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: Good morning, counsel. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Blasier, Mr. Scheck, Mr. Neufeld, People represented by Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Darden. Good morning, counsel.
MR. SHAPIRO: Good morning, your Honor.
MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, your Honor.
MR. NEUFELD: Good morning, your Honor.
MR. SCHECK: Good morning, your Honor.
MR. BLASIER: Good morning, your Honor.
MR. GOLDBERG: Good morning, your Honor.
MR. DARDEN: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. We have the items of evidence present from the LAPD; is that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: With the exception of three control bindles on item 7, 12 and 49, which I advised counsel of.
THE COURT: All right. And, Mr. Neufeld, you wanted to inspect those items and, Mr. Goldberg, you wanted that done on the record; is that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Let's proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, he has inspected the items, but he would like to open them. Some of them are sealed.
THE COURT: All right. How many of those items do you need to see, to open to see?
MR. NEUFELD: I just wanted to open the coin envelopes. But, you know, there's the 16 or so items.
THE COURT: How many?
MR. NEUFELD: One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, seventeen, twenty-three items.
THE COURT: Haven't you already been given the opportunity to do this previously?
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor--oh, no. That's not the point here. The point is, before I actually display them to the witness, I just want an opportunity to make sure these are the same ones that I've seen in the past. That can take literally seven or eight minutes to do. I was here at 8:30 for that purpose, as you know, your Honor.
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
MR. NEUFELD: I can do it during a very brief recess between the end of their recross--end of their redirect and my cross. I just need those seven minutes though before I actually show them to the witness, I've had an opportunity to look at them myself to make sure that they're the same.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, would you approach, please.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
THE COURT: Let me give you my scissors. You've got 10 minutes.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you very much.
THE COURT: We'll do it on the record. Do you need gloves for these things?
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm going to have Miss Mazzola do it if I may, and she has gloves.
THE COURT: All right.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: We were just discussing that we don't have any seals to reseal the items, which we would like to do after they're reopened because they are analyzed evidence. Miss Mazzola just brought it to my attention.
THE COURT: All right. Mrs. Robertson, do you have evidence seals so we can reseal each of these items after they've been opened?
THE CLERK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Would you supervise that process then over there, please. All right. Mr. Goldberg, Mr. Darden, can I ask you to clear a few items off your counsel table there, put them over here on the bar over by the jury rail so I can observe what's going on as well. And let's do this as expeditiously as we can.
MR. GOLDBERG: I will.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Let's get started.
MR. GOLDBERG: Try to take them out to the best of your ability in numerical order.
THE COURT: All right. Miss Mazzola has resumed--excuse me--removed the contents of a 9 by 12 manila envelope. There appear to be numerous coin envelopes. All right. Which one do you have there, Miss Mazzola?
MS. MAZZOLA: It's item 8.
THE COURT: All right. Item 8. There appear to be two coin envelopes. They appear to be what, stapled together?
MS. MAZZOLA: Stapled together.
THE COURT: All right. You've removed two bindles. Mr. Harmon, you're going to have to stand out of the well, please. Mrs. Robertson, let me ask you to reseal these items.
THE CLERK: Yes.
MS. MAZZOLA: Item 11.
THE COURT: Again, two coin envelopes that appear to be stapled together.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, just to tell you, if you want, since they have about 40 minutes of redirect, I can start on the recross before I get to this issue if you want to do this during the recess if you prefer.
THE COURT: Well, let's do it now.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. Which item is this?
MS. MAZZOLA: This is still 11.
THE COURT: All right. Two bindles.
MR. GOLDBERG: For the record, they are in a sealed condition, the bindles.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
MS. MAZZOLA: Number 12.
THE COURT: Also appears to be two coin envelopes stapled together. Excuse me, counsel.
MR. NEUFELD: I am sorry. Just getting my coffee.
THE COURT: That's three times now. Deputy Jex. Appears to be one bindle.
MR. GOLDBERG: This bindle just has--does that just have a 12 on it? Is that a 12? What is that?
MS. MAZZOLA: 12.
MR. GOLDBERG: It doesn't have a 12-c?
MS. MAZZOLA: This is property item 42.
THE COURT: Appears to be a single coin envelope. Appears to contain two paper bindles.
MS. MAZZOLA: Item 43.
MR. GOLDBERG: Two paper bindles came out of that item, your Honor.
THE COURT: Noted.
MS. MAZZOLA: Item 44.
THE COURT: All right. A single coin envelope.
MR. GOLDBERG: Again, two paper bindles.
THE COURT: Noted.
MS. MAZZOLA: Item 45.
THE COURT: Appear to be two coin envelopes stapled together. All right. Two paper bindles.
MS. MAZZOLA: Item 46.
THE COURT: All right. 46. Deputy Magnera, would you make preparations to resume again at 1 o'clock instead of 1:30? All right. Item 46. Would you describe that, Miss Mazzola?
MS. MAZZOLA: Appears to be a menu from a Thai-Chinese restaurant.
THE COURT: All right. Folded.
MS. MAZZOLA: Item 14.
THE COURT: All right. Single coin envelope.
MR. GOLDBERG: Two envelopes. I mean two bindles again.
THE COURT: Noted. Single coin envelope.
MS. MAZZOLA: Item 47.
THE COURT: Appears to be three coin envelopes stapled together.
MR. GOLDBERG: And also for the record so far, all the coin envelopes from which the bindles came were sealed.
THE COURT: Yes. And, Miss Mazzola, what is that?
MS. MAZZOLA: It is another single bindle that appears to be sealed up with tape, plastic seal.
MR. GOLDBERG: Does that say c or is that a control bindle or just a number?
MS. MAZZOLA: Number. This is the second coin envelope.
THE COURT: All right. The second sealed coin envelope.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel and Ms. Mazzola.)
THE COURT: All right. A single bindle out of the second coin envelope. All right. Miss Mazzola.
MS. MAZZOLA: Item 48.
THE COURT: Three coin envelopes. Deputy Jex, there's a lot of talking in the audience. I know three journalists and one book author that are about to go out. Ms. Hayslett, would you come here for a moment. Miss Mazzola, what is that? Is that a paper bindle?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. Single paper bindle with at least two color seals and several initials.
THE COURT: It's past 10 minutes at this point. Okay. What item is that?
MS. MAZZOLA: This is still item 48. This is the second sealed envelope.
THE COURT: All right. That was a single paper bindle?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: It also appears to be sealed with tape and it appears to be a control bindle.
MS. MAZZOLA: Item 41.
THE COURT: Single coin envelope. All right. Two paper bindles.
MS. MAZZOLA: Item no. 1.
THE COURT: All right. Two coin envelopes stapled together, one sealed.
MR. GOLDBERG: And two bindles.
THE COURT: Two paper bindles.
MR. GOLDBERG: Appear to be sealed.
MS. MAZZOLA: Item 4.
THE COURT: Two coin envelopes stapled together, one sealed. Two paper bindles.
MR. GOLDBERG: And two bindles.
MS. MAZZOLA: Item 5.
THE COURT: Appear to be two coin envelopes stapled together. One is sealed. Appear to be two paper bindles. Mr. Fairtlough, is there a reason you can't do that during a recess?
MS. MAZZOLA: Item no. 6.
THE COURT: Two coin envelopes stapled together. One appears to be sealed.
MS. MAZZOLA: Actually both are sealed.
THE COURT: Both are sealed. Mr. Neufeld, could you take two steps to the left? Thank you.
MS. MAZZOLA: Single bindle.
THE COURT: Single paper bindle. All right. Second coin envelope, appears to be one paper bindle. Next item.
MS. MAZZOLA: Next item is 49.
THE COURT: Two coin envelopes stapled together.
MS. MAZZOLA: One sealed.
THE COURT: One sealed.
MS. MAZZOLA: One bindle.
THE COURT: One bindle.
MS. MAZZOLA: Item 52, three bindles, two sealed.
THE COURT: Was the last item 2?
MS. MAZZOLA: The last item was 49.
THE COURT: 49, but there were two envelopes, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Two envelopes.
THE COURT: Right. All right. Which number is this?
MS. MAZZOLA: This is item 52. There are three envelopes, two of them are sealed.
THE COURT: Awfully long seven minutes.
MR. NEUFELD: The observation time if you add that up would be less than seven minutes.
MS. MAZZOLA: One bindle. This is the second sealed bindle--coin envelope, one sealed bindle and two micro centrifuge tubes. Item 7, two coin envelopes, one sealed. Excuse me. Two sealed.
THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, do you have your stapler there?
THE CLERK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Miss Mazzola.
MS. MAZZOLA: One of the sealed envelopes is empty. One paper bindle and four micro centrifuge tubes, C-E-N-T-R-I-F-U-G-E.
MR. GOLDBERG: This just says 7, it doesn't say 7c?
MS. MAZZOLA: Item 51, two coin envelopes, one sealed, two paper bindles. Item 50, three coin envelopes, two sealed, no paper. One paper bindle control. One paper bindle.
THE COURT: All right. If you'll--Mrs. Robertson, if you'll reseal all those items, please. All right. Mr. Neufeld, have you had the opportunity to observe those items?
MR. NEUFELD: I certainly have, your Honor. Thank you, your Honor. I just want to ask the Court that since the Prosecution chose not to use this evidence as its direct, as part of its direct case with this witness and I did ask specifically to use it for my cross and I had to delay the end of my cross until they were produced, that the People not be allowed to use this or these items, refer to them on their redirect since it's not something I went into on cross yet and I would have been entitled to show them for the first time on my cross.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Goldberg indicated to me that he only had 20 more minutes. There's been no indication that he intends on using any of these items. Since that's a decision I don't have to make--
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, we had an issue as to items no. 15 and 16 which the Court asked that we bring here this morning--
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: --and now have. I don't know whether the Court wants to see--
THE COURT: Have you displayed those to Mr. Neufeld?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. This is item no. 15.
THE COURT: All right. Standard American Airlines ticket jacket with what appears to be a ticket sticking out of it or at least the stub.
MR. GOLDBERG: And item no. 16 which appears to be a baggage claim tag.
THE COURT: Is that one of those double stick fold-over, bar coded?
MS. CLARK: Right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Right.
THE COURT: All right. Noted. All right. Deputy Magnera--I'm sorry. Madam Court reporter, how do you want to split the morning?
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm fine for the morning.
THE COURT: I'm tempted to go straight through.
THE COURT REPORTER: That's fine.
THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jurors.
(The following proceedings were held in open Court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
THE COURT: The record should reflect we've been joined by all the members of our jury panel. Ladies and gentlemen, as you recall, yesterday, I indicated to you that we had a delay because of some of the items, physical items of evidence were not immediately available to us. And the delay this morning was that those items were delivered to the Court and I wanted to examine each piece of that evidence before it was presented to you. So we've had to go through--how many were there? 15 or 16 pieces of evidence?
MR. GOLDBERG: I think there were more than that.
THE COURT: In any event, that's what we've been doing. We've been here since 8:30 this morning for that purpose just to let you know what the delay was. All right.
Andrea Mazzola, The witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: Good morning again, Miss Mazzola.
MS. MAZZOLA: Good morning.
THE COURT: You are reminded again you are under oath. And, Mr. Goldberg, you may continue with your redirect examination.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. GOLDBERG
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, I was asking you yesterday about this white item, the blanket that you saw in the vicinity or on Mr. Goldman at some point. What was that blanket again?
MS. MAZZOLA: It was a white blanket or sheet. I wasn't sure which one.
MR. GOLDBERG: And was that something that came from the Coroner's office?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection. If she knows.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know if that came from the Coroner's office?
MS. MAZZOLA: At the time, I did not.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Maybe we can see People's 99 for identification.
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Your Honor, you should cut the feed for this photo.
THE COURT: Cut.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, if you can look at the background of this photograph and take a look at the white blanket or white sheet that appears to have some writing on it. Is that what you saw?
MS. MAZZOLA: I saw him on a white blanket or sheet.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And when you looked at this--did you look at this photograph prior to testifying today, the actual photograph as opposed to an image of it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you look at other crime scene photographs depicting this same scene or similar scene?
MS. MAZZOLA: I had seen crime scene photographs previous, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what was the writing--what is the writing that appears on the right-hand side of the display yet somewhat blurry?
MS. MAZZOLA: On this image, it's hard to tell. But on the photographs, it appears to be from the L.A. Coroner.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And is this consistent with what you saw when you were referring to a white blanket?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now--thank you. Was there another white blanket that was at the crime scene that was still there after the bodies had been removed when you were engaged in the evidence collection process?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, there was.
MR. GOLDBERG: And where was that white blanket?
MS. MAZZOLA: It was on the walkway near the first steps.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, from your own independent recollection, based upon what you saw when you were at the scene, did you ever see that blanket on anyone?
MS. MAZZOLA: From what I can recall, I did not see that particular blanket on anybody.
MR. GOLDBERG: Either the body of Nicole Simpson or Ronald Goldman?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not that I can recall, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: Does that mean that it wasn't ever on Nicole Simpson or just that you did not see that?
MS. MAZZOLA: That I did not see that.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you were asked some questions on cross-examination about your conversations with me, and you said that at one point, you had been in the District Attorney's office for perhaps five hours or so?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Objection. That was not the testimony. More than one occasion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, on the occasion or occasions when that happened, was that while you were waiting to testify?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not--well, I believe on maybe one occasion, it was while I was waiting.
MR. GOLDBERG: And were people talking to you the whole time about this case or what were you doing?
MS. MAZZOLA: For the most part, I was left alone.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did the Defense attorneys ever attempt to your knowledge to contact you and say, we'd like to sit down with you and go over what we're going to question you about or talk about the case"?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection as to form.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: Have the Defense attorneys ever contacted you and asked you prior to today to discuss any part of the case with them?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Today, did you have a little bit of a conversation with Mr. Neufeld about certain items of evidence?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And other than that, is that the only time that you had an off the record conversation that you can recall with one of the Defense lawyers?
MS. MAZZOLA: That I can recall--
MR. GOLDBERG: Relating to the case.
MS. MAZZOLA: That I can recall, I believe it was, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you consider your conversation with Mr. Neufeld to be witness preparation?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection to what she considered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Was he asking you questions about, oh--well, can you just give us a generic or general description of what the conversation was about?
MS. MAZZOLA: He was just asking about certain items of evidence, if I would unseal them.
MR. GOLDBERG: He was asking what?
MS. MAZZOLA: That if I would open them for him to see.
MR. GOLDBERG: Was he asking any questions about those items of evidence or what you put on them or what they were or so on?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not really.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I wanted to ask some questions about 15 and 16 pursuant to our conversation.
THE COURT: All right. I think our agreed-upon perimeter is physical description, dimension.
MR. GOLDBERG: Without telling us what these items--
THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on. Mr. Neufeld.
MR. NEUFELD: Brief sidebar. I think we can resolve this very briefly.
THE COURT: Do you want to talk to Mr. Cochran first?
MR. NEUFELD: Yes.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. COCHRAN: Can we have a second, your Honor?
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. COCHRAN: Excuse us a minute.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: All right. Counsel. Mr. Goldberg.
MS. CLARK: Can we have just one more minute, your Honor, please? Your Honor, please?
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. COCHRAN: Can we approach briefly?
THE COURT: With the Court reporter.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: We're over at the sidebar. Where are we going to go with this?
MR. COCHRAN: We're willing I think just to go forward and we'll stipulate to any withdrawal of any objection.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. COCHRAN: So you can mark them. But that's it. That's what we were talking about. We were trying to save time.
THE COURT: Do I have to tell them I previously instructed them to ignore it or just let it lie?
MR. NEUFELD: Just let it lie I think because obviously it's coming in.
MS. CLARK: You know what you could do? Just say the parties agree that--
THE COURT: 15 and 16 are going to be shown to you.
MS. CLARK: Without reminding them, just say the parties agree.
MR. COCHRAN: The parties have agreed 15 and 16 can come in.
(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Ladies and gentlemen, if you recall--well, with regard to evidence collection, items number 15 and 16, the parties, both sides have withdrawn their objection to those items. So we will proceed with those. All right. Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, then I'll mark as my next exhibit in order as People's 203--
THE COURT: 203.
MR. GOLDBERG: --item no. 15, and as 204, item no. 16. I'm not going to write on these because they already have markings on them.
THE COURT: All right.
(Peo's 203 for id = item no. 15)
(Peo's 204 for id = item no. 16)
MR. GOLDBERG: May I approach the witness?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. GOLDBERG: Miss Mazzola, showing you item no. 15 and item no. 16, do you recognize those?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what are those?
MS. MAZZOLA: They are the two items which were collected at Rockingham on the afternoon of June 13th.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when was the packaging that they're now contained in, when were they placed in those packaging materials?
MS. MAZZOLA: That happened June 14th back at the laboratory.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you remove the item from People's 1--excuse me--203 for identification, that's number 15, and tell us what you're doing for the record?
MS. MAZZOLA: I am opening the coin envelope and removing appears to be airline tickets.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Maybe you can just hold that up so the jurors can see what you have.
(The witness complies.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you were actually at the location, did you put that in any packaging material other than the plastic bag itself?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, can you remove item no. 16 from its coin envelope and describe what you're doing for the record?
MS. MAZZOLA: Okay. I am removing item no. 16 from the envelope. It appears to be a baggage claim ticket from an airline.
MR. GOLDBERG: And was that placed in any other packaging material on the 13th when you were at Rockingham other than the plastic bag itself?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. Can you just hold up item no. 15 one more time after you put 16 away?
MS. MAZZOLA: Sure (Witness complies).
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, maybe I could just take a look at 163-h for identification, the gray analyzed evidence envelope.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you put that--just keep that out for a second.
THE COURT: Do you want the item itself kept out?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah, if she would.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: I would like to give you 163-h. Maybe you can just hold the two of those up so we can get a relative size comparison.
(The witness complies.)
MR. GOLDBERG: And neither that item that you're holding now nor item no. 16 were placed in any other packaging material other than the plastic bag while you were at the Rockingham location?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you were carrying the plastic bag out of the location, did it feel to you like it weighed anything more than what you would expect with just item 15 and 16 and the little cards, collection cards?
MS. MAZZOLA: It felt like it was a little heavier than it should be, but I didn't give it much thought.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. You can replace that item.
(The witness complies.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Could you just hold up the envelope itself so that we can--no, no. The envelope, coin envelope. Is that the type of coin envelope or one of the kinds of coin envelopes that you do have in your crime scene boxes?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And where were those coin envelopes at the time that you and Mr. Fung recovered item 15 and 16?
MS. MAZZOLA: They were in the back of the truck.
MR. GOLDBERG: Locked?
MS. MAZZOLA: Locked.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. Now, turning to the Bronco search and collection of evidence, you said that on the pedals, that you used the same swab for the purposes of the phenolphtalein test?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why was that done?
MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung just wanted to see if the pedals had been manipulated as if someone had driven the Bronco.
MR. GOLDBERG: As opposed to what?
MS. MAZZOLA: As opposed to just getting in the Bronco and then getting right back out.
MR. GOLDBERG: So he wanted to see whether there was any evidence of any blood on any one of the three pedals?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when he directed you to do this test, did you have any fear or concern on your part that if you suggested to him that three different swabs should be used that he was going to say to you, "I can't believe that you would question my judgment. I think you should be fired"?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Or anything along those lines?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you were doing this phenolphtalein test, was it your intent to collect anything or try to collect anything from the pedals?
MS. MAZZOLA: No. He said we were just--
MR. NEUFELD: Objection to what he said.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: If you could just tell us what your intent was.
MS. MAZZOLA: The intent was to see if the pedals had been manipulated. That was it.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is it your practice not to collect every single last stain that you see in a car that contains many stains such as the Bronco?
MS. MAZZOLA: A representative sample of what is in the car would be taken.
MR. GOLDBERG: And who was making the judgment call as to which samples to take and not to take from the Bronco?
MS. MAZZOLA: That was Mr. Fung.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, I would like to direct your attention to People's 195-a for identification.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: This photograph is a little bit washed out. Have you had an opportunity--
MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor, to his testifying.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Have you had an opportunity to look at the actual photograph before?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And was this a photograph that was taken on the 14th when you and Mr. Fung were doing the evidence collection at the Bronco?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it was.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, do you have an independent recollection of seeing any of the stains that appear in the running board area of the driver's side door?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not on the running board itself, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: Let's take a look at 197 for identification. Now, with respect to the little stains that are contained in this photograph--
MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor, to little stains.
THE COURT: Sustained. Counsel, objection. Then I'll ask for the grounds. Both sides.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you see some stains that are contained in this photograph?
MS. MAZZOLA: I see cards where there would be stains.
MR. GOLDBERG: No. I'm talking about the area of the running board, the driver's area.
MR. NEUFELD: Objection as to the characterization. Assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: Talking about the white metallic area that's in the forefront of this area.
MS. MAZZOLA: There appears to be a dark spot on it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, do you recall seeing that on the 14th?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, I don't recall if I saw that or not.
MR. GOLDBERG: And do you recall seeing any other spots in that area on the 14th?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you say you don't recall, does that mean that they weren't there?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you say that you don't recall, does that mean that you looked in that area, examined it and that they weren't there?
MS. MAZZOLA: It means I don't recall if I saw stains there or not.
MR. GOLDBERG: And prior to looking at the crime scene photographs, did you have any recollection as to the rear gate at Bundy being there?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: But does that mean that it wasn't there?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor, again as to form.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: Does that mean that you looked and you examined the area and you saw that there was no rear gate at Bundy?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did not remember if--seeing a rear gate at Bundy.
MR. GOLDBERG: But do you now know that there was in fact one there?
MS. MAZZOLA: I know now that there was a gate, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And prior to seeing the videotape of yourself collecting the glove at the Bundy location--
THE COURT: I think we've asked this question already, counsel.
MR. GOLDBERG: Not in this context.
THE COURT: We asked the same question yesterday afternoon though in a similar context.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, you testified yesterday that you didn't have an independent recollection prior to seeing the videotape of collecting the glove at Bundy. Does that mean that you didn't collect it or you remember not collecting it?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection.
THE COURT: Counsel, we've already been through--you've already asked that question.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, who was doing most of the work in terms of trying to identify stains on the Bronco prior to the actual physical collection of the stains?
MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung.
MR. GOLDBERG: What were you doing?
MS. MAZZOLA: I was passing him the photo id cards, doing a sketch, helping with measurements, passing him supplies as he needed them.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, Miss Mazzola, with respect to the stains that are in this People's exhibit 197 for identification, did you ever consider at all testifying that you did see them on the 14th?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection.
THE COURT: Ground?
MR. NEUFELD: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: If I didn't remember seeing them, then that's how I would testify, I didn't remember them.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And you never thought of saying, "Yeah, I do remember seeing them," to help the Prosecution's case, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, I would like to ask you some questions about the collection video, the blood collection video that was played. That's Defense 1117 for identification. And I'd just like to play it all the way through, and then I'll ask you some questions about what we saw.
(Brief pause.)
(At 10:40 A.M., Defendant's exhibit 1117, a videotape, was played.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. In this scene where you're pouring some items out into the cap, what are you doing?
MS. MAZZOLA: I am putting some of the swatches into the cap so I could pick them up with tweezers.
MR. GOLDBERG: And now you are doing what?
MS. MAZZOLA: Adding a drop of distilled water to the swatch and shaking it out.
MR. GOLDBERG: And now you've placed the swatch down, and for what purpose is that?
MS. MAZZOLA: To take a control.
MR. GOLDBERG: And this is right by the card that says number 5?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you just put it into an object. What did you put the control swatch in?
MS. MAZZOLA: It's placed in a small plastic bag.
MR. GOLDBERG: And that had some writing on it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: What was the writing?
MS. MAZZOLA: The item number and c for control.
MR. GOLDBERG: So that's all you have to put on there, is the item number and c for control?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Leading.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is that all you have to put on there, just the item number and c for control?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, what did you just do?
MS. MAZZOLA: Clean the tweezers again.
MR. GOLDBERG: And now you are placing the swatch down on the stain?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you were handling the swatch with the tweezers, what portion of the tweezers comes into contact with the swatch?
MS. MAZZOLA: The extreme pointed end.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are those tweezers--is there anything special about them that distinguishes them from ordinary tweezers?
MS. MAZZOLA: Well, they're extremely sharper and they have a longer area where you would handle the items that you need to.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are they serrated at all so as to be able to grab things or are they just smooth?
MS. MAZZOLA: We have some that are serrated, some that are smooth.
MR. GOLDBERG: But these particulars ones that you use for this task are the smooth ones?
MS. MAZZOLA: Those are smooth.
MR. GOLDBERG: And now what are you doing?
MS. MAZZOLA: Placing the swatch with the item in a separate plastic bag.
MR. GOLDBERG: What does that plastic bag have on it?
MS. MAZZOLA: The item number.
MR. GOLDBERG: But it doesn't have a c?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why is that? Why do you put a c on one and just the item number on the other, for what purpose?
MS. MAZZOLA: Well, I do it to designate the control. That's the only reason.
MR. GOLDBERG: Couldn't you designate it even if you didn't write that on it?
MS. MAZZOLA: For the most part, you can tell if the swatch has blood on it or not. But I just put a c.
MR. GOLDBERG: Makes it easier?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you write your initials anywhere on those plastic envelopes?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you got up, you touched the ground. Did you notice that?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Does that sometimes happen at a crime scene, where you will touch the ground for whatever the reason, to balance yourself?
MS. MAZZOLA: Touch the ground or something to maintain your balance.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Does touching the ground have any impact in terms of the evidence collection?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection. She's not qualified.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Not really, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, what are you filling out now?
MS. MAZZOLA: It could be another envelope for the next item.
MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you looked at this videotape, does it look like you have more than one item in your hand--yeah. Okay--right now?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What items do you have in your hand?
MS. MAZZOLA: A plastic bag and coin envelope.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what do you write on the plastic bag?
MS. MAZZOLA: The item number.
MR. GOLDBERG: What do you write on the coin envelope?
MS. MAZZOLA: The item number.
MR. GOLDBERG: And in this case, that would have been 6?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what are you doing now?
MS. MAZZOLA: Cleaning the tweezers again.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, between the time that you cleaned your tweezers and the time you picked up this next swatch, did you ever touch the tip end of the tweezers that comes in contact with the swatch?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is that the way that you do it at a real crime scene too?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And now what are you collecting?
MS. MAZZOLA: The next control.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: And you've just put the swatch, the control swatch, where?
MS. MAZZOLA: In a plastic bag.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is that designated in some way again to separate it from the stain swatch?
MS. MAZZOLA: It has an item number and a c on it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now you're writing on another plastic bag?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: You just wrote the item number and is that it?
MS. MAZZOLA: For that one, it would be just the item number.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And again, you dropped the swatch in this video. Did you try to recover that swatch or did you just leave it on the ground?
MS. MAZZOLA: Leave it on the ground.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you're having a little bit of difficulty getting this off the tweezers?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: But when you look closely, did you ever touch the swatch with your gloved hand?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Or did you ever touch the area of the tweezers that comes into contact with the swatch?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is that consistent with your practice at a real crime scene?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, this swatch seems to be soaking up a little easier than the other one; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: It appears to be, yes.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you.
(At 10:50 A.M., the playing of the videotape was concluded.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, I want to ask you a few more questions about the videotape. First of all, in this videotape, did your gloved hands ever come into contact with a swatch?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when I say that, I mean a swatch was used for either a control or for collecting a stain.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: And towards the beginning portion of the videotape, do you recall a segment where your pinkie was somewhat extended almost as if you were holding a china cup?
MS. MAZZOLA: I recall it was extended, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, what were you doing with your pinkie in that particular segment? You were also asked about it on cross-examination.
MS. MAZZOLA: Just helping to turn over the lid of the cap.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you reviewed the videotape--did you review the videotape again after your testimony?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Could you actually see the cap being flipped before it was put on--back on top of the pill box?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is that also your practice at a crime scene; that in terms of the swatches that you're going to use for controls or stains, that you do not touch them with your gloved hand?
MS. MAZZOLA: They are not touched with our hands, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you watched this videotape, was there ever a time when you touched with your gloved hands the portion of the tweezers that you would use to collect either a control or a swatch after they were cleaned but before the swatch was collected?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is that also consistent with the practice that you used at a crime scene?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, on stain no. 5, the demonstration stain, do you know from viewing this videotape for sure whether or not the moisture from the control swatch did eventually migrate over to the stain?
MS. MAZZOLA: From the videotape, it looked like it was coming close, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: It could have?
MS. MAZZOLA: Could have, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, does that present a problem when you are collecting evidence?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not really, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why not?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor. No foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Well, counsel give you a hypothetical where he related to you a set of facts under which the swatch came into contact with your hand and then was placed as the substrate control down on the cement and then the water migrated over to the stain itself. Do you recall a hypothetical along those lines?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Under that hypothetical situation, is there any danger of contaminating the item being collected, the stain?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Still no foundation with this witness.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Very little if any.
MR. GOLDBERG: And if the control swatch were in fact contaminated, could that be tested for by testing the control swatch?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Beyond the scope of her expertise.
THE COURT: Foundation. Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, have you been taught what the control swatch is for?
MS. MAZZOLA: We have been told what it can be used for, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when it gets back to the laboratory, what do the people in serology use those control swatches for?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know what the people in serology use those for?
MS. MAZZOLA: I know they are used to see if anything in the background would interfere with the tests they were going to run and they can also be tested for contamination, DNA, whatever.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And if the control swatch was in fact tested and it was determined that it did not contain biological material, would that indicate that you did not contaminate the control swatch and hence the stain?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Not qualified.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to swatches that are dropped, if you drop one of the swatches and you just leave it on the ground, can that somehow affect or contaminate the stain that you're collecting?
MS. MAZZOLA: If it is just left on the ground?
MR. GOLDBERG: Right.
MS. MAZZOLA: No, because it wouldn't be used.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is there any significance to that at all that you're aware of based upon your training and experience?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you were testifying on direct examination, do you recall being asked a couple questions about different things that could conceivably happen while you're collecting a stain?
MS. MAZZOLA: I think so, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, at this time, I would like to read from page 23700.
THE COURT: What volume is this? What volume, counsel?
MR. GOLDBERG: Excuse me, your Honor?
THE COURT: What volume is this?
MR. GOLDBERG: This is volume 130. I'm going to start on line--well, actually I would like to page on page 23699 on line 27 through line 6.
THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld?
MR. NEUFELD: One second.
THE COURT: Do you have the page?
MR. NEUFELD: This is direct examination?
THE COURT: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: I would object to rereading direct examination. It's beyond the scope of redirect examination.
MR. GOLDBERG: No. He got into this on cross.
THE COURT: It's a prior consistent statement. It's hearsay. There's no inconsistency.
MR. GOLDBERG: No, but it's not being--
THE COURT: Let me see counsel at sidebar.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: All right. We're over at the sidebar. Mr. Goldberg, what is your purpose?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. On cross-examination, Mr. Neufeld asked about the portion of the direct examination where she admitted that you can drop swatches and said that the only reason that you admitted that was because you knew it was on videotape and you knew that we had that videotape and possibly were going to play it. I want to show--she admitted also she could drop the tweezers. It's not on any videotape, not any still photography. And when you bring out a portion of the statement, under the res gestae rule, we get to bring up the other story. It's fair and proper in light of cross-examination.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)
THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: On direct examination, were you trying to in any way conceal different problems that could happen when you're collecting a stain?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is one of the things that could conceivably happen, dropping tweezers?
MS. MAZZOLA: It can happen, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And did you admit that on direct examination?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection.
THE COURT: It's hearsay.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you make any effort to conceal that during direct examination, that that could be a problem?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection again.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And do you know for a fact whether or not you did drop any tweezers at the crime scene at Bundy or at Rockingham?
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not believe I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: But if that problem does occur, how do you handle it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Clean the tweezers.
MR. GOLDBERG: So this is a potential mistake that could occur while you're collecting evidence; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: It's not really a mistake. It can happen.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But it couldn't have any impact on the evidence collection?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, getting back to the control swatches, I wanted to show you the evidence collection board. I think it was 177.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Excuse me. It's 167.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: I want to ask you some questions about cell number 8 on this board, Miss Mazzola. You may have to step down in order to see this.
(The witness complies.)
MR. GOLDBERG: On cell 8, do you see that there are--the two little white items that are sort of in the area that's framed by your hands and your body?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: One of them seems to be closer to your right knee and the other one appears to be a little closer to the edge of the coin envelope, but they're both on the cement.
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: What are those white items?
MS. MAZZOLA: They appear to be swatches.
MR. GOLDBERG: And if someone had asked you to look at this photograph and said, "What are those items and how did they get there," would you have told them they fell out while you were taking them out of the pill box?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. Speculative.
MR. GOLDBERG: What would you have told them?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. You can resume your seat.
(The witness complies.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. I'm finished with the board. I'll take it--
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, let me ask you about another issue relating to the collection of biological evidence. To your recollection, has there ever been an instance where you had the tweezers in your hand with a bloody swatch and dropped the bloody swatch?
MS. MAZZOLA: That hasn't happened to me, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: And if that did happen, how would you handle that situation?
MS. MAZZOLA: Well, if there was enough of the stain left, you'd just take another swatch.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But what if you wanted to save that swatch, the one that you dropped?
MS. MAZZOLA: Then you could package it in a separate plastic bag, separate coin envelope along with another control of the area where it fell, make a note on there what happened.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why would you take another control?
MS. MAZZOLA: Well, to get a sample of the area where the swatch fell.
MR. GOLDBERG: So what would you do, to give you another hypothetical, if you had a situation where for some reason you dropped the bloody swatch and instinctively you caught it in a gloved hand? How would you handle that situation?
MS. MAZZOLA: Same way except you'd just include the glove as the substrate.
MR. GOLDBERG: So you could include the glove as a substrate control?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: So there are ways to deal with problems even such as dropping a bloody swatch?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Would you package--how would you package the glove if you saved that as your substrate control?
MS. MAZZOLA: That would be packaged in a separate plastic bag, separate coin envelope just to keep them separate.
MR. GOLDBERG: Or could you conceivably take a control swatch from the area of the glove nearby where the stain fell?
MS. MAZZOLA: You could. Either way.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to your evidence collection of the bloodstains at Bundy and Rockingham, are there any mistakes that you can think of that you could have made that could have caused the blood at that location to somehow change into the Defendant's blood?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor. No foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are there any mistakes that you can think of that you could have made that could have caused those stains to become contaminated in such a way that they had the genetic--same genetic markers as the Defendant's blood?
MR. NEUFELD: Same objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are you aware of any mistakes that you made or could have made to contaminate those stains?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, once you get back to the laboratory with these stains on the evening of the 13th, did you play some role in the drying process of those stains?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And then on the 14th, to your recollection, did you play any role in the packaging of the dried stains?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Beyond the scope of cross-examination to date.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I may have.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And was there something else that you were working on involving a case that was separate from this at or around that time?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did that involve any biological evidence?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when the items are packaged during the drying--after they're dry into bindles, what information is placed on the bindles?
MS. MAZZOLA: The item number and c for control on the bindle containing the control swatch.
MR. GOLDBERG: So is that similar to the same type of information that was placed on the plastic bags at the scene?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you have to distinguish necessarily between the control and the stain swatch?
MS. MAZZOLA: It just makes it easier for the serologist.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you're participating in this process of packaging the dried stains, is it your practice to initial the coin envelopes?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is any other information placed on the coin envelopes?
MS. MAZZOLA: The property number, which is usually different than the photo id number, but not always.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is any DR number placed on those?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. The DR number for the case is placed on each envelope.
MR. GOLDBERG: And based upon your training and your experience, is the coin envelope what is used in order to determine what case those stains came from and where they were found at the crime scene?
MS. MAZZOLA: It contains the information necessary, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: I think that's all I have. Let me just check.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Do--you said you generally initial the coin envelope?
MS. MAZZOLA: At booking?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
MS. MAZZOLA: It is initialed.
MR. GOLDBERG: And do you have to initial the bindles necessarily?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No, not necessarily the bindles.
MR. GOLDBERG: But you do place generally the item number and then designate the difference between the control and the stain?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: On the bindle?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. I have nothing further.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, two minutes.
THE COURT: All right. Two minutes or 10 minutes?
MR. NEUFELD: Comfort break.
THE COURT: I see. Okay. Folks, we'll take about 10 minutes. All right. Please remember all my admonitions to you. We're just going to recycle into recross. And just for your information, because of the lost time we had this morning, we're going to resume this afternoon at 1 o'clock rather than 1:30, little shorter lunch break today. Miss Mazzola, you may step down. 10 minutes.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open Court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are present. Good morning, Mr. Dixon.
MR. DIXON: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jurors, please.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I just wanted to make one point which I believe that Mr. Goldberg opened the door to me playing the audio portion of the demonstration tape. He elicited a series of answers from Miss Mazzola about no one ever suggested to her that she shouldn't mention the swatches, that we would be willing to show the swatches, it is not a problem. It is not something we are trying to cover up.
THE COURT: Yes, I recollect the testimony.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And yet in fact what we have on the videotape and the audiotape--audio portion of the videotape, is Mr. Goldberg in her presence saying--saying, you know, "Can we get rid of that portion of the videotape?"
THE COURT: Can we edit that out.
MR. NEUFELD: What?
THE COURT: His comment was, "Can we edit it out?"
MR. NEUFELD: Can we make an edit of it and Mr. Goldberg said, "Then there will be a gap, won't there," and then the cameraman said, "No, no, no, we will make it clean."
THE COURT: So you are still suggesting the conversation of counsel regarding the preparation of demonstrative evidence should come in before the jury?
MR. NEUFELD: I'm saying since she was present for those comments of Mr. Goldberg it directly contradicts the suggestion that Mr. Goldberg made to this jury to this witness on redirect that no, we had never suggested to you that these fallen swatches should be kept away from the jury, something we don't want to see, when clearly the opposite is true.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. All right. The Court's previous ruling stands. Let's have the jury.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: And we will call this cross completion. And Mr. Goldberg, you have all the items here?
MR. GOLDBERG: Excuse me, your Honor?
THE COURT: You have all those items here?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
(The following proceedings were held in open Court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect we have now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Ladies and gentlemen, if you recollect, yesterday Mr. Neufeld concluded his cross-examination pending permission from the Court to reopen when certain items of evidence were delivered to the Court. Those items have been received by the Court and I'm going to allow Mr. Neufeld to continue and conclude his cross-examination, including questioning as to these items. All right. Mr. Neufeld.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I believe I will also be doing the recross as well now, so it is all--
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Thank you.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. NEUFELD
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, it has been brought to my attention that on occasion I may have mispronounced your name during the cross-examination because of my accent, and although I'm proud of my accent and I'm sure you are proud of your accent, I meant no disrespect and I hope you didn't take it that way.
MS. MAZZOLA: No, I didn't take it that way.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Fine. Good morning. And good morning.
THE JURY: Good morning.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, you said a little bit--a while ago on redirect examination, that Dennis Fung had directed you just to use a single swab on the gas pedal, the brake pedal and the emergency brake when you got to the Bronco on the 14th; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: You said he wanted you to use the same swab on all three because he just wanted to see whether or not they had been used at all or blood had been in contact with them; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, wouldn't it have been very important, Miss Mazzola, if there was blood on only one pedal, wouldn't that indicate that someone had climbed into the car, as opposed to have driven the car?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. MAZZOLA: You can--
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. MAZZOLA: I'm sorry.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, would you agree that to drive a car one has to use both the brake and the gas pedal?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree that if you only saw some indicia of blood on, let's say, the emergency brake, but not on the accelerator, nor the brake, that would be evidence that someone had not driven the car who had blood on their shoe but rather someone may have climbed into the car and not driven it?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.
THE COURT: Well, it is still speculative, but the jury is smart enough to figure this out, as they have all driven cars.
MR. NEUFELD: And by the way, Miss Mazzola, you said that you didn't even see any red stains on any of those three items in the car, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No. They were black. I did not see any red stains.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, you examined those items with that flashlight that you can see in the picture, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung did, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And Mr. Fung never said in your presence that he observed any stains on those three items, did he?
MR. GOLDBERG: Hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained. It is hearsay.
MR. NEUFELD: Well--
THE COURT: Rephrase the question. Did Mr. Fung ever direct your attention to anything on the brake pedals?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: And in fact, neither you nor Mr. Fung that day collected any swatches from any of those three items, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, we did not.
MR. NEUFELD: And it is not because you were only looking for representative stains, because there were no other stains on any of those three items, were there?
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not know if there were any stains present.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, you didn't see any stains, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I personally did not, no.
MR. NEUFELD: And again, repeating his Honor's question to you and I'm going to get it wrong--perhaps you could repeat your own question. Did Mr. Fung direct your attention to any stains at all on either of these three items?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
THE COURT: I liked it the first time, too. No, don't ask it again.
MR. COCHRAN: Just kidding.
MR. NEUFELD: When you did the demo, the demonstration videotape, ma'am, you wanted to perform on that tape as well as possible, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you were told in fact that there was a chance that this tape might be played for the jury? You were told that, too, weren't you?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: That there was a chance.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you did this demonstration, I mean relative to an actual crime scene, it was under ideal conditions, wasn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not ideal, no.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, there were no bodies present, were there?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: There were no 20 or 25 police officers present, were there?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: There weren't a phalanx of journalists with t.v. cameras across the street, were there?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: And there were no time constraints, were there?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: And nonetheless, Miss Mazzola, problems still arose during the course of making that video, didn't they?
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "Problems."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Problems such as the stains being a little difficult to remove, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Other than the stain being difficult to remove, is it your opinion, ma'am, that no problems occurred or are visualized in that entire demonstration video?
MR. GOLDBERG: It is still vague as to "Problems."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't understand what you mean by "Problems." (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: Well, without telling us what was said, Miss Mazzola, were any problems with what happened on that videotape called to your attention while you were there shooting it?
MR. GOLDBERG: It is irrelevant. Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Directly called to your attention?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not that I can recall.
MR. NEUFELD: So as you sit here today, having seen this videotape now, both yesterday--I'm sorry, the day before and again today, it is your opinion that there were no mistakes made by you?
MR. GOLDBERG: It is still vague as to "Mistakes."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: None that I can really see, no.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
MR. NEUFELD: Yesterday, Miss Mazzola, you said that you were not familiar with Mr. Simpson's name when you arrived at the scene on the 13th; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, would it be fair to say that by the time you left Rockingham late in the afternoon on the 13th that it certainly came to your attention that he was a famous person?
MS. MAZZOLA: I found out who he was, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, not just who he was, but you found out that because of who he was that this case was going to receive a great deal of attention?
MS. MAZZOLA: I could tell that from the cameras already gathered at his house.
MR. NEUFELD: And even though you may not have thought about everything that happened on the 13th, the night of the 13th, certainly within the next couple of days you were able to glean just from the vast media attention that this was going to be a case which was very high-profile?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it was going to be high-profile.
MR. NEUFELD: And in fact, ma'am, in the next few weeks there was actually a hearing held in connection with that case, wasn't there?
MS. MAZZOLA: Are we talking about in August?
MR. NEUFELD: No. There was--was there a preliminary hearing held in late June that was televised?
MS. MAZZOLA: It could have been.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree, ma'am, that throughout the month of June, the month of July and the month of August, up until the time you testified on August 23rd, there was a tremendous amount of media attention to this case?
MS. MAZZOLA: I guess it was on t.v., yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you realized during those two and a half months, Miss Mazzola, that you played a very significant role in this case, didn't you?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative as to the word "Significant."
THE COURT: Overruled. But we have sort of plowed this ground already.
MR. NEUFELD: Two more questions on this, your Honor.
THE COURT: Please.
MS. MAZZOLA: As I said before, I didn't give it much thought about what was going on in the media.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, you realized from the day you collected evidence in this case that there was going to come a time when you were going to have to testify about what you did, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And with all that media attention that you were conscious of between June 13th and August 23rd, didn't you at any point during those two months, with this being in the newspapers, on television and on the radio, at all review in your own mind what it is that you actually did on the 13th?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: You never reviewed it at all?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, you also said that what helped you to remember better what actually happened on the 13th and 14th was when you look at photographs; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And I believe you said that, for instance, looking at the photograph of item no. 47, refreshed your recollection about what happened; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Well--
MR. NEUFELD: That was one of the examples used by Mr. Goldberg; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe it was 47. I'm not quite sure.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, let me just show you the photograph of item 47.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: All right. And Mr. Douglas, this is People's exhibit which?
MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, this is no. 165.
THE COURT: Thank you. Why don't you take a long pointer with you.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, I'm pointing to item 47, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And that is the photograph of item 47. Is that the photograph of item 47 that you looked at.
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence, that there was only one photograph.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I looked at several photographs of the scene.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, you said that you looked at a photograph of item 47, did you not?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Was this the photograph of item 47 that you looked at?
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not believe this was the exact photograph of item 47 that I looked at.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. What other photographs of item 47 did you look at to refresh your recollection?
MS. MAZZOLA: Overall views of the scene. That is what helped most.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, ma'am, yesterday you said that specifically you recalled looking at a photograph of item 47 and that refreshing your recollection about what transpired on June 13th. I'm simply asking you whether or not this is the photograph you looked at of item 47 or was there another photograph of item 47 that you looked at?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Is it now your testimony that it wasn't a photograph of item 47 which refreshed your recollection but instead other photographs of the scene?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: You may sit down again.
MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.)
MR. NEUFELD: You would agree, Miss Mazzola, that that photograph of item 47 is nothing more than a red stain on a piece of concrete or the ground cover? Isn't that right?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant; best evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Have you looked at any photograph at all, Miss Mazzola, which shows anyone collecting item 47?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Have you looked at any photograph which shows anyone kneeling down next to item 47?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: But it is your testimony that looking at photographs of item 47 refreshed your recollection about what happened; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And since photographs refresh your recollection, did you also look at photographs of the other items that were collected in this case at Bundy?
MR. GOLDBERG: That is compound as phrased.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I looked at several photographs, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you look at a photograph which reflected the location of item 50?
MS. MAZZOLA: Which item is 50?
MR. NEUFELD: Item 50 would be photo identification 115, you know, one of the blood drops taken from Bundy.
MS. MAZZOLA: I looked at several photographs of the scene.
MR. NEUFELD: And were they photographs that depicted the location of the different blood drop stains at Bundy?
MS. MAZZOLA: It showed their overall view, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Next in order, your Honor?
THE CLERK: 1121.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, Mrs. Robertson?
THE CLERK: 1121.
THE COURT: 1121.
(Deft's 1121 for id = photograph)
THE COURT: All right. It appears to be a photograph of the rear stairway at Bundy.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you recognize the card that is sitting at the top of the stairs in front of the gate?
MS. MAZZOLA: It appears to be one of ours.
MR. NEUFELD: And can you recognize what number it is on it?
MS. MAZZOLA: 115.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And 115 corresponds with item no. 50, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I will take your word for it, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, no, no, please. Check your notes.
MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Hum, yes?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: You were present when these photographs were taken, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I was at Bundy, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, didn't you testify on direct examination and on redirect examination that you and Dennis Fung together participated in setting up the photographing of the various items at Bundy?
MR. GOLDBERG: That misstates the evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. NEUFELD: Wasn't one of your responsibilities at Bundy to participate in the documenting of items of evidence?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And part of the documenting of evidence entails the photographing of items, does it not?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And one of the things that you had been taught at the SID mini academy was to get various angles or various distances of the different items, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: The forensic photographers know that, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: To shoot a close-up and to shoot it further away?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you--did you, with Dennis Fung, put down the various numbers along the way so the items could be photographed?
MS. MAZZOLA: I helped put down some of them, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you have an independent recollection, as you sit here today, as to which number you put down and which numbers he put down?
MS. MAZZOLA: The ones I participated in were up near the front of the house in the area that the crime occurred.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. But where 115 is in this picture, Miss Mazzola, is actually where item 50, the blood stain is; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you personally knelt down and collected that stain, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And Miss Mazzola, when you collected that stain, you were just a few feet in front of that rear gate, weren't you?
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MS. MAZZOLA: It appeared--
MR. NEUFELD: Weren't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: It appears that 115 is near the gate, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you have to pass through that gate to get to 117 which became item 52, don't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, if photographs--did seeing photographs refresh your recollection, Miss Mazzola? When you were shown this photograph, when you looked at the different photographs at the scene of Bundy before taking the witness stand, did that refresh your recollection that there was in fact a rear gate located there?
MS. MAZZOLA: The photographs show that yes, there was a rear gate.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, did seeing that photograph refresh your recollection even before you took the witness stand in this case, that there was a rear gate at that location?
MS. MAZZOLA: That morning I did not recall seeing a back gate.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, when you say, "That morning," you mean the morning of June 13th?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: When you say you didn't recall seeing a gate on June 13th, are you saying that at a certain point in time when I thought back to June 13th I don't recall seeing a gate? Is that what you mean by that statement?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it misstates the testimony as to a "Rear gate."
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: That morning I did not remember seeing a back gate. After seeing photographs apparently there is a back gate.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Miss Mazzola, when was the first time that somebody asked you about a back gate?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember the exact date.
MR. NEUFELD: The month?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not even the month.
MR. NEUFELD: The season?
MS. MAZZOLA: I can't even remember that.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, was it several months after you were out there in June, more or less?
MS. MAZZOLA: It was after we had been out there in June.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you say "After," was it the next day?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So it was many weeks later?
THE COURT: I think we have given the jury a picture of what the state of the recollection is.
MR. NEUFELD: All right.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you say you didn't recall seeing a back gate there, do you mean that at that first time, sometime after June 13th, when someone asked you about a back gate, in that conversation you didn't recall a back gate? Is that what you are saying, ma'am?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I did not remember seeing a back gate.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And then subsequent to that first conversation you had with someone when they asked you about a back gate and you said no, I don't recall one, were you then shown photographs, prior to taking the witness stand at this trial, where you actually saw the back gate?
MS. MAZZOLA: I saw photographs, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And did those photographs include a photograph of this back gate, Miss Mazzola?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And so before you took the witness stand in this case, Miss Mazzola, did seeing that photograph of the back gate refresh your recollection that there was a back gate there on June 13th?
MS. MAZZOLA: I still say on June 13th I did not remember seeing a back gate.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, you have testified before this jury that there was some things you don't remember but when you finally see photographs of them you then begin to have your recollection refreshed; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: On some things, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Is there any other item, by the way, Miss Mazzola, where you have seen a photograph of it since where, nonetheless, it is your recollection that an object didn't exist the way you saw it on June 13th?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, at this time I would object under 352.
THE COURT: Well, the question is vague.
MR. NEUFELD: One moment.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, you have testified, I believe yesterday, that you first realized that the blood vial had been carried in the black trash bag on the morning of June 14th when you arrived at the evidence processing unit; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I had seen it in the evidence processing unit, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: On the 14th?
MS. MAZZOLA: On the 14th.
MR. NEUFELD: Right. And that is when you realized that it had been in that trash bag; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And in fact where you saw it was when you lift--took item 15, item 16, you say, and the gray envelope out of the trash bag on the 14th; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did not personally remove those items from the trash bag, no.
MR. NEUFELD: You did not remove any of the items?
MS. MAZZOLA: Personally, no.
MR. NEUFELD: Were they removed in your presence?
MS. MAZZOLA: The blood sample was, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, who removed item 15 and 16 from the trash bag?
MS. MAZZOLA: Those were removed later. I'm not sure if it was myself or Mr. Fung did it later.
MR. NEUFELD: When you say "Later," you mean in the afternoon, after you came back from the Bronco?
MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not sure. It was sometime on the 14th, but I'm not sure when.
MR. NEUFELD: But you do recall in the morning when you first got there that Mr. Fung removed--I'm sorry. Did you say you removed the blood vial in the gray envelope or that Mr. Fung did?
MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung.
MR. NEUFELD: In your presence?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I was there.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Now, you have also said that you have watched portions of this trial, either on t.v. or listened to it on the radio; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Bits and pieces, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And are you aware, Miss Mazzola, that two weeks ago on April 12th Dennis Fung testified that he carried the blood sample to the crime scene truck either in a paper bag, a posse box or by itself?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is irrelevant and calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola--one second.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, may I please have a side bar on this particular question, on this line?
THE COURT: Miss Mazzola, are you aware of Mr. Fung's testimony regarding the collection of the blood vial envelope?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, I don't believe I watched it or listened to it.
THE COURT: All right. Has anybody discussed that with you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe so, no.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, at any point prior to Mr. Fung's testimony on April 12th did you tell anyone in the District Attorney's office that you realized on the morning of June 14th that you had carried the blood sample out of Rockingham in a trash bag?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No, I don't believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: You testified on redirect examination yesterday that you had an independent recollection of carrying a trash bag out of Rockingham even before seeing the videotape; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you also testified that you figured out on the morning of June 14th that you had carried the vial of blood out of Rockingham in that trash bag; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you say that you came to realize, on the morning of June 14th, that you took items 15 and 16 out of the trash bag--I'm sorry. Withdrawn. And you also said yesterday that when you were shown the gray envelope you were able to see the time on it as well, time of collection; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: There was a time on it, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, what you saw on the 14th was a statement in Dennis Fung's handwriting that said, "Received" with a date and a time of 5:20 in the afternoon or 1720 hours?
MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not sure what all it said.
MR. NEUFELD: At this point in time you are not sure?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, at this point in time.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: Might it refresh your recollection as to what time you observed if you actually saw a photograph of that envelope?
MS. MAZZOLA: At what time I observed on the envelope itself or--
MR. NEUFELD: No, no, of the time that was written on the envelope that you observed on the 14th if I showed you now a photograph of--of the gray envelope?
MR. GOLDBERG: Unintelligible.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not really.
MR. NEUFELD: All right.
THE COURT: Would a photograph of the gray envelope--
MS. MAZZOLA: Right.
THE COURT: --which reflects Mr. Fung's notations as to when it was collected, would that refresh your recollection as to what you saw there?
MS. MAZZOLA: I remember seeing the gray envelope and the writing.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, you said--
MS. MAZZOLA: I remember seeing the gray envelope and writing.
MR. NEUFELD: Next in order--
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: Could we have 184-a, Deirdra.
THE COURT: All right. Mrs. Robertson, do you have that handy?
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: Let me just show you, Miss Mazzola, what is Prosecution's exhibit 184. I will ask you to take a look at that, whether it refreshes your recollection as to the writing that you claim to have seen on the morning of June 14th when the gray envelope was removed from the garbage bag?
MR. GOLDBERG: Object to the word "Claimed" as argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. NEUFELD: Does seeing that photograph refresh your recollection as to what it is you say you saw on the morning of the 14th?
MS. MAZZOLA: It looks like what I saw. I said I saw the writing.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And the writing you saw said that it was received by Mr. Fung, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Well, "Received from Detective Vannatter."
MR. NEUFELD: And that is in Dennis Fung's handwriting?
MS. MAZZOLA: It looks like his signature. I'm not very familiar with his handwriting.
MR. NEUFELD: Looks like his signature, though?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And there is a time on it, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: 1720 hours?
MS. MAZZOLA: Looks like "1720."
MR. NEUFELD: And there is a date?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And the date is June 13th, 1994, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: And you are absolutely sure, as you sit here today, Miss Mazzola, this you came to this realization about having carried the blood vial on the morning of June 14th, long before you viewed the videotape?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: When was the first time that you told anyone at all about realizing that you had carried the blood sample out of Rockingham and back to the laboratory in a trash bag?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered and hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember when. It was not a big deal, so I don't remember.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, was it in the last three months?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember.
MR. NEUFELD: Was it in the fall?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember.
MR. NEUFELD: Was it during one of the prep sessions with the District Attorney?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember when.
THE COURT: All right. I think we have covered this.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you remember when it was the first time--I asked you before about the first time you told anyone. Do you remember the first time you told the Prosecutor? Same answer?
MS. MAZZOLA: Same answer.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Well, two weeks ago, ma'am, on or around April 12th, did any Prosecutor ask you about your recollection as to who carried the blood sample out of Rockingham and as to how it was carried?
MS. MAZZOLA: That might have been asked.
MR. NEUFELD: But as you sit here today you have no recollection whether any Prosecutor asked you on or about April 12th whether you had a recollection as to how the blood vial was carried out of Rockingham and if so by whom?
MS. MAZZOLA: I had talked to them on and off. I don't recall exactly what we all talked about.
MR. NEUFELD: And you don't recall whether or not this was even talked about at all, do you?
MS. MAZZOLA: It could have been. I don't remember--
MR. NEUFELD: As you sit here today, you have no independent recollection--
THE COURT: Wait, wait.
MR. NEUFELD: Sorry.
THE COURT: Let her finish the answer. Don't cut her off, him please.
MR. NEUFELD: Sorry, Miss Mazzola.
MS. MAZZOLA: Be my guest.
MR. NEUFELD: As you sit here today you have no independent recollection of having said that to any of the Prosecutors on or about April 12th of 1995?
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "That."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not sure of the date. We may have talked about it. I'm not positive.
MR. NEUFELD: And--one second.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: You said that you don't remember the first time you told the Prosecutors that you had carried out the blood vial in that black trash bag, but whenever that time was, Miss Mazzola, did the Prosecutors seem surprised or elated by that remark by you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, on November 22nd, at a restaurant, you had a meeting where your boss, Michele Kestler, was present, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: She was present at a meeting at a restaurant, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And there were two investigators from the District Attorney's office present at that meeting as well?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And during the course of that discussion the subject of Detective Vannatter giving the vial of Mr. Simpson's blood arose, didn't it?
MR. GOLDBERG: This has been asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained. We have already gone through this.
MR. NEUFELD: We went into it on redirect.
THE COURT: We have already gone through this, counsel.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: May I have a side bar, your Honor? There is a new issue relating to this that came up, I believe.
THE COURT: No. Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you recall on redirect--
THE COURT: Excuse me. You can make your record at the noon break.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you recall, Miss Mazzola, Mr. Goldberg on redirect asking you a question about handling the evidence versus carrying it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And didn't you tell the detectives on November 22nd that you never handled the blood vial?
MR. GOLDBERG: This has been asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not exactly sure remembering what I told them. It has been a while.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, did Miss Michele Kestler at any time during that interview ask you to clarify the difference between "Handling" the blood vial and "Carrying" the blood vial?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if she did or not.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you recall Miss Kestler actually specifically asking you, not the detectives now, "Did you ever handle O.J.'s vial of blood?" unquote?
MS. MAZZOLA: She might have. I--I don't remember.
MR. NEUFELD: And if she had asked you that, Miss Mazzola, given the distinction that you gave to this jury between "Handle" and "Carry," would your answer to that question be no or would it be yes?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: It has also been asked and answered.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, you said you learned that that meeting had been tape recorded; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Ask you to take a look at this and see if it refreshes your recollection as to what you said.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this has been asked and answered. I object.
THE COURT: Overruled.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, we need to approach before he does this.
THE COURT: No, we don't. It is for purposes of refreshing her recollection.
MR. GOLDBERG: This is something that they did not provide to us in discovery.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, this is now a speaking objection.
THE COURT: Hold on. Both of you are doing it, counsel. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the morning session actually right now, get you started on your shortened lunch hour. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any opinions about the case, don't discuss the matter with anybody else, conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. See you back here at one o'clock. Miss Mazzola, you may step down. You are ordered to return at one o'clock. Thank you.
(At 12:00 P.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)
Los Angeles, California; Thursday, April 27, 1995 1:00 P.M.
Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)
(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)
(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)
(The following proceedings were held in open Court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, we had an objection on that issue. You want to just resolve that before the jury comes in just so we're clear on this?
THE COURT: You got to where you needed to get to is my recollection.
MR. NEUFELD: What I wanted to do at this point is refresh her recollection with the transcript.
THE COURT: I'm sorry. I recollect now. Apparently there's a tape-recorded statement, the tape recording of the statement.
MR. NEUFELD: That's right. There was a surreptitious tape-recording by the detectives who interviewed her that day. And I want the Court to be very clear--
THE COURT: D.A. Investigators.
MR. NEUFELD: D.A. Investigators. Thank you. Number one, this is a tape that was produced by the Prosecution and given to the Defense in discovery. There was no duty on the Defense to give it back to the Prosecution. It's a private tape and by this witness.
THE COURT: All right. Hold on. Hold on. What's the objection?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, my objection is, your Honor, they created a transcript, which could qualify as work product and normally would unless they're going to use it, which he now intends to do. I don't have that transcript. This tape is extremely difficult to hear because the audio is poor and there's a lot of background noise. And if they're going to use this to refresh her recollection, then I am entitled to it. If he doesn't want to use it, fine. Maybe counsel doesn't know that in this county, there is basically an informal practice by most attorneys that although technically, transcribing a tape is work product and not something we have to turn over, that we do turn over transcripts. He may not know that because he does not practice here. But at any rate, once he wants to use it, at that point, we're entitled to a copy, we're entitled to sit down and determine whether it's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: I actually would be more than happy to let her listen to the tape to refresh her recollection. I was actually just trying to save time.
THE COURT: All right. Do you have any objection to providing Mr. Goldberg with a copy of the pages you intend on using out of this transcript?
MR. NEUFELD: Not at all.
THE COURT: All right. Then--it would have helped if you had talked about this over the lunch hour.
MR. GOLDBERG: I asked him for the transcript.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, I actually--excuse me. No, you didn't ask me for the transcript. What I suggested to Mr. Goldberg--
THE COURT: Well, counsel, if you're willing to share it, then there's no issue, is there?
MR. NEUFELD: Right.
MR. GOLDBERG: May I take a look--
THE COURT: Sure. Take a look.
MR. GOLDBERG: Which part did you want her to read?
THE COURT: You know, it would be thrilling if you guys talked about this stuff over the lunch hour rather than taking the jury time to do this.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Basically what counsel has pointed out to me is identical to what the witness has already testified to, and the Court already gave very limited rulings on this. So I don't know why we're going over this all over again.
MR. NEUFELD: Mr. Goldberg is misstating the record. She said she didn't remember saying these statements to them and I now wanted to show her the actual statements to see if it refreshes her recollection.
THE COURT: All right. And that's the purpose for which it will be allowed. All right. Let's have the jurors.
MR. NEUFELD: Yeah. I may have to at some point call a detective, but not--I can't put it into this witness. I accept that.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Let's have the jurors. And, Mr. Goldberg, you do have your next witness available, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
THE COURT: All right.
(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 been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: All right. Miss Andrea Mazzola is again on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Neufeld. Mr. Neufeld. I am sorry.
Andrea Mazzola, the witness on the stand at the time of the lunch recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: Miss Mazzola, good afternoon. You are reminded you are under oath.
MS. MAZZOLA: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Proceed.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. NEUFELD
MR. NEUFELD: Good afternoon, Miss Mazzola.
MS. MAZZOLA: Good afternoon.
MR. NEUFELD: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Miss Mazzola, right before lunch, I asked you a series of questions about what you said and was said to you at a meeting held on November 22nd, 1994 at which investigators from the District Attorney's office and your boss, Michelle Kestler, were present. Do you recall that?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you recall having that meeting with those people?
MS. MAZZOLA: I remember a meeting with those people, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And at that meeting, there was a discussion about your involvement in this case. That's one of the things that was discussed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that's vague.
THE COURT: Well, we've been over this. We've been over this.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Miss Mazzola, I would like you to simply look at this item, see if it refreshes your recollection as to certain things that you said. I'd like you to read this portion of the transcript here?
MR. GOLDBERG: May I just approach for a moment?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. NEUFELD: All the way to here. Okay? Right there.
(The witness complies.)
MR. NEUFELD: Okay? Now, during that meeting on December--December 14th, you didn't tell the detectives, did you, that you realized on the morning of June 14th that you had unknowingly carried the blood sample out of Rockingham in a trash bag, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: December 14th?
MR. NEUFELD: No. On November--no. June 14th. Sorry.
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant unless she was asked.
MR. NEUFELD: At November 22nd meeting--
THE COURT: Hold on. Restate the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Restate the question.
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it a fact that during the November 22nd meeting with the investigators from the D.A.'s office and Miss Kestler, that you didn't tell them that you realized on the morning of June 14th that you had unknowingly carried the blood sample out of Rockingham in a trash bag?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay, not impeaching.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, didn't you tell the detectives that you could only assume that Vannatter had come up and given the vial to Dennis Fung because you weren't there then?
THE COURT: It's irrelevant.
MR. NEUFELD: At that meeting on November 22nd, in response to a specific question from Michelle Kestler, quote, did you ever handle O.J.'s vial of blood, unquote, didn't you answer her no?
MR. GOLDBERG: I object. It's been asked and answered, not impeaching.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I honestly cannot remember what I said at that meeting.
MR. NEUFELD: Having shown you this portion of the transcript, does it refresh your recollection?
MS. MAZZOLA: It doesn't. I'm sorry.
MR. NEUFELD: In the discussion you had on November 22nd with the detectives and Miss Kestler, were you deliberately trying to distance yourself from the whole subject of what happened to Mr. Simpson's blood vial?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, when telling the detectives the extent to which you were involved with the evidence since the morning of June 13th, did you not tell the detectives during that meeting that, quote, it wasn't my job to analyze any part of it. I didn't want to know anything about it, unquote? Did you say that to the detectives?
MR. GOLDBERG: Hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained. Also assumes facts not in evidence. Also misstates the evidence.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you say to the detectives at the June 22nd meeting--
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I'm going to object.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Putting aside the quotation marks, didn't you inform the detectives--
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor--
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: To this entire line, your Honor?
THE COURT: No. You're asking the wrong question here, counsel.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you ever say to the detectives during that meeting--
THE COURT: Sustained. Are there any detectives at this meeting, counsel?
MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry. Investigators from the District Attorney's office.
THE COURT: Big difference.
MR. NEUFELD: And I appreciate that difference. Okay.
MR. NEUFELD: At the meeting on November 22nd, did you say to Michele Kestler and to District Attorney investigators--senior investigators Michael Stevens and Dana Thompson, quote, it wasn't my job to analyze any part of it. I didn't want to know anything about it?
MR. GOLDBERG: Hearsay, not inconsistent.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I might have.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, having shown you this portion of the transcript, does it refresh your recollection as to whether in fact you did? Would you like to see that portion again?
MS. MAZZOLA: I see it on the paper, but I--
MR. GOLDBERG: Well--
THE COURT: Hold on. She gets to answer the question, counsel.
MS. MAZZOLA: I still actually do not remember saying that.
THE COURT: All right. Let's proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: I make a motion to strike the witness' answer.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: "I saw it on paper."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, you testified on redirect examination that the most time-consuming portion of the process of evidence collection is to properly document and photograph the items being collected as opposed to the actual physical collection; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And two of the items that you collected late in the day were items 15 and 16.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: 203 and 204.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel and Defendant.)
MR. NEUFELD: I ask you to please reopen Prosecution's exhibit--it doesn't have a number on it. I'm sorry. The number is?
THE COURT: 203 and 204, 203 being item 15, 204 being item 16.
MR. NEUFELD: All right.
(The witness complies.)
THE COURT: All right. The witness has cut through the sealing tape on the envelope.
MR. NEUFELD: And could you please examine what you've listed as item 15, please? And it's an airline ticket, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: It appears to be, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And just so that it's no surprise about it, it's a used airline ticket; is it not?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And it has a date on it, doesn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Let's see.
MR. NEUFELD: Does it have the date of June 10th on it?
MS. MAZZOLA: A return flight, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And it's not--has nothing to do with New York--with Chicago to Los Angeles, does it?
MR. GOLDBERG: It's best evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled. Is there any dispute as to what the airline ticket says?
MR. NEUFELD: No.
MS. MAZZOLA: Doesn't appear to be.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
THE COURT: Don't forget we have an airline expert on the jury.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And by the way, item 16--is item 16 a luggage ticket for the same flight?
MS. MAZZOLA: I'd have to check and make sure it was the same flight.
THE COURT: Although you have a layperson reading airline documents.
MR. NEUFELD: I know. All right.
MS. MAZZOLA: It appears to be for the 10th.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, before items 15 and 16 could be collected by you and Dennis Fung on the afternoon of the 13th, it had--they had to be documented, didn't they, just like other items?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And part of that documentation process entails photographing them, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And so these items were photographed in their original state before they were picked up by you, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't recall if they were or not.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, if they had been photographed, Miss Mazzola, the first thing you would do is, you'd bring over the photographer, correct, the forensic photographer?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And the next thing you would do is, you would document the location of the item someplace in writing?
MR. GOLDBERG: It's vague and it's misstating testimony as to would do.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you would document--
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, this is an improper hypothetical.
THE COURT: Overruled. Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: And you would document the location in writing where the objects are, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you would make that documentation in your field notes, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And then you would take out a photo id card and you would set it near the object, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you would instruct the forensic photographer to photograph it, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: It's still vague whether he's talking about these items or a hypothetical.
THE COURT: Overruled. We're talking about these two items, correct?
MR. NEUFELD: Yes.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you would do that first--you said item 15 was the first one collected?
MS. MAZZOLA: Item 16.
MR. NEUFELD: Item 16 was the first item collected. And--and if these two items were both photographed, they would both be photographer prior to the collection; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And all those different steps would occur prior to the actual collection, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And would it be fair to say that if that happened here, that process takes anywheres from what, five to 10 minutes? Is that a fair estimate?
MS. MAZZOLA: In this case, probably less.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Approximately how long, ma'am? It's just as best you can approximate, to do the documentation, get the photographer, to get the cards set up, to photograph them.
MS. MAZZOLA: Probably just a few minutes.
MR. NEUFELD: Few minutes. And then you collect them, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Then after you collect them, you said that both items were handed to you?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And after they were both handed to you, you said you walked into the kitchen; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe I was around the kitchen area.
MR. NEUFELD: And is the kitchen area next to the foyer?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: So you could have been either in the foyer or the kitchen? You're not sure?
MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not sure which one.
MR. NEUFELD: And you remained there for a few more minutes waiting for a garbage bag to be produced; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not sure how many minutes it was.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, approximately how long was it that you waited in that foyer kitchen area before you got a garbage bag?
MS. MAZZOLA: It wasn't too long.
MR. NEUFELD: Approximately how long? Approximately how many minutes, ma'am?
MS. MAZZOLA: I wouldn't hazard to guess.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, just give us your best estimate.
MS. MAZZOLA: Maybe five minutes or so.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So you waited there approximately five minutes, you received a trash bag and you said that you then put items 15 and 16 in this black trash bag; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And do you have a recollection at that same time of putting the different photo id numbers in the trash bag?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't think I put those in personally.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you see them put in the bag?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't recall.
MR. NEUFELD: So the photo id numbers are something that Dennis Fung could have put into the bag after you left the bag on the foyer floor?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you--
MR. NEUFELD: One moment.
(Brief pause.)
MR. NEUFELD: You say, however, that as you sit here today, you don't have a present recollection of ever photographing items 15 and 16?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, because the detectives were not interested in them as evidence. They just wanted them collected.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.) (Brief pause.)
MR. NEUFELD: With the Court's permission, I would like to put exhibit number 1107 up on the elmo.
THE COURT: All right. Defense 1107.
(Brief pause.)
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, do you recognize this document as the evidence collection list for Rockingham that day, June 13th?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And this was the list that was filled out by you, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: By myself and Mr. Fung, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And do you notice in the first column it has a--you're supposed to put in the sample number, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And the sample number could be different from the item number; could it not?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And so at that point, what you were using is a sample number or id photo number; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And the next column says i.d. Photo, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And that column is there so you can indicate whether or not a photograph was taken of the object before it was collected; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, I would like you to look down item 15 and 16 at the bottom of the page. Those are the last two entries you made on that page. Do you see where it says 15 and 16 at the bottom?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And do you see the column where it says photo id?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you checked off that a photo id had been made for items 15, item 16, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And now that you've seen those checkmarks for photo id's for 15 and 16, does that refresh your recollection that in fact photographs were taken at the scene of those two items?
MS. MAZZOLA: I have not seen any photographs of those two items.
MR. NEUFELD: Didn't ask you whether you had seen any photographs of those two items. I asked you whether by looking at your own field note and the fact that you personally had checked off photo id next to items 15 and 16, does that refresh your recollection as to whether or not photographs were taken of items 15 and 16 while you were at the Rockingham residence?
MS. MAZZOLA: According to the notes, photos were taken. Independent recollection, I can't say.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, in fact, those are your checkmarks. You wrote those checkmarks in, didn't you, ma'am?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you have written checkmarks in the box that says that a photo was taken if a photo hadn't been taken?
MS. MAZZOLA: If I had assumed that one had been taken, they would be checked, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: You mean you would make an entry in this report about something which you did not factually know to be correct just because you would assume that it must have happened?
MR. GOLDBERG: Overbroad.
THE COURT: It's argumentative. Rephrase the question.
MR. NEUFELD: One moment.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: Next in order would be?
THE COURT: 1122.
MR. NEUFELD: There's actually two though.
THE COURT: All right. 1122 and 1123.
(Deft's 1122 for id = perspective shot)
(Deft's 1123 for id = close-up shot)
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Is that 1120, your Honor?
THE COURT: 1122, number one, the perspective shot, 1123 will be the close-up shot.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, do you recognize what's in that photograph--oops. Do you recognize what's in that photograph?
MS. MAZZOLA: It's a little hard to see exactly what it is.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, seeing that photograph of that bench, do you have any idea what's sitting on that bench?
MS. MAZZOLA: I know that item 16 was recovered from a bench.
MR. NEUFELD: But you can't tell from that picture?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not from--
MR. NEUFELD: Do you see a card that says 16 on it?
MS. MAZZOLA: I see a card, but the picture is a little--
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Now I'm going to be showing what's 1123, your Honor.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, this is a close-up, is it not, of the same shot?
MS. MAZZOLA: It appears to be, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And do you now know what the item is?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. It is item 16.
MR. NEUFELD: And that's a card next to it that says item 16, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, having seen the photograph with the card in it of item 16 and the luggage ticket, which is item 16, does this now refresh your recollection as to whether or not you had forensic photographs taken of the items 15 and 16 that day?
MS. MAZZOLA: I personally do not remember standing there watching the photograph being taken.
MR. NEUFELD: You collected item 16, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I collected item 16, yes.
THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait, wait. You're both doing this again. Let him finish answering the question. And, Mr. Neufeld, three times already this afternoon you've cut her off again.
MR. NEUFELD: I know you had mentioned that one of the best ways for you to refresh your recollection is by looking at photographs; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: In some instances, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: I know you said that with respect to the gate, seeing the photograph of the gate did not refresh your recollection that a gate was there; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, how about this photograph with item 16 in it, seeing the luggage ticket which became item 16. Seeing that photograph now, does that refresh your recollection about whether this item was photographed by a forensic photographer on the afternoon of June 13th, 1994?
MS. MAZZOLA: Seeing this photograph, it would have to have been photographed by a forensic photographer.
MR. NEUFELD: But it doesn't refresh your recollection as to whether or not you actually saw it being photographed?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: You can print that also.
MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, you said that items 15 and 16 were put into the trash bag; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And the next day in the afternoon, they were removed from the trash bag?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. Mr. Fung or by you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I can't remember which one of us physically removed them from the trash bag.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you remember seeing them removed? Do you have an independent recollection as you sit here today?
MS. MAZZOLA: I remember seeing them in the trash bag at the lab. I don't remember seeing them removed.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, showing you the actual envelopes that item 15 and 16 are in, isn't it a fact, Miss Mazzola, that those envelopes--that you had those envelopes in your presence at the time that items 15 and 16 were photographed and collected?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Is it possible, Miss Mazzola, that just like you don't remember items 15 and 16 being photographed, that you don't remember these envelopes actually being present with you when the items were collected?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, you don't know whether it was you or Dennis Fung who removed these two items from the trash bag on the 14th; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it a fact, Miss Mazzola, that on item 15, Dennis Fung wrote his initials on it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it a fact, ma'am, that in item 16, you wrote your initials on it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it the reason that your initials are on 16 is because you collected 16?
MS. MAZZOLA: That I packaged 16.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, isn't it a fact that the reason your initials appear on 16 is, as you testified earlier, you personally collected it, you physically picked it up?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it a fact, Miss Mazzola, that the reason Dennis Fung's initials appear on item 15 is because he collected item 15 at the Rockingham house?
MS. MAZZOLA: He collected 15, but he had also packaged 15 because his initials are on it.
MR. NEUFELD: So it's your testimony that it just so happens that your initials are on 16 and his initials are on 15 not because you each collected those respective items, but because you happened to package one at the laboratory and he happened to package the other?
MS. MAZZOLA: That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, isn't it a fact that in your lab box, you not only carry coin envelopes basically the size shown here for 15 and 16, but you also carry other manila envelopes such as the one I have in my left hand?
MS. MAZZOLA: In the kits?
MR. NEUFELD: In the kits.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
THE COURT: The one you're holding in your left hand, what's the size of that? It should be written on the bottom of the bag. Turn it over. Down at the bottom. What's it say?
MR. NEUFELD: What does it say on the seal?
THE COURT: Does it have a size designation?
MR. NEUFELD: No, I don't see one.
THE COURT: All right. Give me an estimate for the record.
MR. NEUFELD: Hmm?
THE COURT: Give me an estimate for the record.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, what would be your estimate of the size of this envelope I'm holding in my right hand?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know. Maybe 7 by 11, 8 by 11, something like that.
MR. NEUFELD: Might it be a bit smaller, perhaps--
MS. MAZZOLA: It's possible.
MR. NEUFELD: Could be 6 or 7 by 9 or so?
MS. MAZZOLA: It's possible.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And you said that after you had been standing in the kitchen for five or so minutes with Dennis Fung, that you then took the bag with items 15 and 16 in it and you walked into the foyer; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: I received the bag after five minutes or so.
MR. NEUFELD: And after you received the bag after five minutes or so, did you continue to stand in the kitchen foyer area with Dennis Fung for some period of time before putting the bag down?
MS. MAZZOLA: I was in that area for a short period of time, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And approximately how long were you in that area after you received the plastic bag?
MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not sure exactly how long.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm not asking you to be sure, ma'am. Just give me your best approximation.
MS. MAZZOLA: I couldn't even approximate. I wasn't looking at my watch.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, is it closer to two or three minutes or closer to 10 minutes? How long approximately?
MS. MAZZOLA: It was more than two or three minutes, but other than that, I'm not sure.
MR. NEUFELD: So--so would it be fair to say that--now that you know by the way that 15 and 16 or at least 16 were photographed--but had these items been photographed--which I think you said takes a few minutes to set up and actually document. Is that a fair statement?
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to document.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Few minutes, yes. Not many.
MR. NEUFELD: And then you said that you were in the kitchen for approximately five minutes waiting for the--with Dennis Fung until you got the bag; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Approximately.
MR. NEUFELD: And then you said it was another few minutes, more than two, but you said less than 10, that you continued to talk to Dennis Fung or stand near Dennis Fung before going to the living room, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe I said it was less than 10. I said it was more than two or three.
MR. NEUFELD: Fine. Well, was it close to five perhaps?
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not know.
MR. NEUFELD: Somewhere between two and three and five? Would that be a fair estimate?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know.
MR. NEUFELD: But more than two or three?
MS. MAZZOLA: More than two or three.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. So just those three times alone, we're talking about a period of about perhaps 10 minutes or so before you went into the living room. Is that your testimony?
MS. MAZZOLA: Could be a little more than that.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Perhaps as much as 12 minutes or so?
MS. MAZZOLA: I--
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, it's your testimony on direct examination that there came a time when you walked into the living room after leaving the bag, trash bag on the foyer, and you sat down on the couch and then you have an independent recollection that you closed your eyes; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
(Brief pause.)
MR. NEUFELD: I want you to take a look carefully, Miss Mazzola, at the--at this videotape that we received in evidence which is time coded.
MR. NEUFELD: One moment.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: And, Mr. Harris, which exhibit is this?
MR. HARRIS: P-183.
(At 1:38 P.M., People's exhibit 183, a videotape, was played.)
MR. NEUFELD: You can set it up at 17:12. Fast forward. No. Just fast forward to 17:12, when they're about to go back in, showing them going in. Okay. Could you just back up a second?
MR. NEUFELD: Now--
MR. NEUFELD: Little bit more. Stop. Well--
MR. NEUFELD: Now, according to the tape, it's approximately 17:12 when you begin to walk back into the Rockingham house having made that first trip out to the van; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Could you continue, please.
MR. NEUFELD: And according to this tape--do you recognize that gentleman in the picture; not the one in the blue uniform, the one in the gray suit?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And who is that?
MS. MAZZOLA: Detective Vannatter.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And according to the tape, he's arriving at approximately 17:17; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: About five minutes after you finish packing up the van and begin heading back to the house?
MS. MAZZOLA: Approximately.
MR. NEUFELD: Go on. Stop. Well, stop there.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, do you recognize the gentleman on the left as Dennis Fung?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And Dennis Fung seems to be holding some objects, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And what is the time?
MS. MAZZOLA: 17:18.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Now, Miss Mazzola--
THE COURT: Actually 17:18:57 because you need the precise fame--
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
THE COURT: --at fourteen hundredths. Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree that if it's 17:12 you started walking back into the house, by 17:18, Dennis Fung is standing in the foyer with an object which has been purported to be the blood vial envelope, would you agree that that period of time is six minutes approximately or six and a half minutes from when you started walking back into the house to the image in this frame?
MS. MAZZOLA: Approximately, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you said a moment ago, ma'am, that when you and Dennis Fung returned to the house in the van, the first thing that was done was that item 15 and 16 were collected; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: When we got back there, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that to collect them, they first had to be documented, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you said that took a few minutes, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: To document an item, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: To document--well--and then you say that after they were documented and collected, that you stood with Dennis Fung for about five minutes in the kitchen foyer area waiting to receive the trash bag, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe I said approximately five minutes or so.
MR. NEUFELD: And you said that after you received the trash bag, Miss Mazzola, that it was another--that it was at least two minutes more that you waited with Dennis Fung before walking into the living room, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I was in the general vicinity, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And so, ma'am, I think you also said a little while ago, therefore, that it was at least 10 minutes that you were with Dennis Fung either processing these two items or standing with them with the trash bag before you put the trash bag down in the foyer and walked into the living room; isn't that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: That misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Didn't you testify that it was at least 10 minutes from the time you began to document and photograph and collect items 15 and 16 until you left the trash bag in the foyer and went into the living room?
MR. GOLDBERG: That misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, by your own estimates in the last few minutes, wouldn't you agree that more than 10 minutes passed from the time you reentered Rockingham and began the collection process of items 15 and 16 until the time that you went into the living room to sit on the couch?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe I was giving estimates. It could have been one or two or even three minutes off.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, but given the estimates that you gave--not that I gave, but that you gave--by those estimates, wasn't it at least 10 minutes from the time that you first went into Rockingham to collect items 15 and 16 until you left the bag on the foyer and went into the living room and closed your eyes?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: By your estimates that you just gave.
MS. MAZZOLA: Being off a couple of minutes to a few minutes, could be anywhere from six minutes to 10 minutes.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, a few minutes ago, before I showed you the KABC tape, didn't you say it was at least 10 minutes?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained. I think we've spent enough time on this, counsel.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. We can stop the tape.
(At 1:44 P.M., the playing of the videotape was concluded.)
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, I think you testified on direct examination that by this point in the day, you were very tired; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: I was--
MR. NEUFELD: It had been a long day.
MS. MAZZOLA: I was tired, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And during the course of your examination, would it be fair to say that when I asked you about certain item numbers, it was frequently necessary for you to refer to your notes to see what item number a particular object was?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And during the course of June 13th, you collected many different items; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And in fact, you had a different set of numbers for the items you were collecting at Bundy from the items you were collecting at Rockingham?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, how did you know that you were up to item 16 and item 15 when you collected the last two items at the Rockingham house?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Because we had started with no. 1 at Rockingham and we started with 100 at Bundy.
MR. NEUFELD: But, Miss Mazzola, is it your testimony that even after you put the field notes back into the van, that you had an independent recollection that the next item you were up to was 15?
MS. MAZZOLA: That was the next item that was up.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, what I'm asking you though is whether or not at this point in the day when you said you were so exhausted and you collected so many different items, that you were able to remember that the next item number available for an item was 15 without referring to your field notes.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it a fact, Miss Mazzola, that the notations for items 15 and 16 and the times that they were recorded were written contemporaneous to their collection on the afternoon of June 13th?
MS. MAZZOLA: Items 15 and 16 were the next items up. The times are written the next day.
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it a fact that you recorded on this field document the numbers 15 and 16, the checkmarks for id photo, their locations of the items, what they were and their times on the afternoon of June 13th at about the time that you were actually collecting them?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained. Referring to 1107.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, with the Court's permission, I would like to simply pass this document to the jurors.
THE COURT: Certainly.
MR. NEUFELD: How is that done here? Do I have to give it to someone first?
THE COURT: Hand it to juror no. 1.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
MR. NEUFELD: Oh, just one question first if I may. May I? Just--okay.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola--and you can look at your own notes if you want--didn't you in fact give a detailed description or description of the actual location of each of these items on your field notes?
MR. GOLDBERG: Objection as to the word "Detailed."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: There's location noted, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And doesn't the location for item 15 not simply say that it's in a garbage can in the bathroom, but it even says what corner of the bathroom the garbage can is in? Isn't that also in the notes?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is the location Mr. Fung told me, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And isn't that the location that Mr. Fung told you on the afternoon of the 13th when you actually wrote it down on that document?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, I don't believe it was on the afternoon of the 13th.
MR. NEUFELD: It's your testimony that Dennis Fung recalled the very next day when he talked to you that that trash can was in the southwest corner of the bathroom?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I can not testify to what Mr. Fung remembered or not.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm not asking you what he remembered. I'm asking you whether that's when he told it to you for the first time.
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: It was the next day.
MR. NEUFELD: I'll just take a minute to allow them to do that.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Let the record reflect that all the jurors have had the opportunity to review Defense exhibit 1107. Mr. Neufeld.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, was it after that that you and Dennis Fung removed items 15 and 16 from the trash bag that you logged them in on this field sheet? Is that your testimony?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that was done in the afternoon of June 14th, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: It was done on June 14th.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, on the morning of June 14th, you said you became aware that the blood vial from Mr. Simpson was in the trash bag, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you certainly knew, ma'am, on the morning of the 14th that the sneakers had not been in that trash bag; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you say you saw on the gray envelope when it was removed from the trash bag the inscription indicating that Mr. Fung had received the blood vial from Vannatter on June 13th at 5:30 P.M., correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I caught a glimpse of it, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Yet, isn't it a fact you still made out this handwritten list on June 14th with the sneakers identified as item 17, the vial as item 18 and the hair from the glove as item 19?
MR. GOLDBERG: That's been asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And, ma'am--
MR. NEUFELD: Would you put this on the elmo, please?
(Brief pause.)
MR. NEUFELD: Yet on this handwritten sheet--this is the handwritten sheet you prepared, ma'am?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: With the item 17 being the sneakers, 18 being the blood vial and 19 being some hair removed from the glove?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: You didn't put any time down on this handwritten sheet for when this blood vial was allegedly obtained, did you?
MR. GOLDBERG: Object to the word "Allegedly," argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. NEUFELD: You didn't write down any time next to the item no. 18, the blood vial, so the time that you read on an envelope as to the time it was received?
MS. MAZZOLA: On this? No.
MR. NEUFELD: Yet, the only date--in fact there's no date either, is there, next to the item?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: The only date on that piece of paper that you wrote is June 14th; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: For the tennis shoes, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Excuse me. The--well, you certainly knew that item 19, the hair, was not collected on the--it was not something that you were booking in on the 13th, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: It was not collected on the 13th?
MR. NEUFELD: Well, the hair was not something that you were separating on the 18th--on the 13th?
MR. GOLDBERG: That's irrelevant.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, didn't you--
THE COURT: Sustained. You're rephrasing the question?
MR. NEUFELD: Didn't you include or keep item 19, the hair, from item 9 on a separate page with the sneakers in subsequent reports?
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague and overbroad.
THE COURT: It's irrelevant.
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it a fact that you never wrote down on that sheet that the blood vial was received on June 13th at 1720 in the afternoon?
MS. MAZZOLA: On this? No.
MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it a fact, ma'am, that the reason you wrote down the vial as no. 18 and the sneakers as no. 17 is that you never saw a vial come out of the plastic bag in the early morning hours of June 14th?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. What item is it we have on the elmo now?
MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry? What?
THE COURT: What Defense--item is on the elmo?
MR. HARRIS: 1107.
THE COURT: 1107.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, yesterday, you were asked by Mr. Goldberg whether you had an independent recollection that on June 13th, 10 months ago, you remembered that the trash bag felt a little bit heavier when you carried it down the driveway than it had felt earlier on when you were holding it with items 15 and 16 in it; isn't that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: One moment.
(Brief pause.)
MR. NEUFELD: 24643. Did you hear me, your Honor? 24643?
THE COURT: What line?
MR. NEUFELD: Beginning at line 10.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: That's not inconsistent. It's hearsay.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: It's a foundational question, your Honor.
MR. NEUFELD: When you testified yesterday under questioning from Mr. Goldberg, did you testify that--well, were you asked this question, did you give this answer? "Question: Now, in terms of weight, when you were carrying the bag, did the weight appear to be consistent with only 15, 16 and the little cards? "Answer: It appeared to be a little heavier, but at the time, I didn't think much about it." you were asked that question, gave that answer yesterday?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And when you testified that way, Miss Mazzola, were you saying in effect that you were recalling that the bag had a little more heft when you carried it down the driveway as opposed to the amount of heft that it had when you were holding it in the house?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: It was a little heavier than what item 15, 16 and the few cards would have had.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you say--when you testified that way yesterday and you said it was heavier than what the cards in 15 and 16 would have felt like, were you simply assuming a weight for 15 and 16 and the cards or were you thinking back to how heavy the bag felt when you held it with 15 and 16 and the little cards before you put it down in the foyer?
THE COURT: Do you understand that question?
MS. MAZZOLA: I understand the question. I don't know if I was assuming the weight given the few pieces of paper versus remembering exactly how heavy it was when I had it in my hand.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, the actual--the photo id cards are pieces of cardboard; are they not? They're index cards that are folded in half?
MS. MAZZOLA: They're about that weight, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And there were about a half dozen of them or eight of them I think we said yesterday; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if there were eight. There were a few.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, there was--item no. 4 had an index card, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Item no. 5, 6, 7, 8, a, b and c; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: So approximately half dozen or so?
MS. MAZZOLA: Approximately.
MR. NEUFELD: And those are cardboard?
MS. MAZZOLA: More like, as you said, index cards.
MR. NEUFELD: Index cards. Sorry. Thank you. And it's your testimony yesterday and today that you could recall that when you carried that bag down the driveway, that it had more heft than it would have with just the folded index cards in it and items 15 and 16; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. It was a little heavier.
(Brief pause.)
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, with the Court's permission, I would simply like to take the staple off of these three objects so I can isolate one of them.
THE COURT: Which item is that?
MR. NEUFELD: These are the three envelopes that are used for demonstrative purposes by the People. It's 163-h.
THE COURT: All right. You may unstaple them. Of course you have a staple remover.
MR. NEUFELD: In Brooklyn, we use our teeth.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, I believe you already testified that the analyzed evidence report which would hold a blood vial is the gray envelope which was part of People's exhibit 163-h; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: The envelope, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And you of course have seen the blood vials that are used to hold reference samples, haven't you, in your work in toxicology?
MS. MAZZOLA: I have seen still samples, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And I now show you what is Defendant's exhibit--there's a number covered up with the strip but--1112? 1112--and ask you whether or not it appears to be the same size and shape that is used as a standard vial for holding blood, reference samples.
MS. MAZZOLA: In toxicology, we do not have the ones with the EDTA preservative.
MR. NEUFELD: You have a different type of stopper on it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: But it's the same size, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: It might be a little bit smaller. I'm not positive. I need to compare the two.
MR. NEUFELD: May we have a very brief sidebar, your Honor? I think I can--just a question of foundation.
THE COURT: Do you have any other vials available?
MR. NEUFELD: This is the vial we referred--may I just approach very briefly on that?
THE COURT: All right. Why don't you talk to Mr. Scheck.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, we believe that Dennis Fung has already addressed this issue.
THE COURT: All right. Let me see counsel without the reporter.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I believe there's a stipulation from the People.
MR. GOLDBERG: No, there is no stipulation.
THE COURT: Proceed. Lay your foundation.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: Miss Mazzola, what brand blood container does the LAPD use? Do you know?
MS. MAZZOLA: Off hand, I don't know.
THE COURT: All right. Would you recognize one if you saw a picture of it?
MS. MAZZOLA: To tell you the truth, I don't play--pay close attention to what brand it is.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. NEUFELD: Show you this picture, see if it refreshes your recollection. And I'm also going to show you--
MR. NEUFELD: I guess my next in order on this one--
THE COURT: Would be 1124. Correct, Mrs. Robertson?
(Deft's 1124 for id = photo)
MR. NEUFELD: And see if--take a look at that, please. Take a look at the photo.
(The witness complies.)
THE COURT: Do you want to mark the photo as 1125?
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
(Deft's 1125 for id = photo)
MS. MAZZOLA: Okay.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that a purple top mono-jet tube was used to hold Mr. Simpson's blood?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that the mono-jet tube that was used was the same size and shape as the one you're holding in your right hand?
MS. MAZZOLA: It appears to be.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Thank you. And what I've done, Miss Mazzola, is, I've put water in this tube, okay?
MS. MAZZOLA: Okay.
MR. NEUFELD: And what I would like you to do is to place the tube into the envelope and I would like you to clasp it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Okay (The witness complies).
MR. NEUFELD: Now, I want you to hold that with your hand to get a sense of how much it weighs.
MS. MAZZOLA: All right.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, is it your testimony, Miss Mazzola, that you have an independent memory of the additional heft or weight generated 10 months ago by the inclusion of the trash bag of an object with that amount of weight?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Also assumes facts not in evidence, that they weigh the same.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: There was an additional bit of weight in the bag, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, what I'm asking you is, is it your independent recollection that you could tell that the bag that you carried out to the truck weighed more than the bag when you held it in the kitchen given the amount of weight that you now sense that this object has?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. The weight was a little bit more and concentrated in one area.
MR. NEUFELD: And something you could actually feel that day?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes. It felt a little heavier.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, with the Court's permission--and then I will be finished with this area of re-cross and I'll get back to finishing the cross--may I simply pass this envelope around so the jurors can experience the weight?
THE COURT: I don't think you have an adequate foundation at this point given the testimony of the witness. Demonstration has to most closely be identical, and her testimony is that this is not identical.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, there's been testimony that--
THE COURT: No. Counsel, I'm just--
MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: Let me see counsel without the Court reporter.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, to your knowledge, was anything else in that gray envelope on the morning of June 14th when you saw it at the LAPD SID laboratory other than a test tube of blood?
MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation, personal knowledge.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you at any time, Miss Mazzola, feel in that envelope any other objects other than a test tube?
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to date.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: From the bit I saw the envelope, it looked like it was just one tube.
MR. NEUFELD: It looked like there was just a small tube in it?
MS. MAZZOLA: One tube.
MR. NEUFELD: And nothing else was in the envelope other than that one tube?
MS. MAZZOLA: From what I could see, it looked like a tube.
MR. NEUFELD: That's all I'm asking.
MR. GOLDBERG: Still no foundation, personal knowledge.
MR. NEUFELD: I believe, your Honor, now--I again now ask if I can pass this around given her last answer to the jury.
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg, any objection?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, could I take the witness on voir dire?
THE COURT: Yes.
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you look inside the envelope on June the 14th?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: So when you said that there only appeared to be one tube in it, what were you basing that opinion on?
MS. MAZZOLA: From the outline on the envelope.
MR. GOLDBERG: You did not look inside?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I would ask then subject to connection--
THE COURT: All right. Miss Mazzola, does this appear to approximate, accurately approximate the weight of the envelope that you have felt or seen with regards to this case?
MS. MAZZOLA: It's a little hard to tell, your Honor. Blood--I don't know if blood weighs more than just a hundred percent water or not.
THE COURT: All right. Other than that difference, does it feel approximately the same?
MR. GOLDBERG: I didn't hear the Court's question over our computers.
THE COURT: Other than that difference, does anything feel--does it feel the same?
MS. MAZZOLA: Feels a little lighter, but--
THE COURT: All right. To your knowledge, were there any other items inside that envelope, any reports or anything like that, at the time that you carried it?
MS. MAZZOLA: That I know of personally, no.
THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.
MR. NEUFELD: With the Court's permission, I would now like to publish the envelope, let the jury hold it.
THE COURT: You may.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Deputy, may I have that, please? Thank you. Mr. Neufeld.
MR. NEUFELD: May I continue?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm moving into a whole new area.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: You're welcome.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. NEUFELD
MR. NEUFELD: On redirect examination, Mr. Goldberg asked you about your memory. Do you remember that?
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to--
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, he asked you about your memory for details. Do you recall those questions that he asked you?
MR. GOLDBERG: Still vague.
THE COURT: As to what items, counsel?
MR. NEUFELD: Do you believe that your memory is satisfactory, Miss Mazzola?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, overbroad.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: How would you describe your own memory, Miss Mazzola?
THE COURT: Memory as to what particular point, counsel?
MR. NEUFELD: How would you--well, when you worked at the Kern County Crime Laboratory, did you ever have the experience in which you believed you had inventoried an item only to learn sometime later that you had failed to inventory that item?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: It's foundation, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, at the Los Angeles Police Department toxicology laboratory, did you ever have the experience where you believed you had inventoried an item only to learn later on you that had forgot to do so?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Inventoried in what respect? I don't understand the question.
MR. NEUFELD: Making an entry in the books or making your own entry on a sample that you received for toxicology analysis.
MR. GOLDBERG: Still vague and ambiguous.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: And of course, when you work in toxicology, you understand the importance of chain of custody; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you understand that it's important to demonstrate the integrity of the evidence has not been undermined; isn't that right?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, overbroad.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And specifically in toxicology, you knew that a police officer or other employee who took urine or drew blood would initial that sample that was eventually tested in your laboratory?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for--
MR. NEUFELD: That was the standard procedure?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation, not relevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Initial the sample itself or what?
MR. NEUFELD: Yes. Initial the sample itself.
MS. MAZZOLA: I have seen officers send in samples both ways.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, either they initial the sample itself or they at least initial the package that it's contained in, isn't that correct, one or the other?
MS. MAZZOLA: They fill out the package that the sample is contained in.
MR. NEUFELD: With their name on it, correct, the police officer who actually collected the sample?
MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Either collected or booked it, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you testified that on the field reports, there is a box to fill in with the initials of the criminalist who personally collected each item of evidence; isn't that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, ma'am, that one reason that it's important to document who collected which swatches and where they were collected is because little swatches all look pretty much alike?
MS. MAZZOLA: The swatches are similar in size, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And just by looking at a swatch, you can't tell whether it was from a drop at Rockingham or a drop at Bundy?
MR. GOLDBERG: It's been asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained. We've asked these questions already, counsel, last week.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, at the mini academy at LAPD SID, were you ever instructed that items of evidence should be photographed prior to their actual booking?
MR. GOLDBERG: It's been asked and answered.
THE COURT: It has.
MR. NEUFELD: Not with respect to these items, your Honor. Not with respect to the swatches.
THE COURT: It has. You've already gone through the general booking procedures, counsel.
MR. NEUFELD: Not--
THE COURT: Yes, you have. Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, were you taught that photographs must be taken before there was any manipulation or alteration of the evidence?
THE COURT: Same question. Proceed, counsel.
MR. NEUFELD: Did anyone at the Los Angeles Police Department ever instruct you to have photographs taken of the swatches prior to their booking?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered, irrelevant.
THE COURT: That question hasn't been asked.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: And you did not take the initiative to do that on your own?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: So would it be fair to say that there are no photographs to show what the swatches looked like when they were collected but before they were passed to third parties?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And there was no photograph to indicate the number of swatches that you collected for each stain?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And would it also be correct, ma'am, that there are no written records created by you indicating the number of swatches that you personally collected?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Your field notes only say, quote, red stain, unquote?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And the official property reports only mention a, quote, swatch, unquote, in the singular; isn't that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I did not fill out the property reports. I could look at them and give you an answer.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, you were able to testify about the property reports I believe during the redirect examination of Mr. Goldberg, weren't you?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Could you please look at the property reports and tell me?
MS. MAZZOLA: Sure. It is in the singular.
MR. NEUFELD: It's in the singular. And in fact, isn't there a box or a column where the person filling out the property report is to indicate the quantity of an item?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true that the quantity, namely, the number of swatches for each of these bloodstains that you collected is not filled in with a number?
MS. MAZZOLA: The boxes are not filled in. That's correct.
MR. NEUFELD: So there is no listing of the quantity of the swatches that were collected for each of these stains?
MR. GOLDBERG: This has been asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, even without photographs, would you agree that one way to distinguish one set of swatches from another is to clearly document the coin envelope that the swatches are collected in?
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "Clearly document."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: It is necessary to have information on the envelope, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree that one element of properly documenting the coin envelope the swatches are collected in is to record the initials of the criminalist who's collecting those swatches?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not necessarily.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, would you agree that one reason for initialing the envelope is so it would be perfectly clear that this particular package contains the swatches that you collected as opposed to some other set of anonymous swatches?
MS. MAZZOLA: The item numbers and DR numbers identify which case and which item number the swatches came from.
MR. NEUFELD: And do initials of the criminalist also help to identify it?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: They could.
MR. NEUFELD: And wouldn't it be fair to say, ma'am, that on the day that you collected swatches in this case, you didn't even know the DR number, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: At that time, no.
MR. NEUFELD: The DR number hadn't been bought on June 13th, had it?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know when it had been bought.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, if you heard--if you knew that there was testimony that it was not bought until the 16th of June--
THE COURT: Sustained. All right. Counsel, let's take our break at this point. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take a 15-minute recess. Please remember all of my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any opinions about the case, conduct any deliberations on the matter or allow anybody to communicate with you. We'll take a 15-minute recess. And, counsel, why don't you organize your exhibits for the next phase. All right. Miss Mazzola, you may step down.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open Court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record. All parties are again present. Mr. Neufeld, did you have the opportunity to organize the exhibits for the next phase?
MR. NEUFELD: Yeah. They're very simple.
THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jurors.
(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 been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Andrea Mazzola is on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Neufeld. Good afternoon again, Miss Mazzola. You are reminded you are still under oath. And, Mr. Neufeld, you may complete your cross-examination.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, for every stain that you collected, you placed the swatches into a small plastic bag; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And just as the swatches look pretty much alike, these little plastic bags look pretty much alike also, don't they?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And if you could just to--so the jury can see it, this is--I'm looking now at People's exhibit 163-e. This is a coin envelope containing some plastic bags, a white paper bindle. And inside the bindle--is there anything inside the bindle, ma'am?
MS. MAZZOLA: There's some white swatches.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And are those the two white swatches I have now put on the coin envelope?
MS. MAZZOLA: It looks more like three. There's one on top of that one.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. They sometimes get stuck together?
MS. MAZZOLA: Sometimes.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. With the Court's permission, I'm not going to pass them around. I'd just like to hold them up in front of the jury.
THE COURT: I don't know now effective that's going to be since they're--don't anybody sneeze.
MR. NEUFELD: And you would agree, Miss Mazzola, that without proper documentation, these swatches and these plastic bags could easily get mixed up?
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "Proper documentation, mixed up."
THE COURT: Overruled. The jury can draw their own conclusions.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree with that?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree that without proper documentation, it's easier for someone to tamper with them too?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't follow that question.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Now, the next thing you did with the plastic bag was to put it into a clean coin envelope at the scene; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And just as the swatches and the plastic bags all look pretty much alike, so do the coin envelopes, don't they?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And so it is the standard practice at the Los Angeles Police Department to write identifying information on each coin envelope at the scene; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that is done so that one envelope and its contents can be distinguished from another?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And would you agree, ma'am, that putting one's initials on the coin envelope at the scene is one way to identify a piece of evidence?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled. But we've pretty much been through this procedure.
MR. NEUFELD: I haven't been through this procedure with this witness.
THE COURT: Well, counsel, the jury already knows about this procedure.
MR. NEUFELD: I think--
THE COURT: Proceed.
MS. MAZZOLA: Placing one's initials alone on a coin envelope would not help distinguish it from another.
MR. NEUFELD: But placing one's initials in conjunction with placing the item number on the envelope will?
MS. MAZZOLA: The item number is more important, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: But coin--but placing one's initials also enhance identification process, right?
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague ambiguous as to "Enhance."
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, would you agree, for instance, in this case--well, would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that photo id numbers can be used again and again at different crime scenes and different investigations?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And so there could be more than two coin envelopes in the laboratory having the same number such as 27 or 35 or 110?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And so in addition to placing the photo id number and item number on a coin envelope, placing the initials of the person who collected that item on the envelope is an additional way to individualize the envelope, isn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And isn't it a standard practice of the Los Angeles Police Department to retain for trial purposes the original coin envelopes used at the crime scene?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if that is the standard practice or not. I'm not familiar with that.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, did you ever testify as a witness in a toxicology case?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you were given a vial in an envelope?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you would testify in Court, did that--was that same envelope retained and produced in Court?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree that retention of the original documented coin envelope is one way to document the beginning of chain of custody?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered and irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, on direct examination, Miss Mazzola, by Mr. Goldberg, you denied personally putting your initials on the coin envelopes for the bloodstains that you personally collected at Rockingham and Bundy; is that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe I said something to that effect.
MR. NEUFELD: On August 23rd, 1994, when you were under oath, didn't you swear that for each bloodstain that you collected at Rockingham, you personally put your initials on the coin envelope?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative as phrased and would also ask for the page and line.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: On August 23rd, 1994--referring to page 705.
MR. GOLDBERG: Also, I think this has been asked and answered.
THE COURT: What line, counsel?
MR. NEUFELD: Hmm?
THE COURT: What line, counsel?
MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry. Beginning at line 2 and ending at line 15.
MR. GOLDBERG: Which page?
MR. NEUFELD: 705.
THE COURT: All right. Line 2 to 15.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: On August 23rd, when you testified under oath, were you asked these questions and did you give these answers, Miss Mazzola? "Question: When you placed the plastic into the coin envelope, you said you make a notation on the coin envelope; namely, the photo number at that point as well? "Answer: It is labeled the photo item number. "Question: Do you initial the plastic bag yourself? "Answer: The coin envelope is initialed. "Question: By you? "Answer: That is correct. "Question: And in each of these instances where you collected the stain, you personally initial the envelope? "Answer: I collected the stain, it was initialed by me." did you give those answers to those questions under oath on August 23rd, 1994?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, your Honor, also page 768, line 16 through 18.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: And then again on page 768, Miss Mazzola, at the same hearing on August 23rd, 1994, were you asked this question, did you give this answer? "Question: Well, I'm sorry. You know the coin envelopes were initialed by you, correct? "Answer: Correct." did you give that answer to that question on August 23rd?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, your initials would be what, A.M.; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And when Dennis Fung would initial an envelope or item, he would initial it D.F.?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: So it was your sworn testimony on August 23rd that you and not Fung initialed the coin envelopes for the stains you personally collected?
MR. GOLDBERG: It's argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: At that time, I believe I had initialed them, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And at that time, ma'am, on August 23rd, it was just two months after you had actually gone out and collected the stains in this case; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Approximately two months, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And would you--since August 23rd, have you been involved in other crime scene investigations?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Approximately how many?
THE COURT: Haven't we gone through this already?
MR. NEUFELD: I have--well, it's just a foundation to get into the next question, your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, then ask the next question.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it a fact, Miss Mazzola, that this crime scene on June 13th was your very first one where you were the primary collector of bloodstain evidence?
THE COURT: We've asked that question as well.
MR. NEUFELD: I understand. There's a few of these that simply lead into the next point, your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, if we've asked them already, let's proceed to what's new.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Well, Miss Mazzola, between June 13th and August 23rd, isn't it a fact that you didn't do any other crime scenes?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't recall if I had or not.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And wouldn't you agree, ma'am, that since this was your very first crime scene where you were the primary collector of evidence, that your recollection of what transpired is more vivid than it is after doing many more crime scenes in the interim?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence and it's also unintelligible.
THE COURT: Overruled. Do you understand the question?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not really.
THE COURT: Does this particular event stick out in your mind in any way because it was your first major crime scene that you collected the evidence?
MS. MAZZOLA: It doesn't stick out in a major way, no.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, it was your very first crime scene, Miss Mazzola, and it was a case involving such notoriety. Isn't it more vivid in your mind than are the other crime scenes that you have done in the interim?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony as to "First crime scene."
THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.
MS. MAZZOLA: Well, it was not my first crime scene and it's just another scene.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, this was just another scene for you?
THE COURT: All right. Counsel, we've gone over and over and over this.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola--
MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry.
MR. NEUFELD: --it was your first crime scene though where you were the primary collector of blood evidence, wasn't it?
THE COURT: This is the fifth time we're asking this question, counsel.
MR. NEUFELD: All right.
MR. NEUFELD: When you testified on August 23rd, Miss Mazzola, you didn't first discuss your testimony with your superior, Mrs. Kestler, did you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: But since August 23rd, you have discussed your involvement in this case in the presence of Miss Kestler, haven't you?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Before you testified on August 23rd, you hadn't discussed this testimony with the District Attorneys, had you?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: He went into it on redirect, your Honor.
THE COURT: Counsel, that doesn't mean that we have to hear it for the third time.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.
THE COURT: Are you about to finish with your cross-examination? Do you have anything new?
MR. NEUFELD: Yes, I do, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Because the cross-examination is about to end.
MR. NEUFELD: At any time during the last 10 months, Miss Mazzola, did your colleagues at SID tell you it's time to close ranks because they're under attack?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Are you aware as you sit here today that any of your colleagues have been criticized for the way they conducted themselves in this case?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: It's also argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Some of them have been talked about, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, not just talked about. Are you aware they've been criticized?
MR. GOLDBERG: That's vague as to by whom.
THE COURT: That's irrelevant.
MR. NEUFELD: Are you aware, Miss Mazzola, as you sit here today that there have been reports in the media that the Defense in this case has criticized the SID where you work and the manner in which evidence was collected in this case?
THE COURT: Sustained. Jury is to disregard the implication of the question.
MR. NEUFELD: When was the first time that you reviewed your transcript of the testimony of August 23rd?
MS. MAZZOLA: Maybe a month or so ago. Maybe a little more. I'm not exactly sure when.
MR. NEUFELD: And did your supervisors at SID tell you that there was a big problem with your sworn testimony of August 23rd that you personally put your initials on every coin envelope for every stain that you collected on June 13th?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Did the Prosecutors tell you there was a problem with your August 23rd testimony on that point?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor--
MR. NEUFELD: When did the Prosecutors or SID supervisors first show you what they claim were the original coin envelopes from June 13th?
MS. MAZZOLA: I saw pictures of the coin envelopes at the D.A.'s office.
MR. NEUFELD: And when was that?
MS. MAZZOLA: I--probably a month or less ago.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you looked at those coin envelopes at that time--I'm sorry. When you looked at the photographs of those coin envelopes at that time, did you experience a moment of panic when you didn't see your initials on those coin envelopes?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: How did you feel when you saw those photographs of the coin envelopes that didn't have your initials on it?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Well, assumes facts not in evidence.
MR. NEUFELD: Subject to connection with the very next question.
THE COURT: Proceed. How did you feel when you saw the photographs?
MS. MAZZOLA: I didn't feel anything different.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: Well--
MR. NEUFELD: I ask that these be marked for identification, your Honor. They are one, two--
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I'm going to object to those being introduced based upon our prior conversations. They still have biological evidence in them.
THE COURT: All right. We'll mark them by reference. Do we have photographs of them as well?
MR. NEUFELD: I don't have photographs of all of them, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: I thought we had--we probably do.
THE COURT: All right. We'll mark them by reference because the storage will remain with the LAPD. However, you may mark them by reference for the purpose of this hearing.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Should we mark them collectively as one exhibit next in order?
THE COURT: I don't know because I think that we are going to need to refer to them individually when we get to the testing. So unfortunately, I think we need to individually mark each one of these.
MR. NEUFELD: All right.
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg, do you agree with that?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, your Honor, what we had intended to do--I don't know whether you want me to discuss this in open Court--is simply refer to them by their item numbers, and that's the way everything would be connected up.
THE COURT: So we'll have a third numbering system in this case, item number coin envelopes?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I don't know--
THE COURT: Is that what you're suggesting?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah. But it's an evidentiary item number system as opposed to an exhibit item--
THE COURT: I agree. Since we've been referring to that confusingly. So let's do that. Mrs. Robertson, we'll start a third list, coin envelopes by item number. All right. And, counsel, will both sides stipulate that the coin number--item number will be as written on the coin envelope for the purposes of the record? That will make it simpler.
MR. NEUFELD: Yes. And I--
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Let's do it that way. Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: And I--and also with the further stipulation in fact that these are the original coin envelopes.
THE COURT: Well, I assume as soon as we start with the witness, we'll get that. Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, all right. I'm going to show you then the coin envelopes with the following numbers on them; 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 14. Like you to take a look at them, please?
THE COURT: All right. These are the Rockingham item numbers?
MR. NEUFELD: Yes.
THE COURT: All right.
(The witness complies.)
MS. MAZZOLA: Okay.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, what I would like you to do is at this time collect from that pile the original coin envelopes for the Rockingham samples that you testified to on August 23rd you had put your initials on.
MR. GOLDBERG: I object to that question on the grounds that it's unintelligible.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can I just approach for one moment to see the coin envelopes?
THE COURT: Certainly. Counsel, I don't know that anybody knows specifically what item numbers she was asked questions about during the August 23rd hearing.
MR. NEUFELD: She was asked about--
THE COURT: So why don't you just go over each one.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. Miss Mazzola, referring to page 705 of your testimony of August 23rd, were you asked this question, did you give this answer?
MR. GOLDBERG: May I have a line cite?
MR. NEUFELD: Line 11.
MR. GOLDBERG: This has been asked and answered, your Honor.
MR. NEUFELD: Just one question.
THE COURT: One question.
MR. NEUFELD: "Question: And in each of these instances where you collected the stain, you personally initialed the envelope? "Answer: I collected the stain, it was initialed by me." you were asked that question, you gave that answer, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, what I'm asking you to do is, in that pile of coin envelopes that you have in front of you with the numbers that I just gave you, each of those numbers represents a different item number; does it not?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: What I'm asking you to do is to pull out the coin envelopes with the item numbers for the blood drops found at the Rockingham property that at that August 23rd hearing I just read to you from in this case has your initials on them.
MR. GOLDBERG: It's still argumentative and unintelligible.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, do any of those coin envelopes that have been produced in Court today by the Prosecutor have your initials on them?
MS. MAZZOLA: These alone or--
MR. NEUFELD: Well, I'm asking you about those. Those are the Rockingham--those have been reported to be the Rockingham blood drops.
MS. MAZZOLA: No, they do not.
MR. NEUFELD: And in fact, Miss Mazzola, whose initials on each one of those envelopes?
MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung's.
MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, let's for instance take item no. 11. Item no. 11 you collected without Mr. Fung being present, correct? He didn't observe it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: The coin envelope here that has item 11 on it, whose initials are on it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung's as--
MR. NEUFELD: Your initials--I'm sorry.
THE COURT: Counsel.
MS. MAZZOLA: Mr. Fung's as the one who booked them, did the final packaging.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, did you testify on August 23rd that for every stain that you personally collected, you put your initials on them?
MR. GOLDBERG: This has been asked and answered.
THE COURT: It has. We've established that point, counsel.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, item no. 11, he wasn't even present when you collected it, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
MR. NEUFELD: Yet your initials are not on that envelope; is that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Item no. 7 and item no.--I'm sorry. Item no. 7 was a stain that you personally collected on the driveway in front of Mr. Simpson's house, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And for item no. 7, Dennis Fung wasn't present, was he?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you please look at item 7 on this envelope and see whether or not your initials are present?
MS. MAZZOLA: My initials are not present.
MR. NEUFELD: Item no. 8, another item that you collected without Dennis Fung even being present; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Are your initials on item no. 8?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, they're not.
MR. NEUFELD: And are you saying that the reason your initials are not on these envelopes is because you didn't book them? Is that your testimony today, ma'am?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. NEUFELD: You said that Dennis Fung's initials appear on that envelope. Is that because he's the one who booked the envelope?
MS. MAZZOLA: He is the one who did the final packaging for that envelope.
MR. NEUFELD: Is it your testimony now as opposed to August 23rd that the person who actually collected the stain doesn't put his or her initials on the envelope?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative and also vague as to which stain.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: Back in August, I was under the assumption that I had to put my initials on the envelopes, and I was wrong.
MR. NEUFELD: When you testified on August 23rd, did you say, "I'm assuming that to be true," or did you say it was true, Miss Mazzola?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: It's argumentative as well.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, in response to the question as to whether you initialed the envelopes at the August 23rd hearing when you testified under oath, did you ever say, "I'm not sure"?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not remember if I said, "I do not remember."
MR. NEUFELD: Let me show you your testimony just to refresh your recollection.
THE COURT: Counsel, we've gone over it now. You've established the point.
MR. NEUFELD: All right.
MR. NEUFELD: As you sit here today, it is your current belief that Dennis Fung put his initials on these envelopes?
MS. MAZZOLA: On these, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And the reason he put them on these envelopes is because he was the one who was going to book them?
MS. MAZZOLA: That he was the one who did the final packaging of that item, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: When you say the final packaging, what do you mean?
MS. MAZZOLA: Placing the bindle containing the cloth swatches in the envelope and sealing the envelope.
MR. NEUFELD: And was the envelope sealed on the morning of the 14th to your knowledge?
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not remember.
MR. NEUFELD: Now show you a group of bindles--I'm sorry--a group of envelopes which would be item--following item numbers: Item 41, item 42, item 43--actually--withdraw that. I'm going to focus a little bit. There were a number of drops that were collected at Bundy; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And they received photo id numbers and item numbers; did they not?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And the first item number would be 47?
MS. MAZZOLA: Photo id 112?
MR. NEUFELD: Right.
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And the next one would be 48?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Photo id 113, right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Uh-huh.
MR. NEUFELD: Next item would be item 49?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
THE COURT: All right. The record will reflect the witness is referring to her field notes.
MR. NEUFELD: And the next one would be item 50, which is id 115, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And finally the last one in that series of drops is item 52, which is 117, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Ask you to take a look at these items.
(The witness complies.)
MR. NEUFELD: Now--
THE COURT: Hold on. Let her look at the items.
MR. NEUFELD: Sorry.
(Brief pause.)
MS. MAZZOLA: Okay.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, you personally collected the blood drop stains that became items 47, 48 and 50; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Do 47, 48 or 50 have your initials on them?
MS. MAZZOLA: 49 does.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry. I asked you first about 47, 48 and 50.
MS. MAZZOLA: Oh, excuse me.
MR. NEUFELD: Do those three have your initials on them?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: They don't?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, items 49 and 52 have your initials; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you're saying now that items 49 and 52 have your initials because you were the person who was there when the package was ultimately sealed for booking?
MS. MAZZOLA: I am the one who placed the bindle in the package and sealed it.
MR. NEUFELD: And sealed it. And when did that sealing occur, ma'am? What day?
MS. MAZZOLA: I can't remember if it was the 14th or not.
MR. NEUFELD: And they would be sealed for booking at the evidence control unit; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct. Well, evidence processing room actually.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, that's where you would do the sealing. But once they are actually sealed, then they're taken over to the evidence control unit to be frozen; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: To be booked in and frozen, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And so to the best of your recollection as you sit here today, you sealed items 49 and 52 on June 14th for booking; is that correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Compound.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, to the best of your recollection as you sit here today, did you seal item 49 for booking?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: On June 14th?
MS. MAZZOLA: I--I'm not positive if it was June 14th or not.
MR. NEUFELD: To the best of your recollection, which day was it?
MS. MAZZOLA: I'm not sure if it was the 14th or the 15th. I'm not positive.
MR. NEUFELD: Could be one or the other?
MS. MAZZOLA: Could be.
MR. NEUFELD: How about item 52? Are you saying that the reason your initials appear on item 52 is because you're the person who sealed that envelope for booking on June 14th or June 15th?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, up until the time that you saw photographs of these coin envelopes, didn't you believe that you had personally put your initials on every one of them?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered, 352.
THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: And so the reason you're now changing your mind as to whether you had in fact, as you testified on August 23rd, put your initials on each coin envelope for the stains that you collected, is because they're telling you that these are the original coin envelopes; isn't that true?
MS. MAZZOLA: These are the original envelopes.
MR. NEUFELD: When the District Attorneys showed you photographs of these coin envelopes, did they point out to you that most of the envelopes, contrary to your sworn testimony of August 23rd, didn't have your initials on them?
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: And did you realize that when the Prosecutors showed you the coin envelopes, that if your sworn testimony of August 23rd was correct, then the absence of your initials on some of these coin envelopes could mean that the original evidence may have been tampered with?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor--
MR. NEUFELD: In your mind?
MR. GOLDBERG: --argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, when the Prosecutors showed you those photographs, up until that time, you believed to the best of your recollection that you had written your initials on the original coin envelopes at the scene on June 13th; isn't that true?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, ma'am, that if your testimony on August 23rd was truthful and was accurate, that that would mean that these envelopes were not the original envelopes?
THE COURT: Sustained. Speculation, counsel.
MR. NEUFELD: And before you testified on direct examination, Miss Mazzola, did the Prosecutors tell you that they wanted you to testify at this trial that your August 23rd testimony was false?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is not--
THE COURT: Sustained. Counsel, without the Court reporter, please.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, after you left Rockingham for the second time, you said you returned to your offices at piper tech; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Back to the laboratory, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that you would be arriving about 6:30?
MS. MAZZOLA: Somewhere around there.
MR. NEUFELD: And you brought all the evidence that had been collected that day into the evidence processing unit?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And there are two entrances to that unit; are there not?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: One is a door for which you need an id card to get in and out of?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And the second entrance is a garage door; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: It is a roll-up door, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And, for instance, if I were to enter the evidence processing unit with you and you put up your card to gain access, I would not have to put up my card to go in with you, would I?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, you would not.
MR. NEUFELD: And if once inside, someone opened that roll-up door, then other people could come and go from the evidence processing unit through that large door which is big enough for a car or truck; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Compound.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, you said that when you got back to the evidence processing unit, the items were taken out of the coin envelopes for drying; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And if they were still wet when they were taken out of the plastic bags, then there would be transfer stains on those plastic bags; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you preserve the plastic bags?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Were you trained to throw them out?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: By the way, did you or Dennis Fung save the black plastic trash bag that you were seen carrying items out of Rockingham that afternoon?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, I do not believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: And you said that you and Mr. Fung began to put the wet swatches into the test tubes; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And are the test tubes marked at that point?
MS. MAZZOLA: They were--we marked them, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And the test tube was then put back in the same little brown coin envelope; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct, corresponding to its item number.
MR. NEUFELD: And you do that because the original coin envelope contains the markings to enable you to identify the swatches you collected from other drops at different scenes?
MS. MAZZOLA: They correspond to the item numbers that are also written on the test tubes.
MR. NEUFELD: And I believe it's your testimony under direct examination that at least with respect to some of the bloodstains, you personally removed the swatches from the plastic bags and put them into test-tubes; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: On a few of them, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you processed that evening both the Rockingham and Bundy items at the same evidence processing unit?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you place--I'm sorry. Did you place a sheet of paper on the table before you began to transfer the swatches from the plastic bags to the test tubes?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if we did or not. We might have.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you receive any training at the SID mini academy on the necessity of placing a sheet of paper on the laboratory counter before working with the different items?
MS. MAZZOLA: For Mr. Fung's procedure, the swatches and envelopes were not in contact with the table.
MR. NEUFELD: For the procedure that you utilized, Miss Mazzola, didn't you have to actually use an item to scoop things out of the plastic bag?
MS. MAZZOLA: I used a pipe--glass--glass pipette to move the swatches into the mouth of the test tube.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And haven't you been taught to put down some paper just for safety precautions just to avoid an accident of a wet bloody swatch falling onto the table?
MS. MAZZOLA: The swatches were never where they could fall on the table.
MR. NEUFELD: Was this exercise done over a table?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And did you wear a pair of gloves for the removal of the swatches from the plastic bags?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And did you wear the glass for the same reason that you wore the gloves at the crime scene; namely as a safety precaution for yourself?
MS. MAZZOLA: It's just a force of habit to wear the gloves.
MR. NEUFELD: And so do you have any independent recollection as to changing your gloves between the handling of each item that evening?
MS. MAZZOLA: Independent recollection, no, I don't recall.
MR. NEUFELD: And the samples from both locations, that is Rockingham and Bundy, were processed in the same room at the same time; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: I was working at a different table than Mr. Fung, and after a few, I just started labeling the test tubes for him.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, when you started working at a different table, were you working on the samples from Rockingham or Bundy as opposed to Dennis Fung working on samples from the other location?
MS. MAZZOLA: We worked on samples from the same location.
MR. NEUFELD: And then the samples from both locations are then laid out on a carton; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you lay them out on the bottom of this carton until the bottom is covered with envelopes; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not completely covered, no.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, you mean you left some space?
MS. MAZZOLA: There had to be some space left, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And you said all the Bundy bloodstains were put into a brown shopping bag back at Bundy; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: A brown paper bag, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And a brown paper bag was used for the Rockingham samples as well; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: When--
MR. NEUFELD: One moment.
(Brief pause.)
MR. NEUFELD: Did you watch Dennis Fung do his procedure after you stopped doing yours?
MS. MAZZOLA: I wasn't watch him constantly.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, were you watching him some of the time?
MS. MAZZOLA: Some of the time, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you ever see when he would--he actually would take a test tube and scoop it right into the plastic bag to scoop out the individual swatches? Is that how he did it?
MS. MAZZOLA: He maneuvered the swatches from the outside of the bag rather than place anything in the bag itself.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, the swatches were still wet, weren't they?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not necessarily wet wet. Slightly damp, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, some were sticking to the sides of the plastic bag?
MS. MAZZOLA: A few, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And to get those--those swatches that are sticking to the plastic bag, did he use the tube to sort of scoop them out?
MS. MAZZOLA: No. He would manipulate the plastic bag itself to move the swatches down.
MR. NEUFELD: Is it possible that when he did this, that blood would sometimes collect on the outside lip of the test tube?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: When the test tube is then placed into the coin envelope, is the lip of the test tube sticking out?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And the envelope itself is left open in the carton; is it not?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Has anyone at the SID taught you that when the blood--that when blood on the test tube or on the lip of the test tube dries, it can flake or aerosol?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Have you ever been taught anything about the dangers of or the possibility--I'm sorry. Withdrawn. Have you received any training at all about potential contamination which can occur as the blood dries in those test tubes when the envelope is left open?
MR. GOLDBERG: Still assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled. Have you receive such training?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: And you left these envelopes in the carton in a cabinet in the room, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: The cabinet's not locked, is it?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you left for the evening, did you take the clipboard--I'm sorry--the clipboard with the field notes home with you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you leave them on the table at the evidence processing unit so you would have them out the next day?
MS. MAZZOLA: They were left in the evidence processing room.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, the next day, you arrived at the evidence processing unit at about 6:52 in the morning, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't recall the exact time I showed up.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: One moment, your Honor.
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.) (Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Madam reporter, till 4:00 for a break?
MR. GOLDBERG: Let me check my notes, see what was introduced into evidence.
MR. NEUFELD: Just one moment, your Honor.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: Can we proceed with something else, Mr. Neufeld?
MR. GOLDBERG: It's conceivable it could be 194-a. It's a printout, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, 194-a? I'm sorry.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, while they're looking for it, whatever time it was on the morning of June 14th, it was early; was it not?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe so, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And you left the laboratory around 10:30 to go to the print shed with Dennis Fung to examine the Bronco; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And would it be fair to say that you were at the laboratory that morning before leaving to go to the print shed for three or three and a half hours?
MS. MAZZOLA: About, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you testified--I'm sorry.
MR. NEUFELD: One moment.
(Brief pause.)
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, I simply show you, see if it refreshes your recollection as to what time you arrived, Defense exhibit no. 1100.
THE COURT: What is 1100? What is 1100, Mr. Neufeld?
MR. NEUFELD: What is it?
THE COURT: What is it?
MR. NEUFELD: It is a computer printout.
THE COURT: Next question.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And when you arrived that morning on the 14th, didn't you and Dennis Fung participate in removing the swatches from the test tubes?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And didn't you and Dennis Fung make a visual inspection of the swatches to assure that they were dry?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And didn't you and Dennis Fung at that point separate the item numbers both on Bundy and Rockingham and then proceeded to make bindles?
MS. MAZZOLA: The bindles for the most part Mr. Fung was working on. I was filling in the DR number and the item number that he was assigning.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, didn't you personally prepare, that is, create bindles on the morning of June 14th--
THE COURT: We'll have to get a bucket of water for those things. Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, this is a paper bindle; is it not?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is.
MR. NEUFELD: And you create these bindles by simply folding up a piece of white paper into different sections; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And then once you fold up this piece of paper, you then put the swatches inside and then you fold it closed, and that's how you hold the swatches; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it a fact that on the morning of June 14th, that you personally created these bindles for some of the items of evidence, for some of the stains in this case and put swatches in them?
MS. MAZZOLA: For a few of them, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And when you--there was no particular way--I'm sorry. There was no particular assignment, was there, where you would only do certain select stains and he would do other stains, was there?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: I mean, it was broken up pretty randomly?
MS. MAZZOLA: We were not assigned which stains to do.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. And all you did that day is, you and Dennis Fung simply divided up the test tubes containing these swatches and performed these tests at different tables in the same room; isn't that right?
MR. GOLDBERG: Objection to tests.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: What?
THE COURT: Overruled. Actually no. Sustained. It's not tests.
MR. NEUFELD: Test tubes I said, didn't I?
THE COURT: No. You said tests.
MR. NEUFELD: I apologize.
MR. NEUFELD: In fact, what happened on August--what happened on June 14th is that you and Dennis Fung simply divided up the test tubes containing the swatches and began to process them?
MS. MAZZOLA: I started processing, as I said, a few and then after a few, Mr. Fung was much faster and I started helping him.
MR. NEUFELD: When you testified on August 23rd, did you ever limit your involvement in this case to simply a few?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, that's improper impeachment, hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Did you put down a sheet of paper on the table at which you were working when you began to process the swatches on June 14th?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And again, was that done to protect the table so no bloody swatches would get on it?
MS. MAZZOLA: And to protect the swatches themselves. Just everything in general.
MR. NEUFELD: Were you ever trained to change the sheet of paper each time you moved onto a different item number?
MS. MAZZOLA: The swatches never came in contact with the paper.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, the individual bindles were right on top of the table, right on top of the piece of paper that was on the table; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And then you would have to call or use some instrument to get the swatches out of the tube into the paper bindle; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Is there any danger that any of those swatches could either miss that--that piece of paper that's a bindle and hit the table or simply glance off the paper and hit the table? Isn't there a danger that can happen?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And so you were never trained to change the sheet of paper between item numbers; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Unintelligible.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did the Court read that?
MR. NEUFELD: And do you also wear a pair of gloves for this operation as well?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: But you were not trained to change your gloves between the handling of each item when you were doing this procedure, were you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, because the hands never came in contact with the swatches.
MR. NEUFELD: Why are you wearing gloves, ma'am, in the first place?
MS. MAZZOLA: It's just something that is routine that I do.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, weren't you taught to wear gloves when you were performing this procedure, Miss Mazzola?
MS. MAZZOLA: I would do it whether or not I was taught or not.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, were you taught to wear gloves for this procedure?
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not believe we were taught to specifically wear gloves for that procedure.
MR. NEUFELD: Were you taught to wear gloves any time you're handling bloody swatches?
MS. MAZZOLA: A person does not need to be taught that.
MR. NEUFELD: And the reason you have to wear those gloves when you're handling swatches even if you're using instruments is because there's always that danger that an accident could happen and a swatch could come in contact with your skin; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: It's possible.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, isn't that the reason for the rubber glove; to protect your skin from coming into contact with the bloody swatch?
MR. GOLDBERG: This is argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, would you agree that just as there's nothing special about the coin envelope and the plastic bag, there is nothing unique or special about a folded piece of paper that becomes a bindle?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: That without some kind of identifying markings on it, they all look alike?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: So you put the swatches that you removed from some of the test tubes into paper bindles that you had created; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And there were no photos taken of the swatches as they're sitting in the paper bindle before it's folded; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And then there's no notation by you in any document at that point in time of the number of swatches that you're putting into each of those bindles; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And of course, you have never directed a forensic photographer to take a photograph of the swatches as they're sitting on that bindle before it gets folded up; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you know as to your recollection that day, were the swatches all dry as they were put into the paper bindles?
MS. MAZZOLA: The swatches were all dry before they were put into the paper bindles.
MR. NEUFELD: Do you have an independent recollection of that?
MS. MAZZOLA: If they were not dry, they would not be put into the paper.
MR. NEUFELD: That's just standard procedure?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, to your knowledge, have any of the swatches been mixed up and placed in the wrong paper bindle or the wrong coin envelope either accidentally or intentionally in this case?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, item 11 is a stain that you collected from a wire at Rockingham on June 13th; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you collected that stain with a swatch; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you moistened that cotton--sorry. Are you aware as you sit here today, Miss Mazzola, that a technician employed by the California Department of Justice tested the swatch that you put in the evidence bindle and it tested negative for the presence of blood?
MR. GOLDBERG: Wait.
THE COURT: Sustained. The jury is to disregard the implication of that last question.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that some swatches could get put into the bindle which has been incorrectly accidentally marked?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that without writing a proper documentation on each bindle, there is really no way to identify these otherwise unidentifiable swatches?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: The bindles were marked.
MR. NEUFELD: Now, Miss Mazzola, when you--sorry?
MR. NEUFELD: One moment.
(Brief pause.)
MR. NEUFELD: With respect to every bindle, Miss Mazzola, that you personally folded and packaged on the morning of June 14th, didn't you write your own initials on those bindles?
MS. MAZZOLA: On the opinions themselves?
MR. NEUFELD: Yes.
MS. MAZZOLA: No. The item number.
MR. NEUFELD: Page 768, your Honor, line 19 to line 22.
THE COURT: Do you have that, Mr. Goldberg?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, again referring you to the August 23rd, 1994 hearing when you testified under oath, were you asked the following question, did you give the following answer? "Question: And you also believe that the bindles that you packed that morning were also initialed by you? "Answer: That's correct." did you give that answer to that question just two months after or two and a half months after you were involved in packaging bindles on June 14th?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And that's because on August 23rd, when you testified in this case, it was your belief that you had in fact initialed the bindles that you had prepared the morning of the 14th; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And the reason that you would put your initials--I'm sorry. The reason that you would put your initials on these bindles is because you had learned that technique from watching other criminalists at the crime scenes that you had been present at; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And that you learned from these other criminalists, Miss Mazzola, that whenever you personally create a bindle, you write your initials on the outside; isn't that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And isn't it true, Miss Mazzola, that you were simply following the same procedure that you had seen these other criminalists use on the morning of the 14th?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Isn't it a fact, Miss Mazzola, that all the bindles that you initialed were put back in the original coin envelopes on the morning of the 14th?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did not initial any bindles.
MR. NEUFELD: You're saying that your testimony, your sworn testimony of August 23rd is wrong?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Is that what you're saying?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Were you taught, Miss Mazzola, that to demonstrate a reliable chain of custody, the original paper bindles created the morning of June 14th, 1994 are retained for trial? Have you been taught that?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not really, no.
MR. NEUFELD: Have you been taught that by keeping the original bindles, that the police can show that the swatches sent out to other labs come from the original bindle that the evidence was placed in?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not know that.
MR. NEUFELD: Were you taught at any point, Miss Mazzola, that at trial, by placing one's initials on the original bindle, it can be identified by a criminalist as the same bindle that that criminalist folded and personally placed evidence in on a particular date?
MS. MAZZOLA: I was not told that, no.
MR. NEUFELD: Were you told that one reason to retain the original bindles is to refute an allegation that the original evidence had been tampered with?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Have you been told that the practice of saving original bindles is a standard practice of the Los Angeles Police Department?
MS. MAZZOLA: I had not been told that, no.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, Miss Mazzola, what I would like you to do now, looking at the envelopes that are in front of you, the coin envelopes, I would like you to produce those paper bindles that in your sworn testimony of August 23rd you claimed had your initials written on them.
MR. GOLDBERG: Unintelligible.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, when was the first time you learned that the paper bindles that the Prosecution intended to introduce in this case did not have your initials on them?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, would you please now look through those envelopes and show this jury which if any of those bindles have your initials on them?
MS. MAZZOLA: As I said before, they do not have my initials on them.
MR. NEUFELD: And you know that, Miss Mazzola, because before this jury walked in here today, you opened each and every one of those coin envelopes, didn't you?
MS. MAZZOLA: I had known that my initials were not on the bindles before today.
MR. NEUFELD: When was it that you first learned that your initials were not on the coin--on the bindles, Miss Mazzola?
MS. MAZZOLA: It was sometime ago.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, was it after August 23rd, Miss Mazzola?
MS. MAZZOLA: It was after, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Was it during one of the prep sessions with the Prosecutors that you learned that, Miss Mazzola?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, I do not believe so.
MR. NEUFELD: Was it one of your superiors at the--at SID who first brought that to your attention?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Was it another employee at SID who brought that to your attention?
MS. MAZZOLA: I do not believe it was other employee who brought it to my attention.
MR. NEUFELD: Were you shown photographs of those bindles?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: One moment.
(Brief pause.)
MR. NEUFELD: Who was it that first brought it to your attention that the bindles that the Prosecution was saying were the original bindles did not have your initials on them?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: I had seen a few of the bindles in serology, and they did not have my initials on them.
MR. NEUFELD: And when was that approximately?
MS. MAZZOLA: I can't tell you approximately. I don't remember the date.
MR. NEUFELD: When you say you saw a few of the bindles, approximately how many bindles did you see?
MS. MAZZOLA: I can't remember the exact number or even approximate number.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, you said--
MS. MAZZOLA: It was some bindles.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. But as you know, Miss Mazzola, there were at least 30 or 40 bindles generated in this case, correct, by you on the 13th and 14th?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, would you agree, Miss Mazzola, that there were more than 25 bindles generated by bloodstain evidence in this case?
MS. MAZZOLA: I did not count them.
MR. NEUFELD: Would you please take a quick look at your notes? Maybe that will refresh your recollection as to how many blood stain bindles were generated in this case.
(The witness complies.)
MS. MAZZOLA: It's approximately 35.
MR. NEUFELD: And you said you saw a few in serology one day; is that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: By the way, you're not assigned to serology. You're assigned to toxicology; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: Were you brought over to serology to look at some of the bindles that had been collected in this particular case?
MS. MAZZOLA: I was not brought over, no.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, why were you looking at some of the bindles in this case in the serology laboratory?
MS. MAZZOLA: Because I had gone over there to look at them.
MR. NEUFELD: And had someone asked you to come over to look at them?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, how did you know that these bindles were out on the counter in the serology laboratory?
MS. MAZZOLA: I saw them as I was passing by.
MR. NEUFELD: You mean--how big is the lab--the serology laboratory, Miss Mazzola?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, would you agree that it's certainly longer than the width of this courtroom, the entire serology laboratory?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't go into serology a lot. I couldn't tell you honestly.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, just approximate. Would you say it's almost as long as this room?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know.
MR. NEUFELD: Is it at least half the size of this room, Miss Mazzola?
MS. MAZZOLA: At least half the length, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And there are many different work spaces in there?
MS. MAZZOLA: There are the main table down the middle, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: And that table runs the entire length of the room, doesn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not the entire length, no.
MR. NEUFELD: And there are work stations around the perimeter of the room as well?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know if those are work stations or not.
MR. NEUFELD: Just one moment.
(Brief pause.)
MR. NEUFELD: And, Miss Mazzola, the bindles that you're talking about are about this size that I'm showing you right now (Indicating)?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm referring to bindles in People's exhibit 1630-d.
THE COURT: Approximately inch by inch and a half, two inches.
MR. NEUFELD: And is it your testimony that you just happened to be walking through this room and you noticed that a couple of the bindles that were on the counter somewhere happened to be from your case? Is that what you're saying?
MS. MAZZOLA: I had seen them out, people working, and I went in to see.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, did you go in to see because you knew that people were working on the bindles in this case? Is that the reason you went into serology?
MS. MAZZOLA: I saw they were working on something. I went in to check out what it was.
MR. NEUFELD: You mean you had no idea that what they were working on was this particular case?
MS. MAZZOLA: They work on several cases.
MR. NEUFELD: They work on hundreds of cases, don't they?
MS. MAZZOLA: Probably hundreds, yes.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. But you walked in thinking that perhaps they were working on the serology of this particular case. Isn't that fair to say?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: That's what peeked your interest, isn't it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: But you said earlier that you had no particular interest in this case, didn't you, Miss Mazzola?
MS. MAZZOLA: I had seen my colleagues working on it. I thought it was this case. So I just went in to see what they were working on. That's it.
MR. NEUFELD: And the reason you went in to see what they were working on is because you wanted to see work going on in the case that you participated in; isn't that right?
MS. MAZZOLA: Not the actual work. I just was interested in what they were doing.
MR. NEUFELD: Who were the colleagues you saw working on it that day?
MS. MAZZOLA: Oh, I can't remember. This was a while ago.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, was this the--this is after August 23rd though, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And you don't remember which serologists were working on it that day?
MR. GOLDBERG: This is asked and answered. Badgering.
THE COURT: The probative value of this line of questioning I think has been exhausted.
MR. NEUFELD: All right.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, but needless to say, they were not working--I'm sorry. How many different bindles did you say were created in this case. Was it 35 or thereabouts?
MS. MAZZOLA: Those--
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to this case.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: What does he mean? Just those items on 13?
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NEUFELD: You testified a moment ago to a certain number and I don't recall the number. Could you remember it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Those were the number of--the item numbers with red stains that were picked up.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And would it be fair to say that simply from--since Mr. Fung collected many of these bindles or performed many of these bindles and you made many--some of the bindles, that just seeing some bindles not having your initials on them would not necessarily be surprising, would it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: I mean accepting your testimony on August 23rd, one would expect to see your initials on some of the bindles and Dennis Fung's initials on other bindles, correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. NEUFELD: So simply seeing Dennis Fung's initials on some bindles that they were working on in the serology laboratory on a date after August 23rd did not cause you any alarm, did it?
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained. Counsel, we've cover this area.
MR. NEUFELD: Miss Mazzola, did you realize at some point that based on your August 23rd testimony, that if the Prosecutors could not produce the original bindles that you claimed you had initials, that that could be devastating?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained. The jury is to disregard the implication of that question. All right. Counsel, we're going to take a 10-minute--
MR. NEUFELD: I'm through.
THE COURT: You're through?
MR. NEUFELD: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. We're still going to take a 10-minute recess, and we'll conclude with Mr. Goldberg. I would like to finish this witness today. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take a brief 10-minute recess. Remember all my admonitions to you. Miss Mazzola, you may step down. We will reconvene in 10 minutes. And let's restaple 116.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open Court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. Let's have the jurors, please.
(Brief pause.)
(The following proceedings were held in open Court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect we have now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Ms. Mazzola is again on the witness stand. Miss Mazzola, good afternoon again. And you are reminded you are still under oath. And Mr. Goldberg, you may commence and conclude your redirect examination.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, your Honor. I don't think I will be too long, hopefully.
THE COURT: All right.
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG
MR. GOLDBERG: Good afternoon, Miss Mazzola?
MS. MAZZOLA: Good afternoon.
MR. GOLDBERG: Ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
MR. GOLDBERG: Miss Mazzola, as to the coin envelopes that you were asked about on cross-examination by the Defense attorney, did you open up and look in every single one of these coin envelopes today?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And where did you do that?
MS. MAZZOLA: Here in the courtroom.
MR. GOLDBERG: Who was present when you did that?
MS. MAZZOLA: The Prosecution and the Defense.
MR. GOLDBERG: Was this something that was done on the record but outside the presence of the jury?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you take a look at the bindles that were in each one of those coin envelopes?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you did that, did you recognize the bindles in each one of the coin envelopes?
MS. MAZZOLA: I recognize them as to the item numbers.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you recognize the writing on the numbers as being either yours or Dennis Fung's?
MS. MAZZOLA: For the item numbers, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And on many of them did you recognize Dennis Fung's initials?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't remember if I saw his initials or not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Let's take one of these items as an example, item no. 47, if I may. I'm not going to go through all of these now, but I would like her just to remove from item no. 47--
THE COURT: Certainly. Proceed.
MS. MAZZOLA: Gloves?
THE COURT: Do you need gloves?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
(Brief pause.)
MS. MAZZOLA: Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, did you want to have her put something down on the Court's--
THE COURT: Please. Why don't you clear that box off, Mr. Goldberg, for us. There is--why don't you had me the towels--I mean the glove box. Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Thank you. All right. Evidence item 47 appears to be comprised of three coin envelopes stapled together.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, maybe you can just hold that up for the jury so that they can see it.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, you will have to stand back.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, this appears to have quite a bit of writing on it. Did it have all that writing on it when you created the bindle initially?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you tell us what writing was on it at the time that the bindle was originally created?
MS. MAZZOLA: On this particular bindle the number "112" and the initials "D.F."
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you recognize that to be Dennis Fung's initials?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor. I don't believe she is competent to testify that Dennis Fung's initials--that Dennis Fung created that bindle.
THE COURT: Overruled. The question was do you recognize Dennis Fung's initials? Yes or no?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. That is where it stands.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you and Mr. Fung were processing these, was it--was he writing on the bindles that he was creating and you were writing on the bindle that you were creating?
MS. MAZZOLA: At the time I thought I was writing on the bindles I was creating.
MR. GOLDBERG: I mean the item number?
MS. MAZZOLA: The item number, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you went through these various items, did you recognize them to be the original bindles that were created by you and Mr. Fung?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection as to when.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: On the 14th?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you recognize them?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, maybe you can replace item no. 47 into that coin envelope.
MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Tell us what you are doing for the record.
MS. MAZZOLA: Just placing the bindle back into the coin envelope.
MR. GOLDBERG: And before we move on to the next bindle in item no. 47, do you see the original coin envelope into which the item was placed on the 13th when it was collected?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you hold that up so the jurors can see.
MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.)
THE COURT: All right. Is the actual writing on that important on the face of that?
MR. GOLDBERG: Umm--
THE COURT: I'm not sure that 1492 can see that.
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe we should put that on the elmo. Can you just detach that from the remaining coin envelope so I don't heat up the other remaining items.
(Brief pause.)
MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.)
MR. GOLDBERG: This is the original coin envelope into which item no. 47 was placed?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: When it was swatched at the scene on June 13th?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you were asked about photo documenting these items. Was this particular coin envelope photo documented in any way on the 13th?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it was.
MR. GOLDBERG: How was that?
MS. MAZZOLA: This particular coin envelope, photo item 112, was the actual photo i.d. Card at the scene for item 112.
MR. GOLDBERG: So if we looked at the photograph for item no. 47 that was taken at the Bundy location, we would actually see this photo i.d. No. 112?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why is this particular coin envelope folded?
MS. MAZZOLA: Because it was folded to be used as the actual photo i.d. Card.
MR. GOLDBERG: And have you recognized, when you looked at the photo i.d. Numbers that were placed on the Bundy trail, for instance, were you able to recognize those were in fact the coin envelopes into which the items were placed?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, at the upper portion of this coin envelope there is something that says "DR" and then there is a number on it. What is that?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is the DR number that is assigned to each particular case, scene, sample that we get into toxicology.
MR. GOLDBERG: And was this assigned and put on there when they were processed on the 14th?
MS. MAZZOLA: No. That is bought usually by the detectives that are in charge.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And the item no. 47, when is that placed on the envelope?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is the property i.d. Number. That was placed on this particular one would be on the 14th.
MR. GOLDBERG: And the "112" was placed at the scene?
MS. MAZZOLA: The "112" was placed at the scene.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would like to take a look at another exhibit that is already marked as People's 48-b for identification, but I would like to put it up, if we can, simultaneously.
THE COURT: All right.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Directing your attention to People's 48-b, what is that?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is item 112.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And can we alternate now back to the coin envelope, item 48. May we can just do that a couple more times? Is that possible?
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Can we put those next to each other? Thanks.
MR. GOLDBERG: So taking a look now at the card no. 47 and the photograph that depicts a card no. 112, are those the same object?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, they are.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you got back to the laboratory the item no. 47 and the photo i.d. Was added?
MS. MAZZOLA: Right, back at the laboratory.
MR. GOLDBERG: And then the DR number?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, at the time that you testified at the griffin hearing you were under the impression that you had initialed the coin envelope and the bindles--excuse me--the coin envelope in the field; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And I know we discussed this a little bit on direct examination, but why is it that you believe that to be the case?
MS. MAZZOLA: Because at the previous scene that I had done, my first scene, that is the way the criminalist at that scene did it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And why is it that you did not do that in that particular way on the 13th?
MS. MAZZOLA: Because Mr. Fung said we would be working as a team. There was only two of us, and it had to be picked up by either one of us.
MR. GOLDBERG: And similarly, you believed, at the time of the griffin hearing, that you had initialed the coin envelope that you created; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why did you believe that?
MS. MAZZOLA: Because again, that was the way it had been done at the first scene I had gone to and I believe that I had done it on the 13th.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And is it your understanding, based upon your training as a criminalist, that what individualizes the bindles in the coin envelope is the handwriting number that is placed on by the criminalist at the time that they are created?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: What is your understanding as a criminalist with respect to what individualizes the bindles that are created by the criminalist?
MS. MAZZOLA: It is the item numbers that are important, because the item number on the bindle ties it to the item number of, say, the blood stain that was collected.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, maybe we can take a look at the other bindle that is contained in item no. 47.
MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe you can hold that one up for the jury.
MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.) it is a little hard to see.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does that have some writing on it?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it does.
MR. GOLDBERG: What writing is that?
MS. MAZZOLA: It has several initials, some dates and 112-c.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And is it the "112-c" what was placed on there by Mr. Fung on the 14th?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it was.
MR. NEUFELD: Objection as to what was placed on by Mr. Fung.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, you and Mr. Fung were working on these together; is that correct?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Whose is 112-c is that?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor, improper foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you recognize Mr. Fung's writing?
MS. MAZZOLA: Somewhat.
MR. GOLDBERG: And were you there when these were created?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you recognize whose writing is on that 112-c?
MS. MAZZOLA: It is not mine; it is Mr. Fung's.
MR. NEUFELD: Objection. Move to strike the last answer.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, the other writing that was put on there, was that at some subsequent time by other people?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: No foundation for that. The answer is stricken. The jury is to disregard it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, did you see that writing being put on there?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. You can replace this item.
MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: At the time that you were working on them was any of the other writing on there other than the 112-c?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. You can replace that item.
MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.)
MS. MAZZOLA: Seals.
MR. GOLDBERG: She doesn't have any seals.
THE COURT: All right. With regards to this item, I will direct Mrs. Robertson to restaple and reseal.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: As to the writing that was on the bindle, did you recognize any of that as being writing from other people in your laboratory?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believed I recognized a few of the initials.
MR. GOLDBERG: Were there any--was there any writing on the item that appeared to be from people that were from an outside lab that you did not recognize?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Have you replaced those?
THE COURT: Yes, she has.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you say that at one point you went into the serology laboratory and saw some of the bindles that you and Mr. Fung created in this case?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are you allowed as a criminalist--
MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor, as to the last portion of the question. It assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are you allowed into the serology laboratory?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: You have access to this as a criminalist?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are the people who work in serology your colleagues?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know--are you on a friendly basis with those people?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is there any lab policy or rule that prohibits you from going into serology and talking with colleagues?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you brought the items back from the Bundy and Rockingham location on the evening of the 13th, how did you get into the evidence processing room?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe we--one of us entered the evidence processing room and opened the large outer door.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you open the large outer door from the exterior of the facility?
MS. MAZZOLA: We cannot.
MR. GOLDBERG: So you have to go in and go through the evidence processing room first?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: What is this large outer door in the evidence processing room?
MS. MAZZOLA: It is a large heavy-duty metal door that is electric that can be rolled up to gain access to the room.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And when you went in through the large metal doors, did you bring the items with you, you and Mr. Fung?
MS. MAZZOLA: That is how we brought them into the room, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did anyone else go in there with you?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is it possible that maybe some person ran in there and snuck into the evidence possessing room and then hid until you and Mr. Fung left?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection, leading and speculative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, did you see anyone scurry into the room and hide waiting for you and Mr. Fung to leave?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And when you left the evidence processing room were the doors closed?
MS. MAZZOLA: The door was closed.
MR. GOLDBERG: And locked?
MS. MAZZOLA: And locked, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in order to get into this door in the evidence processing room, do you need any kind of key or electronic device?
MS. MAZZOLA: It is operated by a computer lock. We have an i.d. Card that we must put over the lock for the door to unlock.
MR. GOLDBERG: I wanted to take a look at the evidence drying--evidence drying board.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: I think it is People's 170 for identification.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you happen to have that key card with you that you use?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: Don't worry, we won't mark it as an exhibit, but maybe we could just--
MS. MAZZOLA: Please don't.
THE COURT: Would you describe that for the record, please, Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. She appears to be holding a plastic card that appears to be about a quarter of an inch in width. It seems to have a bar code sticker on one side and is approximately two-and-a-half inches by three-and-a-half inches.
MR. GOLDBERG: People's 170.
THE COURT: All right. People's 170.
MR. GOLDBERG: Miss Mazzola, maybe you could just step down for a moment.
MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Does People's 170 depict most of the major steps that are involved in the evidence drying process?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it does.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you were talking about how Mr. Fung was manipulating the swatches into the tubes in order to set them out for drying. Is that depicted on this board?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is that cell no. 2?
MS. MAZZOLA: It is no. 2, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when he did that--when he did that in your presence, do his hands ever come into contact with the swatch?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, it did not.
MR. GOLDBERG: After he does that what does he--
MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor, and move to strike; no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: And after he does that, what does he do with the test-tube?
MS. MAZZOLA: The test tube is placed back into the coin envelope corresponding to the item number.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is the same thing then done for the control swatch?
MS. MAZZOLA: Identical same thing.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you were working on these items on the evening of the 14th, do you simply line up all the coin envelopes in a big row and then into an assembly line fashion go from envelope to envelope?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why don't you do it that way?
MS. MAZZOLA: It is just as easy to work on one at a time. It is safer to work on one item at a time. Put that completely finished in the box before moving on to the next one.
MR. GOLDBERG: What advantages are there to working on one item at a time in terms of making it safer?
MS. MAZZOLA: You decrease the risk of putting swatches mixed up, getting your numbers mixed up, possibility that two swatches from two different items would come into contact with each other or the same surface.
MR. GOLDBERG: So you are only processing one item at a time?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And after this item is processed and both the control and swatches are in their respective test-tubes and in the coin envelope, what happens to the coin envelope?
MS. MAZZOLA: The coin envelopes are placed in a shallow cardboard box for security. We hold them together.
MR. GOLDBERG: And where does this box go?
MS. MAZZOLA: The box goes into a cabinet where the swatches are allowed to dry overnight.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you. Now, I would like to take a look the People's 171. It is the evidence packaging board.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Which item is this?
MR. GOLDBERG: This is People's 171 for identification.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Miss Mazzola, directing your attention to People's 171, does this depict most of the steps that are involved in the evidence packaging portion of the possessing phase?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you were talking about placing the items on a bindle, is that depicted here?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And which photo i.d. Number is that?
MS. MAZZOLA: Photo 1.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And how are the swatches placed on the bindle?
MS. MAZZOLA: They are placed on the bindle using a long glass pipette.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you also do that simply by tapping the test-tube on to the bindle itself?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Either way?
MS. MAZZOLA: Either way.
MR. GOLDBERG: What happens to the pipette after you have used the pipette technique?
MS. MAZZOLA: The pipette is thrown away.
MR. GOLDBERG: And the test tube?
MS. MAZZOLA: The test-tube is also thrown away.
MR. GOLDBERG: What happens after those items are thrown away?
MS. MAZZOLA: The bindles are folded up and the flaps are tucked in to secure it.
MR. GOLDBERG: And then what is done with the bindle?
MS. MAZZOLA: The item number is placed on the bindle to distinguish it from any other bindle.
MR. GOLDBERG: And do you also place a number to distinguish the control or a little "C" to distinguish the control from the swatch?
MS. MAZZOLA: Most people do, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Then what is done with the bindles?
MS. MAZZOLA: The bindles are placed back into the original coin envelopes and the envelopes are then sealed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with this procedure do you do this in an assembly line fashion?
MS. MAZZOLA: No, one at a time.
MR. GOLDBERG: And again, why is it that you only work on one item at a time?
MS. MAZZOLA: For the same reasons as before.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you. You may resume your seat.
MS. MAZZOLA: (Witness complies.)
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you were asked about looking at photographs in order to refresh your recollection, and specifically item no. 47, I think it was photo i.d. No. 112?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you looked at a photograph that refreshed your recollection, was that a close-up or a perspective shot?
MS. MAZZOLA: It was a perspective shot.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what did it show?
MS. MAZZOLA: It showed the location of item 112 at the scene.
MR. GOLDBERG: What was it about that item, if anything, that was--that stood out in your memory?
MS. MAZZOLA: Well, it was the first blood drop on the trail at Bundy.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you same the trail, you are talking about the series of dots that started on the walkway and ended in the area of the driveway?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what was it about that--the location of that drop, if anything, that caused you to recall that Mr. Fung had participated in swatching that particular stain?
MS. MAZZOLA: Well, the fact that it was the first--
MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor. It is beyond the scope at this point, I believe my area of recross.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: It was the first drop at the trail and it was also at the corner of the house in the front.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you were asked some questions about the blood vial containing the reference sample of the Defendant. Did you ever touch that blood vial?
MS. MAZZOLA: The blood vial itself, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you ever recall touching the envelope itself?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't believe I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: So did you ever handle the blood vial?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: And to your knowledge did you ever handle the envelope?
MS. MAZZOLA: To the best that I can recall, no.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: I just want to go back to item no. 47 for a second that you looked at the photograph in order to refresh your recollection. Could you see in that perspective shot where the blood drop was in relationship to the corner of the building?
MS. MAZZOLA: Somewhat, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: In other words, could you see the placement of the drop?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: The relative position of the drop?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: And is that--was it viewing that that caused you to refresh your recollection as to that drop?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection, pleading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: What was it that caused your recollection to become refreshed as to that drop, when you saw the photograph?
MS. MAZZOLA: The fact that it was the first drop on the trail and its position right in the front at the corner of the house.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, going back to the blood vial for a second, was it your belief, when you testified at the griffin hearing, that you had left shortly after five o'clock?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why did you believe that?
MS. MAZZOLA: Because that is the time that I thought we had left. It did not seem that a long period of time had gone by.
MR. GOLDBERG: When did you discover that that was not the case?
MS. MAZZOLA: When Mr. Fung told me to write down that he had received the blood vial and the time.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, on either the 13th or the 14th did you ever have any reason to believe that the issues relating to when and where and how that blood vial and its packaging was recovered would be important?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Or that there would be any kind of allegations of wrongdoing in connection with the blood vial by the defendants or by--
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, with respect to item no. 15 and 16, when did you put those items on the crime scene identification checklist?
MS. MAZZOLA: I believe it was the next day on the 14th.
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe I can see I think it is Defense 1107.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: While they are getting that, I also wanted to take another look at a portion of People's 186, the scene showing Miss Mazzola placing stuff--items in the back of the LAPD crime scene identification--crime scene truck.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Is this the one with the time code on it?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
THE COURT: How many times do you think it is necessary for us to see that?
MR. GOLDBERG: I don't know. It seems to come up over and over again. We are only going to see a little snippet of it, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you have it cued up?
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe we could fast forward a little bit just up to the point where they put the item in the back of the truck.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Let's just go a little bit further.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Let's stop for a second.
(At 3:45 P.M., Defense exhibit 1107, a videotape, was played.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Have you see your hands and Mr. Fung's hands in this frame 17:11:57:28?
MS. MAZZOLA: I can see Mr. Fung's hands and one of mine, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Let's go a little bit further and take a look at your hands and Mr. Fung's hands. We don't have to go in slow motion.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. That's fine. Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, were either you or Mr. Fung carrying anything back into the Rockingham location when you left the crime scene truck after you had placed the kits and also the items of evidence in the rear of the truck?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: So did you have your crime scene identification checklist?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you have anything at that time that you could use to fill out and record the locations of item no. 15 and 16?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you have any of your coin envelopes with you or any packaging materials with you at that time?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Well, Miss Mazzola, you say that you don't have--didn't have your crime scene identification checklist or any coin envelopes. Could you have hidden your crime scene identification checklist in the coin envelope in your sock?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, did you hide them somewhere on your person so that you could produce them later on when you got back to Rockingham?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection, relevance.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you see Mr. Fung doing that?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, I would like to take a look at Defense 1107. Maybe we can see 15 and 16 a little bit better at the bottom. Okay. That's fine.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, on 15 and 16, did you write counsel any measurements as to where the items were actually located?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you have your measuring tape with you at the time?
MS. MAZZOLA: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: With respect to the other items that were collected at Rockingham that are contained on this list, maybe we can just take a look at item no. 1. Starting with no. 1, that is the stain that was contained on the Bronco?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And even for that you have some measurements?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you do measurements for the other items that are contained on this list, including a, b and c which a and b which were not collected?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: So the only ones that you don't have measurements for are 15 and 16?
MS. MAZZOLA: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why is that?
MS. MAZZOLA: We didn't have our measuring tape with us.
MR. GOLDBERG: So when did you place the notations as to where those items were located?
MS. MAZZOLA: When we placed the items themselves on the identification checklist.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you said when you were walking out with the plastic bag that it appeared that the weight was concentrated on a part of the bag. What did you mean by that part of your testimony.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. I don't believe that was her testimony.
MR. GOLDBERG: I think she did.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you recall testifying in substance that the weight was concentrated in one part of the bag?
MR. NEUFELD: Objection, your Honor. It is a leading question also.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Was the weight concentrated in one part of the bag?
MS. MAZZOLA: It appeared to be heavier in one area.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. What do you mean by that?
MS. MAZZOLA: Well, if it was item 15, 16 and the photo i.d. Cards, there really--they really didn't weigh that much, and the weight I felt tended to be on--in one area rather than spread out over the whole bag.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the photo i.d. Cards at the Rockingham location, is it your general practice that after the items are collected, the stains, the card would be lifted up?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you recall seeing a segment of videotape that showed Mr. Fung lifting up some cards in what appears to be the afternoon?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know whether those were cards a, b and c?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know for sure which ones they were, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you know for sure whether all the cards were down in the afternoon?
MS. MAZZOLA: I don't know.
MR. GOLDBERG: May I just have one moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I just wanted to show one more photograph.
MR. NEUFELD: Can we see it, please?
MR. GOLDBERG: I think it is already in evidence.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm sorry, I can't--
THE COURT: Which number is this, Mr. Goldberg?
MR. GOLDBERG: It is 48-a.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. GOLDBERG: I direct your attention to 48-a for identification. Does that depict photo i.d. No. 112, item no. 48?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes, it does.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is this the perspective shot that you were referring to?
MS. MAZZOLA: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. I have nothing further.
MR. NEUFELD: One moment, your Honor.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: No further questions.
THE COURT: Thank you. All right. Miss Mazzola, I'm going to ask you to collect the items before you, return them to Mrs. Robertson, the clerk. You are now excused as a witness, however, you are subject to recall. All right. All right. Counsel, given the time that we have expended today before the jury, I think we are going to call it quits for today. All right. I do have a few matters I want to take up with counsel, though, before we leave. All right. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you very much. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. Do not discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any opinions about the case, conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regards to the case. And have a pleasant weekend. I think I mentioned to you that we have other commitments tomorrow, counsel and myself. We will not be in session, as far as witnesses are concerned, tomorrow. We will start again promptly Monday morning, nine o'clock, and we are going to have a full week of testimony next week. So I will see you next week. Have a pleasant weekend, enjoy the outings. All right. And Miss Mazzola, you may step down, and would you take those items, please, over to Mrs. Robertson.
(Brief pause.)
(At 4:55 P.M. the jury was excused and the following proceedings were held in open Court:)
THE COURT: Let the record reflect that the jurors have all gone from the courtroom. Counsel, I have issued an order with regards to item 1, evidence item 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52, that those items are to be returned to the Scientific Investigation Division of the Los Angeles Police Department, kept in storage by them and returned to the Court upon notice by the clerk. Let me ask counsel, I understand that we are going to have Mr. Matheson as our next witness. All right. Are we going to need any of these items for him tomorrow?
MR. GOLDBERG: Do I need any of these items for him tomorrow?
THE COURT: Correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: You mean Monday?
THE COURT: Excuse me, Monday.
MR. GOLDBERG: I don't think I need them.
THE COURT: Mr.--who is going to be doing--Mr. Blasier doing the cross-examination as to Mr. Matheson?
MR. BLASIER: I am, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you anticipate need of these for cross-examination?
MR. BLASIER: I don't at this time but could I request the Prosecution have available photographs of those items in case we do need photographs to refer to?
MR. GOLDBERG: Is it okay if Miss Mazzola returns those to the crime laboratory?
THE COURT: Yes. She is so ordered.
MS. MAZZOLA: Thank you.
THE COURT: They are in a sealed condition now, Mrs. Robertson?
THE CLERK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, did you hear Mr. Blasier's comment regarding the availability of photographs as to these items?
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: Did you hear Mr. Blasier's request regarding the availability of photographs of these items?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I think we probably have photographs of all of these items because they were sent out to the Defense in Albany and photographs were taken at those times, so they should have all of them. I do not know if we have photographs of the bindles of all of those items.
MR. BLASIER: We are certainly won't need them Monday. I understand Mr. Goldberg is going to take at least a day for Mr. Matheson.
THE COURT: All right. Well, whoever needs the photographs ought to have them here. Do you have a set of photographs, Mr. Blasier?
MR. BLASIER: I'm not sure we have all.
MR. GOLDBERG: There are voluminous sets of photographs.
THE COURT: I understand.
MR. GOLDBERG: And it takes some going through to find them, but I think they are all there.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. We had one other item regarding the EAP, issues on the demonstration board for Mr. Matheson. Let's take that up now.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, your Honor, I don't know whether the Court had a chance to read our letter brief that we filed.
THE COURT: When did that get filed?
MR. GOLDBERG: I think that was just today.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: Well, in case you hadn't noticed, I have been busy.
MR. GOLDBERG: I know, your Honor. That is why I assume the Court wouldn't have probably had an opportunity--
THE COURT: No, I have not seen it.
MR. GOLDBERG: There are--
THE COURT: All right. I will read it. All right. Are there any other issues that we can resolve?
MR. GOLDBERG: Is the Court going to read it before we have any further argument on that?
THE COURT: If you want me to read it, I will read it.
MR. GOLDBERG: I would appreciate it.
THE COURT: I will read it.
MR. BLASIER: I would like to respond to it. I can do that in writing over the weekend if you like.
THE COURT: How about tomorrow, by tomorrow morning? You can fax it to me.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. BLASIER: I will do that.
MR. GOLDBERG: But there were will some other--
THE COURT: I will be here. I have a session regarding this case tomorrow morning at nine o'clock, so I will be here.
MR. GOLDBERG: There are also some other issues regarding EAP that I wanted to raise and I didn't have an opportunity before the close of yesterday's session.
THE COURT: All right. Well, let me ask counsel to be here then on Monday at 8:30.
MR. BLASIER: You do not want any argument tomorrow however? I mean, I will be here if you--
THE COURT: Why don't you file your documents. The reason we are not going to be in session is because I have got other things, other cases, other things to do tomorrow.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
THE COURT: But if you file whatever you want, then I will consider it over the weekend and do any research that I need to do.
MR. GOLDBERG: I know when we talked about this last time the Court suggested that you wanted to hear Mr. Matheson testify outside the presence of the jury in a 402 hearing, not yesterday but the time before that. I don't know whether the Court still desires that. It is somewhat of an involved issue in that I think once the Court understands the technology and the scientific issues, that the legal issue will become absolutely crystal clear, and perhaps the Court would want that testimony first, because I don't know whether I have adequately explained what our position is and why it is that we feel we are entitled to prevail.
THE COURT: Well, as I have indicated to you, I will read your letter brief, I will read the cases that you have cited, and I will read the response from Mr. Blasier and then we will see where we are at 8:30 on Monday. Anything else on the anticipate issue? Mr. Scheck?
MR. SCHECK: A brief request that I will think will save us time in the long run. I understand they have changed the order of the witnesses now because we anticipated Mr. Yamauchi and now we have Mr. Matheson and I have been further informed that the Prosecution intends to then start with DNA witnesses and we have been given a lead time of three days. The problem is, is that the DNA evidence is so voluminous, as of ten days ago we got a 200-page handwritten set of notes from DOJ and I must confess I haven't read them yet. What we would request is that we be given more advanced notice, just we want to know which labs are coming first so we can be preparing this weekend, because if we get that kind of advance notice, then it will go faster. Frankly, given the voluminous data, the continuing results that are coming in, we don't want to be in the a position where we would have to turn to the Court and ask for some extra time. That would be the last thing we would want to do, because I want to go home. So I think it would expedite everything if we could have--just as far as the DNA issues because it is so dense--that we get more advanced notice with respect to which set of tests and witnesses are coming first.
THE COURT: Refresh my recollection as to what our specific agreement was regarding prior notice as to the witnesses? Was it the next--
MR. COCHRAN: Three days of witnesses. They have changed the order of witnesses.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I advised them that I changed the order of witnesses on Thursday of last week and I expected Mr. Matheson to be testifying.
MR. SCHECK: Well--
THE COURT: Well, let me just ask, so I can also get prepared myself, who do you anticipate for our DNA witnesses? Have you set an order yet? Mr. Clarke?
MR. CLARKE: Yes, your Honor. I believe the first witness will be DR Cotton from cellmark who will testify to the results in the series of reports that cellmark has already issued.
THE COURT: Who do you anticipate after that?
MR. CLARKE: Then the Department of Justice.
THE COURT: All right. Who do you anticipate coming from the DOJ?
MR. CLARKE: At this point would it appear--
THE COURT: I take it California DOJ?
MR. CLARKE: Correct. Gary Sims as well as Renee Montgomery.
THE COURT: All right. Who do you anticipate after that?
THE CLERK: Mr. Yamauchi most likely.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHECK: The only other thing that we would indicate, that the previous order of witnesses had included the nurse, Mr. Peratis, and Mr. Yamauchi, which we regard as chain of custody witnesses and foundational witnesses with respect to the blood, particularly the blood vial, which is obviously of greatest interest to the Defense. They must have some--
THE COURT: It would seem to make some logical sense, yeah, you are right.
MR. SCHECK: So they--we obviously would request and maybe they can brief it, if they want, but we think that certainly the nurse's testimony should come in before they start introducing the test results.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, as to the nurse's testimony, Mr. Vannatter testified already that he saw the blood being drawn and that he dropped it off to Dennis Fung. There is no further foundation. Even if the Court were to require us to put it on in some particular order, there is no further foundation that is necessary.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor--your Honor--
THE COURT: Well, the issue here, first of all, is notice to the Defense as to who is coming. Mr. Clarke, my guess is that you have just given to us three weeks worth of witnesses.
MR. CLARKE: That depends on cross-examination.
MR. GOLDBERG: They told us that the chain of custody witnesses were going to take a week. That is what we were told.
MS. CLARK: Right.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I have one concern about the last words of Mr. Goldberg's, which is that it is our position, as it has been all along, no surprise that we have been challenging the chain of custody and we are challenging that there is not a proper foundation, which is for some of these DNA test results to come in. And I think you yourself said, even in your ruling, that no matter what the ruling was on the Kelly-Frye issues, that the People still have to lay the proper foundation before any witness can testify to results. And I don't believe it is just the New York rule, your Honor, I'm sure it is a California rule and a rule in every jurisdiction in this country, as a matter of foundation, you introduce the blood into evidence before you can have anybody testify to what the results are with the blood. Introduce the narcotics into evidence before a technician can testify to the results.
THE COURT: Well, counsel, the issue hasn't been presented to me yet. I don't have to rule on it. The issue here is Mr. Scheck asked who is coming next. He knows. You can take whatever action you feel is appropriate in light of that information.
MR. NEUFELD: Just so that the People are on notice we will object to any testimony about results, for instance, results of a DNA profile or a conventional serological profile attributed to Mr. Simpson, until the blood is introduced in evidence, and the same will apply to swatches allegedly sent to these laboratories by--
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Any other swatches or anything else? At least the person who collected it. It has to be introduced.
THE COURT: All right. Well, you are tipping off what your objections are going to be and we will see what happens when we get there.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. BLASIER: One final thing, your Honor. The People filed a brief today also about there was no statement of fact, but the subject matter was introducing police reports in lieu of having witnesses testify as business records.
THE COURT: Something to do with lab reports, yes, I saw that.
MR. BLASIER: And we are very concerned about what it is they intend introduce that way. We will have certain objections and we would appreciate some sort of an offer as to what it is they intend to introduce this way so they can make the appropriate objections.
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg, that was your handiwork, citing your own handiwork?
MR. GOLDBERG: I had my able assistant put that together for me. Your Honor, what we are going to do is we are going to put on every piece of evidence and every test result through a single witness from LAPD and we are not going to call any other witnesses. I guess humor isn't very--the room doesn't seem to be a receptive audience.
MS. CLARK: Too tired.
MR. GOLDBERG: It is a humorless group of people, I guess.
THE COURT: Mirthless.
MR. BLASIER: I got it, Judge.
THE COURT: Mirthless.
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm sorry. What we do plan on doing is we plan on putting certain chain of custody evidence on through Mr. Matheson that would--that would normally require some other witnesses to be called, and essentially what he is going to be testifying to is that items are packaged up and mailed out based on business records and that is what the brief goes to.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: This doesn't refer to test results.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: We will object to that and we will file something in writing by Monday.
THE COURT: All right. All right. Anybody interested in the 980 hearing, I will see you tomorrow. Otherwise have a nice weekend.
MR. COCHRAN: Thanks, Judge. Mr. Simpson says he will waive his presence, your Honor, for that.
(At 5:09 P.M. an adjournment was taken until, Friday, April 28, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)
Los Angeles, California; Friday, April 28, 1995 9:05 A.M.
Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
APPEARANCES: (Beth A. Finley, Attorney at Law, appearing on behalf of Mr. Robles.)
(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: Good morning. I understand we have counsel for Mr. Robles present.
MS. FINLEY: Yes, your Honor. Good morning. I'm Beth Finley appearing on behalf of Mr. Robles.
THE COURT: Good morning, counsel. The reason I asked Mr. Robles to appear this morning is I understand he is one of the very talented sketch artists that has been covering this case, and while watching one of the local independent television programs the other day I happened to see a rendering of our jury that was astonishing in its accuracy and depiction. And I made inquiry as to who was the artist and how it came about that that particular rendering was broadcast and I was concerned, because as you know, the Court has ordered the use of an anonymous jury in this case and that California rules of Court 980 prohibits the depiction of jurors, close-up of jurors, and I was concerned that the artist depictions were too close to what we have in the jury box.
MS. FINLEY: Well, Mr. Robles has brought all of his drawings here. I think there may have been a problem because sometimes Mr. Robles is not in the courtroom everyday, and although he is trying to have all of his drawings cleared by your representative, he has not been able to connect with her on all occasions and perhaps that is how one of the drawings was broadcast without someone else in the Court seeing it. It certainly was not done intentionally, but he has brought all of the drawings, but if you could perhaps identify for him which one in particular you saw recently.
THE COURT: Counsel, what I propose to do is issue a formal order to all sketch artists, and all artists involved in this case, that their drawings be submitted to the public information officer for approval by the Court prior to broadcast. And Miss Hayslett is present here in the courthouse everyday and this Court rarely leaves the courthouse before 6:00 in the evening everyday, so we will be available to in an expeditious manner review any drawings that you want to use immediately that day.
MS. FINLEY: That would be fine, your Honor. I think the upon has been there are deadlines and Mr. Robles does not do his work here in the courthouse and I believe the other sketch artists do. They work up on the 12th floor and they have closer access, whereas Mr. Robles retires to the CBS trailer to complete his drawings.
THE COURT: We can set up a regular schedule at the conclusion of business. We will be available for, say, half an hour after the conclusion of business everyday, or we can be available just before the start of the afternoon session for other deadlines.
MS. FINLEY: I guess we would have to have both in the instance that if there is a drawing that we need to use in advance of the evening news, it would need to be cleared before the close of session that particular day. If there is a drawing that we don't need to use, then yes, we could have it cleared at the end of the day.
THE COURT: All right. Then I will issue this order and I will direct Miss Hayslett to set up a regular schedule where she and the Court will be available at the conclusion of each Court session, both at the conclusion of the morning session, conclusion of the afternoon session. Is that acceptable?
MS. FINLEY: That will be fine, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Then that will be the order. All right. Thank you, counsel.
MS. FINLEY: Thank you.
(At 9:09 A.M. an adjournment was taken until, Monday, May 1, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles
Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
The People of the State of California, )
Plaintiff, )
vs. ) no. Ba097211 )
Orenthal James Simpson, )
Defendant. )
Reporter's transcript of proceedings Thursday, April 27, 1995 Friday, April 28, 1995 volume 135
Pages 24688 through 24955, inclusive
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCES:
Janet M. Moxham, CSR #4588 Christine M. Olson, CSR #2378 official reporters
FOR THE PEOPLE: Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012
FOR THE DEFENDANT: Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire
ALSO PRESENT: Beth A. Finley, Esquire
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I N D E X
Index for volume 135 pages 24688 - 24955
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day date session page vol.
Thursday April 27, 1995 A.M. 24688 135 P.M. 24780 135
Friday April 28, 1995 A.M. 24952 135
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGEND: Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden d Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronological index of witnesses
People's Witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
Mazzola, Andrea 135 (Resumed) 24702gb 24748n (Resumed) 24786n (Voir dire) 24833gb (Resumed) 24835n (Further) 24905gb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alphabetical index of witnesses
Witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
Mazzola, Andrea 135 (Resumed) 24702gb 24748n (Resumed) 24786n (Voir dire) 24833gb (Resumed) 24835n (Further) 24905gb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBITS
People's for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
203 - item no. 15 24710 135 American airlines airline ticket
204 - item no. 16 24710 135 American airlines baggage claim ticket
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
1121 - photograph of 24760 135 The rear stairwell at 875 south Bundy
1122 - photograph of 24801 135 A perspective view of a bench at 360 North Rockingham
1123 - photograph of 24801 135 A close-up view of a bench at 360 North Rockingham
1124 - glass vial 24828 135
1125 - photograph of 24829 135 A glass vial with writing