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.