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 F