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

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

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

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

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

THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS PRESENT AGAIN BEFORE THE COURT WITH HIS COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. BLASIER, MR. SCHECK. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MR. DARDEN AND MR. GOLDBERG. COUNSEL, ANYTHING WE NEED TO CHAT ABOUT?

MR. GOLDBERG: YES, YOUR HONOR. WE WANTED TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE OF THE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST YESTERDAY AFTERNOON.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S DO THAT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION. ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I'M SORRY, THERE WAS ONE OTHER ISSUE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP. IT WON'T TAKE THAT LONG. I NOTICED THAT DURING MR. FUNG'S CROSS-EXAMINATION THERE APPEAR TO BE REACTIONS COMING FROM THE AUDIENCE. I CAN'T TELL EXACTLY WHERE THEY ARE COMING FROM, BUT THEY ARE CLEARLY AUDIBLE, AND I WOULD ASK THAT THE COURT TRY TO PUT AN END TO THAT.

THE COURT: THERE WERE TWO RATHER SHORT REACTIONS TO TWO SECTIONS; THAT'S CORRECT, ALL RIGHT, BUT THEY WERE BRIEF AND THEY ENDED IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT ANY ACTION BY THE COURT.

MR. GOLDBERG: I JUST ASK THAT THE COURT ADMONISH THE AUDIENCE THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO NOISE, NO REACTION DURING THE EXAMINATION OF ANY WITNESS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I THINK THE COURT'S ORDER IS ALREADY IN PLACE AND I THINK THE AUDIENCE IS AWARE OF THEIR OBLIGATIONS. ALL RIGHT. LET'S PROCEED.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

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

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

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: MR. FUNG, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE.

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

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

THE WITNESS: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. MR. FUNG IS UNDERGOING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK. MR. SCHECK, YOU MAY CONTINUE AND CONCLUDE YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION.

MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. 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 TODAY, SIR?

A: GOOD MORNING.

Q: MR. FUNG, JUST TO RETURN BRIEFLY TO ONE POINT, YOU RECALL THAT WE DISCUSSED BARRY FISHER'S BOOK "TECHNIQUES OF CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION"?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU INDICATED THAT YOU WERE FAMILIAR WITH AT LEAST ONE EDITION OF THIS BOOK?

A: PORTIONS OF ONE EDITION, YES.

Q: AND THAT YOU HAD CONSIDERED THIS TEXT IN THE FORMATION OF YOUR OPINIONS AS A CRIMINALIST?

A: YES.

MR. GOLDBERG: THAT MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: I WOULD LIKE TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION, SIR, TO A PASSAGE THAT I COULD NOT FIND YESTERDAY WITH RESPECT TO FISHER'S VIEWS ON THE COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION OF BLOOD STAINS. AND I CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE FIRST PARAGRAPH HERE ON PAGE 227.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU SHOWN THAT TO COUNSEL?

MR. SCHECK: I THINK HE HAS THE BOOK.

MR. GOLDBERG: MAY I HAVE A MOMENT?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY. WHY DON'T YOU TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY, MR. FUNG, YOU CAN READ THE PARAGRAPH AND SEE IF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THAT.

MR. GOLDBERG: WHAT PAGE, COUNSEL?

MR. SCHECK: 227.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, YOU AGREE THAT THIS IS A SECTION IN FISHER CONCERNING THE COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION OF BLOOD STAINS?

A: YES.

Q: AND FISHER STATES THAT "OF ALL THE COMMON TYPES OF" --

MR. GOLDBERG: WAIT A MINUTE, YOUR HONOR. I WILL OBJECT. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT HE READ THIS EDITION.

THE COURT: FOUNDATIONAL OBJECTION?

MR. GOLDBERG: YES.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.

Q: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS PASSAGE IN THE FISHER BOOK IN THE EDITION THAT YOU READ?

A: I DON'T REMEMBER IT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU RECALL IN THE EDITION THAT YOU READ ANYTHING THAT FISHER SAID WITH RESPECT TO THE FACT THAT "IT IS A CERTAINTY THAT WET OR DAMP BLOOD STAINS PACKAGED IN AIRTIGHT CONTAINERS" --

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THERE IS A FOUNDATIONAL OBJECTION.

MR. SCHECK: OKAY.

Q: IN THE EDITION THAT YOU READ DO YOU RECALL MR. FISHER OFFERING A VIEW AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WET BLOOD STAINS OUGHT TO BE PACKAGED IN AIRTIGHT --

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. MR. FUNG, IN YOUR READING OF THIS BOOK, BARRY FISHER'S BOOK, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS PARTICULAR SECTION REGARDING THE COLLECTION OF BLOOD EVIDENCE?

THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL READING THIS PARTICULAR SECTION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU REVIEW IT HERE JUST NOW?

THE WITNESS: YES, I DID.

THE COURT: DID IT APPEAR FAMILIAR TO YOU AT ALL?

THE WITNESS: I HAVE READ SIMILAR TYPES OF THINGS BEFORE, BUT I'M NOT SURE IT IS FROM THAT BOOK.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. ARE THESE MATERIALS THAT YOU HAVE RELIED UPON IN FORMING YOUR OPINION IN EXPRESSING THE OPINIONS THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN IN TESTIMONY SO FAR?

THE WITNESS: YES.

THE COURT: PROCEED.

MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.

Q: UMM, DO YOU RECALL, IN THE EDITION OF FISHER THAT YOU READ, WHETHER MR. FISHER INDICATES THAT: "IT IS A CERTAINTY THAT WET OR DAMP BLOOD STAINS PACKAGED IN AIRTIGHT CONTAINERS SUCH AS PLASTIC BAGS WILL BE USELESS AS EVIDENCE IN A MATTER OF DAYS"?

A: I DON'T RECALL THAT, BUT THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS IN THIS BOOK.

Q: AND THAT: "ANY TYPE OF PRESERVATION TECHNIQUE THAT HASTENS PUTREFACTION SHOULD BE AVOIDED"?

A: YES.

Q: PUTREFACTION WOULD BE DEGRADATION?

A: YES.

Q: "THUS STORING BLOOD STAINS THAT ARE STILL DAMP IN AIRTIGHT CONTAINERS OR IN WARM ENVIRONMENTS WILL ACCELERATE DETERIORATION OF THE SPECIMEN"?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: "CONVERSELY, AN AIR DRIED SAMPLE STORED IN A PAPER BAG AT ROOM TEMPERATURE, OR BETTER, UNDER REFRIGERATION, WILL RETAIN ITS EVIDENTIARY USEFULNESS FOR A SIGNIFICANTLY LONGER PERIOD OF TIME"?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DO YOU AGREE WITH MR. FISHER?

A: MR. FISHER IS REFERRING TO FINAL PACKAGING IN THAT SECTION AND I DO AGREE WITH THAT.

Q: WELL, WHERE IN THIS PASSAGE DO YOU SEE ANY REFERENCE TO MR. FISHER SAYING THAT HIS ADMONITION AGAINST USING PLASTIC OR AIRTIGHT CONTAINERS ONLY APPLIES FOR FINAL PACKAGING?

A: WELL, IN THIS ONE PHRASE HERE IT SAYS, "WILL BE USELESS AS EVIDENCE IN A MATTER OF DAYS," THAT TO ME MEANS THAT THAT WOULD BE FINAL PACKAGING.

Q: WELL, IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH DOES NOT FISHER STATE: "ONCE BLOOD EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND, IT MUST BE COLLECTED AND PRESERVED IN SUCH A MANNER TO ACHIEVE MAXIMUM BENEFIT. ALL TOO OFTEN IMPROPER COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION OF THIS TYPE OF EVIDENCE MAKE THE CRIME LABORATORY'S WORK DIFFICULT AND SOMETIMES IMPOSSIBLE"?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH?

A: I DID COLLECT IT AND PRESERVE -- PRESERVE IT IN A MANNER TO MAXIMUM BENEFIT BY PUTTING IT IN PLASTIC AS AN INTERMEDIATE STEP TO PREVENT CONTAMINATION.

Q: DOES NOT FISHER INDICATE IN THIS PASSAGE THAT: "TO MAINTAIN THE MAXIMUM BENEFIT ONE SHOULD ATTEMPT TO AIR DRY THE SAMPLES AT THE SCENE"?

MR. GOLDBERG: I OBJECT. THAT MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REREAD THE PASSAGE.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DOES NOT FISHER BEGIN THIS WHOLE SECTION BY SAYING: "OF ALL THE COMMON TYPES OF EVIDENCE FOUND AT CRIME SCENES, BLOOD IS PERHAPS THE MOST FRAGILE. THE VALUE OF BLOOD STAINS FOR TYPING BEGINS TO DIMINISH ALMOST IMMEDIATELY"? YES?

A: YES.

Q: "THE STABILITY AND UTILITY OF BLOOD STAINS VARIES FROM SEVERAL DAYS TO MONTHS DEPENDING ON THE BLOOD GROUPING SYSTEM SOUGHT"?

A: YES.

Q: "NATURALLY, PROPER PRESERVATION PROCEDURES IMPROVE THE CHANCES OF DETERMINING BLOOD TYPES"?

A: YES.

Q: SO FROM READING THIS PASSAGE WOULD YOU NOT AGREE THAT FISHER IS COMMUNICATING THE FACT THAT ONE SHOULD AVOID AT ANY TIME PUTTING WET BLOOD STAINS IN PLASTIC CONTAINERS?

A: I DON'T THINK THAT IS WHAT HE IS SAYING THERE.

Q: SO YOUR POSITION IS THAT IT IS OKAY TO USE PLASTIC BAGS TO PACKAGE WET BROOD STAINS AS LONG AS IT IS TEMPORARY?

A: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "TEMPORARY"?

Q: WELL, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "TEMPORARY"?

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, YOUR HONOR, COUNSEL IS THE ONE THAT USED IT.

THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: HOW LONG -- HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE SOUND TO KEEP WET BLOOD STAINS, SWATCHES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, IN PLASTIC CONTAINERS?

A: THAT WOULD BE -- THERE WOULD BE MANY FACTORS THAT WOULD GO INTO THAT.

Q: WOULD YOU NOT AGREE THAT THE BEST PRACTICE WOULD BE TO LET THE SAMPLES AIR DRY AT THE SCENE?

A: NO, NOT NECESSARILY.

Q: WOULD THAT NOT BE THE WAY TO ACHIEVE THE MAXIMUM BENEFIT IN TERMS OF PRESERVING THE EVIDENCE?

A: NOT NECESSARILY.

Q: NOW, YOU BEGAN COLLECTING THE BLOOD DROPS AT BUNDY AT WHAT TIME?

A: APPROXIMATELY ELEVEN O'CLOCK, 11:30, AROUND THERE.

Q: YOU BEGAN PUTTING THEM IN PLASTIC BAGS AROUND ELEVEN O'CLOCK, 11:30, YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA?

A: APPROXIMATELY.

Q: AND YOU PUT THOSE PLASTIC BAGS INSIDE COIN ENVELOPES?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU PUT THE COIN ENVELOPES EVENTUALLY INTO A LARGE BROWN PAPER BAG?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU PUT THOSE BROWN PAPER BAGS ON THE FLOOR OF THE CRIME SCENE PROCESSING TRUCK AT SOME TIME THAT AFTERNOON?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE SUN WAS SHINING?

A: THE SUN WAS SHINING.

Q: AND IT WAS HOT INSIDE THAT TRUCK?

A: THERE WERE PERIODS WHEN I WENT OUT TO THE TRUCK TO MAKE SURE IT WASN'T GETTING TOO HOT.

Q: WELL, BY WHAT MEANS? BY OPENING THE DOORS AND WAVING YOUR HANDS THERE?

A: PERIODICALLY I WOULD GO TO THE TRUCK TO SEE IF IT WAS GETTING HOT OR NOT.

Q: WELL, IT WAS GETTING HOT, WASN'T IT?

A: IT WAS GETTING WARM.

Q: AND YOU DID NOT BEGIN THE PROCESS OF TAKING THOSE WET BLOOD STAINS OUT OF THOSE PLASTIC BAGS UNTIL AROUND 6:30 IN THE EVENING?

A: YES.

Q: SO YOU HAD THOSE WET STAINS IN THE PLASTIC BAGS FROM I GUESS YOUR ESTIMATE IS SOMEWHERE AROUND 11:30 IN THE MORNING UNTIL 6:30 IN THE EVENING?

MR. GOLDBERG: "THOSE STAINS" IS OVERLY BROAD.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: THE BLOOD SWATCHES THAT YOU COLLECTED AT BUNDY?

A: YES.

Q: SO LET'S SEE. THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING ON THE ORDER OF SEVEN HOURS?

A: YES.

Q: IS THAT YOUR INTERPRETATION OF TEMPORARY STORAGE?

A: MY GOAL WAS TO GET THE BLOOD I COLLECTED INTO THE DRYING STATE BY THE -- BY THE EVENING, AND I ACCOMPLISHED THAT GOAL, AND I FEEL THAT IS A PROPER OR THAT WAS THE PROPER WAY TO COLLECT AND PRESERVE THAT EVIDENCE.

Q: IS THERE A REFRIGERATOR IN THE CRIME SCENE PROCESSING TRUCK?

A: THERE IS ONE, YES.

Q: YOU DIDN'T USE THAT?

A: NO. THAT IS BECAUSE THE REFRIGERATOR DOESN'T -- WELL, IT STOPS WORKING AFTER SEVERAL HOURS. IT DOESN'T KEEP WORKING.

Q: IS THAT A DEFECT IN THE REFRIGERATOR OR NON-FUNCTIONAL REFRIGERATOR IN THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK?

A: WELL, IT DOES WORK BUT IT HAS BEEN MY --

THE COURT: EXCUSE ME, COUNSEL AND MR. FUNG, LET HIM FINISH ASKING THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU START TO ANSWER. MR. SCHECK, LET HIM ANSWER THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU START DISCUSSING IT WITH HIM.

MR. SCHECK: I'M SORRY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS THAT A NON-FUNCTIONING REFRIGERATOR? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE TELLING US?

A: IT HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE THAT AFTER SEVERAL HOURS THE REFRIGERATOR DOESN'T KICK ON ANY MORE.

Q: HAS -- HAVE YOU -- ISN'T IT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A CRIMINALIST UNDER THE RULES TO MAKE SURE THAT THE EQUIPMENT IS FUNCTIONING IN THE CRIME SCENE PROCESSING TRUCK?

A: AS BEST I CAN.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DON'T YOU KEEP A LOG WHEN YOU CHECK OUT THE TRUCK IN THE MORNING?

A: NO.

Q: ISN'T THERE A CRIME SCENE PROCESSING --

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ISN'T THERE A CRIME SCENE TRUCK SUPPLIES CHECKLIST?

A: I BELIEVE THERE IS ONE, YES.

Q: YOU HAVE SEEN IT, HAVEN'T YOU?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD ASK THAT THESE FOUR PAGES BE MARKED DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER.

THE COURT: MRS. ROBERTSON.

THE CLERK: 1095, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: 1095.

(DEFT'S 1095 FOR ID = 4-PAGE DOCUMENT)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: HAVE YOU SEEN THIS FORM BEFORE?

A: I HAVE NOT SEEN THIS FORM BEFORE.

Q: YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN A FORM ENTITLED "CRIME SCENE TRUCK CHECKLIST"?

A: I HAVE NOT SEEN THIS PARTICULAR FORM BEFORE.

Q: HAVE YOU SEEN ONE LIKE IT?

A: I HAVE SEEN INVENTORY OF THE ITEMS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE TRUCK.

Q: AND BEFORE YOU TAKE OUT THE TRUCK, AT SOME POINT DO YOU DO AN INVENTORY TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE PROPER EQUIPMENT IS IN THE TRUCK?

A: THE CRIME SCENE PROCESSING UNIT IS ASSIGNED THAT TASK.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO IT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CRIME SCENE PROCESSING UNIT TO SEE THAT ALL THE PROPER MATERIALS ARE IN THE TRUCK?

A: YES.

Q: AND IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT EQUIPMENT SUCH AS THE REFRIGERATOR IS WORKING?

A: YES.

Q: AND HAD YOU HAD ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH ANY MEMBERS OF THE CRIME SCENE UNIT ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE REFRIGERATOR, I GUESS AS YOU HAVE TOLD US, CAN'T BE RELIED UPON TO FUNCTION OVER A FEW-HOUR PERIOD OF TIME?

A: WHEN THE TRUCK -- THE BATTERY -- THE BATTERY JUST DOESN'T WORK AFTER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND IT GETS ON -- BUT IT GETS BACK ON WHEN THE TRUCK IS STARTED AGAIN.

Q: NOW, MR. FUNG, YOU ARE NOW A CRIMINALIST 3?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU STARTED AT THE LAPD CRIME LAB I TAKE IT YOU BEGAN AS A CRIMINALIST 1?

A: YES.

Q: AND TO GET FROM A CRIMINALIST 1 TO A CRIMINALIST 2 DID YOU HAVE TO TAKE ANY ORAL OR WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS?

A: NO.

Q: TO GET FROM A CRIMINALIST 2 TO A CRIMINALIST 3, DID YOU HAVE TO TAKE ANY ORAL OR WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT WERE THOSE, SIR?

A: THERE WAS A WRITTEN EXAMINATION AND -- REGARDING LABORATORY TYPE FUNCTIONS AND AN ORAL GIVEN FOR THAT POSITION.

Q: AND DID ANY OF THE QUESTIONS ON YOUR ORAL OR WRITTEN EXAMINATION TO BECOME A CRIMINALIST 3 INCLUDE MATERIALS THAT ARE CONTAINED IN THE HANDOUTS THAT CONSTITUTE YOUR MANUAL?

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, THAT MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE MANUAL.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: WERE THERE ANY -- LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET YOUR QUESTION PROPERLY.

MR. SCHECK: SURE.

THE WITNESS: ARE YOU ASKING ME IF ANY WRITTEN QUESTIONS IN THE WRITTEN OR ORAL PERTAIN TO THAT MANUAL?

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: PERTAIN TO HANDOUTS THAT ARE CONTAINED IN THAT DOCUMENT WE DISCUSSED A FEW DAYS AGO THAT CONSTITUTES THE MANUAL?

MR. GOLDBERG: IT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY THAT THEY HAVE AN ADOPTED MANUAL.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. YOU TOLD US DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT YOU WERE AWARE OF THE EXISTENCE OF A SET OF DOCUMENTS THAT CONSTITUTED A MANUAL, THAT YOU SAID WAS NOT YET IN EFFECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU LOOKED THROUGH THE BINDER THAT CONTAINED THESE WRITTEN MATERIALS?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: ALL RIGHT. MY QUESTION TO YOU, SIR, IS WHEN YOU TOOK THE EXAMINATION TO BECOME A CRIMINALIST 3, ORAL AND WRITTEN, DID IT CONTAIN QUESTIONS ON THE MATERIALS THAT YOU SAW WHEN YOU LOOKED THROUGH THAT BINDER THAT IS THE MANUAL?

A: I DON'T RECALL ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS RELATING TO THAT.

Q: IN OTHER WORDS, ALL THAT -- ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU SAW IN THIS MANUAL THAT YOU SAY IS NOT YET IN EFFECT DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE DOCUMENTS IN THE MANUAL?

A: I DON'T RECALL ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT RELATED TO THAT MANUAL OR ADOPTED MANUAL.

Q: DO YOU RECALL -- I'M SORRY, ARE YOU FINISHED, SIR? MY APOLOGIES. DO YOU RECALL ANY QUESTIONS IN YOUR EXAMINATION CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF BIOLOGICAL SAMPLES, SUCH AS BLOOD, FOR PURPOSES OF SUBSEQUENT GENETIC OR DNA TESTING?

A: I DON'T RECALL ANY.

Q: DO YOU RECALL ANY QUESTIONS ON YOUR ORAL OR WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS WITH RESPECT TO KEEPING RECORDS FOR PURPOSES OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY?

A: NO.

Q: AND INCIDENTALLY, MR. FUNG, THAT REFRIGERATOR ON YOUR CRIME SCENE TRUCK, IS THAT USED TO KEEP SOFT DRINKS?

A: NO.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, ARE THERE RECORDS OF THE COURSES THAT YOU TOOK AT THE LAPD LABORATORY?

A: ARE THERE RECORDS?

Q: YES.

A: THERE IS A STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS.

Q: BUT TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE IN THE LABORATORY IS THERE ANY ONGOING SET OF RECORDS THAT IS INPUTTED INTO A COMPUTER SYSTEM OR KEPT IN WRITTEN FORM AS TO WHICH SOURCES YOU OR ANY OF THE OTHER CRIMINALISTS TAKE?

A: I'M NOT SURE IF THERE IS OR NOT.

Q: NOW, IN TERMS OF DISCUSSING RECORDS FOR PURPOSES OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY, YOU ARE REQUIRED, ARE YOU NOT, TO KEEP ALL THE ORIGINAL RECORDS THAT YOU FILL OUT DURING THE COURSE OF A FIELD INVESTIGATION IN THE LABORATORY?

A: I WOULDN'T SAY ALL OF THEM, NO.

Q: WELL, AREN'T YOU SUPPOSED TO KEEP, IN A PLACE THAT IS ACCESSIBLE TO SUPERVISORS AND OTHER CRIMINALISTS IN THE LABORATORY, A SET OF DOCUMENTS THAT REPRESENT THE ORIGINAL RECORDS THAT YOU FILL OUT DURING THE COURSE OF A FIELD INVESTIGATION?

MR. GOLDBERG: IT IS VAGUE AS TO "SUPPOSED TO."

THE COURT: CORRECT. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE IS THERE A REQUIREMENT THAT CRIMINALISTS ARE SUPPOSED TO KEEP ORIGINAL RECORDS, CRIME SCENE -- SUCH AS A CRIME SCENE CHECKLIST, IN THE LABORATORY SO THAT SUPERVISORS AND OTHER CRIMINALISTS CAN GET ACCESS TO THEM?

MR. GOLDBERG: IT IS STILL VAGUE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THE CRIME SCENE CHECKLIST, WHEN COMPLETED OR WHEN THE PERSON IS DONE WITH THE CRIME SCENE CHECKLIST, IS FILED IN AN AREA WHERE THAT TYPE OF INFORMATION IS STORED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: RIGHT. AND THAT -- WHEN YOU SAY "THOSE RECORDS," WE ARE TALKING HERE ABOUT THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS?

A: TALKING ABOUT THE CRIME SCENE CHECKLIST, YES.

Q: WHEN I SAY "ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS," I MEAN THE ACTUAL DOCUMENTS THAT WERE FILLED OUT BY YOU AND/OR MISS MAZZOLA IN THIS CASE AT THE SCENE AND SUBSEQUENTLY?

MR. GOLDBERG: AT THIS TIME IT IS UNINTELLIGIBLE, THE QUESTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION?

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: SURE. THESE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU'VE TOLD US ARE FILED AND STORED AT THE LABORATORY, THEY ARE THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS THAT WERE CREATED BY YOU OR MISS MAZZOLA IN THIS CASE?

A: THERE ARE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS, YES.

Q: AND YOU ARE AWARE, SIR -- WITHDRAWN. TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE HAVE THOSE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS, TO THE EXTENT THEY COULD BE FOUND, BEEN PRODUCED HERE IN COURT AT THE REQUEST OF THE DEFENSE?

A: TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.

Q: YOU ARE AWARE THAT WE HAVE REQUESTED THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU ARE AWARE, SIR, THAT WE HAD THESE DOCUMENTS REVIEWED, PRIOR TO YOUR TESTIMONY, BY A DOCUMENT ANALYST?

A: I HEARD SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.

Q: NOW, IN THE PRODUCTION OF THESE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS WAS THERE NOT A DOCUMENT FOR WHICH YOU COULD NOT FIND AN ORIGINAL?

A: IF YOU COULD SHOW IT TO ME, I --

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

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, TO MY RECOLLECTION I THINK THE PROSECUTION MIGHT HAVE INTRODUCED A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT, BUT JUST FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY OF THE RECORD, I WILL ASK THAT THIS DOCUMENT BE MARKED DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER.

THE COURT: 1096.

(DEFT'S 1096 FOR ID = 1-PAGE DOCUMENT)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU RECALL SEEING THIS DOCUMENT THAT HAS ON IT AN INDICATION THAT IT IS "L-16" OR LABORATORY PAGE NO. 16?

A: YES.

Q: YOU HAVE SEEN THIS --

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

THE COURT: WITH REGARDS TO THIS DOCUMENT?

MR. GOLDBERG: YES.

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

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I DON'T SEE ANY RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER IN GETTING INTO THE FACT THAT OUT OF ALL OF THE LAB NOTES WE HAVE THERE IS ONE PAGE WE DON'T HAVE THE ORIGINAL OF, AND THIS WITNESS IS NOT PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS.

MR. SCHECK: WELL, I THINK YOU CAN BRING THAT OUT ON REDIRECT. I AM ONLY INQUIRING. I ASKED FOR THE PRODUCTION OF ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. YOU COULD NOT FIND THE ORIGINAL FOR THIS AND IT IS MY RECOLLECTION, MR. GOLDBERG, ON DIRECT EXAMINATION YOU SHOWED HIM THIS VERY DOCUMENT.

MR. GOLDBERG: NO, I DIDN'T.

MR. SCHECK: WELL -- AND YOU ASKED HIM IF IT REFLECTED WHAT HE DID WITH CERTAIN MATERIALS ON JUNE 15TH AND REALLY THE ONLY EXTENT OF -- IT IS UNDATED AND I'M PRACTICALLY CERTAIN YOU BROACHED IT ON DIRECT, BUT EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T, I THINK I HAVE A RIGHT TO GO INTO IT, TO JUST INQUIRE ABOUT WHEN THESE MATERIALS WERE -- WHEN THESE NOTATIONS WERE MADE, BECAUSE I'M INQUIRING INTO THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THESE VARIOUS ITEMS, WHETHER THESE ARE CONTEMPORANEOUS NOTES OR THEY ARE FILLED IN LATER IN AN ATTEMPT TO RECONSTRUCT IN A WAY THAT -- AFTER THE FACT WHAT HAPPENED.

THE COURT: THIS APPEARS TO BE DIFFERENT HANDWRITINGS. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT FOUNDATION WE HAVE FOR THIS?

MR. SCHECK: WELL, I KNOW THAT THIS WAS PRODUCED TO THE DEFENSE AS A LAB NOTE.

THE COURT: NO, NO. SO YOU HAVEN'T ASKED HIM ANY FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT.

MR. SCHECK: I WILL ASK HIM THAT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. YOU CAN ASK HIM DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE PREPARATION OF THIS DOCUMENT?

MR. SCHECK: SURE.

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHERE THE ORIGINAL IS?

MR. SCHECK: MY APOLOGIES TO THE COURT FOR NOT HAVING THE EXACT REFERENCE, BUT --

THE COURT: NO. I HAVE NOT SEEN THIS.

MR. SCHECK: -- BUT I CAN REPRESENT TO THE COURT IS THAT WHEN MR. FUNG WAS TESTIFYING AS TO WHICH ITEMS HE TURNED OVER ON JUNE 14TH AND JUNE 15TH, HE LOOKED AT A DOCUMENT TO REFRESH HIS RECOLLECTION. I WAS AT THE WITNESS STAND.

THE COURT: THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT HAS BEEN MARKED OR USED.

MR. SCHECK: I UNDERSTAND.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. SCHECK: I THINK IT WAS.

THE COURT: BUT I THINK YOU STILL HAVE SOME FOUNDATION.

MR. SCHECK: SURE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU RECOGNIZE ANY OF THE HANDWRITING ON THIS DOCUMENT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHOSE HANDWRITING IS IT?

A: IT IS MINE.

Q: AND YOU DID NOT LOOK AT THIS DOCUMENT AND REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHAT YOU DID WITH SAMPLES ON JUNE 14TH AND ON JUNE 15TH WHEN YOU WERE TESTIFYING ON DIRECT EXAMINATION?

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

Q: DO YOU -- THIS DOCUMENT IS UNDATED?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHEN YOU FILLED IN THIS DOCUMENT?

A: I DON'T RECALL WHEN I DID, NO.

Q: THIS DOCUMENT REFERS TO WHAT YOU DID ON JUNE 14TH WHEN YOU RELEASED CERTAIN ITEMS TO CRIMINALIST YAMAUCHI?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE ITEM NUMBERS HERE REFER TO PHOTO IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS?

A: THE NUMBERS REFER TO PHOTO I.D. NUMBERS, YES.

Q: AND NO. 117 HERE WOULD BE REFERRING TO ITEM 52 OR A BLOOD DROP AT BUNDY?

A: YES.

Q: AND ITEM 115 WOULD BE ANOTHER BLOOD DROP AT BUNDY?

A: YES.

Q: AS WOULD BE 114, 113 AND 112?

A: YES.

Q: AND 107 AND 106 WERE RED STAINS YOU TOOK IN AN EFFORT TO GET EXEMPLARS FROM THE VICTIMS AT THE SCENE, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND BY EXEMPLARS WE MEAN SAMPLES THAT YOU THOUGHT WOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY BE THE BLOOD OF EACH OF THE VICTIMS?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEN THE NEXT NOTATION HERE CONCERNS RECEIVING FROM MR. YAMAUCHI ON JUNE 15TH A BLOOD VIAL FROM -- MADE UP OF THE BLOOD OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEN THE NEXT NOTATION REFERS TO JUNE 15TH AND A SERIES OF NOW WHAT ARE ITEM NUMBERS?

A: YES.

Q: SO IN THE LAST ENTRY HERE YOU ARE NOW NOT USING PHOTO I.D. NUMBERS, YOU ARE NOW USING ITEM NUMBERS?

A: I BELIEVE THE PHOTO I.D. NUMBERS AND THE ITEM NUMBERS ARE -- ARE THE SAME IN THOSE CASES.

Q: AND THESE -- YOU ARE REFERRING HERE ON JUNE 15TH TO TURNING OVER TO MR. YAMAUCHI SAMPLES 23, 24, 25, 31, 33?

A: YES.

Q: THOSE ARE SAMPLES FROM THE BRONCO?

A: LET ME CHECK. YES.

Q: AND YOU REFER HERE TO GIVING THOSE TO MR. YAMAUCHI, "RETURN SAME NIGHT AFTER SAMPLING"?

A: IT SAYS, "RETURNED SAME RIGHT AFTER SAMPLING."

Q: "RETURNED SAME RIGHT AFTER SAMPLING." NOW, IS THIS PAGE A CONTEMPORANEOUS RECORD THAT YOU MADE AS THESE EVENTS WERE OCCURRING?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WAS CONTEMPORANEOUS OR NOT. I MAY HAVE COPIED THIS ONTO THIS PAGE FROM A SCRAP OF PAPER OR SOMETHING.

Q: WOULD YOU NOT AGREE, SIR, THAT FOR PURPOSES OF KEEPING RECORDS WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO CREATE A CHAIN OF CUSTODY, THAT THE PROPER PROCEDURE IS TO MAKE OUT RECORDS AS YOU ARE PERFORMING THE ACTIONS, TURNING OVER THE SAMPLES?

A: THAT IS ONE WAY TO DO IT.

Q: WOULDN'T THAT BE THE MOST RELIABLE WAY TO DO IT?

A: THAT IS ONE WAY OF DOING IT.

Q: ISN'T THAT THE WAY THAT YOU WERE TAUGHT TO DO IT?

A: THAT IS ONE WAY, YES.

Q: WOULD YOU NOT AGREE THAT IN TERMS OF CREATING RECORDS FOR PURPOSES OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY THAT IT IS NOT A PARTICULARLY RELIABLE THING TO MAKE OUT A RECORD OF WHAT YOU DID ON AN UNDATED PIECE OF PAPER?

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE. ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: ARGUMENTATIVE. SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: THERE IS NO DATE AS TO WHEN YOU FILLED OUT THIS REPORT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NO DATE AS TO WHEN YOU MADE ENTRIES ABOUT TURNING OVER THESE PIECES OF EVIDENCE?

A: THE DATES ARE WRITTEN IN THE INFORMATION.

Q: BUT THIS DOCUMENT COULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN WEEKS AFTER THESE EVENTS?

A: IT WASN'T WEEKS.

Q: WELL, IS THERE ANY WAY, FROM LOOKING AT THIS PAPER, THAT YOU CAN TELL US WHEN YOU FILLED OUT THIS DOCUMENT?

A: NO.

Q: AND YOU DON'T HAVE AN ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT, DO YOU?

A: I BELIEVE I FOUND IT AND TURNED IT OVER TO MR. MATHESON.

Q: THE ORIGINAL?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: WHEN DID YOU DO THAT?

A: TWO WEEKS AGO MAYBE, THREE WEEKS AGO. I DON'T REMEMBER.

Q: ARE YOU CERTAIN OF THAT?

A: YES.

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, IT IS VAGUE AS TO WHAT HE IS CERTAIN ABOUT, THAT HE TURNED IT OVER OR THE TIME FRAME.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ARE YOU CERTAIN THAT YOU TURNED THAT OVER TO MR. MATHESON TWO OR THREE WEEKS AGO, THE ORIGINAL OF THAT DOCUMENT?

A: SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

Q: WHERE DID YOU FIND THE ORIGINAL?

A: IT WAS IN HERE, (INDICATING).

Q: IT WAS IN YOUR -- WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO NOW IS WHAT?

A: MY NOTEBOOK.

Q: SO THAT IS YOUR PERSONAL NOTEBOOK?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: AND THAT CONTAINS COPIES OF THESE VARIOUS CRIME SCENE CHECKLISTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS CASE?

A: THIS CONTAINS THAT AND OTHER THINGS, YES.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH FOR A MINUTE?

THE COURT: I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING WE CAN TAKE UP WHEN WE CONCLUDE WITH THIS.

MR. SCHECK: WELL, I JUST WANT TO MAKE A BRIEF RECORD ON THIS POINT RIGHT NOW.

THE COURT: THE RECORD EXISTS.

MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.

THE COURT: PROCEED.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE WAS THE ORIGINAL OF THAT DOCUMENT TURNED OVER TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?

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

Q: NOW, YOUR REPORTS WITH RESPECT TO FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE REVIEWED BY A SUPERVISOR?

A: YES.

Q: AND PRIOR TO APPROVING AND SIGNING THESE REPORTS THE SUPERVISOR IS SUPPOSED TO INSPECT ALL CASE NOTES, PHOTOGRAPHS, ET CETERA, TO ENSURE THAT YOUR REPORTS ARE ACCURATE AND COMPLETE?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT IS A FIELD INVESTIGATION NOTE PACKAGE?

A: THAT WOULD CONTAIN FIELD INVESTIGATION NOTES AND A PROPERTY REPORT.

Q: SO THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE CRIME SCENE CHECKLISTS THAT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING DURING YOUR TESTIMONY?

A: YES.

Q: IT WOULD INCLUDE THE VEHICLE SEARCH CHECKLISTS THAT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING DURING YOUR TESTIMONY?

A: YES.

Q: IT WOULD INCLUDE THE EVIDENCE COLLECTION SHEETS THAT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING DURING YOUR TESTIMONY?

A: YES.

Q: IT WOULD INCLUDE THE DIAGRAMS THAT WERE DRAWN ON THE BACK OF SOME OF THESE PIECES OF PAPER THAT YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA MADE DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION ON THE 13TH AND THE 14TH?

A: YES.

Q: AND ISN'T IT REQUIRED THAT THE FIELD INVESTIGATION NOTE PACKAGES MUST BE SUBMITTED, PRIOR TO FILING AT THE LAB, TO THE SUPERVISOR OF THE TRACE ANALYSIS UNIT FOR REVIEW?

A: AT THE TIME THERE WAS NO TRACE ANALYSIS SUPERVISOR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT SUPERVISOR WAS IN CHARGE OF REVIEWING YOUR FIELD INVESTIGATION NOTE PACKAGE IN THIS CASE?

MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: MY PROPERTY REPORTS WERE REVIEWED BY MR. MATHESON.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHAT ABOUT THE CRIME SCENE CHECKLISTS? WHO REVIEWED THOSE?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE WERE THEY GIVEN TO ANYONE FOR REVIEW?

A: COPIES WERE GIVEN TO LAB MANAGEMENT.

Q: ARE YOU AWARE THAT DEFICIENT NOTE PACKAGES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DIRECTED AND SUPPLEMENTED BY INVOLVED EMPLOYEES AND SUBSEQUENTLY FILED AND STORED?

MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE AS PHRASED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. SCHECK: I AM ASKING IF HE IS AWARE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THAT HAS BEEN A PRACTICE, YES.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND WOULD THAT LAB MANAGEMENT INCLUDE MICHELE KESTLER, THE HEAD OF THE LABORATORY?

A: SHE IS THE CRIME LAB DIRECTOR.

Q: AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE WAS SHE REVIEWING YOUR WORK IN THIS CASE?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF SHE REVIEWED OR HOW MUCH OF IT SHE REVIEWED.

Q: WAS SHE DISCUSSING YOUR WORK IN THIS CASE WITH YOU IN THE PERIOD -- IN THE WEEK OF JUNE 13TH TO JUNE 20TH?

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

Q: TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE DID ANYONE AT THE LABORATORY IN A SUPERVISORY POSITION COME BACK TO YOU AND POINT OUT ANYTHING THAT NEEDED TO BE SUPPLEMENTED IN YOUR FIELD NOTE PACKAGE?

A: NOT THAT I CAN RECALL.

Q: NOW, ORDINARILY WHEN YOU BOOK SOMETHING AT THE LABORATORY, YOU GO THROUGH CERTAIN PROCEDURES, BOOK AN ITEM OF EVIDENCE?

A: YES.

Q: AND THIS WOULD INCLUDE SWATCHES THAT WERE COLLECTED FROM BLOOD STAINS?

A: YES.

Q: AND CERTAIN PHYSICAL ITEMS OF EVIDENCE, SUCH AS THE GLOVE AND THE HAT THAT WERE COLLECTED IN THIS CASE?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE ORDINARY PROCEDURE IS THAT A DR NUMBER IS BOUGHT BY ONE OF THE DETECTIVES IN THE CASE?

A: YES.

Q: AND AFTER THE DR NUMBER IS BOUGHT YOU CAN BEGIN TO BOOK CERTAIN EVIDENCE IN A PLACE CALLED THE EVIDENCE CONTROL UNIT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE EVIDENCE CONTROL UNIT IS A CERTAIN ROOM AT SID?

A: IT IS MORE THAN JUST A ROOM, BUT IT IS A SECTION OF SID.

Q: IT IS A SECTION OF SID, AND WHEN YOU BOOK AN ITEM OF EVIDENCE IN A CASE WHAT HAPPENS IS, IS THAT THE PEOPLE AT ECU WILL STAMP IT WITH A DATE?

A: I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY DO ONCE I GIVE IT TO THEM.

Q: WELL, HAVEN'T YOU EVER SEEN AN ITEM OF EVIDENCE BOOKED AT ECU?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: I MEAN, YOU DO THAT ALL THE TIME, DON'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND DON'T YOU -- HAVEN'T -- DON'T YOU RECALL THAT AT ECU WHEN THEY GET EITHER A PAPER BAG OR AN ENVELOPE OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE THAT THEY WILL PUT A STAMP ON IT THAT GIVES THE DATE?

A: I BRING MY EVIDENCE TO PROPERTY. I SIGN MY NAME NEXT TO A REGISTER. THE STATION OFFICER OR PROPERTY OFFICER READS THE REPORT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN BOOK OR UNDERSTAND WHAT IS ON THE REPORT AND I LEAVE. I DON'T STICK AROUND AND SEE WHAT THEY DO.

Q: SO YOU HAVE NEVER NOTICED A TIME STAMP ON IT?

A: I NEVER HAVE, NO.

Q: HAVE YOU EVER NOTICED AT ECU THAT THEY WILL PUT A BAR CODE ON THE ITEM -- THE PACKAGING OF THE ITEM OF EVIDENCE WHEN YOU TURN IT OVER TO THEM?

A: I HAVE NOTICED BAR CODES, YES.

Q: AND YOU ARE AWARE THAT WHEN THE BAR CODE IS PUT ON THE ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT ITEM IS THEN PUT INTO A COMPUTER TRACKING SYSTEM?

A: I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WORKS, BUT IT IS TRACKED BY A COMPUTER.

Q: WELL, ONCE AN ITEM OF EVIDENCE IS BOOKED AT ECU, ARE YOU AWARE OF HOW CRIMINALISTS AT SID WOULD THEN OBTAIN THAT PACKAGE FOR SUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS?

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

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I KNOW HOW I DO IT.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, YOU HAVE WORKED IN TRACE ANALYSIS?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: AND IN ORDER -- IF YOU ARE WORKING IN TRACE ANALYSIS AND YOU WANT TO GET AN ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN BOOKED IN A CASE, YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE ECU?

A: WHEN I WORKED IN TRACE ANALYSIS ECU WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE.

Q: HAVE YOU WORKED IN ANY UNIT WHERE YOU HAVE TO GO TO ECU TO OBTAIN AN ITEM OF EVIDENCE?

A: THE UNIT I WORK IN NOW I OCCASIONALLY HAVE TO GO DOWN AND PICK UP ITEMS FROM ECU.

Q: AND WHEN YOU PICK UP AN ITEM FROM ECU, THE PERSON AT ECU HAS TO TAKE ONE OF THESE BAR CODE READERS AND HIT A BAR CODE OF THEIR OWN? HAVE YOU SEEN THAT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU HAVE A BAR CODE, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOUR BAR CODE IS LIT WITH ONE OF THESE LIGHT PENS?

A: OR A TRACKING DEVICE.

Q: TRACKING DEVICE. AND THEN THE BAR CODE ON THE PACKAGE OF EVIDENCE IS HIT WITH ONE OF THOSE LIGHT PENS?

A: THAT IS ONE OF THE STEPS.

Q: AND THE PURPOSE OF THOSE OPERATIONS IS TO TRY TO CREATE SOME KIND OF TRACKING RECORD AS TO THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE GONE TO ECU TO TAKE OUT A PIECE OF EVIDENCE FOR ANALYSIS?

A: IT DOES MAKE A RECORD, YES.

Q: AND THEN WHEN YOU FINISH YOUR ANALYSIS YOU WOULD RETURN IT TO THE ECU AND A SIMILAR PROCEDURE IS PERFORMED?

A: YES.

Q: AND IT IS BY THAT METHOD THAT TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING ITEMS OF EVIDENCE ARE TRACKED AT SID?

A: THAT IS ONE OF THE METHODS.

Q: NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE EVIDENTIARY ITEMS IN THIS CASE, THEY WEREN'T -- THE ONES YOU COLLECTED AT BUNDY ON JUNE 13TH, THEY WERE NOT BOOKED UNTIL JUNE 16TH?

A: THAT'S CORRECT. NO. THE FINAL BOOKING WAS NOT UNTIL JUNE 16TH.

Q: IN OTHER WORDS, THIS PROCESS OF TAKING THE PACKAGE WITH THE BAR CODE ON IT AND HANDING IT TO THE PERSON AT ECU WAS NOT DONE UNTIL JUNE 16TH?

A: I DID NOT DO THAT UNTIL JUNE 16TH BECAUSE MY PROPERTY REPORTS WERE NOT WRITTEN OR COMPLETED UNTIL THAT TIME.

Q: BUT THE POINT IS, SIR, THAT UNTIL JUNE 16TH THESE ITEMS WERE NOT PUT INTO THAT COMPUTER TRACKING SYSTEM AT SID?

A: THEY COULDN'T BE BECAUSE THE PROPERTY REPORT WASN'T PREPARED YET.

Q: THEY COULDN'T BE BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT YET BEEN FORMALLY BOOKED, OR TO USE YOUR PHRASE, FINALLY BOOKED?

A: THEY WERE NOT PLACED INTO ECU AT THAT TIME.

Q: AND BY PLACING THEM INTO ECU AND HAVING AT LEAST THE BAR CODE PUT ON IT AND THE EVIDENCE TRACKING PROCEDURE BEGUN, THAT IS WHAT IS ORDINARILY MEANT BY FINAL BOOKING, TO USE YOUR PHRASE?

A: FINAL BOOKING, YES.

Q: ON THE EVENING OF JUNE 13TH THE SWATCHES FROM BUNDY HAD BEEN PLACED IN TEST-TUBES?

A: YES.

Q: THE SWATCHES FROM ROCKINGHAM HAD BEEN PLACED IN TEST-TUBES?

A: YES.

Q: THEY WERE PUT INSIDE COIN ENVELOPES?

A: YES.

Q: THEY WERE LAID IN A CARDBOARD BOX TOP, LAID DOWN?

A: THEY -- THEY WERE LAID -- THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE BOX TOP, BUT YES.

Q: THOSE BOX TOPS WERE PUT IN A CABINET IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM?

A: YES.

Q: THAT CABINET WAS UNLOCKED?

A: THE CABINET WAS UNLOCKED; HOWEVER, THE DOOR TO THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM WAS LOCKED.

Q: WAS THE CABINET UNLOCKED?

THE COURT: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. YOU NEED TO LET HIM FINISH THE ANSWER.

MR. SCHECK: I THOUGHT HE DID. HE WAS VOLUNTEERING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: WELL, THEN THERE IS AN APPROPRIATE MOTION, AND DON'T INTERRUPT ME EITHER.

MR. SCHECK: MY APOLOGIES. I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST PART OF HIS ANSWER.

THE COURT: AS BEING NONRESPONSIVE?

MR. SCHECK: YES.

THE COURT: GRANTED. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THE LAST PART OF THE ANSWER. PROCEED. THE QUESTION WAS WAS THE CABINET LOCKED OR UNLOCKED?

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WAS THE CABINET LOCKED? YES OR NO?

A: THERE IS NO LOCK ON THE CABINET.

Q: WHEN YOU RECEIVED THE BLOOD VIALS FROM DETECTIVE VANNATTER ON DECEMBER 15TH -- WITHDRAWN. ON -- MY APOLOGIES. I GOT THE WRONG YEAR, THE WRONG MONTH.

THE COURT: TAKE A DEEP BREATH.

MR. SCHECK: OKAY.

Q: ON JUNE 15TH YOU RECEIVED SOME BLOOD VIALS FROM MR. YAMAUCHI?

A: YES.

Q: A BLOOD VIAL CONTAINING WHOLE BLOOD FROM MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

A: THAT IS ONE OF THE VIALS.

Q: A BLOOD VIAL CONTAINING WHOLE BLOOD FROM RON GOLDMAN?

A: YES.

Q: THESE VIALS, WHEN YOU RECEIVED THEM FROM MR. YAMAUCHI, DID THEY HAVE BLOOD STREAKING OVER THE TOP OF THE VIAL ON PAPER THAT WAS COVERING THE VIAL?

A: I DON'T RECALL.

Q: ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH YOU CAME TO THE LAB?

A: YES.

Q: YOU ARRIVED AROUND WHEN?

A: BETWEEN 7:30 AND 8:00.

Q: AND WHEN YOU GOT THERE AT 7:30 DID YOU MEET WITH SOMEONE?

A: I MET WITH SEVERAL PEOPLE.

Q: WHO DID YOU MEET WITH?

A: I SAW CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA THAT MORNING, DETECTIVE LANGE, CRIMINALIST YAMAUCHI, MR. MATHESON TO NAME A FEW.

Q: I'M SORRY?

A: TO NAME A FEW.

Q: ANYONE ELSE THAT YOU CAN RECALL?

A: NOT THAT PERTAINS TO THE CASE.

Q: WELL, JUST TELL US WHO ELSE WAS THERE, WHETHER THEY PERTAINED TO THE CASE OR NOT.

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, IT IS IRRELEVANT IF HE IS REFERRING TO THE ENTIRE LABORATORY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THERE WERE MANY PEOPLE IN THE LABORATORY AND I SAW MANY OF THEM.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: THIS MEETING THAT YOU HAD AT AROUND 7:30 OCCURRED IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM?

A: NO. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHERE -- SOME OF THE -- I SAW DETECTIVE LANGE IN THE SEROLOGY UNIT.

Q: SO THERE IS A SEPARATE ROOM FOR THE SEROLOGY UNIT, IT IS A LABORATORY ROOM?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT CONTAINS A SEPARATE FREEZER FOR THE SEROLOGY UNIT?

A: SEROLOGY UNIT DOES HAVE A FREEZER, YES.

Q: AND THAT IS A SEPARATE ROOM FROM THIS EVIDENCE CONTROL UNIT WHERE ITEMS ARE BOOKED, CORRECT?

A: WHERE THE BOOKING PROCESS TAKES PLACE, YES.

Q: AND AFTER ITEMS ARE RECEIVED IN THE EVIDENCE CONTROL UNIT, THERE IS A FREEZER WHERE THEY MIGHT BE STORED?

A: COULD YOU REPEAT THAT?

Q: THE EVIDENCE CONTROL UNIT HAS A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PLACES WHERE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE ARE STORED?

A: YES.

Q: THERE ARE SHELVES WHERE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE ARE STORED?

A: YES.

Q: THERE IS A FREEZER WHERE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE IS STORED?

A: YES.

Q: THERE IS A REFRIGERATOR UNIT WHERE THINGS SUCH AS WHOLE -- BLOOD VIALS THAT CONTAIN WHOLE BLOOD ARE STORED?

A: YES.

Q: IN THIS CASE THERE WAS ACTUALLY AN ORDINARY KIND OF LOCKER WHERE CERTAIN ITEMS OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WERE STORED?

A: ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE EVIDENCE CONTROL UNIT OR THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM?

Q: YES. EVIDENCE CONTROL UNIT.

A: I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE EVIDENCE WAS STORED ONCE I PLACED IT INTO -- PUT IT INTO CUSTODY.

Q: BUT WHAT I HAVE JUST DESCRIBED AS ONE WHOLE UNIT WHERE THE FORMAL BOOK -- FINAL BOOKING PROCEDURES TAKE PLACE, IS THE EVIDENCE CONTROL UNIT, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, THERE IS A SEPARATE PLACE CALLED THE SEROLOGY LABORATORY?

A: YES.

Q: AND IN THE SEROLOGY LABORATORY THERE IS A SEPARATE FREEZER WHERE ITEMS ARE KEPT WHEN SEROLOGISTS ARE WORKING ON THEM?

A: I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS KEPT IN THE SEROLOGY FREEZER.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: I HAVEN'T WORKED THAT UNIT.

Q: BUT YOU ARE SAYING THAT ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH YOU SAW DETECTIVE LANGE IN THE SEROLOGY LAB?

A: HE WAS THERE, YES.

Q: WAS HE THERE WHEN YOU GOT THERE?

A: I'M NOT SURE.

Q: HE COULD HAVE BEEN?

A: HE COULD HAVE BEEN.

Q: AND WHO ELSE WAS WITH HIM, IF ANYONE?

A: I DON'T RECALL.

Q: SO YOU HAD A MEETING -- THE FIRST MEETING YOU RECALL TOOK PLACE IN THE SEROLOGY LABORATORY WITH DETECTIVE LANGE?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS THE FIRST, BUT IT WAS ONE OF THE MEETINGS.

Q: ALL RIGHT.

A: I --

Q: WHERE ELSE DID MEETINGS TAKE PLACE THAT MORNING AT AROUND 7:30?

A: WELL, I CAN'T SAY IF IT WAS AT 7:30 OR NOT, BUT I CAN TELL YOU DIFFERENT MEETINGS THAT OCCURRED THAT MORNING.

Q: IF YOU CAN, SIR, GIVE US YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION OF WHO YOU MET WITH AND WHERE YOU MET WITH THEM FROM THE MOMENT YOU ARRIVED AT THE SEROLOGY LAB ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH?

MR. GOLDBERG: THAT IS OVERBROAD, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: CAN YOU TELL US WHO YOU MET WITH AND WHERE YOU MET WITH THEM WHEN YOU FIRST ARRIVED AT THE SEROLOGY LABORATORY THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH?

A: IN THE SEROLOGY LAB DETECTIVE LANGE, MR. MATHESON AND CRIMINALIST YAMAUCHI WERE PRESENT.

Q: AND YOU HAD A DISCUSSION AT THAT TIME?

A: YES.

Q: ALL OF YOU? YOU DISCUSSED THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?

A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES.

Q: DETECTIVE LANGE INDICATED WHICH ITEMS HE WANTED ANALYZED FIRST?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF HE WAS INVOLVED IN THAT -- IN SPECIFYING WHICH ITEMS HE WANTED TO BE ANALYZED.

Q: DO YOU RECALL DETECTIVE LANGE INDICATING THAT HE WANTED THE BLOOD DROPS FOUND AT BUNDY ANALYZED RIGHT AWAY?

A: HE MAY HAVE SAID SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.

Q: AND YOU TOOK AWAY FROM THAT CONVERSATION --

MR. GOLDBERG: HOLD ON, MR. SCHECK. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO STRIKE THE WITNESS' ANSWER AS CALLING FOR SPECULATION, NO FOUNDATION OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. OVERRULED. HE MAY HAVE SAID SOMETHING.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU RECALL WHETHER DETECTIVE LANGE WAS INDICATING WITH SOME URGENCY THAT HE WANTED THE BLOOD DROPS AT BUNDY ANALYZED RIGHT AWAY?

MR. GOLDBERG: THAT IS ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: HE WANTED A PRIORITY PUT ON IT.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID HE WANT A PRIORITY PUT ON THE ANALYSIS OF THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE?

A: I DON'T RECALL IF THAT WAS ONE OF THE ITEMS HE SPECIFIED OR NOT.

Q: WAS THERE AN AGREEMENT AT THAT MEETING AS TO WHAT ITEMS SHOULD BE ANALYZED IMMEDIATELY?

A: AT SOME POINT IN THE MORNING IT WAS DECIDED WHAT ITEMS WOULD BE ANALYZED, BUT I DON'T KNOW AT EXACTLY WHAT TIME OR IF DETECTIVE LANGE WAS PRESENT OR NOT.

Q: DID THERE COME A TIME THAT YOU WENT TO THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM THAT MORNING?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THAT AFTER THIS MEETING IN THE SEROLOGY LAB?

A: YES.

Q: AND AROUND WHAT TIME DID YOU ENTER THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM?

A: APPROXIMATELY 9:00, 9:30, SOMEWHERE IN THERE.

Q: HAVE YOU LOOKED AT ANY RECORD TO REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHEN YOU MIGHT HAVE ENTERED THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM, BEFORE YOU CAME TO TESTIFY?

A: YES; HOWEVER, I DON'T REMEMBER THE TIME.

Q: HAVE YOU GONE OVER THESE EVENTS WITH SOME CARE WITH THE PROSECUTION?

A: YES.

Q: A NUMBER OF TIMES?

A: I WOULDN'T SAY A NUMBER OF TIMES, BUT WE HAVE GONE OVER IT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AROUND 9:00 OR 9:30 YOU RECALL GOING TO THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM?

MR. GOLDBERG: MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THAT IS ABOUT THE TIME, YES.

Q: AND MISS MAZZOLA WAS THERE AS WELL?

A: I DON'T RECALL.

Q: WELL, WAS IT ABOUT THIS TIME THAT YOU BEGAN TO REMOVE THE SWATCHES FROM THE TEST-TUBES, YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA?

A: IT WAS IN THAT TIME FRAME, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT ABOUT THE SNEAKERS THAT DETECTIVE LANGE BROUGHT ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH? DID YOU RECEIVE THOSE IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM?

A: NO.

Q: YOU RECEIVED THOSE IN THE SEROLOGY LAB?

A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES.

Q: HE HAD THOSE WITH HIM IN THE SEROLOGY LAB WHEN YOU ARRIVED?

A: I BELIEVE SO.

Q: WHAT ABOUT THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE? WAS THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE IN THE SEROLOGY LAB WHEN YOU ARRIVED?

A: NO.

Q: WHEN YOU WENT TO THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM AT AROUND 9:30 DID YOU PERFORM SOME ANALYSIS ON THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE?

A: I DIDN'T DO ANY ANALYSIS, NO.

Q: WELL, DID YOU NOT REMOVE A HAIR FROM THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WAS THAT ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS YOU DID -- WAS THAT THE FIRST THING YOU DID WHEN YOU GOT INTO THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM THAT MORNING?

A: I DON'T RECALL WHAT THE ORDER OF EVENTS WAS.

Q: SO YOU DON'T RECALL WHETHER OR NOT YOU REMOVED THE HAIR FROM THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE BEFORE OR AFTER THE PROCESSING BEGAN OF REMOVING THE SWATCHES FROM THE TEST-TUBE?

A: THEY WERE DONE AT DIFFERENT TIMES.

Q: BUT YOU DON'T RECALL THE ORDER?

A: NO, I DON'T.

Q: AND AT SOME POINT THAT MORNING, BEFORE YOU LEFT TO GO SEARCH THE BRONCO AT THE PRINT SHED, YOU POURED OFF SOME BLOOD FROM MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD VIAL?

A: NO.

Q: WELL, DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN POURING OFF SOME BLOOD FROM MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD VIAL WITH MR. YAMAUCHI?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU GIVE MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD VIAL TO MR. YAMAUCHI ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN YOU DID THAT IN TERMS OF THE ORDER OF WHAT -- WITHDRAWN. LET'S START IT THIS WAY: DID YOU HAND MR. YAMAUCHI MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD VIAL IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM?

A: I GAVE HIM THE PACKAGE.

Q: YOU GAVE HIM THE PACKAGE?

A: THE GRAY ENVELOPE, YES.

Q: WAS THE GRAY ENVELOPE SEALED?

A: NOT AT THAT POINT.

Q: DID YOU REACH IN AND TAKE OUT THE BLOOD VIAL AND HAND IT TO MR. YAMAUCHI?

A: I GAVE HIM THE PACKAGE.

Q: WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN MR. YAMAUCHI TOOK THE BLOOD VIAL OUT OF THE PACKAGE?

A: I DON'T RECALL IF -- IF I SAW HIM DO THAT OR NOT.

Q: NOW, AT SOME POINT IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM MR. YAMAUCHI BEGAN CUTTING SAMPLES OUT OF THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE?

A: I DON'T KNOW THAT.

Q: YOU DIDN'T SEE THAT?

A: I DON'T RECALL SEEING THAT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK, I THINK THIS WILL BE A GOOD POINT TO CHANGE COURT REPORTERS. ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A BRIEF RECESS AT THIS TIME. PLEASE REMEMBER ALL OF MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU. DO NOT DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU OR CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. MR. FUNG, YOU MAY STEP DOWN. WE WILL BE IN RECESS FOR FIFTEEN MINUTES.

(RECESS.)

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

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

MR. SCHECK: WHILE THE JURY IS FILING IN, CAN WE APPROACH ON ONE MATTER BRIEFLY REGARDING ONE MATTER IN CROSS-EXAMINATION?

THE COURT: HOW MUCH MORE COULD YOU HAVE?

MR. SCHECK: IF I DON'T FINISH AT 12:00 -- I CAN'T TELL YOU PRECISELY HOW MUCH. SHOULDN'T BE MUCH. I'M GOING TO TRY TO FINISH AT 12:00. I MAY NOT. WOULD ONLY BE A HALF HOUR MORE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR --

THE COURT: HOLD ON.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: WE'RE OVER AT SIDEBAR.

MR. SCHECK: I JUST CONSULTED WITH MR. GOLDBERG AT THE SIDE. I DO INTEND ON QUESTIONING MR. FUNG ABOUT LAB REPORT 16.

THE COURT: WHERE THE ORIGINAL NOTE HAS NOW SHOWN UP.

MR. SCHECK: I EXPECTED THIS TO BE THE CASE, THAT MR. GOLDBERG INFORMS ME THAT HE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT BECAUSE THERE WAS A REQUEST IT BE TURNED OVER. HE'S INDICATED TO ME HE IS NOT AWARE OF IT. SO OBVIOUSLY THAT IS A DOCUMENT THAT IF THERE WAS AN ORIGINAL, WE WANT TO PRESENT IT. I DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE A REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION IN FRONT OF THE JURY. I THOUGHT THIS WAS AN APPROPRIATE WAY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG, AT THE LUNCH HOUR, WHY DON'T YOU CONTACT MR. MATHESON, SEE IF YOU CAN PRODUCE THAT SHEET. THANK YOU.

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. SCHECK, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, JUST BEFORE WE BROKE, WE WERE DISCUSSING YOUR ACTIVITIES ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH AT SID.

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU INDICATED AT ONE POINT THAT YOU HAD REFRESHED YOUR RECOLLECTION BY LOOKING AT SOME RECORDS WITH RESPECT TO WHERE YOU WERE AT PARTICULAR TIMES THAT MORNING.

A: YES.

Q: WHAT RECORDS DID YOU LOOK AT?

A: THERE'S A CARD KEY IN THE LABORATORY THAT KEEPS A RECORD OF WHEN PEOPLE GO IN AND OUT OF CERTAIN AREAS OF THE LABORATORY, AND THOSE RECORDS WERE WHAT I REFERRED TO.

Q: YOU MEAN A COMPUTER PRINTOUT OF SOME KIND?

A: YES.

Q: AND MR. GOLDBERG SHOWED YOU A COPY OF THAT?

A: YES.

Q: MR. FUNG, I NOTICED THAT ON DIRECT EXAMINATION, YOU WERE NOT ASKED WHETHER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN SHOWED YOU FOUR RED STAINS ON THE BOTTOM EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO DOOR ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH.

MR. GOLDBERG: I OBJECT TO THAT.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. IT'S NOT A QUESTION, COUNSEL. IT'S TESTIFYING. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THAT LAST QUESTION. ASK A QUESTION, MR. SCHECK.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU ASKED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION IF YOU RECALL ABOUT WHETHER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN SHOWED YOU FOUR RED STAINS ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO DOOR ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH?

MR. GOLDBERG: NOT RELEVANT.

THE COURT: AS PHRASED, THAT'S CORRECT. SUSTAINED. ASK HIM IF THE EVENTS OCCURRED ON JUNE THE 13TH, NOT WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS ASKED THE QUESTIONS. THAT'S IRRELEVANT.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU SPENT IN YOUR PREPARATION TIME WITH PROSECUTORS SOME HOURS DISCUSSING THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT FOUR RED STAINS WERE SEEN BY YOU ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO DOOR?

A: I WOULDN'T SAY HOURS. I WOULDN'T EVEN SAY ONE HOUR. I WOULDN'T EVEN SAY MORE THAN FIVE MINUTES.

Q: THE ISSUE, HOWEVER, AROSE?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION WITH YOU AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD DISCUSS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER YOU SAW FOUR RED STAINS ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO DOOR ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH?

A: I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT QUESTION.

Q: WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD TESTIFY ON DIRECT EXAMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU SAW FOUR RED STAINS ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO DOOR ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH?

A: I DON'T KNOW OR I DIDN'T TELL MR. GOLDBERG AND HE DIDN'T TELL ME THAT HE WOULD BE ASKING ME THOSE QUESTIONS SPECIFICALLY.

Q: SO IN OTHER WORDS, IN YOUR REVIEW SESSIONS FOR YOUR DIRECT EXAMINATION, YOU DID NOT ANTICIPATE BEING ASKED THAT QUESTION ON DIRECT?

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

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU TESTIFIED AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING IN THIS CASE ON JULY 6 AND JULY 7TH?

A: YES.

Q: PRIOR TO YOUR TESTIMONY ON JULY 6TH, DO YOU RECALL THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TESTIFIED ON JULY 5TH?

A: I KNOW THAT HE TESTIFIED BEFORE ME, BUT TO THE DATE, I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE.

Q: DO YOU RECALL THAT PRIOR TO YOUR TESTIMONY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TESTIFIED THAT HE DID NOT DIRECT YOU OR A PHOTOGRAPHER TO TAKE ANY PICTURES OF FOUR RED STAINS ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO DOOR?

A: I DON'T RECALL ANY OF HIS TESTIMONY FROM THE PRELIMINARY HEARING.

Q: ARE YOU AWARE AT THIS TRIAL DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TESTIFIED THAT HE DID SHOW YOU FOUR RED STAINS AT THE BOTTOM EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO DOOR ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH?

MR. GOLDBERG: THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ARE YOU AWARE THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN TESTIFIED AT THIS TRIAL THAT HE DIRECTED YOUR ATTENTION TO FOUR -- THREE OR FOUR LITTLE MARKS, LITTLE LINES, TRANSLUCENT, RED ON THE DOOR SILL OF THE DRIVER'S DOOR ON JUNE 13TH?

A: I DON'T KNOW WHAT HIS TESTIMONY WAS.

Q: NO ONE TOLD YOU FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT HE TESTIFIED TO THAT EFFECT AT THIS TRIAL?

A: NO.

Q: DID ANY DETECTIVE TELL YOU THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD TESTIFIED TO THIS JURY ABOUT SHOWING YOU THOSE FOUR LINES THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO DOOR BEFORE YOU CAME IN HERE TO TESTIFY?

A: NO.

Q: DID ANYONE AT THE CRIME LAB TELL YOU ABOUT IT?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE. IT ALSO MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IF COUNSEL IS GOING TO READ FROM --

MR. SCHECK: IF YOU WANT TO CONSULT THE TESTIMONY, IT'S AT PAGE 18550.

MS. CLARK: ARE WE TESTIFYING HERE?

THE COURT: PROCEED.

MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: OKAY, MR. FUNG. LET ME ASK YOU DIRECTLY, ON JUNE 13TH IN THE MORNING, DID DETECTIVE FUHRMAN POINT OUT FOUR RED LINES, RED STAINS TO YOU ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BRONCO DOOR?

A: I DON'T RECALL HIM DOING SO.

Q: WHEN YOU SAY YOU DON'T RECALL, ARE YOU SAYING IT DIDN'T HAPPEN?

A: I'M NOT SAYING THAT. I'M SAYING I DON'T RECALL IF HE DID OR IF HE DIDN'T.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IF YOU HAD SEEN FOUR RED STAINS ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO DOOR ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 13TH, YOU WOULD HAVE TAKEN A PHOTOGRAPH OF THEM; WOULD YOU NOT?

A: THAT WOULD DEPEND, BUT I DON'T KNOW. BUT THAT WOULD DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

Q: LET'S TRY THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. YOU WERE POINTED OUT A RED STAIN BY THE DOOR HANDLE?

A: YES.

Q: YOU WERE PHOTOGRAPHED POINTING TO THAT RED STAIN, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU'RE THE PERSON THAT'S SUPPOSED TO DIRECT THE PHOTOGRAPHER DURING THE COLLECTION PROCESS?

A: YES.

Q: YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO PHOTOGRAPH ITEMS OF EVIDENCE OF SOME IMPORTANCE THAT ARE POINTED OUT TO YOU BY THE DETECTIVES?

A: YES.

Q: IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, IF YOU HAD SEEN FOUR RED STAINS ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO DOOR, WOULD YOU NOT HAVE DIRECTED THE PHOTOGRAPHER TO TAKE A PICTURE OF IT?

A: IT WOULD BE LIKELY. YES.

Q: IF YOU HAD SEEN FOUR RED STAINS ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO DOOR, WOULD YOU HAVE NOT DONE A PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON JUNE 13TH?

A: POSSIBLY. I -- IF IT WAS NECESSARY, I WOULD HAVE.

Q: IF YOU HAD SEEN FOUR RED STAINS ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO DOOR, WOULD YOU HAVE NOT SWATCHED THEM?

A: I WOULD -- I WOULD POSSIBLY HAVE SWATCHED THEM.

Q: IF YOU HAD SEEN FOUR RED STAINS ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO DOOR, WOULD YOU NOT HAVE INCLUDED THAT OBSERVATION IN YOUR REPORTS FOR THAT DAY?

A: IF I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO THE INVESTIGATION, I WOULD HAVE INCLUDED IT IN MY NOTES, YES.

Q: LOOKING BACK AT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, WOULD NOT THOSE FOUR RED STAINS HAVE BEEN AN IMPORTANT DETAIL THAT YOU WOULD HAVE CERTAINLY INCLUDED IN YOUR NOTES?

MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: FROM MY PERSPECTIVE NOW?

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: LET'S TRY YOUR PERSPECTIVE THEN.

A: I DON'T RECALL MY EXACT STATE OF MIND THEN, BUT IT -- I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY IF I WOULD HAVE PUT IT DOWN OR NOT.

Q: ON JUNE 14TH, YOU CONDUCTED THIS EXAMINATION OF THE BRONCO AT THE PRINT SHED?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU WERE LOOKING FOR ANY EVIDENCE OF BLOOD IN THE BRONCO?

A: I WAS LOOKING FOR BLOOD EVIDENCE, YES.

Q: RED STAINS?

A: YES.

Q: YOU GOT ON YOUR HANDS AND KNEES WITH A FLASHLIGHT AND EXAMINED THE EXTERIOR AREA OF THAT DOOR SILL?

A: I DID EXAMINE THE AREA OF THE DOOR SILL. I DON'T KNOW IF I WAS ON MY HANDS AND KNEES.

Q: DON'T YOU RECALL A PICTURE OF YOU WITH A FLASHLIGHT ON YOUR HANDS AND KNEES LOOKING AT RED STAINS JUST INSIDE THE INTERIOR OF THE BRONCO?

A: MAY HAVE BEEN SQUATTING, BUT I WASN'T ON MY HANDS AND KNEES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SQUATTING.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO DISPLAY A PICTURE NOW THAT I HAVE SHOWN TO THE PROSECUTION.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. SCHECK: I WOULD ASK THIS BE MARKED DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER ALTHOUGH I BELIEVE THERE MAY BE A PICTURE OF IT.

THE COURT: 1097.

MR. SCHECK: 1097.

(DEFT'S 1097 FOR ID = PHOTOGRAPH)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS THIS NOT A PICTURE OF YOU HOLDING A FLASHLIGHT EXAMINING THE DOOR SILL AREA OF THE BRONCO ON JUNE 14TH AT THE PRINT SHED?

A: I THINK IN THAT PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH, I AM INDICATING TO THE PHOTOGRAPHER WHERE I WANT HIM TO LOCATE A SHOT, AND THAT WOULD BE WHERE THE CARD -- CARD IS. I CAN'T READ THE NUMBER FROM HERE.

Q: DID YOU NOT EXAMINE THE DOOR SILL AREA AT THE PRINT SHED ON JUNE 14TH?

A: YES, I DID.

MR. SCHECK: MR. HARRIS, CAN WE GO TIGHTER ON THE DOOR SILL AREA RIGHT WHERE THE DOOR IS OPENING?

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. GOLDBERG: I DON'T THINK COUNSEL -- DID COUNSEL MARK THIS FOR IDENTIFICATION?

THE COURT: YES. 1097.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, DO YOU SEE FOUR RED STAINS ON THE DOOR SILL OF THAT BRONCO IN THIS PICTURE?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I'LL OBJECT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK YOU CAN SEE THE EXTERIOR DOOR SILL IN THIS PICTURE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: IT'S WASHED OUT. THE WHITE AREA IS VERY WASHED OUT. YOU CAN'T EVEN MAKE ANY DETAIL OUT IN ANY OF THAT PORTION.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: LET ME PUT IT DIRECTLY TO YOU, SIR. ON JUNE 14TH, WHEN YOU EXAMINED THE BRONCO, DID YOU SEE FOUR RED STAINS ON THE DOOR SILL OF THE BRONCO?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT TO COUNSEL'S TONE OF VOICE. I ALSO OBJECT BECAUSE THIS DOES NOT REFER TO THE AREA THAT WAS RELATED TO THE TESTIMONY BY FUHRMAN.

MR. SCHECK: I OBJECT TO THAT OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. SCHECK: IT'S A SPEAKING OBJECTION.

THE COURT: IT IS A SPEAKING OBJECTION. PROCEED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MY QUESTION TO YOU, SIR, ON JUNE 14TH, DID YOU SEE FOUR RED STAINS ANYWHERE ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO DOOR?

A: THERE WERE STAINS PRESENT, BUT I DID NOT COLLECT THEM.

Q: IT'S YOUR TESTIMONY, SIR, THAT YOU SAW ON JUNE 13TH -- JUNE 14TH, JUNE 14TH AT THE PRINT SHED FOUR RED STAINS ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO DOOR SILL?

MR. GOLDBERG: MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE WITNESS: THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ON JUNE 14TH, DID YOU SEE FOUR RED STAINS ON THE EXTERIOR DOOR SILL OF THIS BRONCO?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF I SAW FOUR RED STAINS.

Q: IF YOU HAD SEEN FOUR RED STAINS ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH, WOULD YOU NOT HAVE DIRECTED THE PHOTOGRAPHER TO TAKE A PICTURE OF IT?

A: IF THEY WERE HEAVY ENOUGH STAINS, THEN I WOULD HAVE, YES.

Q: IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU SAW FOUR RED STAINS ON JUNE 14TH, BUT YOU DIDN'T THINK THEY WERE HEAVY ENOUGH AND, THEREFORE, YOU DID NOT TAKE -- DIRECT THE PHOTOGRAPHER TO TAKE A PICTURE?

A: THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF BLOOD -- QUITE A BIT OF LIGHT STAINING AROUND THE DRIVER COMPARTMENT OF THE VEHICLE, AND I ONLY DIRECTED THE PHOTOGRAPHER TO CONCENTRATE ON THE HEAVIER STAINS.

Q: THAT'S NOT MY QUESTION. MY QUESTION, SIR, IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU SAW FOUR RED STAINS ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO DOOR ON JUNE 14TH, BUT YOU THOUGHT THEY WERE NOT HEAVY ENOUGH AND, THEREFORE, YOU DID NOT DIRECT THE PHOTOGRAPHER TO TAKE A PICTURE? IS THAT WHAT HAPPENED?

A: I CAN'T -- I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WERE FOUR OR NOT. I -- THE NUMBER FOUR IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE -- WITH THE ANSWER.

Q: YOU SAW THREE ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO ON JUNE --

A: I DON'T RECALL THE NUMBER.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION. HE'S NOT --

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: MAY THE WITNESS BE ALLOWED TO ANSWER? I'M SORRY.

THE COURT: THAT'S TWICE WITH THIS WITNESS.

THE WITNESS: PLEASE REPEAT IT.

THE COURT: REPEAT THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU SAW THREE RED STAINS ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, AT THIS POINT, IT'S ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO, I'M NOT SAYING THAT.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ARE YOU SAYING YOU SAW TWO RED STAINS?

A: I DO REMEMBER THAT THERE WAS EITHER A STAIN OR TWO STAINS THAT WERE VERY LIGHT ALONG THE SILL AREA THAT I DID NOT COLLECT.

Q: CAN YOU POINT OUT FOR US USING THE ELMO THE AREA IN THIS PICTURE WHERE YOU CLAIM TO HAVE SEEN SOME RED STAINS ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH?

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, IT ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE, THAT IT WOULD BE ON THIS --

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, YOU WERE JUST MAKING REFERENCE BEFORE IN ANSWERING MY QUESTION, YOU WERE LOOKING TOWARDS THE MONITOR AND INDICATING SOMETHING ABOUT AN AREA; WERE YOU NOT?

A: I WAS TRYING TO FIND SOME DETAIL IN THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT COULD HELP ME, BUT IT WAS REALLY -- LOOKS FAIRLY WASHED OUT TO ME.

Q: WELL, CAN YOU JUST SHOW US THE AREA WHERE YOU'RE CLAIMING TO HAVE SEEN RED STAINS ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH?

THE COURT: WOULD YOU REPHRASE THE QUESTION, PLEASE?

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: COULD YOU SHOW US THE AREA IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH WHERE YOU SAW RED STAINS ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH?

A: I'LL HAVE TO MAKE SEVERAL ASSUMPTIONS IN DOING SO IN THE PHOTOGRAPH.

Q: WELL, DOES THIS PHOTOGRAPH DEPICT THE AREA?

A: IT DOES, BUT IT DOES NOT SHOW SUFFICIENT DETAIL FOR ME TO POINT OUT SPECIFIC AREAS.

Q: WELL, CAN YOU JUST DIRECT THE POINTER TO THE AREA AS BEST YOU CAN?

A: AS BEST I CAN MAKING SOME ASSUMPTIONS.

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, AT THIS POINT, THERE'S NO FOUNDATION FOR THE WITNESS' TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. HE SAID IT DEPICTS THE AREA.

MR. GOLDBERG: AND SPECULATION.

THE COURT: GO AHEAD.

THE WITNESS: UP HERE. OKAY. SLOWLY TO THE RIGHT. DOWN LOWER, SLOWLY TO THE RIGHT. LITTLE HIGHER. IN THAT AREA THERE (INDICATING).

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: OKAY. CAN WE -- CAN YOU DIRECT IT IN A CIRCLE? HOW FAR DID THEY EXTEND?

A: NO. THAT'S NOT THE AREA I INDICATED.

Q: OKAY. LET'S TRY AGAIN.

A: RIGHT -- OKAY. A LITTLE OVER THERE. NO. LITTLE HIGHER. OKAY. NOW JUST MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE TO YOUR LEFT. LITTLE BIT MORE TO THE RIGHT. OKAY. NOW YOU'RE COVERING IT. THAT'S JUST ABOUT THE AREA (INDICATING).

MR. SCHECK: OKAY. CAN WE PRINT THAT AND MAKE THAT DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER?

THE COURT: 1098. 1098, MRS. ROBERTSON? 1098, NEXT IN ORDER, DEFENSE?

THE CLERK: YES, YOUR HONOR. SORRY.

(DEFT'S 1098 FOR ID = PRINTOUT)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, DID YOU REPORT TO ANYONE SEEING A RED STAIN ON THE EXTERIOR DOOR OF THE BRONCO ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU MAKE ANY NOTATION OF IT?

A: NO.

Q: YOU WENT BACK TO THE BRONCO FOR A VISIT ON JUNE 28TH?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU SEE THE RED STAIN ON JUNE 28TH?

A: I DIDN'T LOOK FOR IT.

Q: YOU WENT WITH ANOTHER CRIMINALIST, MR. MARACOVO?

A: MASTRACOVO.

Q: MASTRACOVO. DID YOU POINT IT OUT TO HIM?

A: NO. WE WERE THERE FOR SPECIFIC COLLECTION, DIRECTED COLLECTION.

Q: YOU WERE THERE TO GET THE SHOVEL AND THE PLASTIC BAG AND THE TOWEL?

A: THAT'S ALL.

Q: AND YOU DID A PHENOL TEST ON THE TOWEL AND IT CAME OUT NEGATIVE, RIGHT?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF WE DID IT ON THAT DAY, BUT AT SOME POINT, THE TOWEL WAS TESTED IN THE FIELD. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS DONE ON THE 14TH OR THE 28TH. I'LL HAVE TO CHECK MY NOTES.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE WITNESS: THAT WAS -- THE TOWEL WAS TESTED ON THE 14TH OF JUNE.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ON JULY 6TH, YOU TOOK ANOTHER TRIP TO THE BRONCO AT THE REQUEST OF MISS CLARK?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU DID THIS JUST BEFORE YOU TESTIFIED AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT WAS AFTER DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD TESTIFIED AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU WERE INFORMED BY MISS CLARK THAT DETECTIVE FUHRMAN HAD TESTIFIED TO SEEING FOUR RED STAINS ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE DOOR SILL?

A: SHE DIDN'T NAME DETECTIVE FUHRMAN BY NAME, BUT SHE DID SAY DETECTIVES HAD SEEN THEM AND SHE WOULD LIKE ME TO DO A PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON THOSE AREAS.

Q: AND DID SHE TELL YOU ON THE MORNING OF JULY 6TH THAT ONE DETECTIVE HAD TESTIFIED TO SEEING IT, THESE RED STAINS, AND TWO OTHER DETECTIVES HAD TESTIFIED AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING THAT THEY HADN'T SEEN IT?

A: NO.

Q: SHE DIDN'T INDICATE ANYTHING TO YOU ABOUT A CONFLICT IN TESTIMONY?

A: SHE JUST REQUESTED ME TO LOOK SPECIFICALLY AT THAT AREA AND DO A PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON IT.

Q: NOW, THIS TRIP THAT YOU MADE TO THE BRONCO ON JULY 6TH, YOU FIRST REVEALED THIS IN TESTIMONY AT A HEARING IN OCTOBER OF 1994?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT WAS WHEN YOU WERE CALLED BY THE DEFENSE TO TESTIFY?

A: I -- I DON'T RECALL WHO CALLED ME, BUT I DID TESTIFY.

Q: DO YOU RECALL ON DIRECT EXAMINATION IN OCTOBER BEING ASKED QUESTIONS BY DEAN UELMEN?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: DO YOU KNOW WHO HE IS?

A: YES.

Q: AND HE ASKED YOU QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF TIMES YOU HAD TAKEN TRIPS AND INSPECTED THE BRONCO?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN HE FIRST ASKED YOU ABOUT THIS TRIP TO THE BRONCO ON JULY 6TH, YOU TOLD HIM, "I WENT TO THE BRONCO AND LOOKED TO SEE IF IT WAS THERE," REFERRING TO THE RED STAINS, "THAT'S ALL I DID"?

A: ON JULY 6TH?

Q: YES.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, PERHAPS I COULD HAVE A TRANSCRIPT CITE ON THIS.

THE COURT: PAGE AND LINE, COUNSEL?

MR. SCHECK: YES. IT'S THE TRANSCRIPT OF OCTOBER 6TH, AND I'M REFERRING TO QUESTIONS THAT BEGIN AT 2581. AND MAYBE TO MAKE IT EASIER, I'LL START ON LINE 1 OF 2581 AND I'LL READ --

THE COURT: LET MR. GOLDBERG CATCH UP.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. GOLDBERG: IS THIS THE PRELIM?

MR. SCHECK: THIS IS THE HEARING ON OCTOBER 6TH. IF YOU WANT, HERE'S A COPY.

MS. CLARK: THAT'S NOT THE OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT. THAT'S NOT THE OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE READING FROM? READ FROM THE OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT. I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU GOT IT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.) MR. GOLDBERG: THIS TRANSCRIPT IS APPARENTLY DIFFERENT FROM --

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD ASK MR. SCHECK READ FROM THE OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT BECAUSE THERE'S NO VOUCHING FOR ACCURACY.

MR. SCHECK: ARE YOU --

THE COURT: HOLD ON. LET ME SEE COUNSEL OVER AT THE SIDEBAR, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT?

MR. GOLDBERG: YEAH. THE GRIFFEN HEARING TRANSCRIPT.

THE COURT: I'M SORRY?

MR. GOLDBERG: THE OFFICIAL GRIFFEN HEARING TRANSCRIPT.

THE COURT: WHAT MR. SCHECK IS REFERRING TO IS, THE COURT REPORTERS ALSO PROVIDE A CONDENSED FOUR PAGES TO A PAGE OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT.

MS. CLARK: WE'VE NEVER SEEN IT.

THE COURT: THAT'S AVAILABLE TO YOU. IF YOU RECALL, WHEN WE STARTED THE CASE, I GAVE YOU YOUR OPTION OF A HARD COPY, ASCII DISK, FOUR BY FOUR. THIS IS WHAT WE CALL THIS, THE THING THAT SCHECK HAS, OR ANY NUMBER OF DIFFERENT VERSIONS. SO THIS IS WHAT HE'S REFERRED TO I BELIEVE, IS THAT FOUR BY FOUR.

MS. CLARK: ARE YOU SURE? I'VE NEVER SEEN THAT BEFORE AND DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE FOUR BY FOURS. I'VE NEVER SEEN THEM BEFORE.

THE COURT: THAT'S WHAT I HAVE. THAT'S WHAT I USE. IT'S A LOT EASIER TO CARRY. HOLD ON.

MISS CLARK, WHO'S IN CHARGE HERE? IS MR. GOLDBERG RUNNING THIS EXAMINATION OR YOU? YOU NEED TO LET HIM HANDLE THE MATTER.

MS. CLARK: SORRY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE. THIS IS THREE TIMES NOW THAT YOU'VE INTERRUPTED THE OTHER COUNSEL'S MATTER, AND I WOULD LIKE NOT TO HAVE TO HAVE IT HAPPEN AGAIN.

MS. CLARK: IT WON'T, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ANYTHING ELSE?

MR. GOLDBERG: MAYBE I CAN LOOK AT COUNSEL'S TRANSCRIPT.

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU LOOK AT IT.

MS. CLARK: THEY HAVE DIFFERENT PAGE NUMBERS. I WENT TO THE PAGE THAT TIME -- HE WENT TO THE PAGE BARRY CITED --

THE COURT: NO. I ORDERED THOSE BECAUSE IT'S A LOT EASIER TO CARRY AROUND, FOUR PAGES AT A TIME.

MS. CLARK: COULD WE GO OFF THE RECORD?

(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. HAVE YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE TRANSCRIPTS?

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: WHAT'S THE DATE OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, OCTOBER 6TH?

MR. SCHECK: THIS IS OCTOBER 6TH. AND FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, YOUR HONOR, I'LL BEGIN ACTUALLY AT PAGE 2580, LINE 23, WHICH IS THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. UELMEN.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: "QUESTION: ALL RIGHT, MR. FUNG. "YOU PARTICIPATED THEN IN TWO DIFFERENT SEARCHES OF THE BRONCO AUTOMOBILE; IS THAT CORRECT?

"ANSWER: YES.

"QUESTION: ONE ON JUNE 14TH AT THE PRINT SHED?

"ANSWER: YES.

"QUESTION: AND THEN A SECOND ONE ON JUNE 28TH AT VIERTEL'S?

"ANSWER: YES.

"QUESTION: DID YOU VISIT THE BRONCO ON ANY OTHER OCCASION OTHER THAN THESE TWO OCCASIONS WHEN YOU WERE EXECUTING A SEARCH WARRANT?

"ANSWER: YES, I DID.

"QUESTION: WHEN WAS THAT?

"THE WITNESS: LET ME REFER TO MY NOTES.

"BRIEF PAUSE.

"ANSWER: THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL TIME WHERE I HAD TO -- WHERE I WAS ASKED TO SEE IF THERE WAS ADDITIONAL BLOOD ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE DOOR, AND I DID THAT THE FIRST TIME I TESTIFIED, ON THE SAME DAY THAT I TESTIFIED IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING. I DON'T HAVE THAT WRITTEN DOWN THOUGH.

"QUESTION: OKAY. "SO YOU HAVE NO RECORD OF HAVING MADE ANOTHER VISIT TO THE BRONCO AUTOMOBILE TO EXAMINE IT?

"ANSWER: NO.

"QUESTION: YOU DID NOT PREPARE ANY REPORT TO THAT EFFECT?

"ANSWER: I WENT TO THE BRONCO, LOOKED TO SEE IF IT WAS THERE, AND THAT WAS ALL I DID."

WERE YOU ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS AND DID YOU GIVE THOSE ANSWERS?

A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES.

Q: NOW, LATER ON IN YOUR EXAMINATION AT THAT HEARING, YOU WERE ASKED SOME QUESTIONS BY MISS CLARK, STARTING ON PAGE 2584, 2585, 2586.

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

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I JUST NEED ONE MOMENT TO TRY TO GET OUR TWO TRANSCRIPTS TO CORRESPOND BECAUSE WE'RE READING OFF DIFFERENT TRANSCRIPTS, IF I MAY.

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

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, I HAVE TWO COPIES HERE. WOULD IT HELP YOU IF I GAVE YOU MY COPY?

MR. GOLDBERG: WE DON'T HAVE THIS CONDENSED VERSION, YOUR HONOR. THAT'S THE SAME ONE THAT WE HAVE. SO --

MR. SCHECK: THEY APPARENTLY DON'T HAVE THE WHOLE THING THEY SAY.

MR. GOLDBERG: CAN I SEE WHAT THE COURT HAS?

THE COURT: THAT'S MY COPY.

MR. SCHECK: DO YOU HAVE A VIDEOTAPE?

THE COURT: 2584.

MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY. COUNSEL, WHERE DO YOU PROPOSE TO READ FROM?

MR. SCHECK: THE QUESTIONS I SHOWED YOU BEFORE.

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

MR. SCHECK: MAY I PROCEED?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING INCONSISTENT WITH THIS. PERHAPS WE COULD APPROACH.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY I PUT SOMETHING ON THE RECORD, PLEASE?

THE COURT: NOT AT THIS POINT. LET'S EXPEDITE THIS MATTER. 2584 OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, THERE'S SOME MINOR DISCREPANCY REGARDING THE PRESUMPTIVE TESTING ON THE TOWEL. HOWEVER, THE BOTTOM OF THE DRIVER'S DOOR, THERE'S AN INDICATION THAT HE TESTED IT ON PAGE 2586, AND THAT'S INCONSISTENT WITH HIS TESTIMONY.

MR. SCHECK: YES.

MR. COCHRAN: IT IS.

MR. GOLDBERG: THE TESTIMONY HERE?

THE COURT: YES. HE SAID HE DIDN'T TEST IT.

MR. GOLDBERG: NOT HERE.

THE COURT: YES, HE DID. LOOK AT 2586. 2586.

MR. GOLDBERG: NO. IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: YES. JUST NOW. 10 MINUTES AGO.

MR. GOLDBERG: NO. I THINK HE TESTIFIED --

MR. COCHRAN: MAY WE PROCEED, YOUR HONOR?

MR. SCHECK: I THINK THERE'S A SERIES OF CONTRADICTORY ANSWERS, AND I WANT TO EXPLORE THEM AS THEY WERE GIVEN.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. OBJECTION IS OVERRULED.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: JUST TO PICK UP THE THEME FOR A SECOND, MR. FUNG, WHAT WE JUST REVIEWED IS THAT WHEN YOU ANSWERED MR. UELMEN'S QUESTIONS, YOU TOLD HIM, "I WENT TO THE BRONCO, LOOKED TO SEE IF IT WAS THERE, AND THAT'S ALL I DID." DO YOU RECALL GIVING THAT ANSWER?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. THEN WHEN MISS CLARK ASKED YOU QUESTIONS, YOU GAVE -- YOU WERE ASKED THESE QUESTIONS AND YOU GAVE THESE ANSWERS:

"QUESTION: NOW, ON THE DATE THAT YOU WENT BACK TO THE BRONCO TO LOOK AT IT, WHICH WAS THE SECOND DAY OF YOUR TESTIMONY --

"ANSWER: I THINK SO, YES.

"QUESTION: -- IT WAS DURING YOUR TESTIMONY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, DURING THAT TIME?

"ANSWER: YES.

"QUESTION: HOW DID YOU GO AND -- HOW DID YOU GO GET TO THE CAR? WERE YOU JUST ABLE TO WALK IN THROUGH AN OPEN DOOR?

"ANSWER: I WENT TO VIERTEL'S TOW AND I SHOWED -- I SHOWED MY BADGE OR SOMETHING TO THE ATTENDANT TO LET ME INTO THE GARAGE AREA OR THE TOW YARD AND THEN I WENT INTO THEIR PRINT AREA AND OBSERVED WHAT WAS ON THE DRIVER DOOR.

"QUESTION: SO YOU HAD TO SHOW IDENTIFICATION IN ORDER TO BE ALLOWED IN?

"ANSWER: SOMETIMES I HAVE TO SHOW IDENTIFICATION. BUT IF THEY RECOGNIZE THE POLICE CAR, THEY'LL OPEN THE DOOR FOR ME.

"QUESTION: SO IF THEY KNOW THAT YOU'RE A POLICE OFFICER, THEY LET YOU IN. OTHERWISE YOU HAVE TO SHOW IDENTIFICATION?

"ANSWER: YES.

"QUESTION: AND WHEN YOU MADE THAT EXAMINATION, YOU LOOKED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE DRIVER'S DOOR?

"ANSWER: YES, I DID.

"QUESTION: WHAT DID YOU SEE?

"ANSWER: THERE WAS A DARK AREA WITH THE APPEARANCE OF POSSIBLE BLOOD.

"QUESTION: DID YOU TEST IT?

"ANSWER: YES, I DID.

"QUESTION: AND IT GAVE PRELIMINARY TESTS FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD?" I AM SORRY.

"QUESTION: AND?

"ANSWER: IT GAVE PRELIMINARY TESTS FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD."

WERE YOU ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS AND DID YOU GIVE THOSE ANSWERS TO MISS CLARK?

A: FROM THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES.

Q: SO IT'S YOUR TESTIMONY OR IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT ON JULY 6TH, YOU WENT TO VIERTEL'S AT THE REQUEST OF MISS CLARK AND YOU LOOKED FOR BLOODSTAINS ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO DOOR?

A: THE EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO DOOR BY THE DOOR SILL, YES.

Q: WHERE YOU INDICATED -- THE GENERAL AREA YOU INDICATED IN THE PICTURE WE SHOWED YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY, SIR, THAT YOU SAW DARK SPOTS THERE?

A: IT WAS DARK IN COMPARISON TO THE REST OF THE VEHICLE.

Q: RED STAINS?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS RED AT THE TIME -- AT THAT TIME.

Q: WERE YOU ALONE WHEN YOU MADE THIS VISIT?

A: I BELIEVE I WAS.

Q: DID YOU BRING ANY PHOTOGRAPHER WITH YOU?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU CONDUCT A PRESUMPTIVE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND YOU GOT A POSITIVE RESULT?

A: YES.

Q: AND AT THAT TIME, YOU DID NOT WRITE ANY REPORT ABOUT HAVING PERFORMED SUCH A TEST?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: YOU DID NOT TAKE ANY PICTURE OF THOSE DARK SPOTS THAT YOU CLAIM TO HAVE SEEN BEFORE YOU TESTED IT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, ON JULY 6TH, YOU CAME BACK TO TESTIFY AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN YOU CAME BACK TO TESTIFY, DID YOU REPORT TO MISS CLARK THAT YOU HAD SEEN THESE DARK SPOTS ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO DOOR?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF I RELAYED THAT TO HER AT THAT TIME OR MAYBE OR IF I HAD RELAYED THAT INFORMATION TO HER BEFORE.

Q: WELL, YOU WENT OUT TO LOOK AT THAT THE MORNING OF YOUR TESTIMONY?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND ARE YOU SAYING THAT AFTER LOOKING AT THOSE DARK SPOTS, TESTING THEM FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD AT MISS CLARK'S REQUEST, THAT YOU DID NOT IMMEDIATELY RETURN AND REPORT TO HER WHAT YOU HAD SEEN AND WHAT YOU HAD DONE?

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

Q: ARE YOU SAYING YOU DON'T RECALL, SIR, BECAUSE YOU THINK THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE OF SOME ASSISTANCE TO THE PROSECUTION'S CASE HERE?

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

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHEN YOU PERFORM A PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST -- WITHDRAWN. WHEN YOU PERFORMED THE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BRONCO DOOR ON JULY 6TH, YOU TOOK A SWAB AND YOU PUT SOME DISTILLED WATER ON IT?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEN YOU PUT THAT SWAB ONTO THE DARK SPOT YOU SAW AND REMOVED SOME OF IT?

A: A PORTION OF IT, YES.

Q: PORTION OF IT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, AT SOME POINT, DID YOU REPORT TO MISS CLARK WHAT YOU HAD DONE ON JULY 6TH?

A: I DID RELAY TO HER AT SOME POINT THAT I HAD DONE WHAT SHE REQUESTED OF ME, YES.

Q: DID SHE TAKE ANY NOTES WHEN YOU RELAYED THIS INFORMATION TO HER?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE SHE DID.

Q: WHERE DID THIS CONVERSATION TAKE PLACE?

A: I'M NOT SURE. IT WAS IN THE D.A.'S OFFICE SOMEPLACE.

Q: DID YOU RELAY THIS INFORMATION TO MISS CLARK BEFORE YOU TESTIFIED ON JULY 6TH AND JULY 7TH AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING?

A: I DON'T RECALL WHEN EXACTLY I RELAYED IT TO HER.

Q: CAN YOU THINK OF ANY POSSIBLE REASON THAT YOU WOULD NOT TELL MISS CLARK ON JULY 6TH OR 7TH WHAT YOU'D SEEN ON THE BOTTOM OF THAT BRONCO DOOR IF YOU'D SEEN IT?

MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE AND IT'S ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THIS WAS A MINOR THING IN MY MIND. I DIDN'T -- I DIDN'T -- IN MY MIND, I DIDN'T PLACE A LOT OF SIGNIFICANCE ON IT. IT WAS A REQUEST SHE MADE OF ME AND I PERFORMED THE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST, AND AT A LATER TIME I SAID I'VE DONE IT AND THAT'S ALL I THOUGHT ABOUT IT.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: A MINOR THING.

THE COURT: IS THAT A QUESTION?

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU THOUGHT IT WAS A MINOR THING?

A: I DIDN'T -- I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS -- NEEDED A REPORT WRITTEN AT THE TIME I DID IT.

Q: WELL, YOU DIDN'T FILL OUT A REPORT ABOUT DOING THIS UNTIL OCTOBER?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: BUT IT IS REQUIRED AT THE SID LABORATORY, AT YOUR CRIME LABORATORY THAT IF YOU ARE TO PERFORM A PRESUMPTIVE TEST IN A CASE, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO MAKE A RECORD OF IT?

A: THAT'S IN THAT PROPOSED MANUAL, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S ACTUAL POLICY OR NOT.

Q: WELL, ISN'T THAT YOUR GENERAL PRACTICE; THAT WHEN YOU PERFORM A PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON AN ITEM OF EVIDENCE IN THE CASE, YOU MAKE A REPORT ABOUT IT?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT'S IRRELEVANT. HE DID MAKE A REPORT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: IN CERTAIN INSTANCES, YES.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU WOULD MAKE A REPORT ABOUT IT IF IT REALLY HAPPENED, IF YOU REALLY WENT OUT THERE AND SAW THOSE DARK SPOTS AND DID A PRESUMPTIVE TEST, RIGHT?

THE COURT: I AM GOING TO SUSTAIN THE COURT'S OWN OBJECTION TO THAT QUESTION. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, WOULD IT NOT BE YOUR PRACTICE IF YOU HAD IN FACT GONE OUT, SEEN DARK SPOTS ON THE DOOR SILL OF THE BRONCO ON JULY 6TH AND DONE A PRESUMPTIVE TEST, WOULD IT HAVE NOT BEEN YOUR PRACTICE TO MAKE A REPORT ABOUT IT?

A: NOT NECESSARILY, NO.

Q: WAS IT SO MINOR AN EVENT THAT YOU NOT ONLY DIDN'T TELL MISS CLARK ABOUT IT, BUT YOU DIDN'T FEEL IT NECESSARY TO MAKE OUT A REPORT?

A: I TOLD MISS CLARK ABOUT IT AT SOME POINT IN TIME. I DON'T RECALL WHEN, AND EVENTUALLY I DID MAKE A REPORT.

Q: AND YOU'RE TELLING US, SIR, THAT ON JULY 5TH, YOU THOUGHT THAT SEEING A RED STAIN ON THE EXTERIOR OF THAT BRONCO DOOR WAS A MINOR THING NOT WORTH MENTIONING?

THE COURT: WANT TO REPHRASE THE QUESTION?

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU THOUGHT IT WAS A MINOR THING NOT WORTH MENTIONING TO MISS CLARK?

A: I MAY NOT HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIT DOWN AND TALK TO HER ABOUT IT. I DON'T RECALL WHEN I TALKED TO HER. I MAY HAVE TALKED TO HER ABOUT IT AT THAT TIME. I DON'T RECALL WHEN THOUGH.

Q: WELL, YOU TESTIFIED AT THAT PRELIMINARY HEARING ON JULY 6TH AND 7TH?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND THAT TESTIMONY WAS ON NATIONAL TELEVISION?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: AND YOU WERE RECOUNTING THE EVENTS OF JUNE 13TH?

MR. GOLDBERG: IT'S OVERBROAD.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. GOLDBERG: ALSO IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: AND I WAS RECOUNTING THE EVENTS OF JUNE 13TH?

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YES. PART OF YOUR PRELIMINARY HEARING TESTIMONY UNDER QUESTIONING OF MISS CLARK WAS TO RECOUNT THE EVENTS OF JUNE 13TH AND YOUR ROLE IN COLLECTING EVIDENCE?

A: YES.

Q: ARE YOU TELLING US, SIR, THAT YOU DID NOT HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH MISS CLARK ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY BEFORE YOU TESTIFIED?

A: I DID HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH MISS CLARK BEFORE I TESTIFIED.

Q: AND IN THAT DISCUSSION, DID YOU GIVE HER ANY REPORT ABOUT SEEING DARK SPOTS ON THE EXTERIOR DOOR SILL OF THAT BRONCO?

MR. GOLDBERG: VAGUE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: DURING OUR -- THAT WAS THE POINT IN THE CONVERSATION WHERE SHE REQUESTED ME TO LOOK SPECIFICALLY AND DO THE TEST FOR PHENOLPHTHALEIN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR SILL.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: OH. SO YOU HAD A CONVERSATION WITH HER ON JULY 6TH, AND WHEN THE ISSUE AROSE ABOUT THESE RED STAINS, SHE THEN DIRECTED YOU TO GO TO VIERTEL'S AND LOOK AT THE DOOR SILL?

A: NO. THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID.

Q: WELL, PLEASE CLARIFY.

A: THERE WAS A CONFERENCE THAT WE HAD PRIOR TO MY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE OR PRETRIAL HEARING TESTIMONY IN WHICH WE DISCUSSED WHAT I DID; AND AT THAT TIME, SHE MADE THAT REQUEST FOR ME TO DO A PRESUMPTIVE TEST AT THE DRIVER DOOR SILL OF THE BRONCO.

Q: AND WHEN SHE MADE THAT REQUEST, DID SHE SUGGEST TO YOU BRING A PHOTOGRAPHER SO THAT YOU CAN DOCUMENT THE EXISTENCE OF THESE RED STAINS BEFORE YOU DO A TEST?

A: NO, SHE DID NOT SAY THAT.

Q: DID IT OCCUR TO YOU THAT THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA?

A: NOT AT THE TIME, NO.

Q: WHEN YOU FINISHED THIS TEST AND YOUR OBSERVATIONS ON JULY 6TH, I ASK YOU AGAIN, SIR, DID YOU COME BACK AND REPORT TO MISS CLARK BEFORE YOU TESTIFIED ON YOUR FINDINGS?

A: I DON'T RECALL IF I TOLD HER BEFORE I TESTIFIED OR NOT.

Q: AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, YOU WERE ASKED NO QUESTIONS, WERE YOU, ABOUT SEEING ANY RED STAINS AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT BRONCO DOOR?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THAT'S IRRELEVANT, WHETHER HE WAS ASKED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. DO YOU RECALL.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND YOU DID NOT TESTIFY, SIR, ABOUT SEEING RED STAINS AT -- ON THE BOTTOM OF THAT BRONCO DOOR?

MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT IF HE WASN'T ASKED.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T RECALL.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT YOU NEVER SAW ANY RED STAINS ON THE BOTTOM OF THAT BRONCO DOOR ON JULY 6TH?

A: NO. I DID SEE A STAIN THAT GAVE A POSITIVE FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD AT THE BOTTOM OF THE DOOR SILL THERE.

Q: ISN'T IT TRUE, MR. FUNG, THAT YOU NEVER REMOVED ANYTHING FROM THE BOTTOM OF THAT BRONCO DOOR ON JULY 6TH FOR PURPOSES OF PERFORMING A PRESUMPTIVE TEST?

A: I DID PERFORM A PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON A DARK STAIN AT THE DOOR SILL OF THE DRIVER DOOR.

Q: AND YOU REMOVED SOME OF THAT STAIN, SOME OF THAT EVIDENCE FOR PURPOSES OF YOUR TEST?

A: YES.

Q: BECAUSE YOU'VE TOLD US THAT THE STAIN IS THE EVIDENCE.

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU'RE SURE OF THAT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU'RE AS SURE OF THAT AS THE FACT THAT WHEN YOU TOOK THAT ENVELOPE ON JUNE 13TH, YOU DIDN'T TAKE IT WITH YOUR BARE HANDS?

THE COURT: IT'S ARGUMENTATIVE, COUNSEL.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT YOU WENT OUT ON JULY 6TH TO LOOK AT THE BRONCO SIMPLY TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORY FOR COURT?

A: I WENT THERE SPECIFICALLY TO LOOK AT THE DRIVER DOOR SILL AND PERFORM A PRESUMPTIVE TEST ON IT.

Q: MR. FUNG, YOU WERE AWARE THAT A DETECTIVE MULLDORFER FROM THE L.A. POLICE COMMISSION CONDUCTED AN INVESTIGATION WITH RESPECT TO BREAK-INS OF THE BRONCO AT VIERTEL'S?

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU QUESTIONED BY A DETECTIVE MULLDORFER WITH RESPECT TO YOUR VISITS TO THE BRONCO?

MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NO? WERE YOU QUESTIONED BY ANYONE FROM THE L.A. POLICE COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO VISITS TO THE BRONCO?

A: NO.

Q: NO RECOLLECTION OF THAT AT ALL?

A: NONE.

Q: YOU DO NOT RECOLLECT TELLING DETECTIVE MULLDORFER OR ANYONE ELSE ABOUT ALL THE DIFFERENT TIMES THAT YOU VISITED THE BRONCO AT VIERTEL'S?

A: I DON'T RECALL ANY PERSONAL INTERVIEWS. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A PHONE CONVERSATION, BUT I DON'T RECALL.

Q: SO YOU RECALL A PHONE CONVERSATION?

A: THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A PHONE CONVERSATION, BUT I DON'T RECALL ANY PERSONAL CONVERSATIONS.

Q: DID YOU NOT ON AUGUST 8TH, 1994 HAVE AN INTERVIEW WITH DETECTIVE MULLDORFER WITH RESPECT TO YOUR VISITS TO THE BRONCO?

A: I DON'T RECALL.

Q: WAS IT A DETECTIVE CARSON?

A: I DON'T RECALL ANY PERSONAL INTERVIEWS WITH THEM.

Q: DID YOU TELL ANYONE ON AUGUST 8TH THAT YOU VISITED THE VEHICLE ON JULY 6TH TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORY FOR COURT?

A: I DON'T RECALL SAYING THAT.

Q: DID YOU TELL ANYONE ON AUGUST 8TH THAT YOU DID NOT REMOVE ANY EVIDENCE FROM THE VEHICLE ON JULY 6TH?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. THAT'S NOT INCONSISTENT. IT'S MISLEADING.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

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

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DID NOT COLLECT ANY EVIDENCE THAT DAY.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, WHEN YOU PERFORMED THE PRESUMPTIVE TESTS, DIDN'T YOU JUST TELL US THAT YOU WERE REMOVING EVIDENCE BY TAKING THAT SWAB AND SWABBING THE DARK SPOT?

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

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: TAKING A SWAB FOR PRESUMPTIVE TESTS AND COLLECTING ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AFTER YOU TOOK THE SWAB AND RUBBED THE DARK SPOT ON JULY 6TH, WAS ANY RED STAIN LEFT?

A: I DON'T RECALL IF ANY WAS LEFT OR NOT. I DON'T THINK I USED UP THE WHOLE STAIN.

Q: WELL, IF YOU DIDN'T USE UP THE WHOLE STAIN, DID IT EVER OCCUR TO YOU TO SUGGEST SOMEBODY SHOULD GO BACK AND TAKE A PICTURE OF WHAT WAS LEFT?

A: NO.

Q: NEVER MADE THAT SUGGESTION TO ANYONE?

A: NO.

Q: MISS CLARK NEVER TOLD YOU TO GO BACK AND TAKE A PICTURE OF IT?

A: NO.

Q: DIDN'T YOU TELL SOMEONE ON AUGUST 8TH WITH RESPECT TO THIS INVESTIGATION OF THE BRONCO THAT YOU DID NOT REMOVE ANY EVIDENCE ON JULY 6TH AND YOU DID NOT NOTICE ANY PAPERS IN THE VEHICLE AT THAT TIME EITHER?

A: I DIDN'T LOOK FOR PAPERS IN THE VEHICLE.

Q: ARE YOU SURE, SIR, THAT YOU DID NOT TELL SOMEONE FROM THE L.A. POLICE COMMISSION THAT YOU VISITED THE VEHICLE ON JULY 6TH TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORY FOR COURT AND YOU DIDN'T REMOVE ANY EVIDENCE FROM IT?

A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT CONVERSATION. I DON'T EVEN RECALL TALKING TO SOMEBODY FROM THE L.A. COMMISSION, POLICE COMMISSION.

MR. SCHECK: ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, BEFORE WE LEAVE THIS TOPIC, LET ME JUST SHOW YOU SOME DOCUMENTS TO SEE IF THEY REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. THERE'S NO SHOWING HIS RECOLLECTION NEEDS REFRESHED.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, YOU'VE INDICATED THAT YOU DON'T RECALL SPEAKING TO ANYBODY FROM THE LOS ANGELES POLICE COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO YOUR VISITS TO THE BRONCO?

A: I DON'T REMEMBER ANY SPECIFIC CONVERSATIONS, NO.

MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. MAY --

THE COURT: COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS.

MR. SCHECK: I AM SORRY?

THE COURT: COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS.

MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WOULD IT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION, SIR, TO EXAMINE SOME DOCUMENTS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH SOMEONE FROM THE LOS ANGELES POLICE COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO YOUR VISITS TO THE BRONCO?

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

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: IT MAY IF -- BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SOURCE OF THE DOCUMENTS ARE.

MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I ASK THAT --

THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU JUST SHOW IT TO COUNSEL.

MR. SCHECK: YES.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, CAN WE APPROACH FOR A MOMENT SO THE COURT CAN SEE, TAKE A LOOK AT THIS DOCUMENT?

THE COURT: I'M AWARE OF WHAT THESE DOCUMENTS ARE, COUNSEL. WE HAD A WHOLE PROCEEDING ON THESE DOCUMENTS.

MR. SCHECK: MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: PLEASE.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, PLEASE TAKE YOUR TIME. SHOWING YOU A SERIES OF DOCUMENTS. IN PARTICULAR, I'M GOING TO ADDRESS YOUR ATTENTION TO PARAGRAPHS -- THE PAGE THAT'S MARKED HERE 1187, AND THERE'S ANOTHER SHORT ONE HERE. I'VE TABBED THEM WITH YELLOW POST-IT'S. PLEASE TAKE YOUR TIME, LOOK AT ALL THE DOCUMENTS FOR AS LONG AS YOU WANT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: SIR, HAVING EXAMINED THESE DOCUMENTS, IS YOUR RECOLLECTION REFRESHED ABOUT HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH ANYONE ON AUGUST 8TH ABOUT YOUR VISIT TO THE BRONCO ON JULY 6TH?

A: EVEN FROM REVIEWING THAT -- THOSE NOTES, I -- OR THAT REPORT, I -- MY MEMORY IS NOT REFRESHED.

Q: SO AS FAR AS -- THE WAY YOU WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE IT, SIR, IS THAT YOU NEVER --

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, OBJECT TO THE WAY THAT'S PHRASED.

THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY, SIR, THAT TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION, YOU WERE NEVER INTERVIEWED BY ANYONE FROM THE LOS ANGELES POLICE COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO YOUR VISIT TO THE BRONCO ON JULY 6TH?

MR. GOLDBERG: MISSTATES HIS TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU INTERVIEWED BY ANYONE FROM THE LOS ANGELES POLICE COMMISSION ON AUGUST 8TH, SOMETIME IN AUGUST ABOUT YOUR VISIT TO THE BRONCO ON JULY 6TH?

A: I DON'T RECALL ANY PERSONAL INTERVIEW. IT MAY HAVE BEEN TELEPHONIC.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU RECALL A TELEPHONIC INTERVIEW?

A: NO, I DON'T.

Q: AND IS YOUR TESTIMONY, SIR, WITH RESPECT TO RED STAINS IN THE BRONCO THAT YOU'VE GIVEN TO THIS JURY IN ANY WAY MOTIVATED BY A DESIRE TO COVER FOR DETECTIVE FUHRMAN?

A: NO.

MR. SCHECK: NOW I WOULD LIKE TO TURN TO A NEW TOPIC, YOUR HONOR. I WON'T BE ABLE TO FINISH IT BEFORE THE BREAK.

THE COURT: TRY.

MR. SCHECK: I CAN'T.

THE COURT: TRY.

MR. SCHECK: I'LL DO MY BEST, BUT WE'RE GOING TO 12:00?

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, YOU'VE TOLD US THAT ON THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 13TH AT ROCKINGHAM, YOU RECEIVED MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD VIAL FROM DETECTIVE VANNATTER?

A: YES.

Q: YOU DID NOT RECEIVE THIS BLOOD VIAL FOR THE FIRST TIME ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: NOW, DID YOU DISCUSS IN YOUR PREPARATIONS FOR THIS CASE, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, THIS ISSUE AS TO WHEN YOU RECEIVED THE BLOOD VIAL?

MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES IT'S AN ISSUE.

THE COURT: REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU DISCUSS WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HOW YOU RECEIVED THE BLOOD VIAL IN THIS CASE?

A: YES.

Q: AND WAS THAT AN ISSUE THAT YOU DISCUSSED AT SOME LENGTH?

A: ABOUT 15 MINUTES.

Q: DID YOU DISCUSS THE ISSUE ABOUT HOW YOU RECEIVED THE BLOOD VIAL WITH MICHELE KESTLER?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO, NO.

Q: WITH GREG MATHESON?

A: NO.

Q: WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER?

A: BY ISSUE, DO YOU MEAN WHY IT WAS DONE THAT WAY OR --

Q: DID YOU DISCUSS WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER BEFORE YOU CAME HERE TO TESTIFY, PREPARATION FOR YOUR TESTIMONY, THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING YOUR RECEIPT OF THE BLOOD VIAL FROM HIM?

A: NO.

MR. GOLDBERG: COMPOUND.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER CONCERNING HOW MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD VIAL WAS TURNED OVER FOR PURPOSES OF BOOKING?

A: COULD YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION?

Q: COULD YOU TELL US -- YOU SAID -- DID YOU HAVE SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH DETECTIVE VANNATTER ABOUT MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD VIAL?

A: YES.

Q: WHEN?

A: THE DAY I RECEIVED THEM FROM HIM.

Q: SINCE THEN, ANY DISCUSSIONS?

A: NOT TO MY RECOLLECTION, NO.

Q: ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE DECISION TO BRING THE BLOOD VIAL FROM DOWNTOWN TO YOU AT ROCKINGHAM?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU DISCUSS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF RECEIVING MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD VIAL WITH DETECTIVE LANGE PRIOR TO COMING IN HERE AND TESTIFYING?

A: I DON'T RECALL ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT, NO.

Q: SO OTHER THAN THE PROSECUTORS AND IN PREPARATION FOR YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU HAVE NOTED -- OH, WITHDRAWN. DID YOU DISCUSS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RECEIPT OF MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD VIAL WITH ANDREA MAZZOLA?

A: I ONLY STATED TO HER THAT WE DID RECEIVE OR I DID RECEIVE THE BLOOD VIAL FROM DETECTIVE VANNATTER.

Q: WHEN DID YOU HAVE THAT DISCUSSION?

A: THAT WAS THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH.

Q: NOW, WHO WAS PRESENT ACCORDING TO YOU AT ROCKINGHAM WHEN YOU RECEIVED THE BLOOD VIAL FROM DETECTIVE VANNATTER?

A: WE WERE IN THE FOYER AND I WAS THERE OF COURSE, DETECTIVE VANNATTER WAS THERE AND I KNOW THERE WERE OTHER DETECTIVES AROUND, BUT I DON'T RECALL WHO THEY WERE EXACTLY AT THAT POINT IN TIME.

Q: SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT WAS IN THE FOYER OF MR. SIMPSON'S HOME?

A: THAT'S WHEN I RECEIVED THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THE VIAL OF BLOOD.

Q: THAT WAS INSIDE?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THE DOOR CLOSED?

A: I DON'T RECALL.

Q: CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR US IN AS MUCH DETAIL AS YOU CAN RECOLLECT EXACTLY HOW THIS TRANSFER OCCURRED?

A: DETECTIVE VANNATTER SAID -- SAID TO ME OR SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF I HAVE MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD AND I WANT YOU TO BOOK IT (INDICATING).

Q: NOW, YOU MADE A GESTURE WITH YOUR HAND --

A: YES.

Q: -- JUST NOW. AND ARE YOU INDICATING, SIR, THAT HE THEN GAVE YOU SOMETHING?

A: YES. THAT HE GAVE ME THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THE VIAL.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHERE WAS HE -- WAS HE HOLDING IT IN HIS HAND?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU SEE -- WHEN DID YOU FIRST SEE DETECTIVE VANNATTER BEFORE HE GAVE YOU THIS ENVELOPE?

A: I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY WHEN HE CAME. I ONLY -- BUT I DO RECALL THAT PARTICULAR EVENT.

Q: AND DID HE TAKE IT OUT OF SOMETHING OR DID HE JUST HAVE IT IN HIS HAND?

A: I -- I DON'T RECALL.

Q: DID HE PULL IT OUT OF A BLACK DUFFLE BAG AND GIVE IT TO YOU?

A: I DON'T RECALL HIM HAVING A BLACK DUFFLE BAG.

Q: YOU DIDN'T SEE HIM CARRYING A BLACK DUFFLE BAG?

A: NO.

Q: DID HE TAKE IT FROM A CLIPBOARD AND GIVE IT TO YOU?

A: I DON'T RECALL HIM HAVING A CLIPBOARD EITHER.

Q: SO TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION, DETECTIVE VANNATTER HANDED YOU A GRAY ENVELOPE AND HE JUST HAD IT IN HIS HAND?

A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES.

Q: AND THEN AFTER YOU RECEIVED THAT GRAY ENVELOPE, WHAT DID YOU DO WITH IT?

A: I WROTE ON THE ENVELOPE THAT I RECEIVED IT FROM HIM AND I PUT THE TIME, DATE AND MY INITIALS.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THE ENVELOPE AT THAT POINT?

A: I LOOKED INSIDE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS A VIAL IN IT AND THAT IT WAS IN A CONDITION THAT WAS UNOPENED AND I PUT IT IN THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK.

Q: WELL, WE'RE STILL IN THE FOYER WHEN YOU GOT IT, CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU OPEN IT, THE ENVELOPE IN THE FOYER?

A: YES.

Q: AND THAT'S WHEN YOU LOOKED AT IT?

A: AT THE VIAL?

Q: YES.

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU -- DID YOU THEN -- WHAT DID YOU HAVE WITH YOU AT THAT TIME, IF ANYTHING?

A: I HAD A PEN.

Q: AND AFTER YOU RECEIVED THE ENVELOPE FROM DETECTIVE VANNATTER IN THE FOYER, DID YOU THEN WALK OUT THE DOOR TO THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF I DID THAT IMMEDIATELY OR IF I HAD OTHER THINGS THERE I HAD TO DO PRIOR TO THAT.

Q: DID YOU PUT THIS ENVELOPE IN A BROWN PAPER BAG?

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

Q: DID YOU PUT IT INSIDE YOUR BLACK KIT?

A: NO. I DON'T THINK I DID THAT.

Q: DID YOU AT SOME POINT WALK OUT OF THE FOYER TO THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK HOLDING THE GRAY ENVELOPE?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

Q: WELL, WHAT DID YOU DO WITH IT? HOW DID YOU GET IT TO THE CRIME SCENE TRUCK?

A: IT MAY HAVE BEEN IN A PAPER BAG, BUT I DON'T RECALL IF I ACTUALLY DID PUT IT IN THERE OR IT MAY HAVE BEEN PUT IN THE -- IN A POSSE BOX.

Q: IS IT POSSIBLE YOU JUST WALKED OUT THE DOOR WITH THE ENVELOPE IN YOUR HAND?

A: IT'S POSSIBLE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S LIKELY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE OUR BREAK AT THIS TIME. ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PLEASE REMEMBER ALL OF MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU, DO NOT DISCUSS THIS CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, DO NOT FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DO NOT ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU, DO NOT CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. WE'LL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL 1:30.

MR. FUNG, YOU ARE ORDERED TO RETURN 1:30. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL STAND IN RECESS. AND GREETINGS TO JUDGE SCOTT. THANK YOU.

(AT 12:00 P.M., THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12, 1995 1:35 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 THE PARTIES ARE AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT. MR. SCHECK, YOU HAD A DISCOVERY ISSUE YOU WANTED TO RAISE?

MR. SCHECK: YES, YOUR HONOR. AND I WOULD REQUEST THAT THE WITNESS BE ASKED TO LEAVE THE ROOM FOR A MOMENT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. FUNG, WOULD YOU WAIT OUTSIDE FOR A FEW MOMENTS, PLEASE. THANK YOU, SIR.

(MR. FUNG EXITS THE COURTROOM.)

THE COURT: MR. SCHECK.

MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, AS I'M SURE THE COURT IS WELL AWARE, ONE ISSUE OF GREAT INTEREST IN THIS CASE ARE THE ACTIVITIES AT SID ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH. AND DISCOVERY REQUEST WAS MADE FOR COMPUTER RECORDS THAT REFLECTED WHO WENT IN AND OUT OF THE DOORS IN VARIOUS ROOMS AT SID. AND THE PROSECUTION -- IN PARTICULAR THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH. THE PROSECUTION TURNED OVER TO US A SERIES OF PAGES STARTING IN THE MURDER BOOK AT D.A. 04329 TO D.A. 04334. ACTUALLY THESE PAGES ARE BACKWARDS IN TERMS OF CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER. THAT IS TO SAY THAT 04329 PURPORTS TO BE RECORDS OF JUNE 16TH AND THEN THEY GO FROM THE 16TH TO THE 15TH.

THE COURT: PROBABLY THAT IS HOW IT CAME OUT OF THE PHOTOCOPY MACHINE.

MR. SCHECK: WHATEVER IT DID. THE 14TH TO THE 13TH. THE PROBLEM IS, HOWEVER, WITH RESPECT TO ON PAGE 04333 WE RECEIVED RECORDS ABOUT JUNE 14TH. THOSE WERE THE ONLY RECORDS WE RECEIVED. THE RECORDS OF JUNE 13TH WERE THEN CONTAINED ON 04334, SO THESE ARE CONSECUTIVELY NUMBERED PAGES. WE NOTICED THIS MORNING, IN PREPARATION FOR COURT, THAT THE FIRST ENTRY THAT WE HAD ON JUNE 14TH FOR SOMEONE ENTERING THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM IS 9:27 A.M. ACTUALLY WHAT I REQUEST IS THAT PERHAPS THESE PAGES BE MARKED AS EXHIBIT AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DEFENSE NEXT IN ORDER, WHICH WOULD BE --

THE CLERK: 1099.

THE COURT: -- 1099.

(DEFT'S 1099 FOR ID = DOCUMENTS)

MR. SCHECK: MY COLLEAGUE, MR. NEUFELD, WHO IS A BIT UNDER THE WEATHER, HAS BEEN MONITORING THESE PROCEEDINGS FROM HIS HOTEL ROOM AND MADE A TELEPHONE CALL TO GREG MATHESON AT SID DURING THE COURSE OF THE TESTIMONY OF MR. FUNG AND MADE AN INQUIRY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL PAGE REFLECTING WHO WENT IN AND OUT OF THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM ON JUNE 14TH. AND AGAIN, MR. NEUFELD WAS REVIEWING THOSE RECORDS THAT I HAVE JUST MENTIONED TO THE COURT. MR. NEUFELD INFORMS ME THAT MR. MATHESON CONFIRMED THAT WE WERE INDEED MISSING A PAGE WITH RESPECT TO EARLIER TIMES, BUT INDICATED THAT HE DID GIVE THAT PAGE TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THE -- MR. NEUFELD HAS READ TO ME OVER THE PHONE INFORMATION THAT HE RECEIVED FROM MR. MATHESON WITH RESPECT TO THE TIMES.

THE COURT: ON THE 13TH OR THE 14TH?

MR. SCHECK: I'M SORRY, ON THE 14TH.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. SCHECK: THE TIMES ON THE 14TH AND THE MISSING PAGE AND THOSE TIMES CONTRADICT, I BELIEVE, THE TESTIMONY OF MR. FUNG. WE HAVE MR. FUNG IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM AT 7:45 AND THEN WE HAVE HIM BACK ENTERING THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM AT 7:50 AND WE HAVE OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN AND OUT OF THAT ROOM STARTING AT 6:03 A.M. AND MY CONCERN, YOUR HONOR, IS -- IS THAT WE DIDN'T GET THIS PAGE AND THE CONSECUTIVE NUMBERING OF THE DOCUMENTS, AND OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD REQUEST AN EXPLANATION FROM THE PROSECUTORS, IF THIS COURT WERE TO MAKE A FINDING THAT THIS DOCUMENT WAS DELIBERATELY WITHHELD, WHAT WE WOULD ASK IS THAT WE BE -- GET AN ACTUAL COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT TO THE COURT, THAT WE CONFRONT MR. FUNG, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, THAT THE JURY BE INSTRUCTED THAT THE DOCUMENT WAS INTENTIONALLY WITHHELD IF THAT IN FACT TURNS OUT TO BE THE CASE. ALL THAT I CAN DO IS RELAY THE INFORMATION THAT I HAVE. IT IS A MATTER OF CONCERN TO ME, BUT OF COURSE I AWAIT THE EXPLANATIONS FROM COUNSEL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG.

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

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I THINK COUNSEL HAS UNINTENTIONALLY MISSTATED THE RECORD. I DON'T BELIEVE THE DEFENSE EVER MADE A REQUEST FOR ACCESS IN OR OUT OF THE ROOM. THE WAY IT CAME ABOUT IS I ASKED FOR THOSE RECORDS FOR THE PURPOSES OF TRYING TO DETERMINE CERTAIN TIME SEQUENCES AND VOLUNTARILY PRODUCED THEM TO THE DEFENSE WITHOUT ANY REQUEST WHATSOEVER. SO I WOULD ASK MR. SCHECK, IF HE CAN, TO FIND THE CITATION IN THE TRANSCRIPT WHERE THAT WAS REQUESTED, BECAUSE I'M SIMPLY UNAWARE OF IT.

MR. SCHECK: I WOULD -- I DON'T DISPUTE THAT THE EVENTS MAY HAVE OCCURRED THAT WAY.

THE COURT: MR. SCHECK, BEFORE WE LAUNCH INTO THAT ISSUE, THE ISSUE THAT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT NOW, SINCE I HAVE A JURY WAITING, IS WHERE IS THIS DOCUMENT? CAN WE MAKE IT AVAILABLE FOR MR. SCHECK TO EXAMINE AND FOR BOTH SIDES TO EXAMINE? AND LET'S CONTINUE WITH THE CROSS-EXAMINATION AND REDIRECT OF MR. FUNG AND WE CAN TAKE UP THE ISSUE OF WHERE IT WAS AND WHY IT DIDN'T SHOW UP IN YOUR PACKAGE AT A MORE APPROPRIATE TIME, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GET FINISHED WITH MR. FUNG TODAY.

MR. GOLDBERG: BUT I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SAY FOR THE RECORD THAT WHAT I HAVE IN MY NOTEBOOK IS IDENTICAL TO WHAT COUNSEL JUST DESCRIBED AND I PERSONALLY XEROXED IT AND DELIVERED IT TO THEM, WHICH PROBABLY ACCOUNTS FOR WHY IT IS IN REVERSE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER. XEROXING IS NOT ONE OF MY STRONG POINTS. BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY FOR THE RECORD THAT I JUST THINK IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT EVERY SINGLE LEGAL ISSUE THAT IS RAISED IS ALWAYS COUCHED IN TERMS OF SOME ALLEGATION OF MISCONDUCT AND I THINK IT IS A VERY SAD WAY --

THE COURT: COUNSEL, I AM NOT IMMEDIATELY LEAPING TO THAT CONCLUSION, SO DON'T GET YOUR FEATHERS RUFFLED UP AT THIS POINT. MY CONCERN IS LET'S PROCEED WITH THE CROSS-EXAMINATION. CAN WE GET THIS DOCUMENT? CAN WE GET SOMEBODY TO FAX IT TO THE COURT?

MR. SCHECK: I -- I WANT TO BE CLEAR, I'M JUST STATING THE FACTS, AND I WOULD CERTAINLY CONCEDE THAT I DO RECALL THAT WE DID HAVE THAT CONVERSATION MORE OR LESS AS MR. GOLDBERG SAYS IT IN TERMS OF WE WERE INTERESTED IN THESE DOCUMENTS AND HE WAS, TOO.

THE COURT: I CAN GAUGE FROM YOUR TONE.

MR. GOLDBERG: NO, I NEVER HAD ANY CONVERSATION LIKE THAT WITH HIM.

THE COURT: I AM NOT INTERESTED IN THIS ISSUE.

MR. SCHECK: THAT'S FINE WITH ME, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: TODAY I DON'T CARE ABOUT IT. LATER THIS WEEK I WILL CARE ABOUT IT. CAN WE GET MR. MATHESON TO FAX US THE SHEET?

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

MR. SCHECK: I TAKE IT YOU DON'T HAVE IT EITHER, MR. GOLDBERG?

MR. GOLDBERG: NO, I DON'T. YOU CAN SEE WHAT I HAVE IF YOU WANT TO, MR. SCHECK.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHO HAS GOT THE PHONE NUMBER FOR MR. MATHESON?

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

MR. SCHECK: I AM READY TO PROCEED.

THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO PROCEED WITHOUT IT?

MR. SCHECK: WELL, I CAN PROCEED AT THIS POINT WITHOUT IT. I THOUGHT THE COURT WANTED TO GET THE DOCUMENT AND RESOLVE THE ISSUE AND YOU WANTED ME TO PROCEED.

THE COURT: NO. IF WE AGREE THAT WHAT COMES FROM MR. MATHESON IS A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT, IF YOU FEEL YOU NEED IT TO CROSS-EXAMINE MR. FUNG FURTHER, WE WILL GET IT FOR YOU AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET IT FAXED TO US IN A MATTER OF MINUTES. BOTH SIDES WILL GET A PHOTOCOPY AND WE CAN PROCEED.

MR. DARDEN: MISS MARTINEZ IS CALLING MR. MATHESON AND WE WILL SEE IF WE CAN HAVE IT FAXED OVER.

THE COURT: OKAY. LET'S PROCEED. ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY MAGNERA, LET'S HAVE THE JURORS, PLEASE. AND CAN WE HAVE MR. FUNG, PLEASE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

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

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

THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.

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 AGAIN, MR. FUNG.

THE WITNESS: GOOD AFTERNOON.

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

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

THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MR. SCHECK:

Q: GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. FUNG.

A: GOOD AFTERNOON.

Q: MR. FUNG, WHEN WE LEFT OFF, WE WERE DISCUSSING WHAT YOU TOLD US ABOUT THE TRANSFER OF THE BLOOD VIAL TO YOU IN THE FOYER OF MR. SIMPSON'S HOME ON THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 13.

A: YES.

Q: NOW, DO YOU RECALL WHAT YOU WERE DOING JUST PRIOR TO THE TRANSFER OF THIS BLOOD VIAL?

A: NO, I DO NOT.

Q: DO YOU RECALL THAT AN ITEM NO. 15 WAS RETRIEVED FROM A TRASH BASKET IN THE FOYER?

A: YES.

Q: AND AN ITEM NO. 16 WAS RETRIEVED FROM A BENCH OUTSIDE THE FRONT DOOR OF MR. SIMPSON'S HOME?

MR. GOLDBERG: I OBJECT TO ANY EVIDENCE OF 15 AND 16. MAKE A MOTION TO STRIKE.

MR. SCHECK: I'M NOT MENTIONING WHAT IT IS, JUST THAT THOSE WERE ITEMS IN THOSE LOCATIONS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I WILL ALLOW IT TO STAY.

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

A: YES.

Q: NOW, DID YOU RECEIVE THE BLOOD VIAL BEFORE ITEMS 15 AND 16 WERE COLLECTED?

A: NO, I -- I RECEIVED IT AFTERWARD.

Q: AND YOU JUST REFRESHED YOUR RECOLLECTION BY LOOKING AT YOUR NOTES?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND THE NOTES REFLECT THAT THOSE ITEMS WERE PICKED UP AT FIVE O'CLOCK?

A: YES.

Q: AND SINCE YOU ARE TELLING US THAT YOU RECEIVED THIS BLOOD VIAL AT 5:20, YOU HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THIS WAS AFTER THOSE TWO ITEMS WERE COLLECTED?

A: YES.

Q: NOW -- BUT DO YOU HAVE, AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY, AN INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF THE ORDER IN WHICH YOU RECEIVED THE ITEMS, OTHER THAN LOOKING AT YOUR NOTES?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, YOU MENTIONED TO US THAT YOU THOUGHT THAT YOU PUT THE ENVELOPE CONTAINING THE BLOOD VIAL IN A PAPER BAG OR WHAT YOU CALLED A POSSE BOX?

MR. GOLDBERG: I THINK THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. HE DIDN'T RECALL.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHAT IS A POSSE BOX?

A: A POSSE BOX IS A NOTE PAD THAT IS METALLIC, IT HAS A COVER ON IT THAT YOU CAN STORE -- IT IS A BOX THAT IS SHAPED LIKE A NOTE PAD EXCEPT IT CAN CARRY THINGS.

Q: DID YOU HAVE ONE OF THOSE WITH YOU THAT DAY?

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

Q: WERE YOU CARRYING ONE, TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT DAY, WHEN YOU LEFT THE -- MR. SIMPSON'S FRONT DOOR TO GO BACK TO YOUR CRIME SCENE TRUCK ON THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 13?

A: I DON'T RECALL IF I WAS OR WAS NOT CARRYING A POSSE BOX.

Q: ALL RIGHT. TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION HOW DID YOU CARRY THIS GRAY ENVELOPE CONTAINING MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD VIAL WHEN YOU -- WITHDRAWN. I TAKE IT AT SOME POINT IN TIME YOU LEFT THE FOYER AREA AND RETURNED TO YOUR CRIME SCENE TRUCK?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU WERE CARRYING THAT GRAY ENVELOPE?

A: EITHER BY ITSELF, IN A POSSE BOX OR IN A PAPER BAG.

Q: SO IT WOULD BE ONE OF THOSE THREE WAYS OF CARRYING IT, EITHER OUT BY ITSELF IN YOUR HAND, IN A PAPER BAG OR IN A POSSE BOX?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN YOU -- OKAY. MR. FUNG, WAS IT YOUR IDEA TO HAVE DETECTIVE VANNATTER TAKE MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD VIAL FROM THE PARKER CENTER TO ROCKINGHAM TO DELIVER IT TO YOU?

A: NO, IT WAS NOT.

Q: DID DETECTIVE VANNATTER CALL YOU UP AND ASK YOU IF YOU WANTED TO HAVE MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD VIAL BOOKED AT SID AND A DR NUMBER BOUGHT BEFORE HE BROUGHT IT TO THE SCENE?

A: NO.

Q: WOULD IT NOT BE NORMAL PRACTICE, UPON RECEIPT OF A BLOOD VIAL, FOR A DETECTIVE TO BUY A DR NUMBER AND BOOK IT EITHER AT PARKER CENTER OR AT SID SO THE BLOOD VIAL COULD BE REFRIGERATED?

MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR SPECULATION, NO FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED WITHOUT FURTHER FOUNDATION.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE USUAL PRACTICES BY WHICH BLOOD VIAL SAMPLES ARE BOOKED IN THE COURSE OF CASES?

MR. GOLDBERG: IT IS VAGUE AS TO BY CRIMINALISTS OR --

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF HOW BLOOD VIAL SAMPLES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE BOOKED OR ARE -- WITHDRAWN. DO YOU HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF HOW BLOOD VIAL SAMPLES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE BOOKED BY POLICE OFFICERS?

A: I HAVE A LIMITED KNOWLEDGE OF THAT.

Q: AND THAT LIMITED KNOWLEDGE COMES FROM THE LAPD MANUAL?

A: IN PART, YES.

Q: AND THE PRACTICE IS THAT UPON RECEIPT OF A BLOOD SAMPLE TAKEN FROM A SUSPECT THAT THE DETECTIVE IS TO BOOK IT EITHER AT THE PROPERTY ROOM OR AT THE SID CENTER?

MR. GOLDBERG: THERE IS STILL AN INADEQUATE FOUNDATION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: THE MANUAL IS USED AS A GUIDE AND THAT -- AND THAT IS THE GUIDELINE FOR OFFICERS, YES.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: HAS ANYBODY DISCUSSED WITH YOU THE PHRASE THE MANUAL IS TO BE REGARDED AS A GUIDE?

MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID DETECTIVE LANGE HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH YOU ABOUT THE LAPD MANUAL BEING CONSIDERED A GUIDE, BUT NOT -- A GUIDELINE OR JUST A GUIDE TO GOVERN THE CONDUCT OF OFFICERS?

A: I HAVE HEARD HIM SAY THAT AND I HAVE HEARD MANY OTHER PEOPLE SAY THAT ALSO.

Q: WHEN DID YOU HEAR DETECTIVE LANGE TALK ABOUT THE RULES IN THE LAPD MANUAL BEING GUIDES?

A: I DON'T RECALL WHEN. IT WAS SOMETIME AFTER THIS INVESTIGATION STARTED, THOUGH.

Q: ABOUT HOW LONG INTO IT?

A: I DON'T RECALL, BUT I DO RECALL HIM AS BEING ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO SAID THAT, THOUGH.

Q: AND DO YOU RECALL HOW THAT SUBJECT CAME UP, THAT THE RULES IN THE LAPD MANUALS WERE TO BE REGARDED AS GUIDELINES?

A: I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT -- WHAT LED UP TO THAT CONVERSATION.

Q: WAS IT A DISCUSSION IN WHICH YOU WERE POINTING OUT TO DETECTIVE LANGE THAT HE HADN'T FOLLOWED THE RULES IN THE LAPD MANUAL?

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL --

THE WITNESS: NO.

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

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, WITH RESPECT TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAPD MANUAL, IS IT NOT THE PRACTICE THAT A BLOOD VIAL TAKEN FROM A SUSPECT IS TO BE BOOKED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE?

MR. GOLDBERG: THERE IS NO FOUNDATION THAT HE KNOWS PRACTICE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: COULD YOU PLEASE REPEAT THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: FROM YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAPD MANUAL IS IT NOT THE RULE THAT A BLOOD VIAL TAKEN FROM A SUSPECT --

THE COURT: BLOOD SAMPLE.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: BLOOD SAMPLE TAKEN FROM A SUSPECT IS TO BE BOOKED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT STATES.

Q: WELL, IN TERMS OF YOUR UNDERSTANDING, DOES THAT -- DOES THAT COMPORT WITH YOUR UNDERSTANDING? IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE RULES REQUIRE?

MR. GOLDBERG: THAT IS VAGUE AND NO FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MR. GOLDBERG: ALSO CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THAT IS SOMEWHAT CONSISTENT WITH THE EXACT WORDING OF WHAT THE MANUAL WANTS.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND IN TERMS OF YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE MANUAL, THE PRACTICE IN THIS CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOR DETECTIVE VANNATTER TO BUY A DR NUMBER DOWN AT PARKER CENTER AND BOOK MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD VIAL, EITHER AT THE PARKER CENTER OR AT SID?

MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHEN WE TALK ABOUT BOOKING A BLOOD VIAL FROM A SUSPECT, DO YOU MEAN THAT THAT VIAL IN THE ANALYZED EVIDENCE ENVELOPE IS HANDED TO SOMEBODY AT THE EVIDENCE CONTROL UNIT AT SID?

A: ACCORDING TO THE MANUAL I BELIEVE THE DEFINITION OF BOOKING IS THE REGISTERING OF PROPERTY INTO DEPARTMENTAL RECORDS ARE THE PROCESSING OF ENTERING INTO DEPARTMENTAL RECORDS EVIDENCE OR PERSONS.

Q: AND YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF ENTERING IT INTO DEPARTMENTAL RECORDS WOULD MEAN IN THE CASE OF A BLOOD VIAL, SUCH AS THE ONE AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE, THAT IT WOULD BE TURNED OVER TO SOMEONE AT THE EVIDENCE CONTROL UNIT AT SID? THAT WOULD BE ONE WAY OF DOING IT?

A: WELL, IF WE ARE GOING EXACTLY TO THE LETTER OF THAT DEFINITION, AS SOON AS IT IS MARKED ON SOME TYPE OF DEPARTMENTAL RECORD, THAT WOULD BEGIN THE BOOKING PROCESS.

Q: WHEN WE USE THE TERM "BOOKING" BEFORE -- ALL RIGHT. WITHDRAWN. WOULD NOT THE BOOKING OF THE BLOOD VIAL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY TAKING IT TO THE EVIDENCE CONTROL UNIT, HANDING IT TO THE CLERK, BUYING A DR NUMBER AND HAVING THE BLOOD VIAL REFRIGERATED?

A: IN THAT ORDER?

Q: YEAH.

A: YOU COULDN'T DO IT IN THAT ORDER.

Q: BUY A DR NUMBER AND THEN GIVE IT TO SOMEONE AT THE EVIDENCE CONTROL UNIT SO IT COULD BE REFRIGERATED?

A: THAT WOULD BE THE FINAL STAGE OF BOOKING.

Q: COULD DETECTIVE VANNATTER, UNDER THE RULES AS YOU KNEW THEM, HAVE DONE THAT ON JUNE 13TH, GONE RIGHT OVER TO SID, AFTER BUYING A DR NUMBER, AND GIVE THE CLERK AT THE EVIDENCE CONTROL UNIT THE BLOOD VIAL?

MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IN TERMS OF YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES, WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES?

MR. GOLDBERG: IT IS IRRELEVANT, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. YOU CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE WAY TO HAVE DONE THAT.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND ISN'T THAT THE WAY, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, IT IS ORDINARILY DONE BY DETECTIVES?

MR. GOLDBERG: NO FOUNDATION FOR THAT.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU HAVE BEEN WORKING AS A CRIMINALIST FOR EIGHT YEARS?

A: TEN YEARS.

Q: TEN YEARS, MY APOLOGIES. AND YOU HAVE BEEN DOING CRIME SCENES FOR HOW LONG?

A: ALMOST TEN YEARS.

Q: AND IN YOUR EXPERIENCE IS IT NOT THE ORDINARY PRACTICE THAT AFTER DETECTIVES GET A BLOOD SAMPLE FROM A SUSPECT THAT THEY TAKE IT TO THE EVIDENCE CONTROL UNIT AND BOOK IT THERE?

A: IN MY EXPERIENCE I HAVE NEVER HAD A DETECTIVE OBTAIN A BLOOD SAMPLE THAT QUICKLY.

Q: SO IT WOULD BE YOUR TESTIMONY THAT IN YOUR EXPERIENCE YOU HAVE NEVER KNOWN A DETECTIVE NOT TO OBTAIN A -- DETECTIVE -- WITHDRAWN. IN YOUR EXPERIENCE WHAT YOU KNOW IS THAT DETECTIVES ORDINARILY GET BLOOD VIALS FROM SUSPECTS AND BOOK IT?

MR. GOLDBERG: THAT MISSTATES HIS TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IN YOUR EXPERIENCE HAVE YOU EVER BEFORE BEEN IN A SITUATION WHERE A DETECTIVE OBTAINED A BLOOD VIAL FROM A SUSPECT --

THE COURT: SAMPLE. YOU KEEP SAYING BLOOD VIAL.

MR. SCHECK: OKAY.

THE COURT: SAMPLE.

MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: OBTAINED A BLOOD SAMPLE FROM A SUSPECT AND INSTEAD OF BOOKING IT DOWNTOWN WHERE IT WAS TAKEN AT SID OR AT PARKER CENTER, DRIVE IT ALL THE WAY BACK TO A CRIME SCENE? HAS THAT EVER HAPPENED IN YOUR EXPERIENCE?

MR. GOLDBERG: IT IS IRRELEVANT AND NO FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I HAVE -- I CAN'T REMEMBER ONE INSTANCE WHERE THAT HAS HAPPENED.

MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: HAVE WE ABOUT EXHAUSTED THIS LINE OF INQUIRY?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE THERE IS A PLACE IN PARKER CENTER WHERE THIS BLOOD VIAL COULD HAVE BEEN BOOKED AND REFRIGERATED IF A DR NUMBER HAD BEEN OBTAINED?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: YOU KNOW THAT?

A: BLOOD SAMPLES CAN BE BOOKED DOWN AT PARKER CENTER.

Q: SO YOU EXAMINED, YOU HAVE TOLD US, THIS BLOOD VIAL?

A: I LOOKED AT IT, YES.

Q: AND IN LOOKING AT IT YOU DETERMINED THAT IT HAD BEEN DRAWN, AT LEAST BY THE MARKINGS ON IT, AT 2:30 IN THE AFTERNOON?

A: I LOOKED AT THE VIAL TO SEE IF IT WAS INTACT AND I DID LOOK AT THE ENVELOPE, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER ALL THE WRITING ON THE ENVELOPE.

Q: SO YOU CAN'T TELL US WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS ACTUALLY DRAWN AT 2:30 IN THE AFTERNOON?

A: I DON'T REMEMBER. I WOULD HAVE TO REFER TO THE ENVELOPE ITSELF.

Q: BUT AS FAR AS YOU KNEW, BEFORE DETECTIVE VANNATTER BROUGHT IT TO YOU, HE HAD BEEN CARRYING IT AROUND FOR SOME HOURS?

A: I DIDN'T STOP TO THINK HOW LONG HE HAD BEEN CARRYING IT.

Q: DID YOU INQUIRE OF HIM HOW LONG HE HAD BEEN CARRYING AROUND THIS BLOOD SAMPLE?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: DID YOU CONSIDER THAT PART OF YOUR RESPONSIBILITY IN TERMS OF MAINTAINING CHAIN OF CUSTODY?

A: NO, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE HIS PART OF THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY.

Q: YOU DON'T CONSIDER IT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, AS THE CRIMINALIST THAT IS GATHERING AND BOOKING EVIDENCE, TO DETERMINE WHERE OBJECTS HAVE BEEN BEFORE YOU GET THEM?

A: IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO RECORD WHEN I OR WHERE I GET THINGS FROM AND WHEN I DISPOSE OF THEM -- OR NOT DISPOSE, BUT REMAND THEM INTO THE CUSTODY OF SOMEBODY ELSE.

Q: WELL, YOU WERE CONCERNED ENOUGH ON JUNE 13TH THAT YOU ACTUALLY OPENED THE ENVELOPE UP AND LOOKED AT THE BLOOD VIAL WHEN DETECTIVE VANNATTER GAVE IT TO YOU?

A: YES.

Q: BEFORE -- WITHDRAWN. DID DETECTIVE VANNATTER HAVE ANY WAY OF CONTACTING YOU FROM DOWNTOWN ON THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 13TH?

A: YES.

Q: BEEPER? DO YOU WEAR A BEEPER?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: CARRY A CELL PHONE?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: YOU COULD HAVE BEEN BEEPED THEN AND CALLED ON A CELL PHONE AND ASKED BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER IF YOU WANTED TO HAVE THIS BLOOD VIAL TAKEN FROM PARKER CENTER ALL THE WAY ACROSS TOWN TO ROCKINGHAM?

MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T GIVE ANYBODY MY CELLULAR PHONE NUMBER. HE COULD HAVE CALLED DHD OR THE OFFICE AND HAD ME PAGED, THOUGH.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT? HE COULD HAVE CALLED WHERE?

THE COURT: COUNSEL, HE SAID HE HAS GOT A PAGER.

MR. SCHECK: I'M SORRY.

THE COURT: AND HE WAS AVAILABLE.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: SO YOU WERE AVAILABLE AND COULD HAVE BEEN CALLED BY A PAGER?

A: YES.

Q: UMM, DURING THE COURSE OF THE DAY HAD YOU BEEN CONTACTED BY DETECTIVE LANGE OR DETECTIVE VANNATTER THROUGH THAT PAGER?

A: NO.

Q: WERE YOU CONTACTED BY MR. MATHESON?

A: YES.

Q: YOU RECALL BEING CONTACTED BY MR. MATHESON AROUND 12:00 IN THE AFTERNOON WHILE YOU WERE AT BUNDY?

A: I DON'T REMEMBER BEING CALLED BY MR. MATHESON AT THAT TIME.

Q: DO YOU RECALL SOMETIME AROUND MIDDAY THAT MR. MATHESON CALLED YOU, WHILE YOU WERE OUT AT BUNDY, AND ASKED IF YOU NEEDED ANY HELP AT THE CRIME SCENE?

A: I DON'T RECALL THAT.

Q: DIDN'T HAPPEN?

A: I JUST DON'T RECALL IF THAT HAPPENED.

Q: NOW, SO IT IS YOUR TESTIMONY, SIR, THAT YOU WERE NEVER CONTACTED BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER BEFORE HE BROUGHT THE BLOOD VIAL ACROSS TOWN TO YOU?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, ON THE MORNING OF THE 14TH YOU RECEIVED SOME TENNIS SHOES FROM DETECTIVE LANGE?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, YOU TOLD US, JUST BEFORE WE BROKE, THAT YOU RECALLED THIS OCCURRING AROUND, WHAT, 7:30, 7:40?

A: BETWEEN 7:30 AND EIGHT O'CLOCK, AROUND THAT TIME, MAYBE A LITTLE LATER.

Q: AND THIS OCCURRED, YOU SAY, IN THE SEROLOGY LAB?

A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION.

Q: COULD IT HAVE BEEN IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM?

A: I DON'T REMEMBER IT BEING -- I DON'T REMEMBER DETECTIVE LANGE BEING IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM.

Q: WELL, YOU TOLD US THAT WHEN YOU SAW DETECTIVE LANGE HE HAD THE SNEAKERS WITH HIM, THAT HE WAS IN THE SEROLOGY LAB?

A: YES.

Q: AND THE SWATCHES THAT YOU HAD RETRIEVED FROM BUNDY WERE IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM?

A: YES.

Q: THEY WERE IN A CABINET?

A: YES.

Q: IT WAS UNLOCKED?

A: THE CABINET?

Q: UH-HUH.

A: YES.

Q: NOW, THERE IS A COMPUTER PRINTOUT THAT SHOWS WHO ENTERS AND LEAVES THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM DURING A PARTICULAR DAY?

A: IT RECORDS WHEN SOMEBODY USES THEIR KEYLESS BADGE TO OPEN THE DOOR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THE WAY THIS KEYLESS BADGE WORKS, IS THAT THERE IS A LITTLE RUBBER KIND OF THING THAT YOU PUT YOUR BADGE ACROSS; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: THERE IS A CENSOR IN THE WALL AND IT SOMEHOW DETECTS THE CARD, AND IF YOUR CARD HAS THE PROPER ACCESS CODE, THEN IT WILL LET YOU IN.

Q: NOW, IF YOU WERE WALKING THROUGH THE DOOR OF THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM AND, LET'S SAY, I WAS STANDING NEXT TO YOU AND YOU USED THAT CENSOR -- YOUR BADGE, RIGHT --

A: YES.

Q: -- THE DOOR WOULD OPEN?

A: YES.

Q: YOU WOULD WALK IN?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: AND I WOULD WALK IN?

A: YES.

Q: BUT THERE WOULD BE NO RECORD THAT I ENTERED?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: THE ONLY RECORD WOULD BE THAT YOU ENTERED?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU INDICATED BEFORE THAT YOU REVIEWED SOME RECORDS WITH MR. GOLDBERG OF WHAT THEY CALL CARD TRANSACTION REPORTS INDICATING WHO WENT IN AND OUT OF THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, ISN'T IT TRUE, SIR, THAT YOU ENTERED THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM AT 7:45 ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH?

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, IT IS UNCLEAR WHETHER HE IS ASKING FROM HIS PERSONAL RECOLLECTION OR FROM A DOCUMENT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I WOULD HAVE TO REFER TO THE DOCUMENT.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD ASK THAT THIS DOCUMENT BE MARKED DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER.

THE COURT: 1100.

MR. SCHECK: I'M SORRY?

THE COURT: WHAT HAPPENED TO 1099? DID WE USE 1099? GOT IT. 1100.

MR. SCHECK: CAN'T HEAR YOU.

THE COURT: 1100.

(DEFT'S 1100 FOR ID = DOCUMENT)

MR. SCHECK: 1100. MAY I APPROACH?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, I SHOW WHAT YOU HAS BEEN MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S 1100 AND ASK YOU TO EXAMINE IT.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THIS AND PERHAPS WE CAN APPROACH.

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

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: OKAY. WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR.

MR. COCHRAN: IT IS THE SAME COPY THEY GAVE ME AND I GAVE IT TO HIM RIGHT AWAY.

MR. GOLDBERG: I DIDN'T KNOW THAT YOU GOT IT.

THE COURT: OKAY.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. SCHECK.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IS IT PERMISSIBLE IF I APPROACH?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, WHAT DO YOU RECOGNIZE THIS DOCUMENT TO BE, SIR?

THE COURT: EXCEPT, MR. GOLDBERG, YOU NEED NOT TO STAND BETWEEN THE WITNESS AND THE JURORS.

THE WITNESS: I HAVE NEVER ACTUALLY SEEN ONE OF THESE DOCUMENTS BEFORE, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE ONE OF THE -- WELL, I HAVE SEEN THE DOCUMENT BEFORE, I TAKE THAT BACK. IT IS A CARD ACCESS DOCUMENT.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AND DOES THIS APPEAR TO BE A CARD ACCESS DOCUMENT FOR THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH?

A: YES.

Q: AND DOES IT INDICATE, SIR, THAT YOU WERE IN THE EVIDENCE POSSESSING ROOM AT 7:45?

A: IT INDICATES I USED MY CARD FOR ENTRY, YES.

Q: DOES IT INDICATE THAT YOU THEN USED YOUR CARD AGAIN FOR ENTRY AT 7:50?

A: YES.

Q: DOES IT INDICATE THAT MR. MATHESON IS IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM AT 7:44?

A: YES, IT DOES.

Q: NOW, HAVING LOOKED AT THIS DOCUMENT, IS YOUR RECOLLECTION REFRESHED THAT WHEN YOU ENTERED THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM AT AROUND 7:45 THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH, THAT IS WHERE YOU SAW DETECTIVE LANGE WITH THE SNEAKERS?

A: I DON'T RECALL THE SNEAKERS AND HIM BEING THERE. THAT IS JUST MY RECOLLECTION.

Q: BUT AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR PREVIOUS TESTIMONY, YOU RECALL SEEING DETECTIVE LANGE BETWEEN 7:30 AND EIGHT O'CLOCK, SOMETIME AROUND THEN?

A: YES.

Q: THAT IS WHEN THE MEETING OCCURRED WITH YOU, DETECTIVE LANGE AND MR. MATHESON, TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION?

A: TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION.

Q: AND LOOKING AT THESE RECORDS, CAN YOU NOW TELL US, SIR, IF THAT MEETING COULD HAVE HAPPENED IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, IT CALLS FOR SPECULATION BECAUSE THIS RECORD DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: A PORTION OF THE MEETING MAY HAVE OCCURRED THERE; HOWEVER, I SPECIFICALLY REMEMBER THE SNEAKERS BEING IN THE SEROLOGY LAB ALONG WITH MR. MATHESON AND CRIMINALIST YAMAUCHI AND MYSELF.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IS THERE ANY REASON, MR. FUNG, THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO REMEMBER DETECTIVE LANGE BEING IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM WITH THE SNEAKERS WHEN YOU WALKED IN THERE?

MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHEN YOU SAW DETECTIVE LANGE ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH WITH THE SNEAKERS, YOU REALIZED THAT HE HAD TAKEN THEM HOME?

A: I DON'T KNOW IF HE HAD TAKEN THEM HOME OR NOT.

Q: DID HE TELL YOU THAT HE HAD RECOVERED THESE SNEAKERS FROM MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE ON THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 13TH?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THIS CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, YOU WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR ITEMIZING IN YOUR REPORTS WHEN AND WHERE THOSE SNEAKERS WERE RECOVERED?

A: THAT IS NOT EXACTLY TRUE, NO.

Q: NO?

A: IN MY REPORT I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR STATING HOW THEY CAME INTO MY CUSTODY.

Q: AND ARE YOU REQUIRED TO DETERMINE, FROM THE PERSON WHO IS GIVING IT TO YOU, WHERE AND WHEN THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE WERE RECOVERED?

A: IT IS MY PRACTICE, WHEN I RECEIVE EVIDENCE FROM OTHER -- OR FROM POLICE OFFICERS OR DETECTIVES, THAT THEY -- THAT I SPECIFY THAT THEY KEEP GOOD NOTES AS TO WHERE AND WHEN THEY GOT OR RECOVERED THE EVIDENCE AND I AM ONLY GOING TO PUT DOWN IN MY PROPERTY REPORT THAT I RECEIVED IT OR THAT I RECEIVED THE EVIDENCE FROM THEM.

Q: DID DETECTIVE LANGE SHOW YOU ANY NOTES ABOUT WHERE AND WHEN HE HAD RECOVERED THE SNEAKERS?

A: NO.

Q: DID HE INDICATE TO YOU IN ANY WAY THAT HE HAD RECOVERED THESE SNEAKERS ON THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 13TH?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: LET ME ASK YOU TO ASSUME FOR A SECOND, MR. FUNG, THAT DETECTIVE LANGE HAD RECOVERED THE SNEAKERS ON THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 13TH, BROUGHT THEM HOME, AND THEN BROUGHT THEM BACK TO SID AND TURNED THEM OVER TO YOU. ARE YOU WITH ME ON THIS HYPOTHETICAL SO FAR?

A: YES.

Q: WOULD THAT NOT BE A VIOLATION OF LAPD RULE 510.10?

A: WHAT IS --

MR. GOLDBERG: NO FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU KNOW OF A RULE IN THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT MANUAL THAT INDICATES THAT EVIDENCE AND NON-EVIDENCE SHALL NOT BE STORED IN THE PERSONAL POSSESSION OF ANY EMPLOYEE EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN FORGERY-RELATED EVIDENCE?

MR. GOLDBERG: NO FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. SCHECK: MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR, AND SHOW HIM A DOCUMENT?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, I SHOW YOU A DOCUMENT. DO YOU RECOGNIZE IT?

A: IT APPEARS TO BE A PAGE OUT OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT MANUAL.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND I'M GOING TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION --

MR. GOLDBERG: I OBJECT TO THIS. I MEAN, HE CAN'T AUTHENTICATE THIS DOCUMENT. HE IS NOT AN EXPERT IN IT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. LET ME SEE COUNSEL AT THE SIDE BAR WITHOUT THE REPORTER.

(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: PROCEED WITH INCREASED ALACRITY.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, YOU RECOGNIZE THIS DOCUMENT AS BEING THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT MANUAL RULE CONCERNING BOOKING, CUSTODY AND DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY, OR PAGE FROM THOSE RULES?

A: IT HAS THE SAME FORMAT AS THE LAPD MANUAL, YES.

Q: AND THE LAPD MANUAL RULES ON THE BOOKING, CUSTODY AND DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY ARE RULES YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH BECAUSE THAT IS PART OF YOUR JOB AS A CRIMINALIST?

A: I HAVEN'T READ THIS, PER SAY, BUT I DO FOLLOW THE CUSTOM THAT I HAVE BEEN TAUGHT IN THE LABORATORY.

Q: AND IS ONE OF THE -- I DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO A PARAGRAPH HERE AND ASK YOU TO READ IT TO YOURSELF.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) OKAY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DOES THAT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT THERE IS -- WE WILL CALL IT A RULE OR A GUIDELINE, WHICHEVER YOU LIKE, THAT EVIDENCE SHALL NOT BE STORED IN THE PERSONAL PROCESS OF ANY EMPLOYEE EXCEPT FOR FORGERY-RELATED MATERIAL?

MR. GOLDBERG: NO AUTHENTICATION, HEARSAY, NO FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU HAVE -- HAVE YOU EVER BEEN TOLD THAT EVIDENCE OR NON-EVIDENCE IS NOT TO BE STORED IN THE PERSONAL POSSESSION OF A POLICE OFFICER?

MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WERE YOU EVER GIVEN INSTRUCTION BY ANYONE AT SID THAT DETECTIVES ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO STORE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE IN THEIR PERSONAL POSSESSION?

MR. GOLDBERG: STILL CALLS FOR HEARSAY AND IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: MR. SCHECK, WHY DON'T YOU REPHRASE THE QUESTION IN THE SAME MANNER THAT THE WITNESS HAS ANSWERED THE QUESTION. HIS UNDERSTANDING IS FROM CUSTOM THAT HE HAS BEEN TAUGHT IN THE LABORATORY. ASK HIM IF IT COMPORTS WITH THAT.

MR. SCHECK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THAT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IN TERMS OF THE CUSTOM THAT YOU HAVE BEEN TAUGHT IN THE LABORATORY, HAS IT BEEN BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT EVIDENCE OR NON-EVIDENCE SHALL NOT BE STORED IN THE PERSONAL POSSESSION OF ANY EMPLOYEE?

A: THAT SUBJECT HAS NEVER BEEN ADDRESSED TO ME.

Q: SO AS FAR AS YOU KNEW, FROM THE CUSTOM AND PRACTICE IN THE LABORATORY, IT WOULD BE PERFECTLY ALL RIGHT FOR A DETECTIVE TO TAKE EVIDENCE, BRING IT HOME AND THEN DELIVER IT TO YOU THE NEXT DAY?

MR. GOLDBERG: NO FOUNDATION FOR THAT.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHEN DETECTIVE LANGE GAVE YOU THE SNEAKERS DID YOU SUSPECT THAT THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN ANYTHING WRONG IN THE WAY THAT HE WAS DELIVERING TO YOU -- THEM TO YOU FOR PURPOSES OF BOOKING?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU MENTION TO DETECTIVE LANGE THAT YOU HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW HE CAME TO BE IN POSSESSION OF THOSE SNEAKERS THAT MORNING?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU MENTION TO IT MR. MATHESON?

MR. GOLDBERG: IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DIDN'T MENTION IT TO HIM, NO.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU BELIEVE, MR. FUNG, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CUSTOM AND PRACTICE OF YOUR LABORATORY, THAT DETECTIVES HAVE 24 HOURS TO BOOK BLOOD?

MR. GOLDBERG: NO FOUNDATION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I HAVE READ THAT IN THE MANUAL.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IN THE MANUAL?

A: YOU SHOWED IT TO ME THIS MORNING, DIDN'T YOU, SOMETHING LIKE THAT? NO?

Q: WHAT MANUAL?

A: THE LAPD MANUAL.

Q: YOU THINK IN THE LAPD MANUAL THERE IS PROVISION THAT SAYS DETECTIVES HAVE 24 HOURS TO BOOK BLOOD?

A: I MAY BE MISTAKEN. THERE WAS SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT OF BOOKING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE OR 24 HOURS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

Q: WELL, IS BOOKING AS SOON AS POSSIBLE THE SAME AS 24 HOURS, AS FAR AS YOU ARE CONCERNED?

MR. GOLDBERG: ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID DETECTIVE LANGE EVER TELL YOU THAT DETECTIVES HAVE 24 HOURS TO BOOK BLOOD?

MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR HEARSAY AND IRRELEVANT.

THE WITNESS: NO.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DETECTIVE VANNATTER?

A: NO.

Q: IF YOU RECEIVED BLOOD ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH AT SID FOR THE FIRST TIME, IN YOUR JUDGMENT WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN IMPROPER?

MR. GOLDBERG: NO FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: AS FAR AS YOU UNDERSTOOD THE GUIDELINES OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, WOULD IT HAVE BEEN IMPROPER FOR EITHER DETECTIVE LANGE OR VANNATTER TO HAVE GOTTEN THE BLOOD FROM MR. SIMPSON ON JUNE 13TH, KEPT IT IN THEIR POSSESSION AND THEN DELIVERED IT TO YOU IN THE MORNING ON JUNE 14TH?

MR. GOLDBERG: CALLS FOR SPECULATION AND NO FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I AM TRYING TO --

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO, BUT THE FOUNDATION IS NOT THERE.

MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.

Q: LET ME ASK YOU A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION. LET US ASSUME THAT YOU RECEIVED THE BLOOD THAT HAD BEEN DRAWN FROM MR. SIMPSON ON JUNE 13TH ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH. ARE YOU WITH ME?

A: YES.

Q: IF THAT HAD OCCURRED, IN YOUR JUDGMENT WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN IMPROPER ON THE PART OF THE DETECTIVES?

MR. GOLDBERG: IMPROPER HYPOTHETICAL; NO FOUNDATION, CALLS FOR AN OPINION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. SCHECK: MAY I HAVE A MOMENT?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY. THE PROBLEM HERE IS FOUNDATION, COUNSEL.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: IN TERMS OF THE CUSTOM AND PRACTICE OF YOUR LABORATORY AND ITS WORKINGS WITH DETECTIVES, WOULD IT HAVE BEEN IMPROPER IF EITHER OF THESE DETECTIVES HAD KEPT THE BLOOD DRAWN FROM MR. SIMPSON ON JUNE 13TH OVERNIGHT IN THEIR PERSONAL POSSESSION AND THEN DELIVERED IT TO YOU THE NEXT MORNING ON JUNE 14TH?

MR. GOLDBERG: IMPROPER HYPOTHETICAL, CALLS FOR AN OPINION, NO FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: THAT WOULD DEPEND ON HOW THE BLOOD WAS STORED IN THERE WHILE IT WAS IN THEIR CUSTODY.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: YOU MEAN IF THEY PUT IT IN THEIR REFRIGERATOR AT HOME, THEN IN TERMS OF YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF CUSTOM AND PRACTICE, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN OKAY?

MR. GOLDBERG: THERE IS STILL NO FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: ACCORDING TO HOW I UNDERSTAND IT, YES. I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND IT.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: WHY WOULDN'T YOU RECOMMEND IT?

A: PUTTING BLOOD IN YOUR OWN REFRIGERATOR, I JUST WOULDN'T RECOMMEND IT.

Q: WELL, ISN'T ONE REASON THAT YOU WOULDN'T RECOMMEND IT, MR. FUNG, IS THAT IN TERMS OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY IT WOULD BE HIGHLY IMPROPER FOR A DETECTIVE TO KEEP A BLOOD VIAL OVERNIGHT --

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, ARE YOU FEARFUL OF THESE DETECTIVES, VANNATTER AND LANGE?

A: I'M NOT FEARFUL OF THEM, NO.

Q: ARE YOU AWARE -- WHO -- MICHELE KESTLER IS THE HEAD OF THE LABORATORY?

A: YES, SHE IS.

Q: ARE YOU AWARE THAT HER HUSBAND WORKS AS A DETECTIVE IN ROBBERY/HOMICIDE WITH DETECTIVES LANGE AND VANNATTER?

MR. GOLDBERG: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE AND IT IS ALSO IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES, I AM.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: ARE YOU FEARFUL, SIR, THAT IN A DISPUTE BETWEEN YOURSELF AND EITHER DETECTIVE LANGE OR VANNATTER THAT YOU COULD NOT COUNT ON THE SUPPORT OF MICHELE KESTLER?

MR. GOLDBERG: THIS IS -- I WILL WITHDRAW THE OBJECTION.

THE WITNESS: NO.

Q: BY MR. SCHECK: DID YOU RECEIVE MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD VIAL ON JUNE 14TH AFTER YOU RECEIVED THE SNEAKERS FROM DETECTIVE LANGE?

A: I RECEIVED THE BLOOD VIAL FROM MR. SIMPSON OF -- OF MR. SIMPSON ON JUNE 13TH AT THE ROCKINGHAM ADDRESS.

Q: SO YOUR TESTIMONY IS YOU DID NOT RECEIVE THE SNEAKERS FIRST ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH AND THEN THE BLOOD VIAL?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: DO YOU REMEMBER BEING ASKED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION WHICH ITEM YOU RECEIVED FIRST, THE SNEAKERS OR THE BLOOD VIAL?

A: I DON'T SPECIFICALLY RECALL THAT QUESTION, NO.

Q: DO YOU REMEMBER MAKING A SLIP ON DIRECT EXAMINATION WHEN YOU ANSWERED THAT QUESTION?

A: NO, I DON'T.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW A PIECE OF VIDEO. IT IS --

THE COURT: I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT FIRST.

MR. SCHECK: YES.

THE COURT: DOES IT HAVE AUDIO?

MR. SCHECK: YES, IT DOES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE JURORS TO STEP BACK IN THE JURY ROOM, PLEASE.

MR. SCHECK: I THINK IT COULD BE DONE PRETTY -- I'M SORRY.

(AT 2:30 P.M. THE JURY EXITS THE COURTROOM AND THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. ALL RIGHT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THE JURORS HAVE WITHDRAWN FROM THE COURTROOM.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, HOW MANY TIMES DOES THE COURT HAVE TO ADMONISH COUNSEL TO SHOW US THESE THINGS AHEAD OF TIME, YOU KNOW, AND THE GRANDSTANDING NATURE OF THESE PLOYS HAS BEEN MADE VERY APPARENT. THIS IS THE THIRD TIME IN FRONT OF THIS JURY HE HAS SPRUNG TAPE ON US WITHOUT TELLING US AHEAD OF TIME. THE COURT HAS REPEATEDLY ADMONISHED COUNSEL TO SHOW US AHEAD OF TIME AND REPEATEDLY HE HAS VIOLATED IT, AND ONCE AGAIN IN FRONT OF THE JURY.

THE COURT: WELL, THE PROBLEM WE HAVE, THOUGH, IS THAT THIS IS IMPEACHMENT MATERIAL. LET ME SEE THE TAPE.

MR. SCHECK: THIS TAPE IS TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: IT IS IMPEACHMENT MATERIAL.

MR. SCHECK: YES. I WILL SHOW --

THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO ARGUE ABOUT THIS WITH ME?

MR. COCHRAN: NO, NO, YOUR HONOR.

MR. SCHECK: I WILL SHOW THE TAPE.

THE COURT: SHOW ME THE TAPE.

MR. SCHECK: YES.

(AT 2:31 P.M. A VIDEOTAPE WAS PLAYED.)

MS. CLARK: THAT IS RIDICULOUS, AND I'M SORRY, BUT THE FACT THAT THIS IS IMPEACHMENT --

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, ARE YOU HANDLING THIS WITNESS?

MS. CLARK: NO, YOUR HONOR, I'M JUST HELPING MR. GOLDBERG, BUT I'M ADDRESSING -- I AM NOT ADDRESSING AN ISSUE WITH THE WITNESS. I'M ADDRESSING AN ISSUE WITH COUNSEL'S BEHAVIOR IN FRONT OF THE COURT.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, WE WILL TAKE THAT UP LATER. MR. GOLDBERG, ANY COMMENT?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I DON'T FEEL THIS IS PROPER IMPEACHMENT BECAUSE IT IS NOT INCONSISTENT AND ALSO --

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

MR. GOLDBERG: AND ALSO -- WELL, FOR TACTICAL REASONS, WE DON'T WANT TO OBJECT TO IT.

MS. CLARK: AND THAT IS GIVEN COUNSEL'S CONDUCT, YOUR HONOR, AND THAT IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, DIDN'T I JUST SAY WE WILL ADDRESS THIS LATER? THAT MEANS END OF ARGUMENT. I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANY MORE. I'M TIRED OF THIS. ALL RIGHT. FOUR O'CLOCK WE WILL TAKE IT UP.

MS. CLARK: IS THERE GOING TO BE ANY MORE VIDEOTAPE?

MR. SCHECK: YES.

MS. CLARK: COULD WE INQUIRE?

MR. SCHECK: YES, I HAVE SOME MORE VIDEOTAPE THAT JUST CAME IN, AND IF SHE WANTS TO SEE IT --

THE COURT: LET'S SEE IT NOW.

MR. SCHECK: CAN THE WITNESS LEAVE THE ROOM?

THE COURT: YES.

(MR. FUNG EXITS THE COURTROOM.)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

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

THE COURT: MR. HARRIS.

(A VIDEOTAPE WAS PLAYED.)

MR. SCHECK: ONE TAPE I'M GOING TO SHOW THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR, IS A VIDEOTAPE OF HE AND MISS MAZZOLA, WHAT I BELIEVE DEPICTS THEM LEAVING THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION ON THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 13TH. THERE IS AN AUDIO PORTION TO THIS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE PLAYED AS WELL.

(THE VIDEOTAPE CONTINUES PLAYING.)

MR. SCHECK: OKAY. WHAT I HEAR ON THAT TAPE IS MR. FUNG SAYING TO THE WITNESS "LET'S GO BACK FOR ONE LAST CHECK." THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER TAPE.

MS. CLARK: WHERE DID YOU HEAR THAT?

THE COURT: LET ME HEAR THAT AGAIN, AND MISS FITZPATRICK, CAN YOU CRANK IT UP?

(THE VIDEOTAPE WAS AGAIN PLAYED.)

MR. SCHECK: THAT IS ONE.

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

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I WILL REPRESENT TO YOU THAT THIS IS ANOTHER VERSION OF THE TAPE, BUT WE ARE FAST FORWARDING TO ANOTHER SECTION. WHEN MR. SHAPIRO WAS CROSS-EXAMINING DETECTIVE VANNATTER, I WAS BACK IN MY HOTEL ROOM WHEN I HAPPENED TO SEE THIS TAPE.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SCHECK: NO, NO. NO, NO, NO. GO BACK.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. SCHECK: GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THIS. GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THIS.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. SCHECK: OKAY. WE PROPOSE TO PLAY THE PORTION OF THE TAPE THAT -- NOT THE AUDIO.

(A VIDEOTAPE WAS PLAYED.)

MR. SCHECK: THIS IS ANOTHER SHOT OF MR. FUNG AND MISS MAZZOLA LEAVING ON THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 13TH. OKAY. WE PROPOSE TO SHOW THEM THOSE TWO SEGMENTS.

THE COURT: MR. GOLDBERG.

MR. GOLDBERG: I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RELEVANCE IS. COUNSEL WILL HAVE TO MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF. BUT FURTHERMORE, THERE IS NO SHOWING HERE AS TO WHY THIS WASN'T PROVIDED IN DISCOVERY. I MEAN, WE HAVE ANOTHER DISCOVERY VIOLATION. MR. SCHECK MADE SOME KIND OF A STRANGE COMMENT ABOUT HAVING VIEWED IT OR SEEN IT IN HIS HOTEL ROOM AT SOME POINT. I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT GETS AROUND THE DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS OF THE DEFENSE.

MR. SCHECK: IT IS IMPEACHMENT.

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

MR. SCHECK: I WASN'T GOING TO SHOW THEM THIS TAPE, YOUR HONOR, UNTIL I HEARD WHAT MR. FUNG HAD TO SAY ABOUT HOW HE CARRIED THIS BLOOD VIAL OUT THERE, UNTIL HE WAS NAILED DOWN. NOW I'M GOING TO SHOW HIM THE TAPES.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. REFRESH MY RECOLLECTION. WHAT SPECIFICALLY DID HE SAY? HE SAID IT WAS HANDED TO HIM IN A GRAY ENVELOPE AND THAT HE DIDN'T RECOLLECT SPECIFICALLY HOW IT WAS HE CARRIED IT OUT.

MR. SCHECK: HE HAS HAD THREE POSSIBLE WAYS THAT HE COULD HAVE CARRIED IT OUT: IN A PAPER BAG, IN HIS POSSE BOX OR IN HIS HAND.

THE COURT: OKAY. I SAW HIM CARRYING A CATALOGUE CASE AND A HANDFUL OF PAPER BAGS.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, BEFORE I -- I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE REST OF THIS OFFER OF PROOF EX PARTE TO YOU. I DON'T WANT TO TELL THEM. I THINK I AM ENTITLED TO THAT.

THE COURT: WELL, COUNSEL, YOU HAVE JUST SHOWN US -- YOU HAVE SHOWN ME A PIECE OF VIDEOTAPE. YOU HAVE TO TELL ME WHY IT IS RELEVANT.

MR. SCHECK: WELL, WHY IT IS RELEVANT IS THAT I BELIEVE THAT IF I SHOW THESE PIECES OF VIDEOTAPE TO MR. FUNG AND TAKE HIM THROUGH REFRESHING HIS RECOLLECTION LOOKING AT THAT AND TAKE HIM THROUGH THE EVENTS, THAT IN COMBINATION OF THE TESTIMONY OF MISS MAZZOLA THAT THE COURT HAS PREVIOUSLY HEARD THAT IS ON THE RECORD, I THINK WE CAN ESTABLISH THAT WHAT HE HAS TOLD US ABOUT CARRYING OUT THAT BLOOD VIAL AND HOW HE CARRIED IT IS NOT TRUE.

THE COURT: AND HOW DO WE DO THAT FROM THOSE TWO PIECES OF VIDEOTAPE?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD AGAIN REQUEST THAT YOU PERMIT ME TO TELL YOU EX PARTE AND MAKE A RECORD OF IT AND I WILL CONNECT THIS UP FOR YOU AND SHOW THE PLAIN RELEVANCE OF IT. UMM, I DO NOT WANT TO DISCLOSE THAT IN FRONT OF THESE PROSECUTORS WHO ARE GOING TO TALK TO THIS WITNESS OR SUBSEQUENT WITNESSES.

THE COURT: THE WITNESS -- OBVIOUSLY ONCE YOU DO IT NOW THE CAT WILL BE OUT OF THE BAG, SO TO SPEAK. MR. FUNG IS OUTSIDE OF THE COURTROOM. HE IS NOT HEARING THIS INFORMATION.

MR. SCHECK: THERE IS MORE TO IT. THERE ARE OTHER WITNESSES AND THERE ARE OTHER EVENTS AND THERE IS OTHER REASONS WHY THESE TAPES ARE CLEARLY IMPEACHING, AND I DON'T WANT TO TELL -- SAY IT IN FRONT OF THEM. I THINK I AM ENTITLED TO MAKE THIS OFFER TO YOU EX PARTE.

THE COURT: WHAT IS YOUR AUTHORITY FOR THAT?

MR. SCHECK: WELL, I THINK IT IS IMPEACHMENT MATERIAL AND I DON'T THINK I SHOULD BE REQUIRED, UNDER THE DISCOVERY RULES, TO REVEAL THE IMPEACHMENT MATERIAL BEFORE IMPEACHING THE WITNESS.

THE COURT: NO, BUT I HAVE TO MAKE A RULING AS TO RELEVANCE AND WHETHER OR NOT IT IS GOING TO COME IN, WHETHER OR NOT IT IS COLLATERAL, WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A 352 PROBLEM. WHAT IS YOUR AUTHORITY THAT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO AN EX PARTE SHOWING?

MR. SCHECK: WELL, MY --

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SCHECK: I AM INFORMED THAT THE EXACT RULE IN THIS JURISDICTION IS 1054.7 AND IF I AM PERMITTED TO MAKE A SHOWING UNDER 1054.7 I THINK I WILL BE ABLE TO CONNECT IT UP WITH THE COURT AND INDICATE TO YOU --

THE COURT: NO. THAT DOESN'T GO TO OFFERS OF PROOF REGARDING IMPEACHMENT. THAT IS A DISCOVERY RULE.

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, I AM IN A DILEMMA HERE.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO WITH THE WITNESS IS SHOW HIM THESE TWO SEGMENTS THAT DEPICT HIM AND MISS MAZZOLA LEAVING ROCKINGHAM IN THE AFTERNOON AND ASK HIM WHICH CAME FIRST AND WHICH CAME SECOND TO LAY A FOUNDATION FOR FURTHER IMPEACHMENT. AND IF THE COURT WANTS TO KNOW BEYOND THAT WHAT THAT IMPEACHMENT IS, I WOULD REQUEST THE OPPORTUNITY TO TELL YOU VERY BRIEFLY WHAT IT IS AT SIDE BAR. THIS INVOLVES TESTIMONY OF ANOTHER WITNESS WE HAVEN'T IMPEACHED YET.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE MADE AN OBJECTION THAT IT IS NOT LOGICALLY RELEVANT. THAT IS NO. 1. WE ARE ENTITLED TO BE HEARD ON THAT OBJECTION. COUNSEL IS ENTITLED TO MAKE AN OFFER OF PROOF IF HE SO CHOOSES OR NOT IF HE SO CHOOSES, BUT WE ARE ENTITLED TO BE HEARD ON HIS OFFER OF PROOF AND FULLY LITIGATE THE ISSUE OF THIS TAPE'S ADMISSIBILITY. THE PEOPLE DO HAVE A RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL, TOO, AND WE ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD ON THIS ISSUE. AND THERE ARE ONLY A VERY LIMITED NUMBER OF EXCEPTIONS IN OUR STATE FOR IN CAMERA HEARINGS. THERE ARE IN CAMERA HEARINGS FOR MARSDEN MOTIONS, FOR CERTAIN DISCOVERY ISSUES UNDER 1054.7, FOR SOMETHING THAT IS WORK PRODUCT THERE WOULD BE AN IN CAMERA HEARING, BUT THIS DOESN'T FALL UNDER ANY OF THE KNOWN EXCEPTIONS. THE SECOND OBJECTION THAT WE HAVE IS WE HAVE AN OBJECTION ON THE ISSUE OF DISCOVERY, AND I KNOW WE HAVE GONE OVER AND OVER THIS, YOUR HONOR, AND WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT FAMOUS IZAZAGA FOOTNOTE, I THINK IT WAS 5. PROBABLY THE COURT REMEMBERS. IT TALKS ABOUT THE OBLIGATION TO TURN OVER OR NOT TO TURN OVER IMPEACHMENT MATERIAL AND IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IF THE DEFENSE HAD GONE OUT AND TALKED TO MR. FUNG AND GOTTEN AN INCONSISTENT STATEMENT FROM HIM, THEY DON'T HAVE TO TURN THAT OVER TO US. IF THEY INTENDED TO CALL THEIR INVESTIGATOR AS A WITNESS, THEY WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO PUT THAT INVESTIGATOR ON THE WITNESS LIST. BUT THIS IS NOT THE TYPE OF IMPEACHMENT MATERIAL THAT IS DESCRIBED IN THAT FOOTNOTE TO IZAZAGA. WE ARE ENTITLED TO IT. IT IS A TAPE, IT IS A PIECE OF REAL EVIDENCE AND WE ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE IT.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: MR. SCHECK.

MR. SCHECK: WELL --

THE COURT: WELL, LET ME ASK ONE MORE FURTHER QUESTION. MR. GOLDBERG, LET'S ASSUME THAT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO HAVE IT. LET'S ASSUME I AGREE THAT YOU ARE ENTITLED, SINCE A VIDEOTAPE WOULD BE CONSIDERED REAL EVIDENCE.

MR. GOLDBERG: THE ONLY REPRESENTATION THAT WE HAVE FROM COUNSEL AS TO HOW THIS VIDEOTAPE CAME INTO BEING OR INTO THEIR POSSESSION IS THAT HE WAS WATCHING TELEVISION, I GUESS, OR LOOKING AT THE VIDEOS IN HIS HOTEL ROOM AND SAW IT. I MEAN, WE HAVE NOTHING IN THE WAY OF ANY KIND OF --

THE COURT: NO. LET'S ASSUME FOR THE SAKE OF THIS ARGUMENT I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT IS REAL EVIDENCE, THAT A VIDEOTAPE IS, QUOTE-UNQUOTE, REAL EVIDENCE, NOT A WITNESS STATEMENT, PER SE, IN THIS CONTEXT, WHERE IT IS SIMILAR TO A PICTURE, BECAUSE IT DEPICTS ACTIONS BY MR. FUNG AND MISS MAZZOLA AT ROCKINGHAM APPARENTLY ON JUNE 13TH. APPARENTLY. IT COULD HAVE BEEN THE 28TH. I DON'T KNOW.

MR. GOLDBERG: AND IS THE COURT'S QUESTION ASSUMING THAT THERE IS A DISCOVERY VIOLATION, WHAT IS THE REMEDY OR --

THE COURT: NO. WHAT ARE YOU ASKING FOR?

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, THAT IT NOT BE USED AT THIS POINT. I MEAN, THAT WE HAVE THE TAPE PROVIDED TO US, THAT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DETERMINE FOR SURE WHAT DATE THIS OCCURRED ON, WHETHER THERE ARE ANY OTHER SEQUENCES ON THE TAPE THAT WOULD INDICATE WHEN IN A CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE THE EVENTS DEPICTED THEREON APPEARED. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE A DISCOVERY STATUTE. I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE TAPE WOULD NECESSARILY BE PRECLUDED, BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT PRECLUSION IS USUALLY A REMEDY OF LAST RESORT FOR THE COURT AND IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN RARELY LEGITIMATELY ASK FOR.

THE COURT: WHAT IS YOUR OBJECTION TO MR. SCHECK SHOWING MR. FUNG THESE TWO VIDEOTAPE ITEMS AND ASKING WHICH OCCURRED FIRST, WALKING OUT WITH YOUR CATALOGUE CASE OR WALKING OUT EMPTY-HANDED?

MR. GOLDBERG: WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE? THAT IS OUR FIRST OBJECTION. AND THE SECOND OBJECTION WAS AN OBJECTION ON THE DISCOVERY STATUTE, AND JUST TO BRIEFLY RESTATE, WE WERE SAYING THAT WE ARE ENTITLED TO BE HEARD AS TO THAT FIRST OBJECTION, RELEVANCE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. SCHECK: IN TERMS OF THE RELEVANCE, I REALLY WANT TO DETERMINE FROM THE WITNESS WHICH HAPPENED FIRST.

IN EXAMINING THE TAPES I'VE TRIED TO RECONSTRUCT IT BASED ON WHAT I SEE AND BASED ON WHAT MY UNDERSTANDINGS OF THE EVIDENCE IS, BUT I WON'T KNOW UNTIL THE WITNESS TELLS ME, AND I WANT TO REVIEW THIS WITH HIM TO TRY TO DO THE BEST I CAN TO RECONSTRUCT THE EVENTS OF THAT DAY AND TO PROBE WHETHER OR NOT HE REALLY RECEIVED A BLOOD VIAL ON THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 13TH. THAT IS WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS. I THINK I SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO SHOW THOSE TAPES TO THE WITNESS, INQUIRE OF HIM WHICH HAPPENED FIRST, WHICH HAPPENED SECOND, AND THEN CONDUCT FURTHER INQUIRY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THESE TAPES ARE -- AND FURTHER EXPLORE THE CREDIBILITY OF HIS ANSWERS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WHAT ABOUT OUR DISCOVERY PROBLEM THAT THE PROSECUTION HASN'T SEEN THIS AND I AGREE THAT IT IS PROBABLY REAL EVIDENCE?

MR. SCHECK: WELL, YOUR HONOR, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT I WOULD BE ALLOWED TO WITHHOLD THIS AS IMPEACHMENT MATERIAL. THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. SCHECK: AND THESE SEQUENCES ARE ON THE EARLIER TAPES, BUT FROM DIFFERENT ANGLES, AND IN FACT --

THE COURT: WHEN DID YOU GET THESE ITEMS?

MR. SCHECK: WELL, I ACTUALLY GOT THIS ITEM ABOUT A WEEK AGO.

THE COURT: WHICH ITEM?

MR. SCHECK: THE LAST -- THE SECOND TAPE THAT SHOWED MR. FUNG WALKING OUT EMPTY-HANDED AND MISS MAZZOLA WITH THE TRASH BAG, AND I HAD RECALLED SEEING SOMETHING ON THE TELEVISION. AND WHEN WE REVIEWED THIS TAPE WE DIDN'T REVIEW IT TO THE VERY END AND WE DIDN'T SEE IT, FRANKLY, UNTIL LAST NIGHT, THAT THE FULL SEGMENT WAS THERE. WE HAVE MADE EFFORTS TO OBTAIN ANOTHER TAPE THAT WE THINK HAS EVEN MORE OF THIS FOOTAGE, AND I HAVE NOT YET VIEWED THAT TAPE, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE MAKING EFFORTS TO FIND IT, SO WE ARE TRYING TO GET ALL THE FOOTAGE WE CAN OF WHAT HAPPENED AND I'M TRYING TO SHOW THE WITNESS THE BEST I COULD.

THE COURT: WHEN DID YOU GET THESE ITEMS?

MR. SCHECK: WHICH ITEMS?

THE COURT: THIS LAST TAPE.

MR. SCHECK: WELL, THIS LAST TAPE --

THE COURT: WHICH WAS ACTUALLY THE FIRST TAPE.

MR. SCHECK: THE FIRST TAPE HAS BEEN -- I THINK THE PROSECUTION HAS THAT, THE ONE OF THEM INITIALLY COMING OUT. I THINK IT HAS BEEN SEEN BEFORE.

THE COURT: WHAT WE ASSUME IS INITIALLY COMING OUT WITH THE CATALOGUE CASE, CORRECT?

MR. SCHECK: I DON'T KNOW UNTIL I ASK HIM WHICH HAPPENED FIRST AND WHICH HAPPENED SECOND. I HAVE A SUSPICION BASED ON HIS TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG, DO YOU HAVE THAT FIRST SEGMENT?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE SEEN SEGMENTS LIKE THIS, BUT I DON'T THINK I HAVE SEEN THIS SEGMENT. AND THE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE WITH COUNSEL'S REPRESENTATION, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY THIS AS ANY KIND OF AN INSULT OR PERJORATIVELY, IS THAT WHEN THEY REPRESENTED TO US THAT WE HAD THE VIDEOTAPE DEPICTING WHAT THEY CLAIM TO BE THE ENVELOPE, APPARENTLY WE DO NOT HAVE THAT, THE ENVELOPE THAT WAS SUPPOSEDLY PASSED TO MR. FUNG. AND MR. FAIRTLOUGH DID A VERY EXTENSIVE REVIEW OF OUR TAPES LAST NIGHT AND SAYS HE DOES NOT FIND THEM, AND I PROVIDED HIM WITH THE COUNTER ON THAT ITEM, AND WE JUST DON'T HAVE IT, SO I DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN -- I CAN BE COMFORTABLE THAT WE HAVE THIS SIMPLY BECAUSE COUNSEL HAS REPRESENTED THAT WE DO.

MR. SCHECK: I -- AS FAR AS THE LAST THING THAT MR. GOLDBERG SAID, I AM INFORMED BY MR. BLASIER, WHO WAS THE ONE THAT WAS DEALING WITH THIS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL, THAT THE SEGMENTS CONCERNING THE ENVELOPE AND THE GLOVE THAT THIS WITNESS WAS CONFRONTED WITH ARE ON THAT KCBS TAPE, AS WE INFORMED THEM YESTERDAY, THAT I THINK IS IN EVIDENCE, SO I THINK THAT --

THE COURT: THAT IS ANOTHER ISSUE.

MR. SCHECK: WELL, HE RAISED IT. YOUR HONOR, LOOKING AT THE TAPE, WE DID RECEIVE THIS PARTICULAR TAPE WHICH DEPICTS VANNATTER TESTIFYING AND FUNG -- MR. FUNG AND MISS MAZZOLA WALKING OUT ON APRIL 5TH, BUT WE ONLY SAW THE FIRST SEGMENT. AND LAST NIGHT WHEN WE RAN IT TO THE VERY END, I SAW THE FULL SEGMENT, WHICH I DID RECALL SEEING WHEN MR. VANNATTER WAS TESTIFYING, BUT WE COULDN'T LOCATE IT IN ITS ENTIRETY.

THE COURT: WE WILL DO THIS: I AM GOING TO ALLOW THE PROSECUTION OVERNIGHT, SINCE WE ARE GOING TO BREAK WITH THE JURY TODAY AT FOUR O'CLOCK, AND ALLOW THEM OVERNIGHT TO REVIEW THESE TAPED SEGMENTS TO SEE IF THERE IS ANY PREJUDICE TO THEM IN THE DISCLOSURE AT THIS POINT. MR. SCHECK, I WOULD IMAGINE YOU HAVE ENOUGH TO GO ON AND FILL THE AFTERNOON.

MR. SCHECK: WELL, ACTUALLY, UMM, TO BE FRANK, YOUR HONOR, THIS WAS --

THE COURT: THIS IS IT?

MR. SCHECK: THIS IS -- THE ISSUE OF THE TURN OVER OF THIS BLOOD VIAL IS THE LAST LINE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT I HAVE, UMM, AND I MUST SAY, YOUR HONOR, UNTIL I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE WITNESS SAYS WITH RESPECT TO THESE TAPES AND WHICH SEGMENT IS FIRST AND WHICH SEGMENT IS SECOND, I WON'T BE ABLE TO PROCEED TO THE VERY END BECAUSE IT IS DEPENDENT ON HIS ANSWERS.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG, DOES THAT SOUND ACCEPTABLE TO YOU, YOU HAVE SOME OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE TAPES, COMPARE THEM WITH WHAT YOU HAVE AND WE WILL PROCEED TOMORROW MORNING CONTINUING WITH MR. FUNG?

MR. GOLDBERG: THAT SOUNDS LIKE IT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE, YOUR HONOR. MAY I JUST HAVE A MOMENT?

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: IT IS NOT LIKE I DON'T HAVE OTHER THINGS TO DO THIS AFTERNOON.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, THERE ARE A COUPLE OTHER LEGAL ISSUES THAT I DID WANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS. ONE WAS AS TO THE TAPE THAT I JUST MENTIONED AND THE OTHER WAS AS TO THE PHENOLPHTHALEIN ISSUE WHICH I THINK NEEDS TO BE REVISITED IN LIGHT OF THE TESTIMONY. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE COURT WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT NOW OR AT SOME LATER POINT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MY INCLINATION WOULD BE TO RECESS AS FAR AS THE JURY IS CONCERNED RIGHT NOW, COME BACK IN FIFTEEN MINUTES AND DISCUSS THESE OTHER LEGAL ISSUES AND COMMENCE OUR OTHER HEARING -- COMMENCE OUR OTHER HEARING AT FOUR O'CLOCK. AND I ANTICIPATE BEING IN SESSION UNTIL ABOUT 6:00 ON THAT, SO WE STILL HAVE A FULL DAY AHEAD OF US.

MR. SCHECK: MAY I MAKE ONE QUICK REQUEST THAT MAY SAVE SOME TIME?

THE COURT: SURE.

MR. SCHECK: MAY I ASK PERMISSION TO BRING THE WITNESS BACK BEFORE WE BREAK AND SIMPLY INQUIRE OF HIM, WITHOUT SHOWING ANY VIDEOTAPES, JUST AS TO A VERBAL DESCRIPTION, IF HE RECALLS THE EVENTS AND WHICH HAPPENED FIRST?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THAT SEEMS REASONABLE, WITHOUT THE DISPLAY OF THE VIDEOTAPE. ALL RIGHT. THE COURT REPORTER NEEDS FIVE MINUTES. DON'T GO AWAY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, SO THAT THE COURT IS AWARE, WE HAVE WITHDRAWN OUR OBJECTION TO SHOWING THE TAPE, THE DIRECT TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS, SO WE SHOULD RECOMMENCE WITH THAT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET ME CHANGE -- GIVE THE COURT REPORTER A BREAK. ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE FIVE MINUTES -- WELL, WE ARE SO CLOSE, LET'S JUST TAKE OUR 15 AT THIS POINT.

(RECESS.)

(PAGES 22509 THROUGH 22512, VOLUME 124A, TRANSCRIBED AND SEALED UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)

MR. SCHECK: YOUR HONOR, BEFORE WE DO THAT, I ASK AN INSTRUCTION THAT THEY NOT DISCUSS THIS LAST MATTER WITH MR. FUNG.

THE COURT: YES.

(RECESS.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S HAVE THE PUBLIC AND LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE. LET'S HAVE THE PUBLIC AND THEN THE JURY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, CAN WE APPROACH SIDE BAR WITHOUT THE REPORTER?

(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. FUNG, WHY DON'T YOU JUST HAVE A SEAT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

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

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

THE JURY: GOOD AFTERNOON.

THE COURT: BEFORE YOU GET TOO COMFORTABLE, I HAVE TO APOLOGIZE TO YOU THAT SOMETHING UNUSUAL CAME UP THAT I HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT IS GOING TO TAKE ME QUITE SOME TIME THIS AFTERNOON, AND WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO FINISH WITH MR. FUNG THIS AFTERNOON. AND I NEED TO TAKE CARE OF SOME THINGS BEFORE WE CAN PROCEED AGAIN.

WE WILL START AGAIN, I PROMISE YOU, TOMORROW MORNING AT NINE O'CLOCK. I THINK EXPLAINED TO YOU EARLIER DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL THAT THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED MURPHY'S LAW AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO RECALL, MURPHY'S LAW IS IF SOMETHING CAN GO WRONG, SOMETHING WILL GO WRONG, AND THE FIRST COROLLARY TO MURPHY'S LAW IS THAT IF IT IS GOING TO GO WRONG IT WILL GO WRONG AT THE MOST INOPPORTUNE MOMENT, BECAUSE WE SEEMED TO HAVE HIT OUR STRIDE AND THEN WE WERE MAKING SOME PROGRESS TODAY AND I WAS HOPING TO FINISH MR. FUNG THIS AFTERNOON. 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, DO NOT CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. AND I KNOW YOU HAVE SOME ACTIVITY FOR THE EVENING, SO I'M SURE YOU ARE NOT TOO UNHAPPY TO GET STARTED EARLIER TODAY. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS, AS FAR AS THE JURY IS CONCERNED, UNTIL NINE O'CLOCK TOMORROW MORNING, AND WE WILL, AS SOON AS THE JURY HAS BEEN EXCUSED, TAKE UP SOME OF THE OTHER LEGAL ISSUES WE NEED TO DISCUSS AND THEN WE WILL START OUR FOUR O'CLOCK SESSION AT FOUR O'CLOCK. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

(AT 3:17 P.M. THE JURY WAS EXCUSED AND THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)

THE COURT: BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. GOLDBERG, YOU WANTED TO RAISE AN ISSUE REGARDING PHENOLPHTHALEIN TESTING?

MR. GOLDBERG: YES, YOUR HONOR. I THOUGHT THE COURT HAD RULED THAT PHENOLPHTHALEIN WAS NOT GOING TO BE ADMISSIBLE AND THEN IT BECAME MY UNDERSTANDING, PERHAPS THE COURT HAD RULED, THAT POSITIVE TESTS WERE NOT ADMISSIBLE BUT NEGATIVE TESTS WERE.

THE COURT: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. GOLDBERG: THE DEFENSE HAS NOW CLEARLY INTRODUCED A POSITIVE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST WITHOUT ANY PRIOR APPROACHING OF YOUR HONOR AND TRYING TO GET A MODIFICATION OR CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT'S RULING, AND IT SEEMS TO BE CLEARLY IN VIOLATION OF WHAT THE COURT'S RULING WAS.

A SIDE FROM THAT, WE ALSO HAVE THE ISSUE OF THE COURT HAVING SAID THAT IN TERMS OF YOUR PHENOLPHTHALEIN RULING, THAT YOU WOULD NOT ALLOW THE DEFENSE IN ANY WAY TO PLACE BEFORE THE JURY INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE THAT WOULD BE MISLEADING IN TERMS OF NEGATIVE RESULTS IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS, CREATING THE INFERENCE THAT THERE WAS NO BLOOD IN THOSE LOCATIONS. THE DEFENSE PUT IN EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS A NEGATIVE REACTION IN THE SINK DRAIN OR SINK TRAP, AND OF COURSE WE HAVE A POSITIVE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST IN THE -- IN THE DRAIN PART OF IT.

THIS CLEARLY, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT, CREATES AN ENTIRELY ERRONEOUS PICTURE BECAUSE IT IS ALMOST AS IF YOU ARE TELLING THE JURY THAT THIS LITTLE SPOT OVER HERE WAS TESTED FOR PHENOLPHTHALEIN AND IT CAME BACK NEGATIVE, WHEN WE KNOW THAT THE LITTLE SPOT NEXT TO IT CAME BACK POSITIVE, AND THEN ARGUING TO THE JURY THAT THERE WAS NO BLOOD THERE. AND WHAT THE DEFENSE HAS DONE IS THEY HAVE TRIED TO CREATE A -- A CHANGE IN WHAT EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 352 IS REALLY INTENDED TO DO.

THE COURT: WELL, ISN'T YOUR ARGUMENT THAT THE COURT'S RULING WAS THAT NO POSITIVE RESULTS OF PHENOLPHTHALEIN TESTING WOULD BE ADMITTED UNLESS THERE WAS SOME BACK-UP OR SUBSEQUENT TESTING TO CONFIRM THAT SINCE PHENOLPHTHALEIN IS A PRESUMPTIVE TEST ONLY; HOWEVER, THAT THE STATE OF THE SCIENCE IS THAT A NEGATIVE PHENOLPHTHALEIN WAS PRETTY MUCH CONCLUSIVE IN AND OF ITSELF THAT BLOOD WAS NOT EXISTENT, SO THAT WAS THE STATE OF THE COURT'S RULING? THEN DURING THE COURSE OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MR. FUNG THIS MORNING I NOTED THAT THE DEFENSE THEN OFFERED, THROUGH MR. FUNG, POSITIVE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TESTING THAT HAD NOT BEEN CONFIRMED BY ANY OTHER TESTING METHOD, SO HAVING MADE THE INITIAL OBJECTION AND THEN SOUGHT THEMSELVES TO INTRODUCE IT, THEN YOUR ARGUMENT IS PROBABLY THAT THE PROSECUTION IS ENTITLED TO DO LIKEWISE, CORRECT?

MR. GOLDBERG: YES.

THE COURT: MR. BLASIER.

MR. BLASIER: YES, YOUR HONOR. OUR PURPOSE IN ASKING OF THAT QUESTION OF MR. FUNG, IT IS OUR POSITION THAT THAT NEVER HAPPENED, THAT THAT TEST NEVER HAPPENED. HIS TESTIMONY WAS THAT HE HAD BEEN SENT BACK SPECIFICALLY TO DO TESTING ON JULY 6, I BELIEVE IT WAS, AND THAT HE CLAIMED THAT HE WENT BACK AND DID THAT BUT DIDN'T TELL ANYBODY ABOUT IT, DIDN'T RECORD IT ANYWHERE, DIDN'T WRITE A REPORT UNTIL OCTOBER SOMETIME WHERE HE THEN INCLUDES WHAT HE MAINTAINS WAS THE TEST RESULTS. WE DID NOT ASK THAT FOR PURPOSES OF ESTABLISHING THAT THERE WAS A POSITIVE PHENOL TEST. WE USED IT FOR IMPEACHMENT PURPOSES TO SHOW THAT THAT NEVER HAPPENED.

IT WAS NOT OUR INTENT TO OPEN UP ALL OTHER PHENOL TESTING POSITIVE RESULTS FOR ADMISSION AS POSITIVE EVIDENCE OF BLOOD.

THE COURT: WELL, HAVEN'T -- ISN'T THAT -- FIRST OF ALL, IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH YOUR PREVIOUS POSITION THAT I DID GRANT YOUR MOTION TO RESTRICT -- THAT YOU -- THE USE OF POSITIVE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TESTING WITHOUT ANY BACK-UP, AND THEN TO BROACH THAT WITHOUT ASKING FOR ANY LIMITED UNDERSTANDING WITH REGARDS TO THAT OR COUCHING IT IN SOME OTHER WAY, PRESUMPTIVE TESTS WITHOUT MENTIONING PHENOLPHTHALEIN OR ANYTHING ELSE, HAVEN'T YOU CREATED A CONFLICT AND IT IS NOW FAIR FOR THE PROSECUTION TO BRING THIS EVIDENCE IN?

MR. BLASIER: I MIGHT POINT OUT THERE WAS NO OBJECTION AT THE TIME THE QUESTION WAS ASKED.

THE COURT: I KNOW THERE WAS NO OBJECTION. THEY WERE PROBABLY HOPING. I SAW WIDE EYES OVER ON THIS SIDE OF THE TABLE IS WHAT I SAW.

MR. BLASIER: AGAIN, THIS WAS FOR PURPOSES OF IMPEACHMENT OF MR. FUNG. WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS TEST WAS EVER DONE. IT WAS EVIDENCE THAT HE WAS PURPORTING TO HAVE CREATED FOR PURPOSES OF DEMONSTRATING THAT HE DID SOMETHING ON THE 6TH WHICH WE DON'T THINK IT DID.

THE COURT: COULDN'T IT HAVE BEEN COUCHED IN TERMS OF AN UNNAMED TEST, PRESUMPTIVE TEST FOR THE PRESENCE OF BLOOD, OR IN OTHER WAY, AND SHOULDN'T YOU HAVE GIVEN NOTICE TO THE PROSECUTION YOU WERE ABOUT TO DO THAT BY ASKING TO APPROACH?

MR. BLASIER: WELL, MAY I HAVE A MINUTE, YOUR HONOR?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. BLASIER: WE HAD TALKED ABOUT -- AT A BENCH CONFERENCE ABOUT ASKING THE QUESTION PERTAINING TO THE OTHER -- THE TEST OF THE SINK TRAP, AND I BELIEVE YOU WERE AWARE OF THAT AND HAD OKAYED THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION. WE CHOSE NOT TO DO THIS WITH IMPEACHMENT MATERIAL WITH MR. FUNG. WE ARE VERY HESITANT TO REVEAL OUR IMPEACHMENT MATERIAL BEFORE WE USE IT ON THE WITNESS. THAT IS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF IMPEACHMENT MATERIAL. AND PERHAPS WE SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT AND WE DIDN'T DO THAT.

THE COURT: IT WASN'T REALLY TRUE IMPEACHMENT MATERIAL IN THE SENSE THAT IT WAS UNKNOWN AND THAT THERE WAS SOME SURPRISE ADVANTAGE SINCE YOU ALREADY HAD THE TRANSCRIPTS AND HIS TESTIMONY PREVIOUSLY.

MR. BLASIER: WELL, I DON'T THINK THERE HAD BEEN ANY TESTIMONY BEFORE ABOUT THE FACT THAT HE DID NOT WRITE A REPORT UNTIL OCTOBER 6TH, I BELIEVE IT WAS. AND IT IS OUR POSITION THAT THAT DELAY OF MANY MONTHS WAS A COVER-UP TO COVER UP THE FACT THAT -- TO COVER HIS TESTIMONY IN OCTOBER BECAUSE HE HAD NOT DONE ANYTHING IN JULY AND THAT NOTHING WAS DONE, NO TESTING WAS DONE. IT HAS BEEN OUR POSITION ALL ALONG, WITH RESPECT TO MR. FUNG, THAT THIS NEVER HAPPENED AND I THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE IMPEACHMENT MATERIAL ALONG THOSE LINES. IF THEY WANT TO ASK HIM QUESTIONS ABOUT IT ON REDIRECT, I AM CERTAIN THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THAT OPENS THE DOOR TO ALL OTHER PHENOL TESTING IN OTHER SITUATIONS WITH OTHER PIECES OF EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: WHY NOT?

MR. BLASIER: BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT DOES BECAUSE IT WAS FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE.

THE COURT: YOU SEE, YOU DIDN'T ASK ME TO LIMIT THE PURPOSE. THAT WAS JUST GENERAL EVIDENCE THAT WAS JUST BROUGHT BEFORE THE JURY.

MR. BLASIER: WELL --

THE COURT: YOU DIDN'T GIVE THE COURT NOTICE. YOU DIDN'T NOTIFY THE OTHER SIDE, BECAUSE I HAD RULED IN YOUR FAVOR, AND THEN YOU GO IN AND BRING IN SOMETHING YOU ASKED ME TO KEEP OUT, SO NOW IT IS OUT THERE FOR GENERAL PURPOSE. THERE HAS BEEN NO ADVISE TO THE COURT THAT I SHOULD GIVE A LIMITING INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY, SO ISN'T THE DOOR WIDE OPEN AT THIS POINT?

MR. BLASIER: WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO A LIMITING INSTRUCTION. I THINK ONE WAS GIVEN BEFORE ON THIS VERY ISSUE. I MAY BE WRONG ABOUT THAT, BUT THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION, BUT WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO YOUR ADVISING THE JURY EXACTLY WHAT THE NATURE OF THE TEST IS AND THAT IT IS A PRESUMPTIVE TEST AND THIS WAS A QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED FOR PURPOSES OF IMPEACHMENT ONLY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. GOLDBERG, ANY OTHER COMMENT?

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, I DON'T WANT TO TAKE UP MORE TIME WITH THIS THAN THE COURT FEELS IS NECESSARY, PARTICULARLY IF YOU ARE INCLINED TO RULE IN OUR FAVOR. UMM --

THE COURT: DON'T ASSUME THAT.

MR. GOLDBERG: OKAY. WELL, MAYBE I WILL TAKE UP SOME MORE TIME.

THE COURT: LET ME ASK YOU THIS: DO YOU HAVE -- DO YOU HAVE ANY CASE LAW, BECAUSE THE CASE LAW SAYS, FOR EXAMPLE, IN OTHER PRESUMPTIVE TESTS INDICATE PRETTY MUCH WHAT THE COURT'S RULING HAS BEEN, UNLESS THERE IS A 352 ISSUE, AND THERE ARE A LOT OF COURTS THAT HAVE KEPT IT OUT ON THAT BASIS. DO YOU KNOW OF ANY OTHER REPORTED CASE THAT DEALS WITH A SITUATION SIMILAR TO OURS?

MR. GOLDBERG: WHERE THEY OPENED THE DOOR BY INTRODUCING PRESUMPTIVE TESTING OF ONE TEST?

THE COURT: YES.

MR. GOLDBERG: NO, I HAVEN'T, YOUR HONOR, BUT WE DO KNOW OF THE RULE OF CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY OR COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS OPENING THE DOOR, WHERE YOU -- WHERE ONE SIDE PUTS INTO EVIDENCE, THE OTHER SIDE IS ENTITLED TO REBUT IT. AND LET ME POINT OUT THE FALLACY OF COUNSEL'S ARGUMENT IS THAT THERE WAS NO REASON WHATSOEVER THAT THEY HAD TO ASK WHAT THE RESULTS OF THE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST WERE. THERE WAS NO REASON AT THAT POINT THAT THEY HAD TO ASK WHAT THE NATURE OF THE TEST WAS SPECIFICALLY. THEIR ALLEGED REASON FOR DOING IT WAS SIMPLY TO SHOW THAT HE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE DONE A TEST, BUT THE RESULT HAS NO IMPEACHMENT VALUE WHATSOEVER IF THEY ARE TRYING TO CHARACTERIZE IT AS IMPEACHMENT OR ATTACKING THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS, SO THE ARGUMENT THAT THEY ARE MAKING SIMPLY FALLS SHORT.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TWO OTHER ARGUMENTS THAT I FEEL ARE ALSO VERY IMPORTANT. NO. 1, THE COURT I THINK WAS RULING UNDER 352 OF THE EVIDENCE CODE AT THE TIME THAT YOUR HONOR MADE ITS INITIAL RULING, AND WHAT THE COURT SAID IS YOU SAID THAT YOU WOULD NOT ALLOW EVIDENCE TO BE PUT BEFORE THIS JURY IN SUCH A WAY SO THAT IT WERE MISLEADING. WHAT WE HAVE IS A SITUATION WHERE THE DEFENSE HAS VERY EXTENSIVELY ASKED QUESTIONS AS TO HOW MUCH BLOOD WAS IN THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION, AS TO WHERE IT WAS, AND VERY SPECIFICALLY ASKED WHETHER THE SINK TRAP WAS TESTED AND WHAT THE RESULT WAS AND THAT IT CAME BACK NEGATIVE. NOW, WHAT EARTHLY REASON IS THERE FOR ASKING THAT QUESTION OTHER THAN TO BE ABLE TO ARGUE TO THIS JURY THAT THERE WAS NO BLOOD IN THE SINK AND THAT HE DID NOT WASH UP IN THE SINK?

THERE IS NO OTHER PURPOSE FOR DOING THAT, SO HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY ALLOW A SITUATION UNDER 352 WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS A NEGATIVE PHENOLPHTHALEIN IN THE SINK TRAP WHEN WE KNOW THAT THERE WAS A POSITIVE TEST IN THE SINK DRAIN ITSELF? THAT IS MISLEADING. I THINK WHAT THE DEFENSE IS DOING IS THEY ARE TRYING TO HAVE THE COURT CONVERT 352 FROM A SHIELD THAT IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT YOU FROM OVERLY PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE INTO A SWORD THAT IS DESIGNED TO CREATE AN INFERENCE THAT THERE WAS NO BLOOD IN THESE LOCATIONS WHEN IN FACT WE HAVE A SCIENTIFIC TEST THAT SAYS THAT THERE IS. YOUR HONOR, I WOULD SAY ON THIS SCORE THAT IF THE COURT THINKS THAT WE NEED FURTHER FOUNDATION IN TERMS OF A SEROLOGIST, WE COULD CONCEIVABLY HAVE MR. FUNG SIMPLY TESTIFY TO WHAT HE DID AND THE COLOR CHANGE AND HIS OBSERVATIONS AND HAVE SOMEONE ELSE TESTIFY TO THE INTERPRETATION, ALTHOUGH I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS ACTUALLY NECESSARY.

SO THERE IS MORE THAN ONE REASON FOR ALLOWING THIS IN. OPENING THE DOOR IS ONE, BUT FAIRNESS IS ANOTHER, AND A PROPER USAGE OF 352 IS ANOTHER. AND THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE SUBMITTED TO THE JURY IN THE POSTURE THAT THERE IS NO BLOOD AND NO EVIDENCE OF BLOOD WHEN WE KNOW IN FACT THAT THERE IS, AND THERE IS A RELIABLE TEST THAT IS USED IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY THAT SUGGESTS THAT. ALSO, I WOULD POINT OUT TO THE COURT THAT WE DID FIND OUT FROM TECHNICAL EXPERTS THAT BLEACH DOES NOT CAUSE A FALSE POSITIVE WITH THE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST WHEN YOU USE THE TWO-STAGE METHOD, WHICH I SPECULATED WAS THE CASE, BUT NOW HAS BEEN CONFIRMED TO BE THE CASE BY EXPERTS THAT WE HAVE SPOKEN WITH. MAY I HAVE JUST ONE MOMENT?

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

MR. GOLDBERG: AS TO THE FIRST ARGUMENT, IT IS ALSO TOO LATE FOR A LIMITING INSTRUCTION AT THIS POINT. IT CAME IN FOR ALL PURPOSES. THE JURY IS NOT GOING TO BE BACK UNTIL TOMORROW. AND FINALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT ONE OTHER THING: IN REHABILITATING THIS ISSUE OR READDRESSING THIS ISSUE WITH MR. FUNG, WE NEED TO SHOW WHAT HIS PRACTICE IS WITH RESPECT TO WHAT HE DOES WHEN HE GETS A POSITIVE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST OR WHEN HE DOES A PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST IN GENERAL, BECAUSE WE CAN SHOW THAT HE DOES NOT WRITE REPORTS CONTEMPORANEOUSLY, AN ANALYZED EVIDENCE REPORT CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THAT TESTING.

HE DIDN'T DO IT WHEN HE TESTED THE BENTLEY, SO WE NEED TO GET THAT IN. HE DIDN'T DO IT WHEN HE TESTED CERTAIN OTHER ITEMS AT ROCKINGHAM, INCLUDING THE SINK, AND THE SHOWER, HE DID NOT WRITE AN ANALYZED EVIDENCE REPORT, SO WE NEED TO SHOW WHAT THIS MAN'S PRACTICE IS AND THAT IT HAS BEEN CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THIS CASE. AND THAT IS OF VITAL CONCERN TO THE PEOPLE IN ADDRESSING THE SUPPOSEDLY LIMITED ISSUE THAT COUNSEL SAYS THAT THE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST WAS INTRODUCED ON.

MR. BLASIER: YOUR HONOR, THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT WHY IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT HE BE ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT THE PHENOL TEST BEING POSITIVE AS OPPOSED TO BEING NEGATIVE. WE WERE NOT ASKING THAT QUESTION FOR PURPOSES OF ELICITING THE TRUTH OF WHAT THE PHENOL TEST WAS, BUT THE FACT THAT HE SAID IT WAS POSITIVE MAKES IT A MUCH MORE IMPORTANT EVENT, ONE WHICH I WOULD RECORD, TELL MY BOSS, TELL MISS CLARK, TELL SOMEBODY, THAN IF IT HAD BEEN A NEGATIVE TEST, SO THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF INFORMATION WAS NOT OFFERED FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER STATED.

FAR FROM IT. IT WAS OFFERED FOR JUST THE OPPOSITE, TO SHOW THAT BY HIS TESTIMONY THAT WOULD BE THE IMPORTANT TYPE OF EVENT THAT HE WOULD RECORD. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY CASE AUTHORITY ON OPENING UP THE DOOR WITH THIS KIND OF A QUESTION THAT OPENS UP A WHOLE SCIENTIFIC AREA AS FAR AS TESTING IN OTHER REALMS. AND IF THE COURT IS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT, IF THE PROSECUTION HAS ANY CASES THEY WANT TO CITE, WE WOULD LIKE A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO THOSE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. I AM GOING TO DO A LITTLE MORE RESEARCH ON MY OWN WITH REGARDS TO THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, BECAUSE I THINK THE LANDSCAPE OF THE ISSUE HAS CHANGED CONSIDERABLY SINCE THIS MORNING. I FELT VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THE INITIAL COURT RULING, BUT NOW THAT WE HAVE A DIFFERENT SITUATION, I'M NOT SO COMFORTABLE WITH IT ANY MORE, SO I WILL TAKE A LOOK AT IT OVER THE EVENING HOURS.

MR. GOLDBERG: YOUR HONOR, WOULD THE COURT WANT ANY TESTIMONY ON THIS ISSUE AS TO THE PHENOLPHTHALEIN TEST?

THE COURT: NO, I DON'T NEED THAT. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT, HAVING RULED ONE WAY AT THE REQUEST OF ONE PARTY AND THEN THAT PARTY HAVING DECIDED TO BRING IN THAT VERY THING, WHETHER OR NOT IN FAIRNESS YOU ARE ENTITLED TO DO THE SAME THING. THAT IS THE ISSUE.

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

THE COURT: AND WITHIN THE RUBRIC OF 352, SO I WILL TAKE A LOOK. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER LEGAL CONUNDRUMS YOU WANT TO PRESENT TO ME?

MR. GOLDBERG: THERE WAS ANOTHER ISSUE AS TO THE VIDEOTAPE, YOUR HONOR. APPARENTLY WE DID NOT GET THE EXACT COPY OF THE VIDEOTAPE THAT WAS SHOWN TO THE JURY, THE ONE WITH THE COUNTER IN IT, AND THE ONE THAT WE HAVE, ACCORDING TO MR. FAIRTLOUGH, AND I CAN'T REPRESENT THIS ON MY OWN, IS NOT SHOT FROM THE SAME CAMERA. MAY I JUST HAVE ONE MOMENT?

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

MR. GOLDBERG: WELL, APPARENTLY THEY ARE THE SAME EXCEPT THAT ONE HAS A COUNTER ON IT AND THE OTHER DOESN'T, SO APPARENTLY ONE IS EDITED AND THE OTHER IS NOT, AND WE WOULD LIKE THE EXACT SAME VERSION BECAUSE THERE MAY BE A DIFFERENCE IN QUALITY OR CLARITY WHICH WOULD RESOLVE THE ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED AS TO EXACTLY WHAT ITEM WAS BEING HANDED.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. BLASIER, DO YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEM SEARCHING YOUR VIDEOTAPE FILE MAKING AVAILABLE TO THE PROSECUTION THE SAME EXACT FOOTAGE WITH THE COUNTER IN IT RATHER THAN THE COUNTER REMOVED?

MR. BLASIER: THEY ALREADY HAVE IT, YOUR HONOR. MR. FAIRTLOUGH COULD NOT FIND THE CLIP WITH THE ENVELOPE AND THE GLOVE ON THE BLANKET. HE SAID HE WENT OVER THE TAPE IN GREAT LENGTH. I SHOWED HIM WHERE IT WAS ON THE TAPE AND I THINK HE IS SATISFIED THAT A LEAST THOSE CLIPS ARE ON THERE. THE CLIPS WITH THE COUNTER ARE ON THERE SOMEPLACE AS WELL. WE HAVE GIVEN HIM THAT TAPE. I THINK IT IS ALSO ON THE FIRST TAPE THAT WE INTRODUCED WHICH IS COURT'S EXHIBIT NO. 2, I THINK THAT IS THE SAME TAPE, BUT WE HAVE GIVEN THEM THAT TAPE AT LEAST TWICE AND IT IS ON THERE.

THE COURT: YOU ARE SAYING IT IS ON COURT'S EXHIBIT 2?

MR. BLASIER: I THINK THAT IS THE KCBS TAPE THAT WE INTRODUCED VERY EARLY ON. WHETHER THAT HAS THE ONE WITH THE COUNTER ON IT, I'M NOT SURE. THERE IS PROBABLY SEVEN HOURS OF TAPES THAT WE HAVE GIVEN THEM THAT IS A COMPILATION OF SEVEN TAPES WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY GIVEN THEM AND THERE ARE A LOT OF REPEATS, A LOT OF REPEAT CLIPS, AND WE MADE THOSE EXCERPTS FROM THAT THREE-VOLUME SET AND WE DIDN'T DO ANY EDITING OURSELVES OTHER THAN TO TAKE THE CLIPS OUT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, IT SEEMS TO ME IF IT IS THE SAME FOOTAGE, THEN THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL NEED. I KNOW THAT MISS HAYSLETT IS STILL SEARCHING FOR THE ORIGINAL FORMAT OF THAT PARTICULAR, TAPE SO WE CAN SEE IF IT IS AVAILABLE FOR ENHANCEMENT PURPOSES, AND IF WE LOCATE THAT FROM THE NEWS MEDIA, I WILL LET BOTH PARTIES KNOW AS SOON AS WE DO. ALL RIGHT. I SEE IT AS A NON-ISSUE AT THIS POINT. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE LAUNCH INTO OUR FOUR O'CLOCK MATTERS?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I THINK YOU SAID YOU RESET THE DATE FOR THE MOTION WE FILED AND WAS SET THIS AFTERNOON AND AT YOUR CONVENIENCE YOU CAN TELL US WHAT IS A GOOD DATE. THERE IS ANOTHER FOUR O'CLOCK MEETING.

THE COURT: I WILL TELL YOU WHAT, LET'S SEE WHERE OUR FOUR O'CLOCK HEARING TODAY TAKES US --

MR. COCHRAN: I SEE.

THE COURT: -- TIMEWISE, BECAUSE IT IS EXTRANEOUS TO THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE TO THE JURY, AND I WANT TO SEE WHAT KIND OF TIME OBLIGATIONS I'M GOING TO HAVE TO SPEND WITH THAT ISSUE BEFORE I COMMIT TO A HEARING ON THE OTHER ISSUE.

MR. DARDEN: WHICH MOTION IS COUNSEL REFERRING TO?

MR. COCHRAN: THE PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT MOTION THAT WAS SET AT FOUR O'CLOCK TODAY.

MR. DARDEN: WHICH PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT MOTION?

MR. COCHRAN: CHOOSE EITHER ONE.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: I THINK IT IS IN VOLUME 2. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE AWAIT THE PARTIES FOR THE FOUR O'CLOCK MATTER?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. FOR THE NEWS MEDIA INFORMATION, THIS -- I NORMALLY CONDUCT MY JURY INQUIRIES IN CHAMBERS. I WILL MAKE A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS AVAILABLE TO YOU AS SOON AS THE TRANSCRIPT IS AVAILABLE FOR TODAY'S PROCEEDINGS, PROBABLY FIRST THING TOMORROW MORNING.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I BE HEARD ON THE JURY PROCEEDING, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YES, SIR.

MR. COCHRAN: REGARDING MR. SIMPSON, MR. SIMPSON HAS EXPRESSED A DESIRE, YOUR HONOR, TO BE PRESENT, AND I KNOW THE COURT'S RULING WITH REGARD TO CHAMBERS, BUT HE WOULD LIKE TO BE PRESENT FOR ANY HEARINGS REGARDING THE JURORS FROM THIS POINT FORWARD, AND I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO CONSIDER THAT. PERHAPS WE CAN DO IT IN THE COURTROOM WITH HIM OUT HERE PERHAPS.

THE COURT: AS FAR AS NON-JURORS ARE CONCERNED, I WILL GRANT THAT REQUEST. AS FAR AS JURORS ARE CONCERNED, I WILL DECLINE THAT REQUEST. THOSE INQUIRIES WILL BE CONDUCTED IN CHAMBERS WITH COUNSEL PRESENT ON THE RECORD WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF THE DEFENDANT.

MR. COCHRAN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: NON-JURORS -- NON-JUROR WITNESSES WILL BE INTERVIEWED IN HIS PRESENCE.

MR. COCHRAN: VERY WELL, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT, INCLUDING -- NON-JURORS INCLUDES EX-JURORS.

MR. SHAPIRO: THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

THE COURT: YOU ARE WELCOME. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL AWAIT THE ARRIVAL OF THE PARTIES FOR THE FOUR O'CLOCK MATTER. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

(AT 3:56 P.M. AN ADJOURNMENT WAS TAKEN UNTIL, THURSDAY, APRIL 13, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

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

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
)
PLAINTIFF, )
)
) VS. ) NO. BA097211
)
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, )
)
)
DEFENDANT. )

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12, 1995
VOLUME 124

PAGES 22343 THROUGH 22535, INCLUSIVE
(PAGES 22509 THROUGH 22512, INCLUSIVE, SEALED)
(PAGES 22536 THROUGH 22598, INCLUSIVE, SEALED)

APPEARANCES: (SEE PAGE 2)

JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR #4588
CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR #2378 OFFICIAL REPORTERS

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PEOPLE: GIL GARCETTI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
BY: MARCIA R. CLARK, WILLIAM W.
HODGMAN, CHRISTOPHER A. DARDEN,
CHERI A. LEWIS, ROCKNE P. HARMON,
GEORGE W. CLARKE, SCOTT M. GORDON
LYDIA C. BODIN, HANK M. GOLDBERG,
ALAN YOCHELSON AND DARRELL S.
MAVIS, BRIAN R. KELBERG, AND
KENNETH E. LYNCH, DEPUTIES
18-000 CRIMINAL COURTS BUILDING
210 WEST TEMPLE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012

FOR THE DEFENDANT: ROBERT L. SHAPIRO, ESQUIRE
SARA L. CAPLAN, ESQUIRE
2121 AVENUE OF THE STARS
19TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067

JOHNNIE L. COCHRAN, JR., ESQUIRE
BY: CARL E. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE
SHAWN SNIDER CHAPMAN, ESQUIRE
4929 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 1010
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010

GERALD F. UELMEN, ESQUIRE
ROBERT KARDASHIAN, ESQUIRE
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, ESQUIRE
F. LEE BAILEY, ESQUIRE
BARRY SCHECK, ESQUIRE
PETER NEUFELD, ESQUIRE
ROBERT D. BLASIER, ESQUIRE
WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, ESQUIRE

ALSO PRESENT: DENNIS F. HERNANDEZ, ESQUIRE
GLEN A. SMITH, ESQUIRE
MILTON C. GRIMES, ESQUIRE
BRYANT CALLOWAY, ESQUIRE

I N D E X

INDEX FOR VOLUME 124 PAGES 22343 - 33535

-----------------------------------------------------

DAY DATE SESSION PAGE VOL.

WEDNESDAY APRIL 12, 1995 A.M. 22343 124
P.M. 22447 124

LEGEND:

MS. CLARK - MC
MR. HODGMAN - H
MR. DARDEN D
MS. LEWIS - L
MS. KAHN - K
MR. GOLDBERG - GB
MR. GORDON - G
MR. SHAPIRO - S
MR. COCHRAN - C
MR. DOUGLAS - CD
MR. BAILEY - B
MS. CHAPMAN - SC
MR. UELMEN - U
MR. SCHECK - BS
MR. NEUFELD - N
-----------------------------------------------------

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

PEOPLE'S
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.

FUNG, DENNIS 124
ARTHUR
(RESUMED) 22346BS
(RESUMED) 22456BS

-----------------------------------------------------

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOL.

FUNG, DENNIS 124
ARTHUR
(RESUMED) 22346BS
(RESUMED) 22456BS

EXHIBITS

DEFENSE FOR IN EXHIBIT IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
PAGE VOL. PAGE VOL.

1095 - 5-PAGE DOCUMENT 22356 124
ENTITLED "CRIME SCENE TRUCK SUPPLIES LIST"

1096 - 1-PAGE DOCUMENT 22364 124
ENTITLED "FIELD NOTES"

1097 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 22403 124
DENNIS FUNG WITH A FLASHLIGHT IN THE DRIVER'S
SIDE DOOR OF A WHITE BRONCO VEHICLE

1098 - PHOTOGRAPH OF 22409 124
A CLOSE-UP VIEW OF THE BOTTOM OF THE DRIVER'S
SIDE DOOR IN A WHITE BRONCO VEHICLE

1099 - 6-PAGE DOCUMENT 22449 124
ENTITLED "CARD TRANSACTION REPORT"

1100 - 1-PAGE DOCUMENT 22473 124
ENTITLED "CARD TRANSACTION REPORT"