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 MORNING, COUNSEL. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. BLASIER, MR. SCHECK. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MISS CLARK, MR. DARDEN AND MR. GOLDBERG. THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT. COUNSEL, ANYTHING WE NEED TO DISCUSS BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURORS TO JOIN US?

MR. COCHRAN: YES. MAY WE -- I NEED TO MAKE AN INQUIRY OF THE COURT. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN INQUIRY OF THE COURT. CAN WE DO IT AT THE SIDE BAR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY. WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: SIDE BAR.

MR. COCHRAN: JUST A MATTER OF PROCEDURE. I WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THE COURT'S INTENTION WAS. YOU RECALL THAT WE HAD RECEIVED A NOTE FROM ONE OR TWO OF THE JURORS REGARDING SOME INCIDENT INVOLVING BEING KICKED OR WHATEVER.

THE COURT: UH-HUH.

MR. COCHRAN: I THINK THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE COURT NEEDS TO INQUIRE INTO EARLIER, RATHER THAN LATER, AND I JUST WANTED TO ASK WHAT YOUR PLANS WERE.

THE COURT: MY PLANS ARE TO BRING IN JEANETTE HARRIS AT FOUR O'CLOCK ON WEDNESDAY AND TO GO OVER THE SPECIFICS OF HER COMMENTS, AND SHE INCLUDES IN THAT THIS PARTICULAR INCIDENT, BEING INVOLVED IN IT, SO I WANT TO GET IT FROM HER FIRST. THEN I AM GOING TO INTERVIEW THE TWO OTHER PEOPLE INVOLVED AND THEN I WILL PROBABLY GO THROUGH AND TALK TO EACH ONE OF THE JURORS INDIVIDUALLY.

MR. COCHRAN: OKAY. WILL WE BE DOING THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: THE END OF EACH DAY?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: MY ONLY CONCERN WAS -- AND THAT'S FINE -- IS THAT -- I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY GET TO IT, BUT I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED WERE THEY NOT CONCERNED ABOUT A LACK OF RESPONSE. SHE SAID THAT IN THE INTERVIEW WE HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT IT, SO MAYBE IF THERE IS SOME WAY THE COURT WILL INDICATE SOMETHING WILL BE HAPPENING.

THE COURT: I MUST TELL YOU, THOUGH, THAT PEOPLE BEING OUTRAGED AND OFFENDED BY SOMEBODY PERHAPS CROSSING OVER THEM AND INADVERTENTLY HITTING THEM, I MEAN, THIS INITIALLY STRUCK ME AS SOMETHING SO TRIVIAL TO BE UNBELIEVABLE.

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, IT DEPENDS ON WHETHER IT WAS UNINTENTIONAL.

THE COURT: I AGREE.

MR. COCHRAN: IN THE MINDS OF -- AS PEOPLE.

THE COURT: WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ONE INCIDENT OVER SEVERAL MONTHS OF TRIAL FILING IN AND OUT OF THE COURTROOM.

MS. CLARK: LET'S NOT FORGET THIS IS ALSO THE WOMAN WHO CLAIMED THAT ANOTHER JUROR PUSHED HER.

THE COURT: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: WHAT I'M SAYING, JUDGE, AGAIN I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND, I THINK -- AND I WANT TO MAKE THIS AS CLEAR AS I CAN, I THINK YOU SHOULD NOT UNDERESTIMATE THIS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THIS CASE AND PEOPLE'S PERCEPTIONS.

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THAT, MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: SO I'M JUST SAYING -- AND IF PEOPLE HAVE THE PERCEPTION THAT YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT, I'M TELLING YOU THAT I BELIEVE IT WILL RESULT IN FURTHER PROBLEMS. THAT IS JUST MY LITTLE HUMBLE GUESS.

THE COURT: WELL, IT IS ALL A MATTER OF PRIORITIES, MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: I JUST THOUGHT IF PEOPLE DON'T THINK WE ARE DOING ANYTHING -- I THINK WE HAVE TO GET ON WITH THE TRIAL.

THE COURT: WE WILL BE ADDRESSING IT DIRECTLY TOMORROW.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, ON A SEPARATE ISSUE AS TO THE VIDEOTAPE -- AS TO THE VIDEOTAPE THAT COUNSEL WANTS TO PLAY DEPICTING THE OBJECT THAT THEY ARE CONTENDING IS A GLOVE, WE'VE HAD THE TAPE LOOKED AT AND IT APPEARS THAT IT IS SHOT ON THE TAPE THAT WE HAVE IS VHS AND NOT BETA. WE HAVE A DECLARATION FROM THE EXPERT THAT I JUST GOT RIGHT NOW THAT I WOULD LIKE TO FILE WITH THE COURT, BUT THERE IS NOW A BEST EVIDENCE OBJECTION THAT WE WILL LODGE AND WOULD LIKE TO LODGE TO IT THAT WE WEREN'T AWARE OF AND COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE OF.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, I WILL HEAR IT IN OPEN COURT.

MR. COCHRAN: LET ME SEE THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. REMEMBER, THOU SHALL NOT WHINE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BACK IN OPEN COURT. MR. GOLDBERG, YOU HAD A COMMENT ABOUT THE VIDEOTAPE?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, WE WANTED TO LODGE ANOTHER OBJECTION TO THE PLAYING OF THE TAPE THAT WAS DISCUSSED ON THURSDAY DEPICTING THE ITEM THAT THE DEFENSE CONTENDS MAY BE THE GLOVE. AND THE BASIS OF THIS OBJECTION WAS NOT DISCOVERED UNTIL QUITE RECENTLY, IN FACT LAST NIGHT, AND AS STATED IN THE DECLARATION THAT WE JUST FILED WITH THE COURT, A VIDEOTAPE ENGINEER WHO TOOK A LOOK AT THIS VIDEO, I'M NOT SURE THAT I CAN -- I HOPE I'M NOT MISSTATING WHAT IS IN THE DECLARATION BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND ALL THE TECHNICAL JARGON -- BUT APPARENTLY MOST NEWS ORGANIZATIONS SHOOT THEIR TAPES ON BETA. AND WHAT WE HAVE IS A VHS TAPE AND THE CLARITY OF THE BETA TAPE IS APPARENTLY MUCH GREATER THAN WITH A VHS TAPE, SO THERE IS A BEST EVIDENCE RULE OBJECTION IN THE SENSE THAT WE HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITH WHAT IS A COPY THAT IS NOT AS GOOD AND WOULD NOT HAVE THE SAME RESOLUTION AS THE ORIGINAL.

THEREFORE, WE HAVE TWO REQUESTS THAT WE WOULD ASK: NO. 1, THAT IF THE DEFENSE HAS THE BETA VERSION, THEY SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PLAY THAT OR UTILIZE THAT IF THEY ARE GOING TO USE THIS TAPE. IF THEY DON'T HAVE IT, THEN THEY HAVE TO MAKE A SHOWING UNDER THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE AS TO WHY THEY DON'T AND WHY IT IS NOT AVAILABLE. AND IF THE COURT IS INCLINED SOMEHOW TO -- IF THEY CAN MAKE SUCH A SHOWING, THE PROSECUTION SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO GET THE INFORMATION FROM THE DEFENSE AS TO WHERE THE TAPE CAME FROM SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN TRACK DOWN THE BETA VERSION. ALSO, APPARENTLY IT IS EASIER TO ENHANCE A BETA TAPE THAN THE VHS TAPE, WHICH IS I THINK ALSO STATED IN THIS DECLARATION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, WE GAVE OVER TO THE COURT THE ORIGINAL VHS COPY THAT WE HAVE, SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY BETA TAPES. IT DOESN'T INDICATE THAT THE PROSECUTION KNOWS FOR SURE THAT THERE IS AN ORIGINAL BETA TAPE. OBVIOUSLY, AS I INDICATED TO THE COURT THE OTHER DAY, FROM OUR POSITION --

THE COURT: YES, BUT NO COMMERCIAL VIDEO ENTERPRISE USES VHS AS THE ORIGINAL FORMAT.

MR. SCHECK: THE COURT --

THE COURT: WHICH HAS ALWAYS MADE ME WONDER WHY VHS BEAT OUT BETA, BUT THAT IS ANOTHER STORY.

MR. SCHECK: BUT WE DON'T HAVE IT, THAT IS THE POINT, AND THIS IS THE BEST COPY THAT WE HAVE. AND WE THINK WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO OFFER IT UNDER THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE FOR THAT PURPOSE. AND AS I INDICATED TO THE COURT BEFORE --

THE COURT: DO YOU KNOW WHICH NEWS ORGANIZATION THE -- THIS COPY CAME FROM?

MR. SCHECK: GEE, I DON'T, AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, THERE ARE TWO VERSIONS OF THIS, AS I INDICATED ON THE BIG COMPILATIONS, ONE THAT HAS THE COUNTER ON IT AND THE OTHER ONE THAT DOES NOT, AND ONE OF THEM I EVEN THINK MAY EVEN HAVE A LITTLE LOGO IN IT INDICATING ONE OF THE NETWORKS. BUT OUR POSITION IS SIMPLY THAT THIS IS THE BEST WE HAVE, WE HAVE TURNED OVER THE BEST COPY WE HAVE TO THE PROSECUTORS. AND WITH RESPECT TO THESE TAPES AND ALL OTHER TAPES OF HOW COLLECTION WAS DONE AT THE CRIME SCENE, WE WOULD JOIN WITH THE PROSECUTION, I'M SURE, IN ASKING THE NEWS ORGANIZATIONS TO TURN OVER -- I MADE THIS PLEA BEFORE -- EVERYTHING. I MEAN, THEY DON'T -- THEY WON'T GIVE US OUTTAKES, BUT EVERYTHING THEY HAVE, THE BEST VERSIONS THAT WE HAVE, BECAUSE WE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN MISLEADING ANYBODY.

WE LOOKED AT THE TAPE, WE SAW WHAT WE SAW AND THAT IS THE BEST WE CAN DO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG, ANY RESPONSE TO THAT?

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, UNDER THE RULE, THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE, YOU ARE ALLOWED, GENERALLY SPEAKING, TO INTRODUCE A COPY INSTEAD OF THE ORIGINAL BUT YOU GENERALLY HAVE TO MAKE A SHOWING THAT YOU DON'T HAVE THE ORIGINAL AND WHY YOU DON'T HAVE IT. NOW, COUNSEL APPARENTLY HAVE COMPILED THESE CLIPPINGS FROM NEWS ORGANIZATIONS. THEY GOT THEM IN SOME MANNER, IN SOME WAY. THEY DIDN'T JUST SIMPLY MATERIALIZE IN THE OFFICES OF THE DEFENSE IN THIS CASE. WE ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW IF THEY ARE GOING TO USE A COPY. AT THE VERY LEAST WE ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW AND HAVE A REPRESENTATION AS TO PRECISELY WHERE THEY CAME FROM AND WHERE -- HOW THEY WERE COMPILED SO THAT THE PEOPLE, AT THE VERY LEAST, CAN BE PERMITTED THE OPTION OF THEN TRYING TO TRACK DOWN THE BETA VERSION OF THIS TAPE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK, CAN YOU PROVIDE US WITH THE SOURCE OF THIS CLIP?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS, MR. SCHECK: IS THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE SOMEWHERE IN THE DEFENSE TEAM, WHERE IT CAME FROM, THIS CLIP?

MR. SCHECK: WE WOULD HAVE TO -- WHAT WE DID IS PUT ALL OF THEM TOGETHER AND WE WOULD HAVE TO SIT DOWN AND DISAGGREGATE THEM AND LOOK AT THEM AND TRY TO MAKE OUR BEST ESTIMATION GOING BACK THROUGH ALL THE RECORDS. BUT WE WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN PUTTING THESE CLIPS TOGETHER FOR THE COURT AND FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY. THEY HAVE HAD IT FOR MONTHS.

THE COURT: THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE IT IS ONE THING. WHERE IT CAME FROM, THE SOURCE OF THAT, IS ANOTHER QUESTION.

MR. SCHECK: I UNDERSTAND.

THE COURT: CAN YOU MAKE THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THEM BY TOMORROW MORNING?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SCHECK: I THINK I BETTER DEFER TO MR. COCHRAN.

THE COURT: NO, YOU ARE HANDLING THIS, MR. SCHECK.

MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.

THE COURT: SIMPLE QUESTION. CAN YOU MAKE THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THEM?

MR. SCHECK: IF WE HAVE IT. WE WILL MAKE OUR BEST EFFORTS TO FIND OUT WHERE WE GOT ALL OF THIS, BUT I CAN CERTAINLY REPRESENT TO THE COURT THAT WE GAVE YOU THE BEST COPY WE HAD, THAT IS THE BEST COPY WE HAD, THAT IS THE ONLY ONE AVAILABLE TO US. AND IF THE NEWS ORGANIZATIONS WANT TO MAKE MORE AVAILABLE, THAT WILL BE TERRIFIC, BUT I THINK WE SATISFIED THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE JUST ON THE FACE OF THIS BECAUSE THIS IS THE BEST AVAILABLE COPY.

THE COURT: MISS HAYSLETT, WILL YOU MAKE AN INQUIRY OF THE NEWS ORGANIZATIONS AND IF ANYBODY RECOGNIZES THIS VIDEOTAPE AS THEIR PRODUCT THAT WE TURNED OVER, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE ORIGINAL BETA FORMAT. ALL RIGHT. THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED. 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. BE SEATED, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. THANK YOU. LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: I TRUST YOU ARE ALL FEELING WELL TODAY? HEAR WE HAD A GOOD DINNER LAST NIGHT. GOOD. ALL RIGHT.

DENNIS FUNG, THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE EVENING ADJOURNMENT, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:

THE COURT: THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT MR. DENNIS FUNG IS ON THE WITNESS STAND AGAIN. MR. FUNG, GOOD MORNING, SIR.

THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH, SIR. AND MR. SCHECK, YOU MAY RESUME AND COMPLETE YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION.

MR. SCHECK: I WILL MAKE MY BEST EFFORT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, SIR. YOU HAVE THE MORNING.

MR. SCHECK: I'M SORRY?

THE COURT: YOU HAVE THE MORNING.

MR. SCHECK: I'M SURE I WILL BE INTO THE AFTERNOON.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. SCHECK: GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MR. SCHECK:

Q: GOOD MORNING, MR. FUNG. HOW ARE YOU, SIR?

A: GOOD MORNING.

Q: WHEN WE LEFT WE WERE DISCUSSING THE GLOVE AT BUNDY. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND JUST TO REVIEW A LITTLE BIT -- MR. HARRIS, WOULD YOU PUT UP THE -- I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU ON THE SCREEN -- YOU RECALL SEEING THESE PICTURES BEFORE OF THE BUNDY GLOVE?

A: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND MR. SCHECK, WHICH DEFENSE EXHIBIT, THIS SIDE-BY-SIDE, WHICH ONE IS THIS?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: IS THIS 1075?

MR. SCHECK: 1075, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, MR. FUNG, IF WE COULD LOOK AT THE PICTURE TO THE RIGHT, THE ONE WITH THE FINGER POINTING AT THE GLOVE, DO YOU SEE THAT, SIR?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHY DON'T WE DESIGNATE THAT POSITION NO. 1. FAIR ENOUGH?

A: YES.

Q: AND LET'S LOOK AT THE LEFT AND THAT IS THE PICTURE WITH THE EVIDENCE TAG, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHY DON'T WE DESIGNATE THAT POSITION NO. 2. OKAY?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, TURNING TO POSITION NO. 1, YOU REMEMBER I SHOWED YOU THAT PHOTOGRAPH LAST THURSDAY AND ASKED YOU IF YOU HAD SEEN IT IN THE GRAND JURY. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?

A: I REMEMBER THAT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU INDICATED THAT YOU DIDN'T THINK YOU HAD?

A: I INDICATED THAT I DIDN'T REMEMBER SEEING IT.

Q RIGHT. AND HAVE YOU SINCE THEN GONE BACK, SPOKEN WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, LOOKED AT THE GRAND JURY EXHIBIT AND REFRESHED YOUR RECOLLECTION?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU DID IN FACT SEE THAT PHOTOGRAPH IN THE GRAND JURY, DIDN'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THOSE ARE THE TWO POSITIONS FROM WHICH YOU SAW THE GLOVE IN PHOTOGRAPHS; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, BEFORE WE LEFT ON THURSDAY AFTERNOON, JUST AS WE BROKE, YOU WERE SHOWN A VIDEOTAPE, WERE YOU NOT?

A: YES.

MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. THREE DIFFERENT SEGMENTS. I WOULD ASK NOW, YOUR HONOR, THAT MR. HARRIS BE PERMITTED TO SHOW -- TO PLAY THOSE.

THE COURT: YES. HAVE WE MARKED THAT YET?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: NEXT IN ORDER.

MR. SCHECK: I DON'T THINK WE HAVE.

THE CLERK: 1078.

THE COURT: 1078.

(DEFT'S 1078 FOR ID = VIDEOTAPE)

MR. SCHECK: IF I MAY APPROACH, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I DON'T THINK THE POINTER IS GOING TO WORK. DO YOU HAVE THE LASER?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SCHECK: OKAY.

THE COURT: AND BE CAREFUL WHERE YOU POINT THAT.

MR. SCHECK: OKAY. GREAT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. HARRIS.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

(AT 9:20 A.M., DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1078, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, DO YOU RECOGNIZE THIS AS A PICTURE OF DETECTIVE VANNATTER WALKING UP NOW?

A: I CAN'T IDENTIFY WHO THAT PERSON IS.

Q: OKAY. NOW, DO YOU SEE THE OBJECT THAT I AM CIRCLING WITH THIS LIGHT PEN?

MR. GOLDBERG: I OBJECT. IT ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE, THAT IT IS AN OBJECT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU SEE THAT?

A: I SEE A DARK SPOT ON THE VIDEO, YES.

Q: OKAY. WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THAT LOOKS TO BE BROWN?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS IRRELEVANT WHAT HE THINKS. THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: TO ME IT JUST APPEARS DARK. I DON'T SEE ANY BROWN COLOR THERE.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DOES IT APPEAR TO BE THREE-DIMENSIONAL TO YOU?

MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I CAN'T DETERMINE FROM THE VIDEO IF IT IS OR NOT.

MR. SCHECK: UH-HUH. OKAY.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU SEE THAT OBJECT AGAIN NOW THAT I'M CIRCLING WITH THE LIGHT PEN?

A: I SEE A DARK AREA THAT YOU ARE CIRCLING.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IN YOUR VIEW --

(DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1078 IS AGAIN PLAYED.)

THE COURT: FOR THE RECORD, THIS IS A SECOND CLIP SEGMENT.

MR. SCHECK: YES.

Q: DOES THAT -- WE ARE STOPPING THAT NOW. AGAIN, DOES THAT APPEAR TO YOU TO BE BROWN AND THREE-DIMENSIONAL?

A: IT APPEARS TO BE A DARK AREA ON THE VIDEO.

Q: YOU WOULDN'T SAY IT IS THREE-DIMENSIONAL?

A: I COULDN'T TELL FROM THE VIDEO, NO.

MR. SCHECK: OKAY.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: SEGMENT 3.

(DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1078 IS AGAIN PLAYED.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, THIS APPEARS TO BE YOU PUTTING DOWN EVIDENCE TAGS, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU STILL SEE THAT SAME OBJECT THAT I'M POINTING TO IN THE LIGHT PEN?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: YOU SAW THAT?

A: DO IT AGAIN.

MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR --

MR. SCHECK: NOW, LET ME SHOW YOU A STILL OF THAT SHOT.

(DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1078, A STILL PHOTOGRAPH, WAS DISPLAYED.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AGAIN, LOOKING AT THAT, WOULD YOU AGREE OR DO YOU AGREE THAT THAT LOOKS TO BE A BROWN THREE-DIMENSIONAL OBJECT?

A: IT APPEARS TO BE A DARK OBJECT OR A DARK AREA ON THE VIDEO.

Q: DID THAT --

THE COURT: SEGMENT 3.

MR. SCHECK: SEGMENT 3.

Q: NOW, IF THAT WERE THE GLOVE, MR. FUNG, THAT WOULD BE A THIRD POSITION, WOULD IT NOT?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, WHEN WE BROKE FROM COURT ON THURSDAY, YOU CAME BACK THE NEXT MORNING; IS THAT CORRECT, AND I THINK IT WAS WEDNESDAY, ACTUALLY -- THURSDAY -- THURSDAY YOU CAME BACK TO COURT THE NEXT MORNING, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, THAT EVENING DID YOU LOOK AT THESE VIDEOTAPES WITH GREAT CARE?

A: WEDNESDAY EVENING?

Q: YEAH.

A: YES, I DID LOOK AT THEM.

Q: AND WITH WHOM DID YOU LOOK AT THEM?

A: THERE WERE OTHER PEOPLE IN THE OFFICE. I DON'T RECALL ALL OF THEM.

Q: ABOUT HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU THINK YOU LOOKED AT THEM THAT EVENING?

A: TWENTY.

Q: UH-HUH. THEN WHEN YOU CAME DOWN THE NEXT MORNING IN COURT YOU REVIEWED THEM AGAIN, DID YOU NOT, ON THESE MONITORS?

A: WHEN I CAME DOWN IN COURT THE NEXT DAY THERE WAS AN ENHANCED VERSION AND I LOOKED AT THEM HERE, YES.

Q: AND YOU REVIEWED IT WITH MR. GOLDBERG?

A: WHAT DO YOU MEAN "REVIEWED"?

Q: WELL, YOU WERE LOOKING AT THE TAPES FROM VARIOUS ANGLES AND PHOTOGRAPHS WITH MR. GOLDBERG?

A: YES.

Q: WITH MISS CLARK?

A: SHE WAS PRESENT.

Q: SHE WASN'T SITTING BY THE MONITOR WITH YOU LOOKING AT IT?

A: SHE MAY HAVE BEEN BUT --

Q: MR. HARMON?

A: YES.

Q: MR. GEORGE CLARK?

A: YES.

Q: MR. DARDEN?

A: I DON'T RECALL IF MR. DARDEN WAS HERE OR NOT.

Q: THE GENTLEMAN JONATHAN FARTLOUGH FROM DECISION QUEST?

THE COURT: FAIRTLOUGH.

MR. SCHECK: FAIRTLOUGH, I'M SORRY.

Q: YOU LOOKED AT IT IN SLOW MOTION?

A: YES.

Q: YOU EXAMINED VARIOUS PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, WERE YOU SHOWN -- YOUR HONOR, CAN I HAVE THIS PHOTOGRAPH MARKED DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER?

THE COURT: 1079? YES, 1079.

(DEFT'S 1079 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

THE COURT: HAVE YOU SHOWN THAT TO COUNSEL?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: HAVE YOU SHOWN THAT TO COUNSEL?

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MRS. ROBERTSON, THE DEFENSE IS MARKING 1079, A PHOTOGRAPH.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I THINK THAT THIS WAS ALREADY MARKED FOR THE RECORD BUT --

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THERE APPEARS TO BE A STICKER ON THE BACK. IS THAT AN EVIDENCE --

MR. SCHECK: THAT IS A DEFENDANT'S STICKER FOR THE --

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU SHOWN, AMONG OTHERS, THAT PHOTOGRAPH?

A: YES.

MR. SCHECK: WITH PERMISSION, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO PUT THIS ON THE ELMO.

THE COURT: YES.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, WAS IT SUGGESTED TO YOU, AFTER SEEING THIS PICTURE, THAT THAT OBJECT ON THE VIDEOTAPE THAT YOU WILL NOT AGREE WITH ME IS BROWN AND THREE-DIMENSIONAL WAS NOT REALLY THE GLOVE BUT WAS GREEN OR YELLOW LEAVES?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID ANYBODY SHOW YOU THIS PICTURE AND SUGGEST THAT WHAT WAS ON THE VIDEOTAPE WAS NOT THE GLOVE IN A THIRD POSITION BUT GREEN AND YELLOW LEAVES?

A: NOBODY MADE THAT SUGGESTION TO ME. THEY ASKED ME TO LOOK AT THE VIDEOTAPE AND LOOK AT DIFFERENT PHOTOGRAPHS.

Q: UH-HUH. WELL, DID ANYBODY -- WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION IT IS NOT THE GLOVE, IT IS GREEN AND YELLOW LEAVES?

A: NOBODY SAID THAT, NO.

Q: WELL, IT COULDN'T BE GREEN AND YELLOW LEAVES, WOULDN'T YOU AGREE WITH ME, MR. FUNG?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT CALLS FOR AN EXPERT OPINION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHAT WE SAW ON THAT VIDEOTAPE, THAT OBJECT YOU AND I WERE DISCUSSING, THE ONE THAT YOU WILL NOT AGREE IS BROWN AND THREE-DIMENSIONAL, WOULD YOU NOT AGREE WITH ME THAT --

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU REPHRASE THAT QUESTION, COUNSEL.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE OBJECT THAT WE SAW IN THE VIDEOTAPE COULD NOT BE THOSE GREEN AND YELLOW LEAVES?

A: I CAN'T AGREE TO THAT, NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU THINK IT COULD BE?

A: COULD BE WHAT?

Q: GREEN AND YELLOW LEAVES?

A: FROM THE ANGLE AND THE DISTANCE OF THAT CAMERA AND FROM THE POOR RESOLUTION OF THE VIDEOTAPE ITSELF, I CAN'T MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.

Q: OKAY. YOU NOTICED IN THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT IN THE VIDEOTAPE THAT THE OBJECT WAS -- HAD A LITTLE WHITE TAG IN IT, DIDN'T YOU, OR A LITTLE WHITE SPOT?

MR. GOLDBERG: THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY ABOUT "OBJECT."

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DID YOU READ THE NEXT DAY DETECTIVE LANGE QUOTED IN THE LOS ANGELES TIMES ABOUT WHAT HE THOUGHT THAT OBJECT WAS?

A: I HAVEN'T READ THE L.A. TIMES FOR OVER A WEEK.

Q: I. UNDERSTAND?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD MOVE TO STRIKE THAT COMMENT BY COUNSEL.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, DID YOU SPEAK ABOUT WHAT THIS OBJECT COULD BE ON THE VIDEOTAPE WITH DETECTIVE LANGE?

A: I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY DISCUSSION, NO. HE WAS PRESENT DURING SOME PORTION OF THE WATCHING.

Q: WELL, DID DETECTIVE LANGE EVER TELL YOU THAT THAT OBJECT ON THE VIDEOTAPE WAS NOT THE GLOVE, IT WAS ACTUALLY THE DARK BLOOD BY THE BLANKET THAT SOMEHOW WAS CHANGED BY THE ANGLE OF THE LENS AND THAT IS HOW IT COULD BE EXPLAINED? DID HE SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO YOU?

A: NOT TO ME, NO. I DIDN'T OVERHEAR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

Q: WELL, WHO SUGGESTED THAT ONE TO YOU?

A: THAT WAS NEVER SUGGESTED TO ME DIRECTLY.

Q: WELL, HOW DID YOU HEAR ABOUT IT INDIRECTLY?

A: I WAS IN A DIFFERENT AREA AND I OVERHEARD THAT COMMENT.

Q: NOW, YOU KNOW THAT THAT OBJECT ON THE VIDEOTAPE CAN'T BE EXPLAINED AWAY BY ANY OF THESE THINGS, DON'T YOU?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU KNOW IT IS THE GLOVE, DON'T YOU?

A: I DON'T KNOW THAT.

Q: YOU KNOW IT IS THE GLOVE AND YOU JUST GOT CAUGHT BY THIS VIDEOTAPE; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. MR. FUNG, WHY DON'T WE TALK ABOUT THE ENVELOPE FOR A MINUTE.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR -- YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE TAKEN TWO PREVIOUSLY MARKED EXHIBITS AND WE ARE PUTTING THEM SIDE-BY-SIDE. I'M SHOWING THEM TO COUNSEL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHICH EXHIBITS ARE THESE?

MR. SCHECK: ONE OF THEM IS 1079, THE ONE WE JUST MARKED, AND THE OTHER ONE IS THE OVERALL PICTURE OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN POINTING TO THE GLOVE AND THE ENVELOPE, AND WE ARE SEARCHING FOR THAT NUMBER.

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

MR. SCHECK: WE ARE SHOWING IT TO COUNSEL ON HIS MONITOR BEFORE WE DISPLAY IT TO THE JURY.

THE COURT: I NEED TO HAVE AN EXHIBIT NUMBER.

MR. SCHECK: YES. WE WILL GIVE YOU AN EXHIBIT NUMBER.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I WILL OBJECT TO CROPPING THE PHOTOGRAPH IN ANY WAY OR ALTERING ITS APPEARANCE ON THE DISPLAY.

MR. SCHECK: YES. THE ONE ON THE LEFT, YOUR HONOR, IS 55, 1055.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED. IT IS NOT AN UNFAIR DEPICTION AS TO THE POSITION OF THE OBJECTS.

MR. SCHECK: WE SHOULD HAVE THIS SIDE-BY-SIDE OF THE ENVELOPE MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S --

THE COURT: 1080.

MR. SCHECK: 1080.

(DEFT'S 1080 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, YOU SEE THESE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS, DO YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, LOOKING ON THE LEFT, THAT IS THE -- A CLOSER-UP SHOT OF DETECTIVE FUHRMAN POINTING TOWARDS THE GLOVE, HAT, WITH HIS HAND OVER THE ENVELOPE, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DO YOU SEE WHERE THE ENVELOPE IS IN TERMS OF THE TILES?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, LOOKING AT THE PHOTOGRAPH TO THE RIGHT, UMM, THAT IS THE ENVELOPE IN THE POSITION WHERE YOU PUT DOWN TAGS AND HAD IT PHOTOGRAPHED, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IT IS IN A DIFFERENT POSITION, IS IT NOT, FROM THE PHOTOGRAPH WHERE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS POINTING IN THE DIRECTION OF THE ENVELOPE?

A: IT APPEARS TO BE, YES.

Q: ABOUT HOW FAR DOWN DO YOU THINK THAT HAS BEEN MOVED?

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, ASSUMES --

THE COURT: WHICH TO WHICH?

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: THE PHOTOGRAPH TO THE RIGHT WHERE YOU PUT DOWN THE EVIDENCE TAGS, THAT IS ABOUT HOW MANY INCHES WOULD YOU ESTIMATE MOVED BACK TOWARDS THE RAILING FROM THE WAY IT IS DEPICTED IN THE PHOTOGRAPH WHERE DETECTIVE FUHRMAN IS POINTING TOWARDS IT?

A: IT APPEARS TO BE MOVED THREE TO FOUR INCHES TOWARDS THE WEST.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THE DIFFERENCE -- ANOTHER DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PHOTOGRAPHS IS THAT IN THE ONE WHERE YOU HAD THE PICTURE TAKEN WITH THE EVIDENCE TAG DOWN, THERE IS MORE -- YOU CAN SEE DRAG MARKS IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER OF THAT PICTURE, CAN YOU NOT?

A: I CAN'T TELL FROM THE VIDEO, BUT --

Q: WELL, DO YOU RECALL SEEING WHAT LOOKED LIKE STREAKS OF BLOOD IN THE SOIL IN THE AREA WHERE MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY HAD BEEN REMOVED?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT THAT REPRESENTS TRACK MARKS OF MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY BEING REMOVED AND DRAGGED THROUGH THE AREA WHERE THE GLOVE, HAT AND THE ENVELOPE WERE?

MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, THERE IS MORE LEAFY FOLIAGE ON TOP OF THOSE TILES, IS THERE NOT, IN THE PICTURE WHERE YOU HAD THE PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, MR. FUNG, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE ENVELOPE IS IN TWO DIFFERENT POSITIONS HERE?

A: YES.

Q: AND IS IT CLEAR TO YOU SIR, THAT THAT ENVELOPE WAS MOVED AND PUT INTO A NEW POSITION AFTER MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS REMOVED FROM THE SCENE?

MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHEN DID YOU FIRST LEARN THAT THE ENVELOPE HAD BEEN MOVED FROM ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION AS IT WAS FOUND AT THE CRIME SCENE?

MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT. CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THE FIRST I HEARD ABOUT IT WAS DURING THE TRIAL.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHEN?

A: THIS TRIAL.

Q: WHEN DURING THE TRIAL? WE HAVE BEEN HERE FOR A WHILE.

A: WHEN -- YOU ARE RIGHT. WHEN DETECTIVE LANGE WAS GIVING TESTIMONY.

Q: ABOUT A MONTH AGO, TWO MONTHS AGO?

A: WHENEVER HE WAS GIVING TESTIMONY.

Q: UH-HUH. AND ISN'T IT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY -- WELL, HOW DID YOU LEARN ABOUT THAT? DID YOU SPEAK TO DETECTIVE LANGE?

A: HOW DID I LEARN OF THAT?

Q: YEAH, THAT THE ENVELOPE HAD BEEN MOVED?

A: I OVERHEARD IT ON THE RADIO.

Q: AND IN OTHER WORDS, YOU WERE OVERHEARING THE TESTIMONY ON THE RADIO?

A: YES.

Q: AND HOW OFTEN HAVE YOU BEEN DOING THAT, SIR?

A: THE TESTIMONY IS PLAYING ALL THE TIME IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE OFFICE AND PEOPLE HAVE IT ON ALL THE TIME AND WHEN I PASS BY I OVERHEAR PORTIONS OF IT.

Q: UH-HUH. UMM, WHEN YOU ARE WORKING IN SOMEPLACE DO YOU ASK THEM TO TURN IT OFF?

A: SOMETIMES, YES.

Q: SOMETIMES YOU DON'T?

A: SOMETIMES I'M NOT THERE LONG ENOUGH TO ASK THEM TO DO IT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, MR. FUNG, ISN'T IT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER EVIDENCE AT THE CRIME SCENE HAS BEEN MOVED OR ALTERED FROM ITS ORIGINAL POSITION?

MR. GOLDBERG: VAGUE TO THE WORD "INVESTIGATE."

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I -- IN SOME RESPECTS IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY, YES.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO MAKE INQUIRIES OF PEOPLE AT THE SCENE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT EVIDENCE HAS BEEN MOVED OR ALTERED?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU ASK DETECTIVE LANGE IF HE SAW EVIDENCE MOVED OR ALTERED, THAT SOMEBODY HAD SEEN THE ENVELOPE AND THE GLOVE MOVED AND REPLACED BACK IN A NEW POSITION? DID YOU ASK HIM ABOUT THAT ON JUNE 13TH?

A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT.

Q: WELL, WHEN YOU SAY YOU DON'T RECALL, ARE YOU TELLING US THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU ASK MR. ROKAHR, THE PHOTOGRAPHER, WHETHER HE HAD SEEN ANY EVIDENCE MOVED AND THEN REPLACED BACK TO A NEW POSITION?

A: I DID NOT ASK THAT OF MR. ROKAHR.

Q: DID YOU ASK DETECTIVE PHILLIPS?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS IRRELEVANT WHO HE ASKED AND WHO HE DIDN'T.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU SAW DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AT THE SCENE WHEN MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS BEING REMOVED THROUGH THE AREA WHERE THE ENVELOPE, THE HAT AND THE GLOVE WERE? HE WAS THERE?

A: I DID NOT KNOW DETECTIVE PHILLIPS AND HE WAS NOT THE OFFICER IN CHARGE AT THE SCENE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU ASK STEVE JOHNSON, THE CHIEF FORENSIC CHEMIST?

A: ABOUT?

Q: IF HE HAD SEEN ANY OF THE EVIDENCE MOVED AND THEN REPLACED BACK INTO A NEW POSITION?

A: NO.

Q: HE WAS THERE, WASN'T HE?

A: YES, HE WAS.

Q: DID YOU ASK MISS RATCLIFFE, THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE?

A: I DID NOT SPEAK WITH MISS RATCLIFFE.

Q: DID YOU ASK MR. JACOBO FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE?

A: SAME QUESTION?

Q: YEAH.

A: NO.

Q: WEREN'T THEY PEOPLE IN AN EXCELLENT POSITION TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THE ENVELOPE, THE HAT OR THE GLOVE HAD BEEN MOVED, SINCE THEY WERE THE ONES THAT WERE INVOLVED IN REMOVING MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY?

MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, DID YOU SEE MR. RATCLIFFE -- MISS RATCLIFFE AND MR. JACOBO REMOVING MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: BUT YOU DID NOT ASK THEM, AFTER THAT HAD BEEN DONE, WHETHER THEY HAD SEEN ANY OF THE EVIDENCE MOVED?

MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE, ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU ASK -- WELL, I THINK YOU HAVE ANSWERED. THERE WERE REPRESENTATIVES OF SID WHO DO FINGERPRINTING AT THE SCENE, WERE THERE NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEY WERE STANDING ON THE TOP OF THE -- THE WALKWAY, WERE THEY NOT?

A: DURING CERTAIN PORTIONS, YES.

Q: THAT WAS DURING THE PORTION OF TIME WHERE MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS BEING REMOVED? THEY WERE UP THERE?

A: I DON'T RECALL WHEN THEY WERE THERE.

Q: WELL, DID YOU INQUIRE OF THEM AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAD SEEN ANY EVIDENCE, THE ENVELOPE, THE HAT OR THE GLOVE MOVED?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU ASK ANDREA MAZZOLA WHETHER SHE HAD SEEN IT?

A: SEEN ANYTHING MOVED?

Q: YEAH.

A: I DID NOT ASK HER THAT.

Q: DID YOU ASK ANDREA MAZZOLA TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY ABOUT WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE HAD BEEN MOVED?

A: NO.

Q: IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY, SIR, THAT ON JUNE 13TH YOU DID NOT SUSPECT THAT THE GLOVE OR THE ENVELOPE OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE IN THAT AREA HAD BEEN MOVED FROM THEIR ORIGINAL POSITION?

MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DID NOT SUSPECT THAT THEY WERE MOVED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU HAD NO KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER ON JUNE 13TH THAT THAT GLOVE AND THE ENVELOPE HAD BEEN MOVED AND SOMEBODY PUT IT BACK IN ITS ORIGINAL POSITION?

MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU HAVE TO FILL OUT A CRIME SCENE CHECKLIST REPORT, YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU FILLED IT OUT IN THIS CASE WITH RESPECT TO THE BUNDY LOCATION?

A: YES.

Q: AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU HAVE TO CHECK OFF ON YOUR CRIME SCENE CHECKLIST REPORT IS "HAS THE SEEN BEEN ALTERED? IF SO, BY WHOM AND HOW"?

A: YES.

MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. ASK THAT THIS PAGE BE MARKED DEFENDANT'S 1081.

THE COURT: 1081.

THE CLERK: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: 1081.

(DEFT'S 1081 FOR ID = 1-PG DOC/CRIME SCENE CHECKLIST)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: THIS IS A COPY OF PAGE 2 OF YOUR BUNDY CRIME SCENE CHECKLIST REPORT?

A: YES, IT IS.

MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO PUT THIS ON THE ELMO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YES. MR. HARRIS.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, WHAT WE SEE ON THE ELMO -- GO BACK A LITTLE. WHAT WE SEE ON THE ELMO IS THAT QUESTION THAT YOU HAVE TO FILL OUT "HAS THE SCENE BEEN ALTERED? IF SO, BY WHOM AND HOW," CORRECT?

A: THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS.

Q: AND IF THE SEEN HAS BEEN ALTERED THERE IS 1, 2, 3 LINES FOR YOU TO WRITE IN WHAT HAPPENED, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: THAT IS BECAUSE IT IS CONSIDERED VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE CRIMINALIST DOCUMENT WHETHER OR NOT THE SCENE HAS BEEN ALTERED FROM ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION?

A: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY VERY IMPORTANT?

Q: WELL, IT IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO HAVE AT LEAST THREE LINES ON THIS CHECKLIST REPORT TO MAKE SURE YOU FILL IT OUT IF YOU DISCOVER OR YOU SUSPECT THAT THE SCENE HAS BEEN ALTERED?

MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE AND UNINTELLIGIBLE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION, SIR?

A: THAT SPACE IS PROVIDED IF THERE IS -- FOR INSTANCE, WHEN THERE -- WHEN ITEMS ARE ALTERED, SUCH AS -- WELL, THERE ARE CERTAIN SCENES THAT ARE VERY ALTERED AND JUST MAKE NOTE OF THEM.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: THIS ONE WAS JUST A LITTLE ALTERED?

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, ON THIS BOX IS THERE NOT A QUESTION MARK?

A: YES, THERE IS.

Q: DID YOU PUT THAT IN THERE?

A: NO.

Q: DID MISS MAZZOLA PUT THAT IN THERE, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT WAS PUT IN THERE BECAUSE YOU AND SHE SUSPECTED THAT THIS SCENE HAD BEEN ALTERED FROM THE WAY IT WAS ORIGINALLY FOUND?

MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. ALSO CUMULATIVE.

MR. SCHECK: I'M SORRY?

THE COURT: IT IS ALSO CUMULATIVE, "YOU AND SHE."

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU DISCUSS WITH MISS MAZZOLA WHY SHE PUT A QUESTION MARK IN THAT BOX?

A: I THINK SHE ASKED ME WHAT TO PUT IN THAT BOX AND I SAID, "PUT A QUESTION MARK THERE."

Q: AND YOU SAID PUT A QUESTION MARK THERE BECAUSE YOU KNEW THAT WHEN MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY HAD BEEN DRAGGED THROUGH THE EVIDENCE THAT THE GLOVE HAD BEEN MOVED, THE ENVELOPE HAD BEEN MOVED AND SOMEBODY PUT IT BACK INTO THE PLACE WHERE THEY THOUGHT IT WAS ORIGINALLY?

A: NO.

Q: ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT IS WRONG.

Q: NOW, MR. FUNG, YOU HAVE DESCRIBED TWO METHODS FOR COLLECTING ITEMS THAT CONTAIN POSSIBLE BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL, OTHER THAN BLOOD DROPS?

A: EXCUSE ME? WOULD YOU REPEAT THAT.

Q: WELL, YOU HAVE TOLD US THAT THERE ARE TWO METHODS THAT YOU USE TO COLLECT ITEMS AT A CRIME SCENE OTHER THAN BLOOD DROPS, ONE INVOLVING GLOVES?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THAT IS WHERE YOU WOULD PICK UP THE ITEM WEARING GLOVES AND PUT IT INTO A BAG, FOR EXAMPLE?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE SECOND METHOD THAT YOU DESCRIBED FOR US IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CALL THE SCOOP TECHNIQUE?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE SCOOP TECHNIQUE IS A METHOD WHERE YOU TAKE A CARD OR A PENCIL AND YOU SCOOP THE OBJECT INTO A BAG?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU DO THE SCOOP TECHNIQUE YOU DO NOT TOUCH THE OBJECT WITH YOUR BARE HANDS?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND WHEN YOU ARE COLLECTING ANY ITEM THAT CAN LATER BE DUSTED FOR FINGERPRINTS, YOU WOULD CERTAINLY NOT TOUCH THAT ITEM WITH YOUR BARE HANDS?

A: WHEN I --

Q: YES. DO YOU WANT ME TO REPEAT THAT?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN YOU ARE COLLECTING AN ITEM WHICH COULD CONTAIN FINGERPRINTS FROM THE PERPETRATOR OR PERPETRATORS OF A CRIME, YOU WOULD NOT TOUCH THAT ITEM WITH YOUR BARE HANDS, WOULD YOU, WHEN COLLECTING IT?

A: I WOULD TRY NOT TO.

Q: WELL, YOU SAID YOU WOULD TRY NOT TO. IT WOULD BE WRONG TO DO THAT, WOULDN'T IT?

A: IF IT WAS FOR PRINTS, YES.

Q: AND IN THIS CASE THE ENVELOPE THAT WE SAW FOUND AT BUNDY THAT CONTAINED THE PRESCRIPTION GLASSES, IT HAD BLOOD SPATTER ON IT?

A: IS THAT A QUESTION?

Q: YEAH.

A: I DIDN'T LOOK AT THE --

Q: YOU DIDN'T NOTICE?

A: I DIDN'T LOOK AT THE GLASSES THAT CLOSELY.

Q: THE ENVELOPE?

A: I LOOKED AT THE ENVELOPE.

Q: I'M ASKING ABOUT THE ENVELOPE. DID THE ENVELOPE THAT CONTAINED THE PRESCRIPTION GLASSES HAVE BLOOD SPATTER ON IT?

A: THERE WAS A BLOOD PATTERN ON IT.

Q: AND IT HAD SHOE IMPRESSIONS ON IT, DID IT NOT?

A: I DON'T RECALL, BUT I DO REMEMBER THERE WAS SOME TYPE OF BLOOD ON THE ENVELOPE.

Q: YOU DON'T RECALL THAT IT HAD SHOE IMPRESSIONS ON IT?

MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL THAT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU RECALL THAT THE ENVELOPE WAS TORN AT THE TOP?

A: NO.

Q: DID IT OCCUR TO YOU THAT ONE OF THE KILLERS COULD HAVE MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THAT SOMETHING OTHER THAN GLASSES WAS IN THAT ENVELOPE AND GRAB FOR IT?

MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: CALLS FOR SPECULATION. SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHEN YOU WERE AT THE CRIME SCENE ON JUNE 13TH WERE YOU INTERESTED IN THE POSSIBILITY THAT ONE OF THE KILLERS WOULD HAVE GRABBED OR PULLED AT THAT ENVELOPE AND TOUCHED IT WHILE STRUGGLING WITH MR. GOLDMAN?

MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHEN YOU WERE AT THE CRIME SCENE ON JUNE 13TH AND YOU SAW THAT ENVELOPE, DID YOU CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE ENVELOPE MIGHT HAVE FINGERPRINTS ON IT FROM ONE OF THE KILLERS?

MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE ALSO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, CAN THE COURT REREAD THE QUESTION?

THE COURT: KILLER OR KILLERS.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: KILLER OR KILLERS?

A: KILLER OR KILLERS? IT COULD HAVE HAD FINGERPRINTS ON THE -- THERE COULD HAVE BEEN FINGERPRINTS ON THE ENVELOPE.

Q: AND YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THAT THEN?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU TOUCH THAT ENVELOPE WITH YOUR BARE HANDS WHILE COLLECTING IT, MR. FUNG?

A: NO.

Q: ARE YOU SURE OF THAT?

A: YES.

Q: NO QUESTION ABOUT IT IN YOUR MIND?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU RECALL ANDREA MAZZOLA KNEELING ON THE GROUND AND PASSING YOU THAT ENVELOPE WHICH YOU GRASPED WITH AN UNGLOVED BARE HAND?

A: NO, I DON'T.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW THE PROSECUTION SOME VIDEOTAPE.

THE COURT: HAVE YOU SEEN THIS ALREADY?

MR. SCHECK: YES. IT IS ON THEIR TAPE, YOUR HONOR, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT THEY NECESSARILY HAVE SEEN IT.

THE COURT: HOW LONG IS THE CLIP?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. HARRIS: THREE OR FOUR SECONDS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SHOW IT TO COUNSEL.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, MY SUGGESTION IS THAT WE SHOW IT A FEW TIMES AND SHOW IT IN A SLOW MOTION.

THE COURT: SHOW IT TO COUNSEL FIRST, PLEASE.

(A VIDEOTAPE WAS SHOWN TO COUNSEL.)

MR. SCHECK: DO YOU WANT TO SEE IT AGAIN?

(A VIDEOTAPE WAS SHOWN TO COUNSEL.)

MR. SCHECK: MR. HARRIS, WHY DON'T YOU SHOW THEM THE STILL THAT WE WILL SHOW NEXT. YOUR HONOR, THIS IS ON THE TAPE THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE COURT AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I ASK THAT ALL COMMENTS BE STRICKEN. THOSE AREN'T PROPER.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY. I THOUGHT WE HAD AGREEMENT, HOWEVER, THAT WE SHOW EACH OTHER THESE THINGS BEFORE WE START THE SESSION. ALL RIGHT. LET'S PROCEED.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, WITH PERMISSION, I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW THIS PARTICULAR CLIP THREE OR FOUR TIMES, ONCE IN SLOW MOTION, AND THEN THE STILL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU WANT TO MARK THIS AS DEFENSE 1082?

(DEFT'S 1082 FOR ID = VIDEOTAPE)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO WATCH THIS TAPE VERY, VERY CAREFULLY WITH THE JURY. WE ARE GOING TO SHOW IT TO YOU THREE OR FOUR TIMES IN REAL TIME AND THEN WE WILL SHOW IT TO YOU IN SLOW MOTION AND THEN WE WILL SHOW YOU A STILL.

(AT 9:58 A.M., DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1082, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)

MR. SCHECK: LET'S SHOW IT AGAIN IN REAL TIME.

(DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1082 WAS AGAIN PLAYED.)

MR. SCHECK: SHOW IT AGAIN IN REAL TIME.

(DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1082 WAS AGAIN PLAYED.)

MR. SCHECK: CAN WE SHOW IT NOW IN SLOW MOTION.

(DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1082 WAS AGAIN PLAYED.)

MR. SCHECK: DO YOU WANT TO SEE THAT AGAIN IN SLOW MOTION, MR. FUNG?

THE WITNESS: I DON'T NEED TO SEE IT IN SLOW MOTION.

MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. COULD WE NOW SHOW A STILL.

(A STILL PHOTOGRAPH WAS SHOWN.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. MR. FUNG, THAT IS YOU GETTING THE PRESCRIPTION ENVELOPE FROM ANDREA MAZZOLA AND GRASPING IT IN YOUR BARE HAND, ISN'T IT?

A: NO, IT IS NOT.

Q: WELL, WHAT IS THAT, MR. FUNG?

A: IT COULD BE ANY NUMBER OF THINGS.

Q: THAT IS NOT YOU -- IS NOT MISS MAZZOLA IN THE POSITION WHERE THE ENVELOPE WAS ON THE GROUND?

MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS SHE IN THAT AREA?

A: SHE IS -- I CAN'T TELL FROM THIS CLIP WHERE EXACTLY WE WERE.

Q: YOU CAN'T TELL THAT YOU ARE -- FROM THIS CLIP THAT YOU ARE AT THE BUNDY LOCATION IN THE AREA WHERE THE ENVELOPE WAS SEEN ON THE PHOTOGRAPHS?

A: I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT IS EXACTLY WHERE WE WERE, NO.

Q: YOU ARE NOT IN AND AROUND THAT AREA?

A: WE MAY HAVE BEEN AROUND THAT AREA.

Q: IF THAT IS NOT YOU GRASPING THE ENVELOPE WITH THE PRESCRIPTION GLASSES WITH YOUR BARE HAND, WHAT, PRAY TELL, IS IT?

A: WE CAN ALWAYS HAVE THE ENVELOPE PRINTED, AND IF MY FINGERPRINTS ARE ON THERE, THEN IT IS, BUT I KNOW THAT MY FINGERPRINTS ARE NOT ON THAT ENVELOPE.

Q: THAT IS NOT YOU GRASPING IT WITH YOUR BARE HANDS?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, COULD WE HAVE THE ENVELOPE PRODUCED?

THE COURT: YES. WHAT NUMBER IS THAT, MR. SCHECK?

MR. SCHECK: I WILL HAVE TO LOOK. I'M SURE IT IS A PROSECUTION EXHIBIT.

THE COURT: MRS. ROBERTSON, DO YOU KNOW THE NUMBER?

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. SCHECK: IT IS NO. 32.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. SCHECK: MAY I APPROACH?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, CAN YOU SEE THAT ENVELOPE IN THE BAG?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, THE OTHER ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED IN THE BUNDY SCENE, WEREN'T THEY PUT INTO COIN ENVELOPES IF THEY WERE BLOOD DROPS?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE PAGER WAS PUT INTO A BAG?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: WHY DON'T YOU TAKE OUT YOUR EVIDENCE COLLECTION SHEET AND READ ALONG WITH ME. THE KEYS WENT INTO A COIN ENVELOPE, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: THE PAGER WENT INTO A COIN ENVELOPE?

A: YES.

Q: THAT OBJECT WE SEE YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA HANDLING IT IS NOT THE KEYS OR THE PAGER, IS IT?

A: NO.

Q: IT IS NOT THE GLOVE?

A: NO.

Q: IT IS NOT THE HAT?

A: NO.

Q: IT IS NOT THE RING?

A: NO.

Q: IT IS NOT ANY OF THE RED STAINS THAT YOU RECOVERED AT BUNDY?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WELL, LOOKING AT YOUR EVIDENCE CHECKLIST, CAN YOU SUGGEST ONE THING, OTHER THAN THAT ENVELOPE, THAT WE SAW ON THAT VIDEOTAPE?

A: NOTE PAD MAYBE.

Q: A NOTE PAD MAYBE. WHICH NOTE PAD?

A: IT WOULDN'T BE EVIDENCE; IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE USED TO TAKE NOTES.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: FOR THE RECORD, MR. SCHECK, WHAT ARE WE DOING?

MR. SCHECK: WE ARE LOOKING AT IT THREE MORE TIMES.

THE COURT: THIS IS 1082?

MR. SCHECK: 1082.

(DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1082, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SCHECK: AND NOW WE HAVE THE STILL.

(A STILL PHOTOGRAPH WAS DISPLAYED.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: LOOKING AT THAT STILL AND HERE IF YOU WANT, WE HAVE A PRINTOUT FROM THE ELMO, ARE YOU TELLING US THAT THAT IS A NOTE PAD AND NOT THE ENVELOPE?

A: I'M SAYING IT COULD BE ANYTHING, BUT IT IS NOT THE ENVELOPE HERE.

Q: WELL, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT IS NOT ANY OTHER ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED AT THE SCENE? COULDN'T BE ANY OTHER ITEM OF EVIDENCE EXCEPT FOR THAT PRESCRIPTION ENVELOPE, RIGHT?

MR. GOLDBERG: WAIT A MINUTE. I WOULD OBJECT.

THE COURT: BASIS?

MR. GOLDBERG: THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE, ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS THERE ANY OTHER ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECTED AT BUNDY THAT YOU COULD BE HANDING MISS MAZZOLA?

MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW WHAT TIME FRAME THIS STILL WAS TAKEN, SO I CAN'T GIVE YOU AN ACCURATE --

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: THAT IS A PICTURE OF MR. JACOBO AND MISS RATCLIFFE?

A: OKAY.

Q: THEY ARE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE?

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, NOW COUNSEL IS TESTIFYING. MOTION TO STRIKE.

THE COURT: THAT IS TRUE. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ARE THEY FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEY WERE AT THE SCENE WHEN YOU ARRIVED?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEY LEFT AT ABOUT 11:15, AS I RECALL?

A: RIGHT.

Q: SO IT HAS GOT TO BE BETWEEN THE TIME THAT YOU FIRST ARRIVED AT THE SCENE AND THE TIME THAT THE CORONERS LEFT?

A: YES.

Q: ARE YOU TESTIFYING THAT THAT IS NOT THE ENVELOPE?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE. ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, MR. HARRIS ADVISES ME THAT PERHAPS WE COULD PLAY IT ONE MORE TIME IN SLOW MOTION AND HE THINKS HE CAN GET A BETTER STILL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHY DON'T YOU TRY IT.

(DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1082, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)

THE COURT: I THINK WE NEED TO START THE SLOMO SOONER THAN THAT. START AT THE BEGINNING. WELL, WE ARE GOING BACKWARDS AT THIS POINT. HOW ABOUT SOME MORE? NO, BACKWARDS, BACKWARDS, BACKWARDS.

MR. SCHECK: THERE. THERE.

Q: HOW ABOUT THAT, MR. FUNG?

THE COURT: IS THAT A QUESTION, MR. SCHECK?

MR. SCHECK: YES.

Q: HOW ABOUT THAT PICTURE, MR. FUNG, DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT YOU TOOK THE ENVELOPE FROM ANDREA MAZZOLA WITH YOUR BARE HAND?

A: WHEN YOU POINTED OUT THE TIME FRAME, IT MAKES IT EVEN MORE SURE IN MY MIND THAT THAT IS NOT THE ENVELOPE, BECAUSE WE DID NOT START PICKING UP EVIDENCE UNTIL WELL AFTER THE CORONERS WERE GONE.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. HARRIS, DO YOU HAVE THAT FRAME?

MR. HARRIS: YES, YOUR HONOR, I DO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT WILL BE 1082-A PRINTOUT.

(DEFT'S 1082-A FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ARE YOU SAYING THAT IS A NOTE PAD?

A: I'M SAYING I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT IS, BUT I KNOW IT IS NOT THAT ENVELOPE.

Q: DO YOU SEE WHERE THERE IS A SLIGHT -- THAT OBJECT THAT MISS MAZZOLA HAD IN HER HAND, IT APPEARS TO HAVE A CERTAIN FULLNESS TO IT?

A: I CAN'T TELL FROM THE VIDEO, NO.

Q: YOU CAN'T TELL? YOUR HONOR, WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION, RATHER THAN HAVE THE JURY TOUCH IT, BUT I WOULD ASK THAT THIS BAG THAT CONTAINS THE ENVELOPE BE PASSED THROUGH THE JURY SO THAT THEY CAN LOOK AT IT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HAND IT TO JUROR NO. 1, PLEASE.

(THE BAG CONTAINING THE GLASSES ENVELOPE WAS PASSED AMONGST THE JURY.)

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD ASK THAT THE LATEST STILL BE MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S --

MR. COCHRAN: 1082-A.

MR. SCHECK: AND I ASK THAT THIS BE PASSED TO THE JURY.

THE COURT: I THOUGHT WE DID THAT ALREADY.

MR. SCHECK: NO, THE NEW ONE.

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, COUNSEL. YOU NEED MY PERMISSION BEFORE YOU HAND SOMETHING TO ANY JUROR.

MR. SCHECK: I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT YOU SAID YES. MY APOLOGIES.

THE COURT: NO, NO. LET ME SEE IT FIRST.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: WELCOME TO CALIFORNIA. HE ASKED ME FOR THE NUMBER. HE DIDN'T ASK ME DIRECTLY AND CLEARLY FOR PERMISSION TO HAND IT TO THE JURY, MR. COCHRAN.

MR. COCHRAN: LINE 15.

THE COURT: I DIDN'T HEAR IT.

(DEFENSE EXHIBIT 1082-A WAS PASSED AMONGST THE JURY.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY RUSSELL, WOULD YOU TRANSMIT THAT BACK TO THE CLERK. MR. SCHECK, WOULD YOU COLLECT THAT FROM DEPUTY RUSSELL.

MR. SCHECK: YES.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK, WOULD YOU COLLECT THAT FROM DEPUTY RUSSELL, PLEASE.

MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WOULD THIS BE AN APPROPRIATE PLACE TO BREAK? I NEED TO CHANGE COURT REPORTERS.

MR. SCHECK: SURE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A BRIEF RECESS. PLEASE REMEMBER ALL MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DO NOT ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE, DO NOT CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. WE WILL TAKE A 15-MINUTE RECESS. THANK YOU.

(RECESS.)

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT. LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THERE'S MORE VIDEOTAPE THAT THE DEFENSE INTENDS TO SHOW THAT MR. SCHECK JUST NOW TOLD ME ABOUT. I WOULD LIKE TO FINISH VIEWING IT.

MR. SCHECK: I THINK THIS IS ALL STUFF THEY'VE SEEN.

THE COURT: BUT COUNSEL IS ENTITLED TO VIEW IT TO SEE WHAT SNIPPET WE'RE GOING TO BE USING HERE.

MR. SCHECK: THE COURT MAY WANT TO --

THE COURT: NEVER MIND. THEY'RE HERE. LET THEM IN. DEPUTY JEX.

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

THE COURT: THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED. WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE HAVE A TWO-LAWYER LIMIT HERE. ALL RIGHT. UP AT THE SIDEBAR. MR. GOLDBERG.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, MR. SCHECK INFORMS ME HE WANTS TO SHOW TWO SNIPPETS. ONE IS WHERE ANDREA MAZZOLA IS COLLECTING SOME OF THE EVIDENCE, WHICH I THINK HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN, AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER SNIPPET IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THAT THE WAY THIS TAPE HAS BEEN EDITED OF THE CORONER LEAVING THE LOCATION.

I ASSUME IT'S FOR THE PURPOSES OF TRYING TO SHOW THAT THE CORONER LEFT THE LOCATION AFTER THE EVIDENCE WAS COLLECTED, BUT THEY ARE VERY, VERY CLEARLY TWO PIECES OF TAPE THAT ARE EDITED TOGETHER AND IT'S HIGHLY MISLEADING, PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF THIS WITNESS' TESTIMONY RIGHT NOW TO DO THAT.

THE COURT: MR. SCHECK.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT IT'S A CONTINUOUS SHOT OF MISS MAZZOLA TAKING THE GLOVE AND THE HAT AND THEN PUTTING THEM ON THE SIDE OF THE STEP, AND THEN YOU BEGIN TO SEE THE FEET, MISTAKENLY THE FEET OF MR. JACOBO, THE CORONER, BLACK SHOES, BLUE PANTS, AND THEN IT CONTINUES.

AND MR. HARRIS AND I HAVE CHECKED THE COUNTER WE GOT FROM THE NETWORKS, AND THE COUNTER IS IN ORDER. IN OTHER WORDS, THE TIME PRINT IS IN ORDER. AND THIS WITNESS JUST SAID THAT HE'S SURE THAT CAN'T BE THE GLOVE BECAUSE HE DID NOT BEGIN COLLECTING EVIDENCE UNTIL THE CORONERS HAD LEFT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME SEE THE TAPE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: MISS FITZPATRICK, JUST THE COURT AND COUNSEL.

(A VIDEOTAPE WAS PLAYED FOR THE COURT AND COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IS THAT THE COMPLETE -- LET ME SEE COUNSEL AT SIDEBAR AGAIN.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

MR. GOLDBERG: THIS IS THE TREMENDOUS PROBLEM, YOUR HONOR, WITHOUT HAVING ANY FOUNDATION WHATSOEVER FOR THESE TAPES, WITHOUT HAVING THE CAMERAMAN, WITHOUT EVEN HAVING ACCESS TO THE ORIGINAL TAPES BEFORE DEFENSE HAS STARTED DESIGNING THEM HOWEVER THEY WANTED. THIS IS VERY CLEARLY A SITUATION, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, WHERE YOU HAVE TWO SEPARATE SCENES CUT TOGETHER. AND THERE IS A CUT. I MEAN OTHERWISE, ANDREA MAZZOLA JUST VANISHES INTO THIN AIR. SO WHY DO THEY GET TO EDIT THESE TAPES AND PUT THEM TOGETHER ANY WAY THEY WANT, TO APPLY THEM WHATEVER ORDER THEY WANT, FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE THEY WANT. IT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, WE HAD A TWO-VOLUME SET, REPETITIVE. THE COURT INSTRUCTED US TO PARE DOWN WHAT WE HAD TO MAKE IT EFFICIENT FOR PURPOSES OF THE PRESENTATION ISSUE. I FRANKLY DID NOT DESIGN THIS PARTICULAR TAPE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ONLY REASON THIS ISSUE AROSE IS THAT THE WITNESS HAS NOW CHOSEN TO SAY THAT SURE, THAT'S NOT THE ENVELOPE BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE COLLECTION DIDN'T BEGIN UNTIL THE CORONERS HAD LEFT, AND I THINK THAT'S PLAINLY NOT TRUE FROM THE CONTINUOUS SHOT WHERE YOU SEE HIS SHOES COMING DOWN THE STAIRS IN A BLUE UNIFORM AND BLACK SHOES WHICH HE'S PUTTING BOTH BACK ON THE SIDEWALK. NO CUT THERE.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOU SEE MR. JACOBO IN THE SHOT TWICE. HE STARTS --

THE COURT: YOU ONLY GET TO TALK ONE AT A TIME, MR. GOLDBERG.

MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S NOT A CONTINUOUS SHOT. I WOULD ASK THE COURT IF THE COURT HAS ANY DOUBT TO LOOK AT IT AGAIN, HAVE YOU SEE MR. JACOBO POINT, WHAT I THINK IS THE SECOND PIECE OF THE TAPE, THEN START DOWN THE STAIRS AND STARTS OVER AGAIN. SO IT'S SO CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT IT'S BEEN EDITED TOGETHER.

MS. CLARK: CAN WE JUST HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: SURE.

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

MR. GOLDBERG: ALSO, IT APPEARS YOU HAVE THREE CUTS. AT THE VERY LEAST, COUNSEL IS CONCEDING THAT YOU HAVE TWO. SO WHAT HAPPENS IN THIS SITUATION, EVEN UNDER HIS INTERPRETATION, WHICH WE DON'T ACCEPT, WHERE YOU HAVE A PAIR OF SHOES -- AND THERE IS NO WAY TO DETERMINE WHOSE SHOES THOSE ARE. I MEAN -- AND THIS IS IF YOU ACCEPT HIS INTERPRETATION. AND THEN EVEN UNDER HIS INTERPRETATION, IN WHAT HE'S SAYING IS THE SECOND, WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS A THIRD PIECE OF FILM SHOWING MR. JACOBO GOING THE REST OF THE WAY DOWN THE STAIRS.

THE COURT: MR. SCHECK, TELL ME ABOUT THE LOOP, THE FACT THAT I SEE THE SAME SCENE TWICE.

MR. SCHECK: IT DOES LOOP. WHAT HAPPENED, IT WAS PUT ON LASER DISK. IT LOOPED BACK ONE TIME. IT SHOWS THE SHOT OF JACOBO FULL BODIED TWICE. THAT'S THE WAY THIS PARTICULAR DISK WAS PRINTED. IF YOU WANT, WE CAN INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT THAT LOOPS IN TWICE OR WE CAN GET RID OF THAT ONE PARTICULAR SHOT.

THE COURT: THAT CAUSES ME TO HAVE FOUNDATIONAL CONCERNS. PERHAPS THE ISSUE IS WHAT TOOK PLACE FIRST, AND BECAUSE I SEE JUMPS IN IT, I THINK I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN A FOUNDATIONAL OBJECTION.

MR. SCHECK: MAY I MAKE THIS SUGGESTION? LET US SHOW THE TAPE UP TO THE POINT THAT YOU SEE HIS BLUE PANTS AND BLACK SHOES BECAUSE THERE'S NO CONTACT THERE. THAT'S CONTINUOUS. SHOWS HER PUTTING THE BAG TO THE SIDE, SHOWS MR. JACOBO IN HIS SHOES, THE BLUE PANTS, BLACK SHOES. THAT'S PLAINLY HIM. I THINK WE ARE ENTITLED TO IMPEACH HIM.

THE COURT: NO. I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN A FOUNDATIONAL OBJECTION AT THIS TIME. IF YOU CAN BRING SOMEBODY IN TO LAY A FOUNDATION FOR THE TAPE, WHAT TOOK PLACE, WHO WAS THERE --

MR. SCHECK: BUT, YOUR HONOR, THE ONE PARTICULAR SECTION I'M TALKING ABOUT, FORGETTING THE REST OF IT -- I MEAN, I THINK THIS IS ALREADY IN EVIDENCE. IF I CAN GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL --

THE COURT: YOU ARE GOING TO CUT IT?

MR. SCHECK: CUT IT AT THE POINT WHERE YOU SEE HER PUTTING THE OTHER THINGS DOWN AND THEN WE SEE HIS BLUE PANTS AND BLACK SHOES, CONTINUOUS SHOT. THERE'S NO CUT THERE. IT'S MISTAKENLY. I THINK WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONFRONT HIM ON THIS BECAUSE IT'S PURPOSEFUL AND VERY FAIR IMPEACHMENT. THERE'S NO WAY --

THE COURT: CUT IT THERE.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, CAN I BE HEARD?

THE COURT: WHAT? WHAT?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS, THERE ARE THREE CUTS IN THERE.

THE COURT: ONLY THAT ONE CONTINUOUS FIRST SHOT. THAT'S IT.

MR. GOLDBERG: IT IS NOT CONTINUOUS, YOUR HONOR. IT APPEARS THERE IS A CUT BETWEEN MISS MAZZOLA PUTTING DOWN THE LAST BAG --

THE COURT: HE IS ENTITLED TO HAVE THAT ONE SHOT.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, COULD WE AT LEAST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THIS?

THE COURT: SURE. LET'S VIEW IT ONE MORE TIME.

(A VIDEOTAPE WAS PLAYED FOR THE COURT AND COUNSEL.)

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, COULD WE BE HEARD AGAIN ON THIS?

THE COURT: NO. MR. HARRIS, BE CAREFUL HERE.

MR. HARRIS: YES, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, A FEW MOMENTS AGO, MR. FUNG, WHEN YOU SAW THE VIDEO OF THE ENVELOPE, YOU SAID THAT IT HAD REFRESHED YOUR RECOLLECTION WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE FRAME BECAUSE YOU KNEW THAT COULDN'T BE THE ENVELOPE SINCE THE EVIDENCE COLLECTION DID NOT BEGIN UNTIL THE PEOPLE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE LEFT?

A: THAT'S WHAT I INDICATED, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU THIS PIECE OF VIDEOTAPE, MR. FUNG.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MARK THIS AS 1083.

(DEFT'S 1083 FOR ID = VIDEOTAPE)

(AT 10:45 A.M., DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1083, A VIDEOTAPE, WAS PLAYED.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND YOU'VE BEEN WATCHING THIS AT THE BREAK, HAVEN'T YOU?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: NOW, THIS IS MISS MAZZOLA PUTTING THE HAT IN THE BAG, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND IF YOU LOOK IN THE BACK OF THE STEPS, THOSE ARE THE PRINT PEOPLE WALKING BACK AND FORTH, THE ONES IN THE WHITE COATS?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU SEE IN BACK OF HER WHAT LOOKS LIKE THE TAPE MEASURE?

A: I COULDN'T MAKE IT OUT.

Q: SEE IT NOW?

A: YES. COULD BE, YES.

Q: NOW SHE'S PICKING UP THE GLOVE? NOW, YOU REMEMBER THAT MR. JACOBO FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE, HE WAS THE GENTLEMAN IN THE BLUE SUIT, THE BLUE JUMPSUIT?

A: YES.

Q: I WOULD LIKE YOU TO WATCH VERY CAREFULLY THE FRAME, THESE SHOES. SEE THOSE SHOES, SEE THOSE BLUE PANTS?

A: YES.

Q: THAT'S MR. JACOBO, ISN'T IT?

A: APPEARS TO BE, YES.

Q: SO YOU DID BEGIN EVIDENCE COLLECTION BEFORE THE CORONERS LEFT?

A: YES.

Q: SO WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE WASN'T TRUE?

A: IT WAS TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION AT THE TIME.

Q: WELL, WHEN YOU FILLED OUT YOUR EVIDENCE COLLECTION REPORT, MR. FUNG, FOR THE BUNDY SCENE -- I THINK WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE -- THERE'S A BOX THAT HAS TIMES ON IT, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU DIDN'T FILL OUT ANY TIMES FOR THE COLLECTION OF THESE -- OF THESE PIECES OF EVIDENCE, DID YOU?

A: THEY WERE NOT FILLED IN.

(AT 10:46 A.M., THE PLAYING OF DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1083, THE VIDEOTAPE, CONCLUDED.)

MR. SCHECK: COULD WE JUST PRINT -- WE'LL JUST PRINT OUT THE LAST STILL OF THE SHOES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. 1083-A.

MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU.

(DEFT'S 1083-A FOR ID = STILL PRINTOUT/SHOES)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, WHY DON'T WE MOVE ON TO THE ISSUE OF DNA AND YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF IT. I BELIEVE YOU SAID DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT YOU WERE NOT A DNA PERSON?

A: SOMETHING RELATIVE TO THAT, YES.

Q: AND THAT BY THAT, YOU MEAN THAT YOU HAVEN'T BEEN THROUGH SEROLOGY AT SID?

A: I'VE NEVER BEEN ASSIGNED THERE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND JUST SO YOU CAN MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE JURY, SID, THERE ARE VARIOUS DIFFERENT PLACES YOU CAN ROTATE THROUGH?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOUR ROTATION DID NOT INCLUDE SEROLOGY?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT IS SEROLOGY?

A: SEROLOGY -- IN THE SEROLOGY UNIT, THEY WILL ANALYZE BIOLOGICAL FLUIDS AND SOMETIMES TISSUE FOR GENETIC MARKERS.

Q: AND SOMETIMES THAT'S CALLED CONVENTIONAL GENETIC MARKER TESTING?

A: YES.

Q: THAT'S BLOOD TYPE A, B, O, THINGS OF THAT NATURE?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS IRRELEVANT WITH THIS WITNESS.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THAT IS ONE OF THE TESTS THEY DO.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YES. THE TEST EAP, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT ONE AT ALL?

A: I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT, NO.

Q: AND THEN STARTING IN JANUARY OF 1995, SID BEGAN DOING DNA TESTING?

A: I'M NOT SURE WHEN THEY STARTED.

Q: WELL, ARE YOU AWARE AT THAT POINT IN TIME, SID BEGAN DOING A FORM OF DNA TESTING IN 1994?

A: I AM NOT AWARE OF WHEN OUR DNA PROGRAM STARTED.

Q: WHEN I SAY THAT "YOUR LAB" DOING IT, I MEANT THAT IT'S ACTUALLY DONE IN-HOUSE BY ANALYSTS FROM THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT LABORATORY. WE'RE CLEAR ON THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AS OPPOSED TO COLLECTING SAMPLES THAT WOULD THEN BE SENT OUT TO OTHER LABORATORIES FOR DNA TESTING.

A: YES.

Q: AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, HAD -- PRIOR TO 1994, HAD THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT COLLECTED SAMPLES AND SENT THEM OUT TO OTHER LABORATORIES FOR DNA TESTING?

MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, AT ANY TIME IN 1994, HAD PEOPLE FROM THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME LAB GIVEN A LECTURE TO YOU ON PROCEDURES FOR COLLECTING EVIDENCE THAT WOULD SUBSEQUENTLY BE SUBJECTED TO DNA TESTING?

A: PRIOR TO 1994?

Q: WELL, DURING 1994.

A: I NEVER RECEIVED THAT TRAINING, NO.

Q: PRIOR TO 1994, DID YOU RECEIVE ANY TRAINING ON HOW TO COLLECT SAMPLES THAT WOULD SUBSEQUENTLY BE SUBJECTED TO DNA TESTING?

A: BRIEF TRAINING, YES.

Q: AND WHO GAVE YOU THIS BRIEF TRAINING?

A: I DON'T RECALL.

Q: WAS IT -- DO YOU KNOW WHO ERIN RILEY IS?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: AND IS SHE THE MOST EXPERIENCED DNA ANALYST AT THE LAPD CRIME LAB?

A: I DON'T KNOW WHO THAT OR WHO THE MOST EXPERIENCED PERSON IS.

Q: WELL, SHE WOULD BE THE MOST EXPERIENCED IN -- DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE PCR OR POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION METHOD IS?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT'S IRRELEVANT, BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS WITNESS' EXPERTISE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS?

THE WITNESS: I CAN'T GO INTO ANY DETAIL ON ITS -- I KNOW IT'S ONE OF THE PROCEDURES -- THERE'S TWO PROCEDURES, AND THAT'S ONE OF THEM.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ONE OF THEM PCR, WHAT'S KNOWN AS PCR?

A: YES.

Q: AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THAT THE ONE THAT THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME LAB BEGAN SOMETIME IN 1994 TO DO IN-HOUSE?

A: AGAIN, I'M -- I'M NOT -- I DON'T KEEP UP, ABREAST WITH THE DNA PROGRAM.

Q: AND THE OTHER METHOD IS SOMETIMES KNOWN AS RFLP? HAVE YOU HEARD THAT TERM?

A: I'VE HEARD THE TERM.

Q: FOR RESTRICTION FRAGMENT LENGTH POLYMORPHISM? HAVE YOU HEARD THAT TERM?

A: I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT TERM, NO.

Q: IN TERMS OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PCR TESTING AND THE RFLP TESTING, DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THOSE METHODS?

A: JUST VERY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE.

Q: WELL, YOU SAY YOU DON'T RECALL YOUR BRIEF LECTURE ON HOW TO COLLECT SAMPLES FOR PURPOSES OF FUTURE DNA TESTING?

MR. GOLDBERG: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU DON'T KNOW WHO GAVE YOU THAT LECTURE?

A: I DON'T RECALL WHO GAVE IT, NO.

Q: WAS IT -- WOULD IT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION, IS IT GREG MATHESON?

A: IT MAY HAVE BEEN.

Q: HE'S THE HEAD OF SEROLOGY?

A: YES. HE IS THE HEAD OR HE WAS HEAD OF SEROLOGY.

Q: MICHELLE KESTLER?

A: I'M PRETTY SURE IT WAS NOT MICHELLE KESTLER.

Q: SHE'S THE HEAD OF THE LABORATORY?

A: YES, SHE IS.

Q: COULD IT HAVE BEEN A GENTLEMAN NAMED HARRY KLAN?

A: NO, IT WAS NOT HARRY.

Q: YOU KNOW WHO HE IS?

A: YES. I KNOW CRIMINALIST KLAN.

Q: HE'S ANOTHER ANALYST, DNA ANALYST IN SEROLOGY?

A: HE WAS.

Q: HE'S NOT THERE NOW?

A: I THINK HE'S ASSIGNED TO A DIFFERENT --

Q: NOW, IN YOUR BRIEF LECTURE ABOUT COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE FOR PURPOSES OF DNA TESTING, DID ANYBODY EVER TELL YOU THAT THE ABILITY TO PERFORM SUCCESSFUL DNA ANALYSIS ON BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE RECOVERED FROM A CRIME SCENE DEPENDS VERY MUCH ON THE KINDS OF SPECIMENS COLLECTED AND HOW THEY WERE PRESERVED?

MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THERE -- I'VE HEARD SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT, YES.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU TOLD THAT THE TECHNIQUE USED TO COLLECT AND DOCUMENT SUCH EVIDENCE, THE QUANTITY AND TYPE OF EVIDENCE THAT SHOULD BE PACKAGED AND HOW THE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE PRESERVED ARE SOME OF THE CRITICAL POINTS FOR A -- FOR DNA PROGRAM? WERE YOU TOLD ANYTHING TO THAT EFFECT?

MS. CLARK: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. COULD WE SEE WHAT COUNSEL IS READING FROM?

THE COURT: OVERRULED. WERE YOU TOLD SOMETHING LIKE THAT, MR. FUNG?

THE WITNESS: TO THE LAST PART OF HIS QUESTION? I DON'T RECALL BEING TOLD SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU TOLD ANYTHING TO THE EFFECT THAT IF EVIDENCE IS IMPROPERLY PACKAGED, CROSS-CONTAMINATION CAN OCCUR?

A: NOT AT THAT -- NOT AT THAT TRAINING, NO.

Q: NO SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON THAT IN YOUR BRIEF DNA LECTURE?

A: NOT THAT I CAN RECALL.

Q: WERE YOU TOLD THAT IF DNA EVIDENCE IS NOT PROPERLY PRESERVED, THAT DECOMPOSITION AND DETERIORATION MAY WELL OCCUR?

A: NOT AT THAT LECTURE, NO.

Q: AND WERE YOU TOLD THAT THE DECOMPOSITION OR DEGRADATION OF DNA EVIDENCE CAN SERIOUSLY AFFECT THE OUTCOME OF DNA TYPING?

A: I DON'T RECALL THAT BEING DISCUSSED.

Q: WERE YOU EVER SHOWN A SET OF GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION OF DNA EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRODUCED BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION?

A: YES, I'VE BEEN SHOWN THAT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. I ASK --

MR. SCHECK: MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS THIS THE DOCUMENT THAT --

THE COURT: HOLD ON, HOLD ON, HOLD ON.

MR. GOLDBERG: I THINK I KNOW -- CAN I JUST TAKE A BRIEF LOOK AT IT?

THE COURT: SURE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, YOU SAY YOU'VE BEEN SHOWN A BOOK ENTITLED GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION OF DNA EVIDENCE?

A: I BELIEVE IT'S A LEAFLET, BUT YES.

Q: LEAFLET? AND WHEN WERE YOU SHOWN THAT?

A: THAT WAS SHOWN TO ME MAYBE COUPLE WEEKS AGO BY -- OH, ABOUT A COUPLE WEEKS AGO.

Q: WHO SHOWED IT TO YOU?

A: MR. GOLDBERG.

Q: SO IN OTHER WORDS, MR. GOLDBERG SHOWED YOU THE GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION OF DNA EVIDENCE LONG AFTER YOU COLLECTED THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?

MR. GOLDBERG: WAIT A MINUTE. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. ASSUMING ONE SET OF DOCUMENTS.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. GOLDBERG SHOWED YOU THE GUIDELINES FOR COLLECTION AND PRESENTATION OF DNA EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE FBI LONG AFTER YOU DID THE COLLECTION IN THIS CASE?

A: YES.

Q: AND ONE OF THE AUTHORS OF THIS IS DR. HENRY LEE, CORRECT?

A: I BELIEVE SO, YES.

Q: NOW, DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH DNA WOULD BE CONTAINED IN ONE MICROLITER OF BLOOD?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHAT A MICROLITER IS?

A: I BELIEVE IT'S ONE TO THE NEGATIVE SIX LITERS.

Q: AND IN TERMS OF WHAT A MICROLITER OF BLOOD WOULD LOOK LIKE, WOULD YOU NOT AGREE THAT IT WOULD BE ABOUT THE SIZE OF A PINHEAD?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS WITNESS' EXPERTISE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED ON THAT GROUND.

MR. GOLDBERG: ALSO BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DIRECT AND IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, DO YOU KNOW WHETHER ONE MICROLITER OF BLOOD WOULD BE ENOUGH TO DO A DNA TEST USING THE RFLP METHOD?

MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTIONS.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU GIVEN ANY INSTRUCTION WITH RESPECT TO HOW MUCH BLOOD COULD BE USED IN A SUCCESSFUL DNA TEST?

MR. GOLDBERG: SAME OBJECTIONS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND --

A: BRIEFLY.

Q: WERE YOU TOLD THAT AS LITTLE AS ONE MICROLITER OR A PINHEAD OF BLOOD COULD PRODUCE A RESULT WITH AN RFLP TEST?

A: I WASN'T TOLD THAT.

Q: WERE YOU TOLD IT COULD PRODUCE A RESULT WITH A PCR TEST?

A: THE TRAINING I RECALL WAS -- DID NOT DISCUSS PCR OR RFLP.

Q: WERE YOU TOLD THAT MINUTE PARTICLES OF BLOOD THAT YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE WITH THE NAKED EYE COULD BE RECOVERED FROM ITEMS OF EVIDENCE AND THEN USED IN A DNA TEST, BE IT PCR OR RFLP?

A: I WASN'T TOLD THAT, NO.

Q: WERE YOU WARNED THAT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT MINUTE PARTICLES OF BLOOD ARE NOT SPREAD FROM ONE ITEM OF EVIDENCE TO THE OTHER ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO DO SUBSEQUENT DNA TESTING?

A: NO.

Q: WERE YOU INSTRUCTED THAT IF ONE JUST WET A FINGER, RUBBED IT ON A PODIUM SUCH AS THIS, THEN WIPED IT WITH A CLOTH, THAT AN EXTRACTION FROM THAT CLOTH COULD SUCCESSFULLY BE AMPLIFIED AND USED IN A DNA TEST?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THIS ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER CELLS FROM A SMALL CUT FROM YOUR FINGER TRANSFERRED ONTO A PIECE OF EVIDENCE COULD BE A SOURCE IN A SUBSEQUENT DNA TEST FROM THE EVIDENCE YOU TOUCHED?

MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR, IMPROPER --

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE ANY TRAINING REGARDING THIS, MR. FUNG?

THE WITNESS: NO.

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THAT, THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE?

THE WITNESS: NOT EXPERT KNOWLEDGE, NO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU'RE GOING OUT AND COLLECTING THE EVIDENCE HERE; ARE YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE WITH YOU THE LITTLE KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, OBJECT TO THAT COMMENT, MAKE A MOTION TO STRIKE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE IT? I AM SORRY. YOU SAY LIMITED?

A: YES.

Q: I AM SORRY. THE LIMITED KNOWLEDGE. WERE YOU TAUGHT ANYTHING ABOUT THE DANGERS OF CONTAMINATION, CROSS-CONTAMINATING SAMPLES WHEN COLLECTING IT FOR PURPOSES OF DNA TESTING?

A: NOT FOR DNA TESTING, NO.

Q: NOW, YOU TOLD US ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU WEAR GLOVES AT LEAST FOR ONE PURPOSE -- WITHDRAWN. YOU TOLD US ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT ONE PURPOSE OF WEARING GLOVES DURING THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE IS FOR YOUR OWN PROTECTION?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU NOT REGARD IT ALSO AS IMPORTANT TO WEAR GLOVES AS A MEASURE TO PREVENT CONTAMINATION OF THE SAMPLES THAT YOU'RE COLLECTING?

A: YES.

Q: THAT'S ANOTHER PURPOSE?

A: YES.

Q: AN IMPORTANT PURPOSE?

A: IT IS A PURPOSE.

Q: NOW, YOU WERE ASKED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION HOW YOU DECIDE WHEN TO CHANGE GLOVES. DO YOU RECALL THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU RECALL THAT YOU ANSWERED THAT, "WHEN THE GLOVES GET DIRTY OR I HAVE TO USE SOME OF MY INSTRUMENTS OR PERSONAL ITEMS, I WILL REMOVE THE GLOVE SO AS NOT TO CONTAMINATE MYSELF OR OTHER ITEMS OF EVIDENCE"?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU SAY THAT THE GLOVES GET DIRTY AND THEN YOU REMOVE THEM, THAT MEANS THAT YOU CAN SEE SOMETHING ON THE GLOVES?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU'VE RECEIVED NO INSTRUCTION THAT SAMPLES CAN BE CONTAMINATED FOR PURPOSES OF DNA TESTING THROUGH MINUTE PARTICLES OF BLOOD THAT ONE CANNOT SEE?

MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: HAS ANYBODY TOLD YOU THAT SAMPLES THAT ARE BEING COLLECTED FOR PURPOSES OF DNA TESTING CAN BE CROSS-CONTAMINATED BY MINUTE PARTICLES OF BLOOD THAT CANNOT BE SEEN?

A: NO.

Q: HAVE YOU BEEN TOLD THAT EVIDENCE THAT IS BEING COLLECTED FOR PURPOSES OF DNA TESTING CAN BE CONTAMINATED BY OTHER CELLULAR MATERIAL THAT IS SO MINUTE, ONE CANNOT SEE OTHER THAN BLOOD?

MR. GOLDBERG: STILL ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

Q: SUSTAINED.

MR. SCHECK: I'M ASKING IF ANYBODY EVER TOLD HIM THAT.

THE COURT: WE'VE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THE EXTENT OF HIS TRAINING. MR. SCHECK.

MR. SCHECK: OKAY.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, THERE IS NO RULE IN THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE FOR PURPOSES OF DNA TESTING AT LAPD THAT GLOVES SHOULD BE CHANGED BETWEEN EACH SAMPLE?

A: THERE IS NO RULE TO THAT, NO.

Q: AND YOU DID NOT CHANGE GLOVES BETWEEN THE COLLECTION OF EACH SAMPLE, DID YOU?

A: NOT THAT I CAN RECALL, NO.

Q: AND YOU DID NOT INSTRUCT MISS MAZZOLA TO CHANGE HER GLOVES BETWEEN THE COLLECTION OF EACH SAMPLE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU KNOW THAT SHE DID NOT CHANGE HER GLOVES BETWEEN THE COLLECTION OF EACH SAMPLE?

A: FROM REVIEWING THE VIDEOTAPES, YES.

Q: NOW, YOU DID RECEIVE A HANDOUT ON THE -- HOW TO COLLECT EVIDENCE, WHICH INCLUDED REFERENCES TO DNA TESTING; DID YOU NOT?

A: I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO.

Q: DO YOU RECALL RECEIVING A HANDOUT THAT WAS GIVEN TO CRIMINALISTS WITH RESPECT TO THE COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION OF BODY FLUIDS?

A: I DON'T RECALL HAVING RECEIVED SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

Q: WELL, LET ME SHOW YOU A DOCUMENT OF THREE PAGES.

MR. SCHECK: AND I ASK IT BE MARKED COLLECTIVELY AS DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER.

THE COURT: 1084.

(DEFT'S 1084 FOR ID = 3-PAGE DOC.)

MR. GOLDBERG: DID YOU SAY 1084, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES. 1084.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: HAVE YOU SEEN THOSE DOCUMENTS BEFORE, SIR?

A: NO.

Q: YOU WERE NEVER HANDED OUT THESE THREE PAGES WITH RESPECT TO PROCEDURES FOR THE COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION OF BODY FLUIDS?

A: I DON'T RECALL HAVING BEEN GIVEN THAT, NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU RECALL RECEIVING ANY LECTURES AT ANY TIME ON HOW TO COLLECT AND PRESERVE BODY FLUIDS FROM ANYONE AT THE LAPD CRIME LAB?

A: I HAD ON-THE-JOB TRAINING.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IN THAT ON-THE-JOB TRAINING, WERE YOU GIVEN INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO USE CLOTH SWATCHES FOR THE COLLECTION OF BLOODSTAINS AT A CRIME SCENE?

A: YES.

Q: I MEAN, YOU DID -- YOU PARTICIPATED IN THE CREATION OF ALL THOSE BOARDS, DID YOU NOT, THAT LAID OUT THE PROCEDURE?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU WENT THROUGH THOSE BOARDS, DID YOU GO OVER THOSE PROCEDURES CAREFULLY WITH PEOPLE FROM THE CRIME LAB?

A: NOT FROM THE CRIME LAB, NO.

Q: WELL, WHO DID YOU GO OVER IT WITH?

A: MYSELF, CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA AND MR. GOLDBERG.

Q: DID YOU EVER GO THROUGH ANY OF THESE PROCEDURES WITH MR. YAMAUCHI?

A: I DID NOT, NO.

Q: MR. YAMAUCHI IS AN ANALYST THAT WORKS AT THE LAPD CRIME LAB?

A: YES, HE IS.

Q: AND YOU KNOW HIM AS BEING THE ANALYST THAT DID SOME OF THE DNA TESTING IN THIS CASE?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU'VE DISCUSSED WITH HIM YOUR TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU'VE GONE OVER SOME OF THE DETAILS WITH HIM?

A: LIMITED.

Q: NOW, IN TERMS OF -- WERE YOU EVER TOLD WITH RESPECT TO PROCEDURES --

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH FOR ONE MOMENT?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WITH THE REPORTER, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE'RE OVER AT SIDEBAR.

MR. GOLDBERG: IF HE HASN'T SEEN THIS BEFORE, COUNSEL CANNOT CROSS-EXAMINE UNDER EVIDENCE CODE SECTION I THINK IT'S 721.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, WHAT I'M ATTEMPTING TO DO IS THAT -- THE WITNESS HAS INDICATED THAT HE LEARNED ORALLY, WAS INSTRUCTED ORALLY AT SOME POINT ABOUT PROCEDURES AND HE LEARNED ON THE JOB. SO ALL I'M ASKING HIM ABOUT IS WHETHER CERTAIN PROCEDURES HE WAS TOLD ABOUT ORALLY. IF HE WANTS TO REFRESH HIS RECOLLECTION BY LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENT AT SOME POINT IN TIME, THAT'S FINE. ALSO, I'M A BIT PUZZLED BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE TIME TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT IT BECAUSE I WANT TO MOVE ON, BUT IT'S MY DISTINCT RECOLLECTION WE WERE HANDED AND THE COURT WAS HANDED THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT DURING THE SPLIT HEARING.

THE COURT: YEAH. I HAVE TO CONFESS IT DOES NOT LOOK FAMILIAR TO ME. BUT SINCE I'VE SEEN 20,000 PAGES WORTH OF STUFF IN THIS CASE --

MR. SCHECK: I PROPOSE SIMPLY TO ASK HIM ABOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE AND THE WAY THAT HE CLAIMS THAT HE GOT IT.

THE COURT: I HAVEN'T HEARD A QUESTION THAT'S DIRECT CROSS-EXAMINATION AS TO THAT ITEM YET. MR. GOLDBERG.

MR. GOLDBERG: BUT THE PROCEDURE OF COUNSEL STANDING UP THERE RIGHT NEXT TO THE WITNESS GOING THROUGH THE DOCUMENT IS NOT PROPER.

MR. SCHECK: I HAVEN'T READ IT YET.

MR. GOLDBERG: BUT THAT IS WHAT HE WAS ABOUT TO DO. THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO APPROACH NOW.

THE COURT: NOTING THE OBJECTION. IT'S PREMATURE AT THIS TIME.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK, DO YOU NEED TO BE THERE FOR SOME PARTICULAR REASON? ARE YOU GOING TO SHOW HIM ANY --

MR. SCHECK: I MAY SHOW HIM SOMETHING TO REFRESH HIS RECOLLECTION.

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU USE THE PODIUM UNTIL YOU NEED TO.

MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, SIR, YOU SAY YOU NEVER RECEIVED A WRITTEN HANDOUT ON HOW TO COLLECT AND PRESERVE BODY FLUIDS WHICH WOULD INCLUDE BLOOD, RIGHT?

A: I NEVER RECEIVED THAT HANDOUT, NO.

Q: OKAY. BUT YOU DID RECEIVE INSTRUCTION ORALLY?

A: YES.

Q: THAT'S SORT OF THE ORAL TRADITION IN THE LABORATORY IN TERMS OF TRAINING PEOPLE?

A: YES.

Q: AND IN TERMS OF YOUR TRAINING ON HOW TO COLLECT AND PRESERVE A BLOODSTAIN, PART OF IT WAS TO -- YOU WERE TOLD ORALLY BY SOMEONE TO USE A CLOTH SWATCH OR A CLOTH STRIP OR THREADS, REMOVE FROM THE SWATCH?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU WERE TOLD THAT THE CHOICE OF THE SIZE OF THE SWATCH DEPENDS ON THE SIZE OF THE STAIN THAT'S TO BE COLLECTED?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU WERE TOLD THAT ONE SHOULD DAMPEN THE SWATCH WITH DISTILLED WATER AND REMOVE THE EXCESS WATER BY SHAKING IT OFF?

A: I DON'T RECALL THAT BEING SPECIFICALLY --

Q: YOU WERE TOLD TO APPLY THE DAMPENED SWATCH TO THE DRY STAIN?

A: YES.

Q: TO PRESS IT INTO THE STAIN USING TWEEZERS?

A: YES.

Q: WERE YOU INSTRUCTED ORALLY NOT TO RUB THE STAIN WITH THE SWATCH?

A: NO.

Q: LET ME SHOW YOU THIS DOCUMENT, SEE IF IT REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE EVER TOLD THAT ONE SHOULD NOT RUB THE STAIN WITH THE SWATCH.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THERE'S NO SHOWING THAT THIS WITNESS NEEDS HIS RECOLLECTION REFRESHED.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU THINK SOMEBODY MIGHT HAVE TOLD YOU THAT ONE SHOULD NOT RUB THE STAIN WITH THE SWATCH?

A: I -- I DON'T RECALL ANYBODY TELLING ME NOT TO RUB.

Q: IS IT THAT YOU DON'T -- IS IT THAT YOU HAVE NO SPECIFIC MEMORY OF EXACTLY THE INSTRUCTIONS YOU WERE GIVEN ON HOW TO PICK UP THE STAIN?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. LET ME NOW SHOW YOU THE DOCUMENT, SEE IF IT REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION.

THE COURT: NO. YOU NEED TO ASK A FOUNDATIONAL QUESTION BEFORE YOU DO THAT.

MR. SCHECK: ONE MORE?

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU REMEMBER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WHETHER ANYBODY EVER TOLD YOU NOT TO RUB THE STAIN WITH THE SWATCH?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. WOULD IT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION, MR. FUNG, TO LOOK AT THIS DOCUMENT THAT'S BEEN SHOWN TO YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU RECEIVED ANY INSTRUCTION REGARDING RUBBING OF A BLOOD SAMPLE IN ITS COLLECTION?

THE WITNESS: NO.

THE COURT: PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU. WERE YOU TOLD TO PLACE THE SWATCH ONCE THE STAIN HAD BEEN REMOVED, THAT TRANSFERRED STAIN INTO A PLASTIC BAG FOR TRANSPORTATION?

A: YES.

Q: AND TO PUT THE PLASTIC BAG IN A COIN ENVELOPE WITH APPROPRIATE INFORMATION ON IT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, HAVE YOU READ ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT MANUAL THAT ONE SHOULD NOT USE A PLASTIC BAG FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF WET BLOODSTAINS OR WET ITEMS?

A: I DON'T RECALL THAT BEING IN THE MANUAL.

Q: I'M TALKING ABOUT NOW THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT MANUAL.

A: THE MANUAL, LAPD MANUAL. I DON'T RECALL THAT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: HAVE YOU EVER -- DO YOU RECALL 6525.2 ON PRESERVING WET STAINS?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU RECALL ANY SECTION OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT MANUAL THAT SAYS:

"ITEMS CONTAINING WET BLOOD, SEMEN OR CHEMICAL STAINS SHALL BE PERMITTED TO DRY AT ROOM TEMPERATURE BEFORE PACKAGING, PLASTIC CONTAINERS OR PLASTIC WRAP SHALL NOT," IN ITALICS, "BE USED AS PACKAGING MATERIAL"?

A: RECALL SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT, YES.

Q: SHOW YOU THIS DOCUMENT, SEE IF IT REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION.

A: WHERE? HERE? HERE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, I THINK YOU INDICATED THAT --

MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I JUST HAVE A MOMENT, COUNSEL, TO MAKE SURE THAT --

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: I THINK YOU INDICATED THAT YOU WERE FAMILIAR --

MR. GOLDBERG: CAN WE HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH A GENTLEMAN NAMED BARRY FISHER?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHO IS HE?

A: BARRY FISHER IS THE -- I THINK HE'S THE DIRECTOR OF THE L.A. SHERIFF'S OFFICE CRIME LAB.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU INDICATED THAT YOU WERE FAMILIAR WITH AT LEAST ONE OF THE EDITIONS OF HIS WORK TECHNIQUES OF CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION?

A: I HAVE LOOKED AT CERTAIN SECTIONS OF ONE OF THE EDITIONS, YES.

Q: WHICH SECTIONS?

A: I DON'T RECALL ALL THE SECTIONS I'VE LOOKED AT.

Q: WELL, DO YOU RECALL LOOKING AT ANY SECTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT'S VAGUE AS TO WHICH EDITION OF THE BOOK HE'S TALKING ABOUT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. GOLDBERG: WHAT?

THE COURT: I SAID OVERRULED. BUT AT THIS POINT, IT IS. HE HASN'T ASKED A QUESTION REGARDING THE BOOK YET. PREMATURE. PROCEED.

THE WITNESS: COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION?

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YES. YOU SAID YOU WERE FAMILIAR WITH SOME SECTIONS OF THIS BOOK, TECHNIQUES OF CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION, SOME EDITION, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: WHICH SECTIONS ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH?

A: AGAIN, I'M NOT -- I DON'T RECALL EVERY SECTION THAT I'VE READ OUT OF THAT BOOK.

Q: DO YOU RECALL IF YOU READ ANY SECTIONS DEALING WITH THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE?

MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S STILL VAGUE AT THAT POINT AS TO WHAT EDITION OF THE BOOK HE'S TALKING ABOUT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THE WHOLE BOOK DEALS WITH COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU REMEMBER READING ANY SECTION OF THE BOOK THAT CONCERNED COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE WITH WET STAINS AND PUTTING THEM IN PLASTIC BAGS?

A: I DON'T RECALL READING SOMETHING LIKE THAT, NO.

Q: THAT WASN'T IN YOUR EDITION?

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

MR. SCHECK: MAY I HAVE A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU RECALL -- ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH A BOOK CALLED CRIMINALISTICS-AN INTRODUCTION TO FORENSIC SCIENCE BY RICHARD SAFERSTEIN?

A: I AM FAMILIAR WITH ONE OF THE EDITIONS, YES.

Q: THIS IS A BOOK I TAKE IT YOU STUDIED IN YOUR TRAINING, CRIMINALISTICS?

A: YES.

Q: IT'S FUNDAMENTAL TEXT IN THE FIELD?

A: ONE OF THEM.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DO YOU RECALL IN THIS BOOK ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT PACKAGING BLOODSTAIN EVIDENCE IN PLASTIC OR AIRTIGHT CONTAINERS?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, ASSUMES THAT THIS WITNESS HAS READ THIS PARTICULAR VERSION OF THIS BOOK.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IN ANY OF THE EDITIONS YOU READ?

A: IT MAY HAVE BEEN, BUT I DON'T RECALL.

MR. SCHECK: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS PAGE OF WHAT IS THE 4TH EDITION OF CRIMINALISTICS-AN INTRODUCTION TO FORENSIC SCIENCE BY RICHARD SAFERSTEIN AND ASK YOU TO READ THAT PARAGRAPH AND SEE IF IT REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION.

MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, THIS BOOK CRIMINALISTICS-AN INTRODUCTION TO FORENSIC SCIENCE, WHATEVER EDITION YOU READ, IS THIS A TEXT THAT YOU CONSIDERED IN FORMING YOUR OPINIONS AS A CRIMINALIST IN YOUR TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, OVERLY BROAD, VAGUE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: COULD YOU REPEAT THAT AGAIN?

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: SURE. IS THIS BOOK PART OF THE TRAINING THAT YOU UNDERWENT WHICH CAME TO BE A PART OF THE BASIS FOR WHICH -- WHICH YOU USED IN OFFERING YOUR OPINIONS AS A CRIMINALIST IN THIS CASE?

A: CERTAINLY PORTIONS OF IT.

MR. GOLDBERG: VAGUE AS TO WHICH PORTIONS.

MR. SCHECK: I THINK THE ANSWER WAS CERTAIN PORTIONS.

THE COURT: I ASSUME WE ARE GOING TO WORK DOWN TO WHAT IT IS.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHICH PORTIONS DID YOU RELY UPON OR DID YOU CONSIDER IN FORMING YOUR OPINIONS AS A CRIMINALIST IN YOUR TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE, THAT HE'S OFFERED WHAT WE TYPICALLY CONSIDER AN EXPERT OPINION IN THIS CASE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHICH PORTIONS?

A: I DON'T RECALL WHAT SPECIFIC PORTIONS.

Q: WELL, WOULD IT INCLUDE DISCUSSION OF COLLECTION OF BLOODSTAINS? WOULDN'T THE THINGS THAT SAFERSTEIN SAID IN HIS BOOK WITH RESPECT TO THE COLLECTION OF BLOODSTAINS BE DATA THAT YOU CONSIDERED IN FORMING YOUR JUDGMENTS IN THIS CASE ABOUT HOW TO COLLECT BLOODSTAINS?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE, THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE COLLECTION OF BLOODSTAINS AS OPPOSED TO FINAL PACKAGING.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THIS IS SOMETHING I DID CONSIDER, YES.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. AND DOESN'T SAFERSTEIN SAY THAT THE PACKAGING OF BLOOD EVIDENCE IN A PLASTIC OR AIRTIGHT CONTAINERS MUST BE AVOIDED BECAUSE THE ACCUMULATION OF RESIDUAL MOISTURE COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE GROWTH OF BLOOD DESTROYING BACTERIA AND FUNGI?

MR. GOLDBERG: HEARSAY UNDER 721. ALSO AMBIGUOUS AS TO WHETHER HE'S TALKING ABOUT FINAL PACKAGING OR --

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: PREFERABLY, EACH STAINED ARTICLE SHOULD BE PACKAGED INDIVIDUALLY IN A PAPER BAG OR WELL-VENTILATED BOX?

A: THAT'S WHAT THE BOOKS SAYS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT, SIR?

A: I AGREE WITH THAT IN THE REGARD IF FOR FINAL PACKAGING. IN THE INTERMEDIATE STAGE, I DO NOT AGREE WITH THAT.

Q: SO IN OTHER WORDS, FOR TEMPORARY PACKAGING, IT'S OKAY TO PUT A WET BLOODSTAIN IN PLASTIC?

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, IT'S VAGUE AS TO THE WORD "PACKAGING."

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: PLEASE REPEAT IT.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: SURE. SO IS IT YOUR POSITION THAT IT'S SOUND PRACTICE TO PUT A WET BLOODSTAIN IN A PLASTIC BAG TEMPORARILY?

A: THAT'S THE WAY I WAS TAUGHT AND TRAINED TO DO IT IN THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT YOU WERE TAUGHT IN THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT TO PUT WET BLOODSTAINS IN PLASTIC BAGS IN PACKAGING THEM?

MR. GOLDBERG: WAIT A MINUTE. THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. THERE'S COLLECTION AND PACKAGING.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED. COUNSEL, REMEMBER THE DIRECTION ON HOW OBJECTIONS ARE TO BE MADE. PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE TAUGHT?

A: NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT I WAS TAUGHT.

Q: WEREN'T YOU TAUGHT TO, WHEN COLLECTING THESE SWATCHES, ALL RIGHT, CONTAINING BLOOD THAT ARE WET, TO PUT THEM IN PLASTIC BAGS?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND ISN'T THAT CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU LEARNED FROM SAFERSTEIN AND OTHERS AS TO SOUND PRACTICES WITH RESPECT TO PACKAGING WET STAINS?

A: MY INTERPRETATION OF WHAT MR. SAFERSTEIN WROTE IS THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE BOOKED IN OR THEY SHOULD BE -- THEY SHOULD NOT BE PACKAGED IN PLASTIC FOR FINAL -- IN A FINAL STATE.

Q: WELL, IS THERE ANYTHING TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE IN THIS BOOK THAT INDICATES THAT IT'S OKAY TO -- FOR YOU TO WRAP -- PACKAGE A WET BLOODSTAIN IN PLASTIC EVEN TEMPORARILY?

MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S OVERLY BROAD, YOUR HONOR, THE ENTIRE BOOK.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T THINK THE BOOK ADDRESSES IT.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, TO THE EXTENT THE BOOK ADDRESSES IT, IT SAYS DON'T PUT WET BLOODSTAINS IN PLASTIC?

MR. GOLDBERG: MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: SAFERSTEIN SAYS, "THE PACKAGING OF BLOODSTAIN EVIDENCE IN PLASTIC OR AIRTIGHT CONTAINERS MUST BE AVOIDED," TRUE?

A: YES.

Q: AND IT DOESN'T SAY, "MUST BE AVOIDED IN THE LONG TERM." IT SAYS, "MUST BE AVOIDED," PERIOD, RIGHT?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT'S ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, A PLASTIC BAG IS A PACKAGE, ISN'T IT, SIR?

MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: IT CAN BE CONSIDERED PACKAGING, YES.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND SAFERSTEIN SAYS DON'T PUT WET BLOODSTAINS IN PLASTIC PACKAGING, RIGHT?

MR. GOLDBERG: MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: OH, EXCUSE ME. GO AHEAD. COULD YOU REPEAT IT?

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: SAFERSTEIN SAYS DON'T PUT WET BLOODSTAINS IN PLASTIC PACKAGES, RIGHT?

MR. GOLDBERG: MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THE -- MY INTERPRETATION OF WHAT HE SAYS IN THAT REGARD IS TOWARDS FINAL PACKAGING.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH FORENSIC SCIENCE-AN INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINALISTICS BY DE FOREST, GAENSSLEN AND DR. HENRY LEE?

A: I HAVE LOOKED AT PORTIONS OF THAT BOOK, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DO YOU RECALL WHAT THESE GENTLEMEN SAY ABOUT PACKAGING WET BLOODSTAINS IN PLASTIC?

A: NOT SPECIFICALLY, NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. YOU'VE READ SOME EDITION OF THIS BOOK?

A: IF THE COVER HASN'T CHANGED, IT'S PROBABLY THAT EDITION.

Q: PROBABLY THIS EDITION. AND YOU'VE CONSIDERED THIS BOOK IN FORMING YOUR OPINIONS AS A CRIMINALIST WITH RESPECT TO TESTIMONY THAT YOU'VE GIVEN IN THIS CASE?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU NOW --

MR. GOLDBERG: CAN I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 245 TO THIS PARAGRAPH.

A: THIS ENTIRE PARAGRAPH?

Q: THAT WHOLE PARAGRAPH, THAT SENTENCE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, THE SECTION YOU'VE JUST READ IS A SECTION ENTITLED "COLLECTION, PRESERVATION AND PACKAGING OF BLOOD EVIDENCE"?

A: YES.

Q: AND DO NOT THESE AUTHORS SAY THAT: "GARMENTS BEARING WET OR MOIST BLOODSTAINS SHOULD NEVER," AND THE NEVER IS IN BOLD, "BE SEALED IN AIRTIGHT CONTAINERS SUCH AS PLASTIC BAGS. UNDER SUCH CONDITIONS, THE SPECIMENS RETAIN THEIR MOISTURE ENCOURAGING BACTERIAL GROWTH?"

A: THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS.

Q: NOW, MR. FUNG, THE DANGER, WOULD YOU NOT AGREE, OF PACKAGING A WET BLOODSTAIN IN A PLASTIC BAG IS THIS PROBLEM OF BACTERIAL GROWTH?

A: IT PROMOTES BACTERIAL GROWTH, YES.

Q: AND WHAT BACTERIA DOES WHEN IT BEGINS TO FORM IN LET'S SAY A WET STAIN IN A PLASTIC BAG IS, IT WILL BEGIN -- THE BACTERIA WILL BEGIN TO EAT AWAY AT THE DNA?

A: IT WILL BEGIN TO DEGRADE IT.

Q: YES. THE TERM "DEGRADE." COULD YOU TELL THE JURY WHAT THE TERM "DEGRADE" MEANS?

A: "DEGRADE" IN THAT SENSE MEANS THAT THE GENETIC PROTEIN OR DNA IS BROKEN DOWN BY THE -- BY THE BACTERIA.

Q: IS IT SORT OF A SITUATION LIKE IF YOU PUT -- LIKE MILK BEING SPOILED, WHEN IT'S LEFT OUT FOR A LONG TIME, THE BACTERIA BEGINS TO FORM WITHIN IT? WOULD THAT BE AN ANALOGY THAT YOU THINK WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, SOURING MILK?

A: I -- IT'S A ROUGH ANALOGY.

Q: OKAY. AND WOULD YOU NOT AGREE, SIR, THAT WHEN BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL SUCH AS WET BLOODSTAINS BEGIN TO DEGRADE THROUGH BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION, THAT THERE IS GREATER DANGER OF CROSS-CONTAMINATING THOSE DEGRADED SAMPLES THAN IF THE SAMPLES HAD NOT BEEN DEGRADED?

MR. GOLDBERG: UNINTELLIGIBLE, YOUR HONOR.

MR. SCHECK: LET ME REPHRASE THAT BECAUSE IT IS UNINTELLIGIBLE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. SCHECK: SUSTAINED AND SELF-CENSURED.

THE COURT: YES. SUSTAINED. I WAS JUST READING IT MYSELF HERE.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: LET ME START IT THIS WAY. LET US ASSUME THAT WE STARTED WITH A -- ONE OF THESE RED SWATCHES SUCH AS YOU TOOK FROM THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE AND THE SAMPLE WAS NOT DEGRADED. YOU WITH ME?

A: GOT YOU.

Q: AND THEN THROUGH THE PROCESS OF COLLECTION AND HANDLING, ONE GOT LET'S SAY BLOOD FROM ANOTHER SAMPLE AND ACCIDENTALLY TOUCHED OR CROSS-CONTAMINATED THE SAMPLE YOU PICKED UP. ARE YOU WITH ME?

A: SO I HAVE A SAMPLE COLLECTED AND ANOTHER SAMPLE TOUCHED THE FIRST SAMPLE?

Q: RIGHT.

A: GOT YOU.

Q: THAT CONCEPT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE OF THE SECONDARY TRANSFER OR CROSS-CONTAMINATION.

A: OKAY.

Q: NOW, IF THE SAMPLE THAT YOU HAD COLLECTED WAS NOT -- WAS DEGRADED, ALL RIGHT --

A: WHICH SAMPLE WAS THAT.

Q: THE SAMPLE YOU ORIGINALLY COLLECTED, LET US -- ASSUMING IT IS PUT IN A PLASTIC BAG, IT IS LEFT FOR SEVEN OR EIGHT HOURS, THEN IT IS LEFT IN A HEATED CONDITION AND THAT THAT SAMPLE IS SUBJECTED TO BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION. YOU WITH ME?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION WOULD BEGIN TO EAT AWAY AT THE ORIGINAL DNA IN THAT SAMPLE?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DIRECT, HIS EXPERTISE AT THIS POINT. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO FOLLOW THE HYPOTHETICAL.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW AT WHAT POINT THE BACTERIA WILL START TO EAT AWAY.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, AT SOME POINT, YOU AGREE BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION WILL DEGRADE SAMPLES?

A: AT SOME POINT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND LET US ASSUME FOR PURPOSES OF THIS HYPOTHETICAL THAT IF YOU LEFT A WET BLOODSTAIN IN A PLASTIC BAG FOR SEVEN HOURS, THAT THERE WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL DEGRADATION OF THE ORIGINAL DNA IN THAT STAIN. ARE YOU WITH ME ON THIS?

A: THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL?

Q: YES.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. THIS IS AN IMPROPER HYPOTHETICAL.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I'M JUST TRYING TO SET UP A STEP.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WOULD YOU AGREE, SIR, THAT A BLOODSTAIN WHICH HAS BEEN DEGRADED THROUGH BACTERIAL CONTAMINATION, SUCH THAT SOME OR -- MOST OR ALL OF THE ORIGINAL DNA HAS BEEN DESTROYED, IS A SAMPLE THAT CAN BE EASILY CROSS-CONTAMINATED WITH ANOTHER SAMPLE?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF HIS EXPERTISE AND IT'S DISCUSSING TWO CONCEPTS. SO IT'S COMPOUND.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED ON THE LATTER.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WOULD YOU AGREE, SIR, THAT THERE IS A GREATER DANGER OF CROSS-CONTAMINATING SAMPLES WHEN ONE OF THOSE SAMPLES HAS BEEN DEGRADED SUCH THAT IT HAS -- THE ORIGINAL DNA IN IT HAS BEEN DESTROYED?

A: CROSS-CONTAMINATION AND DEGRADATION ARE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SAMPLE A. ARE YOU WITH ME NOW?

A: YES.

Q: LET US ASSUME THAT SAMPLE A OR SWATCH A HAS BEEN DEGRADED AND THE ORIGINAL DNA HAS BEEN DESTROYED BY BACTERIA.

A: YES.

Q: NOW, YOU TAKE SAMPLE B AND YOU GET SOME BLOOD OR CELLULAR MATERIAL FROM SAMPLE B ONTO SAMPLE A. DO YOU FOLLOW THAT?

A: YOU HAVE ONE DEGRADED SAMPLE AND ONE WITH AN UNDEGRADED SAMPLE?

Q: THAT HAS UNDEGRADED DNA, YES.

A: AND NOW WHAT?

Q: AND YOU TOUCH THEM TO EACH OTHER.

A: OKAY.

Q: THAT WOULD BE A CROSS-CONTAMINATION?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SUCH A CROSS-CONTAMINATION WITH A DEGRADED SAMPLE PRESENTS SPECIAL DANGERS, DOESN'T IT?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THIS REALLY IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DIRECT.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW --

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU REFER TO AS "SPECIAL DANGERS."

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, WOULDN'T IT BE TRUE THAT IF ONE SAMPLE IS DEGRADED, SAMPLE A, AND IT IS TOUCHED BY SAMPLE B, THAT THE ONLY DNA WE ARE GOING TO HAVE ON SAMPLE A IS THE DNA FROM SAMPLE B?

MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR SPECULATION, BEYOND THE SCOPE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. SO AS FAR AS YOU'RE CONCERNED, THE DEGRADATION OF SAMPLES DOES NOT PRESENT SPECIAL RISK OF CROSS-CONTAMINATION?

A: MY UNDERSTANDING OF DEGRADATION AND -- IS THAT THE SAMPLE OR THE GENETIC MATERIAL WITHIN A BIOLOGICAL SAMPLE WILL BREAK DOWN. CONTAMINATION HAS TO DO OR CROSS-CONTAMINATION HAS TO DO WITH PUTTING IN CONTACT ONE SAMPLE WITH ANOTHER.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND --

A: AND THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS.

Q: WELL, LET'S TRY TO MERGE THEM. IF ONE SAMPLE IS DEGRADED AND THE OTHER -- AND THAT SAMPLE IS THEN CROSS-CONTAMINATED, WOULDN'T YOU AGREE THERE'S A SPECIAL DANGER THERE BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE A MORE COMPLETE CONTAMINATION?

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THAT'S VAGUE, "SPECIAL DANGER."

COUNSEL, HE'S TESTIFIED HE HASN'T BEEN IN THE SEROLOGY SECTION, HE'S NOT FAMILIAR WITH DNA.

MR. SCHECK: I WILL LEAVE IT.

THE COURT: LET'S MOVE ON.

MR. GOLDBERG: MOTION TO STRIKE COUNSEL'S COMMENTS.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU TOLD IN YOUR PROCESS OF -- IN YOUR LECTURES ON HOW TO COLLECT BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE TO CLEAN TWEEZERS FOLLOWING EACH USE TO AVOID CROSS-CONTAMINATION?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE WAY THAT YOU WERE TAUGHT TO CLEAN THE TWEEZERS WAS JUST TO TAKE DISTILLED WATER AND RUB IT ACROSS THE TWEEZERS?

A: NO.

Q: TAKE DISTILLED WATER, PUT IT -- HOW DO YOU CLEAN IT?

A: TAKE A CHEM-WIPE OR COTTON APPLICATOR, WET WITH DISTILLED WATER, AND THE TWEEZERS ARE WIPED WITH EITHER THE CHEM-WIPE OR COTTON APPLICATOR UNTIL THEY ARE CLEAN. YOU SAY UNTIL THEY LOOK CLEAN?

A: UNTIL THEY ARE CLEAN, YES.

Q: WELL, UNTIL THEY JUST, FROM VISUAL INSPECTION, APPEAR TO BE CLEAN?

A: VISUAL INSPECTION AND UNTIL NOTHING IS COMING OFF OF THE TWEEZERS.

Q: WELL, YOU HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED THEN THAT BY SIMPLY WIPING THE TWEEZERS WITH A CHEM-WIPE AND DISTILLED -- DAMPENED WITH DISTILLED WATER, THAT THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO REMOVE DNA FROM THOSE TWEEZERS? THAT'S WHAT YOU'VE BEEN TOLD?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, IF YOU WERE WITH SOMEBODY THAT HAD A DEADLY VIRUS, A SERIOUS VIRUS, AND THEY JUST ATE SOMETHING WITH A SPOON AND THEN YOU JUST WIPE THAT SPOON WITH A CHEM-WIPE OF DISTILLED WATER, WOULD YOU BE RELUCTANT THEN TO USE THAT SPOON TO EAT?

MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU KNOW A -- DO YOU KNOW WHAT A VIRUS IS?

MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. SIZE WISE IS RELEVANT.

THE WITNESS: DO I KNOW WHAT A VIRUS IS? YES.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS A VIRUS IN SOME WAYS JUST REALLY A SEQUENCE OF DNA?

A: I -- I DON'T KNOW.

Q: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE METHODS THAT ARE USED AT DNA LABORATORIES TO CLEAN TWEEZERS OR TO CLEANSE TWEEZERS BETWEEN TOUCHING SAMPLES?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THEY TAKE THOSE TWEEZERS AND THEY LITERALLY PUT THEM IN A BUNSEN BURNER OR AUTOCLAVE THEM?

MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE TECHNIQUES?

THE WITNESS: NO.

THE COURT: PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: HAS ANYBODY AT THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME LAB SUGGESTED THAT INSTEAD OF JUST CLEANING THE TWEEZERS WITH DISTILLED WATER AND CHEM-WIPES, THAT IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA TO USE DISPOSABLE TWEEZERS?

A: NO ONE'S MADE THAT SUGGESTION TO ME.

Q: NOW, HAS ANYBODY TOLD YOU -- WELL, WITHDRAWN. AS PART OF THIS INSTRUCTION THAT YOU GOT WITH RESPECT TO COLLECTING SAMPLES FOR PURPOSES OF DNA TESTING, WERE YOU NOT INSTRUCTED TO COLLECT AS MUCH OF THE STAIN AS POSSIBLE, ESPECIALLY IF RFLP DNA ANALYSIS MAY BE NECESSARY AS A FUTURE ANALYSIS?

A: COLLECT AS MUCH OF THE STAIN AS POSSIBLE, YES.

Q: ESPECIALLY IF RFLP DNA ANALYSIS BE NECESSARY AS A FUTURE ANALYSIS?

A: LAST PART OF THAT, I DON'T RECALL. BUT FOR DNA PURPOSES, I WAS TAUGHT TO COLLECT AS MUCH OF IT AS POSSIBLE.

Q: SO WHETHER IT BE RFLP OR PCR, AS FAR AS YOU WERE CONCERNED, YOUR INSTRUCTIONS WERE COLLECT AS MUCH OF THAT BLOODSTAIN AS POSSIBLE FOR PURPOSES OF FUTURE DNA TESTING?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT'S WHAT YOU DID IN THIS CASE?

A: THAT'S WHAT I ATTEMPTED TO DO, YES.

Q: THAT'S WHAT YOU ATTEMPTED TO DO?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU COLLECTED THE BLOODSTAINS IN THIS CASE -- WITHDRAWN. YOU WERE PRESENT YOU SAY ON MANY OCCASIONS WHEN MISS MAZZOLA WAS SWATCHING THE BLOODSTAINS IN THIS CASE?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU PUT THEM INTO PLASTIC BAGS?

A: YES.

Q: THE SWATCHES?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEN THE PLASTIC BAGS WERE PUT INSIDE COIN ENVELOPES?

A: YES.

Q: AND WOULD YOU AGREE, SIR, THAT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO KEEP GOOD DOCUMENTATION OF EXACTLY HOW MUCH EVIDENCE YOU WERE COLLECTING WHEN YOU'RE COLLECTING IT? LET ME TRY IT ANOTHER WAY. WOULD YOU NOT AGREE THAT IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO COUNT THE NUMBER OF SWATCHES THAT YOU OR MISS MAZZOLA TOOK FOR EACH BLOODSTAIN THAT YOU COLLECTED?

A: NO.

Q: NO?

A: NO.

Q: WELL, YOU DID NOT COUNT THE NUMBER OF SWATCHES YOU COLLECTED FOR EACH BLOODSTAIN, DID YOU?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND EACH BLOODSTAIN DID NOT REQUIRE EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF SWATCHES?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: THEY VARIED?

A: YES.

Q: SOME HAD MORE, SOME HAD LESS?

A: SWATCHES?

Q: YES.

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RECORDS OF HOW MANY SWATCHES YOU PUT INTO THE PLASTIC BAG FOR ANY BLOODSTAIN COLLECTED IN THIS CASE?

A: THE STAIN IS THE EVIDENCE, NOT THE SWATCH. SO I DIDN'T RECORD THE NUMBER OF SWATCHES.

Q: WELL, THE STAIN IS THE EVIDENCE WHEN YOU FIRST SEE IT, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: BUT THE STAIN IS TRANSFERRED TO A SWATCH?

A: OR SWATCHES.

Q: OR SWATCHES. CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND AT THAT POINT, THE SWATCHES BECOME THE EVIDENCE THAT IS ANALYZED?

A: NO. THE STAIN IS THE IMPORTANT.

Q: AREN'T THE SWATCHES THAT CONTAIN THE BLOOD THE PHYSICAL ITEM THAT IS EVENTUALLY TAKEN TO THE LABORATORY AND ANALYZED FOR PURPOSES OF DNA TESTING?

A: THE SWATCHES ARE A MEDIUM TO CARRY THE STAINS.

Q: WELL, DON'T YOU REGARD THE SWATCH AS EVIDENCE?

A: I CONSIDER THE STAIN TO BE THE EVIDENCE AND THE SWATCH IS MERELY A VEHICLE TO TRANSPORT THE STAINS.

Q: IT'S ANOTHER FORM OF EVIDENCE?

A: THE SWATCH IS ANOTHER FORM OF EVIDENCE.

Q: YEAH. IT'S A FORM OF EVIDENCE?

A: THE STAIN IS THE EVIDENCE.

Q: WELL --

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE ON.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU DID NOT -- AFTER YOU GOT -- AFTER YOU PUT -- THE ONLY NUMBER -- THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN TRACK THE NUMBER OF SWATCHES WAS BY THE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION NUMBER; ISN'T THAT TRUE?

A: THE ONLY WAY I CAN TRACK?

Q: YEAH. WHEN YOU COLLECT -- WHEN YOU OR MISS MAZZOLA -- WHEN MISS MAZZOLA SWATCHED A BLOODSTAIN, SHE PUT A SERIES OF SWATCHES INTO A PLASTIC BAG?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE IDENTIFYING NUMBER THAT WAS PLACED ON THE PLASTIC BAG OR THE COIN ENVELOPE WAS THE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION NUMBER?

A: YES.

Q: THAT'S BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HAVE ITEM NUMBERS WHEN YOU WERE COLLECTING THE SAMPLES ON JUNE 13TH?

MR. GOLDBERG: OVERBROAD AS TO WHICH SCENES.

THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AS FAR AS BUNDY WAS CONCERNED, FOR EACH BLOOD DROP AT BUNDY, ALL YOU HAD WAS A PHOTO IDENTIFICATION NUMBER; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: FOR THE EVIDENCE, YES.

Q: YES. SO THAT'S HOW YOU KEPT TRACK OF IT. IT WAS A BAG, IT HAD A 117 ON IT AND A CERTAIN NUMBER OF SWATCHES WERE PUT INTO IT?

A: WE ALSO MEASURED AND HAD IT PHOTOGRAPHED.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT IN TERMS, WHEN YOU WALKED AWAY FROM THE SCENE, ALL YOU HAD WAS A PLASTIC BAG AND A COIN ENVELOPE WITH A PHOTO ID NUMBER ON IT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU DID NOT WRITE DOWN ON THE PLASTIC BAG THE NUMBER OF SWATCHES THAT WERE PUT INTO IT?

A: NO.

Q: AND YOU DID NOT WRITE DOWN ON THE COIN ENVELOPE THE NUMBER OF SWATCHES THAT WERE PUT INTO IT?

A: NO.

Q: AND WHEN YOU GOT BACK TO THE LABORATORY, YOU TOLD US ABOUT A PROCEDURE WHEREBY YOU REMOVED SWATCHES FROM PLASTIC BAGS?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU REMOVED THE SWATCHES FROM THE PLASTIC BAG, YOU MADE NO NOTATION ABOUT HOW MANY SWATCHES YOU WERE REMOVING FROM ONE OF THOSE PLASTIC BAGS AND COIN ENVELOPES?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND WHEN YOU PUT THE SWATCHES INTO A TEST TUBE, YOU MADE NO NOTES AS TO HOW MANY SWATCHES YOU WERE PUTTING INTO ONE OF THOSE TEST TUBES?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND WHEN YOU TOOK THE SWATCHES OUT OF THE TEST TUBE AND YOU PUT -- AND THEY WERE PUT INTO BINDLES, YOU MADE NO NOTATION OF HOW MANY SWATCHES YOU WERE PUTTING INTO THE BINDLES?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS POINT, ARGUMENTATIVE. HE SAID HE MADE NO NOTATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: SO YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RECORDS FROM THE TIME THAT THE SWATCHES WERE COLLECTED AT BUNDY TO THE TIME THAT THEY WERE PUT INTO THOSE BINDLES AS TO HOW MANY SWATCHES THERE WERE FOR EACH BLOOD DROP?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, BECAUSE THE STAIN IS THE EVIDENCE, NOT THE SWATCHES.

Q: AND YOU HAD KNOW COUNT ON THOSE SWATCHES?

A: THAT'S RIGHT.

Q: AND ISN'T IT PART OF YOUR RESPONSIBILITY IN COLLECTING EVIDENCE TO MAINTAIN A CHAIN OF CUSTODY?

A: YES.

Q: AND WOULDN'T YOU AGREE AS PART OF THAT CHAIN OF CUSTODY, IT WAS IMPORTANT TO KNOW HOW MANY SWATCHES YOU HAD WHEN YOU FIRST COLLECTED THE STAIN AND HOW MANY SWATCHES YOU HAD WHEN YOU GOT TO THE LAB?

MR. GOLDBERG: VAGUE AS TO THE TERM "CHAIN OF CUSTODY."

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: "CHAIN OF CUSTODY" IS WHAT, SIR, IN YOUR OPINION?

A: THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY IS RECORDING WHEN YOU TAKE CUSTODY OF AN ITEM OF EVIDENCE AND WHEN YOU RELEASE THE ITEM OF EVIDENCE AND TO WHOM AND AT WHAT TIME.

Q: AND INCLUDED WITHIN CHAIN OF CUSTODY IS TRYING TO MAKE A RECORD SO YOU CAN BE ASSURED THAT YOU HAVE AT A LATER POINT IN TIME EXACTLY THE SAME ITEMS THAT YOU FIRST COLLECTED?

A: NO. THAT'S NOT EXACTLY RIGHT.

Q: IT'S NOT PART OF THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY CONCEPT, TO KEEP TRACK OF THE NUMBER OF SWATCHES IN CASE SOME OF THEM MIGHT GET LOST?

A: COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION?

Q: WOULDN'T YOU CONSIDER IT IMPORTANT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY TO KEEP TRACK OF THE NUMBER OF SWATCHES THAT YOU FIRST COLLECTED AND THE NUMBER OF SWATCHES THAT YOU DELIVERED TO THE CRIMINALIST BECAUSE SOME SWATCHES COULD GET LOST?

MR. GOLDBERG: COMPOUND.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: AS LONG AS I TOOK CARE TO HANDLE THE EVIDENCE PROPERLY, I WOULDN'T -- I COULDN'T COUNT THE SWATCHES.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, IF YOU COLLECTED OR MISS MAZZOLA COLLECTED SIX SWATCHES FOR ITEM 49 AND FOUR SWATCHES WERE DELIVERED TO THE CRIMINALIST, YOU WOULD HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHETHER TWO OF THEM WERE MISSING, WOULD YOU, BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO COUNT?

MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND YOU WOULD HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING, BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO COUNT, WHETHER SOMEBODY SWITCHED SWATCHES BEFORE THEY WENT TO THE ANALYST?

A: THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE WERE IN OUR CUSTODY THERE AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SWITCH.

Q: IN TERMS OF COUNT, YOU WOULD HAVE NO IDEA?

A: IN TERMS OF COUNT ALONE?

Q: YEAH. IN TERMS OF COUNT.

A: IN TERMS OF COUNT.

Q: AND ISN'T IT TRUE THAT EACH OF THESE LITTLE RED SWATCHES LOOK JUST LIKE THE OTHER ONE?

MR. GOLDBERG: VAGUE AS TO THE TERM "JUST LIKE."

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO THESE SWATCHES LOOK LIKE EACH OTHER, LITTLE RED PIECES OF CLOTH?

MR. GOLDBERG: STILL VAGUE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THEY'RE NOT EXACTLY ALIKE.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, COULD YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THESE SWATCHES THAT YOU COLLECTED ON -- IN THE MORNING AT BUNDY AND LOOK AT THEM LATER AND TELL JUST BY LOOKING AT THEM THAT THESE WERE THE SAME SWATCHES THAT YOU ORIGINALLY COLLECTED?

A: NO.

Q: NO WAY OF DOING THAT, RIGHT?

A: NO.

Q: AND HAVE YOU HEARD THE TERM "FUNGIBLE EVIDENCE"?

A: NO.

Q: THE NOTION THAT THERE IS, SIR, ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT BECAUSE EACH OF THE PIECES LOOK LIKE EACH OTHER, YOU CAN'T TELL THEM APART?

A: I HAVE NEVER HEARD THAT TERM BEFORE.

Q: NEVER HEARD THAT TERM.

MR. SCHECK: ONE MINUTE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: BE FAIR TO SAY, MR. FUNG, THAT JUST BY LOOKING AT THEM, YOU COULDN'T TELL THE ROCKINGHAM SWATCHES FROM THE BUNDY SWATCHES?

A: BY LOOKING AT JUST SWATCHES ALONE?

Q: JUST LOOKING AT SWATCHES ALONE.

A: IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT. I DON'T THINK I COULD DO IT.

Q: NO ONE COULD DO IT?

A: MAYBE SOMEBODY COULD DO IT, BUT NOT ME.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I'M ABOUT TO MOVE INTO A NEW LINE. WANT ME TO START THAT OR --

THE COURT: I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO CONCLUDE THIS MORNING. PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, MR. FUNG, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU PERFORMED A PHENOL TEST, A PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST, PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE?

A: YES.

Q: AND IN YOUR OPINION, WAS IT ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO DO A PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST ON THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH?

A: IT WAS IMPORTANT TO THE INVESTIGATOR. SO --

Q: I AM SORRY?

A: I DID PERFORM IT.

Q: WELL, WHEN YOU SAY, "IT WAS IMPORTANT TO THE INVESTIGATOR," YOU MEAN DETECTIVE VANNATTER TOLD YOU THAT YOU SHOULD DO IT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DID YOU SAY TO HIM IT'S BETTER NOT TO MANIPULATE EVIDENCE AT THE SCENE, IT'S BEST TO LEAVE IT AS MUCH AS ONE CAN IN AN UNDISTURBED CONDITION SO THAT IT CAN BE LATER ANALYZED IN A PROPER SETTING BACK AT THE LABORATORY?

A: I DIDN'T STATE THAT TO HIM, NO.

Q: WELL, YOU BELIEVE THAT, DON'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND HE ASKED YOU TO DO A PHENOL TEST ON THAT ROCKINGHAM GLOVE, AND YOU DIDN'T SAY TO HIM -- YOU DIDN'T QUESTION HIS JUDGMENT ABOUT WHETHER THAT SHOULD BE DONE?

A: IT WAS A REASONABLE REQUEST.

Q: WHEN YOU SAY A REASONABLE REQUEST, YOU DID NOT PERFORM A PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON THE CAP AT BUNDY, DID YOU?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: AND WHEN YOU WERE ASKED AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING WHY YOU DIDN'T PERFORM THE TEST, PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON THE HAT AT BUNDY, YOU SAID IT'S BECAUSE IT'S BEST NOT TO MANIPULATE THE EVIDENCE AND LEAVE IT IN AS MUCH OF AN UNDISTURBED CONDITION AS POSSIBLE SO IT CAN LATER BE ANALYZED IN A PROPER SETTING BACK AT THE LABORATORY?

A: YES, I SAID THAT.

Q: AND YOU BELIEVE THAT WHEN YOU MANIPULATE EVIDENCE AT THE SCENE, VALUABLE TRACE EVIDENCE CAN BE LOST?

A: YES.

Q: AND SO WHAT YOU TRY TO DO GENERALLY IS LEAVE IT AS UNDISTURBED AS POSSIBLE BY PACKAGING AND BRINGING IT BACK TO THE LAB?

A: YES, WHEN POSSIBLE.

Q: WELL, IN THIS CASE, WOULDN'T IT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE TO JUST PUT THAT ROCKINGHAM GLOVE INTO A PACKAGE AND TAKE IT BACK TO THE LAB?

A: I FELT THAT BY APPLYING A WET COTTON SWAB TO A STAINED AREA OF THE GLOVE, THAT IT WOULD BE MINIMALLY INVASIVE TO THE EVIDENCE.

Q: WELL, COULDN'T YOU MAKE THAT ARGUMENT FOR THE HAT TOO THEN?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT'S ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE DONE TO THE HAT, PUT THE SWAB ONTO THE HAT AND THEN TRY TO PERFORM A TEST ON IT?

A: IF DETECTIVE LANGE HAD REQUESTED ME TO DO SO, I WOULD -- I DON'T THINK I WOULD HAVE OBJECTED.

Q: SO IN OTHER WORDS, IN YOUR OPINION, IT'S BEST NOT TO MANIPULATE THE ITEMS AT THE SCENE BY DOING PRESUMPTIVE TESTS IN YOUR JUDGMENT AS A CRIMINALIST, BUT IF THE DETECTIVE ASKS YOU TO DO SO, YOU'RE JUST GOING TO DO IT?

MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S OVERBROAD.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, IN OTHER WORDS, IF DETECTIVE LANGE WAS SAYING -- HAD ASKED YOU TO PERFORM A PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON THE HAT, YOU WOULD HAVE DONE IT NOTWITHSTANDING YOUR JUDGMENT THAT IT'S BEST NOT TO MANIPULATE EVIDENCE AT THE SCENE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT, BECAUSE THAT -- BY DOING THAT, IT WOULD NOT COMPROMISE THE EVIDENCE.

Q: THEN WHY DID YOU SAY IN THE GRAND JURY WHEN ASKED WHY YOU DID NOT PERFORM A PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON THE HAT, YOU WENT ON TO TALK ABOUT HOW YOU DIDN'T DO IT BECAUSE IT'S BEST NOT TO MANIPULATE THE EVIDENCE AT THE SCENE?

A: IDEALLY, THAT IS THE CASE.

Q: AND WHY DIDN'T -- BUT YOU DIDN'T TURN TO DETECTIVE LANGE AND SAY, "YOU REALLY SHOULDN'T BE ASKING --" WITHDRAWN. YOU DIDN'T TURN TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND SAY, "DETECTIVE VANNATTER, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE, THIS ROCKINGHAM GLOVE. IT WOULD BE BEST TO TAKE IT BACK TO THE LAB AND ANALYZE IT CAREFULLY"?

A: THAT WAS NOT THE CASE.

Q: YOU DID NOT SAY THAT TO HIM?

A: I DID NOT SAY THAT AND IT'S NOT TRUE.

Q: IT'S NOT TRUE THAT IT'S AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE?

A: IT'S NOT TRUE THAT BY PERFORMING A PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST ON THE GLOVE, THAT ANY TRACE EVIDENCE OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF DAMAGE, RELEVANT DAMAGE TO BE DONE TO THE GLOVE.

Q: WELL, IF THAT'S TRUE, WHY DON'T YOU PERFORM A PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE?

A: IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO DO SO.

Q: BUT IT WAS NECESSARY HERE BECAUSE THE DETECTIVE ASKED YOU?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

THE COURT: HOW MUCH MORE DO YOU HAVE, MR. SCHECK?

MR. SCHECK: OH, I HAVE ABOUT -- I HAVE THE AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THE LAST TIME WE SPOKE, YOU SAID IT WAS THE MORNING.

MR. SCHECK: NO, I DIDN'T. I SPECIFICALLY SAID IT WOULD BE THE DAY.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE AFTERNOON AT THIS TIME. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU; DO NOT -- LET'S HAVE IT QUIET IN THE COURTROOM, PLEASE. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU; DO NOT DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, YOU ARE NOT TO FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, YOU ARE NOT TO ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE, DO NOT CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS WITH REGARD TO THE CASE. I'M ADVISED BY THE SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES THAT OVER THE WEEKEND AT ONE OF THE OUTINGS, SOMEBODY FROM A BAND FROM ONE OF THE UNIVERSITIES HERE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ATTEMPTED TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARDS TO THIS CASE. YOU ARE TO DISREGARD THAT ATTEMPT TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU. IT WAS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. I THINK YOU WILL TAKE FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH THE SOURCE OF THAT ATTEMPT AND TREAT IT ACCORDINGLY. DISREGARD IT. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL STAND IN RECESS, 1:30. MR. FUNG, 1:30.

(AT 12:02 P.M., THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 1995 1:34 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 IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT. ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

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

THE COURT: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE NOW BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL.

DENNIS FUNG, THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE NOON RECESS, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:

THE COURT: MR. DENNIS FUNG IS AGAIN ON THE WITNESS STAND UNDERGOING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. FUNG.

THE WITNESS: GOOD AFTERNOON.

THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH, SIR. AND MR. SCHECK, YOU MAY CONTINUE WITH YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION.

MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR. GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MR. SCHECK:

Q: GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. FUNG. HOW ARE YOU, SIR?

A: GOOD AFTERNOON.

Q: LET'S MOVE ON TO THE SEARCH OF THE BRONCO ON JUNE 14TJ. UMM, YOU TESTIFIED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA CONDUCTED A SEARCH OF MR. SIMPSON'S FORD BRONCO?

A: YES.

Q: AND ABOUT WHAT TIME DID YOU COMMENCE TO DO THAT, SIR?

A: WE STARTED AT ABOUT 10:30 IN THE MORNING.

Q: AND BEFORE YOU WENT TO SEARCH THE BRONCO YOU WERE OVER AT THE SID HEADQUARTERS, SO TO SPEAK?

A: AT THE CRIME LAB, YES.

Q: THE CRIME LAB. AND THAT IS ON 555 RAMIREZ STREET?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: AND HOW FAR AWAY IS THE PRINT SHEET FROM THERE?

A: ABOUT A MILE.

Q: AND DID YOU DRIVE FROM THE CRIME LABORATORY TO THE PRINT SHED?

A: YES.

Q: AND ABOUT HOW LONG DO YOU THINK THAT TOOK?

A: FIVE MINUTES.

Q: SO ABOUT WHAT TIME DO YOU BELIEVE YOU LEFT THE CRIME LABORATORY?

A: APPROXIMATELY 10:15, 10:20.

Q: NOW, YOU TOLD US ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU NEEDED THE ASSISTANCE OF A DETECTIVE TO OPEN THE BRONCO?

A: YES.

Q: AND THIS IS A DETECTIVE FROM A CERTAIN DIVISION OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT IS THAT DIVISION?

A: I BELIEVE THE DETECTIVE WAS FROM BURGLARY AUTO DIVISION.

Q: AND IS THAT SOMETIME REFERRED TO AS B-A-D OR B.A.D. ON FORMS?

A: YES.

Q: AND THIS DETECTIVE -- DO YOU RECALL WHO THIS INDIVIDUAL WAS?

A: I'M SORRY, I DO NOT.

Q: DID THIS INDIVIDUAL HAVE TO SIGN IN BEFORE COMING TO THE PRINT SHED AND OPENING THE BRONCO?

A: NO.

Q: TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE IS THERE ANY RECORD OF THIS PERSON'S PRESENCE AT THE PRINT SHED?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, YOU SAID THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL CAME AND OPENED THE BRONCO WITH WHAT IS KNOWN AS A SLIMJIM?

A: YES.

Q: COULD YOU DESCRIBE THAT FOR US?

A: IT IS A THIN PIECE OF METAL, APPROXIMATELY TWO AND A HALF FEET IN LENGTH AND SLIGHTLY RIGID.

Q: AND THIS DETECTIVE JUST TAKES THIS SLIMJIM AND PUSHES IT DOWN BETWEEN THE WINDOW AND THE CAR DOOR IN THE AREA OF THE LOCK, PULLS IT OUT AND THE DOORS OPEN?

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, NO FOUNDATION THAT THIS WITNESS KNOWS HOW TO DO THAT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. WHAT DID YOU OBSERVE?

THE WITNESS: THAT IS WHAT I OBSERVED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: TOOK A MATTER OF SECONDS?

A: HE WORKED AT IT FOR A LITTLE WHILE.

Q: WELL, THIRTY SECONDS, A MINUTE?

A: I -- SOMEWHERE IN THAT TIME FRAME, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THIRTY SECONDS TO A MINUTE TO OPEN THAT DOOR WITH THE SLIMJIM, IN AND OUT?

A: ROUGHLY, YES.

Q: YOU HAVE SEEN OTHER DETECTIVES DO THAT, HAVEN'T YOU?

A: I HAVE SEEN OTHER PEOPLE DO IT, YES.

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, I OBJECT TO THE WITNESS' ANSWER. MAKE A MOTION TO STRIKE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, YOU ALSO CONDUCTED A SEARCH OF THE BRONCO ON JUNE 28TH?

A: JUNE 28TH? YES.

Q: AND BY THAT TIME THE BRONCO HAD BEEN MOVED FROM THE PRINT SHED AND TAKEN TO A PLACE CALLED VIERTEL'S?

A: SAY JUNE 28TH?

Q: YES, JUNE 28TH.

A: YES.

Q: NOW, YOU MADE OUT REPORTS WITH RESPECT TO BOTH SEARCHES, THE SEARCH ON JUNE 14TH AND THE SEARCH ON JUNE 28TH?

A: PROPERTY REPORTS? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO?

Q: NO, A FORM CALLED A VEHICLE SEARCH CHECKLIST?

A: YES.

Q: THIS IS A FORM THAT IS SIMILAR TO THE CRIME SCENE CHECKLIST?

A: EXCEPT IT IS APPLIED TOWARDS VEHICLES, YES.

Q: EXCEPT IT IS APPLIED TO VEHICLES. AND ON THE CRIME SCENE CHECKLIST -- WITHDRAWN. ON THE VEHICLE SEARCH CHECKLIST ON PAGE 3 THERE IS A BOX OR A LINE WHERE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO INDICATE HOW THE VEHICLE IS OPENED?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, WE DIDN'T ASK ANYTHING ABOUT JUNE 28TH. IT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE THAT.

THE COURT: SIDE BAR.

MR. SCHECK: SURE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR. I DON'T RECOLLECT US TALKING ON DIRECT EXAMINATION ABOUT THE SEARCH OF JUNE 28TH.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS TRUE, THEY DIDN'T MENTION THE SEARCH ON JUNE 28TH, BUT THEY DID TALK ABOUT DIFFERENT SEARCHES OF THE BRONCO. THEY PRESENTED A CHART INDICATING WHAT THE VEHICLE LOOKED LIKE ON JUNE 13TH, JUNE 14TH AND THEN ALL THE WAY THROUGH AUGUST 26TH. THEY ALSO WENT THROUGH MR. FUNG'S SEARCHING ACTIVITIES STARTING ON JUNE 13TH ALL THE WAY THROUGH JULY 3RD, SO WE THINK IT IS WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF HIS DIRECT EXAMINATION. NOT ONLY THAT, I WILL MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF ABOUT WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SHOW THAT I THINK SHOWS ITS CLEAR RELEVANCE, AND THAT IS THAT --

THE COURT: WELL, RELEVANCE I'M NOT ARGUING WITH.

MR. SCHECK: I THINK IT IS WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF HIS DIRECT EXAMINATION IN TERMS OF THE SEARCHES OF THE VEHICLE. NOT ONLY THAT, I NEED TO BE ABLE TO GO INTO THE JUNE 28TH FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS: FIRST OF ALL, IN HIS JUNE 28TH CHECKLIST, THAT IS WHEN HE INDICATES THAT DETECTIVES FROM B.A.D. OPENED THE CAR, BUT ON HIS JUNE 14TH CHECKLIST HE LEAVES IT BLANK, SO I THINK THAT HE MAY HAVE BEEN -- I WANT TO EXPLORE THE FACT THAT MAYBE HE IS CONFUSING THESE TWO INCIDENTS AND THAT IN FACT NO DETECTIVE CAME AND OPENED THE CAR ON JUNE 14TH. I THINK IT IS ALL WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF HIS DIRECT EXAMINATION, SEARCHING ACTIVITY STARTING ON JUNE 13TH, ALL THE WAY THROUGH JULY 3RD AND AFTER. PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO THE BRONCO, THEY INTRODUCED A CHART OF THE BRONCO TRYING TO -- SHOWING HIM PICTURES OF WHAT IT WAS LIKE ON JUNE 13TH, JUNE 14TH AND THEN AUGUST 16TH AND SEPTEMBER 1ST. THAT IS IN THE CHART.

THE COURT: I DON'T THINK THAT IS WHAT -- I DON'T RECALL THAT.

MR. SCHECK: THAT IS THEIR CHART.

THE COURT: I DON'T RECALL. MR. GOLDBERG? I WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THE CHART.

MR. GOLDBERG: I HAVE A BRONCO CHART, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY DATES ON IT; IT JUST HAS PICTURES AND IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING RELATING TO THIS SEARCH.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE PROBLEM, THOUGH. THE PROBLEM, THOUGH, IS THAT MR. SCHECK POINTS OUT THAT ON THE VEHICLE CHECKLIST FOR THE 28TH HE ALSO INDICATES IT IS OPENED BY B.A.D. AND ON THE 13TH THERE IS NO SUCH INDICATION, SO MAYBE HE IS CONFUSED WHICH ONE IS WHICH, AND IT GOES TO WHETHER OR NOT THE BRONCO WAS ACTUALLY SECURED WHILE IT WAS AT THE PRINT SHACK, SO THERE IS AN EVIDENCE ISSUE THERE.

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, ON THAT LIMITED BASIS COULD I SEE SOME --

MR. SCHECK: BUT YOUR HONOR, I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO -- I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY ASK HIM ABOUT THE JUNE 28TH SEARCH AS WELL WHEN HE LOOKED AT THE SHOVEL AND HE LOOKED AT THE PLASTIC BAG. THESE WERE OBJECTS THAT WERE IN THE CAR JUNE 13TH. THEY ARE IN THERE JUNE 14TH. HE SEARCHED THEM ON JUNE 28TH. I THINK I AM ALLOWED TO EXPLORE THOSE AS WELL.

MR. GOLDBERG: WE DIDN'T GET INTO THAT.

THE COURT: I KNOW YOU DIDN'T GET INTO THAT. I MEAN, DO YOU OBJECT TO IT?

MR. GOLDBERG: YEAH. YES, WE WOULD. THEY CAN CALL HIM AS THEIR WITNESS. THEY HAVE COVERED ENOUGH WITH HIM.

THE COURT: OKAY. I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE SCOPE OBJECTION WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CONFUSION BETWEEN THE DOCUMENTS.

MR. SCHECK: ONE FURTHER POINT, HOWEVER.

THE COURT: YOU CAN INQUIRE AS TO THE TWO DOCUMENTS.

MR. SCHECK: THE -- AT ANOTHER POINT THEY WENT INTO THIS ISSUE, THOUGH, ON A SIMILAR POINT, I JUST -- BUT JUST TO BE CLEAR, AND THE COURT CAN LOOK AT IT AT ITS LEISURE, WHAT IS GOING TO ARISE -- AND MR. GOLDBERG AND MISS CLARK KNOW IT FULL WELL -- IS THAT WHEN MR. FUNG SWATCHED THE SAMPLE FROM THE BRONCO ON JUNE 14TH, ON THE CONSOLE, VERY SIMILAR, IF NOT ALMOST IDENTICAL LOOKING STAINS, EXCEPT ADDITIONAL ONES ARE THEN FOUND ON AUGUST 26TH, EVEN THOUGH HE SWATCHED IT ON JUNE 14TH. NOW, HIS RULES ARE THAT HE IS SUPPOSED TO SWATCH AND GET AS MUCH AS HE CAN AND I WILL EXPLORE THAT WITH HIM. NOW, MR. GOLDBERG DID SHOW A PICTURE ON DIRECT EXAMINATION OF THE CONSOLE AS IT APPEARED ON AUGUST 26TH AND LAID A FOUNDATION AND I THINK I CAN SHOW IT EXACTLY IN THE RECORD, DOES THIS PICTURE OF THE CONSOLE --

THE COURT: WELL, LET'S SEE WHERE THE FOUNDATION GOES.

MR. SCHECK: OKAY.

THE COURT: AT THIS POINT YOU ARE LIMITED TO THE TWO DOCUMENTS.

MR. SCHECK: I UNDERSTAND.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AS YOU WERE SAYING, MR. FUNG, ON JUNE 28TH YOU WENT TO THIS PLACE CALLED VIERTEL'S; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: CAN YOU TELL THE JURY WHAT VIERTEL'S IS?

A: VIERTEL'S IS A POLICE IMPOUND LOT.

Q: AND WHERE IS THAT LOCATED?

A: IT IS ON TEMPLE STREET, THE RAMPART DIVISION, I BELIEVE.

Q: YOU ARE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT ON JUNE 15TH THE BRONCO WAS TOWED FROM THE PRINT SHED TO VIERTEL'S?

A: I DON'T KNOW WHEN THE EXACT DATE IT WAS TOWED, BUT IT WAS TOWED.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BY THE TIME YOU WENT BACK ON JUNE 28TH, HOWEVER, THE BRONCO WAS IN VIERTEL'S; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AT THAT TIME YOU NEEDED TO OPEN THE BRONCO AGAIN TO CONDUCT A FURTHER SEARCH?

A: ON THE 28TH?

Q: ON THE 28TH?

A: ON THE 28TH I BELIEVE IT WAS UNLOCKED.

Q: WELL, ON THE 28TH YOU WERE GOING BACK THERE TO SEARCH FOR THE SHOVEL, THE PLASTIC BAG AND THE TOWEL?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU FILLED OUT A VEHICLE SEARCH CHECKLIST FOR THAT SEARCH ON THE 28TH?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND YOU HAVE IT THERE BEFORE YOU, DO YOU NOT, SIR?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: AND IN THE BOX WHICH INDICATES "HOW OPENED" YOU WROTE "B.A.D. D-E-T-S"; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE THAT PAGE IN FRONT OF YOU RIGHT NOW?

A: YES, I DO.

MR. SCHECK: MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, MAY I TAKE THE PIECE OF PAPER OUT OF THE WITNESS' BOOK AND PUT IT ON THE ELMO?

THE COURT: IS THAT THE ORIGINAL, MR. FUNG?

THE WITNESS: NO, IT IS NOT.

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE A CLEAN COPY?

MR. SCHECK: I DON'T HAVE A CLEAN COPY AT THE MOMENT. I WOULD PREFER THE ORIGINAL IF THAT IS AVAILABLE.

MR. GOLDBERG: I -- I THOUGHT WE DISCUSSED THIS BEFORE.

THE COURT: IF THE WITNESS IS REFERRING TO IT WHILE WE ARE HAVING TESTIMONY -- GO AHEAD AND USE WHAT HE HAS, IF YOU HAVE A CLEAN COPY. IS YOURS A CLEAN COPY, MR. FUNG?

THE WITNESS: SOMEWHAT, YES. THERE IS NO WRITING ON IT, ADDITIONAL WRITING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. SCHECK: COULD I JUST PUT --

THE COURT: MR. FUNG INDICATES THIS IS A CLEAN COPY WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL WRITING. WHY DON'T YOU USE HIS COPY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, THIS IS JUNE 28TH; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU INDICATE ON YOUR CRIME SCENE CHECKLIST "HOW OPENED" AND YOU WROTE DOWN "B.A.D. DETECTIVES"?

A: YES.

Q: SO THAT WOULD BE THE BURGLARY AUTO DETECTIVES DETAIL?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THAT IS JUNE 26TH, CORRECT?

A: THAT'S RIGHT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WOULD YOU TURN AND LOOK AT YOUR VEHICLE SEARCH CHECKLIST FOR JUNE 14TH.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE A CLEAN COPY OF JUNE 14TH.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU WANT TO MARK THE ONE OF JUNE 28TH?

MR. SCHECK: YES. I WILL MARK THE PAGE FROM THE VEHICLE SEARCH CHECKLIST FOR JUNE 28TH AS 1085 AND THE VEHICLE SEARCH CHECKLIST PAGE FROM JUNE 14TH AS 1086.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

(DEFT'S 1085 FOR ID = VEH.CHKLST/JUNE 28)

(DEFT'S 1086 FOR ID = VEH.CHKLST/JUNE 14).

THE COURT: WHAT WE WILL DO IS RETURN THE ORIGINAL TO MR. FUNG AND I WILL HAVE MY STAFF MAKE A PHOTOCOPY FOR THE RECORD. ALL RIGHT. MR. HARRIS.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: DO WE HAVE A COPY FOR THE RECORD?

MR. SCHECK: YES. I'M SORRY.

THE COURT: MR. HARRIS, DID YOU CAPTURE THAT LAST --

MR. HARRIS: NO, YOUR HONOR. I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO USE THE --

THE COURT: JUST TRYING TO PROTECT YOUR RECORD, COUNSEL.

MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

Q: NOW, LOOKING AT THE JUNE 14TH VEHICLE SEARCH CHECKLIST, IN THE BOX INDICATING "HOW OPENED" YOU LEFT THAT BLANK; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. BUT IT IS YOUR TESTIMONY THAT THE B.A.D. DETECTIVES DID NOT ASSIST YOU ON JUNE 28TH, BUT THEY DID ASSIST YOU ON JUNE 14TH?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN YOU FILL OUT THESE VEHICLE SEARCH CHECKLISTS, YOU DO IT CONTEMPORANEOUSLY AS THE EVENTS ARE HAPPENING, DO YOU NOT?

A: NOT ALWAYS, NO.

Q: WELL, DO YOU FILL IT OUT SOON AFTER THE EVENTS OF THE SEARCH?

A: I FILL OUT THE EVIDENCE COLLECTION SHEET CONTEMPORANEOUSLY AND I WILL FILL IN OTHER PORTIONS LATER.

Q: WELL, WOULD YOU HAVE WAITED OR DID YOU WAIT TO FILL OUT THE VEHICLE SEARCH CHECKLIST, PAGE 3, ON JUNE 14TH, THE ONE THAT IS RIGHT UP ON THE SCREEN? DID YOU WAIT UNTIL JUNE 28TH TO FILL THAT OUT OR DID YOU FILL IT OUT SOMETIME BEFORE?

MR. GOLDBERG: MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS THE CHECKLIST FROM THE 14TH.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: THIS CHECKLIST CONCERNS THE SEARCH YOU CONDUCTED ON THE 14TH?

A: YES, IT DOES.

Q: WHAT DATE DID YOU FILL OUT PAGE 3 OF THAT, TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION?

A: I DON'T RECALL.

Q: WOULD IT HAVE BEEN A WEEK LATER?

A: IT COULD HAVE BEEN.

Q: WOULD IT HAVE BEEN TWO WEEKS LATER?

A: IT COULD HAVE BEEN.

Q: IT IS YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU ACTUALLY WAITED UNTIL JUNE 28TH TO FILL OUT THE VEHICLE SEARCH CHECKLIST FOR THE SEARCH YOU CONDUCTED ON JUNE 14TH?

A: IT MAY HAVE BEEN LATER.

Q: WELL, WHEN DID YOU FILL OUT THE VEHICLE SEARCH CHECKLIST FOR JUNE 28TH?

A: I FILLED OUT PORTIONS OF THAT ON JUNE 28TH.

Q: WELL, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE "HOW OPENED" BOX. DID YOU FILL THAT ONE OUT ON JUNE 28TH?

A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT.

Q: MR. FUNG, ISN'T IT POSSIBLE THAT YOU ARE CONFUSED BETWEEN JUNE 14TH AND JUNE 28TH AND THAT THE B.A.D. DETECTIVES ACTUALLY CAME ON JUNE 28TH, AS YOUR RECORDS INDICATE, AND NOT JUNE 14TH?

A: I RECALL THE B.A.D. DETECTIVE BEING AT THE PRINT SHED AND I DO NOT RECALL A B.A.D. DETECTIVE BEING AT VIERTEL'S.

Q: WELL, WOULD YOU AGREE, SIR, THAT IN TERMS OF THE CHECKLISTS, THE FORM THAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO FILL OUT TO KEEP YOUR RECOLLECTION FRESH FOR FUTURE TESTIMONY, THAT THE FORMS INDICATE THAT THE B.A.D. DETECTIVES CAME ON THE 28TH; NOT THE 14TH?

A: THAT IS WHAT THE FORMS INDICATE.

Q: SO DO YOU CONCEDE THAT IT IS EVEN POSSIBLE, SIR, THAT YOU DIDN'T NEED ANY DETECTIVES TO OPEN THAT DOOR FOR YOU ON JUNE 14TH?

A: NO, SIR. THE BRONCO WAS LOCKED ON JUNE 14TH.

Q: AND YOU ARE SAYING THAT BECAUSE OF YOUR OWN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION, NOT BECAUSE YOU THINK THAT THAT IS TESTIMONY THAT THE PROSECUTION WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IN THIS CASE?

A: THAT IS FROM MY RECOLLECTION.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOTWITHSTANDING WHAT YOUR FORMS SHOW?

A: IN SPITE OF WHAT MY FORMS SHOW.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SCHECK: DID I GIVE YOU BACK YOUR FORM?

THE COURT: I NEED TO MAKE A PHOTOCOPY OF THAT FOR THE RECORD.

MR. DOUGLAS: WE DID, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. 1085.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: SO TO SUM IT ALL UP WITH ONE LAST QUESTION, YOUR TESTIMONY IS YOUR FORMS ARE WRONG?

A: THAT PORTION IS INCORRECT, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, WHEN YOU WENT ABOUT YOUR SEARCH ON JUNE 14TH, WITHOUT TELLING US WHAT WAS SAID, DID EITHER DETECTIVE LANGE OR VANNATTER SHARE WITH YOU A THEORY THAT THE KILLER HAD WALKED OUT OF THE REAR GATE AT BUNDY AND ENTERED THE BRONCO? WITHOUT TELLING US WHAT THEY SAID, DID THEY SHARE A THEORY TO THAT EFFECT WITH YOU?

MR. GOLDBERG: IT IS IRRELEVANT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: COULD YOU REPEAT WHAT THE THEORY --

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: SURE. WITHOUT TELLING US WHAT WAS SAID, DID EITHER DETECTIVE LANGE OR DETECTIVE VANNATTER SHARE WITH YOU A THEORY THAT THEY HAD THAT THE KILLER HAD WALKED OUT OF THE -- WALKED OUT OF BUNDY THROUGH THE REAR GATE AND ENTERED THE BRONCO IN THE ALLEY?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A DIRECT CONVERSATION, BUT THAT IS WHAT I INFERRED.

Q: SO IN OTHER WORDS, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION OF -- OF WHAT WE CALLED BEFORE CRIME SCENE RECONSTRUCTION THAT GUIDED YOU IN TERMS OF YOUR SEARCH?

MR. GOLDBERG: THAT IS VAGUE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: IT GAVE US AN INDICATION OF WHERE TO POSSIBLY LOOK FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, WITHOUT TELLING US WHAT WAS SAID, DID EITHER DETECTIVE LANGE OR DETECTIVE VANNATTER SHARE WITH YOU MR. SIMPSON'S JUNE 13TH EXPLANATION ABOUT BLEEDING IN THE BRONCO ON THE EVENING OF JUNE 12TH?

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

MR. GOLDBERG: I OBJECT. IT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, DID DETECTIVE VANNATTER OR LANGE SHARE WITH YOU ANYTHING TO GUIDE YOUR SEARCH THAT DERIVED FROM THEIR CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. SIMPSON ON JUNE 13TH?

MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR HEARSAY AND SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, YOU -- WHEN YOU CONDUCTED THE SEARCH OF THE BRONCO AT THE PRINT SHED, YOU WERE THERE FOR THREE HOURS?

A: APPROXIMATELY.

Q: AND THERE WAS NO PRESS THERE?

A: WELL, THERE WERE -- THERE WAS CAMERA SHOTS OF IT, BUT THEY WEREN'T IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY ON THE 14TH.

Q: YOU ALLOWED PRESS PHOTOGRAPHERS INTO THE PRINT SHED WHEN YOU WERE CONDUCTING THE SEARCH?

A: I DIDN'T SEE THEM, BUT THEY MUST HAVE HAD A LENS THAT WAS VERY -- VERY HIGH-POWERED TELEPHOTO LENS.

Q: THEY WERE -- YOU HAVE SEEN PRESS CLIPPINGS OR FOOTAGE OF YOUR WORK IN THE BRONCO SINCE -- ON JUNE 14TH?

A: CERTAIN PORTIONS WERE CAPTURED BY THE NEWS MEDIA, YEAH.

Q: WELL, AS FAR AS YOU KNEW AT THE TIME, HOWEVER, WHEN YOU WERE CONDUCTING THE SEARCH ON JUNE 14TH, YOU DIDN'T SEE ANY PRESS PEOPLE INSIDE THE PRINT SHED WHEN YOU WERE DOING YOUR WORK?

A: THEY WEREN'T ANYWHERE NEAR THERE.

Q: OKAY. AND SO THEY WERE NOT DISTRACTING YOU IN ANY WAY?

A: I WAS QUITE SURPRISED WHEN I SAW THAT.

Q: AND THERE WERE NO HIGH-RANKING POLICE OFFICIALS LOOKING OVER YOUR SHOULDER WHEN YOU WERE CONDUCTING THIS SEARCH ON JUNE 14TH?

A: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "HIGH-RANKING"?

Q: WELL, WHAT IS A HIGH RANK TO YOU?

A: CHIEF.

Q: CHIEF. OKAY. WERE THERE ANY -- HOW MANY OTHER -- WERE THERE ANY OTHER POLICE OFFICIALS LOOKING OVER YOUR SHOULDER WHEN YOU WERE DOING THE SEARCH OF THE BRONCO ON JUNE 14TH?

A: DETECTIVE WATTS WAS PRESENT.

Q: THAT IS IT?

A THERE WAS A PHOTOGRAPHER, CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA AND I BELIEVE A PRINT PERSON WAS PRESENT ALSO.

Q: INCIDENTALLY, ON WHAT NEWS STATION DID YOU SEE THIS FOOTAGE OF YOU WORKING SEARCHING THE BRONCO ON JUNE 14TH?

A: I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT STATION IT WAS.

Q: WAS THAT SOMETHING YOU SAW ON TELEVISION OR SOMETHING THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY SHOWED YOU?

A: SOMETHING FROM TELEVISION.

Q: AND THIS WAS AROUND THE TIME OF JUNE 14TH?

A: THIS WAS THAT NIGHT.

Q: THAT NIGHT?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: YOU DON'T REMEMBER WHICH STATION?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: OKAY. NOW, YOU KNEW THE SEARCH OF THIS BRONCO WAS IMPORTANT, DID YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU WERE TRYING TO DO AS COMPLETE A JOB AS YOU POSSIBLY COULD?

A: I WAS TRYING TO GET THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE DURING THAT CRIME SCENE.

Q: AND YOU WERE TRYING TO DO A COMPLETE JOB OF GETTING THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE, IF ANY WERE THERE, IN THE BRONCO?

A: I WAS TRYING TO GET A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF THE BLOOD THAT WAS PRESENT, YES.

Q: WELL, WEREN'T YOU LOOKING FOR EVERY RED STAIN YOU COULD FIND ANYWHERE YOU COULD FIND IT?

A: I DO NOT TRY TO COLLECT EVERY STAIN PRESENT AT A CRIME SCENE OR IN A VEHICLE. I WILL ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF THE EVIDENCE OR BLOOD IN THIS CASE THAT IS THERE.

Q: WASN'T YOUR INTENTION, WHEN YOU WERE DOING THIS SEARCH OF THE BRONCO ON JUNE 14TH, TO COLLECT EVERY RED STAIN YOU COULD FIND IN THAT VEHICLE?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS ASKED AND ANSWERED. ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I TRIED TO COLLECT A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF THE RED STAINS THAT WERE IN THAT VEHICLE.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO -- YOU TRIED TO COLLECT A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE BECAUSE YOU HAVE SEEN SUBSEQUENT PICTURES OF THE BRONCO AND THERE IS IN SOME PLACES JUST AS MANY RED STAINS THREE MONTHS LATER AS WHEN YOU CONDUCTED YOUR SEARCH?

MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU KNEW, WHEN YOU WERE CONDUCTING YOUR SEARCH OF THE BRONCO, THAT ANY RED STAINS YOU FOUND THERE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO FUTURE DNA ANALYSIS?

A: I BELIEVE SOME OF THEM COULD BE, YES.

Q: WELL, WHEN YOU WERE CONDUCTING THE SEARCH, YOU WERE OPERATING ON THAT PREMISE, WERE YOU NOT, THAT ANY RED STAIN YOU FOUND IN THAT VEHICLE WOULD SUBSEQUENTLY OR COULD SUBSEQUENTLY BE SUBJECT TO DNA ANALYSIS?

A: IT HAD NOT BEEN THE PRACTICE OF THE LAPD TO SUBMIT EVERY SAMPLE TO DNA PROCESSING, SO THE ANSWER IS NO.

Q: YOU MEAN YOU THOUGHT SOME MIGHT BE SENT FOR DNA ANALYSIS AND SOME MIGHT NOT BE?

A: THOSE STAINS WHICH HAD AMPLE MATERIAL PRESENT AND WERE SUITABLE FOR DNA TESTING WOULD HAVE BEEN SENT ON, YES.

Q: WELL, AND AREN'T -- WERE YOU NOT INSTRUCTED THAT ANY STAIN THAT YOU WERE COLLECTING FOR PURPOSES OF DNA ANALYSIS, THAT IT WAS YOUR INSTRUCTIONS TO GET AS MUCH OF THAT AS YOU COULD?

A: STAINS COLLECTED FOR DNA ANALYSIS, YES.

Q: WELL, WHEN YOU WERE CONDUCTING THE SEARCH OF THE RED STAINS THAT YOU FOUND IN THE BRONCO, DID YOU DECIDE, WELL, THIS STAIN THAT THEY ARE GOING TO USE FOR DNA, BUT THIS STAIN THEY WON'T?

A: WHEN THERE IS A LARGE -- A LARGER STAIN, I WILL TRY TO COLLECT AS MUCH OF IT, AND I WILL TRY TO GET -- FOR SMALLER STAINS I WILL COLLECT THOSE ALSO.

Q: SO ISN'T IT FAIR TO SAY, SIR, THAT WHEN YOU WERE CONDUCTING THIS SEARCH ON JUNE 14TH YOU HAD NO IDEA WHICH OF THESE THE LABORATORY WOULD WANT TO USE FOR DNA ANALYSIS AND WHICH THEY WOULDN'T?

A: THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE SEROLOGIST TO DECIDE.

Q: THAT WASN'T YOUR DECISION TO MAKE, RIGHT?

A: UP TO A CERTAIN POINT IT WOULD BE MY DECISION, BECAUSE I WOULD DECIDE WHICH BLOOD STAINS TO COLLECT.

Q: WELL, AS YOU WERE CONDUCTING THIS SEARCH, DID YOU TAKE THE POSITION THAT YOU SAW A BLOOD STAIN BUT YOU DIDN'T THINK IT WAS PARTICULARLY RELEVANT, SO YOU WEREN'T GOING TO COLLECT IT?

A: IF I HAD -- IF I HAD COLLECTED A BLOOD STAIN NEAR IT THAT WAS REPRESENTATIVE OF THAT AREA, I WOULD HAVE LEFT THE OTHER STAIN.

Q: ISN'T ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU WERE INSTRUCTED TO DO, WHEN COLLECTING BLOOD STAINS, THAT IS IF YOU FIND MORE THAN ONE DISTINCT STAIN THEY SHOULD BE TREATED AS DIFFERENT STAINS AND COLLECTED SEPARATELY? ISN'T THAT SOMETHING YOU WERE INSTRUCTED TO DO?

A: THAT IS UP TO THE DISCRETION OF THE PERSON COLLECTING THE EVIDENCE.

Q: SO YOU -- IT IS YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU TOOK IT UPON YOURSELF, WHEN YOU WERE CONDUCTING THIS SEARCH OF THE BRONCO ON JUNE 14TH, NOT TO COLLECT AS MUCH AS YOU COULD OF CERTAIN RED STAINS? YOU WERE MAKING THAT DECISION?

A: I WOULD COLLECT A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE, YES.

Q: IN YOUR TEN TIMES REVIEWING YOUR TESTIMONY WITH MR. GOLDBERG, DID THE ISSUE COME UP OF NOT COLLECTING STAINS IN THE BRONCO ON JUNE 14TH?

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. HE DIDN'T SAY THAT HE COLLECTED ANY.

THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IN YOUR PREPARATION SESSIONS WITH MR. GOLDBERG, DID THE ISSUE ARISE OF THE COMPLETENESS OF YOUR SWATCHING OF RED STAINS ON JUNE 14TH?

A: WE TOUCHED ON IT BRIEFLY, YES.

Q: BRIEFLY?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT IS BRIEF? HOW MANY -- IS IT AN HOUR DISCUSSION?

A: LESS.

Q: HALF HOUR?

A: LESS.

Q: IN THE COURSE OF THAT DISCUSSION DID THE TWO OF YOU DECIDE THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING TO USE THIS PHRASE "REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE" TO EXPLAIN YOUR FAILURE OR APPARENT FAILURE TO COLLECT STAINS ON JUNE 14TH?

A: THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN MY TERM.

Q: YOUR TERM?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SCHECK: I AM ABOUT TO SHOW --

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I SHOWED MR. GOLDBERG TWO PHOTOGRAPHS.

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

THE COURT: HAVE WE MARKED THESE ALREADY?

MR. SCHECK: I BELIEVE ACTUALLY I WILL ASK THEM TO BE SEPARATELY MARKED AS DEFENSE EXHIBITS, BUT I BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE PICTURES THAT ARE ON THE BOARD OF THE PROSECUTION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PROCEED.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SCHECK: OKAY. WE WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT THIS ONE FIRST, IF WE COULD.

Q: NOW, IS THAT A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE CONSOLE THAT WAS TAKEN AT YOUR DIRECTION ON JUNE 14TH?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THERE IS ONE SMEAR THERE THAT IS 30 -- THAT IS LABELED "30." WHICH ONE IS THAT? COULD YOU INDICATE THAT TO US?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: MAYBE I CAN HELP YOU OUT HERE. MAYBE I CAN'T. THERE WE GO. DO YOU SEE WHERE THAT RED -- IS THAT SMEAR THAT I'M CIRCLING THERE 30?

A: THAT IS THE AREA OF -- APPARENT AREA.

Q: OF 30; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: IN THAT GENERAL LOCATION.

THE COURT: INDICATING JUST TO THE LEFT OF THE MARKER.

MR. SCHECK: OF THE MARKER THAT SAYS "30."

THE COURT: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND IT EXTENDS FROM THE CONSOLE TOP DOWN BELOW IT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: IT IS HARD TO TELL FROM THE PHOTOGRAPH, BUT IT IS IN THAT GENERAL LOCATION.

Q: AND THEN 31 WAS A SMEAR THAT YOU FOUND AT THE REAR OF THE CONSOLE IN THE AREA THAT I'M CIRCLING NOW THAT IS JUST BELOW THE EVIDENCE TAG THAT SAYS "31"?

A: YES.

MR. SCHECK: OKAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU WANT TO MARK THIS PHOTOGRAPH SEPARATELY?

MR. SCHECK: YES. I WOULD ASK THAT THIS PHOTOGRAPH BE MARKED 1090, I BELIEVE.

THE COURT: I THOUGHT 87.

MR. COCHRAN: 1087.

THE COURT: 1087.

(DEFT'S 1087 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, THIS IS A PICTURE OF JUNE 14TH, CORRECT?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: AND THIS PICTURE IS TAKEN BEFORE YOU SWATCHED STAINS FROM THE CONSOLE OF THE BRONCO?

A: YES.

Q: IN OTHER WORDS, AFTER THE PHOTOGRAPH IS TAKEN, YOU ENTERED THE VEHICLE WITH SOME SWATCHES; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU WENT TO THE SMEARS LABELED 30 AND 31 AND FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS YOU TRIED TO GET AS MUCH AS YOU COULD BECAUSE YOU KNEW THAT THERE COULD BE SUBSEQUENT DNA ANALYSIS OF THOSE SMEARS?

MR. GOLDBERG: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

THE WITNESS: THAT IS NOT WHAT I --

THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.

Q: DID YOU SWATCH STAIN 30?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND WHEN YOU SWATCHED STAIN 30, DIDN'T YOU THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE A SAMPLE THAT WOULD BE USED FOR SUBSEQUENT DNA ANALYSIS?

A: I DID NOT THINK IT WAS A GOOD CANDIDATE FOR DNA ANALYSIS.

Q: DID YOU NOT THINK -- WITHDRAWN. MR. FUNG, I THOUGHT YOU TOLD US THAT YOU DIDN'T CONSIDER YOURSELF A DNA PERSON?

A: I'M NOT.

Q: THAT YOU HAD NOT BEEN THROUGH SEROLOGY?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: THAT YOU HAD NO PARTICULAR EXPERTISE -- YOU HAD LIMITED KNOWLEDGE, TO USE YOUR WORDS, OF DNA ANALYSIS?

A: YES.

Q: THAT YOU HAD HAD A BRIEF COURSE IN WHAT ONE SHOULD DO WHEN COLLECTING BLOOD STAINS FOR PURPOSES OF DNA ANALYSIS?

A: A BRIEF LECTURE.

Q: A BRIEF LECTURE, BUT PART OF THAT BRIEF LECTURE -- WITHDRAWN. PART OF THE ORAL INSTRUCTIONS THAT YOU HAD GOTTEN ON HOW TO COLLECT STAINS FOR DNA ANALYSIS WAS TO GET AS MUCH AS YOU COULD OF A SAMPLE WHEN YOU THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE FOR FUTURE DNA ANALYSIS, CORRECT?

A: BLOOD STAINS COLLECTED FOR DNA ANALYSIS REQUIRE, FROM THE TRAINING I GOT, A LOT OF BLOOD, AND THERE WAS NOT A LOT OF BLOOD, SO I DID NOT THINK THAT IT WAS A GOOD CANDIDATE FOR DNA TESTING.

Q: SO IT IS YOUR POSITION THAT BECAUSE IT WASN'T A LOT OF BLOOD YOU DECIDED NOT TO SWATCH AS MUCH OF IT AS YOU COULD?

A: I GOT A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE FROM IT.

Q: WELL, DOESN'T IT FOLLOW THAT IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE CONDUCTING DNA ANALYSIS AND YOU HAVE A SMALL SAMPLE THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO GET ABSOLUTELY ALL OF IT TO GIVE THE BEST POSSIBLE CHANCE TO GET A RESULT?

A: COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION?

Q: SURE. AS FAR AS YOU KNEW FROM THE ORAL INSTRUCTIONS YOU GOT, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT WHEN SWATCHING A SAMPLE FOR PURPOSES OF SUBSEQUENT DNA ANALYSIS THAT WAS COMPARATIVELY SMALL, YOU WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE TO GET ABSOLUTELY ALL OF TO IT MAKE SURE THERE WAS SOMETHING AVAILABLE FOR TESTING?

A: IF THAT SWATCH WAS FOR DNA TESTING, YES.

Q: WELL, MR. FUNG, IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU LOOKED AT -- AT THIS -- THE SMEAR THAT IS NO. 30 AND YOU DECIDED ON YOUR OWN ON JUNE 14TH AT VIERTEL'S THAT THIS SMEAR WAS NOT GOING TO BE USED FOR DNA TESTING, THEREFORE YOU WERE FREE NOT TO FOLLOW YOUR INSTRUCTIONS AND COLLECT IT ALL?

MR. GOLDBERG: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. IT IS ALSO COMPOUND.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. GOLDBERG: AS TO VIERTEL'S, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. SCHECK: RIGHT. I'M SORRY. THIS WAS AT THE PRINT SHED.

THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU TOOK IT UPON YOURSELF, WHEN SWATCHING STAIN 30 ON JUNE 14TH, TO DISREGARD YOUR PREVIOUS INSTRUCTIONS TO GET AS MUCH OF THE SAMPLE AS YOU COULD BECAUSE YOU DECIDED THAT THIS STAIN WOULDN'T BE A CANDIDATE FOR DNA TESTING?

A: I DID NOT FEEL THAT STAIN WAS A GOOD CANDIDATE FOR DNA TESTING.

Q: AND YOU FELT COMPETENT AND SECURE IN THIS CASE TO MAKE THAT DECISION WITHOUT CONSULTING ANYBODY ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH?

A: I DID NOT CONSULT ANYBODY, NO.

Q: WELL, I ASKED YOU DID YOU FEEL COMPETENT AND SECURE IN DOING THAT?

A: YES.

Q: LET'S LOOK AT NO. 31. IS YOUR ANSWER THE SAME WITH RESPECT TO NO. 31?

A: WHAT IS THE QUESTION?

Q: THE QUESTION IS LOOKING AT NO. 31, WEREN'T YOU OPERATING ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT WAS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO COLLECT AS MUCH OF THAT STAIN AS YOU POSSIBLY COULD BECAUSE IT COULD BE USED FOR FUTURE DNA ANALYSIS?

A: I WAS TRYING TO COLLECT A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF 31 ALSO.

Q: SO IN OTHER WORDS, FOR 31 YOU ALSO DECIDED ON YOUR OWN WASN'T A GOOD CANDIDATE FOR DNA TESTING AND THEREFORE YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO COLLECT IT ALL? IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY?

A: I COLLECTED A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF 31 ALSO.

Q: WELL, YOU DIDN'T ATTEMPT TO COLLECT IT ALL? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE TELLING US?

A: I DID NOT COLLECT IT ALL, NO.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE CONSOLE THAT MR. GOLDBERG SHOWED YOU ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT WAS IN THAT CHART, RIGHT?

A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT PICTURE.

Q: WELL, DO YOU RECALL THIS AS BEING A PICTURE OF THE CONSOLE -- WITHDRAWN. YOU HAVE SEEN PICTURES OF THE CONSOLE THAT WERE TAKEN ON AUGUST 26TH, HAVE YOU NOT?

A: I'M NOT SURE OF THE DATE, BUT I HAVE SEEN THIS PICTURE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS THE PICTURE THAT IS ON THE BOARD, THOUGH.

Q: AND IT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS PICTURE OR PICTURES LIKE IT OF THE CONSOLE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN SHOWN WERE TAKEN ON AUGUST 26TH?

A: I DON'T KNOW THE DATE.

Q: WELL, YOU KNEW THEY WERE TAKEN SOME THREE MONTHS AFTER YOU DID SWATCHING?

A: THEY WERE TAKEN SOMETIME AFTER I WAS DONE WITH MY INITIAL SEARCH, YES.

Q: AND WERE THERE DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU THAT IT LOOKED AS THOUGH -- WITHDRAWN. THE -- THE -- YOU SEE WHERE IT SAYS "303" IN THIS PICTURE?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, IF ONE ASSUMES THAT 303 REFERS TO THE SMEAR TO THE LEFT OF IT THAT RUNS FROM THE TOP OF THE CONSOLE DOWN BELOW, JUST TO THE LEFT OF WHAT IS MARKED 306, DOES THAT APPEAR TO BE A STAIN IN EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION AS STAIN NO. 30 THAT YOU IDENTIFIED ON JUNE 14TH?

A: IT IS IN THE SAME RELATIVE POSITION, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND AS FAR AS LOOKING AT IT, DOES IT LOOK ANY DIFFERENT TO YOU IN THIS PICTURE THAN WHAT YOU SAW ON JUNE 14TH?

A: THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS ARE MUCH BETTER.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DOES IT LOOK LIKE THERE IS ANY LESS STAIN THERE?

A: THAT WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO MAKE A COMPARISON FROM THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS ON JUNE 14TH AND THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS BACK IN THE LABORATORY.

THE COURT: MR. SCHECK, DO YOU WANT TO MARK THIS PHOTO?

MR. SCHECK: YES, THIS IS --

THE COURT: 1088.

MR. SCHECK: 1088.

(DEFT'S 1088 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND THE SPOT THAT IS LABELED "304," THAT RED STAIN AREA, IS THAT IN THE SAME POSITION AS THE ONE THAT WAS MARKED -- THAT YOU MARKED AS 31 ON JUNE 14TH?

A: IT IS IN THE SAME RELATIVE AREA.

Q: AND DOES IT APPEAR TO HAVE AS MUCH RED STAIN, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT LIGHTING CONDITIONS, BUT THE BEST YOU CAN TELL FROM THIS PICTURE, AS WHAT YOU SAW ON JUNE 14TH BEFORE YOU EVEN BEGAN SWATCHING?

A: THE LIGHTING CONDITIONS ARE SO DIFFERENT THAT IT IS JUST A DIFFERENT THING TO -- I CAN'T REALLY COMPARE IT. I KNOW THAT I DID COLLECT BLOOD FROM THAT AREA, THOUGH.

Q: UMM, AT SOME POINT, BEFORE YOU CAME TO TESTIFY IN THIS CASE, DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH ANYBODY AT THE SID LABORATORY ABOUT THE FACT THAT STAINS THAT YOU IDENTIFIED ON JUNE 14TH SEEMED -- ON THE CONSOLE, SEEMED TO REAPPEAR IN AUGUST OF 1994?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE AND ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH ANYONE AT SID ABOUT THE FACT THAT STAINS WHICH YOU SAID YOU SWATCHED ON JUNE 14TH WERE STILL PRESENT ON AUGUST 26TH?

A: YES.

Q: YOU SPOKE TO MICHELE KESTLER ABOUT THAT?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN DID YOU SPEAK TO HER?

A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT DATE.

Q: WAS IT BETWEEN JUNE AND AUGUST?

A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT TIME FRAME. IT WAS SHORTLY AFTER SHE HAD DONE A SEARCH.

Q: SHE HAD DONE A SEARCH?

A: WELL, SHE PARTICIPATED IN ONE, YES.

Q: OF THE BRONCO?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU DISCUSS THIS WITH ANYBODY ELSE IN THE LABORATORY, BESIDES MICHELE KESTLER?

A: MR. MATHESON WAS ALSO PRESENT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHERE DID THIS CONVERSATION TAKE PLACE?

A: THIS TOOK PLACE IN HER OFFICE, MISS -- MISS KESTLER'S OFFICE, MRS. KESTLER'S OFFICE.

Q: WAS IT IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST, DO YOU RECALL?

A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT MONTH.

Q: IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: WAS IT PRIOR TO -- HOW LONG WAS IT PRIOR TO COMING IN HERE AND TESTIFYING?

A: MONTHS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IT WAS BEFORE YOU BEGAN YOUR PREPARATION SESSIONS WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?

A: YES.

Q: AND LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS EXHIBIT. DO YOU SEE ANOTHER RED STAIN THAT IS LABELED "305"?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: DO YOU SEE THAT?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU SEE THAT ON JUNE 14TH?

A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT. I DON'T -- I DIDN'T MARK IT DOWN AS SOMETHING I WOULD -- WAS GOING TO COLLECT, THOUGH.

Q: WELL, WHEN YOU CONDUCTED THIS SEARCH OF THE BRONCO ON JUNE 14TH, DID YOU SEARCH THE FRONT SEAT AREA?

A: THE FRONT SEAT AREA?

Q: YEAH.

A: YES, YES.

Q: THE DRIVER'S SEAT?

A: YES.

Q: THE PASSENGER SEAT?

A: YES.

Q: BETWEEN THE SEATS?

A: WHAT DO YOU MEAN "BETWEEN"?

Q: I MEAN BETWEEN THE DRIVER'S AND THE PASSENGER SEAT?

A: YOU MEAN THE CONSOLE AREA?

Q: YES.

A: YES.

Q: BOTH SIDES OF IT?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE DRIVER'S SEAT FROM THE FRONT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE PASSENGER SEAT FROM THE FRONT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE PASSENGER SEAT FROM THE BACK AREA?

A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT.

Q: DID YOU LOOK UNDER THE DRIVER'S SEAT FROM THE BACK AREA?

A: I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT.

Q: DID YOU GET INTO THE BACK AREA, THE BACKSEAT AREA OF THE BRONCO, WHEN YOU WERE CONDUCTING THIS SEARCH?

A: AT A LATER PORTION, YES, I DID.

Q: AND YOU SAW SOME RED STAINS ON THIS CONSOLE, DID YOU NOT?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: ON JUNE 14TH?

A: I DID SEE RED STAINS ON THE CONSOLE, YES.

Q: AND WHEN SEEING RED STAINS ON THE CONSOLE, DIDN'T YOU THEN EXAMINE THAT CONSOLE AS CAREFULLY AS YOU COULD, SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU SAW SOME RED STAINS ON IT?

A: I EXAMINED THE CONSOLE FOR RED STAINS.

Q: EXAMINE IT CAREFULLY?

A: I EXAMINED IT FOR RED STAINS.

Q: YOU WON'T SAY YOU EXAMINED IT CAREFULLY?

A: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "CAREFULLY"?

Q: WITH CARE?

A: YES.

Q: AND MR. FUNG, HAS IT BEEN SUGGESTED TO YOU THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE FACT THAT YOU COLLECTED STAINS ON JUNE 14TH, BUT THERE ARE MORE STAINS ON AUGUST 26TH THAN THERE WERE ON JUNE 14TH?

MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE. ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE RED STAINS AND THEIR APPEARANCE ON JUNE 14TH AND AUGUST 26TH WITH MEMBERS OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?

A: WE TOUCHED ON THE SUBJECT BRIEFLY, BUT NOT VERY LONG.

Q: DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT MICHELE KESTLER ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD TESTIFY ON THIS SUBJECT?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSION WAS GREG MATHESON ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD TESTIFY ON THIS SUBJECT?

A: NO.

Q: DID ANYBODY EXPRESS THE CONCERN TO YOU THAT IF THE JURY WERE TO BELIEVE YOU FOLLOWED YOUR INSTRUCTIONS ON COLLECTING STAINS FOR DNA ANALYSIS --

THE COURT: I DON'T LIKE THE WAY THE QUESTION IS GOING.

MR. SCHECK: YOU CAN TELL. I WILL WITHDRAW IT.

THE COURT: YES.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION WITH YOU BY PERSONNEL AT SID THAT IF YOU HAD FOLLOWED THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR COLLECTING STAINS FOR PURPOSES OF DNA ANALYSIS, THE RED STAIN THAT IS 31 ON JUNE 14TH AND 303 ON AUGUST 26TH SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE ON AUGUST 26TH?

A: THEY DID INDICATE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE LIKED ME TO COLLECT MORE OF THE STAIN.

Q: THEY? WHO IS "THEY"?

A: MISS -- MISS KESTLER AND MR. MATHESON.

Q: WELL, DID THEY INDICATE TO YOU THAT IF YOU TOOK THE POSITION THAT YOU HAD FOLLOWED EXPECTED PROCEDURES THAT THE STAIN FOUND ON AUGUST 26TH SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE?

A: THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT, NO.

Q: DID THEY EXPRESS ANY CONCERN ABOUT THAT?

A: THEY DID SAY I -- THEY DID WANT TO KNOW WHY ALL OF THE STAIN WASN'T GONE BY THE TIME THEY GOT THERE.

Q: WHEN YOU WENT BACK TO THE BRONCO ON JUNE 28TH TO GET THE SHOVEL AND THE PLASTIC BAG AND THE TOWEL, DID YOU SEE THE RED STAINS ON THE CONSOLE?

A: I DIDN'T LOOK AT THAT --

Q: WHEN YOU FINISH YOUR ANALYSIS --

THE COURT: MR. SCHECK, MR. SCHECK, YOU NEED TO LET HIM FINISH HIS ANSWER.

MR. SCHECK: I THOUGHT HE DID.

Q: DID YOU FINISH, SIR?

A: NO, I WASN'T FINISHED.

Q: I'M SORRY.

A: I DID NOT LOOK SPECIFICALLY AT THE CONSOLE ON THAT DATE.

Q: WHEN YOU FINISHED YOUR ANALYSIS OF THE BRONCO ON JUNE 14TH, YOU FINISHED COLLECTING THE STAINS, DID YOU GO BACK TO SID?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU FILL OUT A REPORT ABOUT WHAT YOU HAD COLLECTED?

A: A PROPERTY REPORT, YES.

Q: WELL, YOU FILLED OUT THIS VEHICLE SEARCH CHECKLIST REPORT?

A: FILLED OUT PORTIONS OF IT, YES.

Q: YOU WENT BACK AND YOU DISCUSSED WITH GREG MATHESON WHAT YOU HAD FOUND IN THE BRONCO?

A: THAT DAY?

Q: THAT DAY.

A: I DON'T KNOW IF I DISCUSSED IT WITH HIM -- WHAT I COLLECTED THAT DAY OR NOT.

Q: DID YOU DISCUSS IT WITH -- THAT WOULD BE JUNE 14TH, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: IN THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 14TH DID YOU GO BACK AND HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH GREG MATHESON ABOUT WHAT YOU HAD FOUND?

A: AT THE BRONCO?

Q: YEAH.

A: I DON'T RECALL IF IT WAS THAT AFTERNOON OR NOT.

Q: WOULD IT HAVE BEEN THE 15TH?

A: IT MAY HAVE BEEN.

Q: SO EITHER ON THE 14TH OR THE 15TH YOU WENT BACK AND YOU HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MR. MATHESON ABOUT WHAT YOU HAD FOUND?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH MICHELE KESTLER ABOUT WHAT YOU HAD FOUND?

A: NO.

Q: WHEN YOU WENT BACK AND HAD YOUR CONVERSATION WITH MR. MATHESON, DID YOU TELL HIM THAT YOU HAD FOUND RED STAINS IN THE BRONCO?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU TELL HIM THAT YOU HAD SWATCHED SOME OF THE RED STAINS FROM THE CONSOLE BUT YOU DIDN'T GET IT ALL?

A: I DIDN'T STATE THAT, NO.

Q: DID YOU TELL HIM THAT YOU LEFT RED STAINS ON THE CONSOLE?

A: NO.

Q: IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU REALLY LEFT THOSE RED STAINS IN THE CONSOLE, THE ONES THAT ARE IN THE POSITION OF 31 AND 30 ON JUNE 14TH, 303 AND 304 ON AUGUST 26TH? YOU JUST KNOWINGLY LEFT THEM THERE?

A: I COLLECTED REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES FROM THEM.

Q: AND YOU DID NOT TELL ANYBODY, WHEN YOU WENT BACK TO THE CRIME LAB, THAT YOU JUST COLLECTED REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES AND LEFT MOST OF THOSE STAINS STILL ON THE CONSOLE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE YOU NEVER SAW THE STAIN IN THE POSITION OF -- THAT IS MARKED IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH, 305?

A: I DIDN'T MAKE A NOTE OF IT.

Q: DID YOU SWATCH ANYTHING FROM THAT?

A: FROM 305?

Q: YEAH.

A: NO, NOT THAT AREA.

Q: DID YOU SEE IT AND DECIDE NOT TO SWATCH SOMETHING? IS THAT YOUR TESTIMONY?

A: I'M SAYING THAT IS WHAT MAY HAVE HAPPENED.

Q: AND YOU ARE SAYING THAT IS WHAT MAY HAVE HAPPENED BECAUSE IF 305 WEREN'T THERE ON JUNE 14TH, BUT IT WERE THERE ON AUGUST 26TH, THAT WOULDN'T BE VERY GOOD, WOULD IT?

MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, DID ANYBODY EXPRESS CONCERN TO YOU ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT IF 305 WEREN'T THERE ON JUNE 14TH BUT IT WAS THERE ON AUGUST 26TH THAT THAT WOULD RAISE SERIOUS CONCERNS AT SID?

A: NO ONE SAID THAT TO ME, NO.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, MR. FUNG, ON JUNE 28TH WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THE EXECUTION OF A SEARCH WARRANT AT MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES.

Q: AND -- JUST GIVE ME A MOMENT, YOUR HONOR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: STILL LOOKING?

MR. SCHECK: STILL LOOKING.

THE COURT: I WAS JUST GOING TO GIVE THE JURY A CHANCE TO STRETCH IF THEY LIKE.

MR. SCHECK: THAT'S FINE.

THE COURT: GO AHEAD IF YOU LIKE. THE AUDIENCE CAN DO SO ALSO.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MR. SCHECK, I JUST EXCUSED ONE OF THE JURORS FOR A COMFORT BREAK, SO GO AHEAD AND SEARCH ALL YOU LIKE.

MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHILE WE ARE WAITING -- MR. SCHECK, ARE YOU STILL LOOKING?

MR. SCHECK: UNFORTUNATELY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME TALK WITH MR. DARDEN, MISS CLARK, MR. SHAPIRO AND MR. COCHRAN.

(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. MR. SCHECK, ARE YOU READY TO PRESUME?

MR. SCHECK: YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR. MY APOLOGIES.

THE COURT: I'M SURE THE JURY UNDERSTANDS. ALL RIGHT. LET'S PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, ON JUNE 28TH, YOU WERE PART OF A SEARCH TEAM TO GO BACK AND EXECUTE A SEARCH WARRANT AT MR. SIMPSON'S PROPERTY AT ROCKINGHAM?

MR. GOLDBERG: BEYOND THE SCOPE.

MR. SCHECK: FOUNDATIONAL, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I WILL ALLOW A FEW QUESTIONS BUT LET ME SEE WHERE WE ARE GOING.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU ATTENDED A BRIEFING THAT MORNING BEFORE YOU WENT AND EXECUTED THE WARRANT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU WERE INSTRUCTED TO LOOK FOR A PARTICULAR KNIFE, WERE YOU NOT?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. IT GOES BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DIRECT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME SEE COUNSEL WITH THE COURT REPORTER, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR.

MR. SCHECK: YES, YOUR HONOR. THE TESTIMONY AT THE 1538.5 HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 22ND FROM MR. FUNG --

MS. CLARK: YOU KNOW WHAT, CAN I ASK ONE FAVOR? FOR THIS PARTICULAR ARGUMENT I THINK ME AND MR. DARDEN ARE PROBABLY MORE UP ON THIS ISSUE THAN HANK IS. CAN I ASK FOR MR. DARDEN TO COME UP INSTEAD OF HANK?

THE COURT: I THINK YOU CAN HANDLE IT, MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: I'M NOT SURE.

THE COURT: I TRUST THE BREADTH OF YOUR SHOULDERS. ALL RIGHT. THE OBJECTION IS SCOPE AT THIS POINT SO --

MR. SCHECK: YES. AND THE -- HIS TESTIMONY AT THAT HEARING IS THAT HE WAS GIVEN A BEEFING THAT MORNING BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND HE WAS SPECIFICALLY INSTRUCTED TO SEARCH FOR A KNIFE AND HE WAS GIVEN A DESCRIPTION OF THAT KNIFE, A PARTICULARIZED DESCRIPTION OF A KNIFE, AND I INTEND TO EXPLORE THAT AND ESTABLISH THAT INDEED HE WAS GIVEN A DESCRIPTION OF THE ROSS CUTLERY KNIFE, AND AS WAS INDICATED IN THE WARRANT, AND HE WAS INSTRUCTED TO TAKE THE METAL DETECTORS AND GO SEARCH FOR IT ON THE OUTSIDE AND GO SEARCH FOR IT ON THE INSIDE OF THE HOUSE BECAUSE THAT IS HIS TESTIMONY AT THE HEARING.

THE COURT: HOW DO WE GET BEYOND THE SCOPE? I MEAN, HOW IS IT RELEVANT TO HIS TESTIMONY ON DIRECT?

MR. SCHECK: HIS TESTIMONY ON DIRECT EXAMINATION HAS TO DO WITH HIS SEARCHING ACTIVITY STARTING ON JUNE 13TH, ALL THE WAY THROUGH JULY 3RD, AND JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE THIS PARTICULAR SEARCHING ACTIVITY ON JUNE 28TH DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE CAN'T EXPLORE IT NOW WITH THIS WITNESS. IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME THAT HE SEARCHED ROCKINGHAM ON JUNE 13TH. HE WENT THROUGH THE BEDROOM AREA ON JUNE 13TH. THEN EVEN REVISITS IT ON JUNE 28TH, CONDUCTS A FURTHER SEARCH. I THINK THIS IS THE WITNESS, THIS IS THE SEARCHING WITNESS WITH WHOM WE CAN EXPLORE WHAT EFFORTS, IF ANY, WERE MADE TO SEARCH FOR THIS KNIFE IN THE BEDROOM.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BUT HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THE SCOPE ARGUMENT?

MR. SCHECK: I THINK IT IS WITHIN --

THE COURT: I AGREE IT IS PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT THE DEFENSE WANTS TO PRESENT, BUT IT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF ANYTHING THAT WAS PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION.

MR. SCHECK: WELL, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE DIRECT EXAMINATION BECAUSE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF HIS DIRECT EXAMINATION WERE HIS SEARCHING ACTIVITY BETWEEN JUNE 13TH AND JULY 3RD. THEY HAVE HIM EXAMINING THE MASTER BEDROOM ON DIRECT EXAMINATION AT ROCKINGHAM ON JUNE 13TH. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO EXPLORE A SECOND SEARCH THAT HE MADE TO THE SAME AREA LOOKING FOR THE SAME MATERIALS ON A SUBSEQUENT DATE AND THEY SIMPLY CAN'T ESCAPE THAT --

THE COURT: I DON'T RECOLLECT --

MR. SCHECK: -- BY SPECIFICALLY RAISING IT.

THE COURT: I DON'T RECOLLECT HIS TESTIMONY REGARDING THE SEARCH OF THE BEDROOM.

MR. GOLDBERG: THE WHAT?

MR. SCHECK: HE TESTIFIED HE SEARCHED THE BEDROOM AND HE FOUND THE SOCK.

MR. GOLDBERG: NO, HE DIDN'T.

MS. CLARK: NO, THAT IS INCORRECT. HE DIDN'T SEARCH ANYTHING. HE INDICATED HE PICKED UP THE SOCKS. HE CONDUCTED NO SEARCHES HIMSELF. THE ONLY THING HE DID WAS SWAB STAINS IN THE BATHROOM, BUT THERE WAS NO SEARCH CONDUCTED BY THIS WITNESS ON THE MEDICINE CABINET.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: MR. FUNG, WOULD YOU STEP OVER TO THE SIDE BAR, PLEASE.

MS. CLARK: IT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE BECAUSE NO SUCH TESTIMONY WAS ELICITED.

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND. MR. FUNG, WOULD YOU SORT OF JOIN US. MR. SCHECK, WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND ASK HIM A QUESTION ABOUT SEARCHING ON THE 14TH -- EXCUSE ME -- THE 13TH.

MR. SCHECK: ON THE 13TH?

THE COURT: WHICH DATE ARE YOU ARE LOOKING FOR?

MR. SCHECK: THE DATE THAT HE SEARCHED FOR THE KNIFE.

THE COURT: YES.

MR. SCHECK: JUNE 28TH.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

THE COURT: ASK HIM SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS.

MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, YOU ATTENDED A BRIEFING ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 28TH BEFORE YOU EXECUTED THE SEARCH WARRANT?

THE WITNESS: YES.

MR. SCHECK: IT WAS YOUR ASSIGNMENT TO SEARCH --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THIS IS IRRELEVANT TO WHAT THE COURT --

MR. COCHRAN: DON'T WE HAVE ONE LAWYER?

MR. SCHECK: IT WAS YOUR ASSIGNMENT TO SEARCH FOR A KNIFE?

THE WITNESS: FOR A KNIFE, YES.

MR. SCHECK: AND THAT KNIFE WAS DESCRIBED TO YOU IN PARTICULAR BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER?

THE WITNESS: THERE WAS A KNIFE THAT WAS SHOWN, BUT ANY KNIFE WOULD HAVE BEEN -- WAS WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR.

MR. SCHECK: BUT YOUR ATTENTION WAS FOCUSED ON A PARTICULAR KNIFE THAT YOU WERE SHOWN?

THE WITNESS: I WAS ONLY SHOWN AS A POSSIBLE KNIFE.

MR. SCHECK: BUT THIS KNIFE IS --

THE COURT: I'M SATISFIED. ALL RIGHT. MR. FUNG, WHY DON'T YOU TAKE YOUR SEAT BACK. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENT?

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, HOW DOES THIS RESOLVE THE SCOPE ISSUE?

THE COURT: HOLD ON.

MS. CLARK: THAT DIDN'T RESOLVE WHAT HE TESTIFIED TO ON DIRECT WHICH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THE ABOVE.

THE COURT: I AM JUST ASKING IF THERE IS ANY OTHER COMMENT?

MR. SCHECK: NO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. OBJECTION STAINED.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, LET ME TAKE YOU BACK TO THE -- TO JUNE 13TH. YOU BEGAN YOUR DAY BY CONDUCTING A SEARCH AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEN YOU LEFT AND WENT TO BUNDY?

A: YES.

Q: THEN YOU CAME BACK TO ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU CAME BACK TO ROCKINGHAM, ABOUT WHAT TIME WAS THAT?

A: APPROXIMATELY 3:30.

Q: AND -- EXCUSE ME. YOUR INSTRUCTIONS WHEN YOU CAME BACK TO ROCKINGHAM WAS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE EXECUTION OF THE SEARCH WARRANT?

A: YES.

Q: TO PARTICIPATE IN A SEARCH?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU HAD JUST COME FROM A VERY BLOODY CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU CAME BACK TO ROCKINGHAM YOU WERE LOOKING FOR, IF COULD YOU FIND IT, BLOODY SHOES?

A: UPON RETURNING TO ROCKINGHAM WE WERE LOOKING FOR ANY ITEMS THAT COULD HAVE POSSIBLE BLOOD ON THEM.

Q: AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE BLOODY SHOES?

A: YES.

Q: IT WOULD INCLUDE BLOODY PANTS?

A: YES.

Q: IT WOULD INCLUDE A BLOODY SHIRT?

A: YES.

Q: IT WOULD INCLUDE LOOSE HAIRS THAT YOU MIGHT FIND THAT WERE COVERED IN BLOOD?

A: AGAIN, WE WERE LOOKING FOR ITEMS WITH BLOOD ON THEM.

Q: WELL, THAT WOULD INCLUDE HAIRS THAT MIGHT BE COVERED IN BLOOD?

A: POSSIBLY.

Q: THAT WOULD INCLUDE FIBERS THAT MIGHT BE COVERED IN BLOOD?

A: POSSIBLY.

Q: THAT WOULD INCLUDE FLAKES OF DRY BLOOD?

A: YES.

Q: ANY TRACE, THE SMALLEST TRACE OF BLOOD EVIDENCE YOU WERE SEARCHING FOR WITHIN MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE?

A: WE WERE SEARCHING FOR ITEMS OF BLOOD.

Q: AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE SMALLEST TRACE OF BLOOD YOU COULD FIND ANYWHERE IN MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE?

A: NO. NOT THE SMALLEST TRACE, NO.

Q: NOT THE SMALLEST TRACE?

A: NO.

Q: WELL, WHEN YOU ENTERED MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE IN ROCKINGHAM AND WENT UP TOWARD THE MASTER BEDROOM, YOU HAD TO GO UP A STAIRWELL?

A: YES.

Q: AND THERE ARE SIXTEEN STEPS ON THAT STAIRWELL?

A: I DIDN'T COUNT THEM.

Q: SOMETHING ON THAT ORDER?

A: SOMETHING AROUND THERE, YES.

Q: AND THOSE STEPS ARE COVERED IN A WHITE CARPET?

A: I DON'T RECALL WHAT THE STEPS WERE COVERED IN.

Q: WELL, IT WAS A LIGHT-COVERED (SIC) CARPET?

A: I DON'T RECALL.

Q: YOU DON'T RECALL? WELL, WHEN YOU WENT UP TOWARDS MR. SIMPSON'S MASTER BEDROOM, UP THAT STAIRWELL, YOU WERE LOOKING FOR TRACES OF BLOOD, IF YOU COULD FIND IT, ON THE GROUND?

A: ALL OVER THAT AREA, YES.

Q: AND YOU FOUND NO TRACE OF WET BLOOD ON THAT CARPET?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU FOUND NO FLAKES OF DRIED BLOOD ON THAT WHITE CARPET?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU FOUND NO HAIRS OR FIBERS COVERED IN WET OR DRIED BLOOD ON THAT CARPET?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND THEN YOU PROCEEDED UP THOSE STAIRS AND YOU WALKED DOWN A HALLWAY TOWARD THE MASTER BEDROOM?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT WAS COVERED IN THE SAME KIND OF CARPET?

A: I DON'T RECALL THE CARPET OR WHAT KIND OF CARPET WAS THERE.

Q: YOU SAW NO TRACE OF WET BLOOD ON THAT CARPET?

A: NO.

Q: OF DRIED FLAKING BLOOD ON THAT CARPET?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ON THE BANISTER OR THE WALLS OF THAT STAIRWELL DID YOU SEE ANY TRACE OF WET OR DRIED BLOOD?

A: I DID NOT DETECT ANY BLOOD ON THAT AREA.

Q: AND YOU WOULD BE LOOKING -- YOU WERE LOOKING, WHEN YOU WENT UP THAT STAIRWELL, FOR ANY HAIR OR FIBER EVIDENCE THAT COULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE BUNDY SCENE?

A: NOT FIBER EVIDENCE, NO.

Q: HAIR EVIDENCE?

A: IF IT WAS APPARENT I WOULD HAVE SCENE IT.

Q: NONE APPARENT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NONE THAT YOU COULD SEE?

A: NONE THAT I DETECTED.

Q: NONE THAT MISS MAZZOLA BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NONE THAT ANY OF THE DETECTIVES BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND THEN YOU GOT TO MR. SIMPSON'S MASTER BEDROOM?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU WERE LOOKING FOR BLOODY CLOTHING IN MR. SIMPSON'S MASTER BEDROOM?

A: YES.

Q: BLOODY TOWELS?

A: ANY OBJECT WITH BLOOD ON IT.

Q: BLOODY BED SHEETS?

A: POSSIBLY, YES.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS PICTURE MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER.

THE CLERK: 1089.

THE COURT: 1089.

(DEFT'S 1089 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

MR. GOLDBERG: 1089, YOUR HONOR?

MR. SCHECK: YES, AND ANOTHER ONE THAT I WOULD ASK TO BE MARKED AS 1090.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PHOTO 1090.

(DEFT'S 1090 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: OKAY. I SHOW YOU THESE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS, MR. FUNG. DO YOU RECOGNIZE 1089 AND 1090?

A: THAT APPEARS TO BE THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS STAIRWELL AND HALLWAY LEADING TO THE MASTER BEDROOM.

Q: IS IT A FAIR AND ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF THE GENERAL LAYOUT OF THE STAIRWELL AND THE HALLWAY LEADING TO THE MASTER BEDROOM AS YOU SAW IT ON JUNE 14TH?

A: WAS IT JUNE 14TH?

Q: AS IT WAS ON JUNE -- JUNE 13TH, I'M SORRY?

A: ON JUNE 13TH THAT IS FAIRLY ACCURATE, YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK, IS 89 THE STAIRWELL AND 90 THE HALLWAY?

MR. SCHECK: YES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. SCHECK: JUST BRIEFLY SHOW THOSE ON THE ELMO, YOUR HONOR.

Q: THAT IS 1089. THAT IS THE STAIRWELL, IS IT NOT, MR. FUNG?

A: YES.

Q: AND WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IS A WHITE OR LIGHT-COLORED CARPET?

A: IT IS A LIGHT-COLORED CARPET.

Q: AND NOW SHOWING YOU 1090, SIR, AND THAT IS THE SAME KIND OF CARPET LEADING INTO THE MASTER BEDROOM?

A: IT APPEARS TO BE.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU ENTERED THE MASTER BEDROOM, I THINK YOU WERE SAYING YOU WERE LOOKING FOR BLOODY CLOTHES?

A: THOSE WERE AMONG THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE WE WERE LOOKING FOR, YES.

Q: AND THE TRUTH IS, SIR, THAT ON JUNE 13TH YOU FOUND NO BLOOD ON ANY CLOTHES IN MR. SIMPSON'S BEDROOM?

A: I PERSONALLY FOUND BLOOD ON ANY CLOTHES?

Q: YES.

A: I DID NOT DETECT BLOOD ON ANY OF THE CLOTHES, NO.

Q: AND DID YOU DETECT ANY BLOOD ON LIGHT SWITCHES?

A: NO.

Q: DOORKNOBS?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU CONDUCT A SEARCH OF THE SINK TRAP IN MR. SIMPSON'S MASTER BEDROOM?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND DID YOU PERFORM A PHENOLPHTHALEIN PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON THE SINK TRAP ON MR. SIMPSON'S MASTER BEDROOM?

A: YES.

MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECT ON THE GROUND PREVIOUSLY STATED.

THE COURT: NOTED. OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND THAT TEST CAME OUT NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD OR FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, YOU SAW TWO SOCKS IN FRONT OF MR. SIMPSON'S BED?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND THESE SOCKS WERE PLACED RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIS BED?

A: THEY WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF A THROW RUG AREA.

Q: UH-HUH. AND DID THEY HAVE THE APPEARANCE TO YOU THAT SOMEONE HAD JUST LEFT THEM THERE HURRIEDLY?

MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, AS YOU SAW THOSE SOCKS DID THE THOUGHT CROSS YOUR MIND THAT THEY LOOKED LIKE SOCKS THAT HAD BEEN LEFT THERE BY SOMEONE IN A HURRY, RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE BED?

MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: COULD YOU DESCRIBE FOR US HOW THE SOCKS LAY ON THAT THROW RUG?

A: NO. I MEAN WHAT KIND OF DESCRIPTION DO YOU WANT?

Q: WELL, WERE THEY NEATLY FOLDED?

A: NO, THEY WERE NOT.

Q: DID THEY LOOK TO YOU, AT THE TIME YOU SAW THEM, AS THOUGH SOMEONE HAD JUST TAKEN THEM OFF?

MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR A CONCLUSION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THE SOCKS APPEARED OUT OF PLACE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE THROW RUG.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: THEY APPEARED OUT OF PLACE?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THEM?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU KNEW IMMEDIATELY THAT THESE SOCKS MIGHT BE A CRITICAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE?

A: I DIDN'T KNOW IF THEY WERE CRITICAL, BUT THEY WERE OUT OF PLACE.

Q: WELL, YOU HAD JUST COME FROM A BLOODY CRIME SCENE?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU HAD SEEN SHOEPRINTS IN BLOOD LEADING TO THE BACK REAR OF THAT CRIME SCENE?

A: YES.

Q: WEREN'T YOU VERY INTERESTED IN EXAMINING THE ANKLE AREAS OF THESE SOCKS?

A: I COLLECTED THEM SO THAT THEY COULD BE EXAMINED, YES.

Q: THAT IS NOT MY QUESTION. ON JUNE 13TH WHEN YOU SAW THE SOCKS, WERE YOU NOT INTERESTED IN EXAMINING THE ANKLE AREA OF THOSE SOCKS?

MR. GOLDBERG: WHETHER HE IS INTERESTED IS IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I COLLECTED THE SOCKS SO THEY COULD BE ANALYZED AT A LATER DATE.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: I'M ASKING ABOUT YOU. WERE YOU NOT INTERESTED IN EXAMINING THE ANKLE AREAS OF THOSE SOCKS WHEN YOU SAW THEM ON JUNE 13TH?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: YOU?

A: I DID NOT PERFORM A TEST ON THEM, NO.

Q: I'M NOT ASKING YOU WHETHER YOU PERFORMED A TEST; I'M ASKING WHETHER YOU WERE INTERESTED IN EXAMINING VISUALLY THE ANKLE AREAS OF THOSE SOCKS WHEN YOU SAW THEM ON JUNE 13TH?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU WERE INTERESTED IN THE ANKLE AREAS BECAUSE IT IS THE ANKLE AREAS THAT YOU WOULD MOST EXPECT TO HAVE BLOOD ON THEM IF SOMEONE HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN A BLOODY KILLING SUCH AS THE ONE YOU SAW AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE?

A: NOT JUST THE ANKLE AREA, NO.

Q: WELL, ORDINARILY WOULDN'T YOU EXPECT THE MOST BLOOD FROM A SCENE SUCH AS YOU HAD WITNESSED AT BUNDY TO BE ON THE ANKLE AREAS WHEN A PANT LEG CAME UP?

A: THAT IS A POSSIBLE AREA THAT BLOOD COULD BE IN.

Q: WASN'T THAT MORE LIKELY, IN YOUR MIND, TO BE AN EXPOSED AREA THAN THE HEEL OR THE SOLE?

A: THAT WOULD DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Q: WELL, AS YOU WERE THINKING ABOUT IT ON JUNE 13TH, WEREN'T YOU PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN THE ANKLE AREAS?

MR. GOLDBERG: AGAIN, IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: IT HAS BEEN ASKED AND ANSWERED NOW.

MR. SCHECK: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE ANKLE AREAS OF THOSE SOCKS ON JUNE 13TH YOU DID NOT SEE A SMEAR OF BLOOD, DID YOU?

A: I DID NOT LOOK THAT CLOSELY, SO I DIDN'T SEE ANY SMEAR OF BLOOD.

Q: YOU'VE HAD A NUMBER OF DISCUSSIONS WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS IN THIS CASE ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY, HAVEN'T YOU?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: AND YOU HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH PEOPLE AT SID?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU ARE AWARE THAT QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT THE HANDLING OF THE SOCK IN THIS CASE?

MR. GOLDBERG: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THAT ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ARE YOU AWARE THAT QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT THE HANDLING OF THE SOCK IN THIS CASE?

A: NO.

Q: NO ONE HAS SAID THAT TO YOU FROM SID?

A: NOBODY HAS.

Q: IN YOUR DISCUSSIONS ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY WITH PEOPLE AT SID HAS ANYBODY SUGGESTED TO YOU THAT IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA TO SAY THAT YOU DIDN'T LOOK AT THOSE SOCKS VERY CAREFULLY ON JUNE 13TH?

A: NOBODY HAS SAID THAT TO ME.

Q: DID ANY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUGGEST TO YOU, IN THE COURSE OF PREPARING YOU TO TESTIFY, THAT IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA TO SAY THAT YOU DIDN'T LOOK VERY CAREFULLY AT THE ANKLE AREAS OF THOSE SOCKS ON JUNE 13TH?

A: NO ONE HAD TO TELL ME TO SAY THAT. THAT IS THE TRUTH.

Q: OH. NOW, YOU SAW NO TRACE OF BLOOD, WET OR DRY, IN THE WHITE CARPET AREA NEAR THE SOCK IN MR. SIMPSON'S MASTER BEDROOM?

A: I BELIEVE THE SOCKS WERE ON A THROW RUG.

Q: I UNDERSTAND. BEFORE YOU GET TO THE THROW RUG THERE IS A CARPET AREA IN THE MASTER BEDROOM?

A: YES.

Q: IN THAT CARPET AREA YOU SAW NO WET BLOOD OR FLAKES OF BLOOD?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ON THE LIGHT TAN THROW RUG WHERE THE SOCKS WERE, DID YOU SEE ANY FLAKES OF BLOOD AT ALL?

A: NO.

Q: WHEN BLOOD DRIES, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE IT DOES GET CRUSTED AND FLAKE?

A: IT DEPENDS ON HOW MUCH BLOOD IS PRESENT.

Q: BUT THAT HAPPENS?

A: IT DOES HAPPEN IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

Q: AND YOU WOULD BE VERY, VERY INTERESTED TO SEE EVEN A FLAKE OF BLOOD NEAR THOSE SOCKS ON THE THROW RUG ON JUNE 13TH; ISN'T THAT RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU MAY WANT TO TELL US, SIR, THAT YOU WEREN'T LOOKING VERY CAREFULLY AT THE SOCK, BUT YOU CERTAINLY WERE LOOKING CAREFULLY AT THAT THROW RUG?

MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: MR. SCHECK, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A COURT REPORTER BREAK AT THIS POINT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I'M GOING TO TAKE A 15-MINUTE RECESS TO CHANGE COURT REPORTERS. PLEASE REMEMBER ALL OF MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU. DO NOT DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, DO NOT FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE MATTER, DO NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU, DO NOT CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. WE WILL BE IN RECESS FOR FIFTEEN. MR. FUNG, YOU CAN STEP DOWN.

(RECESS.)

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD. ALL PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT. THERE THEY ARE. ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, AT SOME POINT, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF PHENOLPHTHALEIN AGAIN IN LIGHT OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED. MAY I DO THAT NOW?

THE COURT: AT 4:30.

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

THE COURT: THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED. ALL RIGHT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE'VE NOW BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. MR. DENNIS FUNG IS ON THE WITNESS STAND UNDERGOING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK. GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, MR. FUNG. YOU ARE REMINDED AGAIN YOU ARE UNDER OATH, SIR. AND, MR. SCHECK, YOU MAY CONTINUE WITH YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION.

MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, WE WERE DISCUSSING THE SOCKS. NOW, I THINK WE HAD JUST FINISHED ESTABLISHING THAT YOU DID NOT EVEN SEE FLAKES OF BLOOD ON THE THROW RUG AROUND THE SOCKS; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S ARGUMENTATIVE AS PHRASED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: WOULD NOT EXPECT TO SEE FLAKES IN THAT AREA, NO.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU WOULDN'T EXPECT TO SEE FLAKES?

A: NOT BLOOD FLAKES FROM THE SOCKS.

Q: WELL, IF THERE HAD BEEN A SMEAR OF BLOOD ON THE ANKLE OF ONE OF THE SOCKS THAT WAS DEPOSITED THERE AROUND 10:15, WOULD YOU EXPECT IT TO HAVE BEEN DRIED BY THE TIME THAT YOU SAW THOSE SOCKS ON THAT -- ON THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 13TH AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: 10:00 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING OR 10:00 O'CLOCK IN --

Q: AT 10:15 ON JUNE 12TH OR AROUND THAT TIME, IF SOMEHOW A SMEAR OF BLOOD HAD BEEN DEPOSITED ON THE ANKLE OF ONE OF THOSE SOCKS, WOULD YOU EXPECT IT TO HAVE DRIED BY THE TIME THAT YOU SAW THOSE SOCKS IN MR. SIMPSON'S BEDROOM ON THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 13TH?

A: YES.

Q: AND IF BLOOD DRIES ON A SMEAR AND THE SOCK IS IN ANY WAY MANIPULATED, WOULD YOU NOT EXPECT TO SEE FLAKES OF BLOOD FALL OFF THE SOCK?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. IMPROPER HYPOTHETICAL.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: LET US ASSUME FOR THE SAKE OF EXPLORING THIS ISSUE WITH YOU, SIR, THAT SOMEHOW, ONE OF THOSE SOCKS HAD BEEN COVERED WITH A SMEAR OF WET BLOOD AT 10:15 P.M. ON JUNE 12TH. YOU WOULD EXPECT THAT SMEAR TO BE DRIED I THINK YOU'VE INDICATED BY THE TIME YOU SAW IT ON THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 13TH?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. IT'S AN IMPROPER HYPOTHETICAL AS TO SMEAR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I WOULD EXPECT IT TO BE DRY.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND IF WE FURTHER ASSUME THAT IN THE ACT OF TAKING OFF SOCKS, THE AREA IN THE ANKLE HAD BEEN FOLDED OR RUBBED, WOULD YOU NOT EXPECT FLAKES OF BLOOD TO COME OFF THE SOCK?

A: THAT WOULD DEPEND ON HOW MUCH BLOOD WAS PRESENT. IF IT WAS A LIGHT AMOUNT OR A VERY SMALL AMOUNT, I WOULD NOT EXPECT ANY. IF IT WAS A VERY HEAVY AMOUNT WHERE IT WOULD HAVE CRUSTED IN A CLOTH TYPE OF FASHION, THEN I WOULD EXPECT MAYBE THERE WOULD BE FLAKES.

Q: WELL, IF THERE WERE A SMEAR OF BLOOD HALF AN INCH TO AN INCH LONG --

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF SUCH A SMEAR. IMPROPER HYPOTHETICAL.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WOULD YOU EXPECT THAT THAT MIGHT, IF DRIED AND THE SOCK WERE FOLDED AND MANIPULATED, LEAVE FLAKES OF BLOOD THAT MIGHT BE VISIBLE ON THAT THROW RUG?

A: THAT WOULD DEPEND ON THE CONCENTRATION OF BLOOD PRESENT ON THAT INCH AND A HALF OF SMEAR.

Q: OR NO. HALF INCH. LET'S START WITH A HALF INCH.

A: OKAY. HALF INCH.

Q: SO I TAKE IT THAT YOU WOULD UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, TO USE YOUR TERMS, DEPENDING ON CONCENTRATION, EXPECT TO SEE FLAKES OF BLOOD?

A: UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE MAY BE SOME PRESENT, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU GET FLAKES OF BLOOD WITH DRIED SOCKS. WHEN THEY'RE MANIPULATED OR TAKEN OFF, THAT CAN HAPPEN?

MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU SAW NO FLAKES, CORRECT?

A: CORRECT.

Q: NOW, LET'S GO BACK TO THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE FOR A SECOND.

A: OKAY.

Q: WHEN YOU WERE AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE, DID DETECTIVE LANGE TAKE YOU OUT TO THAT CAGED-IN AREA WHERE MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS FOUND?

A: YES.

Q: AND IT WAS SOIL IN THAT AREA?

A: THERE WAS SOIL.

Q: AND IN THE BACK OF THAT AREA, DID HE NOT POINT OUT TO YOU WHAT APPEARED TO BE A DUG-OUT HOLE?

A: I DON'T RECALL HIM POINTING THAT OUT TO ME.

Q: WELL, DID YOU SEE WHAT APPEARED TO BE A DUG-OUT AREA IN THAT CAGED-IN SOIL PART OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE?

MR. GOLDBERG: VAGUE AS TO THE TERM "DUG-OUT."

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION. DO YOU HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH?

MR. SCHECK: WHILE WE ARE LOOKING, I'LL ASK A FEW MORE QUESTIONS.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU RECALL DETECTIVE LANGE DISCUSSING WITH YOU THAT HE BELIEVED THERE HAD BEEN A FIERCE STRUGGLE BETWEEN MR. GOLDMAN AND AN ASSAILANT IN THAT CAGED-IN AREA?

MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR HEARSAY, IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU UNDER ANY INSTRUCTIONS TO LOOK FOR CLOTHING THAT MIGHT HAVE SOIL ON IT FROM THAT CAGED-IN AREA?

A: AT WHICH SCENE?

Q: WELL, FROM YOUR EXAMINATION OF THE BUNDY SCENE AND THE AREA WHERE MR. GOLDMAN WAS FOUND, DID YOU REACH A JUDGMENT THAT SOME OF THE STRUGGLE MIGHT HAVE OCCURRED IN THAT SOIL AREA?

A: THAT WAS ONE POSSIBILITY.

Q: AND THAT ONE OF THE ASSAILANTS MIGHT HAVE IN THE COURSE OF THAT STRUGGLE KICKED UP SOIL ONTO SHOES, PANTS AND SOCKS?

MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR, AND IT CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. GOLDBERG: ASSAILANTS.

THE COURT: YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU CONSIDER WHEN YOU WERE EXAMINING THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE THAT IN A STRUGGLE WITH MR. GOLDMAN, AN ASSAILANT MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN THE AREA OF -- THE SHOES AND THE SOCKS AND THE PANTS COVERED WITH SOIL FROM THAT AREA?

A: THAT IS A POSSIBILITY.

Q: DID YOU NOT SEE SUCH SOIL ON THE SHOES AND SOCKS OF MR. GOLDMAN?

A: I DID NOT EXAMINE THE SHOES OF MR. GOLDMAN.

Q: DID YOU NOT SEE DUG-OUT AREAS IN THAT SOIL THAT REFLECTED A STRUGGLE BETWEEN MR. GOLDMAN AND SOMEONE ELSE?

A: DUG-OUT AREAS?

Q: YEAH. DUG-OUT AREAS IN THE SOIL?

A: THAT INDICATED A STRUGGLE?

Q: THAT MIGHT BE CONSISTENT WITH A STRUGGLE?

MR. GOLDBERG: STILL VAGUE, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DID NOT MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, DID YOU SEE ANYTHING THAT COULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT?

A: THERE WAS A DISTURBED AREA IN THE DIRT AREA.

Q: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "DISTURBED"?

A: THERE WAS LOOSE DIRT IN ONE PORTION OF THE CAGED-IN AREA.

Q: LOOSE DIRT THAT COULD HAVE BEEN KICKED UP ONTO MR. GOLDMAN AND AN ASSAILANT DURING A STRUGGLE?

A: IT'S DURING A STRUGGLE.

Q: WHEN YOU WENT TO THE ROCKINGHAM --

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I THINK WE'VE FOUND WHAT IS 83 IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS THAT THE DISTURBED AREA WE SEE DEPICTED IN 83 IN EVIDENCE?

A: TO THE RIGHT OF THE TREE?

Q: YES.

A: YES.

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO STRIKE. IT CALLS FOR SPECULATION AS TO WHETHER IT'S DISTURBED OR NOT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY "DISTURBED AREA"?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THAT APPEARS TO BE -- WELL, FROM YOUR RECOLLECTION, HOW DEEP WAS THAT DUG-OUT AREA?

A: I DON'T RECALL.

Q: NOW, MR. FUNG, WHEN YOU WALKED UP THE STAIRS AT ROCKINGHAM ON THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 13TH, DID YOU SEE ANY SOIL ON THE CARPET OF THE STAIRWELL?

A: I DID NOT NOTICE ANY HEAVY STAINING OF THE CARPET, NO.

Q: WELL, DID YOU SEE ANY SMALL FLECKS OR FLAKES OF SOIL ON THAT CARPET?

A: NO.

Q: IN THE CARPET THAT COVERED THE ENTRYWAY TO MR. SIMPSON'S MASTER BEDROOM, DID YOU SEE ANY SOIL OR FLECKS OF SOIL ON THAT CARPET?

A: NO.

Q: IN THE CARPET SURROUNDING THE THROW RUG WHERE YOU FOUND THE SOCKS IN MR. SIMPSON'S MASTER BEDROOM, DID YOU SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF SOIL?

A: I DID NOT SEE ANY.

Q: ON THE THROW RUG WHERE YOU FOUND THE SOCKS, DID YOU SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF SOIL?

A: NO.

Q: OR DUST?

A: DUST MAY HAVE BEEN PRESENT, BUT I DIDN'T TAKE A NOTE OF IT.

Q: DID YOU -- I AM SORRY. ARE YOU FINISHED?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU SEE ON EITHER SOCK ANY SOIL?

A: I DIDN'T NOTICE ANY.

Q: IN THE MASTER BEDROOM -- WITHDRAWN. DID YOU GO INTO THE BATHROOM?

A: THE MASTER BATHROOM.

Q: MASTER BATHROOM?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND DID YOU TAKE TOWELS OUT OF THE HAMPER IN THAT MASTER BATHROOM AREA?

A: I DID NOT PERSONALLY, NO.

Q: BUT WHEN YOU ARRIVED THERE, YOU SAW THAT SOMEBODY HAD DONE THAT?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS BEFORE I ARRIVED OR AFTER I ARRIVED, BUT IT WAS DONE BY SOMEBODY ELSE.

Q: WAS IT DONE IN YOUR PRESENCE?

A: THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME OF IT GOING ON IN MY PRESENCE, BUT I DON'T RECALL HOW MUCH.

Q: WHO WAS DOING IT IN YOUR PRESENCE?

A: I DON'T RECALL.

Q: WAS IT A DETECTIVE?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEY WERE LOOKING THROUGH TOWELS IN THE BATHROOM?

A: THEY WERE LOOKING THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THE HAMPER IN THE BATHROOM.

Q: CONTAINED TOWELS?

A: I DIDN'T GO THROUGH IT THAT CAREFULLY.

Q: CONTAINED CLOTHES?

A: THERE WERE CLOTHING.

Q: AND NO ONE CALLED TO YOUR ATTENTION ANY CLOTHING OR ANY TOWEL THAT HAD A TRACE OF BLOOD?

MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND NO ONE CALLED TO YOUR ATTENTION ANY TOWEL OR ANY CLOTHING THAT CONTAINED SOIL?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: WOULD LIKE TO TURN NOW TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF YOUR COLLECTION OF THE SOCKS. NOW, I THINK YOU TOLD US ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU HAVE NO RECOLLECTION NOW AS TO WHETHER YOU USED THE GLOVE METHOD OR THE SCOOP METHOD TO COLLECT THE SOCKS?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: BUT YOU'RE SURE THAT YOU COLLECTED THE SOCKS AND NOT MISS MAZZOLA?

A: YES.

Q: IN GOING BACK OVER YOUR EVIDENCE COLLECTION SHEET, DID YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA TALK ABOUT WHO COLLECTED WHAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND BEFORE YOU CAME IN TO TESTIFY, THE TWO OF YOU HAD DISCUSSED WHICH ONE OF YOU COLLECTED WHICH ITEM AND YOU FILLED IN THE COPY OF THE EVIDENCE COLLECTION SHEET THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU WITH SUCH DESIGNATIONS?

A: WE DID TO THE BEST OF OUR MEMORIES, YES.

Q: AND YOU WERE DOING THIS TO THE BEST OF YOUR MEMORIES WHEN?

A: I DON'T REALLY RECALL WHEN. IT WAS SEVERAL MONTHS AFTER.

Q: WELL, WAS IT A MONTH BEFORE THIS TRIAL?

A: NO. IT WAS -- WELL, MAYBE MORE THAN A MONTH.

Q: WAS IT AFTER YOU TESTIFIED AT A PROCEEDING IN THIS COURT IN AUGUST?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU FILLED OUT YOUR EVIDENCE ITEM COLLECTION SHEET FOR ROCKINGHAM HOWEVER, YOU DID FILL IN THE TIMES THAT CERTAIN ITEMS WERE COLLECTED HERE ON JUNE 13TH?

A: THE ITEMS WERE FILLED IN, YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU PUT IN TIMES FOR THESE ITEMS ON JUNE 13TH, YOU FILLED THEM IN THAT DAY?

A: THEY WERE FILLED IN THAT DAY.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO PUT UP ON THE ELMO A COPY OF THE EVIDENCE COLLECTION SHEET, BUT I'M PUTTING A POST-IT OVER A CERTAIN PORTION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: MAY WE SEE IT?

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

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

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU HAVE YOUR COPY BEFORE YOU; DO YOU NOT, SIR?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: NOW, THIS IS AN OVERALL SHOT OF YOUR EVIDENCE COLLECTION SHEET FOR THAT DAY?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE -- THERE'S A BOX THERE THAT INDICATES TIMES; IS THERE NOT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEN STARTING AT I BELIEVE ITEM 11 --

MR. SCHECK: IF WE COULD FOCUS ON THAT, MR. HARRIS, STARTING AT ITEM 11, IF YOU COULD ZERO IN ON THAT, MOVE IT JUST -- THAT'S IT. GREAT.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. ITEM 11 REPRESENTS THE FIRST ITEM THAT WAS COLLECTED WHEN YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA RETURNED TO ROCKINGHAM IN THE AFTERNOON?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU PUT DOWN THAT TIME AS 3:40 OR 1540 HOURS?

A: THAT WAS THE TIME THAT WAS PUT DOWN.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THAT ACCURATE?

A: THAT'S THE GENERAL TIME FRAME THAT IT WAS COLLECTED.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN THE NEXT ITEM WAS A RED STAIN FROM THE FOYER AREA INSIDE ROCKINGHAM, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT ONE WAS COLLECTED AT 4:30?

A: YES.

Q: AND --

A: OR THEREABOUTS.

Q: OR THEREABOUTS. AND THE NEXT ITEM YOU COLLECTED WERE THE SOCKS?

A: YES.

Q: BUT THERE'S NO TIME INDICATED FOR THAT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND THE NEXT ITEM AFTER THAT YOU INDICATED WAS A RED STAIN THAT WAS FOUND IN THE MASTER BATHROOM?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT TIME IS AT 4:40?

A: YES.

Q: SO I BELIEVE IT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU COLLECTED THE SOCKS SOMETIME BETWEEN 4:30 AND 4:40?

A: ABOUT THEN, YES.

Q: AND THEN BEFORE YOU LEFT THE RESIDENCE, YOU COLLECTED TWO OTHER ITEMS, NUMBERS 15 AND 16, AND THOSE WERE AT 5:00 AND 5:05?

A: THE CHECKLIST STATES 15, 16 WERE COLLECTED AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME.

Q: WELL, WHAT TIMES WERE THOSE LISTED ON THE CHECKLIST? PERHAPS YOU COULD HELP. IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO SEE.

A: THEY BOTH SAY THE SAME TIME. 5:00 O'CLOCK.

Q: 5:00 O'CLOCK. AND THOSE WERE ITEMS THAT WERE COLLECTED AS YOU WALKED OUT OF ROCKINGHAM IN THE FRONT DOOR AREA?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I'LL OBJECT TO ANY TESTIMONY ABOUT 15 AND 16.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW --

MR. GOLDBERG: AND MAKE A MOTION TO STRIKE THAT PART OF THE TESTIMONY TO THE EXTENT IT CAME IN.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, AT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE DOING YOUR COLLECTION IN MR. SIMPSON'S MASTER BEDROOM AREA, DID YOU SEE SOMEONE WALKING AROUND WITH A VIDEOTAPE CAMERA?

A: I DON'T RECALL WHEN I SAW THE VIDEOTAPE CAMERA COMING THROUGH. I DO RECALL IT BEING THERE THOUGH.

Q: YOU RECALL A GENTLEMAN NAMED MR. FORD. DO YOU KNOW HIM?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: AFRICAN AMERICAN GENTLEMAN?

A: YES.

Q: AND HE WAS THE ONE WHO WAS CARRYING AROUND THE VIDEOTAPE CAMERA?

A: YES.

Q: AND HE WAS BEING DIRECTED BY THIS PERSON FROM SID NAMED ADKINS WITH THE VIDEO CAMERA?

A: MR. ADKINS WAS PRESENT, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT HIS FUNCTION WAS.

Q: MR. ADKINS WAS WEARING A VERY STRIKING AND NICE GRAY SUIT THAT DAY WITH A BADGE HANGING FROM HIS POCKET?

A: MR. ADKINS DOES DRESS NICELY.

Q: DO YOU RECALL THAT SUIT?

A: I DON'T RECALL THE SUIT.

Q: AND A DETECTIVE LUPER WAS ALSO WALKING AROUND WITH MR. FORD WITH THE VIDEO CAMERA?

A: I DON'T RECALL THAT.

Q: DO YOU RECALL SEEING THEM IN THE FOYER AREA?

A: NO.

Q: DO YOU RECALL SEEING THEM IN THE MASTER BEDROOM AREA AT AROUND 4:14?

A: I DON'T RECALL. I DIDN'T KEEP TRACK OF THEIR COMINGS AND GOINGS.

Q: WELL, YOU HAVE NO RECOLLECTION WHATSOEVER OF THEM, OF MR. FORD WITH THE VIDEO CAMERA UP IN THE MASTER BEDROOM AT OR AROUND THE TIME THAT YOU WERE DOING COLLECTION?

A: AGAIN, I DIDN'T KEEP TRACK OF MR. FORD AT THAT TIME.

Q: HAVE YOU SEEN THAT VIDEOTAPE?

A: NO, I HAVE NOT.

Q: HAVE YOU HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH ANYBODY ABOUT THAT VIDEOTAPE?

A: NO.

Q: HAVE YOU HAD ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH PEOPLE AT SID ABOUT WHAT'S SHOWN ON THAT VIDEOTAPE?

A: NO.

Q: HAVE YOU HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH ANYONE IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AS TO WHAT'S SHOWN IN THAT VIDEOTAPE?

A: NO.

Q: HAS ANYBODY ANYWHERE COMMUNICATED TO YOU ANYTHING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT AT 4:14 IN THE AFTERNOON THOSE SOCKS ARE DEPICTED ON THAT VIDEOTAPE?

A: NO ONE HAS COMMUNICATED THAT INFORMATION TO ME OR WITH ME.

Q: HAS ANYBODY INDICATED TO YOU THERE'S SOME QUESTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THOSE SOCKS ARE ON THE VIDEOTAPE?

MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU SEE MR. FORD WAKING AROUND WITH THAT VIDEO CAMERA AT ABOUT 3:14 IN THE AFTERNOON?

A: I DID NOT KEEP TRACK OF MR. FORD.

Q: WELL, DID YOU SEE THEM COMING WITH A VIDEO CAMERA OUT OF THE MASTER BEDROOM AREA BEFORE YOU WENT UP INTO IT?

A: I DON'T RECALL.

Q: IS THERE ANY PARTICULAR REASON THAT THERE IS NO TIME IN YOUR EVIDENCE COLLECTION REPORT FOR THOSE SOCKS?

A: I COLLECTED THE SOCKS AND DID NOT TELL MISS MAZZOLA WHAT TIME I COLLECTED THEM.

Q: YOU RECALL THAT?

A: IT'S OBVIOUS BECAUSE THE TIME'S NOT WRITTEN DOWN.

Q: MR. FUNG, I'M ASKING YOU ABOUT WHAT YOU REMEMBER, NOT WHAT YOU'RE ASSUMING.

A: WELL, I DON'T RECALL THEN.

Q: SO THE ANSWER IS, YOU DON'T KNOW ANY REASON WHY THE TIME IS NOT WRITTEN DOWN?

A: I DON'T REMEMBER WHY THE TIME'S NOT WRITTEN DOWN.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHAT YOU JUST SAID TO THIS JURY, THAT -- ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED WAS, THAT YOU DID NOT TELL MISS MAZZOLA WHAT TIME YOU RECOVERED THE SOCKS. THAT'S SOMETHING YOU'RE JUST SPECULATING ABOUT BECAUSE YOU THINK IT SOUNDS GOOD?

MR. GOLDBERG: I OBJECT.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS THAT SOMETHING YOU ACTUALLY REMEMBER?

A: WHAT EXACTLY?

Q: YOU HAVE NO RECOLLECTION AS TO WHETHER YOU SIMPLY FAILED TO TELL MISS MAZZOLA THE TIME THAT YOU COLLECTED THE SOCKS, RIGHT?

MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU HAVE AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY THAT YOU SIMPLY FAILED TO TELL MISS MAZZOLA WHAT TIME YOU COLLECTED THE SOCKS?

A: DO I REMEMBER NOT TELLING --

Q: YEAH?

A: -- HER ABOUT THE SOCKS?

Q: YEAH. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT THE REASON THAT THERE'S NO TIME THERE IS BECAUSE YOU JUST DIDN'T TELL HER ABOUT IT, ACTUALLY REMEMBER THAT OCCURRING?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT'S AN ILLOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YOU'RE ASKING ME IF I REMEMBERED -- IF I REMEMBER NOT DOING -- WHY I DIDN'T DO SOMETHING.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, YOU TOLD US A SECOND AGO THAT -- WHEN I ASKED YOU IF THERE'S -- IF YOU KNEW WHY THERE WAS NO TIME WRITTEN FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE SOCKS, YOU ANSWERED, "WELL, THAT'S BECAUSE I DIDN'T TELL MISS MAZZOLA WHAT TIME I COLLECTED IT," RIGHT?

MR. GOLDBERG: THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU MEASURE THE LOCATION OF THE SOCKS?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DID YOU DO IT TOGETHER WITH MISS MAZZOLA?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: DID YOU CALL OUT THE MEASUREMENTS TO HER?

A: I DON'T RECALL WHICH WAY -- IT'S HER HANDWRITING. I ASSUME THAT I DID.

Q: AND THERE'S A MISTAKE WITH RESPECT TO THE MEASUREMENTS OF THE SOCK, ISN'T THERE?

A: WHAT MISTAKE IS THAT?

Q: WELL, ON YOUR EVIDENCE COLLECTION SHEET, WHERE DO YOU RECORD THE SOCKS AS BEING?

A: THE SOCKS WERE IN THE MASTER BEDROOM EIGHT FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTH WALL AND FOUR FEET WEST OF THE EAST WALL.

Q: NOW, COULD YOU TURN TO YOUR FIELD NOTES FOR ROCKINGHAM?

A: THAT WAS READ FROM MY FIELD NOTES.

Q: OH, YOU READ IT FROM YOUR FIELD NOTES?

A: YES.

Q: COULD YOU REPEAT -- COULD YOU COMPARE THE -- WOULD YOU NOW READ FOR US FROM YOUR EVIDENCE COLLECTION SHEET WHERE THE SOCKS ARE, WHAT MEASUREMENTS YOU RECORDED?

A: DO YOU MEAN MY PROPERTY REPORT?

Q: NO. I MEAN THIS EVIDENCE COLLECTION SHEET THAT WE HAVE --

A: THAT'S WHERE I WAS READING FROM.

Q: OH, YOU ARE READING FROM THAT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, DON'T YOU HAVE A SHEET OF PAPER THERE ENTITLED "FIELD NOTES"?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND ON YOUR FIELD NOTES, DID NOT YOU MAKE A RECORD OF THE MEASUREMENTS OF WHERE THE SOCKS WERE? I'M ASKING YOU ABOUT THE FIELD NOTES.

A: I AM LOOKING AT THE FIELD NOTES. YES.

Q: WHAT ARE THE MEASUREMENTS ON THE FIELD NOTES?

A: THE MEASUREMENT ON THE FIELD NOTES STATE FOUR FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTH WALL AND EIGHT FEET WEST OF THE EAST WALL.

Q: SO THAT'S THE OPPOSITE OF THE MEASUREMENTS THAT YOU HAVE ON YOUR EVIDENCE COLLECTION SHEET?

A: YES.

Q: THE SOCKS MOVED?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, MR. FUNG, WOULD LIKE TO BRING YOU BACK TO ONE MORE THING WITH RESPECT TO THE BRONCO SEARCH.

MR. SCHECK: CAN WE MARK THIS EVIDENCE COLLECTION SHEET, THE FORM I SHOWED, AS DEFENDANT'S?

THE COURT: 1091.

(DEFT'S 1091 FOR ID = EVIDENCE COLLECTION SHEET)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU STATED BEFORE WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING YOUR SEARCH OF THE BRONCO THAT THE LIGHT WAS BETTER WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING AT THAT PICTURE OF THE CONSOLE IN THE LABORATORY THAN THE LIGHT YOU HAD WHEN YOU WERE SEARCHING ON JUNE 14TH?

A: I STATED THAT THE LIGHTING, THE PHOTOGRAPHY LOOKED LIKE IT HAD BETTER LIGHTING.

Q: AND WERE YOU TRYING TO CONVEY THE IMPRESSION THAT THE LIGHTING THAT YOU HAD WHEN YOU WERE CONDUCTING YOUR SEARCH ON JUNE 14TH WAS INADEQUATE FOR YOU TO DISCOVER THOSE RED STAINS?

A: I WAS ONLY STATING THAT THE LIGHTING WAS DIFFERENT.

Q: UH-HUH. WAS THE LIGHTING IN YOUR JUDGMENT ADEQUATE TO SEE RED STAINS WHEN YOU WERE CONDUCTING YOUR SEARCH ON JUNE 14TH?

A: YES.

Q: IN FACT, YOU WERE USING A FLASHLIGHT TO CONDUCT YOUR SEARCH?

A: DURING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF IT, YES.

Q: WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO PUT A PHOTOGRAPH THAT I'VE PREVIOUSLY SHOWN PROSECUTORS ON THE SCREEN.

THE COURT: WHAT NUMBER? 1092? ALL RIGHT. PHOTOGRAPH, 1092.

(DEFT'S 1092 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS THAT A PICTURE OF YOU WITH A FLASHLIGHT LOOKING AT A RED STAIN LABELED 34?

A: YES.

Q: AND ISN'T THAT THE WAY THAT YOU PROCEEDED THROUGH THE BRONCO USING YOUR FLASHLIGHT TO LOOK AT RED STAINS THAT YOU SAW?

A: I DID USE A FLASHLIGHT DURING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF IT, YES.

Q: WELL, DIDN'T YOU USE YOUR FLASHLIGHT WHEN YOU WERE SEARCHING THE CONSOLE AREA?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU FINISHED YOUR SEARCH AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE, DID YOU GET TOGETHER WITH MISS MAZZOLA AND ANYONE ELSE WHO WAS ASSISTING YOU AND HOLD A CONFERENCE BEFORE YOU CLOSED DOWN THE SCENE, "LET'S CAREFULLY REVIEW AND CONSIDER EVERYTHING WE'VE DONE TO MAKE SURE WE'VE MISSED NOTHING"?

A: WE DID GO THROUGH AND DO OUR INVENTORY CHECK OF THE EVIDENCE WE COLLECTED.

Q: WELL, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE INVENTORY CHECK. THE INVENTORY CHECK IS WHEN YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA COMPARE THE ITEMS YOU'VE COLLECTED, YOU THINK YOU'VE COLLECTED WITH THE ITEMS THAT YOU ACTUALLY HAVE SEIZED, CORRECT?

A: THE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE COLLECTED WITH THE -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT QUESTION.

Q: I THINK THAT YOU DESCRIBED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT AFTER YOU FINISH WITH ONE CRIME SCENE, RIGHT, YOU CONDUCT WHAT YOU CALL AN INVENTORY, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE INVENTORY IS WHERE YOU LOOK AT YOUR NOTATIONS AS TO WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN DOWN YOU'VE COLLECTED AND YOU COMPARE IT TO THE ACTUAL BAGS AND COIN ENVELOPES AND OBJECTS THAT YOU HAVE IN FACT IN FRONT OF YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU TRY TO COMPARE IT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE THE NUMBERS CORRECT?

A: WE DO COMPARE IT.

Q: YOU DO COMPARE, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT'S THE POINT OF IT?

A: YES.

Q: SO THAT BOTH YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA ARE CLEAR ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE RECEIVED, YOU THINK YOU'VE RECEIVED BASED ON YOUR NOTES AND BASED ON YOUR OWN RECOLLECTION AND EVERYTHING THAT YOU ACTUALLY HAVE RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU?

A: WE COMPARE OUR NOTES TO THE EVIDENCE TO SEE THAT THEY COINCIDE.

Q: AND YOU DID THIS INVENTORY AFTER YOU FINISHED THE FIRST TIME AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU DID THIS INVENTORY AFTER YOU FINISHED AT BUNDY?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU DID THIS SAME KIND OF INVENTORY AFTER YOU FINISHED AT ROCKINGHAM IN THE AFTERNOON?

A: YES.

Q: I'M TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM THE INVENTORY. DID YOU MAKE THE DECISION TO CLOSE DOWN THE CRIME SCENE AT BUNDY?

A: I DECIDED WHEN I WOULD LEAVE. I DIDN'T KNOW IF THEY WERE GOING TO KEEP IT ROPED OFF OR BARRICADED OFF FOR ADDITIONAL USE --

Q: WELL --

A: -- OR INVESTIGATION.

Q: WHEN YOU -- DID YOU COMMUNICATE WITH ANYONE THAT YOU HAD FINISHED YOUR SEARCHING AT BUNDY AT AROUND 3:00 IN THE AFTERNOON?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHO DID YOU TELL THAT TO?

A: THERE WAS AN OFFICER AT THE SCENE WHO I TOLD THAT I WAS READY TO LEAVE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND DID YOU INDICATE TO THAT OFFICER THAT YOU WERE -- EXCUSE ME -- INTENDING TO COME BACK FOR MORE SEARCHINGS?

A: I DID NOT SAY THAT TO HIM.

Q: YOU DIDN'T GIVE HIM ANY INSTRUCTIONS TO KEEP THE BARRICADES UP?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND IN YOUR CRIME SCENE CHECKLIST, SIR, IS THERE NOT A SPECIFIC BOX THAT INDICATES WHETHER OR NOT YOU FAILED TO LOCATE ITEMS?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO FILL OUT WHEN YOU COMPLETE A SEARCH?

A: THAT IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE FILLED OUT.

Q: IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU THINK WELL, WE CONDUCTED A SEARCH, BUT MAYBE WE FAILED TO LOCATE ITEMS, THERE'S A BOX HERE THAT YOU FILL OUT TO BRING THAT TO THE ATTENTION OF YOURSELF AND YOUR SUPERVISORS?

A: IF IT'S NEEDED, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU DID NOT FILL THAT OUT WITH RESPECT TO THE BUNDY LOCATION, THAT THERE WAS A LIST OF FAILURE TO LOCATE ITEMS THAT PEOPLE SHOULD PAY ATTENTION TO?

A: THERE WAS NOT A NEED TO DO THAT.

Q: BECAUSE AS FAR AS YOU WERE CONCERNED, YOU HAD NOT FAILED TO LOCATE ANY PARTICULAR ITEMS?

A: NO. IT WAS WELL KNOWN WHAT WAS MISSING.

Q: WELL, WHAT WAS MISSING?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

THE WITNESS: THERE --

THE COURT: GO AHEAD.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT'S IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THERE WAS A WEAPON THAT WAS MISSING.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. ASIDE FROM THE WEAPON, AS FAR AS YOU KNEW, IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO BE COLLECTING AT BUNDY, YOU HAD LOCATED EVERYTHING YOU THOUGHT YOU HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED TO COLLECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND AGAIN, YOU WANT TO DO MORE THAN JUST WHAT THE DETECTIVES TELL YOU. YOU WANT TO CONDUCT YOUR OWN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF THE SCENE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE LEAVING NO RELEVANT EVIDENCE BEHIND WHEN YOU LEAVE THAT SCENE?

A: IF I SEE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT NEEDS TO BE COLLECTED, I WILL DO SO.

Q: WELL, BEFORE YOU LEAVE THE SCENE, DO YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'VE BEEN AS THOROUGH AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN AND YOU HAVEN'T LEFT ANYTHING BEHIND?

A: I ATTEMPT TO DO THAT, YES.

Q: AND ISN'T IT STANDARD PROCEDURE TO CALL ALL THE PEOPLE THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THE SEARCH AND HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE REALLY DONE?

A: IT'S NOT STANDARD.

Q: IS THAT SOMETHING YOU DO?

A: OCCASIONALLY I WILL DO THAT.

Q: SOMETHING THAT YOU'VE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO DO?

A: NEVER BEEN INSTRUCTED TO DO THAT.

Q: NOW, THERE'S EVEN A BOX ON YOUR CRIME SCENE CHECKLIST THAT INDICATES, "ARE ADDITIONAL SEARCHES NEEDED? IF YES, WHAT AND WHERE"?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU DIDN'T FILL THAT OUT WITH RESPECT TO BUNDY?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: BECAUSE AS FAR AS YOU WERE CONCERNED, THERE WERE NO ADDITIONAL SEARCHES NEEDED?

A: THAT'S NOT TRUE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 3 OF YOUR CRIME SCENE CHECKLIST WITH RESPECT TO BUNDY, NOW, THE -- CAN YOU SEE IN THE MONITOR THERE WHEN IT SAYS, "LIST FAILURE TO LOCATE ITEMS"?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU WROTE NEXT TO THAT?

A: CAN'T MAKE IT OUT ON THAT. LET'S SEE. WHAT PAGE IS THAT ON? N/A WAS WRITTEN BY THIS.

Q: AND THAT STANDS FOR WHAT?

A: NOT APPLICABLE.

Q: AND THAT MEANS AS FAR AS YOU WERE CONCERNED, THERE WERE NO ITEMS THAT YOU HAD FAILED TO LOCATE OTHER THAN WHAT YOU'VE JUST TOLD US BEFORE, THE KNIFE?

A: ACCORDING TO -- THAT WAS FILLED IN ON THE CHECKLIST THAT WAY.

Q: AND YOU SEARCHED AS HARD AS YOU POSSIBLY COULD IN THE AREA OF BUNDY FOR THE KNIFE, A KNIFE OR KNIVES?

A: THE AREA WAS SEARCHED. I DID NOT CONDUCT A COMPLETE SEARCH OF THE ENTIRE AREA THAT WAS SEARCHED.

Q: WELL, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WERE OTHER PEOPLE SENT OUT TO DO SEARCHING?

MR. GOLDBERG: THIS CALLS FOR HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THAT IS UNDER THE -- THAT IS THE OFFICER'S IN CHARGE OF THE SCENE RESPONSIBILITY. THAT'S NOT MY DUTY.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: I UNDERSTAND. BUT TO YOUR -- WAS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING AND WAS IT YOUR PERCEPTION AT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE ASSIGNED ONE AREA OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE TO SEARCH FOR A KNIFE AND THAT OTHER PEOPLE WERE CONDUCTING OTHER SEARCHES IN YOUR PRESENCE FOR A KNIFE?

MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR HEARSAY, SPECULATION AND NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. THAT'S PART OF THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: MY DIRECTIONS WERE TO COLLECT ITEMS OF EVIDENCE IN THE CAGE AREA, COLLECT STAINS ALONG A -- THE PATHWAY NORTH OF THE HOUSE AND TO MEASURE SHOEPRINTS ALONG THE NORTH WALKWAY OF THE HOUSE.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, DID NOT YOUR ASSIGNMENT INCLUDE LOOKING FOR ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE THAT YOU COULD FIND FROM THE FRONT OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY, THE AREA WHERE THE BODIES WERE FOUND, ALL THE WAY OUT PAST THE REAR GATE WHERE STAINS WERE COLLECTED?

MR. GOLDBERG: VAGUE AS TO HOW FAR PAST THE REAR GATE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: HOW FAR -- LET'S GO UP TO THE REAR GATE. WOULD YOU SAY IT WAS PART OF YOUR ASSIGNMENT TO LOOK FOR RELEVANT EVIDENCE FROM THE FRONT OF THE CRIME SCENE WHERE THE BODIES WERE FOUND TO THE REAR GATE?

A: THAT WAS -- WHAT I DESCRIBED PREVIOUSLY WAS WHAT DETECTIVE LANGE TOLD ME.

Q: I UNDERSTAND.

A: THE -- IF I HAD FOUND ADDITIONAL ITEMS OF EVIDENCE, THEN THAT WOULD ALSO BE UNDER MY RESPONSIBILITY ALSO.

Q: I UNDERSTAND. WHAT I'M ASKING YOU, SIR, IS, AS YOU WERE CONDUCTING YOUR INVESTIGATION ON JUNE 13TH, WERE YOU NOT LOOKING ON YOUR OWN IN THIS AREA FOR RELEVANT ITEMS OF EVIDENCE?

A: YES.

Q: IF YOU SAW A STAIN THAT DETECTIVE LANGE DIDN'T TELL YOU ABOUT THAT LOOKED LIKE IT MIGHT BE IMPORTANT, YOU WOULD HAVE PHOTOGRAPHED IT, HAD IT PHOTOGRAPHED?

A: YES.

Q: YOU WOULD HAVE HAD IT SWATCHED, COLLECTED?

A: POSSIBLY.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU FINISHED THAT CRIME SCENE AND NOW DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE CRIME SCENE CHECKLIST, THERE IS THAT BOX THAT SAYS, "ADDITIONAL SEARCHES NEEDED? IF YES, WHAT AND WHERE"?

A: YES.

Q: AND THIS WAS NOT FILLED OUT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND SO WHEN YOU LEFT THAT BUNDY CRIME SCENE, AS FAR AS YOU WERE CONCERNED, THERE WERE NO ADDITIONAL SEARCHES NEEDED; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: WE -- I KNEW THAT WE HAD TO RETURN TO ROCKINGHAM.

Q: WELL, WHEN YOU LEFT, DID YOU EXPECT THAT IT WAS A VERY GOOD CHANCE THEY WERE GOING TO TEAR DOWN THE YELLOW TAPE AND LET THE PUBLIC APPROACH THE CRIME SCENE AREA?

A: I KNEW THEY WOULD TEAR DOWN THE CRIME SCENE AT SOME POINT.

Q: DID IT COME TO YOUR ATTENTION ON JUNE 13TH THAT THE CRIME SCENE TAPE WAS TORN DOWN AND MANY, MANY PEOPLE APPROACHED THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE LOCATION IN BOTH THE FRONT AND IN THE REAR?

A: I DID BECOME AWARE OF IT AT A LATER DATE.

Q: AND WHEN DID YOU BECOME AWARE OF IT?

A: ON THE NEWS.

Q: YOU SAW FOOTAGE ON THE NEWS OF PEOPLE APPROACHING THE FRONT AND BACK OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE AREA?

MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S IRRELEVANT. THERE'S NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH ABOUT THAT?

THE COURT: HE HAS NO IDEA WHEN THE VIDEOTAPE WAS TAKEN WE SAW.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHEN DID YOU SEE A VIDEOTAPE OF PEOPLE IN THE FRONT AND THE REAR OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE?

MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S IRRELEVANT, WHETHER HE SAW SUCH A VIDEOTAPE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL WHEN.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, WAS IT WITHIN THE DAY OF THE SEARCH BETWEEN JUNE 13TH AND JUNE 14TH?

A: I DON'T RECALL.

Q: WELL, DO YOU RECALL SOMEBODY CALLING TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT LOTS OF PEOPLE HAD APPROACHED AND TOUCHED THE AREA OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE, FRONT AND BACK AREA?

THE COURT: COUNSEL, WE'VE ALREADY ESTABLISHED WHEN THE CRIME SCENE WAS BROKEN DOWN AND WHEN MR. FUNG WENT BACK DOWNTOWN. SO --

MR. SCHECK: JUST TRYING TO ASCERTAIN.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WAS THE VIDEOTAPE YOU SAW ON TELEVISION WITHIN A DAY OR TWO OF WHEN YOU CLOSED DOWN THAT CRIME SCENE?

MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: COULD HAVE BEEN?

A: POSSIBLY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. CERTAINLY WASN'T MORE THAN A WEEK AFTERWARDS, RIGHT?

A: IT MAY HAVE BEEN.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHEN YOU CLOSED DOWN THE CRIME SCENE, AS FAR AS YOU WERE CONCERNED, NO ADDITIONAL SEARCHES WERE NEEDED, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S NOT WHAT I STATED.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL, YOU JUST DECIDED NOT TO FILL OUT THE FORM?

A: IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO FILL THAT PORTION OUT.

Q: DID YOU GO TO SOMEBODY AND SAY, "WE REALLY OUGHT TO GO BACK AND CONTINUE SEARCHING THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE AREA BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE GOT EVERYTHING"?

A: I NEVER SAID THAT TO ANYBODY.

Q: DID YOU GO BACK TO DETECTIVE LANGE AND COMPARE NOTES WITH HIM AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU COLLECTED EVERYTHING HE ASKED YOU TO COLLECT?

A: I DIDN'T DO THAT, NO.

Q: NOW --

THE COURT: YOU WANT TO MARK THAT?

MR. SCHECK: YES, AS 1093, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: 1093.

(DEFT'S 1093 FOR ID = CRIME SCENE CHECKLIST)

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

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

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU FILLED -- A DIAGRAM WAS FILLED OUT OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE BY YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA ON JUNE 13TH?

A: YES.

Q: IT WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN ON THE BACK OF THE EVIDENCE COLLECTION PAGE; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO MARK THIS DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER.

THE COURT: 1094.

(DEFT'S 1094 FOR ID = DIAGRAM)

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. GOLDBERG: I THINK THEY PUT IT ON BACKWARDS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: HARD TO TELL FROM THIS MONITOR. MR. SCHECK.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YES. NOW, THIS DIAGRAM IS -- PROJECTED TO THE LEFT IS THE FRONT OF THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE, THE FRONT OF 875 IF YOU LOOK AT IT ON THE BOARD THERE?

A: NO. IT'S UPSIDE DOWN, BUT YES.

Q: AND MOVING TO THE RIGHT, THAT IS HEADING TOWARDS THE REAR GATE IN THE ALLEY?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, COULD YOU POINT OUT FOR US --

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I'LL OBJECT TO THE DIAGRAM BEING ORIENTED THIS WAY BECAUSE IT'S VERY CONFUSING.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL --

THE WITNESS: ONE MORE TURN, ONE MORE QUARTER TURN.

MR. SCHECK: NO, NO, NO. WANT TO DO IT THAT WAY?

THE WITNESS: WELL, THERE IS A NORTH -- THE VERY RIGHT OF IT.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: HOW ABOUT THAT?

A: NO. ONE MORE TURN. THERE.

Q: WANT TO DO IT THAT WAY? ALL RIGHT. NOW, IF WE COULD -- SO TO THE RIGHT, AS WE LOOK AT THE SCREEN, THAT'S TO THE FRONT OF 875 WHERE THE BODIES WERE FOUND?

A: YES.

Q: AND AS WE MOVE TO THE LEFT, THAT'S MOVING TOWARDS THE REAR GATE?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE WAY THAT THIS DIAGRAM IS WRITTEN, WITHIN THE CIRCLES, YOU'VE INDICATED PHOTO IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT'S BECAUSE THE -- AT THE TIME THIS DIAGRAM WAS MADE, THE ONLY IDENTIFYING MARKS YOU HAD WERE THESE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, YOU BEGAN COLLECTING THE BLOOD DROPS THAT WERE IN PROXIMITY TO SHOEPRINTS AT WHAT POINT? WHAT WAS THE FIRST PHOTO ID NUMBER?

A: THAT WAS IN PROXIMITY TO --

Q: TO SHOEPRINTS?

A: TO SHOEPRINTS ALONG THE TRIAL.

Q: YES. WHAT YOU'RE CALLING A TRAIL?

A: THAT WOULD BE PHOTO ID NO. 112. WOULD YOU LIKE THE ITEM NUMBER?

Q: NO. PHOTO -- ALL RIGHT. PHOTO ITEM 112, THAT WOULD BE ITEM 47?

A: YES.

Q: AND COULD YOU -- COULD YOU GUIDE MR. HARRIS WITH THE ARROW TO WHERE 112 IS ON THIS DIAGRAM? HE'S GOT IT. SEE THAT DOT?

A: MORE TO THE LEFT, THE OTHER LEFT, MORE, MORE, MORE, STOP, UP, THERE (INDICATING).

MR. SCHECK: OKAY. COULD WE JUST INDICATE 112 THERE? CAN WE WRITE 112 THERE? I'LL TELL YOU WHAT. INSTEAD OF CALLING IT 112, WHY DON'T WE MARK IT A.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND THAT'S THE FIRST ONE YOU COLLECTED ON WHAT YOU'RE CALLING A TRAIL, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHERE IS PHOTO NO. 113?

A: THAT WOULD BE TO THE LEFT OF 1 -- OF A AND SLIGHTLY HIGHER.

Q: COULD YOU DIRECT THE ARROW TO IT?

A: LEFT, TOO MUCH, RIGHT THERE (INDICATING).

Q: OKAY. LET'S CALL THAT B. AND 113 CORRESPONDS WITH ITEM NO. 48?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, SHOW US NO. 114 THAT CORRESPONDS WITH ITEM NO. -- WITH BLOOD DROP NO. 49?

A: TO THE LEFT AND HIGHER, LITTLE BIT HIGHER. NO. LITTLE MORE TO YOUR LEFT. RIGHT THERE (INDICATING).

Q: LET'S MARK THAT C. NOW, YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA WERE COLLECTING THESE IN ORDER ON 112, 113, 114 THAT ARE REFLECTED IN A, B AND C?

A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES.

Q: AND YOU'RE MOVING TOWARDS THE REAR AS YOU DO IT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU WERE FOLLOWING DETECTIVE LANGE'S INSTRUCTIONS?

A: YES.

Q: LET'S MOVE TO ITEM NO. 115 THAT WOULD CORRESPOND WITH NO. 50. WHERE IS THAT IN THIS DIAGRAM?

A: TO THE LEFT, UP, LITTLE MORE TO THE LEFT. RIGHT THERE (INDICATING).

Q: OKAY. LET'S MARK THAT D. ALL RIGHT.

NOW, THE NEXT ONE THAT YOU COLLECTED WOULD BE NO. 116, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND NO. 115, HOW FAR AWAY IS NO. 115 FROM THE REAR GATE?

A: I HAVEN'T MADE THAT MEASUREMENT.

MR. SCHECK: CAN WE PULL THE DIAGRAM A LITTLE TO THE LEFT? IS THAT --

THE COURT: WELL, THE PROBLEM IS, WE HAVE JUST DISORIENTED ALL THE MARKINGS THEN.

MR. SCHECK: CAN WE ASK WE PRINT THIS ONE OUT THEN? THEN WE'LL MOVE IT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WOULD YOU AGREE, WHILE THIS IS BEING PRINTED OUT, THAT THE LINE TO THE LEFT OF D WOULD BE IN THE AREA OF THE REAR GATE?

A: IT COULD BE. I'M NOT POSITIVE.

Q: WASN'T BLOOD DROP NO. 50 THAT CORRESPONDS WITH ITEM NO. 115 FOUND ON THAT LAST TOP LANDING ON THE SAME LEVEL AS THE REAR GATE?

A: YES.

Q: AND IT'S JUST A FEW FEET AWAY FROM THAT REAR GATE?

A: IT'S -- HAVEN'T MEASURED IT, BUT IT'S CLOSE.

Q: AND ITEM NO. 52 WHICH CORRESPONDS TO PHOTO ITEM NO. 117 IS FOUND BEYOND THE REAR GATE?

A: YES.

Q: JUST A FEW FEET BEYOND THAT REAR GATE?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU SAY -- YOU SAY ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU DON'T RECALL DETECTIVE LANGE DIRECTING YOU TO LOOK AT THAT REAR GATE FOR BLOOD DROPS?

A: I DON'T RECALL HIM SPECIFICALLY TELLING ME TO DO SO, NO.

Q: DO YOU RECALL HIM TELLING YOU ANYTHING ABOUT TAKING BLOOD DROPS OFF A GATE?

A: I DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC RECOLLECTION OF HIM HAVING MENTIONED BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE.

Q: WELL, OFF ANY GATE?

A: OFF ANY GATE?

Q: YEAH. DO YOU REMEMBER HIM SAYING SOMETHING ABOUT, "MAKE SURE TO GET BLOOD DROPS OFF A GATE," SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT?

A: I DON'T RECALL HIM SAYING THAT EITHER.

Q: HE MIGHT HAVE?

A: HE MIGHT HAVE.

Q: NOW -- AND HE MIGHT HAVE TOLD YOU TO LOOK AT THE REAR GATE, RIGHT?

A: THAT'S POSSIBLE.

Q: NOW, WHY DON'T YOU SHOW US WHERE ITEM NO. 116 IS ON THIS DIAGRAM THAT YOU COLLECTED ON JUNE 13TH.

A: PHOTO NO. 116?

Q: PHOTO NO. 116.

A: OR ITEM NUMBER?

Q: PHOTO NO. 116 WHICH CORRESPONDS TO ITEM NO. 51.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I'LL OBJECT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE THE WHOLE DIAGRAM.

MR. SCHECK: I THINK IF HE EXAMINES THE DIAGRAM, YOUR HONOR, HE'LL FIND IT.

THE COURT: CAN YOU SEE IT ON THE DIAGRAM, MR. FUNG?

THE WITNESS: I KNOW WHERE IT IS FROM MINE. IT'S NOT VERY CLEAR ON THIS.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, COULD YOU DIRECT THE POINTER TO THE CIRCLE WHERE THAT IS?

A: YES. TO THE RIGHT. MORE, MORE, DOWN, RIGHT -- MORE. RIGHT THERE (INDICATING).

Q: LET'S MARK THAT E. NOW, THAT PHOTO NO. 116 THAT CORRESPONDS TO ITEM NO. 51 ARE STAINS ON THE FRONT GATE?

A: FRONT GATE AREA.

Q: AND JUST TO GET THE ORDER RIGHT, YOU DID A, B, C AND D AS DEPICTED IN THIS DIAGRAM, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: THEN YOU WENT ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE FRONT TO GET SOMETHING OFF A GATE WHICH IS MARKED AS E THAT CORRESPONDS TO PHOTOGRAPH NO. 116, ITEM NO. 51?

A GENERALLY, THAT WE DO OUR CRIME SCENE OR OUR COLLECTION IN ORDER. IT'S NOT AN STEADFAST RULE THOUGH, BUT GENERALLY WE DO.

Q: WELL, YOU CERTAINLY WOULD WANT TO KEEP THE PHOTO ID NUMBERS IN ORDER HERE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE USING TO KEEP TRACK OF THE SAMPLES?

A: IN ORDER IN WHAT REGARD?

Q: IN ORDER OF COLLECTION?

A: WHAT KEPT THE SAMPLES IN ORDER WAS THAT AS WE COLLECTED EACH SAMPLE, WE COLLECT THEM ONE AT A TIME AND LABEL THE PHOTO ID NUMBER ONTO THE COIN ENVELOPE AND PLACE THE SAMPLE THAT WE HAVE JUST COLLECTED THAT'S BEEN LABELED IN THAT ENVELOPE. THAT'S WHAT KEEPS TRACK OF THE SAMPLE.

Q: ON JUNE 13TH, YOU COLLECTED 112, WHICH IS 47, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: THEN YOU DID 113, WHICH IS 48?

A: YES.

Q: THEN YOU DID 114, PHOTO NO. 114, WHICH IS SAMPLE 49?

A: YES.

Q: THEN YOU GOT SAMPLE NO. 50 JUST NEAR THE BACK REAR GATE?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEN YOU WENT AND YOU DID SAMPLE 51 AT THE FRONT GATE?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS THE EXACT ORDER.

Q: WELL, ISN'T THAT THE WAY YOUR NOTES REFLECT THE ORDER OF COLLECTION?

A: I'VE JUST TOLD YOU THAT GENERALLY --

Q: IS THAT THE WAY YOUR NOTES REFLECT THE ORDER OF COLLECTION?

MR. GOLDBERG: IT ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE, THAT HIS NOTES REFLECT ORDER, ORDER OF COLLECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THE ORDER OF COLLECTION AND THE -- THE PHOTO ID NUMBERS ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE TIMES, A LINEAR THING.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AFTER E OR 116 OR ITEM NO. 51, THE NEXT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IS 117, WHICH CORRESPONDS TO DROP NO. 52?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S TO THE LEFT OF D BECAUSE THAT'S IN THE REAR?

A: YES.

Q: AND ISN'T WHAT HAPPENED, MR. FUNG, IS THAT YOU DID 112, 113, 114, 115, YOU TOOK A LOOK AT THE REAR GATE, YOU DIDN'T SEE ANY BLOODSTAINS AND THEN YOU WENT TO THE FRONT GATE BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE YOU SAW THE BLOODSTAINS?

A: THAT'S --

Q: THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED?

A: NO, BECAUSE I LAY OUT MY -- I LAY OUT MY NUMBERS PRIOR TO COLLECTION GENERALLY SPEAKING.

Q: NOW, YOU WERE SHOWN BY THE PROSECUTION A CLOSE-UP OF THE REAR GATE AS TAKEN ON JUNE 13TH?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT WAS EXHIBIT NO. 166-A. REMEMBER THAT?

A: I REMEMBER A PHOTOGRAPH.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, WHILE MR. HARRIS IS DOING THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO MARK THE PAGE OF THE VEHICLE -- OF THE CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION CHECKLIST AS 1094 -- THE DIAGRAM. I'M SORRY -- AND THE PRINTOUT WITH ARROWS WILL BE MARKED 1094-A.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO MARKED.

(DEFT'S 1094-A FOR ID = PRINTOUT)

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, ON DIRECT EXAMINATION, LOOKING AT THAT, THIS PHOTOGRAPH, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU SAW A BLOOD DROP WHICH YOU SAID CORRESPONDED WITH WHAT YOU SAW, ONE OF THE DROPS YOU SAW ON JULY 3RD?

A: THERE IS A MARK THERE THAT IS -- THAT CORRESPONDS TO IT, YES.

Q: THERE'S A MARK THERE THAT COULD YOU THINK BE THE BLOOD DROP YOU SAW ON JULY 3RD, MARK IN THIS PICTURE?

A: COULD YOU REPEAT THAT AGAIN?

Q: YEAH. DIDN'T YOU TELL US ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU, LOOKING AT THIS PICTURE, SAW A MARK HERE ON THE GATE WHICH YOU THOUGHT COULD CORRESPOND TO A BLOOD DROP THAT YOU SAW ON JULY 3RD?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT BLOOD DROP WAS DESIGNATED ON JULY 3RD TO BE ITEM NO. 115 IN THIS CASE AND IT ALSO BORE A PHOTO IDENTIFICATION MARK OF 115?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT YOU SAW ON JULY 6 -- JULY 3RD THERE WAS ALSO A BLOOD DROP THAT WAS MARKED 116?

A: YES.

MR. SCHECK: MR. HARRIS, COULD WE SHOW THAT?

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU SEE WHAT IS MARKED AS 116?

A: YES.

Q: AS A BLOOD DROP ON THE REAR GATE?

A: YES.

Q: THAT'S WHAT YOU SAW ON JULY 3RD?

A: YES.

Q: LET'S LOOK BACK AT THE PICTURE OF THE GATE ON JUNE 13TH. WHERE IS IT, MR. FUNG?

A: I CAN'T SEE IT IN THE PIC -- PHOTOGRAPH.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I THINK THAT'S --

THE COURT: YOU ABOUT TO SHIFT GEARS?

MR. SCHECK: REALLY AM.

THE COURT: I MEAN WE'VE GOT THREE MINUTES.

MR. SCHECK: YOU WANT ME TO SHIFT GEARS FOR THREE MINUTES?

THE COURT: SHIFT GEARS.

MR. SCHECK: LET ME ASK MR. BLASIER FOR A GEAR SHIFTING --

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I SEE THE LAWYERS FROM MY 4:30 CALENDAR HERE. ALL RIGHT.

MR. SCHECK: LAST QUESTION.

THE COURT: LAST QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU KNOW OF ANY OTHER PICTURES TAKEN OF THAT REAR GATE ON JUNE 13TH THAT SHOW ANYTHING THAT CAN CORRESPOND TO BLOOD DROP NO. 116?

A: ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE PHOTO ITEM OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE ITEM NUMBER?

Q: I'M TALKING ABOUT THE ITEM NO. 116, THE BLOOD DROP THAT YOU SAW ON JULY 3RD.

A: A PHOTOGRAPH FROM JUNE 13TH?

Q: YES. THIS IS THE BEST WE CAN DO OF THAT GATE AREA?

A: THAT'S THE BEST PHOTOGRAPH THAT I'M AWARE OF.

Q: AND ON JULY 3RD, YOU SAW BLOOD ON THE MESH OF THE GATE THAT YOU COLLECTED THAT BECAME ITEM NO. 117?

A: YES.

Q: AND HAVE YOU SEEN ANY PICTURES TAKEN ON JUNE 13TH THAT DISPLAY ANYTHING IN THE AREA OF WHAT YOU SAW AS ITEM 117 ON JULY 3RD?

A: I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY.

MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE AFTERNOON. PLEASE REMEMBER ALL OF MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU; DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DO NOT ALLOW ANYBODY TO CONTACT OR COMMUNICATE WITH YOU, DO NOT CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. AS TO THIS MATTER, WE'LL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL TOMORROW MORNING AT 9:00 O'CLOCK. MR. FUNG, YOU ARE ORDERED TO RETURN TOMORROW MORNING AT 9:00 O'CLOCK.

(AT 4:30 P.M., AN ADJOURNMENT WAS TAKEN UNTIL, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

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

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
)
PLAINTIFF, )
)
) VS. ) NO. BA097211
)
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, )
)
)
DEFENDANT. )

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 1995
VOLUME 123

PAGES 22092 THROUGH 22337, INCLUSIVE
(PAGES 22338 THROUGH 22342, INCLUSIVE, SEALED)

APPEARANCES: (SEE PAGE 2)

JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR #4588
CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR #2378 OFFICIAL REPORTERS

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PEOPLE: GIL GARCETTI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
BY: MARCIA R. CLARK, WILLIAM W.
HODGMAN, CHRISTOPHER A. DARDEN,
CHERI A. LEWIS, ROCKNE P. HARMON,
GEORGE W. CLARKE, SCOTT M. GORDON
LYDIA C. BODIN, HANK M. GOLDBERG,
ALAN YOCHELSON AND DARRELL S.
MAVIS, BRIAN R. KELBERG, AND
KENNETH E. LYNCH, DEPUTIES
18-000 CRIMINAL COURTS BUILDING
210 WEST TEMPLE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012

FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT L. SHAPIRO, ESQUIRE
SARA L. CAPLAN, ESQUIRE
2121 AVENUE OF THE STARS
19TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067

JOHNNIE L. COCHRAN, JR., ESQUIRE
BY: CARL E. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE
SHAWN SNIDER CHAPMAN, ESQUIRE
4929 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 1010
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010

GERALD F. UELMEN, ESQUIRE
ROBERT KARDASHIAN, ESQUIRE
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, ESQUIRE
F. LEE BAILEY, ESQUIRE
BARRY SCHECK, ESQUIRE
PETER NEUFELD, ESQUIRE
ROBERT D. BLASIER, ESQUIRE
WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, ESQUIRE

I N D E X

INDEX FOR VOLUME 123 PAGES 22092 - 22337

-----------------------------------------------------

DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.

TUESDAY APRIL 11, 1995 A.M. 22092 123
P.M. 22221 123

LEGEND:

MS. CLARK - MC
MR. HODGMAN - H
MR. DARDEN D
MS. LEWIS - L
MS. KAHN - K
MR. GOLDBERG - GB
MR. GORDON - G
MR. SHAPIRO - S
MR. COCHRAN - C
MR. DOUGLAS - CD
MR. BAILEY - B
MS. CHAPMAN - SC
MR. UELMEN - U
MR. SCHECK - BS
MR. NEUFELD - N
-----------------------------------------------------

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

PEOPLE'S
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.

FUNG, DENNIS 123
ARTHUR
(RESUMED) 22106BS
(RESUMED) 22223BS

-----------------------------------------------------

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.

FUNG, DENNIS 123
ARTHUR
(RESUMED) 22106BS
(RESUMED) 22223BS

EXHIBITS

DEFENSE FOR IN EXHIBIT IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.

1078 - VIDEOTAPE OF 22109 123
COLELCTION OF EVIDENCE AT THE CRIME SCENE

1079 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 22115 123
GROUND AT THE CRIME SCENE

1080 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 22121 123
THE GROUND AT THE CRIME SCENE (SIDE-BY-SIDE)

1081 - 1-PAGE DOCUMENT 22129 123
IDENTIFIED AS A CHECKLIST

1082 - VIDEOTAPE OF 22137 123
THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE AT THE CRIME SCENE

1082-A - PHOTOGRAPH OF 22146 123
DENNIS FUNG AT THE CRIME SCENE
(COMPUTER PRINTOUT)

1083 - VIDEOTAPE OF 22161 123
THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE AT THE CRIME SCENE

1083-A - PHOTOGRAPH OF 22163 123
A PAIR OF LEGS ON THE STAIRS AT THE CRIME SCENE
(COMPUTER PRINTOUT)

1084 - 3-PAGE DOCUMENT 22177 123
ENTITLED "COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION OF CRIME
SCENE BODY FLUIDS"

1085 - 1-PAGE DOCUMENT 22235 123
IDENTIFIED AS A VEHICLE CHECKLIST DATED
JUNE 28, 1994

1086 - 1-PAGE DOCUMENT 22235 123
IDENTIFIED AS A VEHICLE CHECKLIST DATED
JUNE 14, 1994

1087 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 22250 123
THE LEFT SIDE OF THE CONSOLE IN A
BRONCO VEHICLE

1088 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 22256 123
THE CONSOLE IN A BRONCO VEHICLE

1089 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 22280 123
THE STAIRWELL AT 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM

EXHIBITS
(CONTINUED)

DEFENSE FOR IN EXHIBIT IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.

1090 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 22280 123
THE UPSTAIRS HALLWAY AT 360 NORTH ROCKINGHAM

1091 - 1-PAGE DOCUMENT 22310 123
ENTITLED "EVIDENCE COLLECTION SHEET"

1092 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 22311 123
WITNESS DENNIS FUNG INSIDE A BRONCO
VEHICLE WITH A FLASHLIGHT

1093 - 1-PAGE DOCUMENT 22323 123
IDENTIFIED AS A CHECKLIST

1094 - 2-PAGE DOCUMENT 22324 123
IDENTIFIED AS A DIAGRAM AND AN EVIDENCE
COLLECTION SHEET

1094-A - 1-PAGE DIAGRAM 22333 123
WITH RED ARROWS