACE NEAR THE CENTER OF THE WALKWAY. Q: MR. HARRIS HAS A ROVING ARROW, AND PERHAPS YOU COULD DIRECT IT. A: LOWER, OVER MORE TO THE RIGHT. IN THAT AREA SOMEPLACE (INDICATING). MR. SCHECK: OKAY. CAN WE MAKE A MARK? Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. NOW, THAT IS THE LOCATION WHERE YOU FOUND THE BONITA ECUADOR LABEL? A: AROUND THERE, YES. Q: AND YOU COLLECTED THAT? A: YES. Q: YOU THOUGHT THAT WAS RELEVANT EVIDENCE? A: I COLLECTED THAT AT THE REQUEST OF DETECTIVE LANGE. Q: SO DETECTIVE LANGE THOUGHT THAT WAS RELEVANT EVIDENCE? A: YES. Q: DID YOU AGREE WITH HIS JUDGMENT? A: I DIDN'T QUESTION IT. Q: YOU DIDN'T QUESTION IT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND GENERALLY SPEAKING, MR. FUNG, YOU DON'T QUESTION THE JUDGMENT OF THE HOMICIDE DETECTIVES, DO YOU? MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S A LITTLE OVERBROAD. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: SO YOU PICKED UP THE BONITA ECUADOR LABEL, BUT YOU'RE TELLING US YOU'RE NOT SURE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD HAVE PICKED UP THE PIECE OF PAPER IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH? MR. GOLDBERG: THAT'S ARGUMENTATIVE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. MR. SCHECK: OKAY. I GUESS WE'LL PRINT THAT OUT AND MARK THIS -- MAYBE -- SHOULD WE PUT A "BE" OVER THAT LITTLE SPOT AS BONITA ECUADOR? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I DON'T KNOW IF THE TELESTRATOR DOES THIS, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE RECORD TO INDICATE WHAT SECTION OF THE PHOTOGRAPH IS BLOCKED OFF. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S DONE ONCE THEY PRINT IT OUT. MR. SCHECK: IT WILL BE ON THE PRINT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PROCEED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, MR. FUNG, WHAT IS TRACE EVIDENCE? THE COURT: I AM SORRY. EXCUSE ME. WE NEED TO MARK THIS. WHY DON'T WE -- SINCE IT IS A COPY OF THE PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT, LET'S MAKE THIS 55-A. 55-B? ALL RIGHT. 55-B. THE CLERK: A AND B. THE COURT: A AND B? GREAT. ALL RIGHT. (PEO'S 55-A AND 55-B FOR ID = PRINT OF PHOTO) THE COURT: MR. SCHECK. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHAT IN YOUR JUDGMENT IS TRACE EVIDENCE? HOW DO YOU DEFINE THAT TERM? A: TRACE EVIDENCE -- EXAMPLES OF TRACE EVIDENCE ARE HAIR, FIBER, PAINT, CHIPS OF GLASS, MINERAL SOIL, THAT TYPE OF THING. Q: WELL, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT TRACE EVIDENCE CAN BE THOUGHT OF AS EVIDENCE OCCURRING IN SIZES SO SMALL THAT IT CAN BE TRANSFERRED BETWEEN TWO SURFACES WITHOUT BEING NOTICED? A: SOME FORMS OF TRACE EVIDENCE, YES? Q: MANY FORMS? A: YES. Q: HAIRS? A: YES. Q: FIBERS? A: YES. Q: AND HOW DO YOU DEFINE "TRANSFER EVIDENCE"? A: I'VE HEARD THE TERM, BUT I CAN'T GIVE YOU THE EXACT DEFINITION. I'D HAVE TO LOOK IT UP. Q: WOULD YOU AGREE THAT TRANSFER EVIDENCE STRICTLY SPEAKING IS EVIDENCE WHICH IS EXCHANGED AS A RESULT OF CONTACT BETWEEN TWO OBJECTS? A: THAT CAN BE ONE DEFINITION, YES. Q: UH-HUH. AND TRACE EVIDENCE, SMALL HAIRS AND FIBERS, CAN OFTEN BE TRANSFER EVIDENCE AS WELL. IN OTHER WORDS -- A: YES. Q: YES. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU AS A CRIMINALIST IS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT, TRACE EVIDENCE? MR. GOLDBERG: OVERBROAD. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I AM CONCERNED WITH TRACE EVIDENCE, YES. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHEN YOU APPROACH A CRIME SCENE, YOU ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT TRACE EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT IS FRAGILE? A: YES. Q: AND BECAUSE IT CAN BE EASILY TRANSFERRED FROM ONE OBJECT TO THE OTHER IF THE CRIMINALIST OR OTHERS ON THE SCENE ARE NOT CAREFUL? A: YES. Q: AND THERE IS SOMETHING KNOWN AS SECONDARY TRANSFER; IS THERE NOT? A: I HAVE HEARD THAT TERM ALSO. Q: AND WOULD SECONDARY TRANSFER REFER TO A SITUATION WHERE TRACE EVIDENCE COULD GET ON A PERSON'S CLOTHING OR LET'S SAY A TOWEL, FOR EXAMPLE, AND THEN BE TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER LOCATION AND FALL OFF ON ANOTHER OBJECT OF EVIDENCE? THAT WOULD BE A SECONDARY TRANSFER? A: YES. Q: AND AS A CRIMINALIST, YOU ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT NOT CONTAMINATING A CRIME SCENE WITH TRACE EVIDENCE BY WAY OF A SECONDARY TRANSFER? A: IF IT IS A CRIME SCENE WHERE TRACE EVIDENCE IS OF SIGNIFICANCE, YES. Q: THIS WAS A CRIME SCENE WHERE TRACE EVIDENCE WAS SIGNIFICANT? A: CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE CRIME SCENE WERE IMPORTANT FOR TRACE EVIDENCE, YES. Q: THE SMALL AREA AT BUNDY WHERE THE TWO VICTIMS WERE FOUND, THAT AREA WAS ONE OF CONCERN WITH RESPECT TO TRACE EVIDENCE? A: AREAS OF THAT -- AREAS WITHIN WHAT YOU DESCRIBED WERE VERY IMPORTANT FOR TRACE EVIDENCE, YES. Q: VERY IMPORTANT? A: VERY. Q: VERY IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF THE CLOTHES OF THE VICTIMS? A: YES. Q: VERY IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF THAT GLOVE THAT WAS FOUND AT BUNDY? A: YES. Q: VERY IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF THAT KNIT HAT? A: YES. Q: VERY IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF ALL THE PHYSICAL OBJECTS THAT SURROUNDED THE VICTIMS IN THAT VERY SMALL ENCLOSED CRIME SCENE? MR. GOLDBERG: THAT'S OVERBROAD. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: SOME ITEMS OF EVIDENCE TEND TO BE MORE USEFUL FOR TRACE EVIDENCE THAN OTHERS. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, THESE WERE ITEMS THAT YOU ANTICIPATED AS SOON AS YOU GOT THERE WOULD BE IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF TRACE EVIDENCE? MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION. VAGUE AS TO -- THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: THE GLOVE, THE HAT, THE CLOTHING OF THE VICTIMS, THE OBJECTS SURROUNDING THE VICTIMS, AS SOON AS YOU ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE AND SAW ALL OF THAT, YOU KNEW THESE OBJECTS WOULD BE IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF COLLECTING THEM FOR TRACE EVIDENCE? MR. GOLDBERG: STILL VAGUE AND OVERBROAD AS TO THE OBJECTS. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. WHEN YOU SAY "OBJECTS ALL AROUND," I MEAN THAT'S WAY TOO BIG. JUST STICK WITH THE SPECIFICS. MR. SCHECK: WE'LL STICK WITH THE SPECIFICS. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: THE GLOVE, THE HAT, THE CLOTHING OF THE VICTIMS, ALL THOSE WERE IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF TRACE EVIDENCE? A: YES. Q: NOW, WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE, YOU SAW THAT THERE WAS A BLANKET OVER THE BODY OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON? A: I DON'T KNOW -- I DON'T RECALL BEING THERE THAT SOON. WHEN I GOT THERE, THE BODY OF MISS SIMPSON WAS BEING PROCESSED. Q: WHERE -- WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU SAW THE BLANKET? A: I SAW THE BLANKET WHEN IT WAS ON THE GROUND. Q: IT WAS ON THE GROUND IN THE AREA WHERE MISS SIMPSON'S BODY WAS? A: YES. Q: AND YOU CAME TO LEARN IN YOUR INVESTIGATION THAT DAY THAT THE BLANKET HAD BEEN USED TO COVER THE BODY? A: YES. Q: AND YOU CAME TO LEARN THAT THAT BLANKET HAD COME FROM THE HOME OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON? A: I DID NOT KNOW THAT. Q: HAVE YOU FOUND THAT OUT? A: SINCE THEN, YES. Q: AND DID YOU MAKE ANY INQUIRY ON THAT DAY ABOUT WHERE THAT BLANKET HAD COME FROM? A: NO, I DIDN'T. Q: AND WOULD YOU AGREE, SIR, THAT A BLANKET OF THAT KIND IS A SOURCE OF -- A POSSIBLE SOURCE OF SECONDARY TRANSFER? A: POSSIBLY. Q: AND THAT IF MR. SIMPSON HAD BEEN IN THAT HOME AND BEEN SITTING, LYING ON THAT BLANKET, HIS HAIRS COULD BE IN THAT BLANKET? MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, WITHIN YOUR EXPERTISE, IS THAT THE KIND OF BLANKET THAT IF SOMEBODY WERE SITTING ON IT, LYING ON IT, ONE WOULD EXPECT TO FIND HAIRS THAT THEY HAD SHED ON THE BLANKET? MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, IN YOUR EXPERTISE AS A CRIMINALIST, DO YOU HAVE TO MAKE JUDGMENTS ABOUT DIFFERENT KINDS OF ITEMS THAT CAN BE SOURCES OF POSSIBLE SECONDARY TRANSFER? A: YES. Q: YOU HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT SUCH OBJECTS BEING BROUGHT INTO CRIME SCENES? A: YES. Q: YOU HAVE TO BE WORRIED ABOUT SUCH OBJECTS BEING BROUGHT INTO CRIME SCENES BECAUSE THEY CAN BE A SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION? A: YES. Q: AND IF THIS BLANKET HAD HAIRS FROM MR. SIMPSON, THAT COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO THE CRIME SCENE BY WAY OF PUTTING THE BLANKET THERE? MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. MR. SCHECK: EXCUSE ME ONE MOMENT. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: LET ME ASK YOU A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION. ASSUMING THAT MR. SIMPSON HAD BEEN IN THE HOME AT BUNDY AND ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS HAD SAT OR LAY ON THAT BLANKET AND SHED HAIRS ON THAT BLANKET AND THEN THAT BLANKET WAS TAKEN AND PUT RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS CRIME SCENE, IN YOUR EXPERT OPINION, COULD THAT BE A SOURCE OF CROSS CONTAMINATION OF MR. SIMPSON'S HAIRS TO THIS CRIME SCENE? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I MAKE THE SAME OBJECTION. CAN WE APPROACH? THE COURT: YES. WITH THE COURT REPORTER. (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:) THE COURT: WE'VE OVER AT SIDEBAR. MR. GOLDBERG, WHAT'S YOUR OBJECTION? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, MY OBJECTION IS THE SAME, THAT IT CALLS FOR SPECULATION, IMPROPER OPINION. THERE IS NO FOUNDATION FOR THE HYPOTHETICAL. BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE MANNER OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION IS SUCH THAT COUNSEL APPEARS TO BE TURNING TO THE JURY AND IS NOT REALLY PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT ELICITING INFORMATION FROM THE WITNESS, BUT GETTING HIS POINT ACROSS TO THE JURY IN A MANNER THAT I JUST DON'T FEEL IS PROPER. MR. COCHRAN: WELL -- MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S MORE OF A CLOSING ARGUMENT THAN A CROSS. MR. COCHRAN: YOU WANT TO RESPOND? (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I THINK THIS IS A PROPER HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION GIVEN THIS WITNESS' EXPERTISE AS A CRIMINALIST. I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR. THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG, ANY RESPONSE? MR. GOLDBERG: NO. MY OBJECTION IS THE SAME, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE THERE'S NO FOUNDATION FOR THE OPINION AND IT'S NOT AN EXPERT OPINION. IT'S JUST GETTING A POINT ACROSS TO THE JURY. COULD THIS CONCEIVABLY HAVE HAPPENED, YEAH, A LOT OF THINGS COULD HAVE HAPPENED. MR. SCHECK: THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT OF ASKING EXPERTS HYPOTHETICALS. I THINK I'VE LAID A PROPER FOUNDATION IN TERMS OF HIS KNOWLEDGE OF TRACE EVIDENCE AND SECONDARY TRANSFER. THE COURT: THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED. AND AS FAR AS MR. SCHECK, WHEN HE MAKES -- WHEN HE ASKS THE QUESTION AND LOOKS AT THE JURY. THAT'S A MATTER OF TRIAL TECHNIQUE, WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THE JURORS AND SEE WHAT THEY'RE DOING WHEN YOU ASK QUESTIONS, MAKING EYE CONTACT WITH THE JURORS. IT'S A TECHNIQUE OF TRIAL PRACTICE THAT I'VE USED MYSELF. AND I'VE MADE IT A POINT TO ALWAYS WATCH WHAT THE JURY IS REACTING TO WHEN I ASKED A QUESTION IF IT WAS IMPORTANT. SO -- MR. GOLDBERG: IF THAT'S WHAT THE COURT VIEWS WHAT HAPPENS. THE COURT: I THINK IT'S A LITTLE FLAMBOYANT, MORE SO THAN I WOULD DO, BUT THEN IT'S DEPENDENT ON WHAT'S INVOLVED WITH HERE, AND YOU'VE GOT TO GO WITH WHAT MAKES YOU COMFORTABLE. MR. COCHRAN: OFF THE RECORD. (A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED. AND I THINK I'VE ALREADY INSTRUCTED THE JURY AS TO HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS. MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, AGAIN, ASSUMING THAT MR. SIMPSON HAD BEEN IN THE BUNDY RESIDENCE AND SAT OR LAID ON THAT BLANKET, SHED HAIRS ON THAT BLANKET AND THAT BLANKET IS TAKEN AND PUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS CRIME SCENE, COULD THAT IN YOUR EXPERT OPINION BE A SOURCE OF SECONDARY TRANSFER OF HIS HAIRS TO THE CRIME SCENE? A: IT'S POSSIBLE. Q: POSSIBLE? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THAT WOULD BE WHAT IS KNOWN AS CONTAMINATION OF THE CRIME SCENE? A: YES. Q: AND IF MR. SIMPSON OR HIS -- ANY OF HIS CHILDREN OR MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON HAD BEEN IN MR. SIMPSON'S FORD BRONCO, PICKED UP FIBERS FROM THAT BRONCO AND AT SOME POINT IN TIME SAT OR LAY ON THAT BLANKET, THERE COULD BE FIBERS FROM THE BRONCO ON THAT BLANKET? MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: COULD THERE BE IN YOUR EXPERT OPINION ASSUMING -- WITHDRAWN. ASSUMING THAT MR. SIMPSON OR HIS CHILDREN OR MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON HAD BEEN IN MR. SIMPSON'S FORD BRONCO AND GOTTEN FIBERS FROM THAT BRONCO ON THEIR CLOTHING AT SOME POINT IN TIME AND THEN AT SOME OTHER POINT IN TIME SAT OR LAY ON THAT BLANKET, FIBERS COULD BE SHED FROM THE BRONCO TO THE BLANKET? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THERE'S NO FOUNDATION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THIS IS ANOTHER HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION. MR. SCHECK: PREMISE OF A HYPOTHETICAL. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ARE YOU WITH ME SO FAR? A: IT'S KIND OF HARD TO FOLLOW, BUT YES. Q: AND IF A DOG -- HAVE YOU SEEN THIS DOG KATO? A: THE CANINE? NO. Q: KATO. KATO. KATO THE DOG. A: NO, I HAVEN'T. Q: IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THIS CASE, YOU'VE NEVER SEEN A DOG NAMED KATO? A: NO, I HAVEN'T. Q: NOT AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION AT SOME POINT WHEN YOU DID SUBSEQUENT SEARCHES, DID YOU SEE THIS DOG KATO? A: I DON'T KNOW THE DOG BY NAME. Q: WELL, WERE YOU TOLD THAT THERE WAS A DOG THAT WAS OWNED BY MR. SIMPSON THAT WAS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IN SOME CONNECTION? MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION. CALLS FOR HEARSAY AND IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A DOG INVOLVED IN THE CASE SOMEHOW, BUT I COULDN'T IDENTIFY THAT DOG FOR YOU. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND AGAIN, AS A BASIS FOR THIS HYPOTHETICAL, CAN YOU ASSUME THAT IF A DOG WERE LYING ON THIS BLANKET IN QUESTION OR MOVING ON THIS BLANKET IN QUESTION, THAT DOG HAIRS CAN BE TRANSFERRED TO THE BLANKET? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT'S IRRELEVANT. CALLS FOR SPECULATION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: YES. THE COURT: YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. AND THE DOG ITSELF MAY HAVE HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM OTHER PEOPLE WITH WHOM IT HAS BEEN IN CONTACT? A: YES. Q: THAT HAPPENS, RIGHT, IN YOUR JUDGMENT? A: IT'S POSSIBLE. Q: AND ASSUMING THAT TO BE THE FACT, THAT A DOG COULD HAVE SHED FIBERS AND HAIRS ON THE BLANKET AND PEOPLE WHO HAD BEEN THE CHILDREN OF MR. SIMPSON AND MR. SIMPSON HIMSELF AND MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON HAD BEEN IN AND OUT OF THE BRONCO AND BEEN ON THAT BLANKET, HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM THE DOG AND FROM THE BRONCO COULD BE ON THAT BLANKET? A: IT'S QUITE A LOT FOR ME TO -- Q: QUITE A LOT, HUH? A: FOR ME TO -- Q: ASSESS. A: YEAH. THERE'S A LOT OF FACTORS IN THERE. Q: YEAH. I'M JUST ASKING YOU TO -- LET'S JUST ASSUME ALL THAT OCCURRED AND THOSE FIBERS ARE ON THAT BLANKET. ALL RIGHT? YOU WITH ME? A: YES. Q: IF THAT BLANKET WAS TRANSFERRED AND PUT RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CRIME SCENE, THERE IS A CHANCE OF SECONDARY TRANSFER OF THOSE HAIRS AND FIBERS ACROSS THIS CRIME SCENE? A: YES, THERE IS A CHANCE. Q: AS A GENERAL PRINCIPAL AS A CRIMINALIST, YOU TRY AT ALL COSTS TO AVOID TAKING AN OBJECT THAT COULD HAVE LOTS OF HAIRS AND FIBERS ON IT AND PUTTING IT RIGHT INTO THE MIDDLE OF A CRIME SCENE, DON'T YOU? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: THAT'S A TERRIBLE MISTAKE FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A CRIMINALIST, ISN'T IT? A: YES. Q: AND IT'S A TERRIBLE MISTAKE PARTICULARLY WHEN BODIES ARE BEING REMOVED AND THEY'RE BEING DRAGGED INTO THE SAME AREA WHERE THAT BLANKET WAS? A: IT CAN BE, YES. Q: BECAUSE THAT CREATES A SITUATION WHERE YOU CAN HAVE CROSS CONTAMINATION OF THE FIBERS FROM THE BLANKET AND IT COULD COME INTO CONTACT WITH THE CLOTHING OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I THINK IT'S UNINTELLIGIBLE AT THIS POINT BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY ANGLES TO IT. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: COULD YOU REPEAT THE LAST PART OF THIS? Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WE'VE AGREED THAT IT WAS A TERRIBLE MISTAKE TO PUT THIS BLANKET INTO THE MIDDLE OF A CRIME SCENE, HAVEN'T WE? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY AT THIS POINT. MR. SCHECK: I'M ASKING. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A HYPOTHETICAL HERE. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, NOW LET'S TALK SPECIFICALLY. A: OKAY. Q: THIS BLANKET, IT WAS A TERRIBLE MISTAKE TO PUT THIS BLANKET FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE CRIME SCENE BECAUSE OF THE DANGERS OF CROSS CONTAMINATION OF HAIRS AND FIBERS? MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE AND VAGUE AS TO THE WORD "TERRIBLE MISTAKE." THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: DEPENDING ON THE -- HOW CLEAN THE BLANKET WAS, THAT WOULD -- THAT WOULD AFFECT MY ANSWER. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, IF YOU HAD NO IDEA HOW CLEAN THE BLANKET WAS, WOULDN'T IT STILL BE A TERRIBLE MISTAKE TO BRING A BLANKET FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE RIGHT INTO THE MIDDLE OF A CRIME SCENE? A: I WOULD PREFER THAT IT WAS NOT DONE. Q: PREFER -- I'M ASKING YOU, WAS IT NOT -- LET'S JUST START WITH THIS -- A MISTAKE. MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS POINT, IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE. THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL, YOU'VE ALREADY ASKED THE QUESTION NOW SEVERAL TIMES. YOU'VE GOTTEN THREE OR FOUR DEFINITIVE ANSWERS. MR. SCHECK: WELL, YOUR HONOR, I THINK -- THE COURT: I AGREE TERRIBLE MISTAKE, MISTAKE, PREFERENCE NOT TO HAVE BEEN DONE, I THINK YOU'VE ESTABLISHED THE POINT. MR. SCHECK: I THINK HE'S BACK TO POSSIBLE NOW. THE COURT: NO. YOU'VE GOT YOUR RECORD. PROCEED. MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. I'LL MOVE ON. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ASSUMING THAT THIS BLANKET -- WELL, YOU HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING WHETHER THAT BLANKET WAS CLEAN OR HAD FIBERS ON IT AND HAIRS, RIGHT? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND LET'S JUST ASSUME THAT IT DID -- AND EVEN -- WITHDRAWN. AND EVEN A BLANKET THAT APPEARS TO BE CLEAN CAN HAVE LOTS OF HAIRS AND FIBERS ON IT BECAUSE THE NATURE OF TRACE EVIDENCE IS THAT YOU REALLY CAN'T SEE IT WITH THE NAKED EYE? A: SOME TRACE EVIDENCE YOU CAN SEE WITH THE NAKED EYE. Q: WELL, THIS KIND OF TRACE EVIDENCE, HAIRS AND FIBERS, ARE OFTEN NOT NOTICED? A: YOU HAVE TO LOOK CAREFULLY, YES. Q: SO YOU CAN LOOK AT A BLANKET AND THINK IT WAS CLEAN AND IT COULD BE JUST FULL OF HAIRS AND FIBERS? A: POSSIBLY. IT WILL HAVE FIBERS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT MOST BLANKETS ARE MADE FROM. Q: ALL RIGHT. HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM OTHER SOURCES THAN JUST WAS MADE UP OF THE BLANKET ITSELF? A: POSSIBLY, YES. Q: AND I MEAN ONE GOES ABOUT LOOKING FOR THE HAIRS AND FIBERS LATER WITH A STRONG STEREO MICROSCOPE TO PICK THEM UP, RIGHT? A: SOMETIMES, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, BASED ON YOUR OBSERVATIONS AT THE CRIME SCENE THAT DAY, MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BODY WAS IN THE AREA OF THAT BLANKET? A: YES. Q: AND MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS EVENTUALLY PLACED IN THE AREA OF THAT BLANKET? A: YES. Q: AND ASSUMING THAT BLANKET HAD HAIRS AND FIBERS AND OTHER TRACE EVIDENCE ON IT, THAT COULD BE A SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION OF ANYTHING THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND ON MR. GOLDMAN'S CLOTHING? A: I BELIEVE THE CORONER'S PERSONNEL HAD PLACED A SHEET AND A PLASTIC SHEET OVER THE BLANKET BEFORE PLACING HIM ON IT. Q: WELL, GIVEN THE NATURE OF TRANSFER, JUST THE FACT THAT THE BLANKET IS THERE, EVEN IF THEY PUT A PLASTIC SHEET OVER IT, ISN'T THERE A GRAVE DANGER FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE CRIMINALIST OF THESE SECONDARY TRANSFERS OCCURRING WHEN MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY IS PUT THERE? MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S VAGUE AS TO THE TERM "GRAVE DANGER." THE COURT: SUSTAINED. MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. THE COURT: YOU ALSO FORGOT THE SHEET. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: LET'S START IT THIS WAY. IF THE PEOPLE -- THERE WERE TWO INDIVIDUALS FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE THAT WERE INVOLVED IN MOVING THE BODY? A: YES. Q: AND DETECTIVE LANGE WAS PRESENT AT THE TIME THAT THE BODY WAS MOVED? A: YES. Q: AND DETECTIVE LANGE COULD HAVE COME IN CONTACT WITH THE BLANKET? MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, YOUR HONOR, THIS CALLS FOR SPECULATION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ASSUMING DETECTIVE LANGE CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE BLANKET, COULD HIS CLOTHING BE A SOURCE OF SECONDARY TRANSFER FROM THE BLANKET TO MR. GOLDMAN'S CLOTHING? MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION. IMPROPER HYPOTHETICAL. CALLS FOR SPECULATION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: IF HE WAS NOT CAREFUL, YES. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: COULD MR. JACOBO FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE, THE MAN WE SEE -- HE WAS IN A BLUE SUIT RIGHT THAT DAY? A: I DON'T KNOW HIM PERSONALLY. Q: THE MAN IN THE BLUE SUIT FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE. A: THE JUMPER SUIT? Q: THE JUMPER SUIT. A: OKAY. Q: IF HIS CLOTHING OR BODY OR HANDS CAME INTO CONTACT WITH THAT BLANKET, HE COULD HAVE BEEN THE SORT OF SECONDARY TRANSFER OF HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM THE BLANKET TO MR. GOLDMAN'S CLOTHING? A: POSSIBLY. Q: MISS RATCLIFFE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE AS WELL, SHE WAS THE WOMAN INVESTIGATOR FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE, DO YOU RECALL HER? A: I RECALL THERE BEING TWO PERSONNEL THERE, YES. Q: DO YOU REMEMBER AN AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMAN? REMEMBER SEEING HER THERE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE? A: YES. Q: SHE WAS THE ONE THAT HAD THE GRAY SHOES? A: I DON'T REMEMBER HER SHOES. Q: YOU'VE SEEN HER ON THE VIDEO? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. SAME WITH HER, RIGHT? SAME ANSWER? THAT IF SHE CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE BLANKET, SHE COULD HAVE BEEN THE SOURCE OF SECONDARY TRANSFER AS WELL? A: POSSIBLY. Q: ALL RIGHT. IF YOU CAME INTO CONTACT WITH THE BLANKET, YOU COULD HAVE BEEN A SOURCE OF SECONDARY TRANSFER? A: TO? Q: TO MR. GOLDMAN'S CLOTHING? A: I WAS NOT IN THAT AREA WHEN THE BODIES WERE BEING PROCESSED. Q: YOU WERE NOT IN THE AREA WHERE MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS? A: NOT ON THE BLANKET. Q: I'M SORRY? A: NOT ON THE BLANKET. NOT THAT I RECALL. Q: I MEAN, WERE YOU IN THAT AREA WHERE THE BLANKET WAS AND THEN WENT OVER TO THE AREA WHERE MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS? MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, IT'S VAGUE AS TO TIME. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AT ANY POINT BEFORE MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS MOVED, DID YOU WALK THROUGH THE AREA WHERE THE BLANKET WAS TO THE AREA WHERE MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS? A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT. I DON'T THINK I DID. Q: THIS BLANKET COULD HAVE BEEN A SOURCE OF GETTING -- ASSUMING THAT THE BLANKET HAD BEEN COVERED WITH HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM PEOPLE WITHIN THE HOME, THAT BLANKET COULD THEN HAVE BEEN A SOURCE OF SECONDARY TRANSFER TO THE HAIRS AND THE FIBERS IN THE WHOLE AREA OF THAT WALKWAY, THAT AREA WHERE MISS SIMPSON'S BODY WAS FOUND? A: POSSIBLY. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IF AN OBJECT SUCH AS THE GLOVE OR THE HAT AT BUNDY WERE DRAGGED OUT INTO THAT WALKWAY, THEY COULD HAVE BECOME CONTAMINATED BY HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM THE BLANKET? MR. GOLDBERG: IMPROPER HYPOTHETICAL. CALLS FOR SPECULATION. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ASSUMING THE BLANKET WAS COVERED WITH HAIRS AND FIBERS AND IT WAS PLACED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CRIME SCENE AND HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM THE BLANKET WERE SPREAD OUT FROM THE CRIME SCENE AND ASSUMING FURTHER THAT THE GLOVE OR THE HAT WAS DRAGGED INTO THAT AREA WHEN MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS MOVED, THEY COULD HAVE BECOME CONTAMINATED WITH HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM THE BLANKET? MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: POSSIBLY. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, YOU SAW THIS BLANKET AT THE SCENE THROUGHOUT THE AFTERNOON WHEN YOU WERE PROCESSING THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE? A: YES. Q: AND WHEN YOU LEFT, THE BLANKET WAS LEFT THERE? A: YES. Q: AND IT WAS NOT PICKED UP? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: IT HAD BLOOD ON IT? A: YES, IT DID. Q: FRANKLY, FOR ALL YOU KNOW, IT COULD HAVE HAD CELLULAR MATERIAL FROM PEOPLE IN THE SIMPSON HOUSEHOLD, TO WIT, LAYING ON THE BLANKET OR SAT ON THE BLANKET? A: POSSIBLY. Q: YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN BY "CELLULAR MATERIAL"? A: YOU MEAN MATERIAL WHICH WOULD HAVE DNA EVIDENCE ON IT? Q: YES. A: YES. Q: SALIVA. A: COULD IT HAVE -- COULD IT HAVE HAD SALIVA EVIDENCE ON IT? Q: YEAH. NO. SALIVA IS A SOURCE OF DNA EVIDENCE. MR. GOLDBERG: NOW COUNSEL IS TESTIFYING. THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS SALIVA A SOURCE OF DNA EVIDENCE? A: I'M NOT A DNA EXPERT. I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT. Q: WELL, IN YOUR TRAINING AS A CRIMINALIST, HAVE YOU BEEN INSTRUCTED THAT SALIVA CAN BE A -- WHEN SPREAD OVER A SURFACE, CAN BE A SOURCE OF EVIDENCE FOR FUTURE DNA ANALYSIS? A: I KNOW IT CAN BE ANALYZED, BUT I'M NOT A DNA PERSON. I DON'T KNOW IF SALIVA CAN BE -- MAYBE SOME FACT, SOMETHING IN THE SALIVA THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH IT CAN BE, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT SALIVA ITSELF IS SUBJECT TO DNA ANALYSIS. Q: WELL, SALIVA -- HAVE YOU EVER HEARD THE TERM AMYLASE? A: I'VE HEARD THE TERM. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS THOUGH. Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT SALIVA CONTAINS CELLS FROM INSIDE OF ONE'S MOUTH? A: IT CAN. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DO YOU KNOW -- HAS ANYBODY EVER TOLD YOU WHETHER OR NOT THE CELLS FROM THE SALI -- THE CELLS FROM THE INSIDE OF ONE'S MOUTH CAN BE A SOURCE OF EVIDENCE FOR PURPOSES OF DNA ANALYSIS? A: THE CELLS INSIDE THE MOUTH CAN BE, YES. Q: AND YOU EVEN HEARD OF EXEMPLARS BEING TAKEN WHERE SOMEONE WOULD PUT A COTTON SWAB AND SWAB THE INSIDE OF SOMEONE'S MOUTH TO TAKE A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE FOR PURPOSES OF DNA TESTING? A: OF THE CELLS, YES. Q: YES. AND THE CELLS FROM INSIDE THE MOUTH, YOU WOULD EXPECT BASED ON YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE WOULD BE IN SALIVA AND A SOURCE OF DNA ANALYSIS? A: I DON'T KNOW HOW EASILY THE CELLS FROM THE MOUTH ARE TRANSMITTED INTO SALIVA. I'VE NEVER DONE A STUDY ON IT AND I'VE NEVER WORKED SEROLOGY. Q: FROM YOUR OWN COMMON SENSE, WOULD YOU EXPECT THAT SALIVA CONTAINS CELLS FROM -- THE COURT: WELL, AT THIS POINT, GIVEN HIS ANSWER, YOU'RE SPECULATING. MR. SCHECK: OKAY. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: THIS BLANKET -- WELL, WITHDRAWN. WOULD YOU AGREE LOOKING BACK THAT THIS BLANKET COULD HAVE BEEN A SOURCE OF TRACE EVIDENCE? A: YES. Q: AND WOULD YOU AGREE IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO KNOW IF THAT BLANKET CONTAINED HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM MR. SIMPSON, MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, THEIR CHILDREN OR THE DOG KATO? MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. IT'S ARGUMENTATIVE AS TO THE WORD "IMPORTANT." THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: YES. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO KNOW IF THAT BLANKET CONTAINED FIBERS THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH MR. SIMPSON'S BRONCO? A: POSSIBLY, YES. Q: IMPORTANT IF IT EVEN HAD HAIRS OR FIBERS THAT WERE CONSISTENT WITH MR. GOLDMAN IF HE HAD EVER BEEN IN THE HOUSE OR LAIN OR SAT ON THAT BLANKET? A: POSSIBLY. Q: BUT THAT BLANKET WAS LEFT AT THE CRIME SCENE AND NEVER PICKED UP FOR FUTURE ANALYSIS? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: THAT WAS A MISTAKE, WASN'T IT? A: IT COULD BE CONSIDERED ONE. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: INCIDENTALLY, YOU'VE OBSERVED THE VIDEOS? A: YES. Q: AND HAVE YOU SEEN IN ANY VIDEOS THAT THE BLANKET OVER THE -- OVER ON MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BACK OR BODY WHEN IT WAS STILL AT THE CRIME SCENE? A: I HAVE NEVER SEEN VIDEOS OF THAT, NO. Q: YOU'VE NEVER SEEN A VIDEO THAT SEEM TO HAVE -- WITH A BLANKET OVER HER BACK? A: I MAY HAVE. I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY IF I HAVE OR NOT. Q: OKAY. NOW -- (BRIEF PAUSE.) MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS POINT, I WOULD WANT TO SHOW MR. FUNG A VIDEO. DO YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT FIRST? MR. GOLDBERG: YES. MR. SCHECK: MAYBE MR. GOLDBERG CAN PREVIEW IT ON THE MONITOR. I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY A SEGMENT THAT WE'VE SEEN BEFORE. MR. GOLDBERG: ACTUALLY WHAT? THE COURT: MAYBE WE CAN VIEW IT ON COUNSEL'S MONITOR WITHOUT DISPLAYING IT TO THE JURY. (AT 2:51 P.M., A VIDEOTAPE WAS PLAYED.) (AT 2:54 P.M., THE PLAYING OF THE VIDEOTAPE CONCLUDED.) THE COURT: COUNSEL, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS SEGMENT? MR. GOLDBERG: YES, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S PROCEED. MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, MAY I SHOW IT -- (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: I WOULD ASK YOU TO LOOK AT THIS SEGMENT, MR. FUNG, THAT YOU'VE JUST VIEWED. YOU'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE, HAVEN'T YOU? A: I DON'T KNOW IF I'VE SEEN IT IN ITS ENTIRETY, BUT I'VE SEEN PORTIONS OF IT, YES. (AT 2:55, A VIDEOTAPE WAS PLAYED.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, THAT IS DETECTIVE LANGE TALKING WITH MISS RATCLIFFE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE? A: YES. Q: AND THAT'S DETECTIVE LANGE PUTTING THE BLANKET DOWN OVER MISS SIMPSON? A: YES. Q: NOW, LOOKING AT THIS SEGMENT, SEE IF YOU CAN TELL US IF YOU RECALL -- LET'S STOP IT RIGHT THERE, OKAY? NOW -- THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT'S AT 1:18:17:17. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AT THIS POINT, DO YOU KNOW WHICH OF THE TWO VICTIMS WAS BEING REMOVED BY THE CORONER'S OFFICE AT THIS POINT IN TIME? A: I -- BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, THAT WAS MR. GOLDMAN. Q: AND HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN AT THE SCENE BEFORE THIS TOOK PLACE TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION? A: APPROXIMATELY FIVE, 10 MINUTES. Q: AND WHEN YOU GOT TO THE SCENE, MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BODY HAD NOT YET BEEN REMOVED FROM THE SCENE? A: SHE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING MOVED. Q: WELL, WHEN YOU SAY THAT, HAD SHE BEEN TURNED OVER ON HER BACK? MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, CALLS FOR SPECULATION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: TURNED OVER ON HER BACK. I BELIEVE SO. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, WHEN YOU GOT TO THE CRIME SCENE, DID YOU EVER HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BODY IN THE CONDITION -- IN THE POSITION WHERE YOU WERE INFORMED IT WAS ORIGINALLY FOUND? A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO. Q: SO BY THE TIME YOU HAD GOT THERE, SHE HAD BEEN ALREADY -- HER BODY HAD ALREADY BEEN TURNED OVER ON ITS BACK BY THE CORONERS? A: I BELIEVE SO, YES. Q: SO YOU NEVER GOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE HER BACK, EXPOSED BACK? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: YOU NEVER GOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE ANY BLOOD DROPS ON HER BACK? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND IF YOU HAD SEEN THOSE BLOOD DROPS ON HER BACK, YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SWATCH THEM AND REMOVE THEM FOR FUTURE BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS? MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, IT'S IRRELEVANT AS TO WHETHER HE WOULD BE ABLE TO. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE ON THE BODY IS THE JURISDICTION OF THE CORONER. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: BUT WORKING TOGETHER, THE CORONERS, THE DETECTIVES AND THE CRIMINALISTS CAN DECIDE THAT IT WOULD BE USEFUL FOR THE CRIMINALISTS TO COLLECT EVIDENCE FROM A BODY FOUND AT A HOMICIDE SCENE? A: IT'S POSSIBLE. USUALLY THE CORONER WILL HAVE HIS OWN OR THE CORONER'S DEPARTMENT HAS THEIR OWN CRIMINALISTS THOUGH. Q: BUT THE CORONER'S DEPARTMENT CRIMINALIST WASN'T THERE? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND THIS IS ALREADY 10:15 IN THE AFTERNOON? IN THE MORNING? A: YES. Q: AND THE CORONER'S OFFICE DIDN'T HAVE THEIR CRIMINALIST THERE? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: AND YOU WERE THE ONLY CRIMINALIST AT THE SCENE? A: NO. MISS MAZZOLA WAS THERE ALSO. Q: AND MISS MAZZOLA, RIGHT? A: AND CHIEF FORENSIC CHEMIST JOHNSON. Q: AND BETWEEN -- THAT CHIEF FORENSIC CHEMIST JOHNSON, HE'S A SUPERVISOR, RIGHT? A: YES, HE IS. Q: AND YOU'VE SEEN HIM IN VIDEOS? HE'S A HEAVYSET GUY IN A BLUE BLAZER? A: VERY TALL ALSO. Q: TALL? OKAY. NOW, GIVEN THE FACT THAT YOU'RE THE CRIMINALIST AT THE SCENE, IF THERE HAD BEEN NO CORONER'S CRIMINALISTS AT THE SCENE, WOULDN'T IT HAVE BEEN YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO REMOVE THE BLOOD DROPS FROM NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BACK? A: NOT NECESSARILY, NO. Q: WELL, IF THE CRIMINALIST FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE ISN'T THERE AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT, WHO COULD DO IT? A: THE -- IT MIGHT WAIT UNTIL THE BODY WAS TRANSPORTED BACK TO THE CORONER'S OFFICE AND IT WOULD BE DONE THERE. Q: BUT, MR. FUNG, IF THE BODY IS TURNED OVER ON ITS BACK, ON HER BACK, THAT COULD SMEAR CROSS CON -- AND CONTAMINATE THOSE BLOOD DROPS? A: IT'S POSSIBLE. Q: AND WOULDN'T IT BE THE WISE PRACTICE, THE SOUND PRACTICE TO HAVE A CRIMINALIST, BE IT FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE OR SID, REMOVE THOSE BLOOD DROPS BEFORE MISS SIMPSON WAS TURNED OVER ON HER BACK? A: IT WOULD BE PREFERABLE. Q: PREFERABLE? A: YES. Q: WELL, IF IT WASN'T GOING TO BE DONE BY A CRIMINALIST AT THE SCENE, BE IT FROM YOUR OFFICE OR THE CORONER'S OFFICE, AND SHE'S TURNED OVER ON HER BACK, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, RIGHT? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, ARGUMENTATIVE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, MR. FUNG, IT'S YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU WERE AT THE SCENE TOO LATE TO REMOVE THOSE BLOOD DROPS FROM HER BACK BEFORE SHE WAS TURNED OVER? MR. GOLDBERG: MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHEN YOU GOT THERE, SHE WAS ALREADY TURNED OVER ON HER BACK? A: I BELIEVE SO. Q: WELL, WHEN SHE'S TURNED OVER ON HER BACK -- WELL, WITHDRAWN. THE BLANKET THAT WAS ON HER BACK BEFORE SHE WAS TURNED OVER, THAT MIGHT CONTAIN TRANSFERS OF THE BLOOD FROM HER BACK? A: POSSIBLY. Q: AND THAT COULD HAVE BEEN ANALYZED IF IT HAD BEEN SECURED, BROUGHT BACK TO THE LABORATORY? A: YES. Q: AND IF THAT ANALYSIS -- WITHDRAWN. OKAY. LET'S GET BACK TO THE PICTURE. THE COURT: ARE YOU SHIFTING RIGHT NOW? MR. SCHECK: I'M SORRY? THE COURT: ARE YOU SHIFTING OR YOU WANT TO FINISH? MR. SCHECK: I'M GOING -- I DID A SEQUE. I'M SORRY. I'M GOING RIGHT BACK TO THE VIDEO. THE COURT: I NEED TO CHANGE COURT REPORTERS. ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A 10-MINUTE RECESS. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU; DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES -- LET'S HAVE IT QUIET IN THE COURTROOM, PLEASE. BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THE ADMONITION IS VERY IMPORTANT AND A NECESSARY PART OF THE COURT PROCEEDING EACH TIME. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS; DO NOT DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU OR ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE. WE'LL TAKE A RECESS FOR 10 MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. MR. FUNG, YOU CAN STEP DOWN. (RECESS.) (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 ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT. WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. MR. DENNIS FUNG IS ON THE WITNESS STAND UNDERGOING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK. AND MR. SCHECK, YOU MAY RESUME WITH YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION. MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR. Q: MR. FUNG, WE LEFT OFF WITH THE VIDEO THAT IS STOPPED AT 1:18:17:03. NOW, WHERE ARE YOU COMING FROM, DO YOU RECALL? A: COMING FROM THE CAGE AREA IN THE DIRT. Q: UH-HUH. AND UMM, WHERE HAD YOU BEEN IN THE CAGE AREA PRIOR TO STEPPING INTO VIEW HERE? A: I DON'T THINK I WAS MUCH DEEPER THAN TWO FEET INTO THE CAGE AREA. Q: UH-HUH. AND FROM THE MOMENT THAT YOU ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE TO THE POINT THAT WE SEE DEPICTED HERE, HAD YOU SEEN ANYBODY ELSE WALK THROUGH THAT CAGED-IN AREA? A: YES. Q: DETECTIVE LANGE? A: I'M NOT SURE WHO, BUT I DO RECALL PEOPLE WALKING IN THERE. Q: ANYONE ELSE? A: I DON'T RECALL WHO EXACTLY. Q: MORE THAN ONE PERSON? A: YES. Q: NOW, YOU SPENT SOME TIME AND HAD SOME TRAINING IN TAKING SHOEPRINT IMPRESSIONS? A: YES. Q: AND THOSE SHOEPRINT IMPRESSIONS CAN BE TAKEN FROM SOIL? A: YES. Q: IF THERE IS AN IMPRESSION IN SOIL, ONE CAN USE A VARIETY OF TECHNIQUES OF CASTING TO LIFT THOSE SHOE IMPRESSIONS FROM SOIL? A: YES. Q: IF THERE HAD BEEN SOME KILLER OR PERPETRATOR HIDING IN THAT -- REAR OF THAT CAGED-IN AREA, THAT PERPETRATOR COULD HAVE LEFT SHOEPRINT IMPRESSIONS IN THE SOIL? A: POSSIBLY. Q: AND IF YOU HAD ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE BEFORE PEOPLE BEGAN WALKING INTO THAT AREA AND HAD OBSERVED SUCH IMPRESSIONS, YOU COULD HAVE DONE A CASTING ON THEM? A: IF SOME WERE THERE, YES. Q: AND YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER ANY WERE THERE BECAUSE PEOPLE HAD BEEN WALKING IN AND OUT OF THERE BEFORE YOU ARRIVED? MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. CALLS FOR SPECULATION. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU ABLE TO CONDUCT A METHODICAL SYSTEMATIC UNHURRIED INVESTIGATION OF THE SOIL OF THE CAGED-IN AREA WITH MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY IN PLACE AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY FOUND? A: NO. Q: AND THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE PARTICULAR TRAINING TO DO? A: THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS I AM TRAINED TO DO, YES. Q: NOW, DO YOU RECALL WHAT YOU WERE DOING IN THAT CAGED-IN AREA JUST PRIOR TO THE PICTURE WE SEE ON THE SCREEN? A: DETECTIVE LANGE HAD ASKED IF HE COULD SEE THE GLOVE FROM ROCKINGHAM AND I BROUGHT THE BAG OVER TO HIM. Q: WHEN DID HE ASK YOU TO DO THIS? A: SHORTLY AFTER I GOT TO THE BUNDY LOCATION. Q: AND WHERE WERE YOU SITUATED WHEN HE CAME AND MADE THIS REQUEST? A: I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY. Q: WERE YOU IN THE AREA WHERE MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BODY WAS AT THAT POINT? A: WHERE IT WAS? Q: YES. A: OR WHERE IT HAD BEEN MOVED FROM? Q: WELL, WHEN YOU ARRIVED YOU SAW HER BODY? A: YES. Q: AND YOU SAW THE -- BY THIS POINT I THINK YOU HAVE TOLD US THE PEOPLE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE HAD TURNED HER OVER? A: SHE WAS, FOR LACK OF A BETTER EXPRESSION, BEING WRAPPED UP. Q: YES. AND WAS IT THAT POINT THAT DETECTIVE LANGE COME OUT OF THIS AREA AND TALKED TO YOU OUT ON THE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THIS CRIME SCENE? A: AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT LOCATION WHERE HE REQUESTED TO -- REQUESTED SEEING THE GLOVE. Q: YOU CAN'T RECALL? A: I DON'T RECALL. Q: BUT AFTER HE REQUESTED YOU TO GO TO BRING HIM THE GLOVE -- THAT IS WHAT HE REQUESTED? HE REQUESTED THAT -- HE SAID HE WANTED TO SEE THE GLOVE FROM ROCKINGHAM? A: YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN HE SAID, "I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE GLOVE FROM ROCKINGHAM," DID YOU SAY TO HIM, "DETECTIVE LANGE, WHY DON'T YOU COME SEE IT IN THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK"? A: I TOLD HIM THAT I -- ONCE I BROUGHT THE GLOVE TO HIM THAT -- Q: NO, NO. I'M ASKING AT THE MOMENT HE CAME AND MADE THIS REQUEST TO YOU DID YOU SAY TO HIM -- MR. GOLDBERG: WAIT A MINUTE. THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION. LET THE WITNESS ANSWER THE QUESTION. MR. SCHECK: NO, I THINK THAT WAS THE QUESTION. THE COURT: REASK THE QUESTION. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AT THE TIME THAT DETECTIVE LANGE CAME TO YOU AND ASKED YOU TO SHOW HIM THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE, DID YOU SAY TO HIM, "DETECTIVE LANGE, WHY DON'T YOU COME SEE IT AT THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK, IT IS NOT A VERY GOOD IDEA FOR ME TO BRING THIS GLOVE FROM ROCKINGHAM INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE"? A: I DIDN'T SAY THAT TO HIM. Q: DID YOU SAY WORDS TO THAT EFFECT? A: WHEN HE WANTED ME TO REMOVE OR -- WANTED TO GET A BETTER LOOK AT THE GLOVE FROM ROCKINGHAM, I TOLD HIM TO -- THAT I WOULD NOT REMOVE THE GLOVE FROM THE BAG, IT WOULD HAVE TO REMAIN IN THE BAG, AND IF HE WANTED TO SEE A BETTER LOOK OF IT, THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO SEE IT IN THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK. Q: WELL, AT THE MOMENT THAT HE ASKED YOU TO GO SHOW HIM THE GLOVE AND BRING IT BACK INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE CRIME SCENE, YOU KNEW THAT WAS NOT A VERY GOOD IDEA, DIDN'T YOU? A: I KNEW THAT -- MR. GOLDBERG: IT IS VAGUE AS TO "VERY GOOD IDEA." THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I KNEW THAT I WOULD HAVE TO BE CAUTIOUS WITH THE EVIDENCE. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, YOU KNEW IT WAS NOT A VERY SENSIBLE REQUEST, DIDN'T YOU? MR. GOLDBERG: IT IS VAGUE AS TO WHICH REQUEST. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, WHEN DETECTIVE LANGE REQUESTED THAT YOU BRING THE GLOVE INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE TO SHOW IT TO HIM, YOU HAD CONCERNS THAT THERE WAS A TERRIBLE DANGER OF CROSS-CONTAMINATION? A: I KNEW THERE WAS A DANGER FOR CROSS-CONTAMINATION, YES. Q: AND YOU KNEW WHEN HE MADE THAT REQUEST OF YOU THAT THAT REQUEST WAS A BASIC VIOLATION OF SOUND CRIME SCENE PROCEDURES? A: I KNEW THAT I WOULD HAVE TO BE CAREFUL IN -- WITH THE GLOVE WHEN I BROUGHT IT TO HIM, YES. Q: WELL, WHEN HE MADE THAT REQUEST TO YOU, DIDN'T YOU SAY TO YOURSELF, IT IS FOOLISH TO EVEN TAKE A CHANCE IN BRINGING THAT GLOVE INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE? A: HE FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR -- AT THAT POINT FOR HIS INVESTIGATION. Q: WELL, BUT YOU THOUGHT WHEN HE MADE THAT REQUEST TO YOU THAT IT WASN'T A SENSIBLE REQUEST? A: AGAIN, AS I HAVE STATED BEFORE, I KNEW I WOULD HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WITH THE EVIDENCE. Q: NO. MY QUESTION TO YOU IS A SIMPLE ONE, SIR. WHEN HE MADE THAT REQUEST TO YOU, YOU KNEW IT WAS NOT A SENSIBLE REQUEST? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU THINK AT THE MOMENT THAT HE MADE THAT REQUEST TO YOU IT WAS CREATING A RISK OF UNNECESSARY -- AN UNNECESSARY RISK OF CONTAMINATION? MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I KNEW THERE WAS A RISK, BUT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO HIM AT THAT TIME TO FURTHER HIS INVESTIGATION. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, WHEN HE MADE THAT REQUEST TO YOU DIDN'T YOU BELIEVE IT WAS AN UNNECESSARY RISK TO TAKE, THAT HE COULD HAVE JUST COME BACK RIGHT TO THE TRUCK AND SEE IT? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THIS HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, WERE YOU IN ANY WAY FEARFUL OF QUESTIONING DETECTIVE LANGE'S JUDGMENT WHEN HE ASKED YOU TO BRING THAT ROCKINGHAM GLOVE RIGHT INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE? A: I WAS NOT FEARFUL OF HIM, NO. Q: WERE YOU IN ANY WAY INTIMIDATED BY HIM? A: NO. Q: WERE YOU IN ANY WAY RELUCTANT TO QUESTION HIS JUDGMENT EVEN THOUGH YOU BELIEVED IT WAS NOT -- IT WAS A DANGEROUS REQUEST? A: I DID HAVE SOME CONCERN AND I TOOK WHAT I FELT WAS -- I DREW A LINE WHERE I WOULD NOT TAKE THE BAG OR TAKE THE GLOVE OUT OF THE BAG FOR HIM. Q: WELL, AT THE MOMENT HE MADE THE REQUEST TO YOU, YOU ARE NOW TELLING US THAT YOU HAD CONCERNS? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE IT IS THE SAME -- THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU SAY YOU HAD CONCERNS AT THE MOMENT HE MADE THE REQUEST TO YOU? MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. IT HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU EXPRESS ANY CONCERNS TO DETECTIVE LANGE AT THE MOMENT THAT HE ASKED YOU TO GO TO THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK AND BRING THE GLOVE INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE? MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. DIFFERENT QUESTION. THE WITNESS: I'M NOT SURE IF I DID; I MAY HAVE. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU MAY HAVE? A: I DON'T KNOW IF I DID. Q: NOW, YOU BROUGHT THE GLOVE -- HOW DID YOU GET WITH THE -- THAT BAG THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR HAND, THAT IS THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE? A: THE GLOVE WAS IN THAT BAG, YES. Q: WELL, HOW DID YOU COME -- NOT JUST TO TAKE THE GLOVE FROM THE TRUCK TO THE AREA OF -- OF IN FRONT OF THE STEPS, BUT ALL THE WAY IN BACK, ALL THE WAY INTO THAT CAGED-IN AREA? HOW DID THAT COME ABOUT? A: I DON'T EXACT -- I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT ROUTE THAT I TOOK. I PROBABLY CAME IN THROUGH THE SAME WAY I CAME IN OR EXITED. Q: MR. FUNG, DID YOU EVER COLLECT A PAGER IN THE CAGED-IN AREA? A: YES. Q: COULD YOU HAVE -- COULD THAT SHOT WITH YOU WITH THE BAG IN YOUR HAND BE OF THE PAGER IN THE BAG? A: NO. Q: NO? YOU HAVE A DISTINCT RECOLLECTION THAT YOU ACTUALLY TOOK THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE IN A BAG, WALKED INTO THE CRIME SCENE AREA, WENT INTO THE CAGED-IN AREA AND THEN WERE COMING OUT AS WE SEE DEPICTED IN THIS SHOT WITH THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE IN THE BAG? A: YES. Q: UMM, ARE YOU AWARE THAT BEFORE YOU CAME HERE DETECTIVE LANGE TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE IN THAT BAG? MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, THAT IS IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THE WITNESS: I -- THE COURT: SUSTAINED. MR. SCHECK: YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THAT. THE WITNESS: SORRY. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, YOU ARE NOT WEARING GLOVES IN THAT PICTURE? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: SO AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WHAT YOU ARE TELLING US, IS THAT WHEN DETECTIVE LANGE MADE THIS REQUEST TO YOU, YOU RESOLVED IN YOUR OWN MIND, ALL RIGHT, I KNOW IT IS DANGEROUS, BUT I WILL BRING THE GLOVE INTO THE AREA OF THE CRIME SCENE, BUT I WON'T OPEN IT UP FOR HIM? A: BUT I WON'T TAKE THE GLOVE OUT OF THE BAG. Q: WON'T TAKE THE GLOVE OUT OF THE BAG? A: YES. Q: HAD YOU RESOLVED IN YOUR OWN MIND WHETHER YOU WOULD EVEN OPEN IT? A: I WOULD HAVE OPENED IT UP. Q: YOU WOULD HAVE OPENED IT UP? A: YES. Q: DID YOU OPEN IT UP WHILE YOU WERE IN THE CRIME SCENE, HAVE HIM LOOK? A: I DON'T THINK SO. Q: WELL, ANOTHER THING ABOUT TRACE EVIDENCE IS THAT SOMETIMES IT BECOMES AIRBORNE? A: SOMETIMES. Q: HAIRS AND FIBERS THAT MAY GET ON CLOTHING OF PEOPLE THAT ARE GATHERING EVIDENCE CAN BECOME AIRBORNE? THAT IS HOW THE TRANSFER OCCURS, RIGHT? A: THEORETICALLY, YES. Q: AND WEREN'T YOU CONCERNED ABOUT OPENING UP THE BAG WITH THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE IN THE SAME AREA WHERE PEOPLE WERE MILLING AROUND GATHERING AND HANDLING THE EVIDENCE AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE? MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION. ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE ABOUT "MILLING." THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. WEREN'T YOU CONCERNED ABOUT TAKING THE BAG WITH THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE AND OPENING IT UP WHILE EVIDENCE COLLECTORS WERE IN THE AREA? A: I WAS -- MISS MAZZOLA AND I WERE THE EVIDENCE COLLECTORS. Q: WELL, THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE THERE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE WHO WERE IN THE AREA WHEN YOU MIGHT HAVE OPENED UP THAT BAG, RIGHT? A: THEY WERE THERE TO PROCESS THE BODIES. Q: WELL, REGARDLESS OF THEIR PURPOSE, THEY ARE PEOPLE THAT COULD HAVE TRACE EVIDENCE ON THEIR CLOTHING WHICH COULD BECOME AIRBORNE? A: TRACE EVIDENCE IS USUALLY MADE THROUGH CONTACT, SUCH AS RUBBING ONE ITEM AGAINST ANOTHER. I -- I'M NOT -- IT CAN HAPPEN THROUGH AIRBORNE, BUT THAT IS NOT THE USUAL WAY FOR -- Q: WELL -- A: -- THAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE TO BE DONE. Q: YOU ARE SAYING IN YOUR EXPERIENCE AND BASED ON YOUR EXPERTISE AND KNOWLEDGE IT IS NOT A CONCERN OF YOURS THAT THESE HAIRS AND FIBERS COULD BE -- THAT HAIRS AND FIBERS CAN BE TRANSFERRED OFF PEOPLE'S CLOTHING WHEN THEY ARE MOVING AROUND AND FALL ONTO OTHER AREAS? A: IT CAN HAPPEN, YES. Q: AND DETECTIVE FUNG, WEREN'T YOU -- MR. GOLDBERG: WAIT A MINUTE. THE COURT: RESTATE THE QUESTION. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DETECTIVE -- DETECTIVE -- I'M SORRY. MR. FUNG, WEREN'T YOU SERIOUSLY CONCERNED THAT IT WAS AN UNNECESSARY RISK TO OPEN UP THAT BAG CONTAINING THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE IN THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE TO GIVE DETECTIVE LANGE A LOOK? A: I DID HAVE MY CONCERNS AND I TOLD YOU I WAS GOING TO BE CAREFUL IF I DID HAVE TO OPEN UP THE BAG. Q: WELL, YOU ARE TELLING US NOW -- IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY YOU CAN'T REMEMBER WHETHER OR NOT YOU OPENED UP THE BAG? A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION I DID NOT OPEN UP THE BAG. Q: WELL, YOU ARE NOW MORE CERTAIN OF THAT ANSWER THAN YOU WERE JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO? MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DIDN'T YOU TELL US JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO YOU DON'T RECALL WHETHER OR NOT YOU OPENED UP THE BAG TO HAVE DETECTIVE LANGE LOOK INTO IT? A: I'M NOT SURE. Q: YOU ARE NOT SURE? A: I'M NOT SURE. Q: IT IS FAIR ENOUGH TO SAY, ISN'T IT, THAT IF YOU WOULD HAVE DONE THAT, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A MISTAKE? A: I WOULDN'T CALL IT A MISTAKE, NO. Q: WELL, WOULDN'T THAT BE SOMETHING THAT YOU WERE DOING AGAINST YOUR BETTER JUDGMENT AT THE REQUEST OF DETECTIVE LANGE? A: IDEALLY THE GLOVE SHOULD HAVE BEEN LOOKED AT AT THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK, YES. Q: AND ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT YOU WERE RELUCTANT TO JUST TELL DETECTIVE LANGE, LOOK, I'M NOT BRINGING IT TO THE SCENE, COME LOOK AT IT AT THE TRUCK? MR. GOLDBERG: THAT IS IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I DON'T THINK I WAS RELUCTANT, NO. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU HAD NO -- AND AT THAT BUNDY CRIME SCENE DID YOU AT ANY POINT HAVE RELUCTANCE TO QUESTION DETECTIVE LANGE'S JUDGMENT ABOUT WHAT SHOULD BE DONE IN TERMS OF GATHERING EVIDENCE? A: DID I HAVE -- YES. YES, I DID. Q: YOU WERE RELUCTANT TO QUESTION HIS JUDGMENT ABOUT WHAT SHOULD BE DONE IN TERMS OF GATHERING EVIDENCE? A: I DID QUESTION HIS JUDGMENT. Q: YOU DID QUESTION HIS JUDGMENT? COULD YOU TELL US ABOUT WHEN AND HOW YOU QUESTIONED HIS JUDGMENT? A: NO. I -- THERE WERE -- THERE WERE -- THERE ARE -- YOU ALWAYS SECOND GUESS SOMEBODY WHEN YOU ARE GOING INTO A CAME SCENE, SAY, HUM, WAS THIS DONE, WAS THAT DONE, AND YOU ASK THEM WHAT WAS DONE AND WHAT WASN'T DONE. Q: ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU TELL US WHICH QUESTIONS YOU ASKED DETECTIVE LANGE THAT IN YOUR TERMS WERE SECOND GUESSES? A: I ASKED HIM IF HE HAD LOOKED FOR SHOEPRINTS IN THE DIRT AREA. Q: AND HE TOLD YOU HE HADN'T? A: HE TOLD ME HE HAD LOOKED FOR THEM BUT DID NOT FIND ANY. Q: WELL, I THOUGHT YOU WERE QUESTIONING -- THESE ARE MATTERS WHERE YOU WERE QUESTIONING HIS JUDGMENT, RIGHT? A: WELL, I ASKED HIM -- THESE WERE THINGS I ASKED HIM ABOUT. MR. GOLDBERG: THAT -- Q: BY MR. SCHECK: I'M ASKING YOU FOR THINGS WHERE YOU WERE QUESTIONING HIS JUDGMENT. TELL US ABOUT SECOND GUESSES YOU MADE OF DETECTIVE LANGE. MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD ASK THAT THE WITNESS BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE HIS ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION. THE COURT: HAD YOU FINISHED YOUR ANSWER, MR. FUNG? THE WITNESS: I FORGOT THE FIRST QUESTION. MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. THE COURT: REASK THE QUESTION. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MAYBE WE COULD -- NOW, IN THIS FRAME DO YOU RECALL WHERE YOU ARE STEPPING? A: NOT EXACTLY, NO. Q: DID YOU HAVE YOUR HANDS OUT ON THE -- FOR SUPPORT ON THE GATE? A: NO. Q: WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE, AS YOU ARE WALKING WITH YOUR HEAD DOWN, THE POSITION OF THE GLOVE AND THE HAT? A: I WAS LOOKING WHERE I WAS STEPPING, YES. Q: AND YOU WERE LOOKING AT THE GLOVE AND THE HAT? A: I DON'T RECALL IF I WAS -- WHAT EXACTLY I WAS SEEING AT THAT POINT. Q: WELL, IN THAT AREA WAS THERE NOT A GLOVE AND THE HAT AND THE ENVELOPE THAT CONTAINED THE PRESCRIPTION GLASSES? A: YES. Q: AND I TAKE IT THAT THE PIECE OF PAPER THAT WE LOOKED AT EARLIER WAS NOWHERE TO BE SEEN? A: AGAIN, FROM THIS VIDEO I CAN'T -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT I WAS SEEING AT THIS POINT. Q: OKAY. OTHER THAN -- SO YOU DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE LOOKING DOWN AT THOSE OBJECTS AT THAT TIME? A: NO, I DON'T. MR. SCHECK: MAYBE WE CAN -- MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, BEFORE WE DO THAT, PERHAPS THE FRAME NUMBER SHOULD BE PUT ON THE RECORD. THE COURT: WE DID THAT. MR. GOLDBERG: OH, IT WAS DONE? THIS ONE? OKAY. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, WHERE ARE YOU GOING THERE, DO YOU RECALL? A: I BELIEVE I WAS PUTTING THE -- OR BRINGING THE GLOVE BACK TO THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK. Q: AND WHERE IS DETECTIVE LANGE NOW? A: HE IS STILL BACK AT THE -- IN THE CAGE AREA. Q: AND DO YOU KNOW WHERE HE IS STANDING IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE ENVELOPE AND THE GLOVE, AS BEST YOU CAN SEE IT? A: NO, I DON'T KNOW. Q: WHAT ARE YOU DOING NOW, SIR? A: I'M STANDING BY. Q: DO YOU RECALL THIS MOMENT, OTHER THAN JUST SEEING IT HERE IN THE VIDEO? A: NO. Q: AND YOU ARE NOW WIPING -- YOU JUST WIPED SWEAT FROM YOUR BROW AND WERE GRASPING YOUR GLASSES; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: NOW, DO YOU RECALL WHETHER PHOTOGRAPHS WERE BEING TAKEN NOW OF MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY, VARIOUS PARTS OF IT? A: I DON'T RECALL. Q: DID YOU OBSERVE ANY OF THAT PROCESS WITH RESPECT TO EITHER MR. GOLDMAN OR MISS SIMPSON? A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING THAT, NO. Q: YOU DON'T RECALL SEEING THAT DONE AT ALL? A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING ACTUAL PHOTOGRAPHS BEING TAKEN. I KNOW THE PHOTOGRAPHER WAS PRESENT. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, I -- YOU ARE HAVING A CONVERSATION AND WERE LAUGHING WITH A FEW GENTLEMEN THERE. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT WAS ABOUT? DO YOU RECALL? A: NO, I DON'T. Q: AND THAT MAN IN THE RED HAIR IN THE BLUE BLAZER, THAT IS CHIEF FORENSIC CHEMIST JOHNSON; IS THAT CORRECT? A: YES. Q: AND AT THE TIME THAT MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY BEING MOVED OUT AND DETECTIVE LANGE IS WALKING THROUGH THE SCENE, YOU ARE LOOKING BACK, DO YOU RECALL SEEING THE LOCATION OF THE ENVELOPE, THE GLOVE AND THE HAT? A: NO, I DON'T. Q: OKAY. NOW, YOU SEE DETECTIVE LANGE WALKING BACK THROUGH AS THE BODY IS BEING TAKEN AWAY. I THINK WE CAN CUT IT NOW. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. HARRIS. NOW, DO YOU KNOW -- HAVE YOU EVER HEARD THE TERM "CLOSE-IN CRIME SCENE"? A: CLOSE-IN CRIME SCENE? Q: YES. A: NO. Q: WELL, DID YOU EVER HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH DETECTIVE LANGE AS TO HIS APPROACH TO GATHERING EVIDENCE AT THIS BUNDY CRIME SCENE ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH? A: I DON'T UNDERSTAND QUITE WHAT YOU ARE GETTING AT. Q: WELL, WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE SCENE, YOU HAD A DISCUSSION WITH DETECTIVE LANGE ABOUT THE CRIME SCENE AND HOW TO PROCEED? A: HE GAVE ME A BRIEFING AS TO THE TYPE OF EVIDENCE THAT HE WANTED COLLECTED AND WHAT HE FELT WAS IMPORTANT AND WHAT AREAS WERE PRESERVED, YES. Q: DID HE EVER EXPRESS THE VIEW TO YOU THAT THIS WAS A CLOSE-IN CRIME SCENE WHERE EVIDENCE WAS CLOSE TO THE VICTIMS AND THAT HE HAD MADE A DETERMINATION FOR THAT REASON TO REMOVE THE VICTIMS PRIOR TO COLLECTING THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE AND THE VICTIMS WERE CLOSE TO EACH OTHER? A: I DON'T HAVE -- I DON'T THINK HE EVER USED THAT TERM, "CLOSE-IN CRIME SCENE" TO ME. Q: WELL, DID HE EVER EXPRESS THE VIEW TO YOU THAT THE REASON THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO REMOVE THE BODY BEFORE COLLECTING THE EVIDENCE IS THAT THIS WAS A CLOSE-IN CRIME SCENE OR THIS WAS A CRIME SCENE WHERE SINCE THE BODIES OF THE VICTIMS AND THE EVIDENCE WERE CLOSE TOGETHER, IT WAS SENSIBLE TO REMOVE THE BODIES BEFORE COLLECTING THE EVIDENCE? MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT. CALLS FOR HEARSAY. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION AGAIN, PLEASE? MR. SCHECK: SURE. Q: DID DETECTIVE LANGE EVER EXPRESS THE VIEW TO YOU THAT HE THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE AT THIS CRIME SCENE TO REMOVE THE VICTIMS PRIOR TO THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE, UMM, THE EVIDENCE WAS LOCATED CLOSE TO THE BODIES OF THE VICTIMS? A: HE DID NOT EXPRESS THAT TO ME AT THE CRIME SCENE. Q: AT SOME SUBSEQUENT TIME DID HE EXPRESS THAT VIEW TO YOU? A: YES. Q: AND WHEN WAS THAT? A: THAT WAS MAYBE TWO -- A WEEK OR TWO LATER. Q: AND THAT WAS ON AN OCCASION WHEN YOU WERE HAVING A DISCUSSION WITH HIM AS TO HOW HE PROCESSED THE CRIME SCENE? A: YES. Q: AND ON THAT OCCASION DID YOU EXPRESS THE VIEW TO HIM THAT IT WAS EXTREMELY FOOLISH TO REMOVE THE BODIES OF THE VICTIMS AND DRAG IT THROUGH THE EVIDENCE AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE BEFORE THE EVIDENCE WAS COLLECTED? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR -- THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU EXPRESS THE VIEW TO DETECTIVE LANGE THAT IN YOUR JUDGMENT AS A CRIMINALIST THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN COLLECTED BEFORE THE BODIES WERE REMOVED PRECISELY BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE WERE CLOSE TO THE BODIES? A: I NEVER -- I NEVER SAID THAT TO HIM, NO. Q: DID YOU SAY ANYTHING TO THAT EFFECT TO HIM? A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT. Q: NOW, IN YOUR OPINION AS A CRIMINALIST, MR. FUNG, ISN'T IT JUST BASIC FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE THAT WHEN THE EVIDENCE ARE CLOSE TO THE BODIES THAT IT IS BETTER FOR THE CRIMINALIST TO COLLECT IT, PHOTOGRAPH IT, DOCUMENT IT, BEFORE YOU REMOVE THE BODIES? A: THERE ARE VERY -- THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO PROCESS A CRIME SCENE AND I DO NOT KNOW ALL THE FACTORS THAT WENT INTO DETECTIVE LANGE'S DECISION. Q: WELL, WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE AND HAD A DISCUSSION WITH DETECTIVE LANGE, WEREN'T YOU AT ALL CONCERNED THAT THE BODIES WERE BEING REMOVED WHEN THEY WERE IN SUCH CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU WERE GOING TO HAVE TO COLLECT? A: YES. Q: NOW, WE JUST SAW A PICTURE WHERE YOU ARE STANDING THERE WITH CHIEF FORENSIC CHEMIST STEVEN JOHNSON? A: YES. Q: HE IS ONE OF YOUR SUPERVISORS? A: YES. Q: AND YOU WERE STANDING THERE WITH OTHER DETECTIVES? A: YES. Q: AND YOU WERE STANDING AROUND THIS CRIME SCENE WHILE MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS BEING REMOVED FROM THE SOIL CAGED-IN AREA? A: YES. Q: AND THAT OPENING BETWEEN THE GATE AND THE BEGINNING OF THE CONCRETE STAIRWELL IS ABOUT THIRTY INCHES, ISN'T IT? A: APPROXIMATELY. Q: AND DIDN'T YOU HAVE PROFOUND CONCERNS THAT IN MOVING MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY THROUGH THAT AREA THEY WERE GOING TO MOVE -- THEY WERE GOING TO ALTER THE CONDITION OF THE GLOVE AND THE HAT AND THE ENVELOPE THAT WAS RIGHT AGAINST THE TILE? MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE AS TO PROFOUNDLY CONCERNED. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU HAVE A CONCERN? THE COURT: COUNSEL, WHEN I SPEAK AND RULE ON AN OBJECTION, JUST FOR THE RECORD LET ME FINISH BEFORE YOU LAUNCH INTO THE NEXT QUESTION. MR. SCHECK: MY APOLOGIES, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THE TERM IS VAGUE. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU HAVE A CONCERN THAT WHEN MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS GOING TO BE TAKEN THROUGH THIS THIRTY-INCH AREA THAT IT COULD DISTURB, ALTER THE PRESCRIPTION ENVELOPE, THE GLOVE AND THE KNIT HAT. MR. GOLDBERG: IT IS VAGUE AS TO "DISTURB, ALTER." THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK, I'M SORRY, I NEED TO INTERRUPT YOU JUST FOR A MOMENT. WE NEED TO TAKE A BRIEF COMFORT BREAK. (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: MEMBERS OF THE JURY, IF YOU WANT TO STAND AND STRETCH A BIT, GO AHEAD. (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: AUDIENCE AS WELL. (BRIEF PAUSE.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. MR. SCHECK. MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU. ACTUALLY, COULD THE LAST QUESTION BE READ BACK? I'M SORRY. THE COURT: THE LAST QUESTION WAS DID YOU HAVE CONCERN THAT WHEN MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS GOING TO BE TAKEN THROUGH THE THIRTY-INCH AREA THAT IT COULD DISTURB OR ALTER THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THE PRESCRIPTION EYEGLASSES, THE GLOVE AND THE KNIT HAT? THE WITNESS: I DID NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE CONCERNED BECAUSE MR. GOLDMAN WAS MOVED BY THE TIME I GOT BACK FROM THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: BUT WHEN YOU ARRIVED MR. GOLDMAN HADN'T BEEN MOVED? A: THAT'S CORRECT. Q: DID YOU EXPRESS CONCERN TO DETECTIVE LANGE, WELL, WHATEVER YOU DO, DON'T MOVE MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY OR THE BODY OF THE SECOND VICTIM THERE THROUGH THIS THIRTY-INCH AREA WHERE YOU HAVE THE GLOVE, THE ENVELOPE AND THE HAT? A: I DON'T BELIEVE I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH DETECTIVE LANGE BEFORE THAT POINT. Q: WELL, DON'T YOU THINK THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT THING TO TELL HIM? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU THINK AT THE TIME THAT THAT WAS A MATTER THAT SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO HIS ATTENTION? MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: THAT IS OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I HAD NO IDEA HE WAS GOING TO MOVE MR. GOLDMAN. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, WERE YOU SHOCKED THAT HE DIRECTED THE CORONERS OR PERMITTED THE CORONERS TO MOVE MR. GOLDMAN THROUGH THAT EVIDENCE? MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE, IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU SURPRISED? THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU CONCERNED WHEN YOU SAW THAT HE HAD PERMITTED THE CORONERS OR DIRECTED THEM TO MOVE MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY THROUGH THAT EVIDENCE? MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION. THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE WITNESS: I WAS CONCERNED, YES. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU EXPRESS THAT CONCERN TO CHIEF FORENSIC CHEMIST STEVE JOHNSON WHO WAS STANDING RIGHT THERE? MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID CHIEF FORENSIC CHEMIST JOHNSON, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, SAY ANYTHING TO YOU ABOUT IT? A: NO. Q: DID YOU SAY ANYTHING TO HIM ABOUT IT? A: YES, I DID. Q: WHAT DID YOU SAY? A: I SAID -- I ASKED HIM ABOUT THE MOVING OF THE BODIES. Q: YOU EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT THAT WAS A BAD IDEA? A: I EXPRESSED TO HIM THAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT IT, YES. Q: AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE HE NEVER DID ANYTHING ABOUT IT? MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE DID HE DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, ONE OF THE, UMM -- LET'S START THIS WAY: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE CUED UP TWO PICTURES THAT I HAVE SHOWN TO THE PROSECUTOR OF THE GLOVE AND I WOULD LIKE WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION TO SHOW THEM TO THE WITNESS. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK: AND TO THE JURY. MR. SCHECK: CAN WE GET THAT ON THE SCREEN? Q: MR. FUNG, AS I GUESS I'M LOOKING AT IT HERE, TO THE LEFT IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE GLOVE AND THE HAT WITH AN EVIDENCE TAG THAT SAYS "102," CORRECT? A: I CAN'T MAKE OUT THE HAT FROM THE -- FROM THE SCREEN, BUT I DO SEE THE GLOVE. Q: YOU SEE THE GLOVE. LOOK CAREFULLY, THE CORNER? A: ON THE RIGHT I SEE A VERY DARK AREA NEXT TO THE GLOVE. I CAN'T MAKE IT OUT AS A HAT, THOUGH. Q: ALL RIGHT. AND TO THE PICTURE TO THE RIGHT, WITH THE PICTURE OF THE FINGER POINTING AT THE GLOVE, DO YOU SEE THAT? A: YES. Q: YOU HAVE SEEN THAT PICTURE BEFORE, CORRECT? A: TODAY, YES. Q: ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU SEEN ANY PICTURE LIKE THAT BEFORE WITH A FINGER POINTING AT THE GLOVE, PERHAPS ON THE GRAND JURY? A: PERHAPS, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER IT. Q: WELL, AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO COMING INTO THIS COURTROOM HAVE YOU SEEN THAT PICTURE -- A PICTURE LIKE THAT DEPICTING THE GLOVE IN THAT POSITION? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE GONE OVER THIS AND IT IS IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: WE HAVE. WE HAVE GONE OVER THIS. MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. THE COURT: HE HAS IDENTIFIED WHAT IT IS. MR. SCHECK: OKAY. Q: MY QUESTION TO YOU, SIR, IS ISN'T IT CLEAR TO YOU THAT THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT, THE ONE WITH THE FINGER POINTING AT THE GLOVE, THE GLOVE IS IN A DIFFERENT POSITION THAN THE ONE TO THE LEFT? A: YES. Q: THE GLOVE HAS BEEN TURNED AROUND COMPLETELY, HASN'T IT? A: IT IS IN A DIFFERENT POSITION, YES. Q: WELL, COULD YOU DESCRIBE THE DIFFERENCES? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THIS VIOLATES THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE. THE PICTURE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. THE COURT: OVERRULED. IF YOU CAN TELL. THE WITNESS: ON THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT, THE OPENING OR WRIST PORTION APPEARS TO BE TOWARDS THE PAVEMENT AND IN THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT THE GLOVE IS IN A DIFFERENT POSITION WITH THE WRIST IN ANOTHER ORIENTATION. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND THERE IS SOME DEBRIS -- THE COURT: LET ME SEE COUNSEL WITHOUT THE REPORTER. (A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED. ALL RIGHT. THIS SIDE-BY-SIDE PHOTO IMAGE WE WILL MARK AS 1075, DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1075. (DEFT'S 1075 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH) Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU SEE THIS PICTURE TO THE LEFT, THE ONE WITH THE EVIDENCE MARKER ON IT, WHAT APPEAR TO BE DRAG MARKS? A: YOU MEAN COMING FROM THE UPPER LEFT-HAND CORNER? Q: YES. A: COULD BE, YES. Q: AND YOU SEE DEBRIS NOW ON TOP OF THE TILES? A: I SEE WHAT APPEAR TO BE LEAVES ON THE TILES. Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, HAS THIS DISCREPANCY EVER BEEN POINTED OUT TO YOU BEFORE YOU CAME INTO THIS COURTROOM? A: I HAVEN'T SEEN THE PICTURE -- I DON'T RECALL SEEING THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT, SO NO. Q: NO ONE HAS EVER -- IT HAS NEVER COME TO YOUR ATTENTION BEFORE COMING INTO THIS COURTROOM THAT THE PICTURE OF THE GLOVE ON THE RIGHT THAT WAS TAKEN BEFORE YOU ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE SHOWED THE GLOVE IN A DIFFERENT POSITION THAN THE PICTURE THAT YOU DIRECTED BE TAKEN ON JUNE 13TH? A: IT HAS NEVER BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION, NO. Q: HAS ANYBODY -- DID IT -- DID YOU INQUIRE OF ANYBODY ON JUNE 13TH, WHEN YOU TOOK THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT, WHETHER OR NOT THE GLOVE HAD BEEN MOVED INTO A DIFFERENT POSITION THAN IT ORIGINALLY WAS AFTER MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY HAD BEEN WE MOVED? A: I ASSUMED THEY HAD NOT BEEN MOVED. Q: I'M SORRY? A: I ASSUMED THAT THEY HAD NOT BEEN MOVED. Q: YOU ASSUMED THAT THEY HAD NOT BEEN MOVED? A: THAT'S RIGHT. Q: WELL, YOU TOLD US BEFORE THAT YOU HAD A CONCERN THAT THE GLOVE AND THE ENVELOPE AND THE HAT MIGHT BE MOVED WHEN MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS TAKEN AWAY, DIDN'T YOU? MR. GOLDBERG: THAT MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. AFTER YOU SAW MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY BEING REMOVED, DID YOU MAKE INQUIRY OF DETECTIVE LANGE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE GLOVE WAS IN THE SAME PLACE AS IT WAS BEFORE MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS REMOVED? A: NO. MR. GOLDBERG: IT IS IRRELEVANT. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: HAVE -- FROM THE MOMENT YOU ARRIVED AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE TO THE MOMENT THAT YOU HAVE SEEN THESE PICTURES IN THE COURTROOM, DO YOU EVER RECALL SEEING THE GLOVE IN A DIFFERENT POSITION THAN IS DEPICTED IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS? A: AT THE SCENE? THE GLOVE AT THE SCENE? Q: THE GLOVE AT THE SCENE. A: I REMEMBER THE GLOVE BEING IN THE POSITION THAT IT IS WITH THE IDENTIFICATION CARD NEXT TO IT. Q: THE 102 PHOTOGRAPH? A: YES. Q: YOU NEVER SAW THE GLOVE IN ANY DIFFERENT POSITION PRIOR TO THE TIME IT WAS COLLECTED? A: I DON'T RECALL IT BEING IN A DIFFERENT POSITION, NO. Q: YOU NEVER SAW THAT GLOVE ON TOP OF THE TILES? A: ON THE WALKWAY? Q: YEAH. A: NO. Q: YOU NEVER SAW THAT GLOVE ON OR NEAR THE BLANKET? A: I DON'T RECALL, NO. MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU A VIDEO, MR. FUNG. Q: DO YOU RECALL -- WHILE WE ARE SETTING THIS UP, DO YOU RECALL THAT DETECTIVE VANNATTER ARRIVED AT THE CRIME SCENE THAT MORNING AT BUNDY? A: I DON'T RECALL IF IT WAS IN THE MORNING OR IN THE AFTERNOON, BUT HE DID MAKE A BRIEF STOP OVER. Q: AND WHEN HE STOPPED BY, HE WALKED UP THE STAIRS AND HAD A BRIEF TALK WITH YOU AT SOME POINT? A: I -- HE MAY HAVE. I DON'T RECALL. Q: AND YOU RECALL THAT CHIEF FORENSIC CHEMIST JOHNSON AT SOME POINT WALKED UP THAT STAIRWELL AT BUNDY? A: AT SOME POINT HE DID, YES. Q: AND DO YOU RECALL THAT THOSE TWO GENTLEMEN WALKED UP THERE BEFORE THE GLOVES AND THE KNIT HAT WERE COLLECTED? A: I DON'T RECALL IF IT WAS BEFORE OR AFTER. Q: DO YOU RECALL? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, WAIT A MINUTE. I OBJECT BECAUSE IT ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE, GLOVES. THE COURT: SUSTAINED. MR. SCHECK: GLOVE, GLOVE, THE BUNDY GLOVE. MY ERROR. MR. GOLDBERG: THE REPORTER -- THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. REPHRASE THE QUESTION. Q: BY MR. SCHECK: THE BUNDY GLOVE. DO YOU REMEMBER PUTTING DOWN EVIDENCE CARDS NEAR THE GLOVE AND THE HAT AND THE ENVELOPE PRIOR TO THEIR COLLECTION? A: YES. Q: PRIOR TO THE PHOTOGRAPHS BEING TAKEN? A: PRIOR? Q: YES. A: YES. Q: YOU DID THAT? A: YES. MR. SCHECK: I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU SOME VIDEO. MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, PERHAPS I COULD SEE THIS FIRST. I'M NOT SURE WHAT HE IS ABOUT TO PLAY. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HOW LONG IS THIS SEGMENT? MR. SCHECK: VERY SHORT. (THE VIDEOTAPE PLAYED WAS FOR COUNSEL.) MR. SCHECK: ACTUALLY THREE SEGMENTS. (THE VIDEOTAPE PLAYED WAS FOR COUNSEL.) MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I THINK WE NEED TO APPROACH. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, PLEASE, THAT REACTION IS NOT NECESSARY. ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AS FAR AS THE JURY IS CONCERNED, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A RECESS FOR THE AFTERNOON SESSION AT THIS TIME. PLEASE REMEMBER ALL OF MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU. DO NOT DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, 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. AS FAR AS THE JURY IS CONCERNED, WE WILL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL TOMORROW MORNING, 9:00 A.M. MR. FUNG, YOU MAY STEP DOWN. YOU ARE ORDERED TO RETURN TOMORROW MORNING, 9:00 A.M. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL HAVE MOTIONS ON CALENDAR, SO AS SOON AS WE CLEAR THE JURY, WE WILL RESUME WITH EVIDENCE AND MOTIONS. (AT 4:04 P.M. THE JURY WAS EXCUSED AND THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT THE JURORS HAVE LEFT THE COURTROOM. TWO THINGS: MR. SCHECK, THE PRINTOUT -- MR. HARRIS, THE PRINTOUT DOESN'T QUITE -- MR. HARRIS: YES, I'M GOING TO FIX THAT, YOUR HONOR. I REALIZED THAT AND I WILL TAKE CARE OF IT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE THE DRAG MARKS SO WE NEED THE FULL FRAME AS WE SPEAK SO I CAN KEEP THIS AS A SOUVENIR. ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG, WHAT IS YOUR OBJECTION TO THE VIDEO EXHIBIT? MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, THERE IS ANOTHER VIDEO WHERE A SERIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS, THREE OF THEM, HAVE BEEN TAKEN -- PUT IN SOME CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE BY THE DEFENSE RATHER THAN THE CONTINUOUS VIEWING OF WHAT HAPPENED AT THE CRIME SCENE, SO WE OBJECT ON THOSE GROUNDS. ALSO, I DON'T RECALL HAVING SEEN ONE OF THE SHOTS IN THERE FROM MY REVIEW OF THE VIDEOTAPE PROVIDED BY THE DEFENSE. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IS IT POSSIBLE AFTER WE CONCLUDE, IS IT -- IS MR. HARRIS AVAILABLE TO EXHIBIT THESE MATTERS TO MR. GOLDBERG? MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I REPRESENT TO YOU THAT THERE IS TWO SETS OF VIDEOS AND IF MR. GOLDBERG AND THE PROSECUTION LOOK, THEY WILL SEE TWO VERSIONS OF THIS; ONE THAT IS AS DEPICTED HERE AND ANOTHER ONE THAT HAS THE COUNTER ON IT. THE COURT: YES. MR. SCHECK: WE CHOSE THE ONE WITHOUT THE COUNTER ON IT BECAUSE IT GIVES IT A VIEW THAT IS UNOBSTRUCTED BY THE COUNTER, BUT I'M CONFIDENT THAT IF THEY GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE VIDEO, THEY WILL SEE THIS. MR. GOLDBERG: THE PROBLEM MAYBE IS I WAS ABOUT TO SAY IS BECAUSE IT IS EDITED INTO THREE SEPARATE SEGMENTS THAT ARE ARRANGED IN SOME CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER BY THE DEFENSE, IT MAY BE THAT I'M NOT RECOGNIZING ONE OF THOSE THREE SEQUENCES, BUT WE OBJECT TO THE SEQUENCE ITSELF IN THAT I THINK WHAT COUNSEL IS TRYING TO PORTRAY IS SOME SORT OF HISTORICAL VIEW OF WHAT HAPPENED AT THE CRIME SCENE AND THE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, AND THIS VIDEOTAPE HAS BEEN APPARENTLY EDITED, IT DOES NOT DO THAT, BECAUSE IT IS SHOWING THREE DISTINCT THINGS. THE COURT: MR. SCHECK. MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I THINK THAT WHAT THIS VIDEO DEPICTS IS -- AND MR. GOLDBERG CAN GO BACK AND LOOK AND CONSULT WITH THE ORIGINAL FOOTAGE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, BUT I THINK WHAT -- THERE IS AN OBJECT ON THAT SCREEN THAT WE BELIEVE COULD WELL BE THE GLOVE THAT IS ON THE WALKWAY NEAR THE BLANKET AND IT IS THERE DURING THESE PERIODS OF TIME WHEN MR. VANNATTER IS WALKING THROUGH, WHAT I THINK IS CONSISTENT WITH HIS TESTIMONY AT ABOUT 9:45 WHEN HE IS GOING TO CONSULT DETECTIVE LANGE FOR THE WARRANT. WE HAVE OTHER FOOTAGE OF MR. FUNG AND DETECTIVE VANNATTER CONVERSING. THEY CAN LOOK AT THAT. MR. JOHNSON, THE WITNESS TESTIFIED, WALKED THROUGH THE CRIME SCENE. I THINK THIS IS A CLEAR PICTURE OF THAT. AND THEN FINALLY WE HAVE MR. FUNG PLACING DOWN THE EXHIBITS. THIS SEEMED TO BE THE MOST EXPEDITIOUS WAY TO ZERO IN ON THE ISSUE AND ASK HIM IF HE KNOWS WHAT THAT OBJECT IS. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT ONE OF THESE VIDEOS IS GOING TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT APPEARS TO BE THE GLOVE ON THE WALKWAY? LET'S SEE IT AGAIN. MR. SCHECK: ALL THREE OF THEM DO. WE WANT TO MAKE AN INQUIRY AS TO WHAT THE OBJECT IS BECAUSE IT LOOKS TO US LIKE THE GLOVE AND WE WANT THE WITNESS' BEST RECOLLECTION AND VIEW AS TO WHAT THAT OBJECT IS. THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING HIM THESE. THE COURT: LET'S SEE IT AGAIN. IS THIS IN SOME TYPE OF ORDER CHRONOLOGICALLY? MR. SCHECK: UMM, TO THE BEST WE CAN RECONSTRUCT IT IT IS, BUT I THINK THAT THE IMPORTANT POINT, AND WE COULD MAKE THIS CLEAR TO THE JURY, IS THAT ALL OF THESE SHOTS ARE TAKEN AT A POINT PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT MR. FUNG SETS DOWN THE CARD, THE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE TAKEN AND THE GLOVE IS COLLECTED. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE A LOOK AGAIN. (AT 4:10 P.M., A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.) MR. SCHECK: DO YOU SEE THAT ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: I DO. MR. SCHECK: WE CONTEND THAT IS THE GLOVE. IT GOES IN AND OUT OF FOCUS. WE THINK THAT IS CLEARLY IN A POSITION EITHER ON OR NEAR THE BLANKET INSIDE THE TILES. WE STOPPED IT THERE. SO WE WANT TO HAVE MR. FUNG TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. HE HAS PREVIOUSLY SEEN THIS FOOTAGE, BUT PERHAPS HE DIDN'T NOTICE IT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK: CAN WE SHOW THE NEXT ONE? (AT 4:11 P.M., A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.) MR. SCHECK: THE NEXT ONE I BELIEVE IS DETECTIVE VANNATTER WALKING THROUGH, AND I THINK THE SAME OBJECT CAN BE SEEN NEAR HIS FEET. FINALLY, WE HAVE MR. FUNG PLACING DOWN THE CARD AND I THINK IN THAT SHOT YOU CAN SEE THE OBJECT IN THE SAME POSITION AS WHEN MR. JOHNSON AND DETECTIVE VANNATTER WERE WALKING THROUGH WITH MR. FUNG PUTTING DOWN THE EVIDENCE CARDS. THE COURT: SO YOU ARE GOING TO ASK HIM WHAT IS THAT? MR. SCHECK: THAT'S RIGHT. THE COURT: OKAY. MR. GOLDBERG, ANY FURTHER COMMENT? MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I JUST HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR? (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR -- MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I JUST HAVE ONE MOMENT? I WANT TO LOOK AT THE STILL PHOTOGRAPHS. (BRIEF PAUSE.) MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD TAKE THIS UP IN THE MORNING SO THAT I COULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THE STILL PHOTOGRAPHS AND ALSO THE VIDEO? THE COURT: TAKE IT UP AT 8:30. MR. GOLDBERG: AT WHEN? THE COURT: 8:30. MR. GOLDBERG: ALL RIGHT. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) MS. CLARK: WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO BE HEARD. THE COURT: I'M SORRY? MS. CLARK: WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO BE HEARD ON THIS. CAN WE SEE IT ONE MORE TIME, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: HOW ABOUT IF WE DO THIS: I HAVE A WHOLE PANOPLY OF MEDIA MOTIONS TO ADDRESS, SO IF YOU WANT TIME TO LOOK AT THESE ITEMS, I'M SURE YOU HAVE THE SAME VIDEOTAPES, CORRECT? MS. CLARK: WE HAVE NEVER SEEN -- MR. SCHECK: LET ME MAKE ONE THING CLEAR, YOUR HONOR: THERE ARE TWO CASSETTES OF VIDEOS THAT I AM SURE MR. GOLDBERG AND MR. FUNG HAVE LOOKED THROUGH, IT IS THE SAME TWO CASSETTES, AND I THINK THE COURT HAS A COPY OF THOSE CASSETTES AS WELL. WE HAVE MADE THOSE AVAILABLE SINCE THE OPENING STATEMENT. IF YOU WILL LOOK THROUGH THOSE YOU WILL SEE THIS A NUMBER OF TIMES. AND I WILL MAKE ONE FURTHER REQUEST, HOWEVER, AND I REALIZE IT HASN'T BEEN THE CUSTOM AND PRACTICE IN THE COURT, BUT I WOULD MAKE A REQUEST THAT THE PROSECUTOR BE CONSTRAINED NOT TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE WITH MR. FUNG PRIOR TO HIS RETURN TO THE STAND TOMORROW, BECAUSE WE THINK THAT THIS IS IMPORTANT IMPEACHMENT MATERIAL AND WE DON'T THINK THAT THEY OUGHT TO BE DISCUSSING THEIR ARGUMENTS WITH HIM BEFORE HE ANSWERS THE QUESTIONS ON THIS ISSUE. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.) THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG? MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD OBJECT TO THAT. THERE IS NO PROHIBITION UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW FROM THE PARTIES DISCUSSING MATTERS WITH THE WITNESSES AND THERE IS NO BASIS -- LEGAL BASIS FOR THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION. MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I MUST -- MAY I DEFER AND MAKE THIS ONE EXCEPTION? I COME FROM JURISDICTIONS WHERE IN FACT THIS RULE IS IN PLACE, GENERALLY SPEAKING, BUT I WOULD DEFER TO MR. COCHRAN TO MAYBE ADDRESS THIS QUESTION SINCE HE KNOWS THESE MATTERS BETTER THAN I. MS. CLARK: IN THAT CASE I WILL ASK LEAVE OF THE COURT TO ADDRESS THE COURT AS WELL ON THIS ISSUE. I'M SORRY, BUT MR. SCHECK HAS COME INTO THIS COURT AND WHEN THEY DO THAT -- MR. COCHRAN: SHE IS ALREADY TALKING, YOUR HONOR, AND RATHER THAN HEAR THAT, LET ME TALK TO MR. SCHECK, MAY I PLEASE, YOUR HONOR? (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.) THE COURT: LIKE THE WORLD SERIES WHERE YOU HAVE DESIGNATED HITTER RULES ALTERNATELY. MR. SCHECK: LAST POINT I WANT TO MAKE IN THIS REGARD IS THAT WE WERE UNFORTUNATELY CUT OFF BY THE OBJECTIONS BEFORE WE COULD FINISH THIS IMPEACHMENT, AT THE BREAK, AND ALL WE WANT IS TO BE PUT IN THE SAME POSITION THAT WE WERE JUST PRIOR TO THE BREAK WHEN THE WITNESS WAS BEING CONFRONTED WITH THE VIDEO. THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG. MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, YOUR HONOR, I THOUGHT WE HAD RULES IN THIS COURT THAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO SEE THE EXHIBITS BEFOREHAND AND PARTICULARLY WITH SOMETHING LIKE VIDEO. I THINK THIS HAPPENED AT ABOUT FIVE MINUTES OF. THE COURT: WELL, I'M NOT PARTICULARLY CONCERNED WITH THAT. HE HAS ASKED THAT I MAKE AN ORDER THAT YOU NOT DISCUSS THE MATTER WITH MR. FUNG BETWEEN NOW AND TOMORROW MORNING WHEN HE IS SHOWN THE VIDEO MATTERS BEFORE THE JURY. WHAT IS YOUR COMMENT ON THAT? MR. GOLDBERG: MY COMMENT IS THAT THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IS THAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO TALK TO OUR WITNESSES. YOU ARE ALLOWED TO TALK TO YOUR WITNESSES AT BREAKS. YOU ARE ALLOWED TO TALK TO THEM OVER LUNCH, BEFORE TRIAL, AFTER TRIAL AND SO ON. WE KNOW THAT IS THE RULE, SO WHY WOULD WE MAKE AN EXCEPTION -- CARVE OUT AN EXCEPTION FOR THIS WITNESS THAT WE DIDN'T CARVE OUT FOR ANYONE ELSE, THAT WE DIDN'T CARVE OUT FOR ROSA LOPEZ OR ANY OF THE OTHER WITNESSES THAT TESTIFIED OVER A NUMBER OF DAYS AND HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THE PARTIES, TO THE ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING EITHER SIDE, OVER THOSE BREAKS? I DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO IMPOSE SOME DIFFERENT RULE WITH MR. FUNG THAN IS CUSTOMARILY APPLIED IN THIS STATE IN THIS COURT AND IN THIS CASE IN PARTICULAR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK, I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY STATUTORY AUTHORITY IN THE EVIDENCE CODE THAT GIVES ME THE POWER TO DO WHAT YOU ARE ASKING. MR. SCHECK: ONE FINAL REQUEST IN THAT REGARD THEN. I WOULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT TO YOUR HONOR THAT THE OBJECTION AT THE END I THINK IS A SIMPLE TACTICAL MATTER WHICH PREVENTED THE IMPEACHMENT AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, SO I WOULD ASK THE COURTS -- SURE, YOU HAVE DISCRETION. IF IT IS NOT IN THE EVIDENCE CODE, I'M SURE YOU HAVE DISCRETION. THE COURT: WELL, LET'S ASSUME THAT I DO. MR. SCHECK: EXERCISE YOUR DISCRETION. THE COURT: LET'S ASSUME THAT I DO. I DECLINE. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THEN COUNSEL -- BUT THIS PICTURE SPEAKS PRETTY POWERFULLY FOR ITSELF. MR. SCHECK: JUST FOR THE COURT'S EDIFICATION, I HAVE EXAMINED ALL THESE PHOTOGRAPHS VERY CAREFULLY AND THERE ARE SOME OTHERS THAT I WILL CALL TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION THAT WE HAVE CONSIDERED IN THIS REGARD AND THAT IS THAT THERE IS ANOTHER SHOT THAT I'M SURE THE PROSECUTORS HAVE SEEN THAT CONTAINS SOME LEAVES, ALL RIGHT, IN THE AREA WHERE THE PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN. AND IN OUR JUDGMENT THOSE LEAVES CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR WHAT WE SEE ON THAT SCREEN, AND SO IF THEY ARE GOING TO MAKE AN OBJECTION THAT THEY THINK THIS IS MISLEADING BECAUSE THERE IS ANOTHER PHOTOGRAPH BECAUSE THERE IS LEAVES IN THAT AREA, I DON'T THINK THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GLOVE, SO MAYBE TO SAVE SOME TIME I WILL PROFFER THESE PHOTOGRAPHS TO THE COURT, YOU CAN EXAMINE IT AND EXAMINE THE VIDEO AND MAYBE WE CAN MOVE ON QUICKLY TOMORROW WITH THE IMPEACHMENT. THE COURT: WE WILL TAKE IT UP TOMORROW MORNING. I WILL GIVE THE PROSECUTION TIME TO SEARCH THEIR VIDEOTAPES AND LOOK AT THIS THING. I WILL ASK MR. HARRIS AND MISS FITZPATRICK TO STICK AROUND SO THAT WE CAN ALL TAKE A LOOK AT IT AGAIN, BUT I NEED TO DEAL WITH THE MOTIONS THAT I HAD SCHEDULED FOR FOUR O'CLOCK. MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: MADAM REPORTER, DO YOU NEED A COUPLE MINUTES OR CAN YOU PROCEED? REPORTER OLSON: I'M FINE. MR. COCHRAN: CAN WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR, ON THIS MATTER? THE COURT: ON WHAT? MR. COCHRAN: ON OUR POSITION. THE COURT: WELL, I HAVE MR. HODGMAN HERE. (A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.) (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, YOU ARE GOING TO CONFER WITH A FEW FOLKS AND THEN WE WILL TAKE THE MATTER UP. MR. HODGMAN: YES, YOUR HONOR. I WILL BE JUST A COUPLE MINUTES. THE COURT: MS. SAGER, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS DISCUSS THE MATTER WITH SOME OF THE VICTIMS' FAMILIES REPRESENTATIVES AND THEN WE WILL TAKE THE MATTER UP IN CHAMBERS. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS. MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, CAN WE -- THE COURT: AS SOON AS WE CLEAR THE COURTROOM, MISS FITZPATRICK IS HERE AND MR. HARRIS IS HERE AND I WILL ALLOW YOU TO REVIEW THOSE ITEMS. MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. (AT 4:22 P.M. AN ADJOURNMENT WAS TAKEN UNTIL, THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 1995, 8:30 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, ) REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 1995
PAGES 21857 THROUGH 22064, INCLUSIVE APPEARANCES: (SEE PAGE 2)
JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR #4588 APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PEOPLE: GIL GARCETTI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT L. SHAPIRO, ESQUIRE
JOHNNIE L. COCHRAN, JR., ESQUIRE
GERALD F. UELMEN, ESQUIRE I N D E X INDEX FOR VOLUME 121 PAGES 21857 - 22064 ----------------------------------------------------- DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.
WEDNESDAY APRIL 5, 1995 A.M. 21857 121 LEGEND:
MS. CLARK - MC CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
PEOPLE'S
FUNG, DENNIS 121 ----------------------------------------------------- ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.
FUNG, DENNIS 121 EXHIBITS
PEOPLE'S FOR IN EXHIBIT
55-A - PHOTOGRPAH OF 21982 121
55-B - PHOTOGRPAH OF 21982 121 -----------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE FOR IN EXHIBIT
1071 - BLACK BINDER 21861 121
1072 - DOCUMENT 21924 121
1073 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 21953 121
1074 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 21967 121
1075 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 22047 121
|