Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

(Pages 23905 through 23907, volume 130a, transcribed and sealed under separate cover.)

(Pages 23908 through 24001, volume 131, transcribed and sealed under separate cover.)

(Pages 24002 through 24141, volume 132, transcribed and sealed under separate cover.)

(The following proceedings were held in open Court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Good morning, counsel.

MR. GOLDBERG: Good morning.

MR. COCHRAN: Good morning.

THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. The Defendant is present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Cochran, Blasier, Scheck and Neufeld. And the People are represented by Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Darden. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, may I address the Court just briefly?

THE COURT: As to what?

MR. COCHRAN: Just briefly.

THE COURT: As to what?

MR. COCHRAN: A matter.

THE COURT: What matter?

MR. COCHRAN: Umm--

THE COURT: Does it have to do with Miss Mazzola?

MR. COCHRAN: No, it doesn't.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I have something that does have to do with Miss Mazzola.

MR. COCHRAN: Mine will take 60 seconds.

THE COURT: 60 seconds, Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Thank you. But who is counting? Good morning, your Honor. Your Honor, at the--kidding, your Honor. At the end of the day yesterday--and I brought this matter to your attention--I thought I should put it on the record. After our hearings in chambers, which were confidential hearings, Mr. Shapiro and I came out and we were out in the courtroom and we were just about to leave and I had to go back into the hallway there and something very disturbing occurred, as far as I was concerned. As the Court is aware, the Commander Holland, I guess his name is, from the Sheriff's Department, sat in on all the interviews, and I then saw the District Attorneys, the two District Attorneys going into the jury room to have a private meeting with the Sheriff's Commander. Now, that has been our concern from the very beginning, that this man who is over all the sheriffs who sit with our jurors, would impart special information to the D.A.'s office. I don't know what they were talking about. They didn't invite us back there. And I indicated to the Court my concern yesterday afternoon when this meeting was going on. We then left the Court, but I think that it is certainly, from an appearance standpoint, it is absolutely outrageous to have something like this happen, and it is unfortunate. And I wanted to document on the record. I did bring it to the Court's attention right away and the meeting--I don't know how long the meeting went on, but it did in fact take place, and I think it is entirely inappropriate for the District Attorneys to meet with the representatives from the Sheriff's Department who are sitting with our jury and it only fans the flames. And I wanted to indicate that for the record.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly.

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, can Miss Mazzola step out for one second, please?

THE COURT: Certainly. Miss Mazzola.

(Miss Mazzola exits the courtroom.)

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you, your Honor. Your Honor, on January 20th you issued an order instructing all--all fact witnesses in this case to refrain from watching any television or listening to any radio coverage about the trial and testimony having to do with--that in any way may pertain to the subject matter of their own testimony. As I recall, when Miss Mazzola testified on Thursday, she acknowledged that she had been listening to radio coverage of the case and testimony, and in fact there was a radio in the toxicology laboratory that was broadcasting the trial live. She also mentioned that there were other radios all over the SID laboratory that are covering the trial live, and in fact there is a television--

THE COURT: I heard the testimony.

MR. NEUFELD: --in the lab as well.

THE COURT: I heard the testimony.

MR. NEUFELD: Umm, and you know, two things: One, is really your order creates an exception for experts. I don't believe that Miss Mazzola is an expert. First of all, she is a criminalist 1 and I don't believe she would meet the criteria for an expert as you envisioned it when you issued this order. Secondly, and more importantly, your Honor, to the extent that she does give opinion testimony, as does for instance Detectives Lange and Vannatter as well can give opinion testimony, they are first and foremost fact witnesses in this case, as opposed to the classic example of an expert which I'm sure the Court had in mind. Your Honor, I think it is one thing if a neighbor for instance who testifies who is walking--

THE COURT: What are you asking for?

MR. NEUFELD: I'm asking for an instruction, your Honor, to this jury, that they should take into consideration the fact that apparently the Prosecutors failed to instruct these witnesses at SID not to listen to the coverage of the trial. I'm also worried in a broader sense, every single witness, they have about six or seven people from SID who are going to be testifying who are fact witnesses, and apparently the trial is being covered, you know, live as we speak throughout the SID laboratory. And all the people are listening to it on a regular basis that will be coming into Court and testifying. I think that clearly, you know, violates both the letter and the spirit of your ruling. I think it is completely different, your Honor, if a civilian witness who comes in here happened to watch something on the television, listened to it on the radio, but we have people who are actually under the control, or at least some possible direct control here, by the District Attorney's office, of the Los Angeles Police Department, and those people have either been--have not been admonished or they have been admonished and ignored the admonition.

THE COURT: Have you drafted an instruction to the jury?

MR. NEUFELD: No, but I can do so during the luncheon break, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. Your Honor, as I recall the Court's order, and I read it, it did exempt expert witnesses, and the witness that we are calling are all expert witnesses, and we don't have and sliding scale for expertise where somehow people with Ph.D.'s are treated differently than people with Bachelor's degrees. These are expert witnesses who are trained in crime scene processing. Other SID witnesses are expert witnesses who are trained in analysis and are going to be testifying as expert witnesses. If the Court will recall the cross-examination on Mr. Fung, there are several things that I bring up. No. 1, he was given a lengthy series of hypothetical questions. We don't allow those questions for anyone other than an expert witness. He was cross-examined about treatises that he has read.

THE COURT: The issue is Miss Mazzola; not Mr. Fung.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well--

THE COURT: Focus your attention on Miss Mazzola.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But your Honor, I don't distinguish between the two, and that is my point. I don't see that we have a sliding scale of expertise. She has gone to school. She has graduated. She has read textbooks on crime scene processing. She has been trained in crime scene processing. She is going to be asked to render certain opinions about what she did and the effects that it had, and so on. And what we are trying to decide is whether prospectively the Prosecution had a duty to misinterpret the Court's plain order that exempted expert witnesses.

THE COURT: Reinterpret.

MR. GOLDBERG: Reinterpret. I think misinterpret because it seems like it is--yeah, there is a rule of statutory construction that unless there is some ambiguity in the language you interpret it the way it is written, and that is what I did. But I would just like to try to look at this prospectively from the Prosecution's standpoint. What has happened with our SID witnesses? They have been asked about things that they did not witness. Mr. Fung was examined extensively about a blanket that was placed upon Nicole's body that occurred before he arrived at the crime scene. He was questioned about the movement of objects that occurred before he arrived at the crime scene. He was questioned about whether the location had been cleared for footprints before.

THE COURT: Well, you have to assume that since I was here I was probably listening to the testimony.

MR. GOLDBERG: I know, but I am just trying to highlight the significant points of it. And they were asked about Coroner's activity. One of the ways that you can question an expert is about a hypothetical, and another way, and it is a proper way, is to ask the witness have you viewed the testimony? Have you listened to the testimony? And based upon what you have heard, what opinions did you render? That is an appropriate way of questioning an expert witness. It is not used as frequently as the hypothetical, but it is used.

And if our witnesses are going to be questioned, as they have, about things that they didn't witness, didn't hear, it would be proper, perhaps even advisable, if we had instructed them not only do I not want you to avoid this, but I want you to sit down and listen to every single witness who testified about anything regarding crime scene processing, because you are going to be questioned about it. You are going to be asked to render opinions about it and conclusions about it, so you should look at the crime scene photographs, videotapes. You should--you should listen to all of the testimony, because you are going held accountable in the cross-examination for all of that material. And as an expert witness you can be held accountable for it and there is no basis upon which to distinguish between any of our scientists at SID, and I think that that kind of instruction would be entirely improper. But what I would ask the Court to do--and I was thinking about this before Mr. Neufeld raised it, is to instruct the jury, since they don't know that the Court did issue an order that exempted expert witnesses--I was thinking the exact opposite of what Mr. Neufeld is--

THE COURT: Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

MR. GOLDBERG: --that there is something improper about what happened here, and what immediately occurred to me is, well, wait a minute, the jury should know that there is an order that exempts expert witnesses, and we would be asking for an instruction to that effect.

THE COURT: Have you drafted any such instruction?

MR. GOLDBERG: No, I haven't, your Honor, but I will draft an instruction, and what I would propose to do probably would be simply to draft an instruction that is along the lines of the language that the Court used and it is says we apply different rules towards expert witnesses and here was my order that I gave out to the Prosecution and to the Defense.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.

THE COURT: The Court will decline at this time to instruct the jury regarding this issue. The Court's order regarding expert witnesses does cover anybody from the Scientific Evidence Division. It is not reasonable for the Court to go expert by expert, given this particular category of witnesses. Secondly, the Defense has the right to cross-examine as to what exposure Miss Mazzola has had and that is fair game for cross-examination. All right. Let's have the jurors, please. Let's have Miss Mazzola.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: And Mr. Neufeld, just so I can plan the rest of the week, what is your guesstimate trial wise?

MR. NEUFELD: I will be finished with this witness by lunch tomorrow, your Honor, but I will give you a better estimate by lunch today.

THE COURT: All right.

(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. Miss Mazzola, would you resume the witness stand, please.

Andrea Mazzola, having been previously sworn, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: All right. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: Andrea Mazzola is on the witness stand and she is undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Neufeld. Good morning, Miss Mazzola.

MS. MAZZOLA: Good morning.

THE COURT: You are reminded that you are still under oath. Mr. Neufeld, you may continue.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. NEUFELD

MR. NEUFELD: Good morning, Miss Mazzola.

MS. MAZZOLA: Good morning.

MR. NEUFELD: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, since we last saw each other on Thursday afternoon have you had any prep sessions with the Prosecutors since you left Court that afternoon?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "Prep sessions."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I have talked with them a little bit, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, have you met with them at their offices?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Did you meet with them on Thursday after Court?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you meet with them on Friday?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you meet with them on Saturday?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Sunday?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Yesterday?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. When did you meet with them? This morning?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, this morning.

MR. NEUFELD: This was the first time?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you talk to them on the telephone over the--during the break--during the four-day break, about this case?

MS. MAZZOLA: I think I did.

MR. NEUFELD: You think you did?

MS. MAZZOLA: I think I did, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: You are not sure?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember.

MR. NEUFELD: You don't remember speaking to Prosecutors on the phone about this case during the last four days?

MS. MAZZOLA: It might have just been to tell me when to show up to Court. I don't remember.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, Miss Mazzola, when we were last in Court on Thursday afternoon you testified, I believe, that only after you arrived at Rockingham in the early morning hours and you listened to a discussion that Dennis Fung was having with the detectives that Dennis Fung told you that given the nature of the case that he and not you would be the officer in charge; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And after he told you that he would become the officer in charge, the detective then told you about the Ford Bronco for the first time; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: And the detectives took you and Fung over to see the Bronco; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And it is when they took you over to see the Bronco that you first began to fill out the vehicle search checklist; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And notwithstanding, Miss Mazzola, yours and Dennis Fung's testimony that upon arrival at Rockingham that he announced that he would be the officer in charge, that on the vehicle search checklist which you began to fill out--I'm sorry. Withdrawn. Isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that even though you had been informed in advance of filling out the vehicle search checklist that he would be the officer in charge, that you nonetheless put yourself down as the officer in charge on that vehicle search checklist?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Umm, and by the way, that report, the vehicle search checklist where you put yourself down as the officer in charge, that was done in pencil, was it not?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And I believe that the reason that these field reports are filled out in pencil is so that if there are errors or omissions or mistakes--

THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Neufeld. Deputies, there are people in the back row who are conversing next to the photographers. Would you eject them from the courtroom, please, the two individuals next to the photographers.

MR. NEUFELD: Do you want me to sit down for a second?

THE COURT: No. Go ahead. Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. In fact, Miss Mazzola, there are erasures in the original field notes, aren't there?

MS. MAZZOLA: There could be, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, have you looked at the original field notes in this case at any time since June 13th?

MS. MAZZOLA: I think I had once or twice.

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson.

MR. GOLDBERG: I think it is 1107, your Honor.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, didn't you testify in fact on direct examination that there were certain erasures on the field notes for the collection of items 18, 17 and 19? Didn't you just testify to that on Thursday?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So it was not unexpected for you and Dennis Fung to make erasures to correct errors in the notes; is that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "Unexpected."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Yet, ma'am, no one erased your name as the OIC, the officer in charge, on the vehicle search checklist; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: You continued to have that title throughout?

MS. MAZZOLA: Title--

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "Title."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, your title on that report was never changed; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And that report was filled out even after Dennis Fung told you that he was going to be the officer in charge; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, is it really the policy and practice of the Los Angeles Police Department SID unit to name a trainee the officer in charge on a murder case?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Then when they referred to you, ma'am, as the officer in charge and you put your name down as the officer in charge on these field note reports, is that some kind of game of make believe that the LAPD wants you to play?

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, isn't the real reason that you testified on direct examination that a decision had been made to name Fung the OIC after you filled out the cover sheet for Rockingham was because it was necessary for you to support Dennis Fung's testimony minimizing your involvement in this case?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it is argumentative. It also misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained on both counts.

MR. NEUFELD: Had the Prosecutors, before you took the witness stand in this case, Miss Mazzola, told you that it was important for you to back up Dennis Fung's failure to mention you in the grand jury?

MS. MAZZOLA: No, they did not.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, prior to June 13th you had personally collected blood stains at only two crime scenes; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: I think that's correct, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And at both those two scenes you were trainee; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: I was a criminalist 1.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, you agreed, did you not, that you testified on August 23rd that you were a trainee as of June 13th when you collected evidence in this case; isn't that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony. Also been asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I was on probation as a criminalist 1.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, didn't you also testify on August 23rd and acknowledge that on June 13th you were still a trainee?

MR. GOLDBERG: That misstates the testimony. Could we have a page and citation?

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled. Do you recall testifying to that, Miss Mazzola?

MS. MAZZOLA: I honestly don't recall.

THE COURT: All right. Move on.

MR. NEUFELD: And Miss Mazzola, even at your first two crime scenes, when you were on probation, the supervising criminalist didn't bother to stay with you the entire time; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And even at your first two crime scenes, when you were on probation, there were times when you collected blood stains unassisted by a supervising criminalist?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, is it the policy and practice of the Los Angeles Police Department SID unit to deliberately leave a trainee alone unsupervised while collecting critical evidence in certain cases?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant. It is argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Is there a policy and practice of the LAPD that student or trainee--I'm sorry--that probationer criminalists participating in their very first crime scene collection matter should be there in an unsupervised capacity when they are collecting critical evidence?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant. Also vague as to "Critical evidence."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I do not know what their policy is.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, have they ever expressed to you, ma'am, a desire to have you simply learn from your mistakes when handling important evidence at a murder crime scene?

THE COURT: It is vague. Rephrase the question.

MR. NEUFELD: Is there a policy and practice of the LAPD SID unit that new probationers like yourself learn from mistakes when you are collecting critical evidence at a murder crime scene?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: When you are trained on how to collect evidence, you don't make mistakes on how to pick it up.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, you are saying that it is impossible for you to make a mistake at a crime scene?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm asking her a question.

MS. MAZZOLA: I collect the evidence the way I was trained. That is the only way I know how to do it.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, please answer my question. Are you saying it is impossible for you to make mistakes when collecting evidence at a crime scene?

MS. MAZZOLA: Mistakes can happen.

MR. NEUFELD: And mistakes to happen; isn't that right, Miss Mazzola?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is vague as to "Mistakes."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: It is possible that they do.

MR. NEUFELD: And is it also true, Miss Mazzola, that you can inadvertently make a mistake at that crime scene and not at that moment be aware of it?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is overbroad and vague as to what--

THE COURT: Overruled. We are getting into speaking objections on both sides. I'm warning counsel.

MS. MAZZOLA: Would you please restate the question.

THE COURT: He is going to ask another question.

MS. MAZZOLA: Okay.

THE COURT: Ask another question.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, your Honor. Was the objection overruled?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

THE COURT: Ask it again.

MR. NEUFELD: All right.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, would you agree that inadvertent mistakes can be made by the criminalist at the scene which may not be noticed at the time that the mistake is made?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is possible.

MR. NEUFELD: So you really can't say, Miss Mazzola, that you have never made any mistake at the few crime scenes that you have participated in, can you?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's true.

MR. NEUFELD: By the way, Miss Mazzola, you mentioned on direct examination that at the first crime scene that you attended that that team received a commendation; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And how many items were collected by that team at that first crime scene?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, at that first crime scene, your very first one, Miss Mazzola--

THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Neufeld. I don't want to try that crime scene.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, let me ask you this, Miss Mazzola: Have you and Dennis Fung received any commendation for your crime scene collection in this case.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, that is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Not to my knowledge.

MR. NEUFELD: And in contrast to those first couple of crime scenes, Miss Mazzola, where you were present in this case on June 13th of 1994, you were in fact the primary collector of blood stains, as opposed to Dennis Fung; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's right.

MR. NEUFELD: And the Simpson case was your very first case in which you were the primary collector of blood stain evidence; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you personally collected almost all the blood stains in this case on June 13th; isn't that right?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it is vague as to "Almost all."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: The majority, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: To your knowledge, Miss Mazzola, are there any written procedures of the Los Angeles Police Department limiting those crime scenes to which a probationer or trainee can participate in evidence collection?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant and calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: To my--the best of my knowledge, I don't know if there is a policy or anything.

MR. NEUFELD: To the best of your knowledge are there any procedures which say you should first handle crimes less serious than murder?

MS. MAZZOLA: I do not know if there is a policy on that.

MR. NEUFELD: To your knowledge, ma'am, does the Los Angeles Police Department publish any guidelines at all as to how to supervise and train a new criminalist at a crime scene?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know.

MR. NEUFELD: You have never heard of any?

MS. MAZZOLA: I have never heard of it.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, to your knowledge, Miss Mazzola, is each supervising criminalist free to allow you to do as much or as little as a particular supervising criminalist chooses?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is irrelevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know. I'm not a supervising criminalist. I don't know what their guidelines are.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, you said you had been to two previous crime scenes?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Would it be fair to say that those other two crime scenes--by the way, at the other two crime scenes was Dennis Fung your supervisor?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: At the other two crime scenes, when Dennis Fung was not your supervisor, you certainly were not the primary collector of blood stain evidence, were you?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was a team effort.

MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, would you please answer my question. Were you or were you not the primary collector of crime scene evidence at the other two crime scenes that you participated in?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was about 50-50.

MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, isn't it a fact that at the first two crime scenes that you participated in that you were not the primary collector of blood stain evidence?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Counsel, I'm really not interested in the other crime scenes.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, since you have been at the Los Angeles Police Department are you aware of the L.A. Police Department's crime scene field unit protocol and procedures manual?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes a fact not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: That they have one.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I am not familiar with that, no.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, has it ever been given to you to look at?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Has anyone ever instructed you to read it?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Have you received, during the year and a half that you have been with the Los Angeles Police Department, any manual prepared by SID laying out the various procedures and rules that you are inquired to follow?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Is there any written manual, ma'am, that you rely on when you go out to process evidence at a crime scene?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Is there any book distributed to you to instruct you on how to conduct crime scene investigation?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, ma'am, without a textbook and without a manual, am I correct in assuming that your authority and your teacher on June 13th was exclusively Dennis Fung?

MR. GOLDBERG: That is unintelligible.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: We had been taught the procedures that SID wished us to follow. There was no written material given out in the form of a manual or textbook.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, on June 13th there was no manual that you can refer to for assistance; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And on June 13th there is no textbook that you can refer to help you out on a certain matter of crime scene collection; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And so the only person or the only authority that you could turn to on June 13th, when you were at the crime scene, was Dennis Fung; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, one of the things you have been taught to do, Miss Mazzola, is to fill out and prepare crime scene investigation field notes; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: We have been shown the notes before, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And these crime scene checklists and field notes are a series of reports and forms that you are expected to accurately and completely fill out in connection with crime scene investigations; isn't that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is compound, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I was told to fill in the parts that were the most important.

MR. NEUFELD: And were you told, ma'am, to fill out these reports and forms contemporaneously with the activities that you are engaged in?

MS. MAZZOLA: For the most part, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And were you taught, ma'am, in your Los Angeles Police Department--I think you said you attended the mini academy; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you taught at the Los Angeles Police Department SID mini academy that it was important to fill out these forms accurately?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And were you told, when you were in the mini academy, that it is impossible to remember the sequence of every event at a crime scene investigation and therefore it is essential to record and fill out these reports?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, isn't it true that between--what day did you first start with the Los Angeles Police Department, Miss Mazzola?

MS. MAZZOLA: January 24, `94.

MR. NEUFELD: From January 24, 1994, until you testified at a hearing on August 23rd, 1994, it was your understanding, based upon what you had been taught, that you were required to fill out these reports, these field notes completely; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: I had watched the other criminalists in the field as they filled out theirs.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you had watched the other criminalists in the field fill out theirs, they filled out these reports completely, did they not?

MS. MAZZOLA: Some did.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, isn't it a fact that it was your understanding, when you testified on August 23rd, that you were required to fill out these reports completely and accurately?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe I testified something like that.

MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it a fact, Miss Mazzola, that it was only after you finished testifying on August 23rd and you had testified to this duty to fill--fill these reports out completely, that when you then got back to the--the L.A. Police Department SID lab, that individuals for the first time said, no, no, no, it is not necessary to fill them out completely? Isn't that what happened?

MS. MAZZOLA: As I said before, I had seen other criminalists fill out portions; some fill out the entire form.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, I asked you didn't you believe that up until August 23rd, when you testified in this case, that is, for the first seven or eight months of your employment, that you were required to fill out these reports completely?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Not just to fill out portions, but to fill them out in totality; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And would it be fair to say, Miss Mazzola, that when you are actually conducting the crime scene evidence collection on June 13th, you don't know in your own head what is going to be important to an investigator or to a Prosecutor six months down the road? Isn't that a fair statement?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is.

MR. NEUFELD: And isn't that another reason why they want you to write everything down, so other people later on will be able to reconstruct what happened?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes a fact not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that you didn't anticipate, during the actual crime scene collection phase, which detail will be important to the investigation six months hence?

MR. GOLDBERG: That is overbroad.

THE COURT: Overruled. You have already asked that question.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Miss Mazzola, one of the requirements on these forms is to note for each item collected the location it is found; is that right?

MR. GOLDBERG: States facts not in evidence as to "Requirements."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And another item on the form is "Time," the time each item is collected; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And another item that you are--that up until August 23rd you also believed you were required to fill out was "By whom" the item was collected; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And so, ma'am, if as recently as August 23rd you believed you were required to fill out these reports completely, you also operated under that belief when you were present on June 13th and June 14th to participate in the crime scene investigation in Mr. Simpson's case; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you ever receive any handouts from your superiors at the Los Angeles Police Department informing you of the importance of keeping accurate and complete records?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you ever receive a handout from your superiors at the Los Angeles Police Department entitled "Quality assurance and quality control"?

MS. MAZZOLA: That doesn't sound familiar.

MR. NEUFELD: Have you ever heard that term?

MS. MAZZOLA: I've heard the terms before, but not in the context that you are speaking of.

MR. NEUFELD: If I showed you a document, might it refresh your recollection?

MS. MAZZOLA: Maybe.

MR. NEUFELD: May I, your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: May I approach the witness?

THE COURT: Please.

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Just read this to yourself, okay?

MS. MAZZOLA: Okay.

(Witness complies.)

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, I ask you again have you ever received a handout from your superiors at the Los Angeles Police Department SID unit instructing you that you are required to keep complete and accurate field notes?

MS. MAZZOLA: That page does not look familiar to me.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Well, separate and apart from actually receiving a handout, at some point at this mini academy did your instructors ever teach you that it was very important, in terms of your professional responsibility, to make accurate and complete field notes?

MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)

MR. NEUFELD: Isn't that something that they taught you?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: And were you taught, Miss Mazzola, that if swatches, for instance, were not properly marked, packaged and identified, they could get mixed up?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And were you taught that if items of evidence were not properly packaged and identified, it made it easier for someone to tamper with those items?

MS. MAZZOLA: That was never brought up.

MR. NEUFELD: You never received any instruction at all, during your entire time at this mini academy, on taking measures to avoid evidence tampering?

MS. MAZZOLA: No one would tamper with the evidence.

MR. NEUFELD: That is an assumption you are making, is it not, Miss Mazzola?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that is argumentative.

THE COURT: Argumentative. Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, you can certainly speak for yourself; is that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: That is argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I can speak for myself and I know the people I work with.

MR. NEUFELD: And you are saying, Miss Mazzola, that there is nobody who you met and who you know at the Los Angeles Police Department who would ever tamper with evidence; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: The people I know wouldn't.

MR. NEUFELD: And Miss Mazzola, you also said it was your impression that you never made a mistake in the handling of crime scene evidence; isn't that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: That is argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, would the people that you worked with at SID ever make a mistake in the handling of crime scene evidence?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, you said a moment ago that you had been taught to keep accurate and complete field notes during the training--

THE COURT: Let me see counsel at the side bar, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: I think I've heard enough about the need to have accuracy and completeness. You have asked this question now for about the eighteenth time in the last twenty minutes. All right. You have established the point. Move on.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, just one thing--

(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, would you agree that at least on June 13th in these notes Dennis Fung did not complete field notes?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would object. I think this has been covered.

THE COURT: That is a new question. You can answer that question.

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you got back to the laboratory, either on June 13th or on June 14th, did you tell Dennis Fung that he hadn't kept complete and accurate field notes for June 13th?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant. Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I didn't tell Mr. Fung anything like that.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you go to either Miss Kestler, the head of the laboratory, did you go to her and tell her that the person you were working with that day did not comply with the requirement as you believed at that time, that is, to keep complete field notes?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you go to Mr. Matheson, the no. 2 person, and tell him that your teammate had failed to follow the requirement of keeping field notes?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence, that it was a requirement.

THE COURT: Sustained. Did you tell anybody about this?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

THE COURT: Move on.

MR. NEUFELD: Is--Miss Mazzola, you said that after August 23rd you were told that you do not have to fill out all the boxes and columns on these field reports; is that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.

MR. NEUFELD: Foundation. I'm moving into a new subject, your Honor.

THE COURT: She has already been asked and answered that question, counsel.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Who taught you that some of these boxes and some of these columns did not have to be filled out, Miss Mazzola?

MS. MAZZOLA: I had just talked to some of the other criminalists.

MR. NEUFELD: Which criminalist, Miss Mazzola, told you that you don't have to fill out every box and every column on these fields notes? What are their names.

THE COURT: That is irrelevant, counsel. That is what she testified to. That is the fact she has testified to. Who told her doesn't matter. Let's proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: Were they supervisors?

MS. MAZZOLA: They were more experienced criminalists.

MR. NEUFELD: Were they supervisors in the laboratory like Mr. Matheson and Miss Kestler?

MR. GOLDBERG: That is irrelevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: They didn't tell you that, did they?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: And Miss Mazzola, you were taught by Mr. Matheson and Miss Kestler that these reports specifically were prepared to be filled out by criminalists at the scene; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it is--all right.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, you said, and I quote, that "Some boxes don't apply to the criminalist at the scene." Let's start with the box that says "Collected by," Miss Mazzola. Is it your testimony that the box where they are asking you to write down who it is who collected each item doesn't apply to the criminalist at the scene? Yes or no?

MS. MAZZOLA: As of June 13th I was informed we were working as a team. The box was not necessary to be filled out.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, the first time you were told that was August 23rd, that you didn't have to fill out all these boxes; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: No, it was June 13th.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, isn't it relevant to know who collected the item of evidence for purposes of establishing a chain of custody? Were you taught that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not to really establish the chain of custody.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, were you taught anything about chain of custody in your training?

MR. GOLDBERG: This is overbroad.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And were you taught that the first thing one has to do in establishing a chain of custody is establish who the person is who actually collects the item of evidence?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes a fact not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: Weren't you taught that?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, let's go on to the i.d. Markings. There is a column on here that says "I.d. Mark"; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And the mark stands for identification markings; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, weren't you taught that what this column is for is for you to know what markings you put on a particular item of evidence so it can be identified at a later time as being a particular item that you collected? Weren't you taught that?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you ever taught anything with respect to the purpose of the column on your field note report that says "I.D. mark"?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember.

MR. NEUFELD: You don't remember being taught that at all?

MS. MAZZOLA: I might have been taught. I don't remember.

MR. NEUFELD: And Miss Mazzola, on the crime scene checklist there is a box, a question that says "Has the scene been altered? If so by whom and how?" Isn't there?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: and in fact there is four lines that follow that question; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know the exact number of lines.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, they leave you space so you can answer those questions, don't they?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you would agree, ma'am, that that is a very important question, isn't it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "Important."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for a conclusion.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, isn't it relevant to the overall investigation to know whether a crime scene has been altered?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: In fact, ma'am, if a crime scene has been altered it could render subsequent scientific analysis unreliable, couldn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't have the experience to answer that.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, ma'am, for instance, if a blanket, for instance, okay, was used to alter the crime scene and it left trace evidence where there had been none previously, that could render an analysis of certain trace evidence unreliable, couldn't it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Incomplete hypothetical. Calls for a conclusion.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: It is possible.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And that is why the Los Angeles Police Department Scientific Investigation Division has asked you to fill out this question, "Has the scene been altered and if so by whom and how"; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And they taught you in the SID mini academy that it is important to know who altered it and how it was altered so you would know whether or not subsequent analysis is worthless; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, wouldn't you want to know the extent to which a crime scene had been altered in understanding the value of evidence obtained at that crime scene?

MR. GOLDBERG: That has been asked and answered. It is argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: For the most part you can look at the evidence and sort of tell if it has been trampled through. Umm, people at the scene, when they first arrive, are extremely careful of what they touch, where they step, because of the fact that there is evidence present.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, when you arrived at the Bundy crime scene, how many people were there inside the tape, approximately?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, there was more than a dozen, wasn't there?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, were there several detectives?

THE COURT: It is vague.

MR. NEUFELD: Was there more than one detective inside the crime scene?

MS. MAZZOLA: It is possible.

MR. NEUFELD: You don't remember? You don't remember who was at the crime scene when you got there, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know any of the detectives.

MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, were there people wearing suits who weren't in uniform inside the crime--inside the yellow evidence tape when you arrived at Bundy crime scene?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Were there several people who weren't wearing uniforms inside that tape?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is still vague as to "Several."

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Were there more than five people not wearing uniforms inside that tape?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember.

MR. NEUFELD: And there were people from the Coroner's office inside that tape when you arrived at the scene, weren't there?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And ma'am, isn't it fair to say that you cannot assume that no one altered the crime scene before you arrived; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it correct, ma'am, that the reason that they asked you to investigate whether the crime scene had been altered is because they don't want you to assume it hasn't been; isn't that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes a fact not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: We do not investigate who has been in the crime scene area.

MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, are you required to investigate whether the crime scene has been altered?

MS. MAZZOLA: What do you mean by "Investigate"?

MR. NEUFELD: Are you required to make a determination as to whether the crime scene has been altered?

MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)

MR. NEUFELD: isn't that what SID wants you to do when you get to a crime scene, ma'am?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would ask that he not badger the witness.

THE COURT: We are close.

MS. MAZZOLA: Was the last question--I'm sorry.

MR. NEUFELD: Hasn't the SID unit of the L.A. Police Department instructed you to make a determination, when you get to the crime scene, as to whether it has been altered?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is vague and overbroad as to "Determination."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Other than knowing who arrived, I don't see how we can determine if the scene itself had been altered.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, do you think that one thing you might be able to do is simply ask a detective whether or not he or she has done anything to alter the scene?

MS. MAZZOLA: It is possible.

MR. NEUFELD: What did they teach you at the SID mini academy what you are supposed to do to answer this important question "Has the scene been altered? If so by whom and how?"? What did they teach you to do to answer that question?

MS. MAZZOLA: Just get an idea of who had been there.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, once you get an idea of who had been there, Miss Mazzola, don't you have to ask the people what they did so you can make a determination in your own mind as to whether or not they did in fact alter it?

MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)

MR. NEUFELD: Didn't they teach you that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Ask them what? When the first officers arrived on the scene, they are looking at the victims. They were not going to remember exactly where they stepped. I don't know what you are asking.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, did they teach you at the SID mini academy that you are to ask the detectives whether or not they moved any articles of evidence, for starters? Did they teach you that?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: They didn't teach you that? Did they teach you to ask the officers who were there or detectives who were there whether they walked into a critical area where there may be shoeprints? Did they teach you that?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe they went into depth in that--with that question.

MR. NEUFELD: Did they teach you to ask detectives whether they brought any foreign matter into the crime scene, such as a blanket?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Did they teach you that?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: So correct me if I am mistaken, Miss Mazzola. Is it your testimony that you received absolutely no training on how to answer that question, that is, "Has the scene been altered? If so, by whom and how?"? Is that a fair statement, that you really didn't receive any training on how to answer those questions at a crime scene?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, on June 13th, Miss Mazzola, you started out by going to Rockingham, right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Then you went to Bundy?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. NEUFELD: Then you went back to Mr. Simpson's house at Rockingham; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And then you returned to the laboratory?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And on the morning of June 14th you were in the laboratory processing samples; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Let's see. On the morning of the 14th?

MR. NEUFELD: When you first arrived?

MS. MAZZOLA: I was working filling out property reports for a car search we had done previously.

MR. NEUFELD: You didn't do any processing of samples on the 14th?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not in the morning, no.

MR. NEUFELD: And you then went out and you went to the Bronco on the 14th?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And is the reason you went out with Dennis Fung on the 14th to the Bronco because it is a standard L.A. Police Department SID procedure that once a criminalist becomes involved in the case, he or she continues with the case and subsequent searches and investigations?

MS. MAZZOLA: For the most part, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: For the most part? There are exceptions to that?

MS. MAZZOLA: If you are absolutely unable to get away, if you had to go to Court or something like that, another criminalist would step in.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. But aside from either illness or--or you have responsibilities testifying in Court, it is the standard procedure at LAPD that once a criminalist is assigned to a case that he or she sticks with it for each of the searches; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: For the most part, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: That is why you went back on the 14th to the Bronco with Dennis Fung?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: But in this case, ma'am, you didn't stick with this case beyond the 14th, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct. Well, I take that back. We did go for the Bentley.

MR. NEUFELD: What day was that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Let me check my--

MR. NEUFELD: Please.

MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.) It was on the 30th.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: On June 28th you did not participate in the search of the Bronco, did you?

MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope of the direct.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: And on June 28th you did not participate with Dennis Fung in the search of Mr. Simpson's home, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: On each of those occasions, to your knowledge, Mr. Fung had another team member, right?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, calls for speculation.

MR. NEUFELD: If you know?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know.

THE COURT: You can answer the question.

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know.

MR. NEUFELD: And on July 3rd, when Mr. Fung went back out to Bundy on a crime scene investigation, you didn't go with him on that occasion either?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: To your knowledge, Miss Mazzola, was it Dennis Fung's decision that you be replaced on this crime--on this case?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence, "Replaced."

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola on June 28th were you out sick?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: On June 28th were you in Court testifying?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: On July 3rd were you out sick?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: On July 3rd were you in Court testifying?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: Do you know--well, who made the decision, Miss Mazzola, to your knowledge, that you should not go out with Dennis Fung on those subsequent searches in connection with this case?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes--

THE COURT: Sustained. Assumes facts not in evidence. Rephrase the question.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, you were no longer his team member on those June 28th and July 3rd investigations; is that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes--

THE COURT: Sustained. Assumes facts that are not in evidence, counsel.

MR. NEUFELD: You weren't present with Dennis Fung on either of these occasion, were you? Your Honor, subject to testimony--there has already been testimony that there was investigation done on those dates.

THE COURT: Wait, wait. Ask your next question.

MR. NEUFELD: Had you been told by anyone at SID that you would not be accompanying Mr. Fung on June 28th for those investigations in connection with this case?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Had you been told by anyone that you would be--at SID that you would not be accompanying Dennis Fung on the July 3rd investigation in connection with this case?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: One moment.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, to your knowledge, was there a decision made by anybody at SID to replace you on this case?

MR. GOLDBERG: Still assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I have no knowledge about that.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, let's just jump ahead a second to the June 14th search you did of the Bronco at the print shed. Okay?

MS. MAZZOLA: Okay.

MR. NEUFELD: And I believe you mentioned that you did what is known as a phenolphthalein test on the accelerator, the brake pedal and the emergency brake pad; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you did those three tests, did you place a single swab of cotton on each of those three items? Is that what you did?

MS. MAZZOLA: I was told just to use one swab and test all three.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, what?

MS. MAZZOLA: I was told to use one swab and test all three.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you use one swab for all three? Is that what you are saying?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So in other words, you used the same swab on the accelerator, the brake pad and the emergency brake; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Who was it who told you that you should use the same swab to do a presumptive test for blood on three separate items?

MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung.

MR. NEUFELD: Prior to your going out there on June 14th had you received any instruction or training on the use of the phenolphthalein test?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you received that training, Miss Mazzola, didn't they tell you that you should use separate swabs on separate items?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, when Mr. Fung, your supervisor that day on June 14th, told you to use the same single swab on three different items to test for the presence of blood, did you say to him, "Mr. Fung, Dennis, this is not what I'm supposed to be doing"? Did you say that?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: He was your supervisor that day; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And so you just followed his directions; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And is the reason you followed his directions that day, Miss Mazzola, because you didn't want to rock the boat?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative. Vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I wouldn't call it rocking the boat.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, this was a relatively new job for you, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: You had only been there since January of 1994?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Would it be fair to say you didn't want to lose that job?

MS. MAZZOLA: That would not make me lose my job.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, I asked you a question. Would it be fair to say you wouldn't want to lose that job?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, that has been asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: If I had questioned Mr. Fung, that would not be cause for me to lose my job.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, would it be fair to say you didn't want to lose that job at that point?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, it is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question. She still has the job and it is much later. I assume?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right, I did not want to lose the job and that would not make me lose it.

MR. NEUFELD: You were on probation, weren't you, Miss Mazzola?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: The critical comments of supervisors could have an impact on whether or not you would pass that probation; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: To some extent, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And Miss Mazzola, when you looked at those three items, the accelerator, the brake pad and the emergency brake pedal, you did not observe any red stains on them; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: and the purpose of this phenolphthalein test, Miss Mazzola, is to learn whether there could be blood present; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: In fact, there were stains that you tested on June 13th, umm, which weren't even red; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, I see from a furrowed brow that it was an unclear question. I will withdraw it.

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, ma'am, that some of the stains you examined on June 13th at Rockingham, for instance, weren't red stains, but nevertheless, you did a phenolphthalein test?

MS. MAZZOLA: I can't remember.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, you did do some tests at Rockingham which were negative, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: For instance, you looked at stains in the family room at Mr. Simpson's house, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: You did a phenolphthalein test there and they were negative, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you saw stains on the garage at Mr. Simpson's house, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: On the garage? I don't remember those.

MR. NEUFELD: Would it refresh your recollection if you were to look at your notes, your field notes from that day?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Have you been able to refresh your recollection?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. You mean the door leading out to the garage?

MR. NEUFELD: Well, I'm just asking you whether it is the garage. If it was the door leading out, if that is your recollection, then is that your recollection.

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct. That was negative.

THE COURT: Wait, wait. Both of you can't talk at the same time.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Let me ask a question again.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you also do a phenolphthalein test on some portion of the garage?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And it was negative?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, when you get a negative result on a phenolphthalein test, that is conclusive, isn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And when I say it is conclusive, does it mean to you and you have been taught that it can't possibly be blood if it is negative?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: However, a positive result, when that little swab turns that--I think you say magenta?

MS. MAZZOLA: Magenta pink, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Turns that magenta pink color, it is not a definitive result; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And in fact, all it means is, is that the stain could possibly be blood, right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. NEUFELD: And the test that you do, this phenolphthalein test, it certainly isn't a test for human blood; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And in your training at this--at SID, umm, did you learn in fact that there are many other substances, other than blood, which can also give you that magenta color, which aren't blood?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And were you taught, ma'am, that some of them are the juices from common vegetables and fruits?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: and were you also taught, ma'am, that even bacteria, germs, okay, that aren't visible to the human eye, can also give a false positive when you do the phenolphthalein test?

MS. MAZZOLA: I was not told about the germs, no.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you told about bacteria?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you told about microorganisms?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, you were taught how to do this test at the laboratory; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is right.

MR. NEUFELD: When they taught you how to do this test at SID, did they encourage you to read scientific literature on the subject as well?

MS. MAZZOLA: We did some reading, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And was any of the reading that you did peer reviewed articles in the scientific articles?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe one article was in a journal. Majority came from textbooks.

MR. NEUFELD: And have you ever read any scientific publication which talks about or describes how bacteria invisible to the human eye can give a positive test for the phenolphthalein test?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.

MR. NEUFELD: Subject to connection.

THE COURT: Overruled. Have you ever read such a thing?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, in your training at SID did they ever teach you to use what are called negative controls?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Could you please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what a negative control is.

MS. MAZZOLA: It is using the same item, be it a swatch or a swab, that you would use to collect a stain or to run a test. You run the test on the--a brand new different swab. It should be negative since nothing has been collected on the swab.

MR. NEUFELD: And, ma'am, when you did the phenolphthalein test with the single swab on the brake pedal, the emergency brake and the accelerator, you didn't use any negative control to see whether or not something else other than blood might be generating a false positive reaction, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree that other than the various vegetable and fruit juices and other substances that can generate a false positive, that sloppiness or carelessness on the part of a criminalist can also lead to a false positive?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't see how.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, let me ask you this hypothetical, Miss Mazzola: If an inexperienced criminalist inadvertently touched an area where there is a blood stain on the carpet on the driver's side of that Bronco, inadvertently put their hand, with even a rubber glove, on either the pedal, the accelerator or the brake pad, couldn't that leave a substance that would give you a positive result?

MS. MAZZOLA: On the swabs we use? No.

MR. NEUFELD: You are saying that if you touched moist blood on the carpet and then brought your hand to the brake pedal, the emergency brake or the accelerator, that absolutely could not generate a false positive or a positive result?

MR. GOLDBERG: Same--improper hypothetical.

MR. NEUFELD: Is that your testimony?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: The swabs we use are not the normal q-tips. They have an extremely long wooden handle. Our hands never come near the tip of the swabs.

MR. NEUFELD: What I'm asking you, ma'am, is not whether your hands come close to the tip of the swab. I'm asking if your hand, at some other point while you were in the Bronco, touched accidentally, if it did while you were in the Bronco, touched accidentally a blood stain on the carpet, if that hand inadvertently came in contact with the pedals while you are down there mucking about in the car, could that generate a positive result?

MS. MAZZOLA: Hypothetically it could.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, on June 14th it was yours and Dennis Fung's job to collect every single blood stain on the outside and inside of the Bronco that was visible to you; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: And each time that you set out to collect blood stains in this case, for each stain that you collected, Miss Mazzola, weren't you instructed to collect as much of the stain as you possibly could collect?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: In fact, you were supposed to collect the entire visible stain; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And it would be--and you were taught, ma'am, to keep swatching that blood stain until the blood was completely collected; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: To get as much up as possible, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And in fact you have been taught by the laboratory that it was important to get as much up as possible in the event that DNA testing might be considered?

MS. MAZZOLA: I think it was also just for a basic serology; not necessarily DNA.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And on the morning of the 14th you arrived at the print shed around 10:30?

MS. MAZZOLA: May I check my notes?

MR. NEUFELD: Please.

MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.)

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, do you have an independent recollection of what time you arrived?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Then please do.

MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.) Yes, it was around 10:30.

MR. NEUFELD: And you stayed there for approximately three hours?

MS. MAZZOLA: Umm, approximately.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And when you were there during those three hours the press wasn't there to distract you, were they?

MS. MAZZOLA: We did not see them.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And there was--was there a large group of detectives with you when you were at the print shed?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: so they weren't--so the detectives weren't distracting you either that day, were they?

MS. MAZZOLA: The detectives were really not a distraction to begin with.

MR. NEUFELD: In other words, Miss Mazzola, when you were at the print shed on the 14th you were able to pursue your tasks conscientiously and professionally as best you could; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: As we did on the 13th, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And so was Dennis Fung, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And during those three hours that you were at the Bronco on June 14th, you made a systematic examination of the outside of that car, didn't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Umm, Mr. Fung and myself, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you systematically examined the entire exterior of the Bronco for even the smallest yet visible specks of blood; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you looked on the fenders, right?

MS. MAZZOLA: We looked at the outside.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, the fenders are part of the outside, right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. NEUFELD: Hum?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: You looked on the doors?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Top and bottom?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you pointed out to Dennis Fung every single stain that you noticed, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: He was a little better at picking out the stains than I was.

MR. NEUFELD: And Dennis Fung pointed out every stain that he noticed to you, didn't he?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that on June 14th Dennis Fung never pointed out to you any dark red stains on the white metal portion of the sill on the driver's door, did he?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if he did or not.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, did he point out any stains to you on that car?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: On the exterior?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: You actually remember him pointing out some stains, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: In fact, you remember him pointing out a stain outside the passenger door; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: You actually remember that independently?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And as you sit here today you have no independent recollection of Dennis Fung ever pointing out to you any small stains on the sill of the driver's door; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: In fact, you had--one moment.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Neufeld, would this be a good spot or do you need a few more questions on this line?

MR. NEUFELD: No, we could stop at this point in time.

THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take a brief recess for the Court reporter, fifteen minutes. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any opinions about the case, have any conversations with anybody about the case, conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. All right. We will see you back in fifteen minutes. Miss Mazzola, you may step down.

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in open Court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record. Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Yes. Just one brief item, your Honor. Miss Mazzola had mentioned during cross-examination on the morning of the 14th, she was not processing evidence, but instead, she was filling out a report on another case. I'm asking that the People be compelled to instruct her to produce that report either this afternoon or tomorrow morning, preferably this afternoon because what she did the morning of the 14th is a very relevant, material matter which will be coming up in this cross-examination. The People are well aware of it.

THE COURT: Any difficulty locating the report?

MR. GOLDBERG: I don't know, your Honor, because I don't know whether they can track down per case. But I told counsel that just generally speaking, I didn't see how that could possibly be discoverable and, therefore, I would oppose it.

THE COURT: All right. We'll have a hearing 4:30.

MR. GOLDBERG: What?

THE COURT: 4:30.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. But I can tell you in 10 seconds why it's discoverable frankly.

THE COURT: 4:30.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

THE COURT: Let's have the jurors.

(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. Miss Mazzola, would you resume the witness stand, please. Let the record reflect we've now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Miss Mazzola is again on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Neufeld. Good morning again, Miss Mazzola.

MS. MAZZOLA: Good morning.

THE COURT: You are reminded you are still under oath. And, Mr. Neufeld, you may continue.

MR. NEUFELD: When we left off, Miss Mazzola, you said you had no present recollection of ever being shown any smears or red stains in the sill area of the driver's side of the Bronco door; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you had been taught, Miss Mazzola, that if you had seen smears or stains, that you should photograph them; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you had been taught--

MR. NEUFELD: One moment.

THE COURT: Certainly.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: I'm going to show you what's been offered as Defendant's 1097.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can I take a look at that for a second?

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Proceed. People's 197.

MR. GOLDBERG: Actually, I don't think that photograph has any markings on it. So it doesn't appear to be the Court's exhibit.

THE COURT: All right.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: In fact, it may not be 1097. I'm not positive, but it may not be.

MR. HARRIS: It is.

THE COURT: All right. I'll accept Mr. Harris' representation that it's 1097.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, just so there's no misunderstanding, when I talk about the white sill area on the driver's door, I'm referring to--well, I'm sorry. Did you know when I asked you those questions that I was referring to that white strip of metal which is under, next to the driver's door--

MS. MAZZOLA: I had an idea that's what you--

MR. NEUFELD: --in that picture? You did have an idea?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. In fact, during your prep session--

THE COURT: Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me. Miss Mazzola, please, let him finish--

MS. MAZZOLA: Sorry.

THE COURT: --asking the question before you start to answer. The Court reporter can only write down one person at a time. All right. Thank you.

MR. NEUFELD: In fact, during your prep sessions with the Prosecutors, did they tell you that the issue of whether or not there were bloodstains located on the sill area was an issue in the case? Did that come up at all during your prep sessions?

MS. MAZZOLA: It came up, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And--

MR. NEUFELD: One moment.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: In fact, Miss Mazzola, the only stains or smears that you saw anywhere on the exterior of the car on the 14th was a couple of tiny specks on the passenger door, isn't that correct, on the exterior passenger door?

MS. MAZZOLA: From independent recollection, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well--

MR. NEUFELD: Let me show this.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Next in order would be?

THE COURT: Defense--

THE CLERK: 1113.

THE COURT: --1113.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

(Deft's 1113 for id = photograph)

MR. NEUFELD: Show you Defendant's 1113. Is that picture familiar to you? Do you recognize it?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And what is it a picture--I'm sorry. Is that a photograph of what is item 20 in this case that you referred to on direct examination?

MS. MAZZOLA: Let me make sure it's the right--

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

(Brief pause.)

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is item 20.

MR. NEUFELD: That's on the passenger side, correct, the opposite side?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, you said you had been taught that if you had seen other stains or smears on the exterior of the car, that you had been taught that they too would have been photographed, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you had also been taught, ma'am, that if you saw stains that could possibly be blood, that you were--you were also instructed to swatch them, is that correct, and bring them back to the laboratory?

MS. MAZZOLA: If they were pheno positive, yes, we would collect them.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So you were instructed then to do a pheno test as well on stains?

MS. MAZZOLA: If there was any question, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And obviously no pheno test was done on any portion of the driver's sill on the 14th; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: I honestly don't remember.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, did you--well, let me ask you this. If a pheno test was done, would it be recorded in your notes?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Would you please look at your notes to see whether or not any pheno test was done on the sill of the driver's door to the Bronco?

MS. MAZZOLA: No, one was not done.

MR. NEUFELD: Excuse me?

MS. MAZZOLA: One was not done.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now I show you what is already in evidence as People's 197-A.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: See that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, your Honor, I don't think the resolution is good enough.

THE COURT: Overruled. The record should reflect that she is being shown this matter however on the elmo. Do you want to show her the printout?

MR. NEUFELD: Sure.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Let me show you another copy. This is 197-B.

MR. GOLDBERG: Let me see that.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Which is Prosecution's exhibit. Take a look at this as well. And does 197-B appear to be the same image as appears on the elmo, only a little better resolution?

MS. MAZZOLA: Appears so, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, do you see the specks that are circled in that picture? There are three circles?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And those specks that are circled, ma'am, they could simply be dirt, couldn't they?

MS. MAZZOLA: It's possible.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, they're not red, are they?

MS. MAZZOLA: From this photo, it's hard to tell.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, in that photograph, do they appear to be red to you, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: They actually look more brown.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, let me ask you a hypothetical, Miss Mazzola. You actually have seen the car, right? You've been out there?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: You've seen the car when the door was open on the driver's side and when the door was closed?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Here's the hypothetical. If Detective Fuhrman said that he saw four brush marks on the lower area of the driver's door--now, what I want you to assume for this hypothetical, Miss Mazzola, is that these four marks that are circled in that picture are the same four marks that Detective Fuhrman claims he saw. Would Detective Fuhrman have had to open the driver's door to see at least two of those four marks?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this isn't a proper hypothetical. It's argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. It's argumentative.

MR. NEUFELD: All right.

THE COURT: Rephrase it.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, ma'am, do you see the location of the various specks that are circled in that photograph?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: To see the two specks on the upper circle--you see where the two circles are?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: --would the door, the driver's door have to be in the open position to see those two specks?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, calls for speculation, no personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled. You can answer that question.

MS. MAZZOLA: I--I'm not sure. I'm not sure if they have to be open or closed.

MR. NEUFELD: Well--

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Next in order is?

THE COURT: 1114. All right. Defense 1114.

(Deft's 1114 for id = photograph)

MR. NEUFELD: Going to show you what's been marked as Defendant's exhibit 1114. And--

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Appears to be a photograph of the Bronco.

MR. NEUFELD: And I will show you--

THE COURT: Driver's side.

MR. NEUFELD: --a duplicate copy of the same photograph--here you go--so you can see it close up.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Have you had a chance to look at them both? If you want more time, just tell me.

MS. MAZZOLA: Okay. A little bit more time.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, can we approach for a moment on this?

THE COURT: Either counsel. No. Just the two attorneys.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I object under evidence code section 352. Also calls for opinion and conclusion. All she's doing is interpreting photographs. She has no recollection of seeing--

THE COURT: No. But that's--the clear issue here is whether or not she saw these stains.

MR. GOLDBERG: She just got through saying she had no independent recollection seeing them.

THE COURT: He's entitled to ask, "Looking at this photograph, does it refresh your recollection as to configuration--the matter in which the car's assembled, would you have been able to see--can you tell me if you would have been able to see these stains with the door closed? Yes or no?"

MR. GOLDBERG: Still calls for speculation.

THE COURT: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: She can't interpret photographs.

THE COURT: Does it refresh her recollection what the car looked like, he can ask that question.

MR. GOLDBERG: Whether it refreshes her recollection? Okay.

(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)

THE COURT: All right. Miss Mazzola, have you had enough time to look at that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I have.

THE COURT: All right. Do you need a magnifying class or anything like that?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: Have you had an opportunity to look at the photograph of the Bronco?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And that is a photograph of the Bronco at the print shed, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is.

MR. NEUFELD: And that is the way it appeared on June 14th?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And, ma'am, now that you've had a chance to look at that photograph of the Bronco, I now ask you once again--actually--

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Having looked at that photograph and now also once again looking at 1097, can you see that on the monitor?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, ma'am, that if the--have you seen that long enough?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, would you agree that in order to see the specks that are in the upper of the two circles--see the two circles, one on top of each other?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: --that in order to see those two specks, the door would have to be in the open position?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for opinion, conclusion, no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question. Foundation.

MR. NEUFELD: One moment.

MR. NEUFELD: When you went out to the scene on the 14th, you systematically examined the Bronco exterior; did you not?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to systematically.

THE COURT: Overruled. As to scene, do you mean the print shed?

MR. NEUFELD: At the print shed.

MR. NEUFELD: Right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: In fact, that's what your vehicle search inspection list requires you to do, to make a systematic examination of the exterior of the car; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it does.

MR. NEUFELD: And you did that with Dennis Fung?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you examined the door of the car, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you examined it both in the closed position and the open position, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And based on--now, what you examined that day, in the open position and closed position of the door and having looked at these photographs, would you agree that in order to see the specks in the upper circle, that the door would have to be in the open position?

MR. GOLDBERG: Still calls for conclusion, no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: It's hard to say. I'm not sure how far the bottom of the Bronco flares out from the pictures. I can't say if it would have to be open or closed.

MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, in the pictures that you have in front of you, doesn't the door of the Bronco come down flush with the outer edge of that sill in the pictures that you have?

MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not sure if it's flush or not. There's a bottom strip that could be out a little further. In the picture, it's a little hard to tell.

MR. NEUFELD: One moment.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: By the way, Miss Mazzola--to the--to the best of your recollection, ma'am, you didn't even see the specks in that upper circle on the 14th, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: To the best of my recollection, I did not.

MR. NEUFELD: And you did not see the speck in the lower circle, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: And you did not see the smear or grayish or--I am sorry--discoloration indicated in the third circle, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: You didn't see any of those on the 14th, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: To the best of my recollection, I did not.

MR. NEUFELD: Right. Miss Mazzola, you didn't see them on the morning of the 13th either, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: I wasn't--

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes a fact that she looked.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: On the 13th, I don't believe I was looking that carefully.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, you were shown the car on the 13th by the detectives, didn't you? Weren't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you walked over with the detectives and Dennis Fung to examine the Bronco, didn't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And in fact, I think you said that you personally even swatched the stain on the handle of the Bronco, didn't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And that stain was pointed out to you by Detective Fuhrman, wasn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not sure which one pointed it out.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, you were there when Detective Fuhrman pointed it out to--oh, I'm sorry. Withdrawn. You were at the Bronco with Dennis Fung and the detectives when one of the detectives pointed out a small speck near the handle on the driver's door; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And at that point in time, when that speck was pointed out to you and Dennis Fung, no other speck was pointed out to you and Dennis Fung on the exterior of the car; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember. I just remember the one on the driver's handle.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, with respect to your independent recollection, Miss Mazzola, as it stands today, is it fair to say that you have no independent recollection of any detective showing you any other speck or stain on that car other than the speck next to the driver's handle?

MS. MAZZOLA: That I can recall, no.

MR. NEUFELD: That's what I'm asking you. Your independent recollection, from what you can recall.

MS. MAZZOLA: My independent recollection, no.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you. By the way, Miss Mazzola, when you do a phenolphthalein test, have you been taught that there are confirmatory tests that you can do back at the laboratory?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is why we collect the positive stains.

MR. NEUFELD: And the reason--I'm sorry. And the confirmatory tests that can be done back at the laboratory would tell you whether or not it was in fact blood as opposed to some other substance which created a false positive; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: I am not in the serology section. I--I don't know.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, I'm not asking you for what tests is done. I'm asking you whether or not you were told that there are tests that are done back at the serology laboratory to confirm whether or not an item which you suspected might be blood was in fact blood as opposed to something else?

MS. MAZZOLA: It's possible, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And there are also confirmatory tests that you've been taught about which can tell you whether something is human blood as opposed to some animal blood; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: I have heard of those tests, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And as you sit here today, ma'am, referring to those specks that you collected which are item 20 on the passenger door--

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: --to your knowledge, has there ever been any confirmatory test done to determine whether or not that speck on the door was human blood?

MR. GOLDBERG: I think misstates a fact not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained. It's a vague question. Which--you're referring to item 20 in photograph number--Defendant's 1113, correct?

MR. NEUFELD: Yes, I am.

THE COURT: All right. Do you understand the question, Miss Mazzola?

MS. MAZZOLA: Item 20, the three specks on the passenger door. Is that what he's referring to?

THE COURT: Right.

MR. NEUFELD: What I'm asking you is, with respect to the specks on the door, okay, item 20--

THE COURT: Right. Passenger--Excuse me, counsel. You keep on saying specks and Mr. Harris put up another photograph. We're talking about 1113, passenger door specks, 20, correct?

MR. NEUFELD: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: With respect to those two specks that you see in the picture to the left of the no. 20, to your knowledge, has there ever been a confirmatory test to determine whether or not those specks are human blood?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled. Do you know if they were tested?

MS. MAZZOLA: I do not know if they were tested.

MR. NEUFELD: When the detectives showed you the speck the morning of the 13th on the driver's door, not no. 20, but the speck on the driver's door, that was right after Dennis Fung and the detectives had this discussion; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And was Dennis Fung with you when the detectives pointed out the speck on the driver's door?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence, detectives.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, at both Rockingham and Bundy, did the detectives tell you which items to collect?

MS. MAZZOLA: They showed us different items and between talking with Mr. Fung, they all decided which ones should be collected as evidence.

MR. NEUFELD: Dennis Fung and the detectives decided?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: One second, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Take your time.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry. What?

THE COURT: Take your time.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: During your training at the SID mini academy, did you receive handouts from time to time on how to conduct crime scene investigations?

MS. MAZZOLA: We received various handouts, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Ask this be marked next in order.

THE COURT: 1115? Defense 1115.

(Deft's 1115 for id = handout)

MR. NEUFELD: I'll show you what's been marked as Defendant's 1115, ask you to take a look at it. Read it to yourself.

MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.)

MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, was that handout--I'm sorry. Was that document one of the handouts that you were given at the LAPD?

MS. MAZZOLA: I honestly can't remember if it was or not.

MR. NEUFELD: You're saying it doesn't refresh your recollection whether it was?

MS. MAZZOLA: No. No.

MR. NEUFELD: In your presence, did Dennis Fung outside the presence of the detectives ever independently go out and look for evidence?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not in my presence I don't think.

MR. NEUFELD: When you arrived at Bundy that day, did the detectives make you wait until they removed both bodies?

MS. MAZZOLA: I waited back on the sidewalk. Mr. Fung did not.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, did you wait back on the sidewalk because the detectives had asked you to wait?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, had the detectives asked you to wait before you began your own work until the bodies had been both removed?

MS. MAZZOLA: They did not ask me personally, no.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, did they ask Dennis Fung in your presence?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, had you been taught, Miss Mazzola, that when you first get to a crime scene, you are to make a quick search for perishable evidence? Is that something you've been taught at SID?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And as you stood there when you arrived, you saw that the Coroners were in the process of moving bodies; were you not?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you when you first arrived go forward then into the crime scene to conduct a quick search for perishable evidence?

MS. MAZZOLA: I did not personally, no.

MR. NEUFELD: And why is it that you didn't do that, Miss Mazzola?

MS. MAZZOLA: Because Mr. Fung was up in the area.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, did you actually--from where you were standing on the sidewalk, you could observe Mr. Fung, couldn't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: For the most part, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you saw Mr. Fung go into the area, he was carrying the brown paper bag which had the glove in it, didn't he?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe he had it the first time he went up.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. The first time he went up, did you see Dennis Fung making a--making an examination for perishable or easily movable evidence?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember seeing him.

MR. NEUFELD: You don't remember seeing him do that, do you?

MS. MAZZOLA: No. I don't remember seeing him.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, you don't remember seeing him at all?

MS. MAZZOLA: I saw him up in the scene. I don't remember exactly what he was doing.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, where in the scene was he when you saw him?

THE COURT: At what point, counsel?

MR. NEUFELD: When you were standing out on the sidewalk and they were moving the bodies, what did you see or where did you see Dennis Fung standing?

MS. MAZZOLA: Up in the area where they were removing the bodies.

MR. NEUFELD: Was he on the sidewalk or was he on the steps?

MS. MAZZOLA: I can't remember.

MR. NEUFELD: And do you have any idea what he was doing when he was in there?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, now that you've done that examination, okay, of that crime scene that day, you do know that he wasn't removing perishable or other small items near the bodies; is that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation, personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Overruled. Do you understand the question?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.

THE COURT: All right. Go ahead and answer.

MS. MAZZOLA: I do not believe that he was removing any perishable items at that time.

MR. NEUFELD: Nor was he removing any small items that were in close proximity to the bodies, was he?

MS. MAZZOLA: No. He did not appear to be, no.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you say to Dennis Fung before he walked into the crime scene that, "We should quickly look for perishable and other small items since they're removing the bodies"?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Did Dennis Fung say something to that effect in your presence to the detectives?

MS. MAZZOLA: In my presence? I do not believe so, no.

MR. NEUFELD: And you would agree that trace evidence can be transferred carelessly when bodies are moved?

MS. MAZZOLA: It is possible, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, you were taught that, weren't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: In your presence, did you ever hear Dennis Fung, your supervisor, tell the detectives not to move the bodies until he first made an inspection of the scene for perishable or other small items?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: In my presence, no.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, at 7:00 A.M., you said when--that's when you arrived. A little bit after 7:00 A.M., you arrived at Rockingham with Dennis Fung?

MS. MAZZOLA: If I may check my notes.

MR. NEUFELD: Sure. You don't have an independent recollection as to what time you arrived?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not independent recollection, no.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

MS. MAZZOLA: It was approximately around 7:00 A.M., yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you said that you overheard the discussion that Dennis Fung had with the detectives at that time; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Bits and pieces, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And the detectives showed you around the grounds before you began collecting any stains; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And at that point, the detectives told you which items to collect; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: They pointed out items that they were interested in.

MR. NEUFELD: well, when they pointed out items that they were interested in, they were telling you that the items that they were interested in were the items that you and Dennis Fung should collect; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Those and others if we found any, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, did you find other items out there in the driveway of Mr. Simpson's house other than what was pointed out to you by the detectives?

MS. MAZZOLA: In the driveway, no.

MR. NEUFELD: And so as to the items in the driveway, the detectives told you which items to collect?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: But you didn't even bother collecting any of the stains until 8:15; isn't that right?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it's vague as to didn't bother. That's argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Sorry. You didn't collect any of the stains until at least 8:15; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: May I check the time?

MR. NEUFELD: Sure.

(Brief pause.)

MS. MAZZOLA: The stain on the Bronco was collected approximately 8:15.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And that was the first stain to be collected?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it was.

MR. NEUFELD: And the stains in the driveway were collected after that, right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Miss Mazzola, did you at any time after the discussion was over between Dennis Fung and the detectives say to the detectives, "Wait. We should go to Bundy first and examine that scene before they move the bodies"?

MS. MAZZOLA: I did not, no.

MR. NEUFELD: Did Dennis Fung say something to that effect in your presence to the detectives?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not in my presence, no.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, what about--and that conversation would be around 7:30 in the morning; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Maybe a little before.

MR. NEUFELD: A little before 7:30. Maybe 7:20?

MS. MAZZOLA: Somewhere between the time we arrived and we started collecting.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So you didn't say anything to the detectives about the necessity of going to Bundy before they moved the bodies at 7:20 or 7:30 in the morning; is that right?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question or move on.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Well, let's see. What about 8:00 A.M.? 8:00 A.M., you still hadn't collected the first stain. You knew at that point in time that there were bodies at Bundy that would have to be moved; did you not?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, compound.

THE COURT: Calls for speculation too.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, had you been told prior to 8:00 A.M. that there were bodies in connection with this homicide case at Bundy?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I knew that there were bodies at Bundy.

MR. NEUFELD: And you knew from your experience and training that the Coroner's office would be there to move those bodies; did you not?

MS. MAZZOLA: I did not--

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to time.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I did not know if the Coroners would be there or not.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, you knew that at some point in time, the Coroners would come to the scene to remove the two victims; did you not?

MS. MAZZOLA: At some point, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Did you ask the detectives whether or not the bodies had been removed yet at 8:00 A.M. in the morning before you started collecting stains at Rockingham?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Did Mr. Fung ask the detectives that in your presence?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not in my presence.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, after you collected the drop on the Bronco, it was still--it was not until 9:00 o'clock that you began picking up the other drops in the driveway; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: May I check the notes?

MR. NEUFELD: Please do.

(Brief pause.)

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. Approximately 9:00 A.M.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So at this point, you had already been at the scene, ma'am, an hour and a half approximately; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not quite an hour and a half.

MR. NEUFELD: And you knew that bodies--there were two bodies of two victims at the Bundy location, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. There were two victims at Bundy.

MR. NEUFELD: And you knew that just from your experience, that at some point in time, Coroners would have to move those two bodies, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, they would have to remove them.

MR. NEUFELD: And you had also been taught, had you not, Miss Mazzola, in terms of crime scene evidence collection methods that it is preferable to examine the crime scene before bodies are removed for small items of perishable items? Had you been taught that?

MR. GOLDBERG: Compound; small and perishable.

THE COURT: Haven't we gone through this already?

MR. NEUFELD: We have. I'm just trying to--

THE COURT: We have. We have. Let's proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, at both Rockingham and Bundy, photographs were taken of the various bloodstains; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And for many of those photographs, were the photo cards set up by Dennis Fung?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And in the photographs that were set up by Dennis Fung--

MR. NEUFELD: One moment.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: --he did not place a ruler in the scene, did he?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if he did or not.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, with the--

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld, which board is this?

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry. What?

THE COURT: Which board is this?

MR. NEUFELD: Oh, it's People's 120.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. With the Court's permission, may the witness step down?

THE COURT: Yes. What happened to our pointer there? Ah, there we go.

MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, in your training at SID, were you taught that when you take a photograph of a bloodstain or other item of evidence, that you should use a ruler in the photograph? Is that something you were taught?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, did you receive a handout which described how photographs should be taken at crime scenes?

MR. GOLDBERG: It's vague as to photographs.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe we did, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: All right.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Ask this be marked for identification next in order.

THE COURT: 1116.

(Deft's 1116 for id = handout)

MR. NEUFELD: 116--

THE COURT: 1116, one six.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

MR. NEUFELD: Show you what has been marked--

MR. GOLDBERG: Peter, may I see that?

MR. NEUFELD: Oh, sorry.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Show you what has been marked as Defendant's 1116, ask you to take a look at those two pages. Miss Mazzola, is 1116, Defense 1116, the handout that you received on forensic photography?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if it's the exact handout that we received.

MR. NEUFELD: Could be?

MS. MAZZOLA: It's possible.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it calls for speculation. Motion to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: You said it could be?

MS. MAZZOLA: Could be, could not be.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, you say you recall receiving a handout on forensic photography; did you not?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: were you taught at the SID, Miss Mazzola, that acceptable crime scene photography should tell a story by itself absent of any written or oral narration? Were you taught that concept?

MS. MAZZOLA: Something like that, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And were you taught, Miss Mazzola, at SID that the photographs should have some scale in it so a person who's looking at the photograph will know how big the object is?

MR. GOLDBERG: It's vague as to what type of photograph.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you taught that?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if we were or not.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, let me--just for a second, look at what is here in this picture, photograph b on Prosecution's exhibit 120. Do you see it?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And do you see a red stain in the picture?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree, ma'am, that if there was no ruler in that picture, you would have--a viewer would have no idea how large that stain is? Would you agree?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: and isn't it true that because of that fact, you were taught at SID that it is important to put some kind of scale or ruler in a photograph so when someone looks at the photograph, they will have an idea as to how large the stain is?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is possibility, to have a ruler in the scene.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm not asking you whether it's a possibility, ma'am. I'm asking you whether or not your instructors at the Los Angeles Police Department Scientific Investigation Division taught you that for forensic photography, that you should put or instruct the photographer to put a ruler in the picture when you take a picture of a bloodstain so that anyone else who is looking at it will know how big the stain is.

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe they told us that. Forensic photographers know how to photograph evidence. It's up to them.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, isn't the job of the criminalist to instruct and direct the forensic photographer at the scene? Isn't that one of your responsibilities?

MS. MAZZOLA: It is the supervising Criminalist's responsibility.

MR. NEUFELD: Fine. So it's Dennis Fung's responsibility, is that what you're saying, to instruct the forensic photographer how to take the pictures at the scene?

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. If you would, she was mid answer when you started asking the next question. Allow her--

MR. NEUFELD: I apologize, your Honor.

THE COURT: --to finish--thank you.

MS. MAZZOLA: Would you please repeat it?

MR. NEUFELD: So would it be fair to say that it was Dennis Fung's responsibility as the senior criminalist at the scene to instruct the forensic photographers on how to take the pictures of various items of evidence?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not as to how, but which items he wanted photographed.

MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it--weren't you instructed, Miss Mazzola, to make sure there was comprehensive coverage of each item of evidence at the crime scene?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And weren't you instructed, ma'am, to make sure that the forensic photographer takes close-up shots as well as distant shots of each item of evidence?

MS. MAZZOLA: Photographers are trained to--

MR. NEUFELD: I--I'm sorry.

MS. MAZZOLA: Go ahead.

MR. NEUFELD: I asked whether you were instructed to make sure that that happens, you being a criminalist.

MS. MAZZOLA: We were given information on the way the forensic photographers photograph crime scenes.

MR. NEUFELD: And who brings the numbers that are put down to identify different items for the photographer to take pictures of?

MS. MAZZOLA: We do.

MR. NEUFELD: That's your job, the criminalist, right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. NEUFELD: You set the item numbers down?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And if you want the photographer--by the way, were you working with one photographer at Rockingham in the morning of July--of June 13th?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe we were. I can not be absolutely--

MR. NEUFELD: It was the same photographer who at least shot the different stains in the driveway with you; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And it was Dennis Fung's job to instruct that photographer what he wanted in the photograph, wasn't it?

MR. GOLDBERG: This has been asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

THE COURT: Excuse me. Excuse me. Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: I didn't reask the question.

THE COURT: I understand that. I'm just advising the witness if I sustain the objection--

MS. MAZZOLA: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. NEUFELD: And you said I believe--

THE COURT: Excuse me. Excuse me. Mr. Neufeld, is there a reason we--are you still questioning as to this--

MR. NEUFELD: Now I'm going to question about the board.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And I believe you said on direct examination that Dennis Fung was not with you when you collected item 7 and item 8 at Rockingham; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And he was with you when items 4, 5 and 6 were collected; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And item 4 is shown--I'm sorry--in photograph a, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And item 5 and 6 is shown in photograph c, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, in items 5 and 6, is there a ruler in the photograph?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Did Dennis Fung instruct the photographer to place a ruler in the photograph?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.

MR. NEUFELD: In your presence.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, your Honor. Is there a ruling on--

THE COURT: No. You rephrased the question. I assume you withdrew it and rephrased it.

MR. NEUFELD: No. I rephrased it for the--okay.

MS. MAZZOLA: In my presence, no.

MR. NEUFELD: And you were present when the photographs were taken?

MS. MAZZOLA: For the most part, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And I think you said, ma'am--oh, let me ask you this. Were you also taught that when taking pictures of bloodstains, it may be important to know whether or not the bloodstain had some direction? Correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And to know whether it has some direction, one would want to know whether the direction is north, south, east or west, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And for that purpose, ma'am, weren't you trained at the SID that when taking photographs of--of bloodstains, that somebody should at least put into the photograph an arrow pointing north? Weren't you taught that?

THE COURT: Excuse me. Counsel--excuse me. Counsel, she's the probationary trainee. Mr. Fung was in charge and there was a photographer taking these pictures. So this is interesting, but not tremendously relevant to this witness.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, did--there's only one photograph here that has an arrow and a northerly direction on it; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: There appears to be, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And that's for item 7, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And item 7, Dennis Fung wasn't with you when you collected it, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: In fact, the person that was with you when you collected item 7 was a--one of the most senior supervisors in the whole SID, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And what's his name?

MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Steve Johnson.

MR. NEUFELD: And did Mr. Johnson direct that the "N" in the arrow be placed in the photograph?

MS. MAZZOLA: I do not remember.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, did you direct that it be placed in the photograph?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor--

MR. NEUFELD: You may sit down. (The witness complies.)

MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, ma'am, that in terms of the drops that were collected, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, that for those drops that do not have a ruler in the picture, there is no record of the size of those drops?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree, ma'am, that for the drops at Bundy, there is no ruler in any of those photographs?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe that is so.

MR. NEUFELD: You believe it's so, that there is no ruler in any of those photographs?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And so would you also agree that there is no record for the size of any of these bloodstains at Bundy--of the drops on the walkway?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And would you also agree that all blood drops are not the same size?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is definitely correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And as you sit here today 10 months later, do you have an independent recollection of the size of each bloodstain at Rockingham and Bundy?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: And at any time while you were at Rockingham and Bundy, did Dennis Fung instruct you to note the size of each of the bloodstains in writing on the field notes?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is irrelevant and under 352, I object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: No, he did not.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, would you agree, ma'am, that the size of the bloodstain is an indication of how much blood is present?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is not necessarily so.

MR. NEUFELD: I said is one indication of how much blood is present.

MS. MAZZOLA: It could be one indication, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And would you agree, ma'am, that how much blood is present would indicate how much DNA one would expect to isolate from a bloodstain?

MS. MAZZOLA: I am not a serologist. I do not know.

MR. NEUFELD: Have you at any point in your instruction been told that the larger the bloodstain, the more DNA one would expect to get from the bloodstain? Has that been taught to you?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained. She's already testified to that issue, counsel.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: One moment.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, did you personally do the phenolphtalein test on the speck next to the driver's handle?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And did you do that at the direction of Dennis Fung?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And after you did the phenolphtalein test and it came up magenta, pink, you collected that swatch, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And to your knowledge, to this day, Miss Mazzola, has any confirmatory test ever been done to make sure that that speck was human blood?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered, hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled. Do you know if any confirmatory test was done on that?

MS. MAZZOLA: I do not know.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, back at Rockingham in the morning of June 13th, isn't it a fact that you personally and exclusively collected every drop of blood that was seen at Rockingham?

MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung assisted on a few of the drops.

MR. NEUFELD: When you say that Dennis Fung assisted on a few of the drops, what do you mean by that?

MS. MAZZOLA: That he also took some swatches.

MR. NEUFELD: And on which items did he--do you now say that he also took some swatches?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this has been asked and answered, this whole thing.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. NEUFELD: You say this morning that Dennis Fung assisted you on some of the stains?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you say what you mean by assisting you, that he took some of the swatches?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Do you mean that for some items, you took some swatches and he took some swatches?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: so on each of the items, you personally took swatches?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: But at least as to some, he also took some swatches; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, when you testified on direct examination or on cross-examination last Thursday, didn't you say that with respect to items 4, 5 and 6, that Dennis Fung alone was the collector of those items and not you? Wasn't that your testimony just this last Thursday?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if it was or not.

MR. NEUFELD: May we just have one moment, your Honor?

THE COURT: Certainly.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, you testified on August 23rd, 1994--didn't you testify that you alone collected all the drops of blood at the Rockingham location?

MR. GOLDBERG: Could I have the page and line citation?

THE COURT: Counsel?

MR. NEUFELD: Page 698. Could we put up a slide, slide 8?

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: I'll object. This has been asked and answered.

MR. NEUFELD: A different context, your Honor.

MR. GOLDBERG: Same exact words.

THE COURT: I'm sorry. 698? What line, counsel?

MR. NEUFELD: Line 21.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, when you testified on August--I'm sorry--when you testified on August 23rd, 1994, do you recall me asking you which items you collected at Rockingham? Do you recall me asking that question?

THE COURT: The objection was sustained, counsel.

MR. NEUFELD: This is a different quote I'm getting at, your Honor. It's a different portion of the transcript.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: It's page 700, line 6 to line 18.

MR. GOLDBERG: Line which?

MR. NEUFELD: Line 6 to line 18.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Proceed.

MS. MAZZOLA: Would you please restate the question?

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, when you testified on August 23rd, 1995, were you asked by me which items you personally collected at the Rockingham scene that morning?

MS. MAZZOLA: I--excuse me. I don't remember the exact question. It might have been something like that.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, were you asked to distinguish those items that you collected personally as opposed to those items that you collectively collected with Dennis Fung?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I would ask for page and line cite.

THE COURT: 700 starting at 6.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you asked that?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so. I'm not a hundred percent sure.

MR. NEUFELD: and isn't it a fact, ma'am, that when you were asked which items you collected at Rockingham, that you understood that question to mean those items that you personally collected as opposed to those items which you collected with Dennis Fung; isn't that correct?

THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection. That's not the way this question is phrased, counsel.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Well, let me ask you this. Were you asked these questions and did you give these answers in sworn testimony on August 23rd, 1995?

MR. NEUFELD: Referring to page 700, line 6 to line 18. Do you have it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. I would object for the record, that this is not inconsistent.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: Ask it be marked. What's next in order, your Hono