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

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

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

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

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

THE COURT: All right. Good morning, counsel. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. The Defendant is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Scheck and Mr. Neufeld. The People are represented by Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Darden. All right. Counsel, we had two matters to take up before the jury joins us. Mr. Neufeld, was there any additional authority you wanted to bring to the Court's attention regarding discovery of reports on other cases alleged to have been created on June 14th by Miss Mazzola?

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I don't have the authority of other cases with that particular fact pattern. I would simply, you know, remind the Court that there are other United States Supreme Court cases, such as Napue versus Illinois, Giglio, cases like that, which talk about if there is some piece of data which would directly contradict the testimony being proffered by the Prosecution witness, then the Prosecutor has a duty to turn that over. In this case it is just our position that they could not produce a contemporaneous document that would support Miss Mazzola's position that she was filling out property reports on the morning of June 14th.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, any final comment on that matter?

MR. GOLDBERG: No.

THE COURT: All right. The Court's ruling will stand. All right. As to the production of the various pieces of evidence, I have received the People's written objections. Mr. Neufeld, do you have any comment?

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, the one point I would make is that--I mean, I don't think there is any question as a matter of relevance that I am entitled to confront this witness with the actual items that she collected and ask her whether or not those are in fact the items that she collected and the envelopes that she put the evidence in that day and the bindles that she used the very next day. I am entitled to ask her those questions because that is the beginning of the chain of custody in this case. And as the Court knows, the Defense has been attacking the chain of custody in its opening statement and throughout this case and intends to continue to do so, so I don't think there is any question about relevancy. Their only issue might be that some of the things we asked for may be too difficult or burdensome. I would be willing to compromise, your Honor, and not have them produce the newer bindles that were created when portions of samples went out to other laboratories. I just wanted them to produce the original coin envelopes and the original bindles that were produced by Fung and Mazzola on the 13th and 14th.

THE COURT: That is--

MR. NEUFELD: So I'm willing to give up the second portion of the request.

THE COURT: All right. Which items are those that you are requesting?

MR. NEUFELD: Oh, sorry. I did provide a written list to the People and the items are item 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52. So we are just talking about the coin envelopes and the bindles, the originals, not any of the new ones for these items.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, counsel still has not shown any plausible justification as to why he needs the actual envelopes, as opposed to photographs, and I believe that we have photographs of all of these items. And more importantly, your Honor, what counsel is asking is not merely as simple as it sounds on its face. He has not really come up with a list of the items that he wants because many of these items were rebooked as new item numbers when we are talking about the bindles that were originally used for the purposes of obtaining the item. By the way, it seems to me that the bindles themselves have no relevance in terms of chain of custody and chain of custody would be based on what was on the coin envelope itself, but it would be a number corresponding to a number of an item that was collected at the crime scene. In order to trace the bindles, what we would could have to do is we would have to look first in the original coin envelope to determine whether they were there, and in some instances the original bindles were made out to an outside lab and then in a new transmittal coin envelope and then when they came back they would have been rebooked as a new number. We gave one example in our letter just to try to illustrate the problems of a particular item that has been sent out in a number of different transmittal envelopes where portions of the swatches are being used. Those items may have been sent out not only in new coin envelopes, but in new transmittal bindles. But if the entire sample was sent out, then it is possible that the original bindle was sent then out to an outside laboratory and the administrative burden of tracking this down, which can be done through the records, should not fall on the Prosecution, so the Defense should say which items they want, not just by saying I want item no. 1 and the original bindle, but by saying I want item no. 1 and item no. 385 or whatever perhaps that original bindle ended up as after it came back from the laboratory. They can do that just as easily as we can. They have all the records. In fact, they can do it more easily because not only do they have our record, but they have their own record because they have seen these materials in the original bindles and presumably created their own documentation of that, which they have not provided to us. So they are in just as good a position, if not better than the Prosecution, to do this. They have also tested--

THE COURT: So your objection is just the correlation of the items? The item numbers?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, my objection is two--is three-fold. No. 1, that there is no justification for this. I mean normally for discovery, if you are going to analogize this to discovery, either it comes under--under pre-proposition 115 law, you have to show a plausible justification, which was some threshold standard.

THE COURT: How about if you don't want to produce it, I will suppress it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Suppress each and every one of these items?

THE COURT: Correct. How about that? If you don't want to produce it, we will suppress it.

MR. GOLDBERG: But your Honor, I don't see how the two of them are connected. What I'm just saying--

THE COURT: Well, if you don't want to let them use it, then you can't use it. How is that?

MR. GOLDBERG: But we are not using the original. We have used photographs. We have used other means of accomplishing the same ends. And it also does not address the issue as to what are we going to do with the blood swatches that are still in some of these items? They can still be tested. And so there are a number of concerns from this perspective, and not the least of which is why don't they identify--they can go through the record and do the tracking and provide us with more specific requests as to exactly what they want. I don't see why the burden necessarily falls on the Prosecution's shoulders to do that tracking for them just to say I want item number of--

THE COURT: All right. You have made the point about the correlation of items. What other point do you have to make?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, there were three points: Plausible justification, no showing as to why he needs these items. No. 2, overly broad and unduly burdensome for the reasons that I suggested with the tracking and not identifying what he wants. And no. 3, that these are biological samples that can still be tested and what are we supposed to do with the actual swatches, because he is saying he wants those, too.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm not going to ask the witness to open up the bindle anyway to take swatches out of it. I don't care about that. Certainly with respect to them being biological specimens, they have been thawed out several times before, sometimes for many, many hours. What we are talking about here is just bringing them over from Piper Tech, which is not that far away, so that they can be produced here in Court.

THE COURT: All right. Would you address the issue about correlation.

MR. NEUFELD: Oh, sure. If you look at the letter, your Honor, the letter says that--in the main paragraph it says that: "When laboratories were not sent out the entire sample, that they were sent out in new transmittal bindles and new transmittal coin envelopes." I'm not interested in the new transmittal envelopes which got new numbers, nor the new transmittal bindles which got new numbers. I'm only interested in the original coin envelope and the original bindles. And by the way, every one of those coin envelopes and the bindle has a number on it, the original number. If subsequently, even though it is not explained in this letter, an original bindle was also given a separate number, you would still have the original number on the original bindle. It is there. This is not difficult for them to produce. That is why I'm saying to the Court that I'm willing to give up all those new transmittal bindles, all those new transmittal envelopes with the new numbers. I just want the original ones and that is something that they can get in 15 minutes.

THE COURT: But their argument is that it has been rebooked and now they have new numbers.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, we asked do inspect these items on different occasions, for the scientists to look inside them, and they had no problem producing them for the scientists. They did it every single time. I originally asked for this on Friday. They can do this within a half hour; simply produce the original coin envelope and the original bindles. They have a computer tracking system which shows where these items went. That is all I'm asking for. I'm not asking for any of the new ones, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. All right. The Los Angeles Police Department is ordered to produce items 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 44, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52 forthwith. All right. Counsel, before we start with the jury, let me just give you a couple of admonitions. One, we are getting sloppy about the speaking objections. I have reissued a revised direction to counsel regarding attorney conduct. You are to read that and abide by it. I have probably sustained a thousand objections so far in this trial regarding argumentative questions. For counsel's edification, if the question is a statement rather than a question to the witness, I'm going to sustain the objection. If I have to do that too many more times, I'm going to admonish counsel in front of the jury that that manner of questioning is improper. Mr. Neufeld, I don't mean to single you out, but would you just try to slow down a little with your pace for the Court reporters because it is both your pace and the Brooklyn accent that they are having difficulty with.

MR. NEUFELD: You can single me out.

THE COURT: All right. Also, at noon I want to meet with co-lead counsel in chambers for about fifteen minutes.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, just so there is no misunderstanding with their compliance of what you just ordered, can you specify that those items they are to produce are the original coin envelopes and the original bindles?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, may we approach for a moment?

THE COURT: It is not necessary. Is it necessary for this witness?

MR. COCHRAN: Not necessary for this witness. We can do it at lunchtime.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I need to have someone call LAPD so that they can start on this.

THE COURT: All right.

THE COURT: Let's have the jury. I'm sure you can have one of your many minions do that.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, will the afternoon session resume at one o'clock today or 1:30?

THE COURT: It depends on how much we get done today. That is actually a prospective one o'clock on that new order.

(Brief pause.)

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

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

THE JURY: Good morning.

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

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

MS. MAZZOLA: Good morning.

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

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. NEUFELD

MR. NEUFELD: Good morning, Miss Mazzola.

MS. MAZZOLA: Good morning.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, after you left Rockingham the first time on the morning of June 13th, you and Dennis Fung went to the Bundy location; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And I think you testified on direct examination that when you got there, umm, you and Dennis Fung first talked to the detectives and waited until the Coroners had finished moving the bodies before you entered the scene; is that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, when you first arrived, the Coroners were moving the bodies, were they not?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And were you present for a discussion with the detectives about the scene before you personally entered the crime scene?

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

MR. NEUFELD: All right. When you stood outside the tape, were there any other detectives with you?

MS. MAZZOLA: I couldn't tell who were detectives or not.

MR. NEUFELD: Have you ever met Detective Vannatter and Detective Lange?

MS. MAZZOLA: I was not introduced to them.

MR. NEUFELD: Have you ever seen them on television?

MS. MAZZOLA: Well, I know them now, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you would recognize them?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Well, were either of those detectives with you when you first arrived at Bundy that morning?

THE COURT: That question is vague, "With you when you arrived."

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry.

MR. NEUFELD: When you first arrived at Bundy that morning, before you actually went into the crime scene, while the Coroners were still moving the bodies, was Detective Vannatter standing or Detective Lange standing nearby you?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, you said on direct examination that if the glove and the hat at Bundy were in contact with one another, trace evidence could or would be transferred? Is that an accurate statement of what you testified to?

MR. GOLDBERG: Compound. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: It is possible that they could transfer trace, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, you said also that when you arrived you saw Mr. Goldman's body covered with a white blanket; is that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you see Mr. Goldman's body covered with a white object when you arrived at Bundy?

MS. MAZZOLA: When I arrived, no.

MR. NEUFELD: At some point that morning did you see Mr. Goldman's body covered with a white object at Bundy?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you had been taught that trace evidence can move when bodies are manipulated at a murder scene? Haven't you been taught that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, let me just ask you one hypothetical, ma'am. If this white object that was on Mr. Goldman's body had been used to also cover Miss Nicole Brown Simpson, then is it possible that trace evidence could move from the blanket to both victims?

MR. GOLDBERG: Improper hypothetical. No foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Didn't you say a moment ago, ma'am, that you had been trained and taught at the LAPD that trace evidence can move when bodies are manipulated?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And didn't you receive some training at the SID mini academy on the dangers of trace evidence contaminating or cross-contaminating different evidence at a crime scene?

MS. MAZZOLA: The transfer of trace evidence was brought up.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, let me just ask you this hypothetical again: If the same white object that you saw on Mr. Goldman's body had been previously lying on top of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson--

THE COURT: Sustained. It is an improper hypothetical.

MR. NEUFELD: All right.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, would you agree, ma'am, that trace evidence can move from the white object you saw on top of the body to the clothing being worn by that person?

MS. MAZZOLA: It is possible.

MR. NEUFELD: And the white object that you saw on top of Mr. Goldman, was that a white blanket?

MS. MAZZOLA: I didn't get a very good look at it.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Well, but you did see that there was some white object that had been on top of Mr. Goldman's body, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, it is vague as to "White object."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Did Dennis Fung instruct you to collect and preserve that white object for analysis?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is still vague, your Honor, as to what we are talking about.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

THE COURT: I assume somebody from the Coroner's office will tell us what that is. Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: He did not.

MR. NEUFELD: And to your knowledge was that white object ever preserved for trace evidence analysis?

MS. MAZZOLA: To my knowledge, no.

MR. NEUFELD: Did Dennis Fung even instruct you to examine that white object while you were at Bundy that day?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: As you sit here today has anyone told you that at some point during that morning an envelope and a glove had been moved at the Bundy location?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Would you please repeat the question again.

MR. NEUFELD: As you sit here today has anyone ever told you that the envelope and the glove recovered at Bundy had been moved prior to your collection of it?

MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not positive. They may have, but I'm not positive.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, I'm not asking you--and I apologize if the question was somewhat inartful. I'm not asking you whether you were told about the movement prior to your collecting it. I'm just asking you whether or not at any time up until this morning anyone had told you that both the envelope and the glove had been moved prior to the collection of those items?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is hearsay and irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know about the envelope. The glove might have been turned over. I'm not positive.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, motion to strike. The witness' answer is nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: One second.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: And Miss Mazzola, who was the person who told you that the glove was turned over?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I can't remember who it was.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, did you speak to Dennis Fung about it?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't think it. I'm not sure.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you speak to other supervisors at SID?

MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not sure who it was.

MR. NEUFELD: You said also that at Bundy and Rockingham you wore a pair of rubber gloves to protect you from any kind of bio hazards; is that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled, but we've already covered this.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, as you sit here today, ma'am, do you have any independent recollection as to whether or not you changed your gloves at any point while you were at Bundy?

MS. MAZZOLA: I changed my gloves several times.

MR. NEUFELD: You have an independent recollection of that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you testify on direct examination, ma'am, that it was your practice to simply change your gloves when they became uncomfortable? Do you remember testifying to that?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Didn't you testify on direct examination that it was your practice to change your gloves either when it became uncomfortable or when you went into a new area? Was that your testimony?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: And page and line cite?

MR. NEUFELD: Is that your testimony, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if it was my exact words.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, fine. In sum and substance is that what you testified to?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Umm--

THE COURT: You can answer the question.

MS. MAZZOLA: I assume so.

MR. NEUFELD: And as you sit here today, do you have an independent recollection of feeling--finding the gloves uncomfortable at one point or another?

MS. MAZZOLA: They became uncomfortable. They--we moved around, we changed gloves. You don't really need a reason to do it.

MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, I'm just asking you based upon what you testified for your reasons for changing gloves, do you have an independent recollection, as you sit here today, of experiencing discomfort of the gloves and changing them as a result of that while you were at Bundy?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: You do have that recollection? And when did that occur, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: Several times.

MR. NEUFELD: Would you tell me which times, what point?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember the exact point.

MR. NEUFELD: Tell me as best you can, ma'am, when were the several times that you changed your gloves while you were at Bundy?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember exactly when I changed my gloves.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, give me approximately when, ma'am. You said it happened two or three times.

THE COURT: I think that misstates the evidence. Rephrase the question.

MR. NEUFELD: How many times did you say you did it, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: I changed my gloves many times. There is no reason to change it. You don't think about it; you just do it.

MR. NEUFELD: You said you have an independent recollection that you changed your gloves many times while you were at Bundy; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Tell me the first time you changed your gloves at Bundy, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: As I said before, I don't know the exact time when I changed my gloves.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, tell me what you were doing at the moment you changed your gloves the first time, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember.

MR. NEUFELD: Do you remember what you were doing the second time you changed your gloves?

MS. MAZZOLA: No. I don't think when I change my gloves; I just do it.

MR. NEUFELD: So you don't have any independent recollection as to what you were doing at any point when you say you changed your gloves?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And--one moment.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Now, ma'am, between the time that you picked up the hat and the glove at Bundy, you didn't change your gloves then, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: And the reason you know that you didn't do that then is because you saw it on the videotape; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: I did see a videotape, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And that is the reason you know that you didn't change your gloves then, isn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: At that point, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: In fact, I think you testified that until you saw the videotape you didn't even have an independent recollection of having picked up the glove and the hat at Bundy that day; isn't that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: That misstates the testimony, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I wasn't sure if I picked them up or Mr. Fung.

MR. NEUFELD: Right. And so in the absence of independent--I'm sorry--so am I correct in stating that you didn't have an independent recollection of it until you actually saw the videotape?

MS. MAZZOLA: I could not remember, that is correct.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, with the Court's permission, I just want to show a portion of the videotape as she is picking up the hat and the glove.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can I have an exhibit number?

THE COURT: Mr. Harris.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: 1083. May I, with the Court's permission?

THE COURT: Yes. Do we have it cued up to the portion that is pertinent here, because we have already seen this tape before, counsel?

MR. NEUFELD: That is what I'm asking for, just the portion that we were talking about.

THE COURT: My question is is it cued up?

MR. HARRIS: Yes, it is, your Honor.

(At 9:31 A.M., Defense exhibit 1083, a videotape, was played.)

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola--can you stop for one second. Miss Mazzola, are you a lefty?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right-handed.

MR. NEUFELD: But you picked up the hat with your left hand; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And--and could you go forward.

THE COURT: All right. Frame 13:51:46:18.

(The videotape resumes playing.)

MR. NEUFELD: Stop, stop.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, at this point you are using the--obviously the same hands with the same gloves and you are opening up the bag, correct, for the next item?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And the next item is the glove, right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you are--okay. Continue, please.

(The videotape resumes playing.)

MR. NEUFELD: Stop.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, you used the same left hand to pick up the glove that you used to pick up the hat, right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: In fact, you used the same fingers, didn't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if I used the exact same fingers, but I used the same hand.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And Miss Mazzola, you didn't, in between picking up the hat and the glove, look down to see whether or not you had picked up any other biological material or any trace evidence on your hand, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: In fact, before you picked up the hat, you didn't inspect your hand to see whether or not you had any other biological matter on your fingertips, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: And, umm, after you picked up the hat and put it in the bag, you didn't inspect your hand to see whether or not there was any trace evidence from the hat before you picked up the glove, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Had you been taught to do that, ma'am, at the SID mini academy?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, ma'am, that it is possible that trace evidence from the hat can be transferred to the rubber glove--transferred to your rubber glove when you pick it up?

MS. MAZZOLA: It is possible.

MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree, ma'am, that it is possible that trace evidence that is on your rubber glove can then be transferred to the leather glove when you pick that up?

MS. MAZZOLA: Improbable since I handled other items between picking up the hat and the glove.

MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, did you say before that one way that trace evidence gets transferred from one object to another is when those two objects come in contact?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree that not every time two objects come in contact does trace evidence move from one object to the next, right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Depends on what type of items they are.

MR. NEUFELD: Depends on what kind of item they are, it depends where the fibers are; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Depends where the hairs are?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: So you could handle several different things and the hairs and fibers might not come off on the first thing or the second thing you touched, but might come off on the third item; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, initially on direct examination, Miss Mazzola, didn't you say that it wasn't necessary to change your gloves between picking up the hat and the leather glove because the two objects were touching? Did you testify to that on direct examination?

MS. MAZZOLA: They were in close contact, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you testify not that they were simply in close contact, but did you testify that they were actually touching?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if I said touching or close contact.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, would you agree--I'm sorry. When you use the expression "Close contact," Does that mean touching or does that mean the two objects are close to one another but not actually touching?

MS. MAZZOLA: It could be anywhere from extremely close to each other to actually touching.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, how did you mean it, when you said in close proximity, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: Extremely close.

MR. NEUFELD: But not necessarily touching?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not necessarily touching.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: 23745.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Beginning at volume--

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, when you testified on direct examination last week in this case were you asked these questions and did you give these answers? "Question: And did you change gloves in between collecting the hat and the glove? "Answer: No. "Question: Why not? "Answer: The hat and the glove at Bundy were touching each other. They were not in two completely separate areas. They were in physical contact with each other." Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers last week at this trial?

MS. MAZZOLA: Apparently so, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And, ma'am, after you testified to that, there was a recess, wasn't there?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if there was a recess or not.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, later on Mr. Goldberg asked you the same question again about the physical relationship to the hat and the glove, did he not?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Reading now from page 23790.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: 7--

MR. NEUFELD: Hum?

MR. GOLDBERG: 7 what?

MR. NEUFELD: 23790.

(Brief pause.)

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

MR. NEUFELD: May we have a very brief side bar, your Honor?

THE COURT: For what purpose?

MR. NEUFELD: To get a stipulation about a recess.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: Are you ready?

MR. GOLDBERG: May I have a moment?

THE COURT: Sure.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. GOLDBERG: That's fine. I have no objection to this, starting on line--

MR. NEUFELD: Well, starting on--one moment, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Starting on line 24--23. Okay?

MR. NEUFELD: All right.

MR. NEUFELD: And ma'am, after the luncheon recess--

MR. GOLDBERG: Wait a minute. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: You need a foundational question or two.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, ma'am, at page 23790 were you asked these questions and did you give these answers? "Question by MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, you said on direct examination, when I was asking you about collecting the glove and the watch cap, the cap, that they were in close proximity or touching? "Answer: Uh-huh. "Question: Which was it? "Answer: Reviewing photographs, they were in very close proximity to each other." Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And just before you were asked those questions and you gave those answers at page 23790, were you sitting in this courtroom and present when--when Judge Ito said to you--

THE COURT: Wait, wait. Do you recall if there was a recess of any type in between those questions?

MS. MAZZOLA: I honestly can't remember when the recesses are.

THE COURT: All right. The Court will--

MR. NEUFELD: Can I show her the transcript to refresh her recollection?

THE COURT: Wait, wait. We have a procedure called taking judicial notice of the Court's own proceedings. I will take judicial notice, and the jury is to assume to be true, that there was in fact a recess between those two sessions. It is a matter of the Court's own record. Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, during that luncheon recess, Miss Mazzola, did the Prosecutor tell you that the photographs would not support your testimony that the hat and the glove were actually touching?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I object to this. Perhaps we can approach.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: I object to counsel's insinuations.

THE COURT: Did you have any discussion with the Prosecutor or any attorney regarding this issue over the lunch recess, if you recall?

MS. MAZZOLA: I looked at a photograph.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: And was that photograph shown to you by the Prosecutor?

MS. MAZZOLA: I can't recall who showed it to me, but I saw a photograph.

MR. NEUFELD: You didn't have your own? Someone else in this building had to show it to you; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And it was after you were shown those photographs or a photograph that you then changed your testimony after lunch; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: I saw that they were extremely close but not touching, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And so you changed your testimony after lunch; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: I corrected it, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

MR. NEUFELD: And ma'am, is it your position that the reason you didn't have to that change your gloves between picking up the hat and the glove is because the two items were in close proximity to one another?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you make that decision that two objects in close proximity but not touching don't require a change of gloves on your part, are you assuming that the hat and the glove were worn by the same person?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't assume anything.

MR. NEUFELD: And you can't assume anything about that, can you?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: So you don't know whether or not the hat and the glove were worn by the same person, do you?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: You certainly didn't know that at the time you were collecting the items?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you don't even know when the items were placed at that location when you collected them; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: You don't know whether those two items were placed on the ground at different times, do you?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true, since you can't assume either of those two facts, ma'am, that one cannot assume that just because two items are close to one another, although not touching, that the trace evidence on one will most likely be on the other?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes a fact not in evidence, that there was trace evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, in the event that--I'm sorry. One moment.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: When you pick up the hat, you have to be careful because there may be trace evidence on it? That is something that you were taught at the SID mini academy; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: I was taught that, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you were also taught to be careful with different items that are collected at a crime scene because they may have different types of hairs and fibers on them; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not necessarily different hairs and fibers, but just hairs and fibers.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, were you taught to assume that all items found at a crime scene are likely to have the same hairs and fibers because they are found at the same crime scene?

MR. GOLDBERG: Unintelligible.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: There is no telling what type of hairs and fibers are present.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And there is no telling whether or not the same hairs and fibers on one object would be found on another object, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you can't make that assumption based on how far apart two items are to one another, can you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: So, ma'am, would it--so wouldn't you agree that your earlier testimony in this case that you didn't have to change your gloves between picking up the hat and the leather glove here, because they were close to one another and therefore trace evidence on one would be on the other one, is not really consistent with what you were taught by the SID people?

MS. MAZZOLA: I--I don't know.

MR. NEUFELD: When you say you don't know, do you mean you don't know what the supervisors at SID taught you?

MS. MAZZOLA: I'm saying I don't know if it would be inconsistent with.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, if the objects had been fifteen feet apart, had you been taught by people at SID academy to change gloves before picking up the different objects?

MR. GOLDBERG: Improper hypothetical, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Gloves would be changed.

MR. NEUFELD: You were taught that they should be changed under those circumstances?

MS. MAZZOLA: Well, if they are far apart, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, I said ten or fifteen apart under those circumstances?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not getting down to exact distances, but far apart, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, in your own mind, based on your own experience, do you consider ten feet far apart?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: So would you change the gloves under those circumstances?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: How about five feet?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Three feet?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: But you made the decision here that because the two items were within inches of one another that you didn't have to change the gloves; is that correct?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: The decision to change gloves was made--we did not change gloves.

MR. NEUFELD: Was the decision made by you or was the decision given to you by Dennis Fung?

MS. MAZZOLA: I can't recall if I asked him about it or what. I'm not exactly sure what conversation we had at that time.

MR. NEUFELD: You mean it may very well be that you asked Dennis Fung whether you should change your gloves for this situation and he said no?

MS. MAZZOLA: It is possible.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Now also on the 17th did you recover a set of keys in the dirt at Bundy?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you recovered that set of keys, Miss Mazzola, did you notice that there was blood on them?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I can't recall if I remember seeing blood or not.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, would you agree, based on your training, that the presence of blood on keys might be evidence that someone used the keys to defend themselves?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Have you been trained as a criminalist to make an effort to identify relevant evidence?

MR. GOLDBERG: Overly broad, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And have you been trained as a criminalist to identify when items of evidence have blood on them?

MS. MAZZOLA: You notice if something has blood, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And if it has blood on it, that is something that is going to get special attention from you as a criminalist, isn't it?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is vague as to "Special attention."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: It is handled slightly differently.

MR. NEUFELD: And so if--if the keys had blood on them, as a criminalist wouldn't you want to have those keys examined for serology purposes?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: It is possible they would go to serology.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, don't the serologists and other people at SID expect the criminalist who is collecting the evidence to give them a debriefing, so to speak, of what you found and to hear your suggestions as to what should be done? Isn't that something you are expected to do?

MS. MAZZOLA: That would be up to the supervising criminalist.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And but you would agree that the supervising criminalist, whoever he or she may be in a given crime scene, is expected to brief the other people at SID as to what items may have relevant or potentially relevant evidence?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And based on what you were taught, you would expect a supervising criminalist to tell the people at SID that keys that were recovered had blood on them?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, you also picked up an envelope which contained eyeglasses at the Bundy scene, didn't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you see the body of Mr. Goldman dragged across that envelope?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: You noted on your field notes that morning that the envelope contained eyeglasses, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: One moment, your Honor. I'm sorry.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: In your training at SID has--have you read personally or has anyone at SID read to you the following provision of the Los Angeles Police Department manual, referring to section 510.10?

MR. GOLDBERG: This is an improper procedure, your Honor. This is hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, in your training at SID were you given instruction as to what methods to utilize for the proper booking of items of evidence?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And were you told or instructed that when you take an item which is in a closed container that you are expected to open that container to see what is inside? Is that something you have been taught?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is something that has been mentioned, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And is there in fact a standard procedure utilized at SID for inspecting envelopes or other types of closed containers when you collect them to investigate what is inside?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if there is a standard procedure or not.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, is it your procedure to simply open the item and look inside and see what is there?

MS. MAZZOLA: I leave that to the more experienced criminalists.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, you noted on your property--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: One moment, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: You noted on your property--I'm sorry. Withdrawn. You noted on your field notes, Miss Mazzola, that item 39 that was collected was an envelope with glasses; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Let me check the item number.

(Brief pause.)

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And did Mr. Fung open the envelope in your presence to show you that there was a pair of eyeglasses inside?

MS. MAZZOLA: The envelope was not securely closed. You could see there were glasses inside.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So you saw a pair of eyeglasses inside just by looking through a partial opening in the envelope?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you examined that pair of eyeglasses inside, did there seem to be anything unusual about it?

MS. MAZZOLA: We--

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "Unusual."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: We just noted that there were eyeglasses inside and that was the extent of it.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear the last part of your answer, ma'am.

MS. MAZZOLA: We just noted that there were eyeglasses inside the envelope and that was the extent of it.

MR. NEUFELD: At that point, when you peered into that envelope, you didn't notice that anything was missing from those pair of eyeglasses; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct, as far as I could see.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, with the Court's permission I would like the witness to open the envelope for item 39.

THE COURT: Do we have any butcher paper and gloves?

MR. NEUFELD: A pair of gloves. I guess she needs gloves, too.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld, I have asked Mrs. Robertson to see if she can get a sheet of butcher paper because of the nature of that item.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: Why don't you just spread that out on the counter in front of you. All right. Mr. Neufeld, proceed. And this is Court evidence item which, Mr. Neufeld?

MR. NEUFELD: It is People's exhibit no. 32, which is the larger plastic bag.

THE COURT: 32. Thank you. Proceed. Mr. Goldberg, if you want to stand behind counsel, you may.

MR. GOLDBERG: Sure. Thank you.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, before you begin opening this--the zip-lock bag, the large zip-lock bag that the items are in, can you tell what items are actually inside the zip-lock bag?

MS. MAZZOLA: There is a brown paper bag with writing on it.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

MS. MAZZOLA: There is a white envelope with writing on it. And appears to be a pair of glasses inside.

MR. NEUFELD: All right.

MS. MAZZOLA: And it appears to be two paper bindles with writing on each.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, the paper--the brown paper bag that you just described, would that be the brown paper bag that the white envelope with the eyeglasses in it was placed into at the crime scene?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Could you please open the exhibit, please.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Sorry, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Don't you have that rule in New York?

MR. SCHECK: No.

THE COURT: All right. The record should reflect that the witness is breaking the seals that are on the top zip part of the bag. Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, the--could you please open the white envelope as well that was inside the bag.

MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.)

MR. NEUFELD: And remove the contents.

MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.)

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, how many lenses are inside that envelope?

MS. MAZZOLA: One.

MR. NEUFELD: And this lens that you see in the envelope isn't even in the eyeglass, right? It is outside the glasses, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: But when you looked at the envelope that day you said there was nothing unusual about the pair of eyeglasses, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I saw a pair of glasses.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. You didn't notice--I'm sorry. Withdrawn. Would you please feel the rest of the brown paper bag to see if there is any other lens in that.

MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.) There does not appear to be anything.

MR. NEUFELD: And there are two small bindles in there. Could you feel those to see if there is a lens in that.

MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.)

MR. NEUFELD: You don't have to open it.

MS. MAZZOLA: There does not appear to be a lens.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, do you know what happened to the second lens after you collected these items--this pair of eyeglasses on the morning of June 13th?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, you said a moment ago that when you collected the item it was a pair of eyeglasses, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you said that they were intact at that point, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, did you say that you didn't notice anything at all unusual about the pair of eyeglasses?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe I said I noticed a pair of eyeglasses.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you also say that you didn't notice anything unusual when you peered into that envelope and looked into the eyeglasses?

MS. MAZZOLA: I noticed that there was a pair of eyeglasses in the envelope. I did not open the envelope.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you also testify a moment ago that when you looked into the envelope you didn't notice anything unusual?

MS. MAZZOLA: From what I could see and as far as I looked they were just a pair of eyeglasses.

MR. NEUFELD: And if a lens was missing from the pair of eyeglasses, that would be unusual, would it not?

MS. MAZZOLA: That would be, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: That would be, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: To your knowledge has any investigation been conducted by the Scientific Investigation Division of the Los Angeles Police Department to find out where the second lens is?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay and irrelevant and also assumes fact not in evidence.

MR. NEUFELD: If she knows.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: You can put that away now, ma'am.

MS. MAZZOLA: Thank you.

MR. NEUFELD: Actually wait just one minute.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: With the Court's permission I would like to show another brief snippet of videotape.

THE COURT: Which videotape?

MR. NEUFELD: A videotape that was shown both by the Prosecution on the direct examination and also by the Defense.

THE COURT: That doesn't help me. Which videotape?

MR. NEUFELD: Of Miss Mazzola passing the envelope to Dennis Fung.

THE COURT: That comment assumes facts that aren't in evidence, but you can show the videotape.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, passing an item to Dennis Fung behind the Coroners.

THE COURT: You can show the videotape.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Item 1082--exhibit 1082.

(At 10:04 A.M., Defense exhibit 1082, a videotape, was played.)

THE COURT: We are looking at frame 13:35:10 to frame--

MR. NEUFELD: Could you just back up a second, please.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, you said on direct examination that the object--it was your opinion that the object that you were passing to Mr. Fung at this moment is not the envelope which contained the eyeglasses; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And umm, I believe you said that it was your practice not to pass an object that had blood on it to the individual who didn't have gloves on; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And is that your basis for concluding it is not the envelope?

MS. MAZZOLA: That and it does not appear to be the right packaging. The main thing is I would not pass anything with blood on it to an ungloved colleague.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, by the time you picked up that envelope, it is already sometime, what, around noon, would you say, on the 13th?

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

MR. NEUFELD: Well, it was certainly later than eleven o'clock in the morning, right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And by that time the blood on the envelope had dried, had it not?

MS. MAZZOLA: It might have.

MR. NEUFELD: And ma'am, isn't it true that one side of that envelope doesn't have very much blood on it? Take a look at it.

MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.) That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Could you please show the jury, hold it up for the jury, first the side--the back of the envelope which has a fair amount of blood on it.

MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.)

MR. NEUFELD: And now please turn it around and display for the jury the side of the envelope which is pretty clean and doesn't have much blood on it.

MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.)

MR. NEUFELD: MR. GOLDBERG: I would object to the phrase "Pretty clean" As a conclusion?

MR. NEUFELD: I withdraw that.

THE COURT: The jury can draw its own conclusion.

MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, ma'am, that the object in the video is not a brown bag?

MS. MAZZOLA: It does not appear to be.

THE COURT: Let me just ask, 1492, were you able to see that?

JUROR NO. 1492: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MR. NEUFELD: One moment, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Could you turn over the envelope, please.

MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree that it is not a coin envelope?

MS. MAZZOLA: It does not appear to be one of the smaller coin envelopes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, when you were packing items of evidence that day, keys, the beeper and other items, you put them in envelopes such as this that I'm showing you right now, indicating Prosecution's exhibit 163-D, as in David?

MS. MAZZOLA: They were in coin envelopes. The size--depending on the size of the item.

MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, isn't it true that that day on June 13th you had no coin envelopes that were the size of the object shown in the picture that you are looking at right now?

MS. MAZZOLA: I can't recall if we had that size in the kits or not. I don't know.

MR. NEUFELD: It is not a plastic bag, is it, Miss Mazzola?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: And it is not the posse box, is it, Miss Mazzola?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: And all of your notes that day were being written on a clipboard; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you didn't keep a small pad with you for that purpose, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: And that is not the clipboard, is it?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Before you took the witness stand on direct examination, during your prep session, were you told that the Defense in this case had suggested that this item in this picture was in fact the envelope that contained the glasses? Had you been told that?

MS. MAZZOLA: I remember it being mentioned, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And had you been told also that when Dennis Fung was confronted with that allegation that Dennis Fung denied it?

MS. MAZZOLA: Which allegation?

MR. NEUFELD: That that item that you see in that image is in fact the envelope that contained the eyeglasses? Were you told that Dennis Fung denied it?

MS. MAZZOLA: I might have been told that.

MR. NEUFELD: All right.

THE COURT: All right. Referring to the image on 13:34:07.

MR. NEUFELD: Yes.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Being printed out as sub item C.

THE COURT: All right. 1082 sub C.

MR. NEUFELD: Right.

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel.

(Deft's 1082-C for id = photograph)

MR. NEUFELD: When you testified at the trial last week on direct examination, Mr. Goldberg simply put up this image and asked you whether it was the envelope; is that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: Not impeaching hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: But when you were prepped on this particular matter during the prep sessions, you had been told that it was the Defense position that it was the envelope, weren't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)

MR. NEUFELD: You had been told that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you were told that, didn't Mr. Goldberg or other Prosecutors tell you that it was the Prosecution's position that it was not the envelope?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe they told me that they believed it was not the envelope.

MR. NEUFELD: Did they tell you they believed it was the envelope?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't recall if they told me one way or another.

MR. NEUFELD: And--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: I'm now going to show another small segment of the videotape that was shown by the Prosecutor on direct examination.

THE COURT: Which item?

MR. HARRIS: 1078.

MR. NEUFELD: 1078.

(At 10:11 A.M., Defense exhibit 1078, a videotape, was played.)

MR. NEUFELD: Do you see the brown object on the blanket?

MS. MAZZOLA: There appears to be a dark object off to one side, yes.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Now, when you saw this videotape when you were being prepped--I'm sorry. You did see this videotape when you were being prepped, didn't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: I saw the videotape, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, you didn't see it for the first time when you were on direct examination in this trial, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you were being prepped by, umm--I'm sorry. When you testified at the trial, you were asked by Mr. Goldberg is that the leather glove and you said no; is that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this isn't impeachment; hearsay, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if those are the exact words.

MR. NEUFELD: In sum and substance would that be a fair statement, ma'am?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for a conclusion.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: That would be a fair statement.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. But when you were prepped by the Prosecutor in this case, weren't you told that it was the Defense position that the brown object that you see on the white sheet or white blanket in this picture was in fact the Bundy glove?

MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)

MR. NEUFELD: Were you told that?

MS. MAZZOLA: I was asked if I remember the glove being there in that position and then they mentioned that the Defense was thinking it was the glove.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And so you knew, when you testified at trial here and said it wasn't the glove, that the Defense was taking the position that it was the glove, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)

MR. NEUFELD: You knew that before you took the witness stand?

MS. MAZZOLA: I testified to where I remember seeing the glove myself.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, you knew before you got on the witness stand at this trial that the Defense was taking the position that that was the glove, didn't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And Miss Mazzola, when you got on the witness stand here on direct examination, had you already been told that that glove had been moved at least once?

MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)

MR. NEUFELD: Prior to the time that it was collected?

MS. MAZZOLA: I think that I remember hearing that it had been turned over or moved slightly.

MR. NEUFELD: Had you been shown photographs which displayed the glove in two different locations?

MS. MAZZOLA: Two different positions, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And would it be fair to say, Miss Mazzola, that you didn't know, when you saw the glove in those two different positions, whether the glove had been moved from position 1 to some other position and then have someone else return it to what you saw as position 2? Is that a fair statement?

MR. GOLDBERG: Unintelligible.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I just testified to where I remember seeing the glove when I saw it.

MR. NEUFELD: But Miss Mazzola, even before you testified as to where you remember seeing the glove, you told us a moment ago that you were shown photographs which showed the glove in two different positions, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree that for the glove to get into two different positions it had to have been moved by somebody or something? Would that be correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it also possible, Miss Mazzola, that the glove was originally in the position displayed in the first photograph that you saw and then somehow it got moved to another location and then someone simply put it back close to where it was initially and so you saw it in the second position?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation and conclusion.

THE COURT: Sustained. All right. Counsel, we are going to take our recess at this point. Ladies and gentlemen, please remember all of my admonitions to you. Do not discuss the case among yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, do not conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, and do not allow anybody to communicate with you. And we will resume at 10:30. Miss Mazzola, you may step down. If you would repackage those items, please, and return them to Mrs. Robertson.

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

THE COURT: We will be in recess for fifteen.

(Recess.)

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

THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. The Defendant is again present before the Court with his counsel, People are represented. The jury is not present. Let's have the jury, please.

(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've now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Miss Andrea 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 again reminded you are under oath. Mr. Neufeld, you may conclude.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, you testified that a criminalist must use his or her discretion in deciding which items to collect?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And I believe you testified that a criminalist can't simply pick up every little bit of paper at a crime scene; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And I believe it was your position that if you do that, you're simply adding a lot of garbage. Is that what you said, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: Something to that effect.

MR. NEUFELD: Now--

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: I'm going to show the witness item--exhibit 1080, 1 0 8 0.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, you see the piece of paper on the tile in between the person who is pointing and the white envelope?

MS. MAZZOLA: On the tile?

MR. NEUFELD: Did you see a piece of paper on the ground?

MS. MAZZOLA: There appears to be something on the tile, on the walkway.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, it's an object other than the tile itself; is that correct?

THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Neufeld. You need to let Miss Mazzola finish answering.

MR. NEUFELD: Sorry, your Honor. Sorry, Miss Mazzola.

MS. MAZZOLA: It appears to be something other than the tile.

MR. NEUFELD: And I would like you to take a look at the photo itself. You may see a better resolution, Miss Mazzola.

MS. MAZZOLA: Okay.

MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree that it appears to be a piece of paper that's on the--sitting on the tile?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, that piece of paper was not collected by you on June 13th, was it?

MS. MAZZOLA: No, I did not see-- remember seeing the paper on June 13th.

MR. NEUFELD: And you never saw Dennis Fung collect that piece of paper, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Had you seen that piece of paper, you would have certainly collected it, wouldn't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: I would have looked at it to find out what it was.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, wouldn't you be concerned as a criminalist that that piece of paper found so close to the body of Nicole Brown Simpson could have a fingerprint belonging to the assailant?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it's possible.

MR. NEUFELD: And that if the assailant was bleeding at this point in time, that that piece of paper might have a drop of blood that belonged to the assailant, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: It's a possibility.

MR. NEUFELD: That piece of paper might even have writing on it which would give some indication as to either the identity or the motive of whomever or however many people that were involved in this case were the assailants?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: In other words, Miss Mazzola, that piece of paper found so close to the body of Nicole Brown Simpson could have been a very relevant piece of evidence?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained, but the jury can draw their own conclusion given the proximity.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, calling your attention now to the drops of blood there on the walkway at Bundy, you collected five drops of blood, is that correct, five bloodstains on that walkway?

MS. MAZZOLA: Let me check and make sure exactly how many.

MR. NEUFELD: Please do.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, the reason that you collected those drops is because you had been told by the detectives that these drops might perhaps come from the person who was the assailant as a possibility. Weren't you told that?

MS. MAZZOLA: That was a possibility, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And the detectives I believe walked you and Dennis Fung along that walkway pointing out the different blood drops or bloodstains to you; did they not?

MS. MAZZOLA: I went up to a certain point on the walkway. They were pointing out the drops, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you say they were pointing out the drops, they were pointing out the stains; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And now that you have seen Detective Lange and Vannatter and you know what they look like, were--excuse me. The detectives who took you on this walk-through, were either of them either Detective Lange or Vannatter?

MS. MAZZOLA: I can't remember which ones were there that day.

MR. NEUFELD: How many different detectives took you on that walk-through approximately?

MS. MAZZOLA: I wasn't counting detectives. I don't know.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Well, was it more than two?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was more than one.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And they were both speaking and pointing out different items to you and Dennis Fung?

MS. MAZZOLA: They were talking to Mr. Fung, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you could hear what they were saying?

MS. MAZZOLA: Certain portions, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you collected every stain that you saw along this walkway; did you not?

MS. MAZZOLA: The stains were in the trail, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And could you step down for one second, please.

MS. MAZZOLA: Sure.

(The witness complies.)

THE COURT: Do you have the long pointer there? Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Miss Mazzola, you said you collected every stain that was along that walkway, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you didn't simply say, "Hmm, I will only collect representative stains," Did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: On this, no.

MR. NEUFELD: You made a decision with Dennis Fung that you would collect each and every stain along that way, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: I was told to pick up every stain.

MR. NEUFELD: By Dennis Fung?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And he told you that even before you started picking up the stains, didn't he?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, item no. 50--by the way, isn't it true that you would collect items of evidence in sequence?

MS. MAZZOLA: As much as possible, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: So the photo id numbers that you use such as 112 for item 47 was collected before photo id no. 113 which corresponds to item 48; isn't that right? That was your practice?

MS. MAZZOLA: For the most part.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, was that your practice to do that?

MR. GOLDBERG: It's asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: On this occasion, we started working on the trail, the walkway, because we wanted to get those stains up first.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Well, did you pick up the stains on the walkway before you picked up the perishables and loose items of evidence such as the hat and the glove and the keys?

MS. MAZZOLA: No. They were recovered first and then we went onto the walkway.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So first you picked up the items, the perishable items and then you started collecting the stains; is that right?

MR. GOLDBERG: Objection to perishable.

THE COURT: Sustained. Assumes facts not in evidence.

MR. NEUFELD: First you started collecting the nonstain evidence and then you went on to collect stains; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you got to that walkway and you started collecting them, did you collect item 47 first on the walkway?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And then you collected item 48, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And then you collected item 49; is that right? Could you please point out to the jury where items 47, 48 and 49 are?

MS. MAZZOLA: 47, right here, 48 and 49 (Indicating).

MR. NEUFELD: Can you see that there?

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And then--did you then go on to pick up item 50?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And could you please point out where item 50 is?

MS. MAZZOLA: (Indicating).

MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree, ma'am, that item 50 is located simply a few feet from the back gate along that walkway?

MS. MAZZOLA: On the diagram, it appears to be close to the back gate.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And in fact, ma'am, to get--then at some point, did you pick up item 52 after you picked up item 50?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And to get to item 52, you had to walk through the back gate, didn't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: I just kept on going. There was no gate barring my way.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, are you saying that there was no gate at the Bundy walkway on June 13th, 1994? Is that your testimony?

MS. MAZZOLA: I do not recall seeing a gate on that morning.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, if other witnesses had testified that they were absolutely certain that there was a gate present at the rear of that walkway on June 13th, would that affect your testimony today as to whether or not there was a gate there on June 13th?

MR. GOLDBERG: It's an improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Do you have any reason to believe, Miss Mazzola, that there wasn't a gate there on June 13th when you collected the evidence?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained. Miss Mazzola, have you been back to the scene since at Bundy?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I have.

THE COURT: Have you seen the gate back there?

MS. MAZZOLA: I have seen the gate since, yes.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. NEUFELD: When you were at the SID mini academy, Miss Mazzola, did they teach you how to look for evidence?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: In fact, when you were at Rockingham that morning, Miss Mazzola, you and Dennis Fung looked all along the driveway systematically for every possible red stain along the way, didn't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you've been taught to do that at the SID mini academy, haven't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And likewise, Miss Mazzola, at Bundy as you proceeded along that walkway in that line, you were looking for as many red stains as could be there, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: In that trail, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you say "That trail," You mean all the way from where 47 is--and could you point to 47, please?

MS. MAZZOLA: (Indicating).

MR. NEUFELD: And now could you point to 52?

MS. MAZZOLA: (Indicating).

MR. NEUFELD: And all along that line connecting those two dots from 47 to 52, you were looking systematically all along that way for any red stains; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: The area had already been searched for red stains. I was following the trail that I was told to pick up.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, a moment ago, I asked you whether or not you had been taught to systematically examine the trail or walkway for any and all red stains.

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: I believe you answered yes; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you were at the Bundy location that day, ma'am, were you also systematically examining that walkway from item 47 to item 52 for the presence of red stains?

MR. GOLDBERG: It's vague as to whether you is collective or individual.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you doing that?

MS. MAZZOLA: It had already been searched for red stains before I started collecting them.

MR. NEUFELD: Yes. And the person who searched for red stains before you started collecting it was you and Dennis Fung; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Myself up to a certain point with Mr. Fung and the detective and Mr. Fung continued on out the back.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, who told you to pick up item 52?

MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung.

MR. NEUFELD: He told you that there was a bloodstain outside the rear gate, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: He told me there was a bloodstain on the driveway.

MR. NEUFELD: Have you been taught, Miss Mazzola, at the SID mini academy to independently look for evidence when you're at a crime scene?

MS. MAZZOLA: To a certain extent, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Have you been taught, Miss Mazzola, to keep your eyes open as you walk through a crime scene to see if there's any relevant evidence?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, did you keep your eyes open when you left item 50 and headed through the rear gate to item 52?

MS. MAZZOLA: My eyes were open when I went out the back of the driveway.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And when you walked out that back, you didn't see any red stains on the rear gate, did you?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence, that she saw the gate.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I honestly don't remember seeing a gate there.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, now that you--you say you've been back to that location, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you know the gate is there?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you know from speaking to other people about this case that the gate was there in fact on the 13th, don't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it was there on the 13th.

MR. NEUFELD: And so once again I ask you, when you were walking from item 50 to item 52 with your eyes open, did you notice any bloodstains on the gate?

MS. MAZZOLA: I did not notice a gate.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you notice any bloodstains there, Miss Mazzola?

MR. GOLDBERG: This is badgering. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained. She's answered she didn't see the gate. If she didn't see the gate, she couldn't see anything that wasn't on it or was on it.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you. You may return to your seat.

(The witness complies.)

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, when you were prepped to testify in this case by the Prosecutors, were you told that there was an issue in this case, that is the fact that blood drops, alleged blood drops were not recovered from the gate on June 13th, but were recovered from the gate three weeks later? Were you told that?

MS. MAZZOLA: I remember hearing something about that.

MR. NEUFELD: During the prep sessions?

MS. MAZZOLA: I can't recall if it was during the prep sessions or not.

MR. NEUFELD: And were you told during those prep sessions, Miss Mazzola, that one way to deal with that particular problem would be to say that you never even saw the gate when you were there?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you come up with that idea on your own, ma'am?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, that's argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: When you went back to Rockingham for the second time, Miss Mazzola, did you make any contemporaneous note to indicate the time that you arrived back at Rockingham?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe we did.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, do you know what time you left Bundy?

MS. MAZZOLA: The approximate time, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And how do you know the approximate time?

MS. MAZZOLA: Because it was written down while we were in the truck going back to Rockingham.

MR. NEUFELD: And where did you write that down?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe it was in the notes.

MR. NEUFELD: Which note?

MS. MAZZOLA: Let me check.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: May I approach the witness to see what notes she is referring to?

THE COURT: Certainly. Mr. Goldberg.

MS. MAZZOLA: I have it written down here (Indicating).

MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you say you "Have it written down here," That's not an original entry that was made contemporaneous to the--to the making out of these field notes on the 13th, is it?

MS. MAZZOLA: Doesn't appear to be.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Do you have any contemporaneous note that you made to indicate what time you left Bundy?

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

MR. NEUFELD: And a moment ago, ma'am, when you simply--when you testified that you wrote down the time you had left Bundy while you and Dennis Fung were in the van on the way back to Rockingham, is that something that you had just made up?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe we had written down the time.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, what was your basis when you testified a moment ago that you wrote down the time you left Bundy in the van while you and Dennis Fung were on your way back to Rockingham?

MS. MAZZOLA: That I knew the approximate time that we had left Bundy.

MR. NEUFELD: But did you have an independent recollection of actually writing it down while you were in the van in transit?

MS. MAZZOLA: I can't remember if I recall if it was in fact when we were in the van, if we had just left or if we were sitting in the truck getting ready to leave or what.

MR. NEUFELD: But you said you have independent recollection--I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Counsel.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry. Please.

MS. MAZZOLA: No. Go ahead.

MR. NEUFELD: A moment ago, you testified that you did have a recollection that either while you were sitting in the van or while the van was in transit, that you actually wrote down an entry as to the time that you had left Bundy? Wasn't that what you just testified to a little while ago?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And my question to you is, ma'am, when you testified to that a little while ago, did you simply make that up?

MS. MAZZOLA: No. I thought we had.

MR. NEUFELD: Then what was your basis for believing that you had done that?

MS. MAZZOLA: That I knew the approximate time we had left.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, and what was the source of your information as to the approximate time that you left?

MS. MAZZOLA: The time I had in my notes.

MR. NEUFELD: But the time you just put in your note is not a note that you made on June 13th, is it?

MS. MAZZOLA: It appears not to be.

THE COURT: All right. Now we've gone through this twice now.

MR. NEUFELD: As best you can recall at this time, Miss Mazzola, what time did you leave Bundy?

MS. MAZZOLA: Approximately 3:15 or so.

MR. NEUFELD: Yet, would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that you have no independent basis for estimating that time?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, when you first got back to Rockingham, Miss Mazzola, the first place you inspected was the exterior south side of Mr. Simpson's residence; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And while you were down inspecting and examining that location of Mr. Simpson's property, you noticed a red mark on a wire hanging down; did you not?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was brought to my attention that there was a red mark on a wire back there.

MR. NEUFELD: And who was it that brought that to your attention?

MS. MAZZOLA: I can't remember if it was Mr. Fung or a detective.

MR. NEUFELD: And after it was brought to your attention, did you then return to the front of the house to go get your stain collection kit?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And then once you got the stain collection kit, you alone went back to the side of the house to collect that stain; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And that reddish discoloration that you collected on that wire, that became item no. 11; did it not?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you collected that item no. 11 without Dennis Fung even being present to observe; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And just like the other stains that you collected that day, you swatched the reddish area; did you not?

MS. MAZZOLA: I swatched the area that came up pheno positive. I had trouble seeing exactly the red mark itself.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, you saw a reddish discoloration on the wire?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was pointed out to me, but I still couldn't quite make it out.

MR. NEUFELD: You're saying that you couldn't make out that it was a reddish stain on the wire before you collected it? Is that your testimony?

MS. MAZZOLA: The wire was dirty and we did a pheno test on it--

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

THE COURT: Wait.

MR. NEUFELD: May I have a sidebar, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes, you may.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

THE COURT: With the Court reporter.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: We're at the sidebar. I think I made a mistake by putting this mat here because you guys will feel welcome to stand there and feel comfortable. Mr. Neufeld, the appropriate way to deal with a nonresponsive question--nonresponsive answer to your question is to ask the Court to strike the question and answer and admonish the jury, not to cut the witness off. You have a very bad habit of cutting witnesses off, especially this witness. I have admonished you a number of times. I don't want to have to do it in front of the jury, impose sanctions, but if I have to, I will.

MR. NEUFELD: What I'm concerned with, your Honor, is, this witness volunteered information that she had--

THE COURT: Keep your voice down.

MR. NEUFELD: This witness volunteered information the Court had already ruled was inadmissible in this case; namely, that they did a pheno type test on that wire. That had been the ruling of the Court. The People knew about that ruling. I'm sure they must have informed the witness not to bring it up--

THE COURT: Keep your voice down.

MR. NEUFELD: Sorry.

MR. GOLDBERG: Excuse me, your Honor.

MR. NEUFELD: --bring it up unless it was explicitly inquired as to in questioning. I did not ask any question at all that caused her to start testifying to the phenolphtalein test results on that wire. I simply asked her about color and collection and she all of a sudden on her own volunteered that business about the phenolphtalein test, which is improper.

THE COURT: Hold on. What's the status of the--was there any subsequent testing done on item 11?

MR. GOLDBERG: No. But there were swatches of--oh, yes, there was subsequent testing. I'm sorry. There was.

THE COURT: Item 11's been tested?

MR. GOLDBERG: It was tested I think at the DOJ for a presumptive test for blood.

MR. NEUFELD: That's actually not correct, okay. There's never been a confirmatory test on it, which I think is the Court's question, by anybody doing DNA testing or any confirmatory test. So therefore--

THE COURT: What test has been done on it?

MR. GOLDBERG: I think it was a phenolphtalein test. Let me go check.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm worried about this because it should not have been told to the jury. And frankly, Mr. Goldberg had a duty to advise the witness that those phenolphtalein tests were inadmissible unless they were explicitly gone into.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. On the wire, the only thing that's happened, Andrea Mazzola did a presumptive phenolphtalein. DOJ did a different presumptive. There was insufficient sample to do anything further. They came up with a negative on the stain, but came up with a positive on the substrate control so that you have basically nothing on the wire.

MR. NEUFELD: In other words, even more important--because in fact what happened is that DOJ did not get a positive phenolphtalein test on the evidence. Miss Mazzola claims she did. So that's it. So it should have never been alluded to.

THE COURT: This is a huge mountain out of a molehill.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm asking your Honor to order it stricken and order the jury to disregard those answers and those questions.

THE COURT: All right. Let's proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can I be heard on that?

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg, you want to be heard?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, the problem is that he's--is the Court striking it or not?

THE COURT: I'm inclined to.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. the problem is, he's dancing around and around and around this issue and there's no way that she can explain what she did with that type of phenolphtalein test. My understanding of it is, from her testimony in addition to what I've been told before, that you can't see anything on that wire, that they--or she couldn't at least. maybe Mr. Fung did. I think Mr. Fung did. But she phenoed it and she got a test. She's collecting almost at random from the area where she got positive tests.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Then I'm going to tell them to disregard the report that there was a positive phenolphtalein result.

MR. GOLDBERG: But they can consider what she--

THE COURT: the questions about collecting it.

MR. GOLDBERG: I do not understand why he's even getting into that.

MS. CLARK: That's fair.

(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, with regards to Miss Mazzola's testimony concerning the testing of the wire using the phenolphtalein presumptive test, I'm going to direct you to disregard her testimony that she got a positive result from that test. The reason for that is, phenolphtalein is a--what is called a presumptive test. It only means that it's possible that blood is there, but other things also give a positive test. And unless there is a test to confirm that it is in fact blood and human blood, then you should not consider that result. So since there is no confirmatory test on this particular wire, you are to disregard the fact that there was a positive phenolphtalein test on the wire. All right. Thank you. Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: I will allow the testimony to stand however as to her taking the swatch.

MR. NEUFELD: Oh, yes, taking the swatch and putting it in a bag.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: In fact, when you collected item no. 11, Miss Mazzola, did you make a control swatch?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And then you also made a separate swatch of the item of evidence; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And even before you collected item 11, Miss Mazzola, did you make an entry in your field notes indicating the location of the item?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you collected the item, did you also make an entry in your field notes as to the time at which you collected it?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And what was the time, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: It's approximately 1540.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, you testified that you learned subsequent to your testifying on August 23rd that it really was not necessary for you to fill in the time for every item that you collected at a crime scene; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And were you told that you only had to enter the times where it was relevant?

MS. MAZZOLA: Some people said that, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, let me ask you what your criteria were on June 13th. What was your criteria for deciding when to write down a time on the field notes as opposed to those instances where you chose not to write down a time?

MS. MAZZOLA: I really don't remember what my criteria was at the time.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, by looking at your field notes now, can you reconstruct what your reason was for writing down times that you collected some items, but not writing down the times that you collected other items?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not really, no.

MR. NEUFELD: But it is your best recollection that the primary criteria should be when the criminalist believes it relevant; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: From what I've learned subsequent to that, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, for item no. 6, which was a bloodstain at Rockingham, you did write down the time; did you not?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: Why don't you check your notes.

MS. MAZZOLA: Let me make sure. Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: But you didn't write down the time for any of the stains that you collected at Bundy; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, is the reason that you gave that kind of disparate treatment to the single drop at Rockingham as opposed to all of the--or as opposed to any and all of the stains at Bundy, because you believe that item no. 6 at Rockingham was relevant and the stain--or the time you collected item no. 6 at Rockingham was relevant, but the time that you collected any and all of the stains at Bundy were irrelevant?

MR. GOLDBERG: That's unintelligible. Also, a single drop misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled. Do you understand the question?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not really.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. NEUFELD: Certainly.

MR. NEUFELD: You would agree that you didn't note the time that you collected any of the stains at Bundy; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: My question therefore, Miss Mazzola, is, is the reason that you recorded the time you collected item no. 6 at Rockingham but didn't record the collection of any of the stains at Bundy because you deemed time to be relevant for item no. 6 but irrelevant with respect to all the blood drops at Bundy?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, if relevant was supposed to be the criteria by which you decided whether to note the time, then what was the reason why you noted it for no. 6 at Rockingham but didn't note it for a single stain at Bundy?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I learned that it would be relevant since then. At the time, I was trying to keep track of the time at--when we arrived at Bundy, Mr. Fung informed me that we would be collecting a lot of samples, the time that we start picking up, the time that we ended, keep an eye on that. Individual samples don't bother.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you say the time that you started, you mean the time that you collected the first item to the time you collected the last item?

MS. MAZZOLA: He said try to keep an eye on that and that was it.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Did you note--what was the first bloodstain that you collected at Bundy? Bundy.

MS. MAZZOLA: Property item 41.

MR. NEUFELD: That was the first--that was the first stain you collected? And did you note in your field notes the time that you collected the first stain?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: What was the last stain that you collected at Bundy?

MS. MAZZOLA: The last stain was from the shoeprint that Mr. Fung lifted.

MR. NEUFELD: And did you note the time of that?

MS. MAZZOLA: No, we did not.

MR. NEUFELD: So is it now your best recollection that Dennis Fung told you to note the time you collected the first stain and the time you collected the last stain, but you simply forgot to do it?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And once you entered the house after you collected item 11, the first item that you collected inside the house was item no. 12; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Those would be the drops of blood that you found in the foyer of Mr. Simpson's home?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And before you collected item no. 12, you did an inspection of the first floor of the house; did you not?

MS. MAZZOLA: I can't remember if we inspected first or picked up first.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Well, what time did you actually pick up item no. 12? Did you record that in your notes?

MS. MAZZOLA: Let's see. Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And what time was that?

MS. MAZZOLA: 1630.

MR. NEUFELD: That would be 3:30--3:30. No. 4:30, 4:30 in the afternoon.

MS. MAZZOLA: 4:30.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you. And either before or after you picked up item 12, you did do an inspection of the first floor of the house looking for bloody clothing; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: For blood in general.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. Looking for bloodstains?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Looking for blood smears?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Looking for flecks of dry blood?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you examined the kitchen, didn't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you examined the kitchen sink?

MS. MAZZOLA: I did not personally.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, did you--do you know whether Dennis Fung examined the kitchen sink?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation, personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Overruled.

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

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Did you examine the laundry room?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you examine the living room?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And the dining room?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree that except for the several drops that you found right in the foyer inside the front door, that there were no bloodstains found anywhere on the first floor of that house?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And that there was no blood smears found anywhere on the first floor of that house?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And that there were no blood flakes, flakes of dry blood found anywhere on the first floor of that house?

MS. MAZZOLA: We did not find any.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, that's what you were looking for, weren't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you were taught, ma'am, looking for blood evidence to examine the location in a systematic way; isn't that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: This has been asked and answered.

THE COURT: It is redundant.

MR. NEUFELD: Not to the inside of the house.

THE COURT: Yes, it is.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

THE COURT: Especially with negative results.

MR. NEUFELD: And after you inspected the first floor, you went up to the second floor; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And did you inspect counters?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you inspect light switches?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you inspect the shelves in Mr. Simpson's closet?

MS. MAZZOLA: As the shelves themselves or the contents? What--

MR. NEUFELD: Just the front of the shelves.

MS. MAZZOLA: I--

MR. NEUFELD: For any sign of blood.

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if we looked at the front of the shelves or not.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you look at knobs on the drawers?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: And no flakes of dry blood were found in those locations that I just enumerated to you; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And no smears of wet blood were found in those locations that I just enumerated to you?

MS. MAZZOLA: We did not find any.

MR. NEUFELD: One moment.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel and Defendant.)

MR. NEUFELD: And while you were there, Miss Mazzola, did you inspect either the intercom or the telephone to see whether or not there were any bloodstains on it?

MS. MAZZOLA: I did not personally, no.

MR. NEUFELD: Do you know whether Dennis Fung did?

MS. MAZZOLA: I do not know personally if he did or not.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, are telephones one of the locations that you were taught at the SID mini academy to examine for the presence of blood?

MS. MAZZOLA: We were not taught to look at the phone. We were taught to look at things in general.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, up on the second floor in Mr. Simpson's bedroom, were you shown a pair of dark socks on the floor?

MS. MAZZOLA: There were a pair of dark socks on the floor.

MR. NEUFELD: And who pointed out the socks to you?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if it was one of the detectives or Mr. Fung.

MR. NEUFELD: Didn't you and Dennis Fung ascend the stairs together to the second floor?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if we were together all the time or not. I can't remember.

MR. NEUFELD: Not all the time. But were you together when you went upstairs, when you left the first floor and went to the second floor?

MS. MAZZOLA: We were both on the second level at the same time.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And at that point in time, you were still looking for any sign of blood; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you were also looking to see whether or not any of the clothing had blood; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And your--was Dennis Fung already in the room where the socks were prior to your arrival in that room?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't think so, but I can't be positive.

MR. NEUFELD: Did Dennis Fung pick up the socks in your presence?

MS. MAZZOLA: He collected the socks, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And he--did he give them to you to put into a brown paper bag or did he put them in the bag himself?

MS. MAZZOLA: He put them in the bag himself.

MR. NEUFELD: And you saw him do that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you said a moment ago that both you and Dennis Fung were looking for blood; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you saw of course Dennis Fung examine or look at the socks before he put them in the bag; did he not?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if I was watching him all the time or not.

MR. NEUFELD: So as you sit here today, you don't know whether or not and to what extent Dennis Fung examined those socks before putting them in the bag. Is that your testimony?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you personally observe the socks before or examine the socks up close before they were put in the bag?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: You relied on Dennis Fung to do that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, assumes facts not in evidence that it was done.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm asking for her state of mind.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: And while you were in that room with Dennis Fung, did he at any point express to you, "Oh, I see blood on the socks"?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Did Dennis Fung say anything to you to indicate that he observed stains on the socks?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: When you were up in the bedroom, did you examine the carpet where the socks were found?

MS. MAZZOLA: I did not personally, no.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you see Dennis Fung look at the carpet where the socks were found?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to look.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I can't remember if I saw him looking at the carpet while he picked up the socks or not.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, you said that you and he--it was your purpose to be examining items in the house for the presence of blood; is that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: This has been asked and answered. Objection under 352, this line of questioning.

THE COURT: As to the carpet only, would you focus in on that please? But we've all been to Mr. Simpson's house, the jury, counsel. We've seen the number of items that are there. If we go through each and every item, we'll be here for a long time. I suggest we not do that, especially since there are only a few items in the house.

MR. NEUFELD: Fine.

MR. NEUFELD: You just--well, with respect to the carpet in the room--

THE COURT: With respect to the carpet.

MR. NEUFELD: --both the large carpet and the smaller area rug as well, you didn't observe any flecks of blood on that carpeting; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: The areas I looked at, I did not.

MR. NEUFELD: And you did not observe any smears of blood on that carpet or on that rug; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: On the areas I looked at, I did not.

MR. NEUFELD: And nor did you observe any drop of blood at either of those locations, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: At the areas I looked at, no, I did not.

MR. NEUFELD: And in the areas that you looked at on that carpet and on that rug, did you observe any soil?

MS. MAZZOLA: I can't remember if I saw soil or not.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, if you saw an unusual amount of soil--if you saw any soil at all, would it have been your standard practice to call that to Dennis Fung's attention?

MS. MAZZOLA: It depends on what you regard as any amount. I mean carpet naturally has some dirt on it.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you see any soil as opposed to other types of debris on the rug or on the carpet when you inspected it on June 13th?

MS. MAZZOLA: I do not believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: And you said that the one place that you actually saw a red stain was on the floor of the bathroom in the master bathroom; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And it was just a small faint smear, wasn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was small, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Wasn't a drop. It was simply a smear; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you do not know or did not know at the time how long that faint smear of blood had been on that floor, do you?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know, no.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, have either you or any member of your family ever cut yourself shaving in the bathroom?

MR. GOLDBERG: This is irrelevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, based on your professional experience, do you find it unusual that you would see one small faint smear of blood on the floor of the bathroom?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Is there any way to date blood samples that you find at scenes?

MS. MAZZOLA: I--my experience, I don't know.

THE COURT: Move on.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, when you returned to Rockingham that afternoon, you did collect several items of evidence; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's right.

MR. NEUFELD: And it was your practice to write down on the field notes every item of evidence that you and Mr. Fung received; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And it was the standard procedure at SID that you would record the collection of each item in the field notes at or about the time that the item was actually received; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And in fact, over the two days, June 13th and June 14th, you were asked to record the collection of approximately 50 or so items; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not sure exactly how many. Quite a few.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, could you look at your notes to refresh your recollection to see the approximate number of items that you collected during those two days?

THE COURT: Doesn't the evidence collection sheet speak for itself? The jury has seen it. We know it's a lot of items.

MR. NEUFELD: Right. I believe, your Honor, it's approximately 50, 55 items. And I didn't want to testify.

THE COURT: I agree. Do we need to have the time to have the witness sit here and count the number of items?

MR. NEUFELD: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, other than the blood vial belonging to Mr. Simpson, isn't it a fact that every other item was recorded over those two days contemporaneous to its being collected?

MS. MAZZOLA: Except two items we recovered before we left Rockingham on that day.

MR. NEUFELD: You said except for two items?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And what number were those two items?

MS. MAZZOLA: Property items 15 and 16.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, in your field notes, did you make an entry that property items 15 and 16 were collected at 17--at approximately 1700 hours?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is the entry, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And did you make that entry in the afternoon while you were at Rockingham before you left Rockingham?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: When and where did you make those entries for items 15 and 16, Miss Mazzola?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was the following day at the laboratory.

MR. NEUFELD: Do you have an independent recollection of that?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was at the laboratory the next day.

MR. NEUFELD: No. I'm asking you, do you have an independent recollection that it was at the laboratory the next day or did someone tell you or suggest to you that that's when it was?

MS. MAZZOLA: It's my handwriting. That is the only time it could be.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, no. Miss Mazzola, your handwriting appears in these field notes as saying the time of collection was 1700 hours. By looking at your handwriting in those notes, you can't tell whether you made that entry at approximately 1700 hours on June 13th or the next day, can you?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was not made on June 13th.

MR. NEUFELD: And how do you know that it was not made on June 13th?

MS. MAZZOLA: Because our field notes were in the posse box which was locked in the back of the truck at the time.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, are you saying that you did not collect items 15 and 16 until after the--I'm sorry. What were the field notes on; a clipboard?

MS. MAZZOLA: The posse box, yes. Clipboard.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, no, no, no. Is the posse box different than a clipboard?

MS. MAZZOLA: It has a--it serves as a posse box and clipboard. There's a place to hold the papers on the outside.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. And are you saying that before you collected items 15 and 16, you had already put the posse box--put the posse box in the rear of the van and locked the van?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And how do you know that items 15 and 16 were collected after the posse box was locked in the van as opposed to before?

MS. MAZZOLA: Because our kits were also in the back of the truck that had our packaging material.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, your kits with your packaging material were locked in the box--I'm sorry. Your kits with your packaging material were locked in the rear of the van at the same time you locked the posse box in the rear of the van; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And have you seen any videotape showing you walking to the van with your kit?

MS. MAZZOLA: I've seen many videos, but I believe I've seen a few with us walking to the truck with the kits.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you're walking to the truck with kits, you're also walking with a posse box, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe the posse box is also there, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And on that videotape that you saw which showed you walking to the back of the van with those items, there was a time code on that tape; was there not?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember.

MR. NEUFELD: Well--

MR. NEUFELD: One moment, your Honor. Your Honor, with the Court's permission, I would like to show the tape.

THE COURT: What item number?

MR. NEUFELD: That's what I'm trying to find.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Item 186, please. Your Honor, it may take a minute because I didn't anticipate it. I'm sorry.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, while he's getting that, just so I can back up a second, the reason you believe that the two entries of 1700 for items 15 and 16 were written the next day was because you believe that at the time you picked up 15 and 16, the posse box which contained the field notes was already locked in the van; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And the reason you believe that the posse box was locked in the van at that particular time is because you saw a videotape of yourself locking the posse box in the van; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: I remember when we collected items 15 and 16 and what we packaged them in. That's why I know that we did not have our kits or the posse box with us.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, as you can best recall today, what were items 15 and 16 packaged in?

MS. MAZZOLA: They were placed in a plastic garbage bag.

MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, on the field notes where it says "Packaged in," Did you write down what items 15 and 16 were packaged in?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: I'll show that portion of the tape.

(At 1131, People's exhibit 186, a videotape, was played.)

THE COURT: Starting with 17:10:59.

MR. NEUFELD: Right. Okay. Could we stop there for a minute?

MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, it's at this point that you locked your posse box with other items of evidence in the rear of the van; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's right.

MR. NEUFELD: And it's already been stipulated to in this case that the time that you see on that videotape is in fact the correct time given or take--what was it--give or take 30 seconds. So that would mean that the time that you locked the posse box and the other items of evidence in your kit in the back of the van is approximately 1711. Would you agree, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: I agree.

MR. NEUFELD: So would you agree, ma'am, that the time of 1700 hours is approximately 11 minutes before you locked that posse box in the back of the van?

MS. MAZZOLA: 17 to 17:11, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: So would you agree, ma'am, that had in fact items 15 and 16 been collected at 1700 hours, the time that you put on your field report, they could have been collected and packaged the ordinary way prior to the time that you locked the posse box and the kit in the rear of the van? Would you agree with that?

MS. MAZZOLA: If they had been collected at 1700 hours, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And 1700 hours, ma'am, is the time that you put down on your field notes, isn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: That was written there and I made a mistake.

MR. NEUFELD: But, Miss Mazzola, you said a moment ago that you don't even have an independent recollection of writing these entries the next day, but that you were relying on the fact that you must have written them the next day because the posse box at 1700 hours was locked in the back of the van. Isn't that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: This misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained. It's argumentative as well.

MR. NEUFELD: Just for the record, your Honor, I think the time should be noted that she's closing--locking the rear of the van at 17 hours, 11 minutes and 51 seconds.

THE COURT: Noted.

(At 11:32 A.M., the playing of the videotape was concluded.)

MR. NEUFELD: Now, would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that except for the blood vial of Mr. Simpson, every item that you collected during those two days, June 13th and June 14th, was recorded in the order in which it was collected?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe there was an item of evidence that Detective Lange brought to the laboratory that might be out of order.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, when was it collected by the criminalist? Would that be on the morning of June 14th?

MS. MAZZOLA: Let me double-check.

MR. GOLDBERG: No showing of personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: It was on the 14th.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you say it's not in sequence, you mean to say that in your original field notes, you recorded the sneakers as being received by the criminalist prior to the time that the criminalist received the blood vial of Mr. Simpson's blood; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And other than that one switch that you've just described, were all other 50 or so items collected and recorded in--I'm sorry--recorded in your field notes in the order in which they were collected?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: And isn't that one of the reasons that you carry the clipboard in the first place, so you can record the different items that you collect in the sequence in which you receive them?

MS. MAZZOLA: It is just to give us a stable writing surface so we can write things down.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, I'm sorry. I don't mean the clipboard. I mean the field notes. Isn't that one of the reasons that you keep the field notes?

MS. MAZZOLA: So we can write down what we collect and the measurements, things like that.

MR. NEUFELD: And also so you can record things in the field notes in the order in which you collect them; isn't that so?

MS. MAZZOLA: Doesn't have to be in the actual order that we collect things, but just to keep track of things.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, weren't you taught at SID mini academy to record items of evidence sequentially as you collect them? Didn't they teach you that?

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

MR. NEUFELD: Is it just a coincidence that in your field notes that except for items 17 and 18, all the other items are recorded in the sequence in which they collect it?

MS. MAZZOLA: It usually works out like that.

MR. NEUFELD: And if you don't have a clipboard handy when you receive an item of evidence, is it your procedure to record that item in the field notes at the first opportunity?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: You've been taught to do that, right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: When it came time to leave Rockingham, the last items that you remember collecting were items 15 and 16; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: I collected one and Mr. Fung collected the other, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Which of those two items did you collect and which did Mr. Fung collect?

MR. GOLDBERG: I'll object to any more testimony to 15 and 16.

THE COURT: Just by the numbers. Miss Mazzola, just tell us which number.

MS. MAZZOLA: All right, your Honor. I collected no. 16.

MR. NEUFELD: And 16 was collected on a bench just outside the door, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And it was not Mr. Simpson's vial of blood, was it?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: And item 15 was collected in a trash basket in a bathroom off the foyer of the house, wasn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And no. 15 was not a blood vial of Mr. Simpson's, was it?

MS. MAZZOLA: No, it was not.

MR. GOLDBERG: I would object to that line of questioning and move to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, after you and Dennis Fung went out to load the truck with the posse box and the kits and the brown paper bags of items that you had collected, you and he went back inside for one last check to make sure that nothing had been left behind; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That was one of the reasons, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: On the way back inside the house, Miss Mazzola, did you observe Mr. Fung pick up the various photo id number cards that had been left on the driveway?

MS. MAZZOLA: I remember from the videos him picking up the number cards.

MR. NEUFELD: But you don't have an independent recollection of it?

MS. MAZZOLA: No. No.

MR. NEUFELD: And I believe that day in total you used more than a half dozen of those photo id cards in that driveway; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Let's see. Maybe not quite half a dozen.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, no. 5 was in the driveway, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: 6 was in the driveway, right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. NEUFELD: 7 and 8?

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. NEUFELD: A, right?

MS. MAZZOLA: A and b, correct.

MR. NEUFELD: B and c?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: 8; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: I stand corrected, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And these photo id cards that you used, you carry them or you store them in your black box, your kit box, don't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: So you can use them and recycle them, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And it's also your practice, is it not, to take your trash with you when you leave a scene?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: You don't leave it behind?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: And approximately within a half hour after you went back into Mr. Simpson's house, you left to return to SID headquarters, didn't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: I--could be within half hour or so.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, did you look at the videotape which had the time code on it?

MS. MAZZOLA: I might have. I didn't memorize the time.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you walked out the final time, you saw yourself on a videotape carrying a black trash bag; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was a trash bag, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And prior to your seeing that videotape, you did not have an independent recollection of your leaving carrying a black trash bag, did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: No. I remember carrying a trash bag. I'm not sure of the color, but I remember carrying a trash bag.

MR. NEUFELD: You had a prior recollection--I'm sorry. You had an independent recollection of that prior to seeing the videotape?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And as a basis for forming that prior recollection, did anyone suggest or remind you of the fact that you had been carrying a black trash bag out of the scene?

MS. MAZZOLA: No. I remember carrying a trash bag out at the scene.

MR. NEUFELD: Independently?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you carried that trash bag out of the scene, at any time did Mr. Fung ever say to you to be careful because it's glass?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you aware when you were carrying that trash bag that it contained breakable glass?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Still calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: On the way back to the laboratory, did Dennis Fung ever say to you to make an entry in the field notes that you received a vial of Mr. Simpson's blood?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

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

THE COURT: It's hearsay. Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: And the clipboard--I'm sorry--the field notes that were locked in the posse box, when you got back to SID headquarters. They were removed with the items of evidence, weren't they?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Everything was brought inside?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And how does that posse box open?

MS. MAZZOLA: It has just a simple clip.

MR. NEUFELD: Oh, it doesn't need a key?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: All right.

(Discussion held off the record between the Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, how much later after you went back into Rockingham for the second time was it before you collected items 15 and 16 approximately?

MS. MAZZOLA: When we went back the second time--

MR. NEUFELD: When I say the second time, ma'am, just so I can clear this up for you, I don't mean returning at 3 o'clock or 3:15. I mean you went out to the truck with your posse box and kit and then you went right back in for one last check.

MS. MAZZOLA: Right.

MR. NEUFELD: After you went in for that one last check, how much time passed before you collected item 15?

MS. MAZZOLA: Item 15 was--I'm not sure which one.

MR. NEUFELD: Do you have a note that indicates how long it was after you returned for one last check before you picked item 15?

MS. MAZZOLA: No. I was just making sure which item was item 15.

MR. NEUFELD: Oh, okay.

MS. MAZZOLA: I picked up item 16 on our way in and Mr. Fung I believe picked up item 15 within a couple of minutes of that.

MR. NEUFELD: When you got back to the lab from Rockingham, did you make any entry in your field notes to indicate that you had or Mr. Fung had collected a vial of blood?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: And your field notes were with you at that point in time, weren't they?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, when you got back to the SID laboratory earlier that evening, would you agree that the most time-consuming matter for you was the removal of the little swatches with bloodstains and having them transferred into test tubes?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And what did you do with the other brown paper bags that contained the items that had been collected?

MS. MAZZOLA: They were placed on one of the tables in the evidence processing room.

MR. NEUFELD: And were simply left there as brown paper bags?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And is it SID standard procedure for storing wet stains over night to allow them to dry in a cardboard box?

MS. MAZZOLA: They are put into a cabinet for drying, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, in that cabinet, they're placed in a cardboard box; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And is it the standard procedure at SID that when you receive a test tube of whole blood to refrigerate it as soon as is practicable?

MS. MAZZOLA: I personally have never received a tube of blood like that.

MR. NEUFELD: But you have been taught things at the SID mini academy, haven't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, but I can't remember what they said about a tube of blood.

MR. NEUFELD: As you sit here today, you have no recollection whether in all of those lectures at the SID mini academy anyone ever said to you you should refrigerate a vial of blood as quickly as practicable?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I can't remember if it was brought up. It could have been brought up. I don't remember.

MR. NEUFELD: Had anyone taught you at the SID mini academy that it was okay to leave a vial of whole blood in a trash can on a counter overnight?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Assumes facts--assumes facts not in evidence.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, that's Mr. Fung's testimony.

THE COURT: In a trash can?

MR. NEUFELD: In a trash bag I said. And if I said trash can, I stand corrected and I withdraw the question and I'll rephrase the question.

THE COURT: Please.

MR. NEUFELD: Was it--had you been taught by anyone at the SID mini academy that it was okay to store a vial of whole blood in a trash bag on a counter in an unrefrigerated capacity overnight?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe that was brought up.

MR. NEUFELD: In fact, the first time that the blood vial of Mr. Simpson is recorded in your notes is the next morning, June 14th; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe it was sometime the next day.

MR. NEUFELD: Do you know if it was the morning or the afternoon?

MS. MAZZOLA: I--I'm not sure which one it was.

MR. NEUFELD: Do you have any independent recollection as to when it was?

MS. MAZZOLA: No, I do not.

MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it true that it was not--that the blood vial was not recorded by you until after you were told about the sneakers that Detective Lange had dropped off at the SID laboratory?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And thus, it was at that point in time that you made the notations in the field notes identifying the tennis sneakers as item 17; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: They were recorded in the notes, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And it's at that point in time after you were told about the sneakers that you were then told about Mr. Simpson's blood vial; isn't that right?

MR. GOLDBERG: Still calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it true that you then recorded--after you recorded the sneakers as item 17, that you then recorded the blood vial of Mr. Simpson as item 18?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And the reason that you recorded it in that sequence at that time is, at that point in time, it was your understanding, was it not, that item 17 had been collected prior to item 18?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: The tennis shoes were brought to my attention first. So I recorded it first.

MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am, didn't you also say a little while ago that it was your practice whenever possible to record items as they are collected sequentially?

MS. MAZZOLA: As much as possible, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Right. And so when you received these items, the reason you recorded no. 17 as the sneakers and no. 18 as the blood vial is because at that point in time, it was your state of mind that no. 18 was received by SID after the sneakers?

MS. MAZZOLA: The sneakers were brought to my attention. I wrote them in the field notes. Later the blood vial was brought to my attention.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, I think you said earlier or we agreed earlier, I don't recall which, that there were more than 50 items collected on the 13th and 14th by you and/or Dennis Fung; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe we agreed on that, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true that the only items of evidence where you were instructed to change the numbers were for the sneakers and the blood vial?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe that is correct, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, on August 23rd, 1994, you testified at a hearing in this case, didn't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe it was sometime in August, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you swore to tell the truth at that hearing?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And at that hearing, in sum and substance, Miss Mazzola, did you testify that you never saw Vannatter transfer the reference sample of Mr. Simpson's blood at any time after 5:00 P.M. on June 13th?

MR. GOLDBERG: I would ask for page and lines cited.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you testified on August 23rd, didn't you swear that the last item of evidence collected while you were still at Mr. Simpson's home--

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. Page and line.

MR. NEUFELD: 762.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: 762, what line, counsel?

MR. NEUFELD: Line 8 through line 11 bearing in mind the Court's instructions.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I object to this. It's not inconsistent with anything the witness just testified to.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, isn't it true that the last item that--

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I believe that this was gone into on direct examination, reading this testimony.

THE COURT: No. No. I'm sustaining the objection under 770 1335.

MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that the last item that was picked up at Rockingham that day was item no. 16?

MS. MAZZOLA: The last item that I remember personally being picked up was item 16, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And I believe you said that if an item is picked up by someone else and then given to you, you would also record that in the field notes, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: You didn't simply record those items that you personally observed the collection of; isn't that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true, ma'am, that from the time you collected item 16 until the time you ultimately left Rockingham to return to SID, that you and Fung were standing together the entire time?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, on August 23rd--

MR. NEUFELD: Referring to page 762, your Honor.

THE COURT: Line 24.

MR. NEUFELD: Beginning at line 24. That's correct.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you asked these questions and did you give these answers back on August 23rd at a hearing in this case? "Question: Were you with Mr. Fung the entire time after you picked up the last item at 1700 hours until you departed for your next designation? "Answer: I believe I was, yes." On August 23rd, you were asked that question and you gave that answer, didn't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And when you were asked that question on August 23rd, you were testifying based on your memory, weren't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: To the best I remembered, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, you never said, ma'am, in regard to that question, "I don't recall, I don't know," Did you?

MS. MAZZOLA: I said there I believe so, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And then you said yes, "I believe I was, yes." Isn't that your answer?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe I was, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. You didn't in any way say, "This is something I don't remember. I don't recall if I was with Mr. Fung the entire time," Did you?

THE COURT: It's argumentative. The answer stands and speaks for itself, counsel.

MR. NEUFELD: One moment, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that after item 16 was collected, no other item was recorded in your notes as having been received on June 13th?

MS. MAZZOLA: At that time, no.

MR. NEUFELD: And since you testified back in August with regard to this matter, have other people suggested to you that your failure to substantiate Vannatter's and Fung's claim that Mr. Simpson's blood was given to Fung on June 13th was a problem for the Prosecution's case?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Was there any discussion, Miss Mazzola, in the laboratory about the fact that the television was reporting DNA test results on socks prior to the actual testing?

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: To your knowledge, Miss Mazzola--

THE COURT: Excuse me. Excuse me. The jury is to disregard the implication of that question.

MR. NEUFELD: To your knowledge, Miss Mazzola, was anyone in the laboratory being investigated in connection with any alleged leaks?

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.

MR. NEUFELD: As early as November 1994, Miss Mazzola, was there a concern in the laboratory about allegations that there had been tampering with Mr. Simpson's blood?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I do not remember if there was a concern over tampering with the sample.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, had there been discussion among the lab people at SID with regard to an allegation of tampering with Mr. Simpson's blood?

THE COURT: That's hearsay.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm offering it for her state of mind, your Honor.

THE COURT: It's hearsay, counsel. It's also irrelevant at this point.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, you testified that you had discussed this case with several people in the laboratory; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not only discussed. Just watched a bit of TV or listened to the radio a bit.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, didn't you testify on cross-examination last week that you discussed your involvement in this case with Michelle Kestler, your boss at SID?

MS. MAZZOLA: She more or less wanted to give me pointers on how to communicate. She did not tell me what to say or how to say it.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you discuss with her the facts of your alleged involvement in this case?

MR. GOLDBERG: I object to the word "Alleged."

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you discuss with her the nature or fact--did you discuss with her the nature of your involvement in this case?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not really.

MR. NEUFELD: It's your recollection that the only thing you discussed with Miss Kestler were pointers on how to conduct yourself on the witness stand?

MS. MAZZOLA: To the best I remember, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: You have no recollection of discussing with her the substance of your involvement in this case?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, you said that on one occasion I believe as recently as April of 1995, you discussed this case with Miss Kestler, Mr. Yamauchi and Mr. Matheson; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: We had a short meeting, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And was that meeting simply to discuss pointers on how to conduct yourself on the witness stand?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: It didn't have any discussion at all--I'm sorry. It didn't include any discussion at all about the extent of your actual involvement in the case?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it true that you had a discussion about this case in the presence--about the actual involvement in this case in the presence of Michelle Kestler back in November of 1994?

MS. MAZZOLA: I can't remember what happened back in November of `94.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, isn't it a fact that on November 22nd, 1994, you discussed this case, your involvement in this case in the presence of Michelle Kestler and in the presence of two detective investigators from the District Attorney's office? Isn't that a fact?

MS. MAZZOLA: There was a meeting, yes. I'm not sure of the date.

MR. NEUFELD: And at that meeting with Miss Kestler and the two detectives, you discussed your involvement in this case, didn't you?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I object to this. We're at the noon recess, but I would like a sidebar.

THE COURT: Objection sustained at this point.

MR. NEUFELD: May we break now for lunch, your Honor?

THE COURT: I thought you were about to finish.

MR. NEUFELD: No, I'm not.

THE COURT: How much more do you have?

MR. NEUFELD: On this subject, I have approximately 10 minutes and--15 minutes and then I'm going into the other matter for which we're waiting for certain items.

THE COURT: What's your time estimate?

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: What is your time estimate on that?

MR. NEUFELD: That will take--the last portion of my examination will take I believe less than one hour.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take our recess for the morning session. 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 conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. See you back here at 1:30. Miss Mazzola, you are excused until 1:30. All right. All right. I would like to see co-lead counsel in chambers, please.

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

(At 4 o'clock P.M., the jury was excused, and the following proceedings were held in open Court out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Let the record reflect that the jury has withdrawn from the courtroom. Mr. Goldberg, how much more do you have excepting the Court's--any redirect on the items of evidence that are pending production?

MR. GOLDBERG: I've got about 20 minutes, 25 minutes.

THE COURT: All right. Then I would recommend that--I would recommend that you have your next couple of witnesses available for the afternoon session.

MR. NEUFELD: Judge, two questions. One is, do you want him to finish his redirect first before I finish my cross?

THE COURT: Yes. Let's have him finish what he's in the middle of. Then we'll bring on those evidence items. I'm hoping we'll see it tomorrow morning 8:30 so you have an opportunity to go through it and see what's there.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. One other matter, your Honor. Mr. Goldberg was suggesting on redirect examination of this witness that somehow this lens got lost perhaps when it was examined by Dr. Henry Lee. I think the Court knows as a witness and Miss Clark knows as a witness that before the items even went to Albany, when Dr. Lee had a chance to examine them and create that bindle, the lens was already missing. And I'm going to ask that the Court give an instruction on that because it should be very, very clear that before that bindle was collected and Dr. Lee looked at it, the lens was already missing, and the Court observed that and Miss Clark observed that. So that's really a deliberate attempt on misleading the jury with respect to that particular lens.

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.

MR. GOLDBERG: That's just a question of everything that's happened to this particular piece of item and that it's been looked at by the Defense. What is going to be very important to the People is to establish that this is an item that has no evidentiary value whatsoever and that we have spent hours showing tapes and arguing about something that is totally irrelevant. And we can do that by showing that we looked at it, that they looked at it and that no one has come up with anything or any reason why this eyeglass envelope is even slightly relevant. And this is important for the purposes of doing that and it's directly responsive to what the Defense does. And I've been told that they don't know--I don't have any personal knowledge of this, but I've been told that Miss Clark and Mr. Darden do not know that the lens was not here before it went out to Albany or that we ever had it to begin with.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, your Honor, the item certainly has probative value. It has shoeprints on it according to their own people. But that's not even the point. The point is, it was very clear that the reason he elicited this stuff about Dr. Henry Lee was to suggest that that's how the lens was missing. It was obvious to everybody in the courtroom. And if in fact they knew that before it went to Dr. Henry Lee--and I think the Court knows the lens was already missing--then that's a deliberate attempt to distort reality in front of this jury on that particular matter. If in fact they just want to suggest it has no probative value, then there's no point in saying that it went to Dr. Henry Lee.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. NEUFELD: There's no point in suggesting that--in asking the question, which was sustained of course, about that the Prosecution was allowing these exhibits to go out to be examined and independently tested by Defense experts. The point of those questions was very specific and very directed. Namely to suggest that that's--

THE COURT: Which is why I sustained the objections and I didn't want to go into that area. All right. I don't think that those questions and answers necessarily create that impression. So the request is denied. All right. Counsel, we have a number of matters that we still need to address. Let me go through them one at a time, tell you what we have on tap still and we'll set a schedule for these. I have a motion that was filed April 21st regarding a--requesting broader scope to cross-examine police officer witnesses regarding bias. I have a motion to quash an SDT for videotape footage filed by KABC. That's withdrawn?

MR. COCHRAN: We're going to withdraw that.

THE COURT: All right. That will be off calendar. There is the People's motion to compel the Defense to produce beta copies of videotape. That was taken off calendar on the Court's motion on April the 20th. I'll leave it off calendar unless--because I understand that Mr. Douglas has already complied with that order, correct?

MR. DOUGLAS: Correct.

THE COURT: All right. That is off calendar. I have the People's request for parity in sanctions, which means I guess they want $950 sanctions?

MR. COCHRAN: That's right.

THE COURT: That's the way I interpreted that.

MR. COCHRAN: We'll stipulate to that.

MR. DARDEN: $9.50 sanction.

THE COURT: All right. I have a motion filed by the Defense regarding selective disqualification of jurors filed April the 11th. I propose not to entertain that until the Court has--not calendar that until the Court has completed its investigation as to the other juror matters.

MR. COCHRAN: That's fine. May I say something on that? You had indicated--we had indicated to you we would undoubtedly be filing a supplement of some kind.

THE COURT: Certainly.

MR. COCHRAN: And we will be filing that perhaps by the end of this week.

THE COURT: All right. But I'm just suggesting that we not calendar that until we've had the opportunity to talk to all of the people that we indicated we were going to talk to, et cetera, et cetera. All right. I have an April 6th hearing--motion regarding prosecutorial misconduct. Mrs. Robertson, refresh my recollection of which incident of prosecutorial--alleged prosecutorial misconduct was this?

THE CLERK: Well, I'll get the motion, your Honor.

MS. LEWIS: I think that pertains to Mr. Harmon.

THE COURT: Oh, that's right. Mr. Harmon. Never mind. I recollect that one clearly. All right. The Harmon motion and then I have the motion to--regarding Mr. Kardashian's testimony, which has not been calendared for hearing yet, and then I have a motion regarding the introduction of autopsy photographs and crime scene photos. And I have scheduled a meeting on May the 9th, next Tuesday--Tuesday after next at 8:00 A.M. with the two counsel who are going to be presenting that matter. I think it's Mr. Blasier and Mr.--

MS. LEWIS: Mr. Kelberg.

THE COURT: Excuse me. Mr. Uelmen and Mr. Kelberg. I'll be meeting with those counsel in chambers on the record with regard to the crime scene and autopsy photos. So that will be--that is already calendared. I have under submission as of this morning four matters, the motion regarding the reports of Andrea Mazzola regarding her activities on June the 14th. That motion was denied this morning. I have the motion for the production of items collected by Andrea Mazzola at the Bundy and Rockingham location. That motion was granted this morning. I have the motion on behalf of--motion to quash subpoenas on behalf of Cathy Randa and Michelle Abudrahm, which there is a ruling pending in my word processor for the last three weeks, and Defense motion for sanctions, which is still under submission, to reconsider sanctions.

MR. COCHRAN: Which one is that, your Honor?

THE COURT: Defense motion to reconsider sanctions.

MS. LEWIS: To reconsider sanctions?

THE COURT: To reconsider, yes.

MS. LEWIS: Reconsider whose sanction?

THE COURT: Defense, $950 sanction against Mr. Douglas and Mr. Cochran.

MR. COCHRAN: I thought this was the other motion regarding their sanctions, the two of them.

MR. DARDEN: We haven't had a chance to respond to their motion.

THE COURT: There are several.

MR. DARDEN: They haven't paid the $950 yet, your Honor?

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: Mr. Cochran probably has it in his pocket right now, you know. He's going to pay mine, too.

THE COURT: All right. I would suggest that we calendar as the next two matters the hearing on prosecutorial misconduct regarding Mr. Harmon and the issue as to Mr. Kardashian, and I'm going to suggest we calendar both those matters for May 3rd at 4:00 A.M. excuse me. 4:00 P.M. if I was a federal Judge, I could get away with that. All right. 5-3, and we'll do that at 4 o'clock, those two motions.

MS. LEWIS: Your Honor, I don't believe the Prosecution was served with a motion to reconsider the $950 sanction on the Defense. If there is such a motion pending, we're unaware of it.

THE COURT: I've got it. It was filed a number of weeks ago.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, may I be heard?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: There is one matter that I think is still under submission that I think is of great importance and it's going to be needed soon. That has to do with resolving the issue of how we're going to handle the consumption--the alteration of some of these blood swatches. We had agreed on that and--

THE COURT: Right. What had happened is, you couldn't agree. So I was going to write the stipulation. I was going to write a--

MR. SCHECK: Guidelines for us.

THE COURT: --an instruction for the jury as to how to deal with that. That is correct.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And I think--I always hesitate to speak on behalf of the Prosecution, but I think that all sides would like to know exactly how you're going to handle that so we can conform the presentation of evidence on both sides and conformity with that and anticipate how that's going to be. That I think we're going to need soon.

THE COURT: All right. Then let me direct both parties to file proposed instructions to the jury by Wednesday, May 3rd.

MR. SCHECK: Could I have a second with Mr. Goldberg? Maybe--

THE COURT: Certainly.

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

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, we also have an issue as to--

THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on. Let's resolve these matters one at a time here.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: I think we submitted something. We'll submit some--I guess we should submit something again.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: And the other matter, your Honor, is on these--I thought the Prosecution wanted to make a motion with respect to the videotapes I showed, and we still have the matter of the finding that you made on intentional misconduct with respect--

THE COURT: The staples issue.

MR. SCHECK: The staples issue and when that instruction would be given. Obviously I have some personal concerns in terms of my own credibility, that that be given sometime within the time period that--

THE COURT: We're talking about these issues.

MR. SCHECK: Yeah.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. CLARK: That's the People's request for parity, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: We haven't calendared that, right?

MR. SCHECK: But you gave them a deadline in terms of filing some motion with respect to--

MS. CLARK: We did.

THE COURT: They did file that.

MR. SCHECK: All right.

MR. DARDEN: We've already exceeded the statutory maximum time in terms of arguing staples matters, haven't we?

THE COURT: Just about. All right.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, there is one other matter.

THE COURT: We'll have to calendar--all right. I think we ought to take the staples matter up on May 3rd as well. Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you. Apparently Mr. Matheson will be testifying fairly soon, and we had an objection to the--at least one of the charts, that--one of the boards they were going to use, their conventional serology board, and we need to be heard on that before he testifies. And we'd also like to take a look at any new boards that have not already been used before he starts.

THE COURT: All right. Let me ask, Miss Clark, who will be presenting the testimony on behalf of the People with regards to Mr. Matheson and when do you anticipate calling Mr. Matheson?

MS. CLARK: Mr. Goldberg will be doing that, your Honor, and that should be tomorrow.

THE COURT: All right. Which board are you objecting to, Mr. Blasier?

MR. BLASIER: Well, the conventional serology board is the one we've seen already and we're objecting to some of the entries on that board.

THE COURT: All right. Is the board present, Mr. Goldberg? Is the Matheson--

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, I think it is present.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Clarke, do you know where that is?

MR. CLARKE: The board?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. CLARKE: I believe it was right there.

THE COURT: Well, you were moving around. I thought you were about to volunteer to go get it.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Can the Court see this?

THE COURT: Why don't you pop the easel around backwards, please, and let's discuss the matter. Have we marked this with a number yet?

MR. GOLDBERG: No.

THE COURT: All right. The title of this chart is "Serology results chart." And would there be any objection, so that the record is clear, to mark it at this time as People's next in order? Mr. Goldberg?

MR. GOLDBERG: No.

THE COURT: All right. Mrs. Robertson, this would be People's 202.

(Peo's 202 for id = chart)

THE COURT: All right. We'll refer to the serology results chart as People's 202. And, Mr. Blasier, what are your objections to the conventional--what appears to be a conventional serology chart?

MR. BLASIER: Our objections are, under the EAP column, there are a number of entries in there that indicate that something was determined to be inconclusive, and then there's a typing next to it. We have no objection to the inconclusive being there, but what we do object to is then having a typing after something has been determined to be inconclusive. I have never seen a situation where a criminalist has called something inconclusive and then called a typing on it. I don't think that's common practice with forensic scientists. I don't think it's appropriate here and I would object to having any kind of typing on that chart unless there's some testimony from Mr. Matheson that this is a common practice within the forensic community to find something to be an inconclusive and then give it a type.

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, apparently in the case of People versus Riley, they did present--in which electrophoresis testing was upheld, they did present evidence of an inconclusive. But here what the Court--this is not a legal issue as far as I'm concerned. This is just an issue of fact for the jury to decide. It's like when a handwriting expert comes in and says, "This is consistent with being a person's writing, but I can't be a hundred percent sure."

THE COURT: You say it goes to weight, not the admissibility.

MR. GOLDBERG: Weight, not admissibility. I don't know if the Court wants me to say more. I mean, I can explain to you why we're presenting this.

THE COURT: Do you have any case authority that I should allow an inconclusive but indications of?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, we can look at People versus Riley where Siliente (Phonetic) I'm sure the Court has ruled that it is admissible because it was contained in the opinion.

THE COURT: Well, refresh my recollection. Does Riley specifically deal in its fact situation with electrophoresis and inconclusive results that are indicative of one particular blood type?

MR. GOLDBERG: I believe they mention that that evidence was introduced and they simply were directed to the admissibility of electrophoresis testing. But just so the Court can understand, what makes it inconclusive, with respect to erythrocyte acid phosphatase, it is an interpretation. There's a certain subjective aspect to it that is not involved, for example, the PGM subtype determination where you're simply looking at banding patterns, which with erythrocyte acid phosphatase, EAP, you are also looking at the intensity of the bands. And Mr. Matheson would testify that the only reason that he has these as inconclusive is because the bands are not intensive enough for him to say it's conclusive. Now why is it that the Prosecution is putting this in or why is it actually vital information for us to have? Because the items under Nicole Simpson's fingernails, the blood, has degraded from a BA to a b and it is reported as a b, an EAP b, which is inconsistent with BA, hers. But we know it has degraded. We know that circumstantial. And according to the literature, the forensic science literature, and according to what Mr. Matheson would say, one of the ways that you can establish that circumstantially is by looking at blood that is a circumstantial exemplar; in other words, blood that we know circumstantially has to be hers and figuring out what's happening to it.

We have such an instance with respect to item no. 42, which is the pool of blood that was under Nicole Brown. We can simply--we can tell it only by looking at the photographs that that is her blood. We know what the result is on the EAP test. It has to be a BA because it's her blood and we can see it. We don't need a forensic scientist to tell us that. It is a BA. Every juror on this jury is going to know it is a BA circumstantially. Yet, when we test it, what result do we get on item 42? We get an inconclusive B. And why do we get that? We get it because the a bands have disappeared, which they do according to the literature, and we have two b bands, but the b bands are weak, which shows that the sample is degraded and shows that it could easily have been mistyped as a b if only those bands were slightly more intense. This is not coming in for the purpose of proving that the Defendant is guilty. It's not coming in for the purpose of proving that the blood is consistent with the Defendant's blood. It is coming in for the purpose only of showing what is happening to blood that circumstantially we know has to be the victim's. And from that, we can make a logical inference as to what is happening to the blood under her fingernails.

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever legally not only that this should come in, but that it has to come in and that it's extremely important for it to come in, and we've been told in the forensic science literature that you're not even supposed to make a call that something is a b unless you've looked at what's happening to the blood underneath the victim or on the victim's clothing to determine whether there is evidence of degradation. And here we know for sure that not only that it's degrading, but it is degrading in such a way that it leads us to believe erroneously that the pattern is a B. This is not coming in for the truth of the matter asserted. I'm not arguing that 42 is in fact a B. Mr. Matheson is not going to be testifying that it is in fact a B. What we are trying to show is that it isn't a b, but it looks like one. And that's of vital importance in explaining why the blood under Nicole's fingernails looks like a b, but isn't one.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Just a couple of points. First of all, Riley doesn't talk about the point, last time I read it, about calling something an inconclusive and then typing it. We certainly do not agree that the electrophoretic gram for 42 is the same as the fingernails. So we don't concede that at all. That's something we will litigate extensively. Finally, their own reports, Mr. Matheson's reports and Mr. Yamauchi's report categorize these as inconclusive, not inconclusive a or inconclusive B. They're inconclusive. That's the way they read them the first time. Now, unless there's some foundation that this is the correct way to forensically describe the reading that they made in their original report, we would object to it.

THE COURT: All right. How do you propose to present a foundation for this, Mr. Goldberg?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, the chart comes in simply because it reflects the testimony. I don't know what specifically the Court's referring to when you say foundation in this connection. What this reflects is, it reflects information that is culled from the analyzed evidence reports and the serology item description notes.

THE COURT: What's the cite on Riley?

MR. GOLDBERG: I will provide it to the Court. I'm sorry. I didn't know we were going to take this up tonight. And as I said to the Court, I didn't say that the Court ruled on this point. I did say that in that particular case, the evidence had been admitted.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier, do you have any case authority you want me to consider over the evening?

MR. BLASIER: No. I did have one other thing. Reading from their reports, when they talk about these being inconclusive, they said, "Therefore, no statement can be made regarding a potential source." That clearly conflicts with what they have on this chart.

MR. GOLDBERG: But the point is, your Honor, that almost without asking the expert, if we were forced to, we could show them the electrophoretic, the electrophoresis photographs and you can see what's happening. I mean, I don't know whether--perhaps maybe I haven't given the Court enough information about how EAP works, but you can actually--

THE COURT: No, you don't need to explain that. I just want to know, do you have any legal authority for your position other than Riley?

MR. GOLDBERG: No. I'll look, and I don't believe I do. But I don't perceive this to be a legal issue. There's--I mean they just don't want it in.

THE COURT: But there's an objection.

MR. GOLDBERG: But what are the grounds? We have objections, we have grounds.

THE COURT: Called foundation.

MR. GOLDBERG: Foundation of what?

THE COURT: It's called foundation. That if your report--I mean, you have to establish a foundation for any scientific testing, correct? And they're challenging it.

MR. GOLDBERG: But what's the foundation? The foundation is that the concept is accepted in the community. It was done correctly.

THE COURT: Do you have a case that says inconclusive EAP results are admissible? Yes or no? Yes or no?

MR. GOLDBERG: I don't.

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg, thank you.

MR. GOLDBERG: But says EAP are admissible, and we know they are.

THE COURT: Thank you. Tomorrow morning.

MR. DARDEN: 10 o'clock, your Honor?

(At 4:30 P.M., an adjournment was taken until, Thursday, April 27, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)

Los Angeles, California; Wednesday, April 26, 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. Mr. Neufeld, you had a matter you wanted to raise?

MR. NEUFELD: Two matters. You ordered the People to immediately produce those items of evidence and I had been informed by Mr. Goldberg that apparently Mr. Matheson says it may take another few hours and I just wanted to bring that to the Court's attention.

THE COURT: "Forthwith" Means as soon as possible.

MR. NEUFELD: You should also know, as I said before the lunch break, I have about fifteen more minutes on this area and then I will be going into the area which requires the production of these items, which will take about one hour of cross-examination.

THE COURT: So how do you propose we handle this?

MR. NEUFELD: Well, I need those items, your Honor, and of course you ruled that they have to bring them over forthwith. I can finish--finish this area of cross-examination I think in about fifteen or twenty minutes--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: May I make a suggestion, your Honor?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Mr. Cochran has suggested that the next two witnesses the People intend to call are both very short witnesses; one is the photographer and the other is the tow truck driver. We would certainly be willing to allow them to use up the rest of the afternoon with one of those short witnesses and then we could resume with Miss Mazzola tomorrow morning once they produce those items of evidence.

THE COURT: Are those witnesses available?

MR. GOLDBERG: I don't think they are in the building. We could conceivably start with Greg Matheson. We may do that anyway.

THE COURT: Well, let's see how far we get.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, the--I'm sorry. Could Miss Mazzola step out of the room, your Honor, with the Court's permission, to discuss this matter?

THE COURT: What does it deal with?

MR. NEUFELD: As you may recall, at the end, after a series of questions and answers by Miss Mazzola, I asked her whether or not she had participated in a meeting with two investigators from the D.A.'s office and Miss Kestler.

THE COURT: She indicated yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, there was an objection and you said "Sustained for the time being," okay, and if I can proceed, then there is no problem.

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I don't know exactly what counsel intends to get into, but a while ago there was--

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, could the witness please step out?

THE COURT: No, no. We have wasted enough time. This is not a secret. She has acknowledged the meeting. You were going to ask her what was discussed in the meeting, correct?

MR. NEUFELD: Especially the fact that there were certain denials about having these discussions initially.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I don't know exactly which discussion he is talking about for sure. May I just have a moment?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, umm, Mr. Darden tells me that it is possible that the subject matter that I think counsel is going to get into was under seal and that it was a matter that the Defense said that they didn't want to pursue. Maybe we are--

THE COURT: All right. Miss Mazzola, why don't you step out.

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

(Miss Mazzola exits the courtroom.)

THE COURT: Are you guys sure you want to get into this?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, we don't want to.

MR. COCHRAN: May we have just a second, your Honor? Excuse us, please. Thank you.

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

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I don't know. There doesn't seem to be a consensus of opinion as to whether or not this subject was discussed. Mr. Cochran says he doesn't know, and Mr. Darden says he thinks it was, and therefore I don't know whether I can address it in open Court. Maybe Mr. Darden could, with the Court's permission, because I wasn't here for this discussion.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, and I may be incorrect, and perhaps Mr. Neufeld can correct me if I am, but as I understand it, these questions will relate to an investigation we conducted after we received certain documents presented to the Court on November 7, those documents which I presented to you in chambers when I first appeared in this matter, and as I recall, at that time the Court placed those documents under seal and there was an indication from the Defense that they had no interest in it, it was irrelevant, and that they would not pursue it.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor--

MR. DARDEN: If I could interject this. As a matter of fact, they indicated they didn't even want the documents.

THE COURT: Proceed, Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, sorry. What I am interested in is a meeting which occurred with Miss Mazzola, Miss Kestler and two investigators from the District Attorney's office. She had said earlier on under examination that she never had a discussion where Miss Kestler was present at which the actual subject matter of this case was ever discussed or any allegations of tampering ever came up. This was in fact a meeting which was--which was held on November 22nd, 1994, where she is told by the investigators that: "We are working on the murder case of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. There is rumors, allegations going around at the crime lab working that some of its swatches in the early goings, early stages, right after the collection of blood, tampering going on, going on in O.J.'s blood on the swatches, things of that sort. Do you know anything about that at all?" And that is the beginning of then a meeting that happens between Miss Mazzola, Miss Kestler is present and these two investigators. In light of the fact that she had already testified that no discussion like this ever occurred, okay, and she was given a number of opportunities, your Honor, to answer that question differently--

THE COURT: No, that is not my recollection of her testimony. She said that she has had a number of conversations, short, long, in between, in passing with the D.A.'s.

MR. NEUFELD: No, no, not with the D.A.'s. D.A. Prep session, she said that, but she said that the conversations she had with Miss Kestler, and she just said it about a half our--toward the very end of the morning--were limited to pointers about her testimony. That is what she said, you know, very explicitly here on the record, your Honor. This was a discussion when Miss Kestler was present which was not about pointers for when she testified as a witness. It was a discussion about the actual substance of her involvement in this case. And that is what I wanted to ask her. I do not intend to go into any collateral matters or anything of that nature. I am simply limiting myself to what--

THE COURT: How do you propose to phrase the question?

MR. NEUFELD: Well--

THE COURT: Give me the exact question you are going to ask--

MR. NEUFELD: Sure.

THE COURT: --after you get the question and answer that yes, she does not recollect this meeting with the District Attorney's representatives and--

MR. NEUFELD: Series of questions, because I also asked her whether or not there had been--whether she was aware of any concern--

THE COURT: What are the questions and answers that you are going to ask?

MR. NEUFELD: The question would be, "And didn't the two detective investigators inform you at that meeting where Miss Kestler was present that they were interviewing you in connection with an investigation they were conducting into allegations that someone tampered with Mr. Simpson's blood vial?" That is the first question. Then there is two or three questions simply to point out that each time she was asked questions about discussions in Miss Kestler's presence about the substance of this case or about tampering, that she claimed that those kind of discussions didn't happen. Then--then I would ask her in the 18 months that you have been at the Los Angeles Police Department have you ever been questioned by D.A. Investigators about allegations of evidence tampering in any other context, any other case? Again something to suggest that this is not something that she would have forgotten.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. NEUFELD: Umm, I asked her whether or not she would agree that an allegation or investigation into tampering is not simply--is not your typical encounter that you would have. Just a whole series of questions about how she wouldn't forget it. Then--and then, your Honor, what I'm going to bring to her attention is the fact that during this meeting, Michele Kestler, fully aware the fact this she already testified on August 23rd that she never saw any transfer of blood and never saw anything else passed after items 15 and 16, isn't it a fact that during the session held with these investigators and with Michele Kestler that didn't Michele Kestler suggest to you that you actually saw Vannatter pass the blood to Fung? And the reason I wanted to bring that out, which is something that happened during that meeting, is I believe, your Honor, it goes to this witness' bias and interest to testify a certain way in this case. I think there is no question that she is a probationer employee at the LAPD.

THE COURT: Was.

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

THE COURT: Never mind.

MR. NEUFELD: Certainly was at the time that this encounter occurred back in November. Umm, that--

THE COURT: All right. I will hear from the People.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. DARDEN: I think that is going to require a joint response from Mr. Goldberg and myself, your Honor, but let me just indicate this: We conducted a mini investigation based on allegations brought forth by the Defense last year or last November, the allegations contained in the documents that I have an alluded to already. As I read and understood the document, they suggested that somehow Miss Mazzola was somehow involved in some misconduct, and an internal investigation may have been done by the LAPD, I don't know. We did an investigation. If the Court were to go back and look at the documents I surrendered to the Court, the Court would note that they contain the content of conversations allegedly had between Mr. Cochran and Mr. Douglas with the author of those documents. I think that we are in danger perhaps of creating a situation where Mr. Cochran and Mr. Douglas may somehow be witnesses. I think that we are in danger of heading in a direction where we may have a mini trial on the issues raised in that--in that particular document. I think it is dangerous and I think it is irrelevant, it would cause undue consumption of the Court's time. Mr. Neufeld has been at Miss Mazzola for two days now on cross-examination. I don't think that the Defense case is going to be harmed in any way or to any degree if they are not allowed to go into this area, but it is a dangerous area. We cannot sit by and allow Mr. Neufeld to ask those types of questions without explaining to the jury why those conversations took place in the first place. So I would ask the Court to disallow counsel from going into that area.

THE COURT: Your objection is under 352 I take it then?

MR. DARDEN: It is, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, anything to add to that? Don't feel compelled to do so. Do you have anything else you want to add to that?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I take it from the Court's indication that the Court doesn't feel it needs to hear anything else?

THE COURT: No. Is there anything factually or legally you need to add to that?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, the only thing--

THE COURT: Just because I invite counsel to speak doesn't mean that they have to say something just to say something.

MR. GOLDBERG: I was just trying to read the Court.

THE COURT: Don't assume that I have already made up my mind.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Your Honor, I would like to address really, no. 1, is there any inconsistencies between what she was asked by Mr. Neufeld and what he proposes to impeach her with, since I guess that is the legal basis upon which he wants to introduce this as impeachment. And it is my recollection that she was asked for several questions about whether she discussed with Michele Kestler the substance of this case or her involvement in this case. This has nothing to do with her involvement in this case. This is a fantasy that was somehow created which some author, I'm not sure where the exact source is or whether it is in fact attributable to the Defense in any way, I don't know what the resolution on that was, but the point is, is that it is a fictitious set of events that apparently neither party subscribes to that she is being questioned about. And how can you argue that that is discussing her involvement in the case? I think what we have seen here has been cross-examination through innuendo where the Defense has been allowed to ask a lot of questions that, quite frankly, I am not used to having seen, about didn't the Prosecution tell you to do this? And weren't you told to say this? And are you lying because of that? And did someone suggest to you the following? And it is all in an effort to place innuendo before this jury as to things that the Defense does not have a the good faith belief occurred.

THE COURT: Uh-huh. And most of your objections have been sustained and the jury has been admonished.

MR. GOLDBERG: I realize that, your Honor, but I think that this fits into the mold, as soon as you start asking a witness have you been investigated and did they ask you about allegations of tampering and so on and whether you had anything to do with it, it is not coming in for any substantive impeachment purpose, but to put a rumor and allegation and innuendo in front of this jury. And I don't think that it should be allowed under 352 because there is no real impeachment value here and there is a tremendous danger of confusing, misleading this jury and spending a lot of time trying to sort out an issue that I'm not sure that is in either side's interest ultimately to get into. The Prosecution could not allow those kind of allegations and rumor to be placed before the jury without trying to put them into context, and I'm sure the Court would allow us the opportunity to do so, and that is going to involve additional witnesses and explanations that are really going to get us away from the issues in this case which are related to the evidence collection, testing results and the Defendant's guilt or innocence. And I don't see how putting these kind of rumors before the jury is going to help resolve them.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.

MR. NEUFELD: May I be heard very briefly?

THE COURT: No, thank you. I have heard both arguments. All right. I'm going to allow Mr. Neufeld to ask a question whether or not Miss Mazzola recalls having a meeting that involved Miss Kestler, the then--I think she was then the interim head of the lab--and two investigators from the District Attorney's office. He will be allowed to ask whether or not the subject matter of that discussion was in fact the collection of evidence with regards to this particular case. He will be allowed to ask those questions as to those issues, whether or not she recollected those discussions, since that appears to be inconsistent with her prior testimony. All right. Let's have Miss Kestler (Sic). Let's have the jury, please.

MR. NEUFELD: May we ask her about the vial, one of the items of collection?

THE COURT: I'm sorry?

MR. NEUFELD: May I ask her about the vial, because that is one of the items of collection, just to be more precise?

THE COURT: You can ask her the discussion involving the vial, if it involved the vial, and its booking.

MR. NEUFELD: I may not ask her what--whether Michele Kestler said something specifically to her?

THE COURT: You can ask her that question, whether or not something was said to her about that.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

THE COURT: Without suggesting what that was.

MR. NEUFELD: Without suggesting--

THE COURT: Specifically what that was.

MR. GOLDBERG: Will he be precluded from suggesting that there was any kind of investigation or she was the subject of an investigation?

THE COURT: I have just outlined the three items I'm going to allow.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

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

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I'm sorry, I would just ask for one minute so I can change my questions here so I do not say anything that is inappropriate and that is outside of--

THE COURT: Be my guest, but let's cycle them in since it takes a few moments.

(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.

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

THE COURT: All right. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

THE COURT: Let the record reflect we have 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. And ladies and gentlemen, we are taking just a moment to allow Mr. Neufeld to make a few adjustments before we resume, but I thought we would get you in here and get you settled so we can get started. Take your time, Mr. Neufeld.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Good afternoon. Sorry for the delay.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. NEUFELD

MR. NEUFELD: Good afternoon, Miss Mazzola.

MS. MAZZOLA: Good afternoon.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, isn't it a fact that on November 22, 1994, you discussed your involvement in this case in the presence of your boss, Mrs. Kestler, and in the presence of two detective investigators from the District Attorney's office?

MS. MAZZOLA: We had a meeting, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And at that meeting you discussed your actual involvement in this case, didn't you?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "Involvement." Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled. Collection of evidence.

MR. NEUFELD: You discussed your involvement in the collection of items of evidence in this case, didn't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you discuss how you became involved in this case with those detective investigators?

MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: That is vague.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you detect--I'm sorry. Did you discuss what role you played in the collection of evidence, both on the 13th and 14th of June?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it a fact that during that meeting with the detectives that you said to them--

MR. GOLDBERG: Well--

MR. NEUFELD: --that your job--didn't you say to the detective during that meeting that it was your job to collect blood stains on the 13th and to collect stains on the 14th from the Bronco? Didn't you say that during that meeting?

MR. GOLDBERG: I think this goes beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember saying that.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, at that same meeting, Miss Kestler was present, wasn't she?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, she was.

MR. NEUFELD: And at that meeting didn't Miss Kestler indicate to you and to the investigators that you were present when Vannatter passed the blood to Mr. Fung?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is beyond the scope. It calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Was anything discussed about the collection of the blood vial?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember, your Honor.

MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it a fact, Miss Mazzola, that during that meeting with the two detective investigators and Michele Kestler, your boss, Michele Kestler said to you "Let me fill you in on a couple of points"?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would object to this. It is hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: At any point during that meeting did Michele Kestler suggest to you that you actually saw the pass off of O.J.'s blood to Dennis Fung?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if she mentioned anything about that or not.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you say you don't--may I have a very brief side bar, your Honor, so we could go into something?

THE COURT: Proceed. You can ask her what she means.

MR. NEUFELD: All right.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, you said you don't recall whether that came up; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Have you ever listened to a tape-recording made of that meeting?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Are you aware of the fact that a tape-recording was made of that interview with you?

MS. MAZZOLA: I seem to remember that a tape-recording was made.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you told at that meeting that a tape-recording was made or were you told that sometime later?

MS. MAZZOLA: I was told at the meeting, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it a fact, Miss Mazzola, that that tape-recording of the meeting was made surreptitiously?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, speculation.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor--

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MS. MAZZOLA: They told me that it would be taped. That was all right with me. I had no problem with it.

MR. NEUFELD: What is next in order?

THE CLERK: 1120.

THE COURT: 1120.

(Deft's 1120 for id = document)

MR. NEUFELD: I show you this document--

THE COURT: Did you show that to Mr. Goldberg?

MR. NEUFELD: Sure.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, there is no foundation for showing her a document.

MR. NEUFELD: Showing it to see if it refreshes her recollection on this point.

THE COURT: Show it to her.

MR. GOLDBERG: No showing that her recollection needs refreshing.

MR. NEUFELD: Take a look at this paragraph of the report, the next sentence.

MS. MAZZOLA: Okay. (Witness complies.)

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, isn't it a fact that that interview on November 22nd was surreptitiously recorded by the investigators from the D.A.'s office?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is irrelevant. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: That is what the piece of paper says.

THE COURT: Does that refresh your recollection as to that fact?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not really.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: I would ask to strike the witness' comment based upon what the paper said as hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. NEUFELD: This morning when I asked you about the subject matter of all conversations you had regarding this case where Miss Kestler was present, you said that the only discussions dealt with giving you pointers for when you became a witness; isn't that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: That misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: The meeting--excuse me. The meetings that we had at SID were about the courtroom testimony.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, this meeting that occurred on November 22nd, ma'am, was Miss Kestler present at that meeting?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, she was.

MR. NEUFELD: With the two detective investigators from the D.A.'s office, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: Where was this meeting held?

MS. MAZZOLA: At a restaurant near Piper Tech.

MR. NEUFELD: And, umm, when I asked you what discussions you had with Miss Kestler about this case, I didn't limit it to the discussions that you had at SID, did I?

MS. MAZZOLA: I do not believe so.

MR. NEUFELD: All right. So this discussion that occurred on November 22nd, 1994, which was tape-recorded, was not limited to pointers for you to use when--as a witness in this trial, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: I was not having the discussion with Miss Kestler. She was present, but I was not having a discussion with her.

MR. NEUFELD: Ma'am--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

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

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar. What is your offer of proof as to where we are going with this?

MR. NEUFELD: First of all, the good faith basis for the other question was the formal report prepared by the District Attorney said that the interview was surreptitiously recorded so it wasn't a bad faith offer.

THE COURT: I assumed that which is why I allowed you to do that. May I see the report, please?

MR. NEUFELD: Sure.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. I've got this item which is now 1120.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And at least I think it supports my good faith basis for asking the question about whether it was surreptitiously tape-recorded.

THE COURT: I agree.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. The only place I'm going with it, your Honor, given the Court's limiting instructions from the bench before, is to show that she was asked before.

MS. CLARK: Could counsel keep his voice down, please, Mr. Neufeld.

THE COURT: Yes, please.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, your Honor. Thank you, Miss Clark. She was asked on numerous occasions at any of the session where is Miss Kestler was present were any other people present? She was asked this morning whether or not at any session where Miss Kestler was present was anything other than pointers discussed?

THE COURT: All right. We have established--we have established two things: One, the meeting did in fact take place. Took place at Denny's across the street from Piper Tech. And is there any other inconsistency in this statement you want to go after?

MR. NEUFELD: Umm--

THE COURT: The one that is apparent to the Court is where she was--

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, I thought you were asking me. I apologize.

THE COURT: The one that appears apparent to the Court is the one that says she never handled Mr. Simpson's blood sample. That appears to be the one inconsistent statement.

MR. GOLDBERG: She hasn't testified in Court that she has ever handled the Defendant's blood sample, neither on direct or on cross.

MR. NEUFELD: Mr. Fung testified that she handled it because Mr. Fung testified that she carried it out in a garbage back.

MR. GOLDBERG: But she has testified that she did not know that. At least that is the implication of her testimony.

THE COURT: Why don't you ask her the question, if she did handle the blood.

MR. GOLDBERG: You see, the other thing, your Honor, is that to the extent that she now believes that she handled the blood vial, that would probably be based of necessity on her viewing of the tapes and looking at lab reports and other notes that happened after this interview took place.

THE COURT: All right. Well, I think based upon what is here, you can fairly ask if she did in fact at any time to her knowledge handle the Defendant's blood sample. You can ask that.

MR. GOLDBERG: To your knowledge on the 13th and the 14th--I mean on the 13th?

MR. NEUFELD: Also as of November 21, 1994, did she maintain the position that she had ever handled it?

THE COURT: Why don't you just ask her the open-ended question did she ever handle the Defendant's blood sample.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Then I can follow up.

THE COURT: We will see what comes after that.

MR. COCHRAN: Since we are up here, Judge, and you don't like side bars, if the evidence doesn't come over from Parker Center, I thought you had indicated to us you would have those two short witnesses. Why don't we just take them and call her back.

THE COURT: Or why don't we start with redirect.

MR. GOLDBERG: We can do that.

MR. COCHRAN: We can do that.

THE COURT: Let's just keep this witness here. I don't want to jump witnesses back and forth.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

THE COURT: Let's see what happens.

MR. NEUFELD: All right.

(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, there has--Dennis Fung testified that you were carrying the blood vial of Mr. Simpson's in a black trash bag when you left Mr. Simpson's home in the late afternoon of June 13th. Let me ask you, ma'am--

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, that comment is improper. It is not a question.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GOLDBERG: Motion to strike.

MR. NEUFELD: All right.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, at any time did you ever carry or handle O.J. Simpson's blood vial?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not to my knowledge.

MR. NEUFELD: And that is still your position as you sit here today?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was--not to my knowledge at the time. I was not told that I was carrying the blood vial.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Did there come a time subsequently where you believed that you were carrying the blood vial?

MR. GOLDBERG: That is not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Not carrying, but had carried.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Did there come a time where you learned that you had carried the blood vial?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And did you learn that in the discussion that you had with Dennis Fung after you had testified on August 23rd?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that as late as November 22nd, 1994, you were taking the position that you had never carried or handled Mr. Simpson's blood vial?

MS. MAZZOLA: That I had not personally handled it.

MR. NEUFELD: That was the position you were taking as late as November 22nd, 1994, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That I did not personally handle the vial itself.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, let me ask you this, Miss MazzolMS. MAZZOLA: As of November 22nd, 1994, had you already come to believe that you had personally carried Mr. Simpson's blood vial?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is not relevant. Her state of mind isn't an issue.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I had found out that I had carried it, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And when did you find out that you had carried it?

MS. MAZZOLA: I am not positive, but I believe it was on the 14th of June of `94.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that handling the vial and carrying the vial basically mean the same thing?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it is argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can ask her what she means by that.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not really. To me they do not mean the same thing.

MR. NEUFELD: So when you told someone that you never handled Mr. Simpson's blood vial, that didn't mean to you that you had never carried Mr. Simpson's blood vial; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And if you were asked by someone whether or not you ever handled Mr. Simpson's blood vial and you knew that you had carried it, but not actually put your hand on the tube itself, you feel--I'm sorry--you believe that it is a fair answer to state that, no, I never handled it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative. Calls for a conclusion.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: If I had not physically manipulated the blood vial, I did not handle it.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, that is my question, ma'am. So if the person asked you whether you had handled it, but in your own mind you had carried it, do you feel that it is fair for you then to answer that question in the negative, no, I hadn't handled it?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you feel that that answer is an honest response to that question?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And so when these detective investigators asked you on November 22nd, 1994--

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor--

THE COURT: This is hearsay.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, didn't you state to the detective investigators that you had never handled O.J. Simpson's blood sample? Didn't you say that to them on November 22nd, 1994?

MR. GOLDBERG: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I did not handle the blood sample.

MR. NEUFELD: And so is it your testimony that you in fact said to the investigators on November 22nd, 1994, that you had never handled Mr. Simpson's blood sample?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)

THE COURT: Do you recall saying that to the investigators?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't recall.

THE COURT: All right. Let's move on.

MR. NEUFELD: Let me see if this will refresh your recollection.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld. Showing her Defense 1120.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, having looked at Defendant's exhibit 1120, does that refresh your recollection as to whether or not you told the detective investigators that you had never handled O.J. Simpson's blood sample?

MS. MAZZOLA: That says that I did not handle Mr. Simpson's blood sample.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm not asking you whether or not you handled it. I'm asking you whether or not seeing this document refreshes your recollection as to whether you told the detective investigators that you had never handled O.J. Simpson's blood vial?

MR. GOLDBERG: Motion to strike the witness' last answer as nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: That does not refresh my memory, no.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, since you testified on August 23rd to not seeing the blood vial given to Mr. Fung, has anyone suggested to you that your testimony poses a problem for the Prosecution?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is compound and it misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, didn't you testify on August 23rd that you did not see a blood vial passed to Dennis Fung by Detective Vannatter?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained. It is also hearsay.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, referring to page 762, were you asked these questions and did you give these answers?

MR. GOLDBERG: Does your Honor have this?

MR. NEUFELD: Referring to line 8. Beginning on line 8.

THE COURT: On 762?

MR. NEUFELD: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: 8 to what?

MR. NEUFELD: 27. I'm sorry, to 763, line 7. Do you have it?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. NEUFELD: Do you have it?

MS. CLARK: Yeah.

MR. NEUFELD: Were you asked these questions and did you give these answers? "Question:"--

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I object on the ground that it is not inconsistent hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, when you were asked this morning about sessions you had where Miss Kestler was present, had you simply forgotten the meeting with Miss Kestler and the two investigators?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered already.

THE COURT: Sustained. It has already been asked and answered.

MR. NEUFELD: When was the first time, Miss Mazzola, that you saw the videotape of you carrying the black trash bag from Mr. Simpson's house?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe I saw it on TV on the regular news.

MR. NEUFELD: And when was the first time that you saw the videotape of Fung standing in the foyer holding something in his hands?

MS. MAZZOLA: Umm, I don't know. Maybe a week ago or so. I'm not positive of the exact date.

MR. NEUFELD: And when, Miss Mazzola, was the first time that you told the Prosecutors that you had left Mr. Fung's side and sat on the couch with your eyes closed?

MS. MAZZOLA: That was a while ago.

MR. NEUFELD: When?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember exactly when.

MR. NEUFELD: You don't remember which meeting it was with the Prosecutors?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Who was present?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember the exact people.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, as best you can recall, give me the name of the people who were there.

MS. MAZZOLA: I can't recall.

MR. NEUFELD: Do you recall where this discussion took place?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled. Take place in this building?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it did.

MR. NEUFELD: And Miss Mazzola, the--you say now that you collected items 15 and 16 later than 1700 hours; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: I collected one of those items, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And this item was item 16?

THE COURT: Counsel, we've been over this.

MR. NEUFELD: Just foundation and I'm going into something else, your Honor, and actually I'm going to be finished with this subject in about three minutes.

THE COURT: Three minutes.

MS. MAZZOLA: 16.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. But you were present when Mr. Fung collected item 15; is that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: I was not in the exact room with him when he collected 15.

MR. NEUFELD: After he collected item 15, did he give it to you to hold?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And so you were holding items 15 and 16?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And what did you do with items 15 and 16?

MS. MAZZOLA: The detectives, Mr.--

MR. GOLDBERG: This has been asked and answered, your Honor.

THE COURT: It has.

MR. NEUFELD: Not this, your Honor. This has not been asked at all, what she did with items 15 and 16 at point that she collected them in the house.

THE COURT: The Court stands corrected. Do you understand the question?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.

THE COURT: Go ahead and answer the question.

MS. MAZZOLA: They went looking for a bag that we could put the items in because of all the media outside.

MR. NEUFELD: And you were present when a detective was asked to do that?

MS. MAZZOLA: There were several looking for something to put the item in.

MR. NEUFELD: And were you present when somebody came back with a garbage bag?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And was that garbage bag handed to you because you had those items?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And, umm, what did you do with the items after you were given the trash bag?

MS. MAZZOLA: Put the items in the bag.

MR. NEUFELD: And the items you put in the bag were items 15 and 16?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you continued to hold the bag?

MS. MAZZOLA: For a short while.

MR. NEUFELD: And during that short while you were standing in the foyer?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't recall where I was standing exactly.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, you were with Dennis Fung, weren't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: At that point, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And then there came a time when you said you sat down on the couch?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you would agree that your testimony about sitting down on the couch and leaving Dennis Fung's side is inconsistent with your testimony on August 23rd when you testified you were with him the whole time; isn't that recollect?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative. Also misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled. But you need to give us page and line and testimony, counsel.

MR. NEUFELD: Page 782, beginning at line 24.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. GOLDBERG: As phrased this question misstates the testimony.

MR. NEUFELD: No.

THE COURT: Why don't you read the question and answer, but we have already read this question and answer before.

MR. NEUFELD: I know. That is why I'm saving time, your Honor, trying to save time.

MR. GOLDBERG: I object. It has been asked and answered.

THE COURT: Read it. It is brief.

MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Read it. It is brief.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

MR. NEUFELD: On August 23rd, when you testified under oath, were you asked this question and did you give this answer? "Question: Were you with Mr. Fung the entire time after you picked up that last item at 1700 hours until you departed for your next destination? "Answer: I believe I was, yes." Were you asked that question and did you give that answer under oath on August 23rd?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you are saying now at this trial that that is not correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: At that time I believed that I had been at his side the whole time.

MR. NEUFELD: And now you believe that you left his side; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Now I know I was not at his side the entire time.

MR. NEUFELD: And did you see any photographs to help you to change your recollection with regard to that?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you see or remember any reports or documents to change your recollection as to what you did vis-à-vis staying by Mr. Fung's side the entire time, no.

MR. NEUFELD: Did you talk to any person who suggested to you that you had left Mr. Fung's side and went into the living room and closed your eyes?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: So is it fair to say that there were no external documents, reports, photographs, videotapes or conversations with anyone else that helped you to change your mind from your testimony on August 23rd, 1994? Is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it fair to say, ma'am, that on August 23rd, 1994, your recollection of where you were at Mr. Simpson's house at approximately 5:00 or 5:30 was better than it is now ten months later?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not necessarily.

MR. NEUFELD: Do you believe, ma'am, that with the passage of those additional months your memory becomes sharper?

MS. MAZZOLA: Up until the Griffen hearing I had not really thought of the case at all. Since then I have been thinking about it.

MR. NEUFELD: This case, Miss Mazzola, was, as you said, the first case where you were primarily responsible for evidence collection, correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And this case had received a tremendous amount of publicity from the very day that you were involved in the collection until the time that you testified at the Griffen hearing, didn't you--didn't it?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you followed that publicity because you were involved in the case, didn't you?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: You didn't follow any of it?

MS. MAZZOLA: I tried to avoid it.

MR. NEUFELD: You didn't watch it on television?

MS. MAZZOLA: If I could get away with it, no.

MR. NEUFELD: You didn't read about it in the newspapers?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Even though it involved your own personal involvement?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Now, in your current memory of what transpired back at Mr. Simpson's house, after you left Mr.--Mr. Fung's side, where did you go?

MS. MAZZOLA: I went into the living room.

MR. NEUFELD: And was this after about, what, five or ten minutes standing in the foyer with Mr. Fung?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't recall where I was standing with Mr. Fung and I don't recall how long.

MR. NEUFELD: Well, you said that you first came into the house and on the way in you picked up item 16, right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And then a couple of minutes later, a few minutes later, Mr. Fung picked up item 15; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And then you were standing in the foyer with Mr. Fung and with other detectives; isn't that right?

MS. MAZZOLA: I do not believe that we were standing in the foyer. It could have been in the kitchen. I don't recall.

MR. NEUFELD: Standing there with other--other detectives?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And during those minutes that you were standing there, you asked if someone could get you a trash bag to put items in?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe Mr. Fung and others went looking for a bag.

MR. NEUFELD: And then someone brought a bag back for you?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And you put the items 15 and 16 into that bag?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. NEUFELD: And did you also put the cards, those number--those photo i.d. Cards back into the bag at that point?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: You put them in?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And you held that bag?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And then you walked into the living room to sit down?

MS. MAZZOLA: At some point, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And didn't you take that bag with you when you went to sit down?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe I had the bag at my side when I went to sit down.

MR. NEUFELD: Why did you give up the bag, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: There was no reason to carry it with me.

MR. NEUFELD: What did you do? Did you put it on the floor?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe I had put it out where we had our kits previously in the foyer.

MR. NEUFELD: Where were your kits?

MS. MAZZOLA: In the foyer.

MR. NEUFELD: And you simply left this bag with evidence in it with the kits in the foyer?

MS. MAZZOLA: The kit was not there, but that is where we had the kit before and the area was secured.

MR. NEUFELD: And you simply left it there and walked into the living room?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And after you went into the living room you then sat down on the couch?

MS. MAZZOLA: I sat down, yes.

MR. NEUFELD: And as you sit here today, ma'am, you have--do you have an independent recollection of your eyes being closed while you are sitting in that living room couch?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe they were closed for partial--bit of time.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, did you invent this notion that your eyes were closed so that Mr. Fung could testify that he received the vial without you seeing it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, do you have an independent recollection, without the help of a videotape, of you picking up the hat and the glove at Bundy?

MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)

MR. NEUFELD: Without seeing that videotape?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not a clear recollection, no.

MR. NEUFELD: Yet you have an independent recollection that while you were sitting on a couch you closed your eyes? You have that recollection ten months later?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, subject to the other items of evidence, I'm--I have to suspend the cross-examination at this point.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, there are a number of physical evidence items that are not available to the Court at this moment that Mr. Neufeld wanted to ask questions about. Rather than waste additional Court time waiting for those items to be brought to Court, which I anticipate will happen today, I'm going to ask Mr. Goldberg to commence with his redirect. Mr. Goldberg, are you ready to commence or do you need a few moments?

MR. GOLDBERG: If I could have a few minutes.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we will take about ten minutes just to recycle the lawyers. Miss Mazzola, you may step down and we will call you back in about ten minutes. All right. Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg, let me know when you are ready.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.

(Recess.)

THE COURT: Back on the record. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. Mr. Goldberg, are you prepared to commence?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld, let me ask you just one quick question before the topic leaves my thought process here. I noted a number of times, three times in particular during the course of your cross-examination of Miss Mazzola while you were standing, I saw you turn in response to noises made in the audience, specifically by the cameras. Was that distracting you?

MR. NEUFELD: Not that I am aware of. I know that is an insane answer, but no, it wasn't.

THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jurors, please.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, he also showed me some photographs he wanted to use and I told him I object to them. I don't know if you want to do it before the jury comes in.

THE COURT: Yes. Hold them. Let's see them.

MR. GOLDBERG: I'm sorry. I didn't hear what the Court just said. You want to see them?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: May I approach?

THE COURT: You may.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. I have seen the two photographs. Mr. Goldberg, what is the relevance and need for those?

MR. GOLDBERG: The relevance of this is that they show a variety of stains in the area where item no. 12 was collected and inside the foyer of the home, three of which appear to be the stains that were collected by Miss Mazzola and Dennis Fung, three of which appear not to be. And the proffer is that there were additional stains in that area. It goes to the issue of taking representative samples. It goes to the issue of the criminalist not necessarily being able to spot or spotting each and every tiny little stain that was in that house. The Defense has seemed to suggest that they have some sort of a homing device for blood, and if there is a tiny little speck of blood, somewhere they are going to find it. And what we are trying to show is no, they are human beings and that there can be things, shall little specks that are overlooked, and in this case there apparently were.

THE COURT: What is the--tell me about those photographs.

MR. GOLDBERG: These are photographs that were provided to us in Defense discovery, so obviously they were taken after the time of the--of the crime, and my proffer as to how they can be linked up is that the jury can do it themselves, because if you compare these carefully to I a that contains item no. 12, which actually happens to be in one of these photographs, you can see that three of the stains are in fact the same as three of the stains in the Defense photograph, so obviously it was taken after. It is obviously of the Rockingham location and this witness can identify that.

THE COURT: Is that Dr. Lee who is in one of those photographs?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, no. 1, there is no foundation as to when these other stains are observed. More importantly, your Honor, what is in that picture, if you take a look, are cards with swabs on them and the swabs are--they appear to be greenish black in color, so this witness testified about some presumptive test that she did where--where swabs turn--

THE COURT: Magenta.

MR. NEUFELD: --magenta. There is no foundation as to what these swabs that are green or greenish blue or greenish black are actually showing here. Since we don't know when it was taken, when the stains existed, no. 2, since the stains are not red on those cards, but show these different swabs, I think there is frankly a likelihood here that it is going to confuse the jury. It is certainly going to necessarily distort the meaning of those cards because I don't even think this witness is qualified to interpret what is going on with those cards in those swabs that have turned green.

THE COURT: I take this as a foundational objection?

MR. NEUFELD: Foundation and 352.

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.

MR. GOLDBERG: I don't know. It didn't seem to me that we were requiring witnesses to have been present at the time photographs were taken when they were asked to lay a foundation for that photograph or to have even observed the events that were depicted in the photograph or the videotape and that seems to be consistent with--

THE COURT: Such as?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, such as witnesses testifying about a videotape, seeing Detective Vannatter drive up when they weren't present.

THE COURT: That objection was withdrawn.

MR. GOLDBERG: But I think there have been other instances and there was an instance where a witness was shown pictures of a police officer walking up a driveway. These witnesses have been shown photographs that were taken of the crime scene prior to when their evidence collection was--took place to show that items were removed. They had no personal knowledge of that. You can authenticate a photograph in a number of different ways. I'm not suggesting that those rulings are necessarily wrong. I'm suggesting that this is consistent with those rulings in the sense that you can lay a foundation for a photograph by having a witness say, "Do you recognize the foyer?" "Yeah, I recognize the foyer." "How do you do it?" "Because I was there."

THE COURT: How do I know what Dr. Lee is doing there?

MR. GOLDBERG: Excuse me?

THE COURT: How do I know what Dr. Lee is doing there?

MR. GOLDBERG: What he is doing there?

THE COURT: How do I know what it is he is doing there and what the significance of the swabs is?

MR. GOLDBERG: It doesn't make any difference of the significance of the swabs. The point is that you can see areas where there appear to be tiny little stains. Admittedly, the resolution on this photograph isn't great, but you can see this and they also appear to match up with stains that we know are there, because we saw them in photograph number--with item no. 12 in it.

THE COURT: All right.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: Can we have one second, your Honor?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. The foundational objection will be sustained. Let's have the jury.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: And counsel, just so you have an FYI, we are going to stop with the jury at four o'clock. We have some doctor's appointments.

MR. DARDEN: Judge, which motions are you going to hear this afternoon?

THE COURT: Good question. I have a whole list of them. I thought we would go over them.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that tomorrow or today?

THE COURT: That is today. I thought we would go over and set a schedule for that.

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Miss Andrea Mazzola is again on the witness stand now undergoing redirect examination by Mr. Goldberg.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG

MR. GOLDBERG: Good afternoon, Miss Mazzola.

MS. MAZZOLA: Good afternoon.

MR. GOLDBERG: Ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Miss Mazzola, are you part of some kind of police conspiracy involving a number of people to frame the Defendant in this case?

MS. MAZZOLA: No, I'm not.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Are you a part of some sort of cover-up to cover up for Dennis Fung who is allegedly covering up for people who are allegedly engaged some kind of a conspiracy?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, argumentative, your Honor. This is summation, not a question.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. GOLDBERG: Are you involved in any cover-up with respect to this case, Miss Mazzola?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, I wanted to ask you a few questions about the discussions that you've had with me before your testimony. Can you tell us in general terms what the nature of the discussions were?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was more or less of a question and answer type of discussion.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did I want to know details, a lot of details about evidence collection and the activities that you were engaged in on the 13th and 14th?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. GOLDBERG: What kind of issues did I want to know about generally?

MS. MAZZOLA: Generally what occurred on the 13th, 14th. Basically our background, just general information.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did anyone at all, anyone from the laboratory, anyone from law enforcement, friends, family members, friends, family members, anyone, ever try to put any pressure on you to change your testimony or alter your testimony in any way?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you ever get the idea that someone wanted you to change or alter your testimony in any way?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, I want to ask you a few questions about the collection procedures at Rockingham and Bundy. And first of all, as a criminalist, what all does the issue of collection involve?

MS. MAZZOLA: Collection includes the documentation, the photography, sketches, measurements, the brief descriptions we make of the item we are picking up, and then physically picking up the item itself, packaging it.

MR. GOLDBERG: As I believe counsel pointed out on cross-examination, could you even include the packaging phase in that collection process as well?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, of course.

MR. GOLDBERG: And the writing that you put on the packaging?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is part of it, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, in terms of who physically picked up which pieces of evidence, did you believe that there was any relevance to that when you were at the scenes on the 13th?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection as to the relevance of whether she believes something was relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: At the time no, we didn't believe that it mattered which one of us picked up which item.

MR. GOLDBERG: Why not?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, her testimony about what someone else believed.

THE COURT: Counsel, read the directive again. Proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: Why not?

MS. MAZZOLA: Because we were working as a team.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, was there any other criminalist who was out there, either at the Bundy location or the Rockingham location, that was collecting evidence other than yourself and Mr. Fung?

MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)

MR. GOLDBERG: When I say "Collecting" I mean physically picking things up or were you two doing that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung and myself for the most part were doing it--was doing that, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Was there one item, item 10--I don't know if you know this--do you know who collected item no. 10, that was a plastic bag, a blue plastic bag, at the Rockingham location?

MS. MAZZOLA: I do not know who picked that up, no.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But respect to items no. 1 through 9 at Rockingham, did you and Mr. Fung pick those up physically?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And then when you came back to the Rockingham location, 11 through 16, did you physically pick up those from the location, you and Mr. Fung?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor, as to Mr. Fung. I would simply ask that the witness be asked what she did or what he did, but not "You" collectively.

THE COURT: All right. You can clarify that. Reask your question.

MR. GOLDBERG: Were all of those picked up either by you or Mr. Fung?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And with respect to the blood stains at Bundy, were all of those picked up by either you or Mr. Fung?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did any of these items fly into the coin envelopes?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And had you ever been told or received any training to the effect that it was important or necessary to specify who did the physical picking up of an item?

MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)

MR. GOLDBERG: When you were working as a team with another criminalist?

MS. MAZZOLA: I had seen it both ways.

MR. GOLDBERG: So as far as you were concerned, it was an issue that was left to the discretion of the criminalist?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GOLDBERG: Was it an issue that was left to the discretion of the criminalist?

MS. MAZZOLA: At that point I believed it was.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you testified at some point at a hearing that we referred to as a Griffen hearing in August of last year?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And at that hearing you said that you hadn't had time to prepare yourself for the testimony that you were going to give?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Overruled. It is foundational.

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, had you been thinking about this case between the 13th or let's say between the 14th and the time that you testified at the Griffen hearing?

MS. MAZZOLA: No, not really.

MR. GOLDBERG: When you arrived at the Rockingham location had you ever heard of someone named Orenthal Simpson commonly known as O.J. Simpson?

MS. MAZZOLA: At that morning it did not ring a bell in my mind.

MR. GOLDBERG: You didn't have any conception that there was a sports figure or a television personality or movie personality that went by that name when you arrived at the scene?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GOLDBERG: Had you any conception of that when you arrived at the scene?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: When did you first become aware that Orenthal Simpson was someone of public notoriety?

MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung, after he was done with the detectives, he came and kept saying, "O.J.'s house, it is Mr. Simpson's house." And I said, "O.J. Who?" And he said, "Movies, sports," and it just did not ring a bell.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you have some special interest in this man over here, the Defendant?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you have some special interest in this case over and above any other case that you have handled as a criminalist?

MS. MAZZOLA: No, they are all important.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, after the Griffen hearing you said that you and Mr. Fung got together and tried to go through who collected what physically; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And why did you do that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Because it appeared that it would become an issue about who physically picked up what.

MR. GOLDBERG: When you say it had become an issue, by whom?

MS. MAZZOLA: By the Defense.

MR. GOLDBERG: Had anyone else ever told you that they thought it was an issue, other than what you gathered from the Defense?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: When you and Mr. Fung were going through this information, were you trying to gather information that the Defense seemed to be interested in?

MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)

MR. GOLDBERG: In terms of who collected what?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. It is speculation on her part.

THE COURT: It is irrelevant.

MR. GOLDBERG: At that time did you personally think that it was relevant yourself, as opposed to simply thinking the Defense was interested in it?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. It is irrelevant what she thinks.

THE COURT: Overruled. Goes to her state of mind. You can answer the question.

MS. MAZZOLA: Sorry. Personally I didn't see if it really mattered, but apparently it did to the Defense.

MR. NEUFELD: Objection as to what apparently.

THE COURT: All right. The apparently part that it mattered to the Defense is stricken. The jury is to disregard this as being nonresponsive. Proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you said that you looked at some materials after the Griffen hearing in order to refresh your recollection. Were any of those materials photographs?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, they were.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you look at still photographs?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And how did the still photographs help you in any way to refresh your recollection that you looked at after the Griffen hearing?

MS. MAZZOLA: It brought back what the scene actually looked like, where things were, what the whole area was like.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, in your experience do you tend to remember things better when they are written down or when they are presented to you visually?

MS. MAZZOLA: I tend to retain things more when I see photographs.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And when you were going through the materials with Mr. Fung, for example, and you were directing your attention to stain 47, for instance, did you have a set of photographs in front of you to try to look and see what stain 47 looked like?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Or where it was?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: So you did that later on after that session with Mr. Fung?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you were having this session with Mr. Fung, did you come to the conclusion that with respect to stain 52, which you've testified was the last stain in the driveway in Bundy, did you come to any conclusion with respect to that stain as to whether or not Mr. Fung was present when it was physically collected?

MS. MAZZOLA: At that point at that meeting I was not sure if Mr. Fung had been present or not.

MR. GOLDBERG: Was it at some point after that meeting that you came to the conclusion that he was not present during that stain, the physical collection?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And was there any reason in your mind why you would possibly think that it would be helpful to the Prosecution or helpful to you in your testimony--

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor. Leading, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: --to testify that Mr. Fung was not present during the physical collection stain of 52?

MS. MAZZOLA: I didn't see that it would matter.

MR. GOLDBERG: So that is just what you recalled?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And you have testified to that because to the best of your recollection that is what happened?

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, leading.

MR. GOLDBERG: Why have you testified to that, ma'am?

MS. MAZZOLA: Because that is what I remembered.

MR. GOLDBERG: For any other reason?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, you said that as to the stains at Rockingham you started the physical collection with Mr. Fung at 9:00 A.M.; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was around there.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you have to go through any other steps in the collection process prior to that time when the physical collection took place?

MS. MAZZOLA: To actually lifting the stain, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And what steps were those that you went through prior to the physical collection?

MS. MAZZOLA: The area had to be photographed, it had to be sketched, it had to be measured, then we wrote all this down in our notes, the measurements, a brief description, and then it was physically collected.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did do you all of that measuring and photoing and documenting before any of the stains were physically collected that--other than the Bronco stain?

MS. MAZZOLA: All of them, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And in terms of the collection process, which would you say takes more time between the physical collection of the stains at Rockingham and the documentation phase of the collection process?

MS. MAZZOLA: The documentation takes much longer than the collection itself.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, I wanted to read a portion of the Griffen hearing, your Honor. It is at page 723.

THE COURT: Starting where, counsel?

MR. NEUFELD: What line?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is starting on page 723, line 26.

MR. NEUFELD: 126 is an answer.

MR. GOLDBERG: Excuse me, line 20, through page 724, line 4.

MR. NEUFELD: One moment.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld, do you have that?

MR. NEUFELD: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: At the Griffen hearing do you recall testifying to the following questions? "Question: With respect to item no. 6, did you collect that blood? "Answer: Yes. "Question: By the way, you said that for some of these specimens you were observed by Mr. Fung. When you say you were observed, do you mean that he was collecting stains in the same vicinity as you so he could see basically what you were doing? Is that what you mean by `observing'? "Answer: On the stains that were collected in the driveway, we were working side-by-side. "Question: When you say you were working side-by-side, do you mean that he stood or knelt directly next to you as you lifted each stain? "Answer: Yes." Do you recall giving those answers to the questions that I just read?

MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And when you were saying that you were working side-by-side, what did you mean to convey by working side-by-side?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor. The testimony speaks to itself. I don't know if she can interpret it.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can ask what working side-by-side means.

MR. GOLDBERG: What does working side-by-side mean?

MS. MAZZOLA: That we physically were both there at the same item at the same time. Either one of us was physically collecting it and bagging it, or the other person was helping, passing items that we need.

MR. GOLDBERG: And to your recollection, when you were physically doing swatching at Rockingham on the stains that you were referring to in that testimony, was Mr. Fung kneeling down, as opposed to standing up?

MS. MAZZOLA: He was kneeling some of the time and standing the other time.

MR. GOLDBERG: And when he was kneeling down, for what purpose?

MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)

MR. GOLDBERG: If you recall?

MS. MAZZOLA: On some of the items he took a few swatches himself to collect a little more blood.

MR. GOLDBERG: And to your recollection, at the Griffen hearing did anyone ever ask for greater clarification as to what you meant by working side-by-side?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor, as to the form of that question.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did anyone ever ask you at the Griffen hearing to explain what you meant specifically by the phrase "Working side-by-side"?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe so.

MR. GOLDBERG: So the only follow-up question was. "Question: When you say you were working side-by-side you mean he stood or knelt directly next to you as you lifted each stain? "Yes."

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GOLDBERG: What grounds?

THE COURT: It is leading. It is not a question.

MR. GOLDBERG: Was the only question you were asked, if I may read the question and answer-- "Question: When you say you were working side-by-side, do you mean he stood or knelt directly next to you as you lifted each stain? "Answer: Yes." --to your recollection?

MS. MAZZOLA: To the best I can remember, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, at this point in time, with respect to stains no. 4, 5 and 6, do you specifically recall for each one of those stains specifically which swatches Mr. Fung may have taken, as opposed to which swatches you may have taken?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Assumes a fact not in evidence and that wasn't her testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: No, I don't remember exactly which ones.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And at the time that you were taking those swatches, did you believe that it was important to recall exactly which swatches Mr. Fung did as opposed to which swatches you did?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, leading and move to strike the answer.

THE COURT: Overruled. The answer will stand.

MR. GOLDBERG: At this time I would like to take a look at the evidence collection boards. I think it is 172.

THE COURT: All right.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Sorry, it was 162.

THE COURT: All right. People's 1 62. Which scene are we starting with?

MR. GOLDBERG: No, these are the evidence collection boards.

THE COURT: I see.

MR. GOLDBERG: Those are the ones that show the--excuse me--the disposition boards.

THE COURT: All right.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: I'm sorry, I was right the first time; it was 172.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Miss Mazzola, I want to ask you some questions about these boards that counsel didn't want to ask you about.

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Counsel, you know that is not appropriate.

MR. GOLDBERG: Let me ask you about some other items here, Miss Mazzola. Now, with respect to the socks, item no. 13, can you see this on the board?

MS. MAZZOLA: No, I can't. May I--

MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah.

MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness steps down). Okay.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to this item, does that say "Fung and Mazzola" this is the socks, no. 13?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it does.

MR. GOLDBERG: And in terms of the physical collection on item no. 13, who did the physical collection on that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung physically picked up the socks and put them in the bag.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did you work in a situation where for some reason he took like the ankle and you took the toe and you both put the same sock into the bag?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: And on the property reports that were generated in connection with this case, does it indicate that item no. 13 was collected by Fung and Mazzola?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection to the property report, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. GOLDBERG: Have you looked at the property reports in this case?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes I have.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do they indicate that the item reflected on this chart, let's say, 16 through 23, were in fact collected by Mazzola?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained?

MR. GOLDBERG: What.

THE COURT: Sustained. Leading.

MR. GOLDBERG: What do they indicate in terms of those items?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor. The property report is not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: That both myself and Mr. Fung both collected the item of evidence.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to item no. 13, did you in fact participate in aspects of the collection procedure in terms of measuring and documenting and that sort of thing?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, with respect to item no. 23, do you know whether that is an item that comes from the Bronco or would you have to refer to documentation to confirm that?

MS. MAZZOLA: I would have to look at the documentation.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can you please do so.

MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.) Is that property item number or photo i.d. Number?

MR. GOLDBERG: Property item number.

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, that came from the Bronco.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And on this board does it indicate that item no. 23 was collected by Fung and Mazzola?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it does.

MR. GOLDBERG: Does 24 come from the Bronco?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it does.

MR. GOLDBERG: And does that indicate that it was collected by Fung and Mazzola or Fung and Mazzola?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it does.

MR. GOLDBERG: And the physical swatching on those stains, who did that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung.

MR. GOLDBERG: But did you participate in the collection process with respect to 23 and 24?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: And you participated in what way?

MS. MAZZOLA: I was passing him the supplies he needed, holding the flashlight, helping measure, do the sketches, did the brief descriptions of the items, whatever he needed.

MR. GOLDBERG: Perhaps we can see the next board.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe we can just shuttle this down so I that the jurors on the end can see it.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Excuse me. I want to ask one more question about this.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Mazzola, could you try to keep your voice up, please.

MR. GOLDBERG: Miss Mazzola, I'm sorry, I forgot about this. Item no. 9, what item is that?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is one of the gloves.

MR. GOLDBERG: Is that the glove that came from the Rockingham location?

MS. MAZZOLA: Let me make sure. Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And in terms of the physical collection on no. 9, who did the physical collection on that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung.

MR. GOLDBERG: But the board says "Fung and Mazzola"?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did you participate in any way in the documentation and other aspects of the collection procedure with respect to no. 9?

MS. MAZZOLA: I helped measure.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: May I just approach for a second?

THE COURT: You may.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: I would like to ask you about stains 55 and 56. Can you tell us which stains those were?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. Those were stains that were collected from the shoeprints that were at Bundy.

MR. GOLDBERG: Who did the physical swatching on 55 and 56?

MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung.

MR. GOLDBERG: And on this board it says "Fung and Mazzola"?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you participate, however, in the collection procedure on those stains?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: And on the property reports who did they indicate was responsible for collecting these items at Bundy?

MS. MAZZOLA: Both Mr. Fung and myself.

MR. GOLDBERG: And when you say you participated, in what way in the collection process?

MS. MAZZOLA: Measuring, things like that.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Thank you.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Mr. Goldberg.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Miss Mazzola, I would like to turn to another issue at Rockingham, the Rockingham location, and that is the crime scene identification checklist. Now, you said that you wrote your name in the column that says "Officer in charge"?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, did you somehow let that designation go to your head and run around the crime scene telling people that you were the officer in charge and ordering people around and the like?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, leading, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did it affect you in any way that you were--that your name was on that column?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not in any way, no.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did it affect your performance in any way that your name was in that column?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: And could it have affected your performance in terms of the way that you swatched stains at the Rockingham location?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, speculative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did it affect your performance in swatching stains?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, that item was written in pencil?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it was.

MR. GOLDBERG: So you could have erased it?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, speculative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

THE COURT: Hold it. I'm sorry. Sustained. It is speculative, but the answer that it is in pencil, the jury can figure that out for themselves. The jury is to disregard that last question and answer.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you erase it?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Why not?

MS. MAZZOLA: It never seemed to be an issue.

MR. GOLDBERG: Were you ever at any time trying to downplay or minimize your involvement at the crime scene?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in the foyer area of the Rockingham location do you recall seeing any other drops in that location other than the three that were collected as stain 12?

MS. MAZZOLA: No, not at the time.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And with respect to those three drops that were collected as stain 12, who decided to collect them as a single stain, single item?

MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you were asked whether you could see or you saw any blood on the banister. Do you recall that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, at this time I would like to mark as People's next in order, it is exhibit 201.

THE COURT: People's 201.

(Peo's 201 for id = photograph)

MR. GOLDBERG: A photograph of what appears to be the banister.

THE COURT: Have you shown that to Mr. Neufeld?

MR. GOLDBERG: I thought I had. I will show it to him again.

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

MR. GOLDBERG: On the back I would like to write "201."

THE COURT: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: I will put it on the elmo.

MR. GOLDBERG: Miss Mazzola, directing your attention to the photograph that has been marked People's 201, does that appear to be the banister that leads up to the foyer area of the Rockingham location?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it does.

MR. GOLDBERG: And does this appear to depict the way it looked on the 13th?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Was that a dark banister?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was medium to darkish wood.

MR. GOLDBERG: And would it have been difficult to see little flakes or specks of blood on that banister?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, that is speculative.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. GOLDBERG: How easy would it have been for you to have seen tiny little flakes or flecks of blood on that banister?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, speculative, no--

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

MR. GOLDBERG: With respect to the coloration that dried blood typically has, with your experience, how does it compare to the banister?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor, based on--beyond her scope of expertise, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: They would be sort of similar in color.

MR. GOLDBERG: And would you expect to see the same degree of contrast of specks of blood on the banister as off a white wall, say?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the stain on item no. 11, what side of the house was that collected from?

MS. MAZZOLA: That was collected on the side of the house near the guest quarters.

MR. GOLDBERG: Was that the same side of the house where the glove no. 9 was collected by Mr. Fung?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it was.

MR. GOLDBERG: And in the walk--what we referred to as I think the walkway area?

MS. MAZZOLA: There is a pathway back there.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And that was on what type of an item, stain 11?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was on a wire.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, could you actually see a physical stain?

MS. MAZZOLA: I personally couldn't.

MR. GOLDBERG: So what did you do when you were collecting from that area?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor. Side bar?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Would you--

MR. GOLDBERG: I'm not asking for any test result, but what did you physically do when you were collecting from that area?

MS. MAZZOLA: I took a control from an area as far away from that area where the stain was supposed to be. I swabbed the area, took swatches of the area that contained the stain area.

MR. GOLDBERG: But you couldn't see it?

MS. MAZZOLA: I personally couldn't, no.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in the afternoon, when you left the Rockingham location, did you have a plastic trash bag in your hand when you left for the last time?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did you have an independent recollection of that prior to seeing a videotape that depicted that scene?

MS. MAZZOLA: I knew that I had carried out a plastic trash bag.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you said that at some point you figured out that the package that contained the vial of blood was in the plastic trash bag; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And when did you figure that out?

MS. MAZZOLA: I realized that the next day at the lab in evidence processing.

MR. GOLDBERG: How?

MS. MAZZOLA: The bag was on the table and it contained the two items that I remembered that Mr. Fung and myself had collected and the gray envelope was also there.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you think that there was any significance, up to that period of time, exactly what transpired with respect to that blood vial between the time that it was received and the time that you saw it on the morning of the 14th?

MS. MAZZOLA: No, not really.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you handle blood vials all the time in your occupation?

MS. MAZZOLA: In toxicology we handle blood quite a bit.

MR. GOLDBERG: And when you say "Handle," what do you mean by that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Physically open the vials, take samples out, work with the samples, handle the sample.

MR. GOLDBERG: So you mean some sort of physical manipulation with the sample?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you ever do any handling of the blood vial sample in this case in that sense?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you said that you collected and Mr. Fung collected an item 15 and 16?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And when is it that you documented in the crime scene identification checklist those two items?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was the next day.

MR. GOLDBERG: Why was it the next day?

MS. MAZZOLA: Because our notes were locked in the back of the truck when we left Rockingham for the last time and didn't have a chance to do it at that time.

MR. GOLDBERG: Why didn't you document those when you got back to the laboratory on the evening of the 13th?

MS. MAZZOLA: Well, our main priority was to get the blood swatches drying.

MR. GOLDBERG: So then with respect to items 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19, when was the documentation on those items done in the crime scene identification checklist?

MS. MAZZOLA: They were done the following day.

MR. GOLDBERG: On the 14th?

MS. MAZZOLA: On the 14th.

MR. GOLDBERG: Where did the five o'clock time period come from with respect to the collection on 15 and 16?

MS. MAZZOLA: That was the time that I had thought that we had collected those two items, 15 and 16.

MR. GOLDBERG: And at the time the Griffen hearing, did you believe that you had left shortly after five o'clock?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is what I had believed, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And when did you learn that that wasn't the case?

MS. MAZZOLA: One was from videotapes and another was from the envelope that contained the blood sample from Mr. Simpson.

MR. GOLDBERG: What was on the envelope that caused you to believe that you hadn't left shortly after 5:00?

MS. MAZZOLA: There was a time written down that it was--it had been received.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, perhaps we could see the exhibit that has been marked as People's 186 for identification, starting with the scene where Miss Mazzola is leaving the location.

(At 3:29 P.M., People's exhibit 186, a videotape, was played.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, at 17:11:53 you are putting the items that you had collected and your collection kits back in the vehicle?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: But you believe that 15 and 16 had not been collected at this time?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

(The videotape continues playing.)

MR. GOLDBERG: If you could just take a look at the package that Mr. Fung is holding in his hand. I know you have seen it before. Maybe we can stop for a second.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the package that Mr. Fung was holding in his hands, was that consistent with any other item that you collected or Mr. Fung collected in your presence at the Rockingham location after 5:11?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Let's continue.

(The videotape continues playing.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Let's just stop again for a second.

MR. GOLDBERG: So just to be more specific, without telling us what they were, is that item consistent with 15 or 16?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Let's continue.

(The videotape continues playing.)

MR. GOLDBERG: For the record--I'm sorry, your Honor. For the record, I stopped just after we had finished the two sequences of Mr. Fung in the foyer.

(The videotape continues playing.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Let's just stop for a second. We are at 17:42:53, I believe it is, 10.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Miss Mazzola, with respect to the package that we have previously asked you about, the trash bag, is the heft of that bag consistent with 15, 16, or the little cards that were contained in the driveway, the photo i.d. Cards?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor. The picture speaks for itself. I don't know if she is qualified to comment on the heft of the bag.

THE COURT: Overruled. She was carrying it.

MS. MAZZOLA: It does not appear to be consistent with 15, 16, or the number cards.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you say "Appear," you are looking at the photograph?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: What aspect of the photograph are you looking at?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. The outline is shown toward the front of the bag.

MR. GOLDBERG: During the sequence where you are walking out?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor. Move to strike. That is not heft now. We are talking about describing form.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: And is this the sequence where you are walking out of what appears to be the gate area that leads up into the Rockingham driveway?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in terms of weight, when you were carrying the bag, did the weight appear to be consistent with only 15, 16, and the little cards?

MS. MAZZOLA: It appeared to be a little heavier, but at the time I didn't think much about it.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you think that it--did you have any reason to believe this was going to be of any importance whatsoever later on?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Let's just finish up this little last segment.

(The videotape continues playing.)

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, can--perhaps before I can ask my next series of questions, we can approach to clarify the scope of the permissible questioning.

THE COURT: What area?

MR. GOLDBERG: 15 and 16.

THE COURT: All right. With the Court reporter.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. Over at the side bar. Mr. Goldberg.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, on cross-examination counsel elicited that 15 and 16 went into the plastic bag which I think went beyond a little bit where previously rulings had left us. I think now there is some relevance, obvious relevance to having at least a generic description of 15 and 16, but are they metal, are they paper, what general size are they, how much do they weigh. And that is what I would like to do with this witness.

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld, what is the Defense position?

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I don't believe I went beyond the limitation. It was simply a question of showing that 15 and 16 were put in the bag, and our suggestion is that it was either 15 and 16 may have been put in the bag and the numbers may have been put in the bag, but that doesn't mean that the bag was used for the blood vial. And it was limited for that purpose. I don't believe we have opened the door for them to go beyond any further description of 15 and 16.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, the relevance is that now we have to show that the appearance and weight of the bag is inconsistent with only containing 15 and 16. I mean, if an item of evidence is truly suppressed, it is gone. You don't allude to it and say, well, there is an item 15 and 16. We are not going to tell you what it is, but it exits itself. We collected from it here and there and we won't tell you what it is.

MR. NEUFELD: You brought it in.

THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait.

MR. GOLDBERG: He put it in the bag.

THE COURT: Back then they offered to stipulate and let the stuff in and you declined to stipulate. Is there a reason for that? Knowing all the issues that are involved in this case, is there a reason, other than just to be spiteful to each other?

MS. CLARK: May I address the that issue, your Honor?

THE COURT: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: The reason, more than not stipulating to it at that point in time, was that our position was that, as your Honor knows, and I hate to go over old ground, that I had--I had mistakenly elicited this information, it was in violation of agreement--

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. GOLDBERG: --not to do so, it should not have been done, but that there was no prejudice. And your Honor, I know the Court disagrees with us, but respectfully, it was our position that the sanction that we were given was not appropriate, in light of the lack of prejudice, and we wanted to have that sanction removed.

THE COURT: So what you are asking for at this point is the opportunity to physically describe what it is, that it is a piece of thin cardboard. Let's see. We are talking about an airline ticket and a baggage--

MR. GOLDBERG: Baggage.

MR. NEUFELD: We haven't seen it, your Honor. I think before she even does that, at least they should be produced.

THE COURT: I agree. Let's see them.

MR. GOLDBERG: We did have them down here and I sent them back to SID not too long ago.

THE COURT: We've got about twenty minutes left in the Court day. Let's see them tomorrow morning first thing.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor--

THE COURT: Also let me ask another question. When are we going to see these items that we are expecting?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I spoke to Mr. Matheson during the noon break and he told me that he has two criminalists that are assigned to working on this project.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. GOLDBERG: They were pulled off a project where the LAPD was asked to get test results on a child molest Defendant.

THE COURT: That is not my question.

MR. GOLDBERG: I'm just telling the Court that so your Honor knows we are not delaying and we are--

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg, that is not my question. My question is what is the ETA?

MR. GOLDBERG: He said that he did not believe that we could get it this afternoon.

MR. NEUFELD: Can I--

THE COURT: First thing-- off the record.

(Discussion held off the record.)

THE COURT: Back on the record. All right. The ETA then, that should work out. When tomorrow?

MR. GOLDBERG: I didn't ask them that, but I was assuming he was talking about morning.

THE COURT: I'm assuming that they can get the stuff here 8:30 tomorrow morning.

MR. NEUFELD: In fact, I would like to have that 25 minutes so I can request we don't waste any of the Court's time and the jury's time between 8:30 and 9:00 A.M.

THE COURT: That is why I'm suggesting 8:30.

MR. NEUFELD: Great.

THE COURT: When we conclude, we will do that. I agree with you, you may be entitled to go into the dimensions, the weight, the material. Let's see what they are. So let's finish up the twenty minutes.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, one other item. Several times when I was asked--I walked up there while Mr. Goldberg was asking questions of the witness on redirect when Marcia Clark was standing next to him and she was giggling and laughing, and she was doing that visibly repeatedly.

THE COURT: Keep your voice down.

MR. NEUFELD: She was doing it repeatedly while I was asking questions.

THE COURT: If you will give me--I did not observe anything like that. In fact, I've observed that Miss Clark appears to me to be under the weather today and so I didn't observe that, but if you will bring my attention to it or wave at me, I will be happy to look over that way.

MS. CLARK: May I indicate to the Court that this did not happen. Mr. Neufeld is on some other planet. Mr. Goldberg turned to look at me quizzically and suppose it was into his ear that I was giggling and laughing. He didn't remember seeing this obviously.

THE COURT: Miss Clark, I didn't see anything, and counsel, I would like to spend the rest of the twenty minutes we have left in the Court day asking questions.

MR. COCHRAN: I agree with that, your Honor. Just I am noticing 2179. She seems like more preoccupied.

THE COURT: I have been watching her.

MR. COCHRAN: She told us earlier--she doesn't seem like she is the same, and I just wanted to point out to you, she seems like looking--just looking ahead and hasn't taken any notes all day and preoccupied.

THE COURT: I have been watching.

(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, I would like to turn to the Bundy crime scene. You were asked about a white object on Mr. Goldman. Do you recall seeing any white object on Mr. Goldman?

MS. MAZZOLA: A sheet, Coroner's sheet.

MR. GOLDBERG: When you were asked about a white object by the Defense, is that what you were referring to?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And when you say "Coroner's sheet," can you describe that a little bit more for us? What is it?

MS. MAZZOLA: Just white--

MR. GOLDBERG: Just a large white blanket type item?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Did you get a clear look at that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Not a clear look, no.

MR. GOLDBERG: What type of a look at that did you get?

MS. MAZZOLA: The brief look as they were bringing him out.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, you were asked about trace evidence in connection with the cap--the hat and did you examine those items at all at the scene to see whether they had trace evidence?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you examine evidence--items at the scene, before you collect them, for the purpose of seeing whether they have trace or biological evidence?

MS. MAZZOLA: (No audible response.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Such as those?

MS. MAZZOLA: Biological evidence such as blood for the most part you can readily see. Trace evidence, you wouldn't be able to really see it.

MR. GOLDBERG: But do you try to attempt a close physical examination of the items, such as the glove and the cap, prior to collecting them?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Why not?

MS. MAZZOLA: Because you run the risk, if you are examining it, of disturbing trace evidence.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, I would like to give you a hypothetical. If you assumed, for the purposes of this hypothetical, that the cap had hairs and fibers on it, the hairs being consistent with the Defendant, and a Bronco fiber--a fiber being consistent with the Bronco, but that the glove did not have any such items of trace evidence on it, then would the fact that you did not change gloves in between those items have had any effect in terms of contaminating the glove?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GOLDBERG: Would there have been any significance to not changing the gloves between the cap the glove?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection still in connection with the last question.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GOLDBERG: I don't understand the ground.

THE COURT: The ground is that it is an inappropriate question for this particular witness based upon her expertise.

MR. GOLDBERG: You have been trained--you received some training at SID in terms of the unintentional transfer of trace evidence; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And you said that you did not change gloves between the cap the glove; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, based upon your training and what you have been told at the SID academy, would there be any problem for contamination or cross-contamination if the hat contained hair and Bronco fiber, fiber consistent with the Bronco, but the glove did not contain that kind of trace evidence?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, again improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Thank you.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you were looking at the snippet of videotape showing the item being passed between yourself and Mr. Fung, what color did this item appear to be?

MS. MAZZOLA: It appeared to be a tannish color.

MR. GOLDBERG: Was it--was it consistent in appearance with the color of the eyeglass envelope?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you had that item in front of you, I believe it was the item no. 39, the eyeglass envelope, it was unpackaged, did Mr. Neufeld attempt to touch the glasses with his bare hands?

MS. MAZZOLA: He made a move toward them, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: What did you do when that happened?

MS. MAZZOLA: Advised him it wouldn't be a wise idea.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did he in fact touch them?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: And when you saw the bindle that was contained in that item--maybe I can have that. I think it is exhibit no. 39.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: When you saw the bindle that was contained in that item, was that a bindle that either you or Mr. Fung created?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Either of the bindles?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you recognize any of the handwriting on those two bindles?

MS. MAZZOLA: No, I did not.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you recognize the initials H., I think it was C.L.?

MS. MAZZOLA: At that time, no.

MR. GOLDBERG: Or when you saw them in front of you on the witness stand?

MS. MAZZOLA: I did not.

MR. GOLDBERG: To your knowledge is there anyone by the name of Henry Lee that works at the laboratory?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor. Inappropriate for this witness.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: No one by that name works at the laboratory.

MR. GOLDBERG: May I approach the witness?

THE COURT: Yes. This does exceed the scope, counsel.

MR. GOLDBERG: What?

THE COURT: The bindles matter does exceed the scope.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it goes to the issue of the contents of the item.

THE COURT: As to the envelope, yes, you may proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: Just so there is no ambiguity, when I was talking about the bindles, can you point out for us what items constitute the bindles?

MS. MAZZOLA: The bindles are these small items here, (Indicating).

THE COURT: Appear to be folded up pieces of paper within the plastic envelope.

MR. GOLDBERG: And to your knowledge are items of evidence at SID made available for inspection and testing even by the Defense?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you have any personal knowledge of everything that happened to this eyeglass envelope between the time that it was booked and the time that you saw it on the witness stand?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: You said that you took a look at the glasses that were inside of the envelope when you were back at the laboratory?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection. That wasn't her testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: Not back at the laboratory.

MR. GOLDBERG: Where was that?

MS. MAZZOLA: At the scene, Bundy.

MR. GOLDBERG: Oh, it was at the scene?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can you describe for us specifically how you did it, how you did that mechanically?

MS. MAZZOLA: The envelope was not securely sealed and through the opening I could see a pair of glasses.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you remove the item?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: When you were looking at it, through what part of the envelope were you looking at it?

MS. MAZZOLA: Through the back flap area which was not securely sealed.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you open it in some fashion to make it wider so that you could see better?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: How narrow was the slit through which you were looking at this item in the envelope?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection to the word "Slit."

THE COURT: Rephrase it.

MR. GOLDBERG: How narrow was the opening?

MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not positive about how narrow the opening was.

MR. GOLDBERG: Could you give us an estimate?

MS. MAZZOLA: Wide enough to see it was a pair of glasses.

MR. GOLDBERG: Was it enough so that you could take a close inventory of the condition of the glasses?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did you do so?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did you notice at that time specifically whether the glasses were intact or not?

MS. MAZZOLA: I did not notice if they were intact.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, going back to some of the training issues that were brought up, when you were receiving your academic training in the college level, university level, did you receive any academic training in the area of crime scene investigation?

MR. NEUFELD: Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I did take two classes in crime scene investigation.

MR. GOLDBERG: And where were those taken?

MS. MAZZOLA: One was taken at a community college and the other was taken at Sacramento State University.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, what was the nature of this training? Was it hands-on or was the more textbook theoretical kind of training?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was more textbook.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Then you said that after you went to LAPD you went through what you've referred to as the mini academy?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And was the nature of that training more academic and textbook-oriented or more hands-on?

MS. MAZZOLA: That was more hands-on.

MR. GOLDBERG: Can you describe for us the kind of things that you went through in this hand-on training at the SID mini academy?

MS. MAZZOLA: We learned how to take hair samples from suspects or victims, proper packaging of said items. We learned how to collect blood off of different substrates. We learned how to cast shoeprints out in dirt which sometimes you have to do at scenes. We were taken out and we cast tire tracks. We were given demonstrations on interpreting tire tracks, their direction.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you were doing like a tire track impression, did you do that inside the laboratory or at some outside location?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, beyond the scope, irrelevant.

THE COURT: It is irrelevant.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, you were asked where these meetings took place. Did all of these meetings take place inside the laboratory?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: And you said there was an area that is a kitchen area of the laboratory?

MS. MAZZOLA: It is an area where we have a small kitchen. It adjoins our library slash meeting room slash training room.

MR. GOLDBERG: Is the library slash meeting room slash training room the area where these meetings took place, the ones that were inside?

MS. MAZZOLA: For the most part, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And do you think that the fact that there is a kitchen area adjoining that meeting room somehow caused you not to learn how to collect blood stains as well as if it had taken place in a conference room?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: I'm sorry, I was being distracted by the photographers in the back.

MS. MAZZOLA: Excuse me.

THE COURT: Hold on.

MR. GOLDBERG: I will ask the question again.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. GOLDBERG: This meeting slash conference slash library room, is it directly adjoining the area that is the kitchen? Is it in the same physical space?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And is there a microwave there and refrigerator and the like?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Do you think that somehow the presence of the microwave and the refrigerator caused you not to learn how to collect blood strains as well?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: No, it had no bearing on it.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you were also asked whether this occurred in a separate building. Did it?

MS. MAZZOLA: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you think that maybe if this had occurred in a separate building you would have learned how to collect blood stains or other kind of evidence better than if it occurred at the SID facility?

MS. MAZZOLA: I don't think it would have made any difference.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you think that if you had learned this in a dormitory type setting where they didn't allow you to go home between settings--sessions--

THE COURT: I think we are getting redundant at this point.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. I would probably agree with that, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Let's move on.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you said that you had a temporary job at Kern County D.A.'S Office Crime Lab?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Why was that a temporary position?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was what they called extra help criminalist. It was a temporary position and I was glad to get the job.

MR. GOLDBERG: And when you said that it was a temporary position, did they have funding for a full-time position?

MS. MAZZOLA: No, they did not have funding for a full-time position.

MR. GOLDBERG: And for how long was it that you--that you were hired when you were initially hired in this temporary position?

MS. MAZZOLA: Initially I was hired for nine months.

MR. GOLDBERG: And then what happened after the nine months?

MS. MAZZOLA: Well, before my nine months were up they said they had funding for me to come back for another nine months, if I was still interested in the job.

MR. GOLDBERG: And did you in fact go back for another nine months?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: Did they have any funding to continue your position after that?

MS. MAZZOLA: No, no.

MR. GOLDBERG: And then after that did you begin looking for work again?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I did.

MR. GOLDBERG: What kind of work did you want at that time?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection as to what kind of--relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: I wanted to work as a criminalist. That is what I wanted my career to be.

MR. GOLDBERG: Is it your experience that the leading crime laboratories generally want people that have some previous experience in order to get a job?

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor. She is not qualified to answer that question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. MAZZOLA: The majority of laboratories were looking for people with some experience in the field.

MR. GOLDBERG: Then you said that you got a job at valley toxicology, I think; is that correct?

MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: And was that a job what you wanted to stay at?

MS. MAZZOLA: It was not a job I wanted to stay at for the next thirty years.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And when did you decide to go over to LAPD?

MS. MAZZOLA: Well, I had taken the test for LAPD a couple of years prior to starting at valley toxicology, but I had heard of the budget problems so I didn't think anything about it until I received a call asking me if I was still interested in a permanent full-time position as a criminalist with the LAPD.

MR. GOLDBERG: And when you heard that the--they had funding now for a position, did you decide to join LAPD, their crime lab?

MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And why was that?

MS. MAZZOLA: Because it was a permanent criminalist position. LAPD had a good reputation and--

MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor. Move to strike.

THE COURT: We are beyond. Proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I was going to move on to another topic now. I don't know whether the Court wanted to break, it is four o'clock, or continue.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for afternoon session as far as the jury is concerned. Ladies and gentlemen, please remember all of my admonitions to you. Do not discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any opinions about the case, conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, or allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We will see you tomorrow morning at nine o'clock. Have a pleasant evening. Miss Mazzola, you may step down. You are ordered to return tomorrow morning, 8:45.

(Brief pause.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

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

The People of the State of California, )

Plaintiff, )

Vs. ) No. Ba097211 )

Orenthal James Simpson, )

Defendant. )

Reporter's transcript of proceedings Wednesday, April 26, 1995

Volume 134 pages 24420 through 24687, 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 134 pages 24420 - 24687

Day date session page vol.

Wednesday April 26, 1995 A.M. 24420 134 P.M. 24553 134

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 134 (Resumed) 24433n (Resumed) 24571n 24608gb

Alphabetical Index of witnesses witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.

Mazzola, Andrea 134 (Resumed) 24433n (Resumed) 24571n 24608gb

EXHIBITS

People's for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

201 - Photograph of 24634 134 the banister at 360 North Rockingham

202 - Chart 24679 134 entitled "Serology Results"

Defense for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

1082-C - Photograph of 24476 134 Andrea Mazzola collecting evidence at the crime scene (Computer printout)

1120 - 1-page document 24575 134 entitled "Investigator's Report"