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 Honor?

THE COURT: No. It's in the record already, counsel.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would object to this procedure. If we could--

THE COURT: Overruled. You can read it.

MR. GOLDBERG: What?

THE COURT: Read it, counsel. Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you asked these questions by me on August 23rd, did you give these answers? "Question: And after you removed that stain on the Bronco, you then began to collect the stains leading up the driveway toward the front door of Mr. Simpson's house?"

THE COURT: Wait. Take it down. It's not inconsistent. It doesn't say all the stains. It says stains. Take it down. Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, when you were asked about the stains that were collected on Rockingham on August 23rd, did you ever testify that Dennis Fung collected even a single stain?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if I did.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you testify that Dennis Fung even assisted in collecting a single stain?

MR. GOLDBERG: Wait a minute. It's irrelevant what she was asked.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Was it your understanding when you were asked questions about the collecting of stains at Rockingham, Miss Mazzola, that the questions were being asked of what you personally collected as opposed to what you collectively collected with criminalist Fung?

MR. GOLDBERG: Overbroad. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained. I'm going to sustain the Court's own objection under 352. Now, this is too confusing given the state of this particular transcript. It's not clear. The question was not clearly asked. Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: One moment, your Honor.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, a few moments ago, you testified that you and Dennis Fung together each swatched portions of stains 4, 5 and six; is that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: This has been asked and answered. Under 352, I object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: He assisted on some of them. I'm not exactly sure which exact stains.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, five minutes ago, didn't you say with some degree of certainty that it was items 4, 5 and 6 that Dennis Fung and you did together?

MR. GOLDBERG: Compound and misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: We were both there working. I am not sure exactly if he took swatches from every stain that I did or if he took swatches from one.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm not asking you about every stain, Miss Mazzola. I'm simply asking you whether or not you testified before these ladies and gentlemen of the jury just five minutes ago that Dennis Fung and you together each did swatches for stains 4, 5 and 6. Was that your testimony, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not sure I said 4, 5 and 6 or portions of.

MR. NEUFELD: Portions of 4, 5 and 6?

MS. MAZZOLA: One or two.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: So you're now saying, Miss Mazzola, that you're not sure which of items 4, 5 and 6 that you both together swatched some of the blood from? Is that your current testimony?

MR. GOLDBERG: Unintelligible.

THE COURT: That's vague.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, did you not say just a few minutes ago to this jury, Miss Mazzola, that both you and Dennis Fung together each swatched portions of the stain for items 4, 5 and 6?

MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not sure if I said that both of us took swatches from 4, 5 and 6 or it could have been one or two. I don't remember.

MR. NEUFELD: But at least it's your recollection that both you and Dennis Fung took swatches from at least one of those three items; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. When you testified just this last Thursday before the same jury at this trial, Miss Mazzola, were you asked these questions, did you give these answers?

MR. NEUFELD: Referring to page 23851 beginning at line 4.

THE COURT: 3. Proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: May I have a moment, your Honor?

THE COURT: Certainly.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: It's fine.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you asked these questions and did you give these answers? "Question: Miss Mazzola, you said a moment ago that you testified this morning on direct examination that it is now your recollection that Mr. Fung and not you collected the drops, items number 4, 5 and 6; is that correct? "Answer: That's correct." Did you give that answer to that question last Thursday?

MS. MAZZOLA: If you have it, I guess I did.

MR. NEUFELD: You don't recall?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, motion to strike the witness' answer.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: Would you prefer to actually read it yourself, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: No. That's--that's fine.

MR. NEUFELD: Huh?

MS. MAZZOLA: I'll take your word for it.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I would make a motion to strike the comment--

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola--

THE COURT: Overruled. Excuse me, counsel. When other counsel is making an objection, would you at least allow them to finish?

MR. NEUFELD: Certainly.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: So, Miss Mazzola, on Thursday, you testified that you were not involved in the collection of 4, 5 and 6 and that Dennis Fung collected that; is that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: Is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: At the time, I thought that Mr. Fung alone had, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: That was as recently as last Thursday?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And now today, you have a different recollection of what transpired back on June 13th, 1994? Is that your testimony, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you testified on August 23rd, 1994, at that point, it was your recollection, was it not, that you had personally collected all the blood drops at Rockingham; is that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: I object to that.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Have you looked at any notes to refresh your recollection between Thursday and today that led you to change your mind from Thursday to today's testimony with respect to who collected what on items 4, 5 and 6?

MS. MAZZOLA: Notes, no.

MR. NEUFELD: Have you looked at any videotapes to refresh your recollection so that you would change your memory as to who collected what portions of 4, 5 and 6?

MS. MAZZOLA: Videos, no.

MR. NEUFELD: Have you looked at any documents to refresh your recollection that you didn't have available to you last Thursday so you could have a different memory as to who collected what with respect to items 4, 5 and 6?

MS. MAZZOLA: Documents, no.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you have a conversation with any members of the Prosecution staff between last Thursday and today with regard to who collected items 4, 5 and 6?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you have a conversation with Dennis Fung between Thursday and today as to who collected items 4, 5 and 6?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: But you now say that it's your recollec--that your recollection has changed your memory of what your involvement was with regard to items 4, 5 and 6 from just this last Thursday to today; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And, ma'am, it would be fair to say--I think you said it earlier--that you never wrote down in your notes which of you collected which items; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And so the only way you can recall or testify as to who collected which items is strictly from your independent recollection; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Has your memory of who collected which items been aided by the prep sessions that you had with the Prosecutors in this case?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Did the Prosecutors ever tell you that it was important that you give some credit to Dennis Fung for his involvement in this case?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Did they ever tell you that it was important for you to enhance Dennis Fung's involvement in the collection of bloodstain evidence?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: In fact, your supervisor, Dennis Fung, didn't even supervise you with respect to the collection of every stain, did he?

MS. MAZZOLA: Of every stain, no.

MR. NEUFELD: He was off collecting other evidence when you collected some of the stains in this case, didn't he?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: When you collected a stain on a wire the afternoon of June 13th--excuse me--your supervisor was not there to observe you, was he?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you collected items 7 and 8, Dennis Fung was not there to observe you, was he?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, I want to show you an evidence board prepared by the Prosecution.

(Brief pause.)

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

MR. NEUFELD: Can we have a sidebar briefly, your Honor?

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: Items have been removed--

THE COURT: Proceed. We'll take it up at noon.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Now, at Bundy, ma'am, as opposed to Rockingham, isn't it true that you collected every single drop of blood at Bundy with the sole exception being the stains from the two bloody shoeprints?

MS. MAZZOLA: Exclusively, no.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, ma'am, were you aware of the fact that when you were--on August 23rd, when you were asked about who--which drops you collected, did you understand the question to be directed at what you personally collected as opposed to what you collected in conjunction with Dennis Fung?

MS. MAZZOLA: I do not recall if I knew that it was me personally versus us as a team.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I would ask the Court's permission to now read the--page 700 to the witness for that limited purpose.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: I'll sustain the same objection because of the manner in which this transcript reads, counsel. It's not a clear question that was put to the witness. Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: When you testified on August 23rd, referring to page 735--

MR. GOLDBERG: I would object. This was asked and answered too.

MR. NEUFELD: I haven't even asked this question and I haven't read this portion of the transcript on cross-examination.

MR. GOLDBERG: I'm sorry. That may have been on direct. Sorry, counsel.

THE COURT: Which line, counsel? 735, what line?

MR. NEUFELD: One second, your Honor. Beginning--actually beginning at 734, line 27 and ending on page 736, line 1.

MR. GOLDBERG: Starting on--starting on which line?

MR. NEUFELD: 734, line 27.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: You testified on August 23rd, 1994--were you asked these questions and did you give these answers? "Question: And which--I'm sorry. At Bundy again. At Bundy again, were there certain bloodstains that you collected and other bloodstains that were collected by Mr. Fung? "Answer: Yes. "Question: And which bloodstains were collected by Mr. Fung? "Answer: I believe he collected the red stains that were near the shoeprints that were made on the walkway. "Question: Would you please look at your notes and tell me which numbers those are? "Question: And when you say that, you say he collected the actual foot--shoeprints or he collected alleged drops that were near the shoeprints? "Answer: He if I remember correctly took swatches of the red stains that were constituting the footprint itself. "Question: Can you tell us which ones those were, please? "Answer: Property items 55 and 56. "Question: And that is it? "Answer: Yes. "Question: All other bloodstains at the Bundy crime scene were collected by you, ma'am? "Answer: Yes. "And while he collected 55 and 56, were you collecting some of your bloodstains? "Answer: Yes." Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers under oath on August 23rd, 1994?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And on August 23rd, 1994, ma'am, would you agree that the events of June 13th were fresher in your mind than they are now 10 months later?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not necessarily fresher.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, would you agree, ma'am, that your memory of an event that happened two months previously is stronger than your memory of an event that happened 10 months previously?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that question is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I had not thought of the events of June 13th since we had gotten done with the property reports up until the time I walked into this courtroom for the griffin hearing.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, would you agree that your memory of an event that happened two months prior to your testifying is fresher than it is when you've had 10 months gone by?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not necessarily.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Well, Miss Mazzola, June 13th, you collected these items; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: You didn't do a single other crime scene between June 13th and the date you testified on August 23rd, did you?

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

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, are there any other notes that would refresh your recollection as to whether you did?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, as you sit here today, ma'am, do you have an independent recollection of doing a single other crime scene between June 13th and August 23rd?

MS. MAZZOLA: Independent recollection, no.

MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, when you did this crime scene with Dennis Fung on June 13th, it was an important crime scene to you; was it not?

MS. MAZZOLA: Every crime scene is important.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, you said when you were told to come to Court in this case, rather than being told it was the Simpson case, you were simply told by someone it was "The case," correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Those were her words, not mine.

MR. NEUFELD: I understand that, Miss Mazzola. But is that what you were told?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's what I was told, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, when this person said to you, "It is the case," didn't you know that what she meant was the case of the--of Mr. Simpson here? Didn't you know that?

MS. MAZZOLA: I had an idea.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, were you aware that just the previous day, August 22nd, your partner in this crime scene collection, Dennis Fung, was testifying in this courtroom before a national television audience? Were you aware of that?

MR. GOLDBERG: That's been asked and answered. I also object to counsel's tone.

THE COURT: Sustained. We've gone through this once before.

MR. NEUFELD: That was in a different context, your Honor.

THE COURT: Same testimony. We've heard it.

MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, you were relying exclusively on your memory, on your independent recollection when you testified on August 23rd, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That and Mr. Matheson's notes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Mr. Matheson's notes were the original notes that you and Dennis Fung took on June 13th; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if they were the originals or not.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, the notes that--well, were they copies of the notes that you and Dennis Fung took then on June 13th?

MS. MAZZOLA: They could have been copies, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Or originals?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's true.

MR. NEUFELD: And what those notes were the sum total of all the notes that you and Dennis Fung took on June 13th at Bundy and Rockingham; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And that would constitute the field notes and the crime scene inspection list that this jury has already seen; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And there are no other notes, are there, that were prepared by you that you've used to refresh your recollection today?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: And there were no other notes other than those notes that you relied upon to refresh your recollection when you testified on August 23rd; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you testified on August 23rd, ma'am, isn't it a fact that there was no way--there is no note saying which items you personally collected and which items Dennis Fung personally collected?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And so between August 23rd and today, ma'am, it's not as if you've had additional notes to look at which will help you to remember which items Dennis Fung collected as opposed to which items you collected; isn't that right?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained as phrased.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, are there any other notes other than your field notes that you got from Mr. Matheson that day that indicate which items you collected and which items Dennis Fung collected?

MS. MAZZOLA: Notes, no.

MR. NEUFELD: And there are no notes, ma'am, or reports that were prepared by you that you looked at on August 23rd which indicated which items you collected and which items Dennis Fung collected, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Badgering the witness in terms of testimony.

THE COURT: We're there. All right.

MR. NEUFELD: Can I just ask two more questions and I'll finish this area?

THE COURT: Two more. Slower though. However, the Court reporter is about to go on us.

MR. NEUFELD: So both today and on August 23rd, you're relying exclusively on your independent recollection as opposed to any documentary evidence to recall which items you collected and which items Dennis Fung collected, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Memory and photographs.

MR. NEUFELD: Are you--do you--have you seen a single photograph showing Dennis Fung collecting items 4, 5 or 6?

MS. MAZZOLA: At the Griffen hearing, I did not have a chance to look at the photographs before.

MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, I'm simply asking you this, please. Have you seen a single photograph between June 13th and this morning or this afternoon that shows Dennis Fung collecting items 4, 5 or 6?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the morning session. Please remember all of my admonitions to you; do not discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any opinions about the case, allow anybody to communicate with you or conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. Counsel, I'm going to direct you to confer about that one exhibit that Mr. Neufeld was interested in.

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. We will resolve that.

THE COURT: If there's any problem, let me know at 1:30. All right. We'll stand in recess. All right. Miss Mazzola, 1:30.

(At 12:05 P.M., the noon recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)

Los Angeles, California; Tuesday, April 25, 1995 1:30 P.M.

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

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

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

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

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

THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The two items that, Mr. Neufeld, you requested, or the three items that are back, do you need any other time to set that up?

MR. NEUFELD: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, why don't you give your partner a hand here.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: I'm dangerous.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, also there were some legal issues as to matters that they would like to use during cross-examination, but perhaps bring up before the jury comes back.

THE COURT: Such as? Why don't you move that easel back.

MR. NEUFELD: Toward you, you mean?

THE COURT: Just move it back so when the jury comes in, they don't have to step over it. Thank you. All right. Let's proceed. Let's have the jurors, please.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can we bring up those issues, your Honor?

THE COURT: I haven't seen anything yet.

MR. GOLDBERG: I don't understand. Well, one of the issues is the Defense would like to use a demonstration video that the Prosecution created, which is a video that was done simultaneously to the demonstration boards of the blood collection. And I don't object to the use of the video portion of the tape, per say, although it is probably not relevant, but there is an audio portion of the tape that basically doesn't pertain to anything other than my own conversations with the cameraman and with one of the criminalists as to how best to create that evidence, how best to edit it, how best to present it to the jury, and we ended up never using it. Probably I should not have released those comments to the Defense on the ground that they are privileged work product, but I was confident that there was so little to them that I just gave them the entire tape and didn't realize until later that I shouldn't have done so.

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.

MR. GOLDBERG: But at any rate, I don't see any relevancy to them and I don't know why counsel would want to play those.

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, may I ask Miss Mazzola to please step out during this discussion?

THE COURT: Sure. How long is this videotape?

(Miss Mazzola exits the courtroom.)

MR. GOLDBERG: It is about--

MR. NEUFELD: Seven, eight minutes maybe.

THE COURT: Do you intend on having the audio portion with counsel's comments?

MR. NEUFELD: Absolutely, your Honor, because--they are not just counsel's comments, your Honor; they are counsel's instructions to the witness on what to do at certain points. And not only is counsel giving instructions on what to do, but counsel is actually conveying certain important messages of bias to the witness during the course of that videotape.

THE COURT: When do you plan on using the videotape?

MR. NEUFELD: Maybe--maybe in about 45 minutes.

THE COURT: Let's see the tape.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

(Brief pause.)

(At 1:35 P.M. a videotape was played.)

THE COURT: Turn the sound up.

(The videotape continues playing.)

(At 1:45 the tape concludes.)

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you, your Honor. I take it from what Mr. Goldberg said he is not objecting to the playing of the tape, he is objecting to the sound portion, so I will restrict my comment to the sound portion. Your Honor, the portion I believe Mr. Goldberg is concerned with and doesn't want to be played for the jury goes as follows, we made actually a transcript of the one small segment which we believe is certainly relevant and should be played to the jury. And although we are not opposed to playing the rest of the sound track, it goes like this: By Mr. Goldberg. "Is there any way we can get out that little part where she dropped some of the swatches? "Answer: I don't think I got it. "MR. GOLDBERG: Oh, you didn't?" Then by the camera operator: "But if it is on there, it is on there. "MR. GOLDBERG: No. I mean is there any way you can edit it out? "Camera: Of course. If it is on there, I will edit it out." By Mr. Goldberg. "But then will you have a gap? "Camera: No, it will be like two pieces of video cut together."

Clearly this is all going to this discussion what about to do with Miss Mazzola dropping the swatches going on on camera is going on in her presence. No question about that, although I will certainly ask the proper foundational questions when she testifies. It is our position, your Honor, that the Prosecution is sending a message to Miss Mazzola that they want to, in this entire evidence collection process, make it seem as simple as possible and no accidents can possibly occur, that as Miss Clark said in her opening statement, it is no different than wiping up a spill in the kitchen. That is exactly what they tied to do on direct examination as well of this witness and clearly the tape shows that it is more difficult, that things can go wrong.

In fact, your Honor, we would ask this witness whether--whether the reason that she said on the witness stand on direct examination that, yes, you can, I have dropped some swatches, but that doesn't matter, you just get rid of them, but denies having ever dropped a swatch with blood on it, is she was prepped in anticipation of the fact that this videotape would be played to the jury to admit that, yes, I do drop swatches sometimes because the jury was going to see that, but she didn't have to admit any of the other kind of mistakes that can occur because at least as to those mistakes we don't have a videotape record of it. So I would be permitted to ask her these questions to show her bias and to show her state of mind. And the fact of the matter is that she what is sitting there, she heard all this said by Mr. Goldberg, he is the Prosecutor, and it is to influence her, the way she deals with the whole issue of making mistakes at an actual crime scene, and that is why it is admissible. One second.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I guess I'm not going to be winning the award at the Cannes Film Festival this year.

THE COURT: I would say Morris Dees is not shaking in his boots.

MR. GOLDBERG: It is kind of like watching ice cream melt, and I don't mean Haagen Das. And your Honor, what I've heard from the Defense here is really absurd and I think it is fairly clear what they are trying to do, and it should not be permitted, and what we have here is where the People are creating a piece of demonstrative evidence. And that is all that this is. It is clear from all of my comments that that is going on, including comments like "You don't need to collect more than one swatch because one is enough for them to get the general idea" or "Can you please turn this way so we can get a better shot of you filling out the card." We are entitled to create this piece of evidence and make it as perfect as we like. We are entitled, as I at one point thought of doing, adding graphics, adding sound, subtracting from the tape, adding to the tape. I could have scored it to the theme music of mission impossible if I had wanted to, which I actually thought of doing.

We are entitled to create this any way we want to and what counsel is really trying to do is he is trying to suggest that there is something wrong or untoward that has gone on here in terms of the creation of this documentary piece of evidence. The distinction is that we are not documenting an event. We are not trying to record a historical event. What we are trying to illustrate--

THE COURT: Isn't the issue, though, work product and demonstration of demonstrative evidence? Isn't that the issue?

MR. GOLDBERG: I realize this, your Honor, and it is work product and I believed this was the kind of thing that Defense would not try to use that, there was no reason to redact it out, and then subsequently changed my mind after the tape had already been released to them. And in a convoluted series of facts that we need not to get into, I don't think it is relevant, I'm sure Mr. Neufeld would agree, and I probably should have, and it is my work product and my discussion and creation of an exhibit. And more importantly it is not relevant. I point out what we have in a chronology is where we have a situation that I talked about doing something that I'm entirely within my rights to do, but did not do, and maintained the evidence unedited and then turned it over unedited to the Defense. So the idea that they would come forward and try to argue that there is some impropriety where we have a situation where I am discussing doing something that I am entitled to do that I didn't do, and the only reason they know I even discussed it is because I turned it over for them and maintained it, and for them now to try to introduce this into this case as an issue is grossly improper and should not be allowed and it doesn't have any relevance whatsoever.

THE COURT: Briefly.

MR. NEUFELD: Fine. Two things, your Honor. Just so the record at least on how this tape is received is clear, in fact--

THE COURT: Counsel, I don't care how you got it. You got it.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

THE COURT: The issue is how you get over the work product problem and how do you get over a 352 objection.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, it is not work product, your Honor, because what we are introducing it for is simply his statements in the presence of this witness to influence her testimony on the witness stand. And any statements that a lawyer makes in the presence of a witness, which has the effect of influencing her testimony, is admissible because it goes to her bias. That is how it comes in. And even if it wasn't his intent, even if it wasn't his deliberate intent to influence her testimony, it has that effect and we are allowed to argue that it has this effect to this jury. That is an inference that they are permitted to draw. Clearly the statements were made in her presence. That is the point. That is not work product. And in terms of 352, I don't see that as a big problem here, your Honor, because certainly it has probative value as to whether or not he said in her presence, you know, let's try and get rid of the portion where you are making this mistake, where you are dropping these swatches. That is a very important message being conveyed to her that the Prosecution in this case wants to make this whole procedure look as simple as possible and wants to cover up any kind of mistakes that can and do happen.

THE COURT: Which is why they gave you the tape with her dropping the swatches.

MR. NEUFELD: They gave me the tape and they didn't even know it had the sound track on it. Initially I thought it was silent as well and he was going to edit out his comments, your Honor, and then we played it up and we found the volume was there. That is why. The reason he turned over the tape, your Honor, is because you ordered him to. You may recall we went into chambers and he said he had this tape and I laid a foundation with you and you said, "Mr. Goldberg, turn over this tape now."

THE COURT: Counsel, as I indicated to you, I'm not interested in how you got it. You got it.

MR. NEUFELD: I understand.

THE COURT: The issue is does the jury get to see it with the sound track? That is the issue.

MR. NEUFELD: I understand that, your Honor. If he wants to, I can agree to eliminate the other comments on the tape, but I believe that comment, which is all of--the whole discussion lasts about one minute, and I think I read to you the text of it into the record, is certainly probative, relevant evidence for this witness to show that her testimony here has been influenced by bias and the bias was generated in part by the statements made by Mr. Goldberg in her presence that we don't want to show this jury instances where swatches get dropped. That is what it goes to. It goes to her state of mind and that is not work product privilege at all.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. All right. The objection will be sustained as work product. Also under 352, since the probative value of the evidence is tangential at best and it is confusing, it is hard to hear as well. All right. Let's have the jury. Let's have Miss Mazzola.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I'm sorry, I know I shouldn't tempt fate here--

THE COURT: Why bother?

MR. GOLDBERG: Because there were certain misstatements that were made as to how the tapes were released.

THE COURT: Sit down, Mr. Goldberg. Let's have Miss Mazzola.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, you--

THE COURT: Let's have the jury, please.

MR. NEUFELD: Can I make one other comment on the record, your Honor?

THE COURT: No. Thank you.

(Brief pause.)

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

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect we have now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

Andrea Mazzola, the witness on the stand at the time of the noon recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

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

MS. MAZZOLA: Good afternoon, your Honor.

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

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld, which chart do you have there?

MR. NEUFELD: Prosecution exhibit 177-A.

THE COURT: 177-A. Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. NEUFELD

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, have you seen this exhibit before called "LAPD evidence disposition summary"?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I have.

MR. NEUFELD: And have you seen the other LAPD evidence disposition summary which is marked Prosecution exhibit 177-C?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I have.

MR. NEUFELD: And did you play some role in the creation of these exhibits?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Did they ask for your input when they generated these exhibits?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Did they ask you whether or not the information on the exhibits was correct after they were created?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Well, Miss Mazzola, let me ask you a question: You said before that when you collected item 7, the blood drop on the Rockingham driveway--

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: --you said Dennis Fung wasn't even there to observe; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you collected that one yourself, didn't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, this chart here, this LAPD evidence disposition summary, says for item no. 7 "Collected," it says, "Fung and Mazzola, 6/13/94." Do you see that? If you want to step down, please do.

MS. MAZZOLA: I have seen it when you put it up.

MR. NEUFELD: That is not correct? You are the person who collected item number--

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: It is vague as to what he means by "Collect."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: Isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: I physically swatched it, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: In fact, Miss Mazzola, on August 23rd when you were asked questions about what you collected, you understood the word "Collect" to mean that you physically swatched and collected those swatches; isn't that right?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And that is your--you understood the meaning--I'm sorry. Withdrawn. You understood the word "Collect" to mean that on August 23rd, and that is the normal way that you use the word "Collect"; is it not?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So again, Miss Mazzola, on this Prosecution exhibit where it says "No. 7," "Item no. 7 Fung and Mazzola collected by," that is not correct? It was only collected by you, Miss Mazzola; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was collected by me, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, let me show you the other LAPD evidence summary board which is 177-C. Do you remember the drops along the pathway at Bundy?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: That would be items 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Let me double-check on that.

(Brief pause.)

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you personally collected item 47, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Let's see. 47 was--

MR. NEUFELD: One moment.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Isn't that correct, ma'am, you personally collected item 47?

MS. MAZZOLA: I did. Mr. Fung managed to get a little more blood off of that one spot, but I collected the majority of it.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, what--can I see what you are looking at now to refresh your recollection?

MS. MAZZOLA: I'm just looking at this, because this is the one that was at the corner of the house, the first drop on the trail.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Miss Mazzola, in the note that you are looking at right now to refresh your recollection, did you discuss with Dennis Fung, sometime after you testified on August 23rd, which items you personally collected? Was there a discussion?

MS. MAZZOLA: There was a discussion, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And he also told you his recollection as to which items he thought he personally participated in collecting; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And after that discussion you made certain entries in your field notes next to each one of the items, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And the entries you made would reflect whether it was an item that you personally collected alone or whether it was one that you collected with Mr. Fung or whether it was an item that Mr. Fung collected; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Those entries at the time were meant to reflect that, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And is that the only discussion you've had with Dennis Fung about who collected what in this case?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, based on your independent recollection, was there another meeting besides this one meeting with him that you have already testified to that occurred after August 23rd?

MS. MAZZOLA: I had seen Mr. Fung since then. I don't remember exactly what we talked about.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, did you talk about--excuse me. Did you talk about who collected what in this case on those other occasions?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember.

MR. NEUFELD: But you do recall one specific meeting where that was the main subject discussed?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: That was at a meeting you had with him shortly after you testified or sometime after you testified on August 23rd; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And as a result of that meeting you made certain entries you said on your field notes, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And for some of the items that were collected you made entries indicating that items collected by both Fung and Mazzola, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And when it was an item that you believe was collected by both Fung and Mazzola, would you write in the column that said "By f/m," f for Fung and m for Mazzola?

MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)

MR. NEUFELD: Would you do that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it a fact, ma'am, with respect to item 47, even after the meeting you had with Dennis Fung, you indicated that 47 was collected only by Mazzola?

MS. MAZZOLA: At the time I thought that was correct, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And you thought that was correct when you testified on August 23rd also, didn't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And with respect to item 48, ma'am, you were the only person who collected that item, too, weren't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And with respect to item 49, ma'am, you were the only person who collected that as well, weren't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: There was one other drop on the trail that Mr. Fung helped with. I don't remember which one it was.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, when you met with Dennis Fung at this discussion that you had after August 23rd and you reviewed with him who collected what, didn't you put down that you, only you, Mazzola, collected item 49?

MS. MAZZOLA: At the time I did, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And Miss Mazzola, as respect to item no. 50, weren't you the only person who collected that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Let me check my sketch.

(Brief pause.)

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And Miss Mazzola, as to item 52, you were the only person who collected that, too, weren't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: In fact, Mr. Fung wasn't even observing you collect item 52, was he?

MS. MAZZOLA: Item 52? No, Mr. Fung was not there.

MR. NEUFELD: So the Prosecutor's diagram where it says, for instance, on item 52 "Collected by Fung and Mazzola," that is incorrect, isn't it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: Conclusion.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: As it stands there, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: That is incorrect?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And as to item 50, Miss Mazzola, where the Prosecutor's exhibit says, "Item 50 collected by Fung and Mazzola," that, too, is incorrect, isn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And with respect to item 48, Miss Mazzola, where it says, "Collected by Fung and Mazzola," that, too, is incorrect in the Prosecution's exhibit, isn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: That one I don't know about. As I said before, there is one stain on the path that Mr. Fung helped with. I don't remember exactly which one.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, there is one stain--

THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Let her finish the answer.

MR. NEUFELD: If there is one stain that you say that you have a recollection that he helped you collect, then as to the other stains on that walkway where it says, "Fung and Mazzola" collecting it, as to other stains, that would all be incorrect; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: No. 47 he helped with and there is one other that he helped with on this path.

MR. NEUFELD: So as to the other three, Miss Mazzola, this board would be incorrect; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And Miss Mazzola, both on August 23rd and at your discussion with Dennis Fung where you reviewed who collected what, at those two times it was your then recollection that you and you alone collected 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: At the griffin hearing that was my belief.

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

THE COURT: It has.

MR. NEUFELD: It is the last question on this, your Honor.

THE COURT: She has answered the question.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said.

THE COURT: She has answered the question.

MR. NEUFELD: She started to answer half of it. She said at the Griffin hearing.

THE COURT: She has answered the question yes. Thank you.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: I will move this out of the way.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: There is another board, your Honor. It is not the same one.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Take your time.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Which board is this, Mr. Scheck?

MR. NEUFELD: Prosecution exhibit 120-K--I'm sorry. That is individual exhibit--120.

THE COURT: 120. Thank you. Proceed.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, the first drop that you collected after you collected the stain on the Bronco door handle, was item no. 4; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And item no. 4 is the one that is actually in the street near the curb?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Behind the Bronco?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And then item--I'm sorry. Am I blocking? All right. And item no. 5 was the second stain you collected; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I believe it was.

MR. NEUFELD: And item no. 5 is a little red stain in the driveway outside the actual gate, though; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And ma'am, the distance from item 4 to item 5 is approximately twelve feet; is it not?

MS. MAZZOLA: I would--

MR. NEUFELD: As the crow flies?

MS. MAZZOLA: I wouldn't want to hazard a guess.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, can--do you have any notes indicating the actual locations of each of these items?

MS. MAZZOLA: We have the measurements, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Could you look at those measurement--I'm sorry. If you look at those measurements would you be able to give an approximate estimate as to the distance between stain no. 4 and stain no. 5?

MS. MAZZOLA: Let's see.

(Brief pause.)

MS. MAZZOLA: Maybe approximately six feet or so between them.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And the next blood drop stain that you collected is item no. 7--I'm sorry, item number 6; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "You."

MR. NEUFELD: On August 23rd, when you testified that you personally had collected the drops at the beginning of the walkway--of the driveway leading up to the house, ma'am, was one of the drops collected that day item no. 6?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that is unintelligible.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: Was item no. 6 one of the drops collected that day, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it was one of the drops collected that day.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And what is the approximate distance from item no. 5 to item no. 6?

MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)

MR. NEUFELD: It is about eight feet, isn't it, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yeah, it is approximately eight feet.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And umm, from blood drop no. 6--where is blood drop no. 7, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: Blood drop no. 7 is up near the front patio area.

MR. NEUFELD: Could you just for one moment please come down and point to it on the diagram.

MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.)

MR. NEUFELD: You know what, get the pointer out, please.

MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.)

MR. NEUFELD: Could you move to the side so they can see.

MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.) No. 7 is right here, (Indicating).

MR. NEUFELD: Could you now point to the--could you point to the red dot on the diagram?

MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.)

MR. NEUFELD: Could you show us where no. 8 is?

MS. MAZZOLA: Eight 8 right here, (Indicating).

MR. NEUFELD: Could you please show us where 4, 5 and 6 are?

MS. MAZZOLA: Okay. 4--

MR. NEUFELD: Could you move out of the way? You are obstructing the view.

MR. NEUFELD: Where is 5, please?

MS. MAZZOLA: 5--5 would be right here.

MR. NEUFELD: Let the record indicate that the witness is pointing to what has been previously identified as a red circle indicating item 5.

MR. NEUFELD: Would you tell us where item 6 is on the diagram?

MS. MAZZOLA: 6 I believe is here, (Indicating).

MR. NEUFELD: Indicating the higher up of two red dots just inside the gate.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Could you now also please indicate the location of stains a, b and c.

MS. MAZZOLA: A would be here, (Indicating).

MR. NEUFELD: Indicating the lower of the two drops that are immediately next to each other just inside the gate?

MS. MAZZOLA: B is here, (Indicating).

MR. NEUFELD: Indicating a red drop just to the left of the "D" in the word "Driveway."

MS. MAZZOLA: And c up here, (Indicating).

MR. NEUFELD: Indicating a red circle above--above the garage--I'm sorry, midway between the--not quite midway between the garage and the entranceway.

MR. NEUFELD: Is that a fair statement?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yeah. A little closer to the garage.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Thank you. You can sit down.

MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.)

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, the distance from item no. 6 that you collected to item no. 7, approximately how far is that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Let's see. Okay. On that we changed our point of reference for the measurements. As we got up near the garage, we took our measurements off the garage.

MR. NEUFELD: Would it be fair to say, ma'am, that the approximate distance between stain 6 and stain 7 is at least a hundred feet or thereabouts?

MS. MAZZOLA: I wouldn't even know. I wouldn't have--I would have no idea.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, a, b and c you said were never collected; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Was that Fung's decision not to collect them, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And did Dennis Fung say to you that the collection of three more stains would overtax the laboratory?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Did he say it would interfere with the analysis of other evidence?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, you said that the reason a, b and c were uncollected is because you were only interested in collecting what you termed representative stains; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, at Bundy, ma'am, every drop along that walkway was collected, wasn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: You didn't leave out any drops simply because you deemed them representative, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Or I'm sorry, because you didn't deem them relevant, did you?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is vague as to which drops.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. At Bundy there were five drops, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52 that you observed on June 13th, right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you collected them all?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: There were no other drops along that same walkway that you didn't--that you saw but didn't collect; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And I believe you said on direct examination that you would collect the first few stains and then the last few stains and it wouldn't be necessary to collect the middle stains as long as they went in the same direction; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, do you know what direction those drops were going in when you collected them on June 13th?

MS. MAZZOLA: There really were not any drops that were way out of line. They were following more or less a pathway.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, on June 13th did you know whether or not these drops indicated that the person was walking from the Bronco to the house or from the house to the Bronco?

MS. MAZZOLA: I personally did not, no.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, did Mr. Fung in your presence say that these drops have a direction indicating that the person is walking from the Bronco to the house, as opposed from the house to the Bronco?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I do not believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: So you did not know on June 13th which direction these drops were going in, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, other than items a, b and c which were photographed but not collected, was there anything else worth documenting with a photograph on the driveway that was photographed?

MS. MAZZOLA: I do not believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: That was it, just the--just those drops, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 and a, b and c; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not sure what else the photographer took pictures of.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, would you agree that the blood drop that you have identified as no. 5--I'm sorry--as no. 6, as a and as b are all to the left side of the driveway as you walk in toward the house? Is that a fair statement?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, Detective Vannatter testified that it was his theory that Mr. Simpson had returned home the night of the 13th or the 12th, I'm sorry, and opened the gate and walked directly along the south side of this driveway toward the location where the glove was recovered?

MR. GOLDBERG: This is an improper question.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm laying a foundation, your Honor. It is a hypothetical.

THE COURT: All right. Assume that.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

MR. NEUFELD: First of all, would you agree that the distance from the Rockingham gate to the location where the glove was collected is approximately 250 feet?

MS. MAZZOLA: I have no idea how--what the distance is.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Let me show you an item that has already been admitted.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

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

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: I'm going to show you what has been previously admitted as exhibit 1072 which is a surveyor's drawing of Mr. Simpson's home and property. Do you see that? Have you had a chance to look at it?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, the only blood stain that is on the south side of the driveway would be stain a; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)

MR. NEUFELD: Which wasn't collected by you?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree that the distance from stain a to the location where the glove was collected is a distance of approximately 250 feet?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, no foundation that she knows.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, do you know where the glove was collected, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: I know the area, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And you had seen it?

MS. MAZZOLA: I had not seen the glove before it was collected.

MR. NEUFELD: But you were shown the place where it had been collected by Mr. Fung?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And by looking at this surveyor's drawing of Mr. Simpson's house and property, can you see the approximate location where it was, approximately?

MS. MAZZOLA: Approximately, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Now, beginning at the curb and going to that location, approximately how many feet is that?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation that she knows.

THE COURT: Looking at that can you tell what the distance is?

MS. MAZZOLA: The approximate distance.

THE COURT: All right. What is the approximate distance?

MS. MAZZOLA: It is approximately 250 feet from the curb.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And now, instead of the curb, if we come into the location of stain a, which is the one stain that is on the south side of the driveway, approximately how far is stain a from the curb, approximately?

MS. MAZZOLA: From the curb?

MR. NEUFELD: Yes.

MS. MAZZOLA: Let me check.

(Brief pause.)

MS. MAZZOLA: It is approximately twenty feet or so.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. So would it be fair to say that the distance from stain a to the glove is approximately 230 feet?

MS. MAZZOLA: Approximately, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true that when you were at Rockingham on the 13th you examined the walkway for evidence, the walkway leading up to the garage?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. Mr. Fung and myself looked at the driveway.

MR. NEUFELD: And you were examining the driveway for blood evidence, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And then you also examined the walkway on the south side of the house heading out to where the glove was recovered, did you not?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it a fact that on that walkway, all the way to where the glove was recovered, you never saw any drop of blood on the sidewalk?

MS. MAZZOLA: Personally, no.

MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true, ma'am, that the wall along the south side of the house is made of stucco?

MS. MAZZOLA: Of the wall of the house, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you examined that wall on the 13th of June, did you not?

MS. MAZZOLA: I personally did not.

MR. NEUFELD: You personally made no examination of the wall for trace or blood evidence at all?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: But as you sit here today, ma'am, are you aware of the fact that no blood stain was ever found anywhere on that stucco wall?

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: To your knowledge has any blood stain been recovered from that stucco wall?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay; speculation, conclusion.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Personally I have no knowledge.

THE COURT: Do you want to exhibit that to the jurors at the end just to make sure they saw all the pertinent information.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, your Honor?

THE COURT: Do you want to exhibit that to juror no. 1492 just to make sure they saw all the pertinent information.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: One second.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, the last two stains that you swatched and collected that morning were no. 7 and 8, right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And as to no. 7 and 8, did you keep swatching those two drops until you had collected the entire blood stain?

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

MR. NEUFELD: Well, was it your standard procedure to do that?

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

MR. NEUFELD: Oh, Okay. And to the best of your recollection did you get up as much of the stain that was visible as you possibly could?

MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)

MR. NEUFELD: As to item 7 and item 8?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I think I got up as much as I could.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, back on June 13th, 1994, were you aware that the Los Angeles Police Department had recently begun a DNA testing program?

MS. MAZZOLA: I know that they were getting into DNA.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you aware that the type of DNA testing that they were going to be doing or were doing in-house was called PCR typing?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: You said I think on direct examination that you took a course in genetics in college?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Took a course in molecular biology in college?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not molecular biology; microbiology.

MR. NEUFELD: In the course of genetics did they teach you about DNA?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: As of June 13th, had you been taught the meaning of DNA amplification?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Had you been taught, either prior to or up to June 13th, that given the exquisite sensitivity of DNA it is essential that safeguards be taken to avoid the risk of contaminating evidence collected?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes a fact not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained. Why don't you rephrase it.

MR. NEUFELD: Sure.

MR. NEUFELD: I think you said on direct examination that you are personally familiar with the issues of contamination and cross-contamination; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you ever taught at the LAPD that it is essential to take proper safeguards to avoid the risk of contaminating evidence for later DNA typing?

MS. MAZZOLA: The safeguards that we take on all evidence, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you ever taught any special safeguards for the particular problems which can arise for DNA testing?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it still assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: No, I don't believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: Have you ever heard the expression referring to PCR/dna typing as "Exquisite sensitivity"? Have you ever heard that expression "Exquisite sensitivity" used in connection with DNA?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not since you just mentioned it.

MR. NEUFELD: Had you been taught at the LAPD mini academy that in the absence of proper safeguards a minute biological specimen, such as a speck of wet blood or a fleck of dry blood can be transferred accidentally by criminalists from one area of a crime scene to another?

MR. GOLDBERG: Still assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: I think subject to connection, your Honor. I'm asking has she been taught it.

THE COURT: Sustained.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Well, has anyone at SID ever told you that in the absence of proper safeguards a minute biological specimen, such as a speck of wet blood or a fleck of dry blood, can be transferred accidentally by a criminalist from one area of a crime scene to another?

MR. GOLDBERG: Still assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained. Counsel, I assume that there will be other witnesses to this.

MR. NEUFELD: I believe you said, Miss Mazzola, that the only training you have received in collecting blood stains is for--is for serological testing in general and not for DNA testing in particular; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not in DNA particular, that's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Are there any written guidelines in the--that you have received from the LAPD dealing with any of the particular problems encountered with DNA evidence?

MS. MAZZOLA: No, I don't believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: Have you received any handouts from the LAPD regarding the negative effects that heat and humidity have on the reliability of blood stain evidence?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Have you been taught by members of the staff at the LAPD Scientific Investigation Division that heat and humidity have a negative effect on the reliability of blood stain evidence?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Not just for DNA, but for any type of serological testing?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question, counsel. It is an appropriate question if it is phrased appropriately.

MR. NEUFELD: Are you aware, to your knowledge, as you sit here today, as to whether heat and humidity can have negative effects on the reliability of blood stain evidence?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I know that it can affect them. I'm not sure to what extent.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you say you know that heat and humidity can affect the blood stains, have you at least been told that it can affect them adversely?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: When you say you are aware that heat and humidity can affect--can affect DNA--I'm sorry. Withdrawn. When say you are aware that heat and humidity can have an effect on blood stain evidence, what effect is it that you believe it will have?

MS. MAZZOLA: That it might have some effect on the testing, but I'm not sure to what extent or how it would be affected.

MR. NEUFELD: No one has told you how heat and humidity will affect blood stain evidence, only that it has an effect? Is that what you are saying, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: Well, I don't know personally how much it would degrade, if at all, and over what period of time.

MR. NEUFELD: Ah, okay, but as you sit here today, it is your understanding that the effect of heat and humidity are that it can degrade the blood stain evidence; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is one possibility.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, in this particular case you took wet blood swatches and you placed them in a clear plastic bag; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And then you fold over the top of the plastic bag so they don't fall out; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And sometimes these wet swatches that are in the plastic bag actually stick together, don't they?

MS. MAZZOLA: That happens.

MR. NEUFELD: Sometimes they even stick to the side of the plastic bag, don't they?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you aware that putting wet swatches in a plastic bag causes the swatches to retain moisture?

MS. MAZZOLA: I was not told that.

MR. NEUFELD: But you knew that anyway, didn't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: I mean, you know that just from your everyday experiences, that if you take a wet item and if you put it in a plastic bag and you close the top of the plastic bag, it is going to still be real moist in there, isn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: It will stay moist, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: As opposed to if you take the item out of the plastic bag and let it dry in the air it will dry much faster, won't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And did you know, prior to taking the witness stand today, that by keeping the swatches moist in that plastic bag that that can--I'm sorry. That that can promote the growth of bacteria on those swatches? Did you know that?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence as phrased.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: No, not really.

MR. NEUFELD: Have you ever had the common everyday experience of putting a wet item, such as a wet bathing suit or something, in a plastic bag and then taking it out hours later and it smells moldy? Has that ever happened to you?

MS. MAZZOLA: I would say it smells moldy.

MR. NEUFELD: have you ever had the experience where you have kept any wet item in a plastic bag and taken it out many hours later and it smells moldy?

MR. GOLDBERG: Objection under 352.

THE COURT: Overruled, but if it is a common experience, I don't think we need to go into it in any detail.

MR. NEUFELD: We are not.

MS. MAZZOLA: There was an odor, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And as you sit here today, based on your experience in genetics, microbiology, your education in college, your education at the LAPD mini academy, are you aware that bacteria eats up pieces of DNA?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, based on your education and your training, do you have any knowledge about what effect bacteria has on DNA?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: You have never been taught anything about what effect bacteria has on DNA?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: You said that you have some knowledge of the effects of humidity and moisture on a swatch that is kept in a sealed plastic bag. Do you have any awareness of the effect of heat on a wet swatch in a sealed plastic bag?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not personal knowledge, no.

MR. NEUFELD: What kind of knowledge do you have, if it is not personal knowledge about this?

MS. MAZZOLA: Just from what I have been told. I have not seen the effects personally.

MR. NEUFELD: You have been told by people at SID, at LAPD?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And have you been told by people at LAPD that just like moisture, heat also can promote bacterial growth?

MS. MAZZOLA: It is possible, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And have you been told by people at LAPD--by the way, did you have these conversations with people at LAPD prior to June 13th, 1994, or since June 13th, 1994?

MS. MAZZOLA: I can't remember exactly when it was.

MR. NEUFELD: Do you remember where it was?

MS. MAZZOLA: At work.

MR. NEUFELD: Was it just a casual conversation or was it one of the lectures at the mini academy?

MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not really sure.

MR. NEUFELD: And did any of these people, who you had these discussions with at work, talk to you about the combined effects of heat and humidity on a wet blood swatch kept in a sealed plastic bag?

MS. MAZZOLA: No, I don't believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: well, did those people tell you, I think you said a moment ago, that heat can cause bacteria to develop? Isn't that right?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: It is a possibility that it could occur.

MR. NEUFELD: And that humidity, the moisture of the swatch in the sealed plastic bag can also possibly cause bacteria to develop as well? You were told that by these people at LAPD; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: So would it be fair to say that if you have both heat and the moisture that together they will both possibly create or cause bacteria to develop on those swatches?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for an expert opinion.

THE COURT: Sustained. It is beyond the scope of expertise here.

MR. NEUFELD: Have you been taught to follow the Los Angeles Police Department manual?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: We have looked at the LAPD manual.

MR. NEUFELD: And have you been taught to apply the booking directions contained in the LAPD manual?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe so.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, have you been taught at the LAPD Scientific Investigation Division that with respect to preserving wet stains you should do the following: "Items containing wet blood, semen or chemical stains shall be permitted to dry at room temperature before packaging. Plastic containers or plastic wrap shall not be used as a packaging material?" Were you taught that at LAPD?

MS. MAZZOLA: For final booking, yes, that is entirely correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, ma'am, were you given particular pages of the LAPD manual to know for booking evidence?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you told by anybody at SID that the LAPD manual is simply a guideline and not rules which you are required to follow?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe I heard it was to be used as a guideline.

MR. NEUFELD: And who told you that it was a guideline, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember offhand.

MR. NEUFELD: Was it one of your supervisors at the mini academy?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember.

MR. NEUFELD: One moment, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Are you aware of the fact, Miss Mazzola, that the Los Angeles Police Department manual states: "That all employees of the department are to conform with the rules and provisions herein contained"? Are you aware of that?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes fact not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, ma'am, that that statement from the Los Angeles Police Department manual declares that this manual sets directions for you and they are not simply guidelines, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Umm--

MR. NEUFELD: Would you like me to show you the actual section of the manual?

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. We have gone through this manual in front of this jury for approximately 45 minutes with another witness. You've already established what was done in this case. You've established what the manual says.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, you stated that your understanding of the section in the LAPD manual on preserving wet stains is only instructions for final packaging, not temporary packaging; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Is there any place in the actual rule listed in the LAPD manual that creates that exemption for temporary packaging?

MS. MAZZOLA: I--

MR. NEUFELD: Do you see that anywhere in the rules?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know. I haven't read it.

MR. NEUFELD: You have never read the LAPD manual section on how to preserve wet stains?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Is that what you are saying?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Have any of your instructors at the LAPD ever read to you the section from the Los Angeles Police Department manual on how to preserve wet stains at a crime scene?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not from the manual, no, I don't believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: No one in the whole year and a half that you have been there has ever read that to you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not from the manual.

MR. NEUFELD: You have never read it yourself?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, section 510.12 of the Los Angeles Police Department manual states, A: "Analyzed evidence requiring freezer storage shall be booked at Central Property Division no later than six hours after it is obtained." During the time that you have been at the Los Angeles Police Department have you ever personally read that section of the LAPD manual?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: During the year and a half that you have been with the Los Angeles Police Department has anybody at the LAPD SID mini academy ever read to you this particular section of the Los Angeles Police Department manual?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, ma'am, that from the sentence I read to you about this manual, that the manual is not to be regarded as merely a guideline?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, ma'am, that neither you nor Mr. Fung booked any of the evidence that needed to be frozen within six hours after it was obtained?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And Miss Mazzola--

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

MR. GOLDBERG: I think it is 163-H.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, I show you what has already been previously introduced as Prosecution exhibit 163-H which are three analyzed evidence envelopes. Now, when you obtained a reference sample of fresh blood, what color envelope is it to be stored in?

MS. MAZZOLA: I know in toxicology we receive our blood sample in the gray envelope.

MR. NEUFELD: And since you have been--I'm sorry. That is your only experience with--with receiving blood vials, would be in toxicology?

MS. MAZZOLA: Except for the occasion in this case which I had limited involvement with the blood.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And in those cases where you receive a fresh--a fresh vial of blood, it is in the gray envelope; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's right.

MR. NEUFELD: And on the gray envelope under the word "Analyzed evidence," would you please tell the jury what it says.

MS. MAZZOLA: "To be refrigerated."

MR. NEUFELD: And that is an instruction to the person that holds that gray envelope that the evidence is to be refrigerated, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Have you ever been told by anyone, since you have been working at the Los Angeles Police Department SID, that it is perfectly okay, instead of refrigerating a blood vial, to leave it on a counter overnight in a trash bag? Has anyone ever told you that?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: No, I don't believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: Did anyone ever teach you at what rate blood breaks down and degrades?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Did anyone at SID mini academy ever teach you that it is okay to let wet blood stains remain in a sealed plastic bag in the rear of a truck in the middle of June for seven hours?

MS. MAZZOLA: That was never brought up.

MR. NEUFELD: It was never brought up at the mini academy?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, you say that--I'm sorry. Were you taught that it is okay to use a plastic bag for short-term packaging?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And that is something you learned at the mini academy?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: What did your instructors mean by "Short-term," ma'am? Did they say?

MS. MAZZOLA: Until the sample could be brought back to the laboratory for air drying.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, they told you that final packaging should not be in plastic bags, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Did they tell you the reason they shouldn't be in plastic bags?

MS. MAZZOLA: Because they were to be frozen.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, did they tell you that if they were stored in a plastic bag long-term that the samples could degrade?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe they mentioned that.

MR. NEUFELD: They never explained to you what effects packaging in plastic bags would have on the evidence?

MS. MAZZOLA: We were just told final packaging was not to be in plastic.

MR. NEUFELD: They just told you how to do things; they never told you why? Is that your testimony?

MS. MAZZOLA: If it was important to tell us why, they would.

MR. NEUFELD: You are assuming that if it was important to tell you why, they would?

MR. GOLDBERG: This is argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Did they ever tell you that if you were going to be out in a truck for more than a half hour or an hour, you shouldn't wait and keep them in plastic bags, instead you should take them out of plastic bags?

MS. MAZZOLA: They never mentioned that, no.

MR. NEUFELD: Did they ever tell you that if it was two or three hours that that is too long?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Did they ever tell you that if it was fifteen hours that that is too long?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe they put a time limit.

MR. NEUFELD: Oh, they just said when you get back to the laboratory and that is it?

MS. MAZZOLA: As soon as was feasibly possible.

MR. NEUFELD: But they didn't tell you after so many hours that the evidence can begin to degrade?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you ever taught, ma'am, that if the DNA deteriorates in the blood swatch--I'm sorry. Were you ever taught that if the DNA deteriorates in the blood swatch and is then cross-contaminated with other DNA that it makes it more difficult to identify the cross-contamination.

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Have you been taught about the effects of cross-contamination?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Didn't you say on direct examination that you are aware of the problems of contamination and cross-contamination, Miss Mazzola?

MS. MAZZOLA: I am aware of the problems, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Is one of the problems contamination and cross-contamination, that if a sample is degraded and then is subsequently contaminated by an outside contaminant, that if you then do a test it will be difficult to know whether you are identifying the contaminant or the degraded specimen?

MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope of her expertise.

THE COURT: Sustained. We have already broached this topic. I assume there will be other witnesses to this issue.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Now--

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, what board is that?

MR. SCHECK: This is exhibit no. 162.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. SCHECK: "Collecting the stain demonstration."

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, you can't see the board from where you are?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Could you step down for one second and take a look at it and then you can take your seat again?

THE COURT: Why don't you take the long pointer with you.

MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, may we just approach for one moment?

THE COURT: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: I just wanted to--

THE COURT: Proceed. Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: Do you recognize the photographs contained on this board?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And in fact that is you in the photographs; is it not?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is.

MR. NEUFELD: And are these a series of still photographs which you are attempting to capture different aspects of the collection process?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: When were these photographs taken, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know the exact date.

MR. NEUFELD: What month?

MS. MAZZOLA: To tell you the truth, I don't know.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, is there a time when you were taken out by the Prosecutors in this case and asked to do a demonstration?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And was a Prosecutor present?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Mr. Goldberg?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it was.

MR. NEUFELD: And were other members of SID present as well?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Was a camera operator there as well?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Both a still camera operator and a video camera operator?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And have you ever been asked to do a demonstration of stain collection before on any other case?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Do you know approximately when it was that you were taken out to do this demonstration?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know the exact date.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm not asking the exact date.

MS. MAZZOLA: Or even a month.

MR. NEUFELD: Was it in February or March?

MS. MAZZOLA: All I remember is it being cold and it was raining. I don't--

MR. NEUFELD: You don't even know whether it is in 1995 or 1994?

THE COURT: She was trying to answer the question, Mr. Neufeld. You have interrupted her again.

MS. MAZZOLA: To be honest, I don't recall.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, aside from Mr. Goldberg being present and a still photographer and a video photographer, were there other people present?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And did they assist you or at least give you instructions during the course of this demonstration?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would object to that.

THE COURT: Vague.

MR. NEUFELD: Did--who else was present besides Mr. Goldberg and the camera operators?

MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung and Mr. Yamauchi.

MR. NEUFELD: And during the course of your doing this demonstration, having these photographs taken, did any--did either Mr. Yamauchi or Mr. Fung give you any direction?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is still vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Did Mr. Goldberg give you some instructions?

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

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, can we approach?

THE COURT: No. I think counsel understands the parameters here.

MR. NEUFELD: During the time that you were actually doing the demonstration, did Mr. Goldberg give you any direction as to what to do?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I still think it is vague and overbroad.

THE COURT: Overruled. Yes or no?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't understand what he means by "Instruction."

THE COURT: All right. Obviously this is a demonstration project, a piece of demonstrative evidence. I'm sure the jury understands it was created for this case. Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: And during the course of that did Mr. Goldberg give you specific instructions?

MS. MAZZOLA: As to what he wanted to depict, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And the sequence there when you should do certain thing?

MS. MAZZOLA: No, not the sequence.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Neufeld, would this be a good spot?

MR. NEUFELD: Sure.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our break for the afternoon. Please remember my admonitions to you. And we will reconvene in about fifteen minutes. All parties are ordered to return in fifteen.

(Recess.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. Let's have the jurors, please.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I just did want to clarify the scope of the Court's ruling because it seemed to me that we were treading into--

THE COURT: Treading?

MR. GOLDBERG: --dangerous waters there. But I would perhaps like the Court to clarify. It was my understanding that that entire area was foreclosed.

THE COURT: The objection was sustained. That's correct.

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

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect I think that we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Let me make sure. Yep. They're all here. All right. Andrea Mazzola is again on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Neufeld. Miss Mazzola, good afternoon again.

MS. MAZZOLA: Good afternoon.

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

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, again calling your attention to collecting a stain demonstration board with the still photographs on it, would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that the still photographs depicted--shown on this board, because they are still photographs, don't capture the continuous motion involved in the entire process of bloodstain collection?

MR. GOLDBERG: It's argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you first set out to do this demonstration for Mr. Goldberg and the Prosecution, did the Prosecution attempt to record this demonstration with a videotape as well?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And the video was shot at the same time that the still photographs were taken?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And it was your job during this videotape demonstration to act out the role of the criminalist collecting bloodstains?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: I mean this wasn't a real case, right?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Let me put this down now.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: And, Mr. Cochran, could you just flip that one around, please?

MR. COCHRAN: I will, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, SID has its own still photographers, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: and SID even has personnel who can take videotapes as well, right?

MR. GOLDBERG: It's irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: When this videotape was being made of you doing the demonstration, Miss Mazzola, was it your understanding that it was being produced for the purpose of showing it to the jury during the trial?

MR. GOLDBERG: It's irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: That was a possibility. I don't think they came right out and said it would be shown. It was a possibility.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola--

THE COURT: Wait. Let her finish the answer.

MR. NEUFELD: I thought she had. I apologize, Miss Mazzola. Go ahead.

MS. MAZZOLA: Be my guest.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, no. Is there more?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: What was your understanding--when you were engaged in this demonstration for the District Attorney and the videocamera is rolling, what is your understanding of what the purpose of this videotape was going to be?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: That it might be shown to the jury.

MR. GOLDBERG: And so while the District Attorney was producing this videotape, you tried to perform the task of criminalist to the best of your ability; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And knowing that the videotape was meant to represent the process of bloodstain collection as practiced by you, you also tried to make it as realistic as possible; did you not?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And is the tape--have you seen the videotape?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, while you were performing the demonstration--I'm sorry. Withdrawn. Did Mr. Goldberg ever tell you at any time either during the videotape or after the videotape that he was concerned that the videotape revealed some common accidents?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor--your Honor--

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GOLDBERG: May we approach?

THE COURT: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Did Mr. Goldberg or any Prosecutor ever tell you that it was important to convey to this jury how simple crime scene--I'm sorry--bloodstain collection is?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant. Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question. Was that ever said to you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not to show how simple it was. Just to show the procedure.

MR. NEUFELD: Did any Prosecutor ever express to you the importance of conveying to this jury that it's actually--that it is a simple procedure?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: It is a simple procedure, but that--

MR. NEUFELD: I didn't ask that.

MS. MAZZOLA: --that was not the main issue.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. I'm not asking what was the main issue. Was it a secondary issue that was conveyed to you by the Prosecutors, that they wanted to show or suggest to the jury--

THE COURT: Counsel, secondary, tertiary, I mean where are we going to go with this? Was it discussed by any Prosecutor with you to show that how simple a process it was?

MS. MAZZOLA: No, I don't believe so.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, during your prep sessions with Mr. Goldberg, did he tell you that there was a chance that this videotape might be played for the jury?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if he said there was a chance it might.

MR. NEUFELD: Are you aware of the fact that on the videotape you are depicted dropping swatches?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And were you at all concerned that the videotape depicted you dropping swatches?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: But you were aware of it?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And during your prep sessions with the Prosecutors in this case, didn't they tell you that on direct examination, you should admit that you dropped swatches occasionally in the event that this videotape is played to the jury? Didn't that come out?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it's compound.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. NEUFELD: In the prep sessions with Mr. Goldberg and the other Prosecutors, didn't they tell you that there was a chance that this videotape might get played for this jury by the Defense?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, there might a chance.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And you also knew that on this videotape, you are depicted dropping swatches; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And during the prep session with Mr. Goldberg and other Prosecutors, was it discussed that you should readily acknowledge occasionally dropping swatches at crime scenes?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if they brought it out in the prep sessions. It's--

MR. NEUFELD: Well, do you recall on direct examination Mr. Goldberg asking you about whether you dropped swatches?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I--

MR. GOLDBERG: It's irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, during those prep sessions, you said some of them lasted as much as five hours?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was not a continuous five hours.

MR. NEUFELD: I understand that. You said some of the sessions lasted overall as many as five hours at the Prosecutor's office; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: I was at the Prosecutor's office for upwards of five hours, but not talking to them the entire time.

MR. NEUFELD: On different days?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. NEUFELD: And on some of those days, they would ask you questions that they intended to ask you once you took the witness stand; did they not?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Well, was one of the questions that you discussed during those prep sessions a question involving you dropping swatches during a crime scene collection?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if that was during one of the prep sessions.

MR. NEUFELD: Are you saying that the very first time you ever heard that question asked was when you took the witness stand here? A I believe it was mentioned when we were taking the photographs for the collection demonstration.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. At this time, your Honor, I would like to play the videotape.

THE COURT: All right. Let's mark it.

MR. NEUFELD: What's next in order?

THE COURT: 1117.

(Deft's 1117 for id = videotape)

THE COURT: Proceed.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I've never done this before in front of the jury. So there may be a couple of times where I ask to go back and slow it down and please indulge me a little bit.

THE COURT: Well, you've seen your colleagues.

MR. NEUFELD: Exactly. All right.

(At 3:29 P.M., People's exhibit 1117, a videotape, was played.)

MR. NEUFELD: Stop it a second.

MR. NEUFELD: By the way, did you notice the date at the beginning of this?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: It says 4-4-95. Does that refresh your recollection as to when this videotape was made?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not really.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Okay. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Do me a favor. I'm sorry, your Honor. Could you just go back to the beginning one more time? Can you stop there a minute?

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, is that your--you're wearing leather gloves, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And it's your right hand that's now resting on the ground, isn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: Can you just back up a few frames? That's good. Thank you.

MR. NEUFELD: Is that your right hand that's resting on the ground?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Would it be fair to say that the ground there outside on the street is dirty?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

THE COURT: You want to describe--unfortunately, Mr. Neufeld, since we don't have a real-time counter and if you're going to isolate particular items, you're going to need to describe them, either print them or describe them.

MR. NEUFELD: This will be 1117-A.

(Deft's 1117-A for id = printout)

MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, just before this shot where you put the right hand down on the dirty ground, did you clean the tweezers?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, can you continue?

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola--

MR. NEUFELD: Stop again.

MR. NEUFELD: --did you just take the tweezers and put them--and move them from the left hand and transfer them to the right hand?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And that's the right hand that you just had put down on the dirty ground; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. One moment.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Continue.

MR. NEUFELD: And are you now pouring swatches out onto the cap?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Freeze there for a second. Could you just go back about 10 frames or five seconds? Right there.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, at that particular moment, Miss Mazzola, was a swatch about to fall out of the cap and you prevented it from falling out by catching it or bringing your right pinkie into contact with that cap?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know. If one was going to fall out, I would just let it fall.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, can you back up a second? All right. Little bit more. Okay. Would you show that little sequence in show motion, please? And just keeping going down then.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, at that point, didn't you--

MR. NEUFELD: Stop there for a second.

MR. NEUFELD: Didn't you just bring your hand down to that cap because a swatch was about to fall out off the cap; and it didn't, you saved it?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe so because it appears that I'm putting the cap back on the bottle; and if a swatch was in there, I wouldn't turn the cap over because the swatch would fall out anyway.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, you were about to put the cap down at that point, right?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know.

MR. NEUFELD: And there were swatches in the cap?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know how many swatches were in the cap.

MR. NEUFELD: Can you just back it up five seconds? Let us see this one more time, regular speed. Back, back, back, back a little more. Okay. Now start it.

MR. NEUFELD: Didn't you just see you do something with your pinkie, Miss Mazzola, to try to catch something on that cap?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if I was trying to catch something on the cap or what.

MR. NEUFELD: But you could have been; is that correct, Miss Mazzola?

MS. MAZZOLA: It's a possibility.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And the same hand that you're using to catch that swatch at that point, if that's what you could have been doing, is the same right hand that you had just put down on the dirty ground; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Continue.

MR. NEUFELD: What you're doing now is, you're making the control swatch?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Item no. 5?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, on the dirty pavement outdoors like this, would you expect to see some kind of dirt or debris on the control swatch?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for conclusion.

MR. NEUFELD: Based on your experience.

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Might, might not.

MR. NEUFELD: Hmm?

MS. MAZZOLA: Might, might not. I don't know.

MR. NEUFELD: Even on an out-door pavement like this, you wouldn't expect to find some dirt?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: It's a possibility you would find some dirt.

MR. NEUFELD: Is it a probability that you would find some dirt, Miss Mazzola?

MR. GOLDBERG: It's argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Continue, please.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, when you put the plastic bag in the envelope at that point, you folded it over to seal it, didn't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And that would retain the moisture in it, wouldn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: It would help keep the swatch from slipping out.

MR. NEUFELD: Hold it one second, please.

MR. NEUFELD: Other than preventing the swatches from slipping out, by folding over the top of the plastic bag when it's wet inside, that also will--that will also result in preserving the moisture in those swatches, wouldn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: One moment.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Could you just back up about--back up. Go a little more. Okay. Now go forward a little bit.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, after you make the control swatch, Miss Mazzola, you then clean the tweezers off before you go on to actually collect the bloodstain; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Can you freeze it there for a second?

MR. NEUFELD: And what you just did, ma'am, was to pick up--you're going to use that wet wipe or Kleenex to clean the tweezer, right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. The chem-wipe.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And you just picked up that chem-wipe with the same right hand which you had been resting on the dirty concrete, right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: One moment.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Continue, please. Stop.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, you just transferred the tweezers that you just cleaned back into the right hand again, didn't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. The parts away from the tips.

MR. NEUFELD: Can you back up a second? Okay. Go forward.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, there you're holding it away from the tips, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Go ahead. Continue. And now stop.

MR. NEUFELD: You moved your fingers further up toward the front of the tweezers, didn't you? Miss Mazzola, isn't the tweezer now completely enclosed in your hand, in your right hand?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if it's entirely enclosed or if my finger is just brought up along the side of it.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, your fingers that are brought up along the side of it are the fingers of your right hand that you had just put down on the dirty pavement; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Continue.

MR. NEUFELD: Now you're pouring more swatches out of the bottle, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And are some of the swatches falling to the ground and missing the cap?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Stop for a second. Okay. Continue. Stop there.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, do you see some of the swatches that fell to the ground between the bottle and your knee?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: At this time--I noticed last time when you took the cap off the bottle, after you took out a swatch, you put it right back on the bottle, didn't you, last time?

MS. MAZZOLA: Sometimes I do, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. But this time, you put the cap down, didn't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Is that because you considered for even a moment perhaps putting those swatches that fell to the ground back into the bottle?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: You never considered that even for a moment?

MS. MAZZOLA: Never.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

(The videotape continues playing.)

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, when you made this demonstration tape, were you aware of the fact that your right hand had been resting on the dirty concrete?

MS. MAZZOLA: No, I don't believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: Is this the first time you knew that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, you said you did know, however, that you had dropped swatches during the course of this videotape, right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And in fact, comment had been made by others present about the fact that you had dropped swatches; isn't that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Well--you also testified on direct examination, Miss Mazzola, that you had never dropped the swatch that had blood on it. Was that your testimony?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, had the Prosecutor told you during the prep sessions that it was safe for you to give that answer because we don't have you doing that on the videotape?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is improper. It's argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. The jury is to disregard the implication of that question. Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: You also testified, Miss Mazzola, on direct examination that one reason--I'm sorry. Withdrawn. You also testified that at crime scenes, your gloved hand has never touched a bloodstain or wet blood; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: But isn't one reason why you wear these protective gloves in the first place is because you could accidentally touch a bloodstain or wet blood?

MS. MAZZOLA: We wear them for our own protection because we are around blood.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you say you wear these gloves for your own protection, Miss Mazzola, isn't that protect--isn't that to protect you from an accidental contact with blood? Isn't that the whole purpose you wear the gloves?

MS. MAZZOLA: Blood among other things, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So it's anticipated by the people who taught you at SID to wear gloves that accidental contact between a criminalist and blood does happen from time to time; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: So when you say that you have never touched blood or a wet bloodstain even with your protected gloves on, what you're really saying is that you've never done it such as that you're aware of it; isn't that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: I think that misstates her testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Such that I was aware of, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Now, this is going to be the swatch of the actual evidence, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Could you stop there?

MR. NEUFELD: Now, as you see, Miss Mazzola, do you see the--the jury can see it too. Do you see the moist area where you had made the control swatch?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And do you see that the moisture has run all the way over to the point where it's actually in contact with the bloodstain?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if that is moisture from the control swatch or the pigment of the concrete itself.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, I'm--

MR. NEUFELD: May we please go back quickly to--reverse, show her just the collection of the control swatch? Back up more. Back, back, back. Back up. Back up before it starts touching it. Back up so it's just off the ground, you know, an inch or so. Okay. Go ahead. Stop. Can you back up? I want to get it just before it makes contact. Stop. Stop.

MR. NEUFELD: Now that you see the control swatch just as it's about to hit the control area next to stain no. 5, would you agree that the discoloration we saw later on when you're actually about to lift the bloodstain is moisture from the control swatch?

MS. MAZZOLA: Well, it's a little hard to tell. It's possible--

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, do you actually see any discoloration in the area immediately adjacent to that bloodstain in this picture before you put that wet control swatch on the ground?

MS. MAZZOLA: I see the area slightly in front of the swatch between the swatch and the stain itself.

MR. NEUFELD: Isn't the area at that point, Miss Mazzola, fairly consistent and not darker, appreciably darker in the area--in the immediate area where you're placing down the control swatch at this point? Isn't that a fair assessment of what's depicted here, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: Well, it looks slightly darker to me, but--

MR. NEUFELD: Now, could you go forward to where she's about to put down the--yeah. Go a little bit further. Slow it down. In slow-mo. That's right.

MR. NEUFELD: Now do you see the discoloration created by the moisture emanating out from the control swatch?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And that's a different color than the other discolorations in the pavement, isn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. All right. And you can see even at that point the moisture has almost touched the bloodstain, hasn't it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to almost.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: There's still separation between the two.

MR. NEUFELD: There's still some separation there. Okay.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, go forward to the next place where we're about to collect the evidence.

MR. NEUFELD: By the way, Miss Mazzola, the swatch that you just picked up could be the same swatch that you had touched with the right hand to help stay in the cap, couldn't it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Stop.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, can you see that the moisture has spread out from the control swatch so it is in fact touching the blood drop stain?

MS. MAZZOLA: It appears to be.

MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, you're not supposed to do that, are you?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, when you're instructed--

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm withdrawing the question. There was an objection.

THE COURT: When I start to rule, let me rule.

MR. NEUFELD: Oh, I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Overruled. Proceed.

MS. MAZZOLA: Would you please--

MR. NEUFELD: When you received your instruction on how to collect bloodstain evidence, although you were taught to collect a control close to the bloodstain, you were also taught, Miss Mazzola, not to allow the moisture from the control swatch to come into contact with the bloodstain; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe that was ever mentioned.

MR. NEUFELD: well, Miss Mazzola, if in fact that swatch itself had been contaminated by your dirty hand, for instance, would the contamination be transferred to the moisture that is emanating out from the swatch? Could that happen?

MR. GOLDBERG: It's vague as to which swatch.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know.

MR. NEUFELD: You don't know if it could happen?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if it could happen.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, if there was dirt on your hand and your hand came into contact with the control swatch, would you agree that it's possible that there could be a transfer of that trace evidence of that contaminant from your glove to the swatch?

MS. MAZZOLA: It would be possible.

MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree, ma'am, that if that control swatch was moistened with water, that there could be a transfer of trace evidence from the swatch to the water?

MS. MAZZOLA: There would be items from the ground in the water, but the bloodstain itself is on the ground. So it's all in the same substrate.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, that assumes, does it not, Miss Mazzola, that everywhere on the ground, you have the same contaminants and the same substrate? Isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That close a substrate would be approximately the same.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, when you put your right hand down on the ground, you didn't do that two inches away or one inch away from the blood drop. You did that several feet away, didn't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And if your hand came into contact, the hand that touched the dirty pavement several feet away came into contact with the control swatch, it could contaminate the control swatch with whatever contaminant your right hand came in contact with, couldn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: If the hand came in contact with that particular swatch, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And if that swatch then comes into contact with water, the water can pick up that contaminant, can't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: A possibility.

MR. NEUFELD: And if that water then spreads outward and actually comes into contact with the bloodstain, then the bloodstain can come into contact with the very same contaminant that the right hand initially came into contact with. Isn't that a possibility?

MS. MAZZOLA: A possibility, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. But it's your testimony that you were never instructed to keep the control swatch moisture not in contact with the bloodstain? They never taught you that at the SID mini academy?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was never a strong point that was brought up.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, was it a small point that was brought up?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember.

MR. NEUFELD: So is it--best of your recollection, it could have been, but you just don't recall?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't recall.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, as you sit here today, would it make sense to you as a criminalist not to let the moisture from the control swatch come into contact with the bloodstain?

MS. MAZZOLA: That would be preferable.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Can you go forward, please.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, you're having some difficulty in this swatch absorbing the bloodstain?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: One moment.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Would you just back up? Could you go forward? Can you go forward slowly?

MR. NEUFELD: Now, at that point, Miss Mazzola, did you just move the swatch into the area of moisture immediately adjacent to the bloodstain where some of the control moisture was?

MS. MAZZOLA: I can't tell if the swatch was touching the moisture or not.

MR. NEUFELD: Did it appear to you that it was though?

MR. NEUFELD: Can you just back up three seconds? Okay. Now just go forward slow.

MR. NEUFELD: Did it appear to you at that point that it's touching the moisture adjacent to the stain?

MS. MAZZOLA: It's still hard to tell if it was actually touching.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Just go forward. Let's go forward in regular speed.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, in this particular demonstration, you were asked only to make one swatch of this particular bloodstain, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, in the--this case, in some of the blood stains, you made as many as a half dozen blood swatches?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember exactly how many, but on some of them, it was more than one.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And would you agree, ma'am, that if you did, for instance, four or five swatches, there's four or five times the opportunity to make mistakes as there is in a single swatch?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: In this particular demonstration, you're having some difficulty getting blood to be absorbed onto that swatch?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. The stain was--

MR. NEUFELD: That sometimes happens with--

THE COURT: Wait, wait.

MR. NEUFELD: Sorry.

MS. MAZZOLA: To dry the blood, since it was so cold, they put a heater on the blood spots and it more or less baked it onto the concrete.

MR. NEUFELD: And you're putting it in the coin envelope now?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And the coin envelope is not sealed, is it?

MS. MAZZOLA: No. Not sealed.

MR. NEUFELD: Now you're cleaning the tweezers again?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And again, Miss Mazzola, you're holding the tweezers in your right hand now?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Same right hand that touched the ground, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: My right hand.

MR. NEUFELD: Yes. And is that your right hand hitting the ground again?

MS. MAZZOLA: My hand was on the ground, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Notice you're stretching.

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Is it tiring bending down there to do even a single swatch?

MS. MAZZOLA: No. When it is extremely cold, my left knee tends to tighten up a bit.

MR. NEUFELD: And in this instance, you're actually brushing away the swatches that you actually dropped to the ground?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: By the way, Mr. Yamauchi and Dennis Fung were also present during this?

MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Yamauchi was.

MR. NEUFELD: And did Mr. Yamauchi--I thought you said Dennis Fung was there as well.

MR. NEUFELD: Would you hold it a second, please?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe he was back and forth between the demonstration area and the lab itself.

MR. NEUFELD: One moment.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Just back up a second, please.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you actually collected the swatch, were your knees on the ground?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Can you back up? Back up to just where she's about to get up.

MR. NEUFELD: And are you now putting your left hand on your knee?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And that's the knee that was just on the pavement?

MS. MAZZOLA: I think it was on the pavement.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And when--you're wiping the ground now with your right hand, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you didn't change gloves before you went on to the next swatching, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Hold it one second. You're going forward. What are you doing?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: And there are more swatches that have dropped to the ground again, haven't there?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Again, your right hand with the tweezers is going down to the dirty ground?

MS. MAZZOLA: Is on the ground.

MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree that the pavement outside where you're shooting this has dirt on it, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: By the way, Miss Mazzola--

MR. NEUFELD: Let's stop for one second.

MR. NEUFELD: I notice in the demonstration board, when you're actually--when they show you either using the control swatch or swatch on a piece of evidence, you don't see any of the swatches that are lying on the ground; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: That they don't show any swatches lying on the ground?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: After you finished making this videotape, did the Prosecutor ask you to repeat the exercise again?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Continue the tape.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, you now took out a coin envelope; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And that's because you were asked to demonstrate how it is that you put documentation on the coin envelope that you're going to put these swatches in; isn't that right?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: She can describe what she's doing, counsel, not the instructions.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Could you stop just a second? Back up a little bit. I want you to do this in slow motion. Okay, just to--go forward now.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, when you're going to--

MR. NEUFELD: Can you stop for just one second?

MR. NEUFELD: When you are documenting a coin envelope in the demonstration, do you put down the item number?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you put down the item number, do you use the number sign before the number?

MS. MAZZOLA: Sometimes, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And do you also on the coin envelope write down your initials as the person who was collecting this item?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to the videotape.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe I did on this.

MR. NEUFELD: Is that what you were taught to do, Miss Mazzola?

MS. MAZZOLA: I can't remember if we were taught that or if it's something we pick up. I'm not sure.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, if you pick something up because you learn it from more senior criminalists at the first crime scenes that you attended, that would be one way of learning this information, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Another way of learning it would be because somebody at the SID mini academy explained to you this is the way to do it; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That could be another way.

MR. NEUFELD: Either way, you are learning to do something a particular way; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: So the question, ma'am, is, were you taught one way or the other, that when you are collecting an item, as you are in this picture, to write down your initials as well as the item number on the coin envelope?

MS. MAZZOLA: As I believe I said earlier, some criminalists put their initials on the envelopes. Some don't.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola--

MR. NEUFELD: Let's play this tape forward now in slow-mo. Just bring it up regular speed until she's about to start writing on it.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, I want you to look very carefully at the movement of your hand, of your right hand as it writes on the envelope, okay?

MS. MAZZOLA: Okay.

MR. NEUFELD: Since you can't see what you're writing, you just have to look at the movement. You're writing something there, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That appears to be, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And you picked up the pen. Now you're writing something else?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And now you picked up the pen. Now you're writing something else?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: So, Miss Mazzola, there are three different things that you wrote on that envelope, correct? A it appears that I have the coin envelope and the plastic envelope there together.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, did you write three different things with your hand in that down position?

MS. MAZZOLA: It appears so.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And, Miss Mazzola, one of the things that you were taught to write was the number, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Second thing you were taught to write is the number sign; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: We were not taught that.

MR. NEUFELD: So sometimes you do that and sometimes you don't?

MS. MAZZOLA: I tend to do that.

MR. NEUFELD: You tend to do that?

MS. MAZZOLA: I tend to do that.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. That's the second thing. The third thing--the third thing, Miss Mazzola--and that would be, the first thing you were doing there was actually writing your initial; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if that was my initials or not.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, when you write your initials "Am," don't you write it in one continuous motion?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Let's--one second. Continue. Continue regular speed.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, by the way, Miss Mazzola, you were--you wrote out the envelope and put documentation on it because that's a standard practice of yours, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Yet, on the demonstration board, there is no photograph of you actually filling out the envelope, is there?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, can you freeze it just one second?

MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that it's an important step for criminalists to document--to document the item that he or she is collecting?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And it's important for purposes of identifying an item; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's right.

MR. NEUFELD: And it's also important for maintaining or beginning the chain of custody; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, take a look at the demonstration board, Miss Mazzola.

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree that even though you say that this is an important step in the process, that there's no photograph showing you documenting the coin envelope on this demonstration board?

MS. MAZZOLA: There doesn't appear to be.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you have any input at all into the creation of this demonstration board without a photograph of you doing the necessary documentation?

MS. MAZZOLA: I had no input on the construction of the board.

MR. NEUFELD: All right.

THE COURT: For the record, what was exhibited to the witness was People's 162.

MR. NEUFELD: When you saw the board--you say the board had been shown to you prior to your testifying in this case, hadn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: I had a quick look at it, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you had a quick look at it, Miss Mazzola, did you say to the Prosecutor, "Wait a second. You're missing one important aspect of the bloodstain evidence collection process, namely the documentation of the coin envelope"? Did you say that to them?

MR. GOLDBERG: This is irrelevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Can you go forward, please?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: See the moisture moving out from the control swatch, Miss Mazzola?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: You see it--

MR. NEUFELD: Hold it.

MR. NEUFELD: You see it coming into contact with the portion of the bloodstain that moves out in an arm to the right?

MS. MAZZOLA: It appears that it is.

MR. NEUFELD: One second. Can you just back it up a little bit, please, about five seconds? Stop.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, see the dirt on the fingertips of the third and fourth fingers of your glove?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Continue. Stop.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, do you see that you've now turned the tweezers around so the tips are right in the middle of that palm of the glove with the dirty fingers?

MS. MAZZOLA: I can't see which way the--

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Could you back it up again?

MS. MAZZOLA: --tips are facing.

MR. NEUFELD: Could you back it up for just a few seconds, please? Okay. Now stop.

MR. NEUFELD: Do you see that the tip of the tweezers is going into that envelope into the plastic bag?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Now go forward in slow motion, please.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, do you agree it is--

MR. NEUFELD: Stop.

MR. NEUFELD: --it is now the tip of the tweezers which has gone back into your hand?

MS. MAZZOLA: The tips would not be in my palm area because they were extremely sharp.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, I'm not suggesting that you were cutting yourself or sticking yourself with the tweezers. But wouldn't you agree that it's possible to simply take the tweezers and hold them like this in your palm without cutting yourself (Indicating)?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it's speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it possible you can do that, Miss Mazzola?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not those type of tweezers.

MR. NEUFELD: You're saying that those types of tweezers are such that you can not hold them like this without cutting yourself (Indicating)? Is that your testimony?

MS. MAZZOLA: Unless the tips were around the bottom of your hand, I can't see how you could hold the entire tweezers in your hand without getting poked.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, if you have it simply resting in your hand like this and the point is down here near the bottom of your palm like this (Indicating), you wouldn't necessarily poke yourself, would you?

MS. MAZZOLA: If the tips were below your hand, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: If the tip is actually resting on your hand such as I'm doing with my pointed pen (Indicating), I'm not poking myself, am I?

THE COURT: It's not the same, counsel.

MR. NEUFELD: I understand that, your Honor.

MR. NEUFELD: But am I poking myself with this?

MS. MAZZOLA: The tips--

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Let's continue the tape.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, the tip of the tweezers is very close to your fingers at this point, isn't it, on your right hand? Even if the actual tip itself isn't touching, you were pretty close to the edge on that, weren't you?

MR. GOLDBERG: Pretty close is vague.

MR. NEUFELD: You were within a half inch or quarter of an inch from the tip, weren't you, Miss Mazzola?

MS. MAZZOLA: I couldn't tell how close I was on--

MR. NEUFELD: Dropped other swatches there, Miss Mazzola; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, you were having some difficulty getting the swatch to get onto the stain there, right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. NEUFELD: Slow down. Stop.

MR. NEUFELD: And so now you've moved your fingers on the dirty glove that had been in contact with the pavement down toward the tip of those tweezers, haven't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: They are still a ways away from the tip.

MR. NEUFELD: I understand that. But you've moved them down away from the position they were normally in to try and get that swatch to come off the tip, haven't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And that's the same hand that had the dirt on the fingers, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: Continue.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, between the collection--now you're collecting item no. 6; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, between the collection of item 5 and item no. 6, you never changed your gloves, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And the reason you never changed your gloves is because no one at SID ever taught you to change your gloves?

MS. MAZZOLA: They don't need to teach you when to change your gloves. You change your gloves periodically.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, did anyone at LAPD SID ever teach you to change your gloves between the handling of different blood stains?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, you said that one of the procedures that you have been taught--

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

(At 4:16 P.M., the playing of the videotape concluded.)

MR. NEUFELD: One of the procedures that you have been taught at LAPD was to put some scale in the photograph such as a tape--such as a ruler to indicate the size of the actual bloodstain, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: That misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, were you taught as part of your instruction on forensic photography to have a ruler placed in the scene?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, did you use a ruler when doing this demonstration to indicate--for purposes of documenting the stain, the size of the stain?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: And did you not do that because the Prosecutors didn't tell you to do that?

MS. MAZZOLA: I didn't do that, but no one told me not to.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. One moment, your Honor.

THE COURT: Certainly.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, how many crime scenes have you collected bloodstains at since June 13th, 1994?

MS. MAZZOLA: Two I believe.

MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree that additional training and more experience makes you more proficient today than you were 10 months ago?

MS. MAZZOLA: Experience helps.

MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree that when collecting blood or bloodstains, mistakes can occur?

MS. MAZZOLA: Mistakes can happen, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree that when collecting bloodstains, especially in evidence that's going to go out for DNA analysis, that the criminalist must understand how in the course of making different mistakes DNA could become degraded?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't think we bear in mind DNA specifically. We look at any serological testing.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you ever taught at the SID mini academy any connection at all between the mistakes that can happen at a crime scene and the effects it will have on DNA or other serological testing?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, the wet swatches, Miss Mazzola, were placed in the truck in brown paper bags; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Does the LAPD SID unit have a written procedure for storing biological evidence in the van?

MS. MAZZOLA: I do not know.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, there's a refrigerator in the van, isn't there?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Did Fung instruct you to put the bloodstain swatches in the refrigerator?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: No, he did not.

MR. NEUFELD: And you did not see Fung put them in the refrigerator, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that or were you aware of the fact that the refrigerator worked at least some of the time?

MS. MAZZOLA: I was aware that it worked some of the time, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And that it would work for several hours eventually before the battery going dead?

MS. MAZZOLA: I wasn't sure how long it would work.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, have you ever been aware of the fact that it did work for more than one or two hours?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if I ever found that out.

MR. NEUFELD: you didn't find out how long it did work for?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that even a few hours of keeping wet blood swatches in the refrigerator is better than not keeping them there at all?

MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope of her expertise.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, you said that you had been told by people at LAPD SID that heat can have some effect on bacteria growing on the blood swatches; isn't that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained. Counsel, I assume there's some other witness who is going to testify to these events.

MR. NEUFELD: One moment, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, when you came back to Rockingham later in the afternoon on the 13th, the first item of evidence that you collected inside the house was item no. 12; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And item no. 12 is more than a single drop of blood, isn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: If I remember correctly, it is.

MR. NEUFELD: In fact, it is three drops of blood, isn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not exactly sure how many.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, the other drops of blood that you or bloodstains that you collected from the driveway that day, they were all individual drops; were they not?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And weren't you taught, Miss Mazzola, that whenever you have distinct drops, even if they're close together, that they should be collected in separate packages?

MS. MAZZOLA: That was up to the discretion of the supervisor.

MR. NEUFELD: Let me show 14--

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, did you receive a handout from the SID unit entitled, "Collection and preservation of body fluids"? Do you have it?

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

MR. NEUFELD: Next in order would be?

THE COURT: 1118? 1118.

(Deft's 1118 for id = handout)

MR. NEUFELD: Show you this, ask you to take a look at item no. 13.

MS. MAZZOLA: Okay.

MR. NEUFELD: By the way, Miss Mazzola--also look at that. Do these two pages represent a handout that you received at the SID mini academy?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. They look familiar.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And in the handout that you received from the SID mini academy, weren't you told specifically, quote, if there is more than one distinct stain, these should be treated as different stains and collected separately?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's what the handout says.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And, Miss Mazzola, does it anywhere in that handout say, "Oh, but wait a second. You can make an exception if the senior criminalist says to"?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you ever receive any written instructions at all from LAPD SID suggesting that you could make an exception from that rule when the senior criminalist so chose?

MS. MAZZOLA: There is nothing written down.

MR. NEUFELD: In fact, even on the demo board that we just looked at, Miss Mazzola, items 5 and 6 are only several inches apart, aren't they?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe--well, what do you call by several?

MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that items 5 and 6 are within a foot of one another?

MS. MAZZOLA: They could be within a foot, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, I believe you said that you had also been taught it wasn't necessary to pick up every single drop in a area, but only to pick up representative drops; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: In fact, other than the three drops that you saw in the foyer where you picked up item no. 12, weren't there some other small drops in the vicinity that you didn't bother to collect?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if I saw any other little drops around that area or not.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: But you would agree, ma'am, that there were at least a few drops in that foyer area where you collected no. 12?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And, Miss Mazzola, I believe you said that from looking at the drops outside, one could not tell which direction they were going in; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: I did not look at them as to try to determine directionality. I don't have any experience in that field.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, did Mr. Fung in your presence say that they had any particular direction?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: I believe you said, Miss Mazzola, before that you can't tell whether or not this trail of blood drops at Rockingham is leading from the house to the Bronco or from the Bronco to the house; isn't that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.

MR. NEUFELD: Just for foundation for the next question.

THE COURT: That's what she said.

MR. NEUFELD: In fact, Miss Mazzola, from what you've just said, the greater number of drops that you saw in any particular area was that concentration of drops in the foyer inside the front door; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: let me ask you a hypothetical, Miss Mazzola.

MR. NEUFELD: I'll hold it up like this.

MR. GOLDBERG: May I just--

MR. NEUFELD: Let's put it on this.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, as a criminalist, have you learned that when a person initially cuts himself or herself, you bleed more profusely, and then as clotting occurs, the bleeding dies down? Did you learn that?

MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope of her expertise.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, just from your common every-day experience, have you ever had a cut?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for opinion, conclusionary.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, what do you know both professionally and from your own experiences as to how frequently blood drops are made when you first get cut and how they dissipate as time passes?

MR. GOLDBERG: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled. Do you know anything about those topics?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know how fast the blood drops form or drop.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, let me ask you this hypothetical, Miss Mazzola. If someone cut himself in the foyer of his house, might he bleed more profusely inside before going outside?

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: It's a hypothetical.

THE COURT: No. It has to be within the expert's expertise. It's not.

MR. NEUFELD: As a criminalist, Miss Mazzola, have you been trained--have you received any training at all in looking at blood pattern, any?

MS. MAZZOLA: Very little bit. Not much at all.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, would you agree that the pattern of drops that you observed--that the pattern of drops that you observed on June 13th at Bundy are consistent with--

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I object to anything further along this line.

THE COURT: Overruled. Let me hear the question.

MR. NEUFELD: --are consistent, Miss Mazzola, with an individual cutting himself inside the house where you observed those three drops?

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. Counsel, this is beyond her expertise.

MR. NEUFELD: One moment.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Next in order then?

THE COURT: 1119. Miss Robertson, 1119?

THE CLERK: Yes.

THE COURT: Thank you.

(Deft's 1119 for id = photograph)

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld, you might want to wind it up.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. One moment, your Honor.

THE COURT: No. Go ahead and finish your thought.

MR. NEUFELD: Put that up.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, do you recognize that photograph?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And is that photograph showing at least three different blood drops?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: On the foyer near the card no. 12?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that that was the only blood drops or bloodstains that you observed on the first floor of the house?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that after you collected those blood drops in item no. 12 in the foyer near the front door, that you then walked up the stairway?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe we started going upstairs, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you examined the light carpet on the stairs?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And as you examined that light carpet on the stairs, there was absolutely no bloodstains seen there at all, right?

MS. MAZZOLA: I did not observe any.

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

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. NEUFELD: And wasn't Dennis Fung looking?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And he didn't say he observed any either, did he?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you were not only looking for blood drops at that point, you were also looking for dry flecks of blood as well, weren't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Anything that was red.

MR. NEUFELD: And you didn't see anything that was red on this white carpet ascending all the way up the stairs?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember what color the carpet was.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, was it light color ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was light, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: It was the kind of color that if there was a red drop, it would stand out, wouldn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And then as you walked down the hallway on that second floor toward Mr. Simpson's bedroom, there was also that same light colored carpeting, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't recall. Could be. I don't remember.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you--you were examining the floor, weren't you, at that point?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you didn't see any blood drops there either, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you didn't see any flecks of blood, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you examined that stairway going up the stairs, ma'am, did you examine the banister also?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And on the banister, ma'am, there were no flecks of blood, were there?

MS. MAZZOLA: I personally did not observe any.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, did Mr. Fung personally observe them in your presence?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not in my presence, no.

MR. NEUFELD: And on that banister, there were no flecks of blood either, were there?

MS. MAZZOLA: I did not see any.

MR. NEUFELD: And Mr. Fung didn't mention any to you, did he?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: And if you had seen them, you would have collected them, wouldn't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you would have photographed them?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And also on that banister, ma'am, there were no smears of blood, were there, indicating that somebody had blood on their hands? Isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: I did not recall seeing anything like that.

MR. NEUFELD: And Mr. Fung didn't observe any either that he mentioned to you, did he?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for conclusion. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Did Mr. Fung in your presence say to you that he had observed any smears of blood on the banister?

THE COURT: Sustained. Counsel, why don't you rephrase that question; did Mr. Fung point out to you any blood smears, et cetera, et cetera.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. NEUFELD: You can answer the Judge's question.

MS. MAZZOLA: No, he did not.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Why don't we stop at this point.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our recess for the afternoon. Please remember all of my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't allow anybody to communicate with you and do not conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. As far as the jury is concerned, we will stand in recess until 9:00 o'clock. I'll see counsel as soon as the jury has departed.

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record. The jury is not present. Counsel, we had two matters that we wanted to take up at 4:30. Mr. Neufeld, you indicated that you want--you wanted discovery of reports regarding the activities of Miss Mazzola on June the 14th and you wanted the reports of her activities for some particular reason.

MR. NEUFELD: Yes, your Honor. At the hearing on August 23rd, Miss Mazzola testified that she had personally participated in the processing of the now dried swatches on the morning of June 14th with Mr. Fung at the laboratory. This morning, she suggested for the first time, your Honor, that on the morning of June 14th, she did not participate in the processing of evidence in this case with Mr. Fung.

THE COURT: Immediately.

MR. NEUFELD: But instead--but instead, spent the morning before she went to the print shed doing paperwork on another case.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. NEUFELD: That was her testimony. I would like to see this paperwork that she claims she was doing in the evidence processing unit during the two or three hours that morning before she went to the print shed. In fact, I don't believe her and I believe I'm allowed to challenge her credibility with regard to that representation because it contradicts her testimony at the August 23rd hearing, and I want to see if this paper work supports her claim.

THE COURT: 1054.1, part of that statute applies to this particular report.

MR. NEUFELD: One moment.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: But let me cut to the chase. Is there some reason the Prosecution doesn't want to provide the Court with a copy of any report?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I don't have a copy in my possession at any rate. But the only reason that we're objecting to it is, I just don't believe it falls within any of the discovery provisions. And I think that the Prosecution's interest has been hurt by overcomplying with discovery. It has not worked, it has not served our interest, it has not sped the case along, and I think that it's in our interest at this time on every discovery issue to try to see that we are not required to do anything more than what is mandated under discovery law. And that is my position. It has nothing to do with this particular report. I haven't seen the report. I don't know how it could be located. It simply has to do with not wanting to provide discovery beyond our discovery obligations.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I'm not trying to find out the actual information about some other case. I don't care about the other case. It could all be redacted. But what she said on August 23rd under oath in this courtroom is that she spent the morning of June 14th before going to the print shed with Dennis Fung processing the swatches in this case. Today for the very first time, she contradicted herself on that point and she said that she wasn't processing specimens with Dennis Fung the morning of June 14tgh before going to the print shed because instead, she was doing the paperwork on another case. I believe, your Honor, that I'm allowed to impeach her with that paperwork to the extent that it does not corroborate her sworn testimony here and it would be a relevant written statement used to impeach this witness. That's what it's for.

THE COURT: Well, counsel, isn't this real collateral and haven't you already gotten the benefit if you got one statement here and another statement today that contradicts that statement? I mean, haven't you gotten the impeachment value out of that?

MR. NEUFELD: One second, your Honor.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, this witness has been suggesting on many different areas in this case that her testimony August 23rd was inaccurate because she hasn't had time to really think about it whereas now that she's had more time to think about it, her testimony at this trial should be given greater weight. And what she's saying on this particular point is that she should be given greater weight because she now remembers that that morning for the two or three hours that she was there, that she was preoccupied doing paperwork in another case. All I want to do is see that paperwork to see whether or not it corroborates her bald-face claim that she made before your Honor this morning that that's what she was doing. I think in light of the fact that it's a flat-out contradiction from her testimony on August 23rd, bearing in mind that she's going to say what she said on August 23rd should not be given any serious consideration by the jury because she didn't know what she was saying, that I should be entitled now to impeach the claim that she made this morning by showing her that there isn't this paperwork to support her claim that that's what she was doing during the morning.

THE COURT: How do we get around 1054.1? Under want category does that fall?

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Well, your Honor, number one, I believe that her testimony on August 23rd was in fact the correct testimony, the truthful testimony. And to the extent that it is truthful, it is exculpatory evidence. And to the extent, your Honor, that this written report undermines her claim today that she spent the time doing this--

THE COURT: Well, do you have any case that describes something like that as exculpatory evidence under California case law?

MR. NEUFELD: Well, your Honor, not just as exculpatory evidence, your Honor, but I would submit I don't have a case before me. I--your Honor, even if you thought about it in terms of 352, what are we talking about here? We're talking about the People producing a single report which can be redacted so as no information about another case is disclosed, simply to show how long it is and how much time was expended on it to undermine her claim that she's made under oath in this courtroom that she spent the entire morning when she arrived before going to the print shed involved in, you know, in--on processing papers in another case. It just doesn't make sense and I should be entitled that much leeway. That is not a collateral matter, your Honor. I'm not going in to proving the other case. I'm simply going to prove, your Honor, that her testimony August 23rd was the truthful and correct testimony and her testimony today just wasn't credible. That's the purpose of it. I also think under the same section, your Honor, it comes in under subsection (F). It's irrelevant written or recorded statement of this witness. She's the one who made the recorded statement.

THE COURT: Keep reading. Keep reading. It's about something the Prosecution intends on producing. That's the modifier. All right. I'll take your request under submission. My tentative ruling is to deny your request. Bring me something that says that you're entitled to it. All right?

MR. NEUFELD: Yes. There's a second matter, your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: I asked on Friday or Thursday, Thursday I asked the Prosecutor to simply produce in Court during my cross-examination of Miss Mazzola the actual evidence that she collected on the 13th and the 14th, her evidence, okay, which means the coin envelopes and the bindles, and the People last week said they would think about it. And they told me this morning they decided that they're not going to bring it in here. And I believe that I'm entitled to confront this witness with the actual evidence that she collected in this case, and that's what I would like to do tomorrow morning. So I would ask the Court to instruct the People to produce in Court tomorrow morning the actual items, which would be the original coin envelopes and the original bindles.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Goldberg?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, your Honor, the problem is that of course--there's several problems. One of them is that we're talking about biological evidence, a lot of which has not been tested. For example, on our chain of custody boards, we only have the items that were tested. We tested item no. 6 and item no. 7, but the Prosecution did not test 3 and 4 at this time because obviously we've had to prioritize, and the laboratories are inundated with the amount of material that we've given them. So they're talking about bringing in evidence that still contains biological evidence that can be tested, defrosting it, destroying its utility for any future testing, evidence that constitutes a bile hazard and should not be in Court at any rate and has made absolutely no showing as to why we are going to destroy the evidence in this case. I mean obviously the Defendant doesn't care about destroying the evidence in this case because it's not going to exonerate him. But we still have an interest in trying to preserve the evidence to the extent that it exists. They have been provided with an opportunity to inspect all of this evidence in Albany at a tremendous expense to the People. It has been photographed by the Prosecution. We have provided them with photographs of it. They have had the opportunity to inspect it on a variety of other occasions at an enormous expense and burden to the People.

THE COURT: Well, rather than saying all evidence that this witness collected, is there anything in particular that you need, Mr. Neufeld?

MR. NEUFELD: Well, yes, your Honor. But let me just--well, it's the items of--the bloodstains that were actually collected by Miss Mazzola at Bundy and at Rockingham. That's what we're talking about here. Those are the items. Let me just say two things.

THE COURT: How many items? Which specific items from the property report?

MR. NEUFELD: One moment.

THE COURT: I take it you haven't even reduced this to a written request to the Prosecution.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, that's true. But, you know, let the Prosecutor submit to you a single authority to support his point--

THE COURT: No. No. Counsel, wait. Mr. Neufeld, I'm just interested in what efforts have you made to try to get them to bring this over? First effort is to identify specifically what it is you want. I'm asking you now, tell me what you want. I'm just curious if you even have a written list of these items which would help me immensely to get started here.

MR. NEUFELD: The items--the bloodstains collected at Bundy, which would be items 41 through 52. That's--I'm not talking about a huge amount of evidence. These are coin envelopes which are dislodged, your Honor.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. NEUFELD: 41 and 52 at Rockingham. We're talking about items 3, 4, 5--I am sorry. Not--I'm sorry, your Honor. Item 1, item 4, 5, 6.

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, what we are going to do, I am going to stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 9:00 o'clock. I want you to prepare a list of what it is you want from the Prosecution, give it to the Prosecution. I want from the Prosecution by 8:30 tomorrow morning a list of any specific objections as to why those items can not be produced in Court, to the specifics requested by the Defense. I assume that if there is any refrigeration problem, they can be packed, brought over, exhibited briefly. I assume that this is not a tremendous logistical problem since we are talking about a lab that's less than a mile away from here.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, just so the record is clear on this, these items were sent to Albany, taken out of the freezer for extended periods of time.

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld, stop while you're ahead. All right. Tomorrow morning.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, just one question. If they have their list by 8:30--

THE COURT: No. I am ordering you to confer, provide the Prosecution with a list. I'm giving the Prosecution until tomorrow morning at 8:30 to lodge any written objections that they have to those items, and I'll make an order if it's appropriate tomorrow morning directing LAPD SID to bring those things over packed in dry ice if necessary.

MR. GOLDBERG: So they're going to give their list to us tonight?

THE COURT: Right.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm going to give the list to you in five minutes.

THE COURT: Right now. All right. Do we understand each other?

MR. NEUFELD: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor. Good afternoon, your Honor.

THE COURT: Good afternoon, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: I started off this morning and I would like to finish off the day, your Honor. Your Honor, we had made an informal request I believe for so-called Kato Kaelin's tapes that have not been made available to us.

THE COURT: No. If you recall, the Prosecution said that they had turned over a set to the Court and that they were available to you from the Court any time you wanted to take them and copy them.

MR. COCHRAN: Can we do that?

THE COURT: Absolutely. I've had them sitting in my chambers for the last two weeks now.

MR. COCHRAN: Can we get those?

THE COURT: Absolutely.

MR. COCHRAN: And the other thing is, could the Court set aside some time this week? We probably need--we need one of your famous graphs. We need to recalendar certain of our motions that have kind of fallen by the wayside, but at your convenience. We need to probably get that--

THE COURT: Actually, we ought to probably have a brief morning chambers conference perhaps Thursday morning just to get a list of all the matters that we have not considered. I will have Mrs. Robertson put together a list of motions that we have not addressed yet or had taken off calendar.

MR. COCHRAN: That would be fine. We have one other witness that's going to I think be interviewed at some time when the Court decides.

THE COURT: That is correct.

MR. COCHRAN: So that's fine. Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.

(At 4:55 P.M., an adjournment was taken until, Wednesday, April 26, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

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

The People of the State of California, )

Plaintiff, )

) Vs. ) No. Ba097211 )

Orenthal James Simpson, )

Defendant. )

Reporter's transcript of proceedings Tuesday, April 25, 1995

Volume 133 pages 24142 through 24419, inclusive

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPEARANCES:

Janet M. Moxham, CSR #4588 Christine M. Olson, CSR #2378 official reporters

FOR THE PEOPLE: Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012

FOR THE DEFENDANT: Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire also present: Jana Winograde, Esquire Steven M. Perry, Esquire

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I N D E X

For volume 133 pages 24142 - 24419

day date session page vol.

Tuesday April 25, 1995 A.M. 24142 133 P.M. 24347 133

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEGEND: Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden d Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chronological Index of witnesses

People's witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.

Mazzola, Andrea 133 (Resumed) 24155n (Resumed) 24298n

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alphabetical Index of witnesses witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.

EXHIBITS

Defense for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

1113 - photograph of 24218 133 the number "20" on a white Bronco vehicle

1114 - photograph of 24224 133 the driver's side of a white Bronco vehicle

1115 - 1-page document 24236 133 entitled "Crime scene investigation"

1116 - 2-page document 24248 133 entitled "Forensic photography"

1117 - videotape of 24356 133 Andrea Mazzola collecting evidence (Demonstration)

1117-A - photograph of 24358 133 Andrea Mazzola collecting evidence (Demonstration)

1118 - 2-page document 24396 133 entitled "Collection and preservation of body fluids"

1119 - photograph of 24401 133 the number "12" on a white card on the ground at 360 north Rockingham