Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted; also appearing, Kenneth Spaulding, Esquire, on behalf of the Defendant.)
(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)
(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Blasier, Mr. Bailey. And I'm sorry, counsel, I forgot your name.
MR. SPAULDING: Mr. Spaulding.
THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Spaulding, welcome. The People are represented by Miss Clark and Mr. Darden. The jury is not present. Counsel, I don't see Mr. Scheck and I thought he was the point lawyer for the Defense on the nighttime view.
MR. DOUGLAS: He was, your Honor, but I will appear in his stead. Mr. Harris is presently attempting to print out the written objections that we have, but I can orally explain to the Court what our concerns are.
THE COURT: All right. And Miss Clark, who is going to handle it for your side?
MS. CLARK: Mr. Hodgman. If we intend to handle it now, may I make a phone call?
THE COURT: I see Yochelson is here.
MR. YOCHELSON: Yes, your Honor. Mr. Hodgman will be here momentarily. We are talking about the view?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. YOCHELSON: He will be here momentarily.
THE COURT: This is something that I would like to resolve as soon as possible, because if any modifications need to be made, I would like to have more time to do it. And if we decide to cancel it, we can plan to do something else Sunday night.
MR. YOCHELSON: We are meeting right, now so Mr. Hodgman will be right down.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I have not received any offer of stipulation from the Defense concerning foundation for the print expert.
THE COURT: So I assume we will just do it by the book then.
MS. CLARK: I guess.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, that is an oversight because there were some other matters last night that necessitated my absence from the office. Basically there are four print examiners that lifted seventeen latent prints from the Bundy crime scene. We simply want to stipulate as a foundational matter that those prints were in fact lifted. And Mr. Gilbert Aguilar, who is now present, will testify about the nature of those lifts and what results, if any, were obtained.
THE COURT: Miss Clark.
MS. CLARK: Put it in writing. That is all I want. Let's see it in writing and see what they want. I'm sure I will be glad to stipulate, but I need to see what they want. I was informed when I came in that Mr. Cochran approached the Court to make a request concerning the removal of the tapes that they had given to Judge Reid and you ordered that into his court?
THE COURT: No. I indicated that they wanted to do some enhancement on the tapes and I indicated that since Judge Reid has custody of the originals, and that matter has been transferred to Judge Reid, Judge Reid has jurisdiction over those tapes, I can't issue any orders regarding removing.
MS. CLARK: Is there any time set for that, because we would like to appear on it?
THE COURT: Not that I am aware of, but Mr. Bailey?
MR. BAILEY: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: When do you anticipate going up to Department 123?
MR. BAILEY: On my way out of door. It is Mr. Yochelson I have been waiting for.
MS. CLARK: Great. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. So we will just sit here and wait for Mr. Hodgman to arrive and for Mr. Harris to print out our objections.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: All right. Is there anything else we can do while we are waiting? What is our prognosis of proceeding with witnesses tomorrow?
MR. SHAPIRO: We have one witness today, your Honor, who should be a brief witness.
THE COURT: How about tomorrow?
MR. SHAPIRO: We are going to have to discuss that with the Court.
THE COURT: All right. Because I hate to have a completely down day. I mean, not that I couldn't use the day to do other things, since you want me to listen to eight or ten hours of audiotape and read hundreds of pages of transcript, it would be nice to not have to do that at home.
MR. SHAPIRO: I understand that.
THE COURT: But by the same token, we have the jury in there. As I mentioned to you both yesterday, they are a little antsy.
MR. SHAPIRO: We understand and we are anxious to finish this case, as the Court is and as the jury is.
THE COURT: All right. Am I correct that my assumption is that we are going to attempt to complete the Defense case by the end of next week?
MR. SHAPIRO: We had hoped--we had hoped to have an outside limit, August the 28th.
THE COURT: All right. As I recollect, Mr. Darden asked for a date to begin--target date to begin subpoenaing in rebuttal witnesses, and we will start that about the 28th, give or take a day or two.
MR. DARDEN: Okay.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CLARK: All right.
THE COURT: Then if there is no objection, just to--so that the jury understands our status, I am going to tell them that despite the fact that we have down time today and tomorrow, that we anticipate concluding the Defense case sometime around the 28th and the presentation of any rebuttal the week of the 28th.
MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, the only caveat is that we cannot anticipate how long the cross-examination will be--
THE COURT: I understand that.
MR. SHAPIRO: --of some of our witnesses.
THE COURT: Believe me, they know that better than anybody else.
MR. SHAPIRO: So that is--with that caveat, that is our target.
THE COURT: All right. All right. Here is Mr. Hodgman and Mr. Douglas is present. All right. Good morning, gentlemen. I thought we would see if we can resolve any of the crime scene view nighttime view issues this morning.
MR. HODGMAN: Very well, your Honor. I thought I was being called down on another issue. I left my notes upstairs, but I think I recall all the pertinent information so we can proceed.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, Mr. Harris is currently printing out that which I am about to read to the Court, if the Court pleases.
THE COURT: Unfortunately we are using a ii-p here so it is a little slow.
MR. DOUGLAS: That is a letter dated today to Judge Ito. (Reading.) The Defense renews its objections to a night jury view at the scene of 875 south Bundy. As a result of visiting the scene last Sunday evening, the Court's investigation established a number of differences between the scene today and the way it was at the time of the incident that would significantly affect lighting conditions: There is some dispute about the street light overlooking the scene. The Taylors, next door neighbors who offered evidence at our tour of the scene, said that the street light at the at the time of the incident was different (Less bright blue halogen light) than the light currently at the scene. Apparently, however, the Court has information from official city sources that the Taylors are mistaken; a Malibu or small landscape light midway up the front walkway, in foliage on the western side, was illuminated the night of the incident, but was stolen or is currently inoperable; perhaps most importantly, a landscape light directly to the southwest of the front gate that was shining in the direction where Nicole Brown Simpson's body was found is inoperable. The light was found during our tour lying on the ground. Counsel has not been able to reconstruct from photographs precisely how this light was situated the night of the incident. Given the close proximity of this light to Nicole Brown Simpson, its correct placement is critical to recreating substantially similar lighting conditions." And in that regard, your Honor, as the Court will recall, Detective Lange opined that the light was designed to shine directly on the address, 875, but however, it had been oriented in a manner to the right or more towards Miss Brown Simpson's body. Its absence therefore causes us great concern.
THE COURT: All right. I want to tell you that one particular factor is my greatest concern.
MR. DOUGLAS: (Reading.) From photographs of the scene the night of the incident, it is clear that foliage from trees has grown up and obstructs light from a large porch-type light on the front of the condo near the half-moon window close to the roof."
THE COURT: Do you mean the multiple--the two carriage lights that are out there?
MR. DOUGLAS: Correct, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. DOUGLAS: (Reading.) Since many witnesses testified how light "Cascaded" down, obstruction of this major light source to some unknown degree creates a significant problem in recreating substantially similar lighting conditions; a tall plant at the top of the first stairwell on the southwest side is described by the Taylors, Ron Hardy and Detective Lange, as being taller than it was at the time of the incident. How much taller and how much of an obstruction this would cause to light cascading down from the half-moon window or from light on the first floor living room is unknown; foliage is overgrown, according to all witnesses namely the Taylors, Mr. Hardy, Detective Lange and Vannatter, all of whom were present on Sunday who were making statements during our trip, and obstructs light from the front door and front gate area; the night of the incident there were many candles illuminating the living room that overlooked the front gate area. These substantial problems exacerbate two additional and intractable impediments to recreating substantially similar light conditions: One, the night of the incident there was moonlight, whereas the night of the proposed jury view there will be no moonlight; two, the night of the incident there was some fog, whereas the night of the proposed jury view there may be no fog.
The serious difficulties in recreating substantially similar light conditions at Bundy, the necessity of taking testimony about the differences in lighting conditions, and the confusion that will inevitably arise in trying to assess the effects of a series of unknowable obstructions, outweighs the need for a nighttime jury view. The jury has already seen the Bundy scene during the day and nighttime photographs of the scene exist as it was just after the incident. Indeed, these photographs would have to be used during the proposed jury view in an effort to compensate for alterations of the scene. It would be less confusing, far less expensive and less time-consuming to rely upon the night photographs, the previous daytime jury view and the testimony of witnesses. The Defense is also concerned about the issue of sound. The Court's stated purpose for this night jury view is to recreate just lighting conditions, yet sound is equally important, if not a more important factor. The testimony of all timeline witnesses seems to be that once dogs began to bark they continued to bark. The key issue is when did they start. Thus, the testimony of Mandel and Aaronson and the question of what they could have seen walking past 875 south Bundy is less important than what they could have heard. Similarly, Heidstra's testimony is more ear witness as eyewitness testimony. Inevitably, the jury will be influenced in its assessment of what could be heard at night by their night jury view even though that is not the Court's purpose and sound conditions will not be replicated. In fact, the whir of helicopters and commotion associated with the jury view will mislead the jury in terms of what could be heard. Lighting conditions is an issue the Prosecution wants to pursue at a night jury view. Sound is the issue the Defense wants to pursue--wants explored, excuse me. Unless both can be substantially replicated and unless efforts are made to recreate both, the night jury view at Bundy is unfairly prejudicial. Thus, if there must be a night jury view, the Defense requests that efforts be made to recreate sound conditions. We also reiterate our request that the jury be taken to the location where Heidstra heard voices and the sound of a slamming gate so they can fully appreciate how close those locations really are (One cannot adequate appreciate the proximity from aerial photographs)."
THE COURT: Mr. Douglas, let me stop you right there.
MR. DOUGLAS: Sure.
THE COURT: What are you proposing specifically with regards to the gate slamming? There are a number of metal gates at that particular location and immediately adjacent locations. And my recollection is in our informal discussions, while we were out at the Bundy location last Sunday evening, that it was the Defense hypothesis that the gate that was slammed was the metal gate that is on the 875 south walkway that goes from Bundy to the alley--to the west; is that correct?
MR. DOUGLAS: Correct, your Honor; not the front gate, not the front walkway gate.
THE COURT: Correct, but there is a small three-and-a-half-foot high gate. Is that the one we are talking about?
MR. DOUGLAS: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DOUGLAS: We have on earlier occasions retraced that scene with Mr. Heidstra slamming various gates to determine which gate replicated the sounds he heard that night. If necessary, we would propose recalling Mr. Heidstra or bringing him to the scene with testimony being taken in front of the jury and with a court reporter, such that we can then perform an experiment of slamming each of the gates and he will then be able to identify which sound best replicates that which he heard on June the 12th.
THE COURT: My recollection of the crime scene photos is that the rear six-foot gate on the Bundy alleyway, on the west alleyway, was opened.
MR. DOUGLAS: That--
THE COURT: And that the gate at--where Miss Brown Simpson was found was also opened, so the only other gate that would have been slammed closed would be the mid-gate, but that gate was opened as well is my recollection.
MR. DOUGLAS: I do think, however, your Honor, a couple things that comes to mind. First, the slamming action is the clanging of metal against metal and not necessarily the clanging of the door locking into its metal jam; therefore, in optimum fairness it would probably be best for us to recreate each of the gates and to have Mr. Heidstra identify that sound which best replicates what he heard those gates--
THE COURT: Did you--
MR. DOUGLAS: You can slam a gate, your Honor.
THE COURT: I know you can slam a gate and you can slam it hard enough that it won't have time to latch.
MR. DOUGLAS: Correct. That is exactly my point.
THE COURT: I have slammed gates before myself.
MR. DOUGLAS: Very well. If I may continue?
THE COURT: I wanted to ask you during the course of your experimentation at the Bundy scene did you do that and get that result?
MR. DOUGLAS: I was not personally there. I am informed that an effort was made--that each of the three gates were slammed. That wasn't the back gate, that wasn't the front gate, but that in fact it was the middle gate.
THE COURT: All right. But get that popping out result? Do you know that?
MR. DOUGLAS: I personally was not there to be able to tell you at this point.
THE COURT: Because we need to account for the state of the gate--
MR. DOUGLAS: I understand the Court's concern.
THE COURT: --in a logical manner.
MR. DOUGLAS: But your Honor, I was not there to do that experiment.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. DOUGLAS: Reading on: (Reading.) "Therefore we ask that a gate slamming demonstration be performed. As the Court learned during our nighttime trip to the scene, Detectives Vannatter and Lange conceded they had performed that demonstration and the gate could be clearly heard. They just hypothesized one could not be sure which gate on the Bundy block was being slammed."
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, there is a footnote with respect to the fog that I wasn't able to page down and I now have in front of me and this was our concern about the impact that the fog would have on the actual ability to see at Bundy. (Reading.) Interestingly, the Defense is informed by weather experts that the existence of fog creates more, not less, illumination from moonlight." And therefore that is another factor that causes us grave concern that we cannot adequately duplicate and adequately replicate, not just the view from the eye, but also to adequately perform or replicate the sounds that Mr. Heidstra heard. If we are to fairly perform this view, I think it prudent and incumbent upon this Court to take issues that both sides wish to have replicated that are very germane and central to our search for truth into account. Since we are there, since we have the jury there, we would prefer, if there was a view to be performed, that it be performed in a fashion such that the sound and the eye can be adequately replicated for the jury to all see and also to hear. Given these problems, your Honor, and given the costs that are clearly going to be incurred with closing off the freeways as we did before, clearing off the--
THE COURT: Let's not discuss those details.
MR. DOUGLAS: Very well. Given those costs, your Honor, we think the far better course is to allow the jury to rely on the photographs and to proceed with the trial without a jury view. The Court is well aware that there are hundreds, if not thousands of occasions when the search for truth is adequately performed without traipsing the jury to a location every time that a nighttime incident is germane or relevant. We don't think on this occasion, given these grave concerns, that the interests of justice are best served by having this jury view.
THE COURT: All right. Do you have any comments regarding the Rockingham residence?
MR. DOUGLAS: The Court expressed some concern that additional lighting that had been placed in the tree above Mr. Simpson's lights--his garage, I'm sorry--and a plywood board that is now placed over the fence, which is used to obscure the views of tourists and bystanders. I spoke yesterday with people that at Mr. Simpson's house and I am informed that if necessary, it is possible to turn off the one light that was added and to remove the boards for the hour or so that the jury would be there so as to fairly replicate the scene that Mr. Park may have seen on that evening. I share the Court's opinion that opening the gates is not substantially similar, because certainly it is possible for there to be some obscuring of the view by the very nature of the gate being there, but that can be performed, your Honor. We don't think that any view should take place and we don't think that the interests of justice demand such. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.
MR. HODGMAN: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Hodgman.
MR. HODGMAN: You know, as the Court is well aware, the issue here is not exact replication, it is not exact duplication; it is whether the creation of substantially similar circumstances can be had. It is the People's position that we can. It has been our position from the get go that both a day time as well as nighttime view would be instructive, and pardon the pun, but illuminating for the jury. As trial counsel, having been there in the daytime, as well as with the Court last weekend at nighttime, in my impression and in my assessment, it would be of value to the jury to have it both ways, to see it at daytime and nighttime. The question is can the conditions at nighttime be rendered substantially similar to the way they were on the night of June the 12th, 1994. It is the People's position that indeed they can. This morning I spoke with a Mr. Robert Hernandez of the Department of Water and Power. He is upstairs and would gladly meet with counsel to provide to them the same information that he provided to me this morning. This is with regard to the street lights. The street lights in question of which there are two, one in front of the Bundy residence and the second at what I believe is the southeast corner of the intersection of Bundy and Dorothy, I am informed are the same as they were on June the 12th, 1994. That both of the lamps inside of those street lights were replaced in January of 1994, so they are indeed the same, and I was present when Mr. Taylor, one of the neighbors, said that he recalled some sort of difference in illumination, but it had to have been at a different point in time, because there is no documentation, there is no data that would indicate there has been a substantial change between what would be the viewing date and June of 1994. The street lights are the same. And again, Mr. Hernandez is present. I have asked him to say to speak with Defense counsel and he is glad to share whatever information he has in that regard--
THE COURT: All right. Did he bring--
MR. HODGMAN: --so that Defense counsel is satisfied.
THE COURT: Did he bring his business records with regard to that?
MR. HODGMAN: He did.
THE COURT: Did he tell you what type of light is in there now?
MR. HODGMAN: Yes. A sodium high pressure light, if I am recalling correctly. Again, I came down prepared to address another issue, but from my recollection, that is the type of light. There was some mention last weekend of someone recalling a bluish type light emanating from the light and there appears to be more of an orangeish type light that emanates now. I am informed that when the present type of lamp first ignites it does cast off a bluish type light for a period of about five minutes before it settles--the sodium high intensity aspect of these lamps is fully engaged, giving us the type of light that we witnessed last weekend. So the bottom line is the street lights are the same, there is no data or information other than, say, the recollection of the neighbors, that the lights are different; however, the lamps were changed in January of 1994 and we have that data available to the Defense.
THE COURT: All right. I think--I think that is a critical issue. The two critical issues that I see on this that Mr. Douglas raises are the street lamps, so you may have to call Mr. Hernandez, allow counsel to review the records, cross-examine Mr. Hernandez as to these records, so that we have an adequate record.
MR. HODGMAN: Very well.
THE COURT: Secondly, the crime scene photos do have that orangeish glow to them and there is one in particular taken from across the street where the body of Nicole Brown Simpson is visible up the walkway, but also contained in the photograph is part of the overhead street light and it clearly has an orange hue to it emanating from it. It doesn't have the blue white halogen tint or glow to it. So the crime scene photos tend to be in accord with Mr. Hernandez and his records, it would appear. Why don't you address the landscape light, the foliage issues, the candles issues and the moonlight issues and fog issues.
MR. HODGMAN: Very well, your Honor. With regard to the Malibu or landscape type lights, an electrician has been summoned to replace the lamp in the light which would shine up to where the residence address numbers formerly were, and the same type of lamp would be installed and an electrician is working on that to as closely duplicate the situation as it was on June the 12th, 1994. There was a second Malibu type light which I believe was up the stairwell a little bit. It was noted last weekend that that was out. The electrician is going to replace that as well. So as far as the Malibu landscape type lights, that is being worked on and would have to be the subject of a dry run type review, if you will, to ensure that counsel is satisfied that the--that type of lighting is indeed substantially similar.
THE COURT: I have the sinking suspicion we are going to spend our Saturday night doing this.
MR. HODGMAN: We will inform our respective spouses to not plan anything for Saturday night.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. HODGMAN: With regard to the foliage--
THE COURT: Or we could all go out to dinner and then drive by.
MS. CLARK: Sunday night?
MR. HODGMAN: This is the dry run.
MS. CLARK: Right, right.
MR. HODGMAN: With regard to--
THE COURT: I'm being lobbied for Friday night instead of Saturday night.
MS. CLARK: Can't do it Friday night.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. HODGMAN: With regard to the foliage, your Honor, with the assistance of Mr. Taylor and Mr. Hardy, the foliage that cannot be physically removed, such as the potted trees which have been put in place in order to screen the front of the residence at the Bundy location. That foliage is going to be trimmed back in accord with various photos and the recollection of two individuals who were very, very familiar with what the foliage was like at the time the potted trees will be moved. The issue of attempting to duplicate the interior lighting which radiated outward from the residence over various aspects of the scene can be duplicated simply by matching what we know from photographs and the recollection of investigators to the events of that night.
THE COURT: What about the candles?
MR. HODGMAN: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: Let's assume that the Court will be able to make a factual determination on the foliage by comparing photographs of the crime scene taken in June of `94 with how it appears today. Do we know how many--my recollection is that we don't know how many candles were burning in the living room.
MR. HODGMAN: I think we have an estimate as to candles. I think that part can be created in some fashion. As the Court has observed, however, the interior furniture at the Bundy residence has been removed. We will have to rely on photos in an attempt to duplicate that as well.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: All right.
MR. HODGMAN: In addition, your Honor, I am reminded that we have a videotape of the interior of Bundy and that living room area, which would be able to depict placement of candles and--we will take a look at that to ensure that the proper information--
THE COURT: My recollection is that there was also a downstairs--two downstairs lights on within the interior as well.
MR. HODGMAN: Yes.
THE COURT: That will have to be illuminated.
MR. HODGMAN: Yes, the investigators recall that as well, as well as I believe a light right over the entryway into the house.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. HODGMAN: Those matters can be addressed and be taken care of.
THE COURT: What about the moonlight and the fog?
MR. HODGMAN: Well, we don't have control over nature and that again--the test is substantial similarity and not exact duplication or replication. I would offer to the Court that a stipulation of some sort be offered to the jurors so that they understand that there may be some difference there. Now, one thing that we will have to look into a little bit further, I mean, whether the moon was present or not, there is also the issue of the location of the moon at the time period in question. Last week I noted, if I recall correctly, we appeared to have either a full or substantially full moon, and yet at the time that we were out there that moon was rather low in the sky and not in a position to be casting light from an overhead position.
THE COURT: Has your--has your staff done any research on the percent of the moon that was illuminated and the moonrise moonset times?
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. HODGMAN: Yes. Your Honor, we have a judicial notice motion with regard to the phase of the moon and the information that the Court just mentioned which either has been lodged with the Court or will be lodged with the Court, but yes, our staff has determined that information. I don't have it at my fingertips at the moment.
THE COURT: All right.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. HODGMAN: With regard to Rockingham, your Honor, again relying on memory, as the Court is aware, there is some differences in lighting at the front of the Rockingham residence. There were two spotlights in the tree, the tree nearest the house. We know that the brighter of the two lights up in the tree, this would be the light closest to the house, was not even there on June the 12th, 1994. The other light we are informed was not on and that is a matter we will have to discuss with counsel, because I--I note protest from the Defense side of the table, so that is something we are going to have to discuss because our information is that light was on a timer, so perhaps they can be forthcoming with some information to us so that we can clear up that situation.
THE COURT: My recollection of our discussions at the scene, though, was that Detective Lange, if my recollection is correct, indicated that the light over the garage was illuminated and the only light that is over the garage is that light that is in the tree, because if you recollect, we inspected the exterior of the garage to see if there was any other light that might fit that description and that was the only one that could possibly. And the residents there advised us also that the second light had been added for security purposes since these events, so there was one light in the tree overhead that according to Lange I think was illuminated.
MR. HODGMAN: Okay. I'm not--Detective Lange recalls differently, at least based upon my informal interview with him this morning. We have testimony from the witnesses at trial, that if I am recalling correctly, we have Allan Park describing a light on over the garage and we will have that testimony assembled so that we can answer that more definitively.
THE COURT: My recollection is that is in the chart that my staff prepared for you.
MR. DOUGLAS: That's correct.
MR. HODGMAN: Correct. Your Honor, in addition, as far as the lighting goes, there was--there were carriage lamps flanking each side of the driveway at Ashford and Rockingham that again we will have to more closely identify whether that illumination is recalled from the various percipient witnesses by examining the transcript. Those lights may have been on a timer or Mr. Douglas will illuminate us as to that.
THE COURT: The indication was--our discussions at the scene is that they were on a timer.
MR. DOUGLAS: Correct, but they were on, but on the timer.
THE COURT: If worse comes to worse, what we can do there, let the jury see it first in a condition where those lights are off, let them see it again when those lights are on.
MR. HODGMAN: With regard to lighting at that location, I verified from Mr. Hernandez that the street light at what I believe is the northwest corner of Ashford and Rockingham is indeed the same lamp and that was replaced in December of 1992, so the lamp is the same, it has not been changed--
THE COURT: All right.
MR. HODGMAN: --since June 12, 1994, until today's date. There is the issue of the lighting emanating from the Salinger's house. The Court might recall some of the discussions last Sunday night wherein there was information that some of the foliage at the Rockingham residence had been trimmed back, perhaps now what amounts to about a week and a half ago.
The tree closest to the house, as well as two trees in the interior area from the--within the semicircle of the driveway, have been severely cut back. The foliage separating the Salinger's residence to the south from the Rockingham residence has been thinned out considerably and trimmed back as well, thereby allowing present illumination from the Salinger's residence to go filter through over to Rockingham. Based on interviews that have been conducted with the Salingers, some of the present lighting, which can be described as security type lighting, was not there on June the 12th, 1994. To address that issue it is a simple matter of turning off the light, so we will be able to duplicate things from that aspect.
THE COURT: Did you have a statement from the Salingers indicating which of that security lighting was added since June the 12th?
MR. HODGMAN: And I should have that today, yes. I have the information. I don't have the statement in hand.
THE COURT: All right. Would you fax that to Mr. Douglas then as soon as you receive it, if we are not still in session.
MR. HODGMAN: I would be delighted.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. HODGMAN: The foliage, however, we cannot change. My proposal to the Court is that much as the Court suggested with regard to Bundy, just so that we don't create a false impression with the jury, is that we have photos enlarged of the Rockingham location with the manner in which the foliage was on June the 13th, 1994.
THE COURT: Have you undertaken to select representative photographs and have those enlarged, because that is a time-consuming process? You may need to get that process started.
MR. HODGMAN: Yeah, the process is underway.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. HODGMAN: Your Honor, what remains are the so-called--the sound demonstration issue. If I can begin to address that now, I can simply state, you know, the People are opposed to the suggested sound demonstration because what we are doing is conducting an experiment or demonstration in the presence of the jury. As the Court will recall from the testimony, as well as exhibits identified when Mr. Darden was cross-examining various witnesses, that is, there are a number of gates in the vicinity of the Bundy residence. Photos of those gates were introduced in evidence through the testimony of one witness. We've had investigators in the area who have identified a number of gates as well. I do not believe we can create a substantially similar situation. I think we create a very speculative type situation with regard to that, so we have a whole different set of parameters with regard to the so-called sound demonstration. And for the record, the People object to that. I would remind the Court as well, in conclusion, unless there are any other questions that the Court has of me, this is something that was contemplated from the very beginning. This was something that the People proposed in order to aid the jury in the resolution of the issues of this case, that there be a daytime as well as nighttime view. The Court has had the benefit, like I have, of both. I think the daytime view was very instructive for the jury. Two-dimensional photographs, however enlarged, however enhanced, can only do so much. I would have to think that the Court would agree with me that the daytime view was very helpful to this jury in understanding the dimensions involved with both locations, but most particularly Bundy. With regard to the nighttime view, it is indeed different at night, and I was impressed last weekend with the value at understanding the added dimension that darkness and the appropriate lighting of each scene at the time played, at least in my mind, in terms of understanding the events of this case. So I will close with that.
THE COURT: All right.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, with all due respect to Mr. Hodgman, whom I continue to respect and admire, we are losing sight here of what the real reason for a jury view is. Certainly there is value for this jury to appreciate the interrelationship of the dynamics of the Bundy and Rockingham crime scenes. Therefore, there was not so vocal an objection to there being a jury view, but your Honor, I don't think that there really is the need for the luxury of two jury views, given all the problems that have been discussed, given all the byplay that the various parties have offered, and given the evidence in this case. If the Court will recall, the reason for a nighttime jury view, as I can recall, was to determine whether the only witnesses whom we are aware who were present at Bundy, at or near the time of the crime, were able to see something or not on the walkway. Clearly Mr. Boztepe and Miss Rasmussen have clarified the fact that they were able to see the body. That is not an issue. Clearly Mr. Mandel and Miss Aaronson said that they did not see a body. But when you also remember the testimony, it was that once the barking of the dogs began, it continued, and there has been no testimony that I can recall from Mr. Mandel or Mr. Aaronson that they heard the barking of the dogs at any time when they were walking by Bundy, so we are not being able to see the forest through the trees. What then is the practical benefit of a jury view at Bundy given this record? I think the evidence is clear that when a body was there, it could be seen, and arguably, when the bodies were not there, they were not seen. The dogs were not heard, they were not noticed. I am really concerned about the costs of this case, given the extraordinary nature of these proceedings and the cost of this jury view, given our belief that it is a luxury. I do acknowledge and I do appreciate the value of a jury view. Were there no pictures available at all that attempt to replicate the scene at night, I could better appreciate the worthiness of the arguments that are being made, but it is a luxury, your Honor, not a necessity, and one that I don't think we need to go into right now, given where we are in the case, given the state of the record and given the very serious problems about which there is still some questions that are still unresolved. I am very concerned about the interrelationship of the moon and the fog, because we have been told that the fog enhances the brightness of the scene and there wasn't fog or we don't know if there will be fog on August the 20th, when we are prepared to go. The Court is well aware that the natural ambient dynamics in June differ in southern California than in August. June is known for being foggy in the evening and foggy in the morning and sometime around mid-morning the fog burns up and it is a beautiful day. That is not my understanding or my recollection--I have lived here all my life--that is the way that life is in August. August is cool all the time, so that is important. That is very important. And your Honor, if we are going to be out there, we should be out there and taking advantage of everything, not just what the People want, but also what the Defense wants. We want to dispel the notion that one is incapable--and I dare say I anticipate the arguments from the--from the aerial photographs, that Mr. Heidstra was incapable, standing a hundred or so feet away or a hundred or so yards away, however the actual distance is, in the alleyway on the far side of Bundy from even hearing what he suggests that he heard.
THE COURT: Excuse me a second.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: I have asked Mr. Byrne to grab the photo board, the aerial photo board that I believe Mr. Bailey took a photograph of.
MR. DOUGLAS: His testimony in many respects is critical. His credibility in many respects is central to our theory that this man did not have the time to commit this crime, given their scenario and given what Mr. Heidstra has testified that he has heard. Therefore, your Honor, if we are going to go there, and I argue strongly that we should not, we should take advantage of the reasons that both sides want to go there. This is no need to go there to see if you can see a body, because the evidence is clear that you can. We argue--in fact, we will argue that you can see a body if one is there, but if a body is not there, you cannot see a body, and we would offer the testimony of Mr. Mandel and Miss Aaronson to support that claim.
THE COURT: All right. For the record, Mr. Byrne has brought out--Mr. Byrne, what Defense exhibit is that?
MR. BYRNE: 1239.
THE COURT: 1239. All right. This record should also reflect this is John Byrne, not his brother Joe Byrne who is also one of my law clerks.
MR. DOUGLAS: Yes, your Honor. Your Honor, their witnesses have testified about the dog barking, about how the barking continued for a half hour or more, our witnesses were there within that window and heard no barking until 10:35 at the earliest, according to our witnesses. The record is clear there is no necessity for a jury view. I am also concerned about the Malibu light, because as the Court will recall, it wasn't simply not working, it was broken off, and as the Court will recall, though, it was supposed to be oriented to look at the numbers. It was not. It was tilted in an area towards the body and not away. And I am not comfortable with some hindsight speculation, given 13 months or 15 months after the time, to attempt to duplicate the precise angle of a central light and the closest light to the actual bodies. I am not comfortable with that at all, given where we are in this case, given the state of this record. I am not comfortable with that at all. The Court will recall that Mr. Taylor and even the police officers when we arrived, the first thing they said was that the lighting was different, and if they are not different, that is fine, but it doesn't remove or eliminate the serious concerns we have, given the costs, given the luxury of a second jury view, given the time that we have already spent on these issues, given the facts that are in issue. I think that is something the Court has to really balance. What is in issue? It is not in issue that a body could be seen from the walkway at Bundy. That is not in issue. If in fact there is going to be a jury view, and there have been issues on both sides as to what occurred at different places at night, basic notions of fairness balance in favor of there also being a Rockingham view. Now, the Court did a great job in preparing the boards for this job by--and I'm sure it is Mr. Byrne and Byrne--by culling for us a tremendously useful chart with specific references to the record as to what witnesses said about various lighting.
THE COURT: Actually that was Miss Carswell who did that.
MR. DOUGLAS: And Miss Carswell as well.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. DOUGLAS: The lighting--there was lighting over the garage of Mr. Simpson's house at Rockingham. There is no chart at this point that it was the brighter light that was there and the softer light was not or which. And I think that with all due respect, Mr. Hodgman is incorrect if he suggests that it was clearly which light, because as the Court will recall, Mrs. Baker and Mr. Baker, who were present at Rockingham were unsure. I asked for Miss--Miss Gigi Guarin to be able to have the person who added the light disconnect that same light, but I don't know which one it is. And as the Court will recall, we looked around over the garage and wherever to see if there is any other possible lighting. Clearly there was a light there. As I told the Court, all of Mr. Simpson's lights are powered by the same timing system and therefore it is reasonable to expect that at ten o'clock at night on Sunday, June the 12th, all the lights on the system were all on. When police officers have testified that they were there, which was at or near daybreak of June the 13th, it is very clear and quite possible that those lights could have been off. And I was very curious how they were able to say quite plainly when we first got there that this light wasn't on or this light wasn't on, when as far as I could recall they were never there at night to even know. As to the foliage issue, Mr. Hodgman, Detective Lange and myself had occasion to walk down the Bundy--the Rockingham walkway, and I'm sure Mr. Hodgman just simply forgot to tell the Court that at the critical area where Kato Kaelin heard the three thumps on the wall the foliage that was there on last Sunday was substantially similar to the foliage that was there on June the 12th.
THE COURT: Let me ask you this: Just as a practical matter, I recollect your request that we have the jurors go down that walkway, but it is also a rather treacherous walk and especially if you want to us do it in pitch darkness back there.
MR. DOUGLAS: This is what I would propose, your Honor: That they be escorted in groups of five as there were earlier, that there be an officer or an escort with a flashlight in the beginning, perhaps one in the middle and one in the end, that they then be escorted by flashlight to an area, that on a particular sound signal the flashlights all be cut off for thirty seconds, the jury not speak, but they could see. They can look. There is enough time for their eyes to be accustomed to the darkness there, and that they then be escorted out. That is an issue I think that is resolvable; however, your Honor, that begs the question as far as the Defense is concerned. There is no need, there is no manifest need, there is no legal necessity, given the record, to have any sort of a jury view at all. If a body is there, a body can be seen. That is what they are going to argue. We should be allowed to argue the converse. If a body is not there, and we know a body is not there because there were no barking dogs, the body was not seen. That is what a trial is all about. Sometimes, with all due respect, we get caught up in the hype and in all of the technology and in the majesty and the power of this particular case, with all due respect, because I'm part of it, too, but what we lose sight of is this a simple trial. I'm always reminded this is a murder case, pure and simple. Murder cases occur at night far too frequently in this dear city of ours. However, on every occasion it does not justify a jury view. Given the state of the record and given this record, your Honor, that is an expense that the dear taxpayers of this city should not be forced to endure. I thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Douglas. All right. Mr. Hodgman, you have some brief comment?
MR. HODGMAN: Yes, I do, your Honor, briefly. I will agree with Mr. Douglas, this is a murder case and that is what should drive all of us in terms of the ascertainment of truth. I mean, this is a serious matter, and at what cost do we deprive the jury of the full opportunity to help ascertain the truth? They are the fact finders.
THE COURT: Let's put this cost issue to rest. The Court was advised that if the Court gave adequate notice to both the sheriff's department and the Los Angeles Police Department that no overtime personnel would be used, it would be all on-duty persons who would be regularly scheduled to conduct--for example, the LAPD metro unit that would do the escort duties, and the traffic control, they would all be normally assigned and on duty at that time, so there is no additional cost to the taxpayers. The only additional cost that the Court may incur as a result of this is there is temporary fencing at Bundy that will have to be removed and replaced. There is a minor electrician's job with regards to the Malibu lighting, so my guess is we are talking expenses somewhere between 200 and 300 bucks.
MR. HODGMAN: Very well, your Honor, we will put that issue to rest. The only remaining thought that I have that I would like to--
THE COURT: Which I'm sure Mr. Darden will be happy to front for us.
MR. DARDEN: No objection, your Honor.
MR. HODGMAN: Very well. There you have it.
THE COURT: It is in the record.
MR. HODGMAN: Your Honor, my last observation for the Court is this: If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a view is worth a million in these circumstances, and I'm asking for the Court to allow us the original--originally anticipated opportunity to balance the views with daytime and nighttime. If we proceed only with the daytime view, as instructive as it is, it still leaves the jury with an impression of how things look during daytime. We need to balance and temper that with the nighttime view, and my concern is that we don't want to leave the jury with a misleading or inaccurate impression regarding the lighting. The very preview of the Defense argument offered by Mr. Douglas today in my mind is just--adds further strength to the argument why this view is necessary. We can work to make it substantially similar. We can have the dry run to--so that we have at least agreement as to how the view should be conducted and that conditions are indeed substantially similar. And again, your Honor, we ask that the Court allow us the opportunity to take the jury to Bundy and Rockingham at night so that we can achieve that. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. I agree with you, Mr. Hodgman, that a picture is often worth a thousand words. The problem with nighttime photography, there are certain limitations to nighttime photography. It is dependent upon the film speed, the film type, the aperture, the exposure. Any number of adjustments to a camera can result in a different final result on--as printed. So although the crime scene photographs of that evening are certainly illustrative and useful, they don't capture the actual scene as can be appreciated by the human eye, and the human eye's ability to appreciate or not appreciate under these circumstances certainly is an issue. I will conditionally order the nighttime jury view for Sunday. This is conditional on one more walk through. I'm concerned. I share Mr. Douglas' concern. My greatest concerns are two things: Establishing for the record the nature of the overhead street light, and I think we have Mr. Hernandez available. We have almost used one court session for this issue, so when I take the recess, I will allow Mr. Douglas, Mr. Hodgman, to speak to the city lighting person. If we can't resolve that on the basis of the record that we have, we will take some testimony. I'm also concerned about the landscape light that was originally designed to shine up on the number--street number, 875, but has since--but the testimony was that that was canted slightly to the left. If that can be replicated--if that cannot be replicated, then we will not have a nighttime view, because that is a crucial lighting source that was within mere feet of Nicole Brown Simpson.
MR. DOUGLAS: One question, your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. DOUGLAS: I recall some testimony that the front door was ajar.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. DOUGLAS: Certainly there were lights that were on--all the lights were out in the house and the candles were lit.
THE COURT: If you recollect, there were two lights that were on downstairs. I think our chart does have the two interior lights that were on. Also the overhead light over the door was on, so we will have the door opened, we will have those interior lights on. That is in the chart and I hadn't heard any dispute about that, so I assumed that that was the condition. All right. As to the--also, during the dry run my understanding is that the Taylors, their regularly scheduled gardener is going to be doing some cutting back of the foliage. The Court will examine that as well on the dry run to see if that is substantially replicated. If the Court is satisfied at that time then we will go forward. If not, we will cancel. Also, during the dry run, Mr. Douglas, during the course of our dry run last Sunday for the first time while were standing at Bundy, Mr. Scheck mentioned to me for the first time a Defense desire to have this sound demonstration. Looking at the photograph that Mr. Byrne has brought out, the complication would be that we would have to close that alley for a significant period of time and that would be a great inconvenience to the residents there since they would be denied access to their homes, but it is something that I think logistically we can do. We will have to ask the senior lead officer in that neighborhood go out and advise the residents that is a possibility, in fairness to the residents, because we may block off the alley for an hour. It is something I am willing to contemplate, assuming I'm convinced that the conditions are substantially similar. However, just by glancing here, I can see several metal gates across the street on Bundy.
MR. DOUGLAS: The Court will recall of course that on first--
THE COURT: What I am indicating to you is I'm willing to contemplate this and we should probably take it up in the field and make a determination at that time.
MR. DOUGLAS: I am mindful that on the first jury view the alley behind Bundy was cut off as well as were the streets on both sides.
THE COURT: They were; however, we are trying to do with this as little inconvenience to everybody as possible.
MR. DOUGLAS: I appreciate that, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. But what you are talking about is having an additional two cars to cut off the alleyway.
MR. HODGMAN: Your Honor, with regard to that, as the Court has correctly observed from viewing aerial photographs, there are a number of metal gates. I hold in my hand in excess of a dozen photos of metal gates from that very immediate area, and if we are going to engage in such a venture, we would ask that similar slams be of other gates as well so that--it is in a sense sort of a gate line-up and that--
THE COURT: Don't we have a Gilbert and Taylor problem?
MR. HODGMAN: But we will have--we will have the investigator who took these photos and so we are in a position to point out to the Defense and the Court--
THE COURT: Mr. Hodgman, I am aware that there are a number of metal gates out there. They brought up this issue. Since we are going to be there, I ought to at least give it some consideration and think about it, if it is plausible.
MR. HODGMAN: Very well.
THE COURT: If it is something that is reasonable, something that might help the jury decide this case, I'm willing to contemplate whether we should do it. We are talking maybe an additional half hour to walk everybody around to that location, slam a bunch of gates and see what happens, see what they can hear.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, it is clear--I think even the People know that you can hear. They did the same test themselves.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Douglas, we will argue it after we've had a chance to go out, because we did not inspect the rear alleyway or do anything while we were there. All right.
MR. HODGMAN: Very well.
THE COURT: The point being I'm willing to contemplate it. All right. Let's take a break for 15. Let's have the jury brought down. Mr. Hodgman and Mr. Douglas, I'm going to instruct you to talk to Mr. Hernandez who is here with his street lighting records.
MR. DOUGLAS: Sure.
THE COURT: And if we can't resolve that matter by an agreement, then we will take testimony. Miss Clark, you had something and Mr. Bailey you had something.
MS. CLARK: Very, very briefly, your Honor. Mr. Hodgman alluded earlier to the fact of a judicial notice motion and I have the copy that is stamped that the original was filed on August 14th and this is the request that the Court take judicial notice of the phase of the moon on the night in question. We have appended to it the records that we premised the request on, and I believe the Court did its own research of that same topic. We would ask that the judicial notice be taken on I guess either today or on the day that we go out to the jury view, that the jury be advised of the judicial notice taken of that information.
THE COURT: Mr. Douglas.
MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, there is one important word or consideration that was omitted, I think admittedly so, from their own papers, from their judicial notice. The nature of the crescent moon was a waxing crescent moon. Waxing means increasing, as their own dictionary reference suggests. We don't use the word waxing, and I suggest that we not. We should use the word increasing to at least give the fair sense of the nature in which the crescent was appearing that evening.
THE COURT: I have no problem with that.
MR. DOUGLAS: Very well.
MS. CLARK: I do. Counsel is going to seek to create an impression with this jury that it was actually brighter than the judicial notice would give reason to indicate. The point is the condition of the moon on that might, whether it was going to increase the following day or going to decrease the following day, because waxing indicates what will happen in the future, not is what happening on that night. On. That night this was the condition of the moon. That is all the jury needs to know.
THE COURT: Isn't waxing and waning a rather commonly understood term with regard to phases of the moon? Don't you think the jury can figure it out?
MS. CLARK: They may, but the point is that it is irrelevant. Really waxing refers to what is going to occur. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if the moon was going to get brighter at a point in time later that night after a time when the events are no longer in issue. What does that have to do with anything?
THE COURT: The problem is it is a fact.
MS. CLARK: It is a fact.
THE COURT: If I accept your offer of judicial notice, it is the truth.
MS. CLARK: It is the truth, but it is not--
THE COURT: And the jury has a modicum of common sense, I assume, and life experience, and they understand what a waxing and waning moon is, so--
MS. CLARK: They probably do.
THE COURT: --I'm likely to accept. I'm just telling you I'm likely to accept the accurate description. All right.
MS. CLARK: As opposed to just taking the judicial notice of percentage of the crescent that was--
THE COURT: Yes, in addition to.
MS. CLARK: Right, in addition to.
THE COURT: In addition to.
MS. CLARK: All right.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bailey.
MR. BAILEY: Your Honor, Mr. Yochelson and I went up to visit with Judge Reid pursuant to the instructions. He will be finished--he will be finished with the original tapes today. He is listening to them all and suggests that for convenience sake, since he will not need them again, they be returned to Miss Robertson and that your Honor issue the order releasing and then retrieving them from the laboratory which we hope will enhance them and make them easier listening, both for yourself and ultimately for the jury. So if that is satisfactory to your Honor, we will prepare such an order, and when he returns the tapes to you, we would like to pick them up and take them over and have them worked on.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Yochelson.
MR. YOCHELSON: Yes. That is fine, your Honor. It is my understanding from Mr. Bailey, and from speaking with the Defense, that the Defense has never had in its possession the original copies of these tapes. It only has a copy that was provided by Miss Schwartz--excuse me--by Mr. Schwartz. If that is correct, we would like to ask that we get a copy of whatever was provided to the Court before it is released to Mr. Bailey and we can cooperate in making those copies.
THE COURT: Mr. Bailey, any objection to that?
MR. BAILEY: My understanding is that they have what we have, both furnished from the same source.
MR. YOCHELSON: The problem is we are assuming that that is what was provided to the Court because neither party has seen the original tapes, so we are simply asking that copies of those originals be made for both sides.
MR. COCHRAN: Well, let me see if I can understand. They got what we have because we arranged--I had the lawyers bring the originals down and deposit them with you the other day. Before that the tapes that they tried to subpoena and seize, that was a copy made from those tapes, maybe a second, third generation tapes. I understand that when Mr. Schwartz gave them the same thing last weekend, he gave them the same thing we had.
THE COURT: Well, I suspect--well, Mr. Yochelson, how long do you think it would take to copy these tapes, given the fact that your sound lab has high-speed duplicators?
MR. YOCHELSON: Your Honor, it would take us a matter of hours, and the point has to be made that before these--before these original tapes are examined, and perhaps altered, a record has to be made of what they were and that is what we are asking.
THE COURT: I understand your point.
MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Douglas was indicating that the high-speed dubbing may very well add to the distortion, so what we are trying to do and what Mr. Bailey was doing was to go up and ask--we found out last night that you can clear up substantially the background noises, as I told your Honor, and it will make it easier for your Honor and Judge Reid to understand once it is done.
THE COURT: I understand that, but Mr. Yochelson's point is that there ought to be one copy at least of the tape that there is in existence before any enhancement takes place. That probably ought to be made and lodged with the Court in case there is any dispute as to what happened. Mr. Yochelson, as an Officer of the Court in this building, in an expeditious manner, I am inclined to order that.
MR. COCHRAN: Well, just--and I don't want to speak cynically. I don't want any of these tapes erased or anything. I want to make sure--
THE COURT: We will make sure that we punch out all the--I take it somebody has already taken the effort to punch out the copy protection.
MR. COCHRAN: I don't know if they have done it on the originals.
MR. YOCHELSON: We will do that, and your Honor, we will invite a representative of the Defense to be present during the copying procedure.
THE COURT: I was about to suggest that.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: You can take Mr. Blasier with you.
MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Blasier, volunteered, your Honor.
MR. BAILEY: He is leaving, your Honor.
MR. COCHRAN: He may be gone, your Honor.
MR. BAILEY: I will be happy--
THE COURT: I had overheard that he had travel plans.
MR. COCHRAN: Perhaps Mr. Bailey. We will designate someone.
MR. YOCHELSON: We will deal with this tomorrow after Judge Reid is finished.
THE COURT: I understand. You gentlemen can figure this out.
MR. YOCHELSON: We will work this out.
THE COURT: Thank you. We will take a 15-minute recess. And Mr. Douglas and Mr. Hodgman, consult with Mr. Hernandez, and if we need to take some testimony, we will do that at the end of 15.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. Mr.--what happened to Mr. Douglas and Mr. Hodgman? There's Mr. Douglas. Mr. Douglas, did you have the opportunity to confer with the gentleman from the department of street lighting?
MR. DOUGLAS: We did, your Honor. Thank you. Following our discussions, Mr. Hernandez, who was quite cooperative, was unable to confirm specifically that the two lights in both locations are in fact identical to as they were on June the 12th. As the Court will recall, we were informed by the police that a specific order was made to change the lighting given the problems that was attendant to the influx in traffic with tourism and foot traffic, and though he was able to check and verify a certain number on the outside of the lightbulb, he did not actually remove the casing and check the bulb. He will do that today and he will be available on Friday. Assuming we go back out to the scene and if in fact there was a change, it's been agreed, though we still reserve our objections, that he will then make the appropriate changes.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CLARK: We don't have the representative here, your Honor. I didn't know you were going to address it with Mr. Douglas now. But the representative from our office that talked to Mr. Hernandez with Mr. Douglas is not present. So we don't--
THE COURT: Oh, I accept Mr. Douglas' representation that the bulb will be checked to see if it matches what's supposed to be there, and if it's different, it will be changed to what it was supposed to be. I just said I accept your representation, Mr. Douglas, is what I just indicated.
MS. CLARK: I was only indicating to the Court that we can't offer any further information.
THE COURT: All right. So it's one more thing I have to hold until tomorrow. All right.
MR. COCHRAN: There's one other thing if I might that I just want to point out. That we got a number of calls--this is from Professor Dershowitz--regarding this high-speed tape reproduction. And these are supposedly experts in the field who stated that if one does a high resolution, high-speed tape reproduction, the very likely result would be significant distortion in voice inflection, word loss, et cetera, et cetera, and this is not the necessary method to duplicate these tapes. And so I raise this because, Judge, we've gone to a lot of trouble, this is very important and I don't want to have these tapes altered or--
THE COURT: Your technical expert, Mr. Bailey, wanted to say something to you.
MR. COCHRAN: Sure. Sure.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. COCHRAN: I understand apparently it's been worked out. I wanted to make sure it wasn't done by people who didn't understand. Apparently they've worked it out now and it's going to be okay. Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. We'll leave it to the experts in their respective fields. All right. Anything else we need to discuss before we resume with the jury?
MR. COCHRAN: No your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Let me ask one other question. What is the possibility of having witnesses available tomorrow?
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I'm glad you asked that question, your Honor. We've thought long and hard and tried to do everything we could in this connection, but the Court I think is aware that we're at the point of the tapes quite frankly. The witnesses after that, the Court knows who those witnesses are. There are several witnesses in Chicago and there's Mr. Weitzman, as I indicated, all of whom are not available at all this week. We just could not get them. So we have Mr. Aguilar for--hopefully we can finish him by lunch time.
THE COURT: How about Mr. Ragle?
MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Ragle--as the Court is aware, Mr. Ragle is being handled by Mr. Blasier. As part of our order, he will come right before Dr. Henry Lee. And Mr. Blasier, as you know, because of a previous commitment, will not be here this afternoon or tomorrow either, your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, I could change that.
MR. COCHRAN: You certainly could, your Honor. But I think we're not ready yet. He will come right before Dr. Lee if the Court pleases. And that's the problem. So we have tried very hard not to have any downtime, but we need the time for the tapes. We're at that point in the case, and we did lose some time by the People's motion. So I wanted to let the Court know as soon as possible so perhaps the jury can have some type of diversion tomorrow where they won't have to come in. And we've done everything we could as far as getting witnesses, but we're at that point where we're going to be able to do Mr. Aguilar today, hopefully resolve the tape matter on Monday and then finish our case hopefully next week.
THE COURT: All right. Then I will tell the jury when we break today that we have run out of witnesses at this point, that there's a significant legal issue that the Court needs to attend to and that we'll reconvene with the jury hopefully Monday morning.
MR. COCHRAN: That's fine. And we'll be in touch with your Honor regarding these tapes and what happens with the--
THE COURT: Because I still have not received a redacted set of the tapes.
MR. COCHRAN: Right. Well, we're going to make sure you get that. Hopefully we'd like to give you a redacted set that's been enhanced. You know, you have the--and it'll make it easier with all the tapes. It is a lot more work than I thought, doing those verbatim tapes.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. COCHRAN: Transcripts rather.
THE COURT: All right. I'm sorry. Miss Clark, you have something that we need to do?
MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. Mr. Douglas had given me a handwritten statement as to the stipulation that he wanted, and that was acceptable to me, but I had asked for a stipulation in response to that with respect to prints lifted from the Defendant's Bronco by latent print investigator finch.
THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.
MR. COCHRAN: I'm sorry. I wasn't listening.
MS. CLARK: Mr. Douglas had asked that I stipulate to the lifting of latent prints from the location at Bundy, which I agreed to do, and I'm only asking that in response, the Defense stipulate to the lifting of latent prints from the Defendant's Bronco on June the 14th.
MR. COCHRAN: Well, the only problem--I have no problem with that except that part of my examination today, your Honor, I want to go into the Bundy crime scene. So that with respect--limited to that. This is our case and that's how we choose to call it. So I have no problem with the foundational stipulation, but we would object to beyond the scope of our direct examination, because we're only limiting it to Bundy as the limited portion.
THE COURT: Are you--excuse me. Miss Clark, are you going to be calling Mr. Aguilar as one of your witnesses with regards to the fingerprints in the Bronco?
MS. CLARK: If we have to, we will. You know, sure. Let's waste some more time. Great idea. You know, we have the witness on the witness stand. We all know he lifted prints from the Defendant's Bronco. We all know that the latent print person was there on the 14th at 1:30, lifted the prints, compared them.
THE COURT: What do they say?
MS. CLARK: The prints on the Bronco? The Defendant's, the Defendant's prints.
THE COURT: That's hardly surprising.
MS. CLARK: I felt the same way, your Honor. But it is important that--all we're asking is that the Defense stipulate that on June the 14th between 1:30--excuse me. I'm sorry--between 1:30 and 3 o'clock, that latent print investigator finch responded to the Bronco and dusted it for--lifted latent prints from the door, the driver's side door. That's all we're asking.
MR. COCHRAN: I have no problem with that as I indicated. The problem is, as I said many times, and counsel knows it--
THE COURT: Well, she's asking you at this point, are you willing to stipulate to that while this witness is here.
MR. COCHRAN: I'm willing to stipulate to that, yes, your Honor, but I still object to any testimony about the Bronco. I'm limiting my examination to Bundy. I think that's what's relevant.
THE COURT: Well, you're giving me an inconsistent answer here, Mr. Cochran. Are you willing to stipulate to that with this witness here today?
MR. COCHRAN: Yes, I am.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You're right. You are entitled to present your case. But since this guy's here--
MR. COCHRAN: Yes.
THE COURT: And it's--all right. Miss Clark, you heard Mr. Cochran's response?
MS. CLARK: I did. May I have one moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Sure.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: If I understand Mr. Cochran correctly, he wants to stipulate to the foundational issue of the latent prints having been taken as represented in the report. I would ask that counsel stipulate to the information on this report as being true and accurate, which is a page labeled L99, as I have agreed to stipulate to similar pages for their witness today. And we will--
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: It would just help if we tried to do these stipulations beforehand, counsel.
(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. Let the record reflect that we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
THE COURT: All right. Who will be presenting the next Defense witness?
MR. COCHRAN: I will, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.
MR. COCHRAN: The Defense will next call Mr. Gilbert Aguilar. Mr. Aguilar.
Gilbert Aguilar, called as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows:
THE CLERK: Raise your right hand, please. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
MR. AGUILAR: I do.
THE CLERK: Please have a seat on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.
MR. AGUILAR: Gilbert Aguilar, G-I-L-B-E-R-T A-G-U-I-L-A-R.
THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.
MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN
MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, Mr. Aguilar.
MR. AGUILAR: Good morning.
MR. COCHRAN: Sir, what is your occupation?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. I'm a forensic print specialist employed by the Los Angeles Police Department assigned to the Scientific Investigations Division with the latent print section.
MR. COCHRAN: And for how long have you been employed, Mr. Aguilar?
MR. AGUILAR: Employed with the--
MR. COCHRAN: By the Los Angeles Police Department.
MR. AGUILAR: --Los Angeles Police Department for over 17 years.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And how long have you been employed in the latent print section of the LAPD SID lab?
MR. AGUILAR: For over 10 years.
MR. COCHRAN: And during that period of time, can you tell the jury or give the jury an idea of how many latent print crime scenes that you've--investigations that you've been involved in?
MR. AGUILAR: I've been to about or I've been to over 20,000 latent print crime scenes.
MR. COCHRAN: And have you had occasion to conduct a number of latent print comparisons during that time frame?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And how many comparisons would you say you've made, an estimate generally?
MR. AGUILAR: Oh, in excess of 150,000.
MR. COCHRAN: Why don't we tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what a latent print is.
MR. AGUILAR: Sure. A latent print is the reproduction of the friction skin left on an object when you touch it. It's usually invisible and must be made visible or developed using fingerprint powders, chemicals or use the laser. I'm talking about--the friction skin, I'm talking about skin that's found on the fingers, on the palms of your hands. It's also found on your toes and your soles of your feet. It's different than the other skin on your body where it has these ridges or these lines that flow across. Well, the unique thing about these ridges is that they don't just flow from one end to the other. They will flow and they will stop. At the point where they stop, we call those ridge endings. Another thing these ridges will do is, they will flow and they will divide into two ridges. At the point where they divide, we call those bifurcations. Because everybody has these ridge endings and bifurcations throughout their entire friction skin, but it's where they are in relationship to each other that would make a fingerprint unique.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And while we're about it then, tell us the difference between a known and a latent print.
MR. AGUILAR: Well, a known print would also be considered an ink print where you actually have the individual there, you apply ink to the fingertips or to the palms of their hands and you roll their fingerprints on a fingerprint card. You actually have the person there and you're the one who took their fingerprints. A latent print is a print that's found at a crime scene. You don't know whose it is. You develop it, you bring it back and it's unknown until you actually do a comparison to the inked fingerprint.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And how long have you been a latent print comparison expert?
MR. AGUILAR: I've actually been a comparison expert for over six years.
MR. COCHRAN: And have you had occasion to testify within the courts of this county and the federal courts as an expert in this field?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And how many times have you testified prior to today?
MR. AGUILAR: Over 400 times.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, would you tell the jury, sir, something about how prints are lifted generally?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. Usually when you go out to a crime scene, you're usually taking fingerprint powders. You have a silver and a black powder depending on what type of surface you're going to use the powders on to look for the print. Usually what you'll do is, you'll apply the powder to the surface using a brush that's similar to an artist paper brush, just brush on the powder. The powder adheres to any moisture that's left behind when you touch an object. The powder forms the print or it develops the print so that you're able to see it. Once you develop this print, the next step would be to lift it off the item. And the way that's done is, you apply a--a tape that is similar to scotch tape, which is a special type of tape for latent prints, you lift the print off the object, you put it on the fingerprint lift card for permanent record.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, in connection with this case, the Simpson case, would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what role you played in that regard, sir?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. In this case, I did all of the comparison work. I compared all of the fingerprints that were found at the crime scene to known fingerprints or to inked fingerprint impressions.
MR. COCHRAN: And prior to--so you did the actual comparisons; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And as I understand it, in order for you to do the comparisons, somebody before you had to lift the prints; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: The latent prints, yes.
MR. COCHRAN: The latent prints. And who in this case--can you give us the names of the individuals who lifted the prints in this case?
MR. AGUILAR: Sure. Can I check my records, please?
MR. COCHRAN: Sure. Please do. If you need those to refresh your recollection, that would be fine.
(Brief pause.)
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. The prints were developed and recovered from the Bundy location by a Miss Claiborne, C-L-A-I-B-O-R-N-E, and also a Miss Braggs, B-R-A-G-G-S, and also a Miss Udeshi, U-D-E-S-H-I, and a Miss Duke, D-U-K-E.
MR. COCHRAN: Very well. Your Honor, I think we have a stipulation regarding this for its foundation.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, may I ask the clerk what the next Defense exhibit is?
THE CLERK: 1322.
MR. COCHRAN: 13--
THE CLERK: 22.
(Deft's 1322 for id = fingerprint lifts)
MR. COCHRAN: May I have just one second, your Honor?
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, we have a couple stipulations which I believe will save a little time, if the Court pleases.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. COCHRAN: The first stipulation is, it is hereby stipulated that on June 13th of 1994, technicians from the Scientific Investigation Division of the Los Angeles Police Department, namely, Braggs, Duke, Udeshi, u-d-e-s-h-I, and Claiborne obtained 17 identifiable lifts from the Bundy crime scene, and those latent prints are accurately reflected on Defense exhibit 1322.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Let me change one word, your Honor. Let me go back and restate that briefly. It is hereby stipulated that on June 13th, 1994, technicians from the Scientific Investigation Division of the Los Angeles Police Department, namely, Braggs, Duke, Udeshi and Claiborne obtained 17 latent lifts, latent print lifts from the Bundy crime scene. Those latent prints are accurately reflected in Defense exhibit number 1322. In addition, it's further stipulated that on or about 1:30 P.M. on June 14th, 1994, latent print investigator by the name of finch dusted the Ford Bronco for fingerprints and obtained three identifiable fingerprints from the driver side outside door and that those prints were identified as Mr. Simpson's left index and right middle fingers.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Simpson's Ford Bronco. So stipulated, counsel?
MS. CLARK: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, if you recollect, a stipulation is an agreement between the parties as to the facts of the case. You are to assume the facts in the stipulation are true for the purposes of this trial. Mr. Cochran.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor. I'd like to approach the witness with 1322 and place it before him. I'm sure he has a copy.
MR. COCHRAN: And I want you to--I'm going to place 1322 before you. It's a document entitled "Los Angeles Police Department Scientific Investigation Division latent print section." Have you ever seen this form before, sir?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what that form is?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. This is a homicide investigation report. When somebody goes out to a scene of a homicide and latent prints are recovered, each latent print is listed where the latent print was recovered from in--for each number. For instance, this one had 17. So the first would be 1 of 17, 2 of 17 and so on. And this form that we use just to document where each of the prints, where it came from so we could hand that evidence or hand this form over to the investigating officers.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And so with connection with these 17 prints that were lifted on or about--is that June 13th, 1994?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Was there an elimination attempted regarding the Defendant in this case, Mr. O.J. Simpson?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And when was that first elimination?
MR. AGUILAR: The first elimination, that was done on June 13th, 1994.
MR. COCHRAN: And so that we're all clear, what does "Elimination" mean?
MR. AGUILAR: "Elimination" means that we compared all of the latent prints to that individual and eliminated that person, means that person did not leave those fingerprints at that--none of the latent prints were recovered were that individual's.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. So that I'm clear--I want to make sure I'm clear on what you're saying--that with regard to any of the prints lifted at the Bundy crime scene, those prints were compared with Mr. Simpson's prints, and he did not make any of those prints. Is that what you're saying?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And that determination was made on June 13th of 1994; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, were you involved in the case at that point?
MR. AGUILAR: No.
MR. COCHRAN: Did you--when did you get involved in the case?
MR. AGUILAR: I got involved in the case in late July of 1994.
MR. COCHRAN: And once you got involved in the case as a latent print comparison expert, did you have occasion to review the work of those who had been involved in eliminating Mr. Simpson's prints back on June 13th?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And for the record, if you look at 1322, can you tell us the names of the individuals who eliminated Mr. Simpson's prints on June 13th, 1994?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. One of the individuals was a Mr. Albardo, A-L-B-A-R-D-O, and the other individual was Mr. Captia, C-A-P-T-I-A, I believe.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And those are your colleagues; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And now, when you got involved in the case in July of 1994, did you have occasion to look at the 17 prints lifted from Bundy and compare those prints yourself with those of Mr. O.J. Simpson?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And what did you find, if anything, in that regard?
MR. AGUILAR: That none of the latent prints are recovered from the crime scene were identified to Mr. Simpson.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, in connection--you have described for this jury and the Court what a latent print is versus a known print, and with regard to the 17 prints that were lifted at Bundy, I would like for you now to take us through and let's talk about where those 17 prints were found in order of the report. Can you do that for us?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to prints that are found, you'll then tell us whether they were able to be identified or nonidentifiable or whatever; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Let's start. And do you have them in some kind of number or some kind of order?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. I have the original latent prints, all 17 of them that were recovered from the crime scene.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And why don't you tell us where those prints were found.
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. The first print, no. 1 of 17, the latent print was recovered from the inside of the front door frame at Bundy location.
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, what I would like to do is mark this as--if I might interrupt the witness. I'm sorry--as no. 1323. And while he's doing that, if the Court pleases, show it to Mr. Darden, I'd like to put it on the elmo if at all possible.
THE COURT: All right. The latent lift card?
MR. COCHRAN: Yeah, the lat--well, it's not really a lift. No. This is a report and--
THE COURT: All right.
MR. COCHRAN: I'm folding the second page. I'm going to--
(Deft's 1323 for id = eliminated latent prints)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I have now no. 1323, which is a document entitled, "Eliminated latent package A." I would like to approach the witness, lay a foundation if I may.
THE COURT: You may.
MR. COCHRAN: I place this before you again, Mr. Aguilar, and ask you to take a look at this document, now Defendant's 1323 for identification. Do you recognize that document?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And what is that?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. This was a document that was written to indicate another--just as the same--as the 187 investigation report or the homicide investigation report was to indicate where the lifts were taken from and also to indicate whether the print was identifiable, whether it was identified to an individual or whether the print was nonidentifiable, which means that it didn't have sufficient characteristics to positively identify it to anybody.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. So this is kind of a summary of the 17 prints we've been talking about?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And this may help make it clear for our jury as to where these prints were recovered and that sort of thing; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay. This is an LAPD form?
MR. AGUILAR: No, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: Who wrote this?
MR. AGUILAR: Mr. John green from--a supervisor in my section wrote that.
MR. COCHRAN: He's a supervisor in the LAPD?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Looks kind of like an s; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Like to place this on the elmo, first of two pages. It's two pages.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. COCHRAN: To save some time, while we're putting this up, why don't you tell us, sir, where these lifts were found. You may proceed.
MR. AGUILAR: Okay. Lift no. 1 of 17 was found on the inside front door, the door frame, and that print--sorry. You just want me to indicate where they were found?
MR. COCHRAN: Can you tell us where they were found and whether or not it was an identifiable print and whether it was identified to any particular individual?
MR. AGUILAR: And you also want the individual that it was identified to?
MR. COCHRAN: Yes. Can you do that?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. Print 1 of 17 was identified to Nicole Simpson.
MR. COCHRAN: And where was that found again?
MR. AGUILAR: That was found on the inside front door frame.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And then what about prints 2, 3 and 4? Where were they located?
MR. AGUILAR: 2, 3 and 4 were also located on the inside of the front door. 2 and 3 were actually on the door next to the doorknob and no. 4 was also on the door frame, and neither one of those prints was--print no. 2, 3 and 4 were not identified to anybody as of yet.
MR. COCHRAN: Were they identifiable prints?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: In other words, you got enough to determine these were latent prints; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: But you have not been able to, as they say in the parlance, make those prints to any particular person; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to the prints, if you have a fingerprint, there's certain systems within the state of California and perhaps nationally that you can run a fingerprint through to try to determine whether or not it matches up with certain individuals; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to palm prints, are you able to do that?
MR. AGUILAR: No.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. With regard to palm prints, in this case, did you compare these palm prints, no. 2, 3 and 4 with Mr. Simpson first of all?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And those were not Mr. Simpson's prints, were they?
MR. AGUILAR: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: And did you have occasion to compare those prints with any other individuals in this case?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And first of all, did you have any known--other known prints that you compared these three latent prints we're talking about now, your Honor--
MR. COCHRAN: And that's on Defendant's 1323 I believe?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you compare those 2, 3 and 4 with any other known prints in this particular case?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And who was that?
MR. AGUILAR: It was--I compared them with over 58 individuals.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And where did you get these names for the 58 individuals?
MR. AGUILAR: I got them mostly from the investigating officers in this case.
MR. COCHRAN: In other words, what you tried to do was--did you use the crime scene log?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And did you go out and try to take and get the prints of everybody who you knew had been at the scene on or about the early morning hours of June 13th of 1994?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. We tried to get everybody's fingerprints.
MR. COCHRAN: And altogether, there were some 58 names that you ran or checked?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And I presume you at some point got the palm prints of each of these individuals; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And you were able to compare the palm prints of these 58 individuals with items 2, 3 and 4; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, in addition to that, you've already told us that you compared these three, 2, 3 and 4 with Mr. Simpson. Did you compare them with any other known prints of any of the victims in this case?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. I compared them to the fingers or I compared 2's, 3 and 4 to the palm prints of the victims that we had.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. That would be Miss Nicole Brown Simpson, Mr. Ronald Goldman?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: So if I'm counting correctly, you compared the 2, 3 and 4, the identifiable palm prints from the interior door of the residence at Bundy, with some 61 individuals; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And were you able to identify any of those 61 individuals as having made the palm prints, 2, 3 and 4, on 1323?
MR. AGUILAR: No.
MR. COCHRAN: Have you compared those palm prints with anyone else at this point?
MR. AGUILAR: No, I don't believe I have.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. So what we've done, you compared it with each of--with Mr. Simpson and Miss Brown Simpson and with Mr. Goldman, right?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And then the 58 people who were in and about that scene and/or were friends, is that correct, of Miss Brown Simpson?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And family.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Your Honor, I would like to mark as next 1324, which is a five-page document of--these are individuals.
THE COURT: All right. 1324. This is the list of comparisons?
MR. COCHRAN: Yes, it is, the list. The total--I think it totals 58 plus the three, Mr. Simpson, Miss Brown Simpson and Mr. Goldman.
THE COURT: All right. 1324.
(Deft's 1324 for id = list of comparisons)
MR. DARDEN: I have no objection, but we will need to replace this with a clean copy.
MR. COCHRAN: I have no problem. And so that you know, the yellow copies, these are the--people from the--from SID. May I approach, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay. 1324, I want to place this before you, and I'll put it on the elmo afterwards. What is this document, no. 1324, that I've placed before you?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. This is a homicide work sheet. We fill out this form whenever we do a comparison to a homicide case. If we're comparing an individual's fingerprints and palm prints to the lifts, we will indicate the individual's name and any information that we have on that individual so that we know how many people and who we checked against those prints.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And in this connection, you've already told us that you used the crime scene log, you took names off there; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: That was one of the way, yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And what other individuals did you check that should be on that list?
MR. AGUILAR: I believe family of Nicole Brown and friends.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. So, your Honor, I would like to continue on with the elmo if I might.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. COCHRAN: Now so that we get a flavor for the--some of the individuals who were checked, I notice there's a Phil Vannatter. So you checked his palm prints against 2, 3 and 4?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: You went down this list. These are--this first list here, 1324, are these individuals that you received from the crime scene log?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: I notice that most of them have numbers after them. Are those LAPD numbers?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. Those are employee serial numbers.
MR. COCHRAN: You checked--you tried to check the LAPD officers who had logged in on that particular date; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay. As to the second sheet, did you check Coroner's representatives and photographers who were also there that day?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And so--and by the way, this form where it says "Package," what does "Package a" mean?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. Package a means that that's the first package that we got at the crime scene. Sometimes you may have more than one investigation to it. So you might have a scene. Then you have to go print a vehicle or you might have evidence to process in the lab. So every time we do an investigation at different locations or different scenes, then we would give it a different package, A, B, C and so on.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And with regard to this second page of 1324, there's some highlighting of--if we can push it all the way up--of four individuals. And are those the people we talked about, your colleagues at latent print, Udeshi, Duke, Braggs and Claiborne?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you--they have been highlighted as individuals who work within the lab. So you checked them against the prints also; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Third part of 1324, again, you used the log and checked police officers and anyone else at the scene; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Fourth page finally, fourth page, you had occasion to check family members like Denise Brown; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Louis Brown?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Faye Resnick; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And lastly, the fifth page, apparently, again, are other individuals from the crime scene log; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Now, so that we're clear, with regard to then items 2, 3 and 4 of items 1323, you then checked all of the 58 individuals we've just seen cursorily and plus the other three we're added, 61 individuals, right?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And those prints then are still outstanding. You don't know who those prints belong to; is that right?
MR. AGUILAR: They haven't been identified. That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, let's continue on with what you found regarding the latent prints.
MR. COCHRAN: Let's move on to print no. 5 if you can. Let's put that up. Yes. Thanks, Howard.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. I think we're down to print no. 5. And where was that recovered from, sir?
THE COURT: All right. We're back on 1323?
MR. COCHRAN: 1323. Yes, your Honor.
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. Print no. 5 was recovered from the handrail next to the front door. That print is indicated it's nonidentifiable. It lacks sufficient characteristics in that print to ever identify it to who left it. Even if you had their fingerprints and their palm prints, there's not enough there to identify that print.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. So we'll--based upon it being nonidentifiable, we'll never know whose print that is; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, let's move on to print lift no. 6.
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. That--no. 6 was recovered from the handrail to the front entrance in the stairwell.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. The handrail from the front entrance of the stairwell at the Bundy location?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, at some point, you had occasion to go out to the Bundy location; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: When was that?
MR. AGUILAR: Went out I believe it was twice in February of 1995.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Twice this year; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And did you at that point try to look and see these various locations where these prints were taken?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. But this one, so we're clear about, this is a left thumb print; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And it was collected from the handrail middle attached to the front entrance stairwell; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Where is that? Down near the front gate? Do you remember?
MR. AGUILAR: I'd have to check the--
MR. COCHRAN: All right. What are you checking?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. I'm checking the original latent prints that were recovered from the crime scene that would indicate a photograph--or not a photograph, but a drawing of where it was. It might help me refresh my memory of where it came from.
MR. COCHRAN: Please do that.
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. No. 6 did come from the rail close to the front gate.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And was that an identifiable print?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And do you know whose print that was?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Whose print was that?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. It's the left thumbprint of a photographer named Goodwin, a Mr. Goodwin, G-O-O-D-W-I-N.
MR. COCHRAN: So that's one of the photographers who was at the scene. Did you see that photographer's name on the crime log?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And I notice you mentioned "By left thumb" on this part where it says "6, left thumb, afis." What is AFIS?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. AFIS is--what it means is the automated fingerprint identification system. It's the fingerprint computer that we use to try to search fingerprints, try to search them through our database.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you didn't need--have to use AFIS in this I presume because you knew it was a--one of the people you checked, one of the 58 was a good one; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Right. It was indicated that the print was good enough for AFIS, but once it was identified, there was no need to process it further.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. I understand. Let's move on to no. 7. Now, these are all outside the house as I understand, is that correct, these prints we're talking about?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. No. 7 would be--not all of the rest of them are outside the house. Some are inside.
MR. COCHRAN: Well, let's see. What I had reference to--I'm sorry. As I understand it, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are outside the house?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Is that right? Okay. Then let's move on to--let's talk about no. 7.
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. No. 7 was recovered from the top of the gatepost, the small gate outside the front door leading to the rear of the location.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And was that an identifiable print?
MR. AGUILAR: No. It was nonidentifiable.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you had a latent print, but you can not--you can not with specificity make that to any individual; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. All right. Let's move on to no. 8, another palm print. Where was that recovered?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. No. 8 was recovered from the outside of the stairwell, the handrail, north side of the location.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And the location being the Bundy residence; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson?
MR. AGUILAR: I'm sorry?
MR. COCHRAN: Of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And was that an identifiable print?
MR. AGUILAR: No. 8?
MR. COCHRAN: Yes.
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: So that was a print that was identifiable; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Were you able to make that print to any individual?
MR. AGUILAR: No.
MR. COCHRAN: So that's a print that is outstanding if I can use that word at this point. It's--you've not been able to make that to any individual although it had enough characteristics for you to call it an identifiable print; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And of course, that print was compared to Mr. Simpson and was not Mr. Simpson, right?
MR. AGUILAR: It was not made to Mr. Simpson, yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And at this point, this print, this palm print is still outstanding; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: We still don't know who it belongs to, that's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And because it's a palm print, you are not able to use the AFIS system or the other system we talked about, right?
MR. AGUILAR: Right.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Let's move on to print no. 9, sir. Where was that located?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. Print no. 9 was located from the outside stairwell handrail the north side of the house, pretty close to where no. 8 was.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And was that an identifiable print?
MR. AGUILAR: No. That print is also nonidentifiable.
MR. COCHRAN: And again, that means you couldn't make that to anyone?
MR. AGUILAR: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Let's move to no. 10.
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. No. 10 was recovered from the outside gated entrance, the door bar, the gate in front of the location.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. The gate at the front part of this location, of this residence, we've all seen that. It's outside that?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: For the Bundy side of the street?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And tell us again where that was, this print.
MR. AGUILAR: It was from the outside gated entrance, the door bar.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And was this an identifiable print?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And in that connection then, this print was lifted, and what was this print? What was lifted, if anything?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. A latent print was recovered from that gate that consisted of two fingers.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Which fingers were they?
MR. AGUILAR: Can I check the latent lifts?
MR. COCHRAN: Sure. If you can.
(Brief pause.)
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. It was the--it was identified to the left index and the left middle finger.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. By the way, you were referring to a latent print card. Can you hold one of those up?
MR. COCHRAN: And perhaps we can show the jury what that looks like, what those latent prints look like. May I approach, your Honor, pass it around?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Let me approach if I might.
MR. COCHRAN: Tell us what that is.
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. This is the latent print card or the lift card that was recovered from the Bundy location. This one here would be--indicated 10 of 17. This is the one that was recovered from the front gate entrance.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And that's a lift, that's an actual lift from that front gate area?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. This is the actual latent print itself that was removed.
MR. COCHRAN: You would like to have this back, would you?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay. May I just--I won't mark it. May I pass it--
THE COURT: What we'll do is, we'll place a photocopy in evidence.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Do you want to mark it then, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes. Let's mark that as 1325.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay. We'll make--1325. We'll make it a copy of this, your Honor.
(Deft's 1325 for id = copy of latent print)
MR. COCHRAN: Where do you want to start?
THE COURT: Juror no. 1.
(Exhibit 1325 was examined by the jurors.)
MR. COCHRAN: Now, so what--
THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Cochran. When we pass something to the jury, it's my preference we not take any further testimony so that they have their undivided attention looking at the item.
MR. COCHRAN: Sure, your Honor.
(Brief pause.)
MR. COCHRAN: May we approach, your Honor, save some time?
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: All right. We're over at side bar. Is there an objection, Mr. Darden?
MR. DARDEN: Yes, your Honor. There's a 352 objection to lifts 13 through 17. These are lifts from the white Ferrari which was located in Nicole Brown's garage. The garage door was closed when the police arrived. There's no indication that the murderer actually entered the garage area or was anywhere near the Ferrari. Of course, these prints can't be dated nor can they be identified as I understand it. So there's a 352 objection.
MR. COCHRAN: This is part of the 17 prints taken from the Jeep and Ferrari. We don't have just the Prosecution's theory. This was inside the location where the Jeep was, part of the 17. This is of no particular moment, but I think it's certainly relevant and not going to consume a great amount of time. I intend to go right through them.
MR. DARDEN: As I said, the garage is closed. That's a different situation from the Cherokee which is outside, the door ajar and bloodstain next to it.
MR. COCHRAN: But, Judge, there's no showing--none of us were there--as to what happened, whether the garage is closed or not. It could have been let up or let down.
MS. CLARK: A number of things could have happened.
THE COURT: Objection is overruled. I don't think it would be overly time-consuming. But also, did they ever compare any of these prints to the children?
MR. COCHRAN: I don't think the children were compared. I don't think the children were compared.
THE COURT: Just curious.
MR. COCHRAN: I don't think so.
THE COURT: Just curious.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: All right. The record should reflect the print card regarding this particular two fingers lift has been returned. And if you could, Mr. Cochran, would you give it to Mrs. Robertson, and we'll have one of the law clerks make a photocopy, back and front, and we'll substitute that as 1325.
MR. COCHRAN: I'm doing that right now. Thank you, your Honor.
MR. COCHRAN: I think we were talking about lift no. 10; is that correct, sir?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And this was the one out by the outside gated entrance door bar. And with regard to this latent print, did you have to run that print through the AFIS system or any other system at all?
MR. AGUILAR: It was indicated that it was good enough for the AFIS system.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And were you able to make this print to any particular individual?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And who was that individual?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. It was Detective Ron Phillips.
MR. COCHRAN: Is that one of the detectives in this case?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And that was his print; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Let's then shift our attention to item no. 11. Can you tell the jury where that item was recovered?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. Item 11 was inside the Bundy location. It was recovered from the outside bathroom door that's between the kitchen area and the living room. It was--that print was identified. It was identifiable and it was identified.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay. It was identified--identifiable and identified. And what was that print of? Was it a finger or palm or what?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. It's a finger.
MR. COCHRAN: And which finger was it?
MR. AGUILAR: It's the right index finger.
MR. COCHRAN: And who was this print identified to?
MR. AGUILAR: To a Miss Faye Resnick.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, are you able to date prints as to when somebody made a particular print of a location?
MR. AGUILAR: You mean when somebody left the print or when somebody developed it?
MR. COCHRAN: No. As to when the print was left.
MR. AGUILAR: No.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. All right. Now, let's shift our attention to item no. 12 that was collected.
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. No. 12 was recovered from a pack of Marlboro Lights cigarette that was in the master bedroom or bathroom, the back of the toilet.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. You think that might be a typo there where it says "Bedroom"?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. It might have been.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. At any rate, was this an identifiable print?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. It was identifiable and it was identified.
MR. COCHRAN: And who was it identified to?
MR. AGUILAR: To the victim, Nicole Brown.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And then with regard to--
MR. COCHRAN: And we'll turn to the second page, Mr. Harris, of 1323.
MR. COCHRAN: Tell us about prints 13, 14 and 15. I believe they're all collected at the same location.
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. Prints 13, 14 and 15, all three of them came from a white Ferrari vehicle that was in the back of the location.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And were these identifiable prints, sir?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And were they identified to any particular individual?
MR. AGUILAR: No.
MR. COCHRAN: Could not identify those to any particular individual?
MR. AGUILAR: That's correct. There--we have not identified them.
MR. COCHRAN: And those prints are then still outstanding; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Right. We still don't know who they are.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. You haven't made those to any individuals; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, let's then lastly go to items 16 and 17. By the way--strike that. Let me back up a moment. With regard to items 13 and 14, I see an AFIS, a-f-I-s, after that. Were those prints that were found on the Ferrari that are identifiable run through any systems?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Describe what happened in that connection, sir.
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. Those prints, no. 13 and 14, are both fingers. So we were able to put those two prints into the AFIS system or the automated fingerprint identification system of the Los Angeles Police Department to see that--if it would give us a possible match. That was unsuccessful. We did not get a match. So once that happened, we ran it through the Department of Justice fingerprint computer. And even with doing that, we still did not get a match. And we also went as far as running it through the win or the western identification network, which is part of the western states that are hooked up to each other that we're able to access some of these computer systems. And we ran it through those systems and they're still--the prints are still--have not been identified.
MR. COCHRAN: And these systems, these computer systems that you're talking about, do you have any idea of how many prints or the latent print is compared so when they run through the win system or the AFIS system?
MR. AGUILAR: Well, the AFIS system, the prints would be run through our entire database, and we have over two million fingerprint cards at the Los Angeles Police Department. When--run it through the Department of Justice or through Sacramento, their computer system, it also has--it runs their entire database, which is I believe over 5---over 10 million fingerprint cards for there. Then the win program, I'm not too sure how many actual fingerprint cards are in the database for each individual location.
MR. COCHRAN: I guess we could say a lot though, right?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. More than Sacramento's would be.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay. But at any rate, it was run through the AFIS system and the win system, and you're not able to make these two fingerprints found on the Ferrari to any individual known at this point; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, we've already covered that with regard to a palm print, you're more limited; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: But with regard to the palm print that was found on the Ferrari, would I be correct in assuming that you compared that palm print to the 58 individuals who were on the log and/or family friends plus Mr. Simpson, Miss Simpson and Mr. Goldman? Is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And that palm print didn't come back to any of those individuals either, right?
MR. AGUILAR: Right.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And shifting our attention lastly to items--prints 16 and 17, where were they lifted from, sir?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. Both of those prints were lifted from a black Cherokee Jeep that was--both of them came from the outside passenger side rear fender.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And were there identifiable prints lifted from this black Cherokee Jeep?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. Both of them were also palm prints.
MR. COCHRAN: And were you able to identify any individual with regard to these two identifiable prints?
MR. AGUILAR: No.
MR. COCHRAN: And again, they were palm prints. So you couldn't run them through the system, but you ran them through all the individuals you mentioned before?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And they did not match up with anyone connected with this case at least at this point; is that right?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, so that we're clear, to summarize, you had 17 lifts; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: 17 prints were lifted. And of those 17, as I understand it, keeping track, 14 of those were identifiable; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And of the 14 that were identifiable, five were actually identified; isn't that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay. So that leaves nine that were identifiable but have not been identified, but are still out there. We don't know who made those prints, right?
MR. AGUILAR: Right.
MR. COCHRAN: Is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
(Brief pause.)
MR. COCHRAN: Now, you last worked on this case when, sir, with regard to any comparisons or identifications?
MR. AGUILAR: The last time I did a comparison?
MR. COCHRAN: Yes.
MR. AGUILAR: I would have to check my records.
MR. COCHRAN: Just approximately.
(Brief pause.)
MR. COCHRAN: Maybe I can ask you another question, save some time.
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Do you have the answer now?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. I believe the last time would have been February 7th, 1995.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay. So to summarize if we could--and you can check your records if you need to--the prints that were identifiable, but not identified to any individual are numbers 2, 3, 4, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: That we saw on 1323; is that correct, sir?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to your testimony here, you--when's the first time you ever met me?
MR. AGUILAR: I believe this morning.
MR. COCHRAN: First time we ever talked; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And I want to ask you a couple other questions. With regard to this concept of fingerprints, are you able to get fingerprints from inside of a glove, depending upon the glove?
MR. AGUILAR: It would depend on what type of glove it was that--
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Some gloves you can get fingerprints from and some others you can't depending upon the type. Is that what you're saying?
MR. AGUILAR: Right. If it's a latex or a vinyl glove, then we'll attempt to get a latent print off of it if it's possible to get a print.
MR. COCHRAN: Did you attempt to get any prints off any gloves in connection with this case?
MR. AGUILAR: No.
MR. COCHRAN: Now--
MR. COCHRAN: May I have just one second, your Honor?
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. COCHRAN: With regard--do you know whether or not--and looking--and I can put the chart back up--of the 58 plus family members, do you know whether or not the children's prints--you obtained the known prints of the Simpson minor children, Justin and Sidney Simpson?
MR. AGUILAR: Oh, they do not.
MR. COCHRAN: Could you rule out any of the prints remaining by virtue of the size of the prints, that is adult prints or whatever?
MR. AGUILAR: I would have to know the size of the children.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. So that you don't--so you don't know at this point; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: No.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to your work and your examination here, did--you told us that at some point, you had a reference or a known print from Nicole Brown Simpson, Ron Goldman and from O.J. Simpson; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And Mr. Simpson, Mr. O.J. Simpson's prints were obtained on June 13th; isn't that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And that was--that enabled them to eliminate him that same day, isn't that correct, because they had his prints as of the 13th?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: With regard to Miss Nicole Brown Simpson, did you have both of her palm prints?
MR. AGUILAR: No.
MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to that, were you relying upon the Coroner's office?
MR. AGUILAR: The Coroner's office are the one that took the palm prints.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Whomever in the Coroner's office took the palm prints; is that right?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And in that connection, what were you working with? What did you receive from either the Coroner's office or their representative with regard to the reference prints of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. We retrieved--received the impressions or the fingerprints of all 10 fingers and the impressions or the palm prints of the right palm twice.
MR. COCHRAN: In other words, they took all 10 fingers, they took the palm, the right palm twice and you never had the left palm; is that right?
MR. AGUILAR: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: But you did have all 10 fingers; is that right?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: May I have just a second, your Honor?
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. COCHRAN: Just one or two further questions, your Honor.
MR. COCHRAN: Did you--in the course of the investigation in this case, did you have occasion to talk with any of the investigating officers in this case at all?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And from them, I presume you were able to obtain the logs of people who had been at the crime scene and that sort of thing?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And through them, I presume you were able to get the prints and palm prints of friends of Miss Nicole Brown Simpson; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: At any point, when you knew that we--that you had some nine prints that you couldn't match up, identifiable prints we couldn't match up, did anyone ever either take the fingerprints of palm prints of the minor children at all?
MR. AGUILAR: Not to my knowledge.
MR. COCHRAN: Did you ever request that?
MR. AGUILAR: I requested to the parents of Nicole Brown when I fingerprinted them, when they came to the location to get fingerprinted, I indicated to them that we would like to have the fingerprints of the children and--
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Not what they said back. You made that statement to them?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Did you ever get those prints at all?
MR. AGUILAR: No, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. I want you to assume hypothetically the children were five and eight years of age. Do you have that in mind?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And would you--if you knew the children were of that age and normal healthy children, would you have an idea of the size of those children's hands, a boy five and a girl eight?
MR. DARDEN: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. AGUILAR: Again, it would depend on how big they were, not just how old they are.
MR. COCHRAN: Right. Assume they're normal healthy five years old and eight years old. Do you know what that means?
MR. DARDEN: This is vague.
MR. COCHRAN: That may be a little vague. Yes, I agree.
MR. COCHRAN: Assuming they're normal size children for five years old and eight years old.
MR. COCHRAN: That's probably still vague, isn't it?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Let me see. At no point did you ever get the children's fingerprints, did you?
MR. AGUILAR: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: And with regard to these prints that are identifiable, but not identified or made to any particular individual, do you know whether any of those prints were small enough to be children's prints?
MR. DARDEN: Objection. Speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Do you know that for a fact?
MR. AGUILAR: By looking at it and determining the size of the ridges and how far they are apart from each other, there is at least one print in there that could belong to a child as young as three years old to--to maybe even a young adult.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. So that's one of the nine?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. So of the other eight--I presume from my question then, the other eight would not be, in your opinion, made by a child?
MR. AGUILAR: Let me re-examine the lifts.
MR. COCHRAN: Sure.
MR. COCHRAN: May I approach? Not that I'll know what I'm looking at, but--
THE COURT: Well, perhaps we ought to take our break now and let Mr. Aguilar look at it over the lunch hour.
MR. COCHRAN: Fine. And I'm finished at this point, your Honor, unless--may we have a second?
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. DARDEN: I have 20 minutes I would think. That's all.
THE COURT: We need to finish--we need to quit right now.
(Brief pause.)
MR. COCHRAN: So now--you've now looked through all of the nine prints that have not been identified to any individuals; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And you've taken one card out; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And this one card is the one that you're referring to that could have been made by a youngster or child; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. The other eight then I presume could have been made by adults; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: The ones that are identifiable. The other ones that are nonidentifiable, I couldn't tell.
MR. COCHRAN: Right. No. I'm talking about the identifiable ones. I'm talking about the nine identifiable ones, right?
MR. AGUILAR: That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: And your testimony is, of those eight, eight of those would be from adults, right?
MR. AGUILAR: Or a big child.
MR. COCHRAN: Big child. Big child or adult, right?
MR. AGUILAR: Right.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Very good.
THE COURT: Mr. Cochran, I don't think we've identified for the record purposes which one of those is--that Mr. Aguilar has indicated is possibly a young child.
MR. COCHRAN: Sure, your Honor.
THE COURT: Which print of the 17 is that?
MR. COCHRAN: Why don't I do that now, your Honor? Of the nine, this is one, your Honor, and it's number--DR number? It's no. 4 of 17. It's item no. 4 of 17, your Honor, and it was recovered from inside the front door door frame.
THE COURT: All right. We need to take our recess at this point.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Very well, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our recess for the noon hour. Please remember all my admonitions; do not discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, don't allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We'll stand in recess until 1 o'clock. Mr. Aguilar, 1 o'clock.
(At 12:05 P.M., the noon recess was taken until 1:00 P.M. of the same day.)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1995 1:10 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.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Mr. Aguilar, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Gilbert Aguilar, the witness on the stand at the time of the noon recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: All right. The record should reflect Mr. Gilbert Aguilar is on the witness stand currently under direct examination by Mr. Cochran. Good afternoon, Mr. Aguilar.
MR. AGUILAR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Mr. Aguilar, sir, you are reminded you are still under oath. And, Mr. Cochran, do you have some additional questions?
MR. COCHRAN: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
MR. COCHRAN: I just wanted to scare the court reporter. That's all.
THE COURT: Mr. Darden.
MR. DARDEN: Yes, thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN
MR. DARDEN: Good afternoon.
MR. AGUILAR: Afternoon.
MR. DARDEN: Mr. Aguilar, you wouldn't expect a person wearing a pair of rubber gloves to leave fingerprints at a location, would you?
MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. AGUILAR: No.
MR. DARDEN: How many prints have you said that you lifted and compared during your career?
MR. AGUILAR: Oh, over 125-, maybe 150,000.
MR. DARDEN: Now, are you aware that in this case, we are somewhat concerned with a pair of bloody leather gloves?
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question. That's vague.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: And are you also aware that those gloves have a cashmere lining inside?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Now, we don't always leave fingerprints on every surface we touch, do we?
MR. AGUILAR: Very rarely.
MR. DARDEN: And you can't always lift a fingerprint from each and every kind of surface, can you?
MR. AGUILAR: No.
MR. DARDEN: Can you lift a fingerprint off cashmere?
MR. AGUILAR: I never have. I never heard of anybody that has. You can try, but I've never heard of any success.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, when you're dealing with a situation where you have a pair of leather gloves that are bloody, you as an analyst, you're in a catch 22 situation of sorts, aren't you?
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question.
THE COURT: Sustained. It's vague.
MR. DARDEN: Well, when you have a pair of bloody leather gloves--
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form, bloody gloves also.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DARDEN: You can imagine I take it circumstances where you might want to try and lift a fingerprint off those leather gloves, correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: And at the same time, you might also want to do some serological analysis, blood analysis, correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Assuming that you have a fingerprint on a pair of leather gloves and the gloves are also bloody, can you do both the serological analysis and lift the fingerprint?
MR. AGUILAR: If you have a latent print that's there?
MR. DARDEN: Yeah.
MR. AGUILAR: You have to take the blood before you try to process it for fingerprints because the chemicals that we would use to process it for any latent prints would have a good tendency or they would destroy any evidential value of the blood.
MR. DARDEN: And any chemical used to remove the blood could also destroy the underlying latent fingerprint; is that correct?
MR. COCHRAN: Leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DARDEN: Is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. Even if you don't use chemicals, your just wiping it off will destroy a print.
MR. DARDEN: What are the chances of lifting a latent print off of a pair of leather gloves?
MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor, without proper foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. DARDEN: Well, have you ever lifted a fingerprint off a pair of leather gloves?
MR. AGUILAR: Never been able to develop an identifiable print.
THE COURT: You're talking about leather or--
MR. AGUILAR: Off of a leather glove.
MR. DARDEN: You have never been able to develop an identifiable fingerprint from a leather glove?
MR. COCHRAN: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled. I interrupted and asked a question.
MR. DARDEN: May I reask the question?
THE COURT: Please.
MR. AGUILAR: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: You've never been able to lift an identifiable fingerprint from a leather glove?
MR. AGUILAR: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: And there are other surfaces that we don't commonly leave fingerprints on when we touch those surfaces; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: And those include stucco?
MR. AGUILAR: Stucco, yes.
MR. DARDEN: You've been out to Bundy; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Is there stucco on the walls on the walkway near the front door, outside the front door rather?
MR. AGUILAR: I believe I did look at the surface of the walls on the residence, and it was very rough. I don't remember if it was stucco or not, but determined that nothing could have been done.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. How about concrete?
MR. AGUILAR: Concrete is very difficult.
MR. DARDEN: Why is that?
MR. AGUILAR: Well, concrete is a porous surface and it's not very smooth. Even if it's real smooth surface, it's going to absorb the print in there almost immediately and you're not going to be able to develop a print.
MR. DARDEN: How about cloth?
MR. AGUILAR: Oh, cloth is almost impossible. There are--you could try to develop prints off of it. If you're unable to see the print, there are chemicals you could try to use, but the success rate--in fact, I've never even tried to get a print off of a cloth. I've read about it and I haven't read of any success, that you're unable to see the print and develop it.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. How about flesh? If I were to touch your hand, would I leave a fingerprint on your hand?
MR. AGUILAR: Depending on what part of the hand.
MR. DARDEN: Back of the hand.
MR. AGUILAR: Back of my hand, it's very unlikely. The skin, a human skin, it's very hard to get prints off of. I've tried to get prints off of over 30 homicide victims and I was unsuccessful in different operations to try it, different chemicals, different procedures. I've been unsuccessful. There are a couple of cases that I do know about where somebody did actually lift a latent print from a homicide victim.
MR. DARDEN: And you can't date a fingerprint, can you?
MR. AGUILAR: No.
MR. DARDEN: Today was the first time that you met Mr. Cochran?
MR. AGUILAR: I believe so.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. But you have met Mr. Douglas, haven't you?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. On how many different occasions have you met Mr. Douglas?
MR. AGUILAR: I met him at least two other times.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. And you spoke with him regarding your testimony?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: You spoke to him regarding your analysis?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: And when you spoke to Mr. Douglas, was he accompanied by two other gentlemen?
MR. AGUILAR: At least two other, yes.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. And do you recall the names of those two gentlemen?
MR. AGUILAR: I know that one of then was Deputy District Attorney Alan Yochelson and the other one, I don't remember his name, but I believe he was a Defense investigator.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Do you recall meeting with a man by the name of Ragle, Mr. Ragle?
MR. AGUILAR: Larry Ragle, yes.
MR. DARDEN: And he is a criminalist for the Defense?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. He did indicate he was for the Defense.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. You told us that you eliminated the Defendant here from the identifiable prints that you were able to analyze; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Did you also eliminate Detective Vannatter from the identifiable prints?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Did you eliminate Detective Fuhrman from the identifiable prints?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: And did you iden--eliminate, rather, Detective Lange from the identifiable prints?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Now, you told us about prints numbered 5, 7 and 9, no. 5 being a print lifted from the handrail next to the front door; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Was that print left by the Defendant?
MR. AGUILAR: I don't know.
MR. DARDEN: Could have been, huh?
MR. COCHRAN: Just a moment. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. You can't tell us that that print was not left by the Defendant; is that correct?
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question. No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MR. AGUILAR: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: With regard to print no. 7, a latent print lifted from the top of the gatepost--by the way, is that the front gate?
MR. AGUILAR: No. It's a small post--excuse me--between the front door of the residence going towards the back gate. It's in-between those two locations.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. You can't tell us that the Defendant didn't leave that print; is that correct?
MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Calls for speculation, your Honor.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
MR. DARDEN: Can you tell us whether or not the Defendant left that print?
MR. AGUILAR: No.
MR. DARDEN: You can't tell us that he didn't leave the print; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Correct.
MR. DARDEN: And print no. 9, that is a print located outside--is that on a railing on the stairwell on the north side of the house?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. Indicates it's outside stairwell, north side of house.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. You can't tell us that the Defendant didn't leave that print, can you?
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
MR. DARDEN: Can you tell us whether or not the Defendant left that print?
MR. AGUILAR: No.
MR. DARDEN: You can't tell us that he didn't leave that print, can you?
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled. Different print.
MR. AGUILAR: Correct.
MR. DARDEN: Now, you also told us about print nos. 2 and 3. Now, are both of those prints located near the doorknob on the front door inside the house?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: And did you describe those prints as identifiable prints?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: You couldn't match those prints to anyone in particular?
MR. AGUILAR: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, this is a residence, correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: And it's not unusual or uncommon after printing the residence, that you are unable to match a fingerprint located near the doorknob on the door, is it?
MR. AGUILAR: I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question?
MR. DARDEN: Well, the print, these two prints that are located near the doorknob on the front door, that's not uncommon; that is, it's not uncommon that you are unable to match those prints to someone in particular, is it?
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question.
THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: And that's because people come and go through that doorway one would assume; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Strangers come, strangers go?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: And each time that someone grabs the doorknob, for instance, fingerprints that may have been left there by others are obliterated; is that right?
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, object to the form. He's testifying. Leading and suggestive.
THE COURT: Overruled. It's cross-examination.
MR. DARDEN: Is that right?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. Not only will it destroy or tend to destroy any prints that are left behind, but you can leave a print over print and you could not identify either print.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. And with regard to print nos. 2 and 3, you can't tell us when those prints were left on the door, can you?
MR. AGUILAR: No.
MR. DARDEN: Now, you told us that you identified one of Detective Phillips' fingerprints at the scene?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: One of the things that you do as an analyst is, you attempt to eliminate known individuals from having left fingerprints at crime scenes; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: So what you do is, you go out somewhere somehow and you obtain known exemplars of known individuals' fingerprints, right?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: It's not uncommon for police officers to leave prints at a scene, is it?
MR. AGUILAR: No.
MR. DARDEN: And one of the things that you do as an expert, a fingerprint comparison expert is, you look at the prints left at the scene, compare those to the officers so that you can eliminate the officers or at least identify who left prints at a scene, right?
MR. AGUILAR: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: Nothing unusual about that?
MR. AGUILAR: None at all.
MR. DARDEN: You told us about print no. 8, which was a palm print on the railing?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: And I think you also told us that you received from the Coroner only one of Nicole Brown's palm prints; is that right?
MR. AGUILAR: I received the right palm print twice, two sets of right palm prints.
MR. DARDEN: You did not receive her left palm print?
MR. AGUILAR: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: Now, the unidentifiable palm print on the railing, no. 8, can you tell us whether or not Nicole Brown left that palm print?
MR. COCHRAN: Calls for speculation, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. AGUILAR: You mean the print that was identified, but not--was not identified to anybody?
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Yes.
MR. AGUILAR: No. I can not tell you who left that print. It could have been her.
MR. DARDEN: You can't exclude Nicole Brown, can you?
MR. AGUILAR: No.
MR. DARDEN: And that's because you don't have her left palm print card; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. And that is an identifiable print, right?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: With regard to that particular print, no. 8, the identifiable palm print no. 8, can you tell us whether or not that palm print is consistent in size and shape as is Nicole Brown's right palm print?
MR. COCHRAN: Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled. Can you tell something like that?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. I examined it to the right palm print, the right palm print that I had. I had to eliminate that it wasn't the right palm. So I examined it, and doing that examination, noticed that the ridge detail, the thickness, how far apart they were, the whole shape did--were consistent with the right palm, but it was not the right palm.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. The right hand and the left hand on any individual both have different fingerprints, right?
MR. AGUILAR: Everything is different.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. And palm prints on each hand is also different?
MR. AGUILAR: Completely.
MR. DARDEN: You also talked about the Ferrari; is that right?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: And those were print cards 13, 14 and 15?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Are you aware that the Ferrari was locked in the garage when the police discovered the body?
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. AGUILAR: No.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Print card no. 13.
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question about the locked part, assuming a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled. No. There was testimony about that.
MR. DARDEN: Item no. 13, that is a--where was that print located on the Ferrari?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. It was located on the hood area, on the driver's side of the hood area towards the front of it. So it would be almost where the headlight is on the driver's side of the vehicle.
MR. DARDEN: And that is an identifiable fingerprint?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Were you able to match that print to Miss Brown's mechanic?
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question. Calls for speculation, your Honor, assumes a fact not in evidence, that she had a mechanic that he knew.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. DARDEN: Did you attempt to match that print to someone you understood to be Miss Brown's mechanic?
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question, your Honor, leading and suggestive without a further foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. DARDEN: Well, you had a list of 58 names, right?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: And you don't know who everyone on that list of 58 names is; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Not everyone.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. You don't know whether or not that print no. 13 was left by Miss Brown's mechanic, correct?
MR. COCHRAN: Calls for speculation, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. AGUILAR: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: And item no. 14, that is a--well, where on the Ferrari is that print located?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. It was located on the driver's side front window, the window on the door on the driver's side of the vehicle.
MR. DARDEN: Can you tell whether or not that print was left by a right hand or a left hand?
MR. AGUILAR: Can I take a look at the lift?
THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, did we get a photocopy of that other print card?
THE CLERK: Yes, your Honor.
MR. COCHRAN: Yes.
MR. AGUILAR: On no. 14.
MR. DARDEN: Yes.
MR. AGUILAR: It's just a single print, and I'm unable to determine whether it's a right hand or the left hand.
MR. DARDEN: You don't know where Miss Brown last purchased gasoline, do you?
MR. AGUILAR: No.
MR. DARDEN: You don't know if some homeless person washed the windshield on her car, do you?
MR. COCHRAN: Object. Speculative.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.
MR. DARDEN: At any event, you can't match that fingerprint to anyone in particular; is that right?
MR. AGUILAR: Correct.
MR. DARDEN: And card no. 15, print no. 15, where is that print? Where on the Ferrari is it located?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. This is on the outside of the driver's door just below the window.
MR. DARDEN: Who left that print?
MR. AGUILAR: I don't know.
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form. That's speculative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DARDEN: Now, this was a Ferrari; is that right?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: And what color was it?
MR. AGUILAR: White.
MR. DARDEN: You don't know whether or not some curious person touched the car while looking inside, do you?
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. DARDEN: Would you agree that with regard to each of the prints lifted from the Ferrari--well, strike that. Let's go to cards no. 16 and 17. These relate to the Jeep Cherokee; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: And that's Nicole Brown's Jeep Cherokee?
MR. AGUILAR: I don't know who owned it.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Is it your understanding that the Cherokee was parked in the driveway at the rear of the condo?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: You don't know where that Cherokee had been that day; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: You don't know if Nicole Brown drove it to the recital?
MR. AGUILAR: No, I don't.
MR. DARDEN: You don't know who if anyone other than the murderer touched that vehicle; is that correct?
MR. COCHRAN: Calls for speculation, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. DARDEN: At any event, you lifted two prints from the Jeep Cherokee; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Miss Duke lifted two prints.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. And were either of those two prints located near the door handles to the vehicle?
MR. AGUILAR: No. They were on the outside, the passenger side of the vehicle, rear fender.
MR. DARDEN: The rear fender?
MR. AGUILAR: The rear.
MR. DARDEN: You've already told us that you can't date a fingerprint, correct?
MR. AGUILAR: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: How long can they last on a surface?
MR. AGUILAR: A latent print could last--depending on the circumstances, could last as little as a few seconds to a year, maybe more.
MR. DARDEN: Now, when someone frequents a residence, it isn't uncommon to find their fingerprints in different areas of that residence; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: You do find their fingerprints in different areas, yes.
MR. DARDEN: Did you find any prints in this case, any prints belonging to the Defendant that would suggest to you that he frequented Nicole Brown's condominium?
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. DARDEN: Well, did you find the Defendant's fingerprint near any of the bathroom areas inside the condominium?
MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor. Object to the form of the question. Said prints weren't found anywhere.
THE COURT: Overruled, but rephrase the question.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Prints were lifted from one of the bathrooms; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: From the outside door, yes.
MR. DARDEN: You didn't find the Defendant's fingerprints there, correct?
MR. AGUILAR: His fingerprints were not there.
MR. DARDEN: You didn't find the Defendant's fingerprint on the interior doorknob to the front door; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: His fingerprints were not there. That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: Now, you told us that there were other individuals whose fingerprints you didn't have to compare to the prints left at the scene; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. That would include Sidney and Justin Simpson?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: You weren't allowed to have those?
MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question.
THE COURT: Overruled. You requested those?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes, I requested them, but I never received them.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. We've all probably seen persons have their fingerprints taken and placed on an exemplar card on television. Is that basically how it goes? You roll your fingers in ink and then they're rolled on to a card?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes. You apply a thin later of printer's ink to the fingerprints, you roll it across and then you get it to the white fingerprint card and you just roll it again and you get a permanent record of the latent or of the ink print.
MR. DARDEN: Did you compare--well, strike that. You told us that you compared Denise Brown's fingerprint to the latent prints lifted at the scene; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Are you aware that she has another sister named Tanya?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: And did you compare hers?
MR. AGUILAR: I don't remember if I did or not.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Are you aware that she has another sister named Dominique?
MR. AGUILAR: No. I don't know how many sisters she has. I know she had at least one.
MR. DARDEN: And did you compare Dominique Brown's known exemplar to the latent prints at the scene?
MR. AGUILAR: I'd have to check my records.
(Brief pause.)
MR. DARDEN: While he's--
MR. AGUILAR: No. I only--the only--the only sister that I compared was a Denise.
MR. DARDEN: Now, the document you're looking at, that document was marked by Mr. Cochran as evidence; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: It was one of them I believe.
THE COURT: 1324.
MR. DARDEN: And that is a page from that list of 58 individuals, individuals whose prints you compared to the latent prints at the scene; is that right?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. Now, when you met with the Defense expert Mr. Ragle, did he ask you to obtain Dominique and Tanya Brown's fingerprints and compare them to the--
MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor. Hearsay, no observation to that hearsay.
THE COURT: Speaking objection. Sustained.
MR. DARDEN: Did you compare Jason Simpson's prints?
MR. AGUILAR: No.
MR. DARDEN: Did you compare Nicole Brown--the baby-sitter's prints?
MR. COCHRAN: Object. Facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. DARDEN: Do you know whether Nicole Brown had a baby-sitter?
MR. COCHRAN: Objection. Irrelevant and immaterial.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. AGUILAR: No.
MR. DARDEN: Do you know whether or not she had a maid?
MR. AGUILAR: No.
MR. DARDEN: Do you know whether or not she had an Avon lady?
MR. COCHRAN: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. AGUILAR: No.
MR. DARDEN: How about a gardener or a grounds keeper?
MR. AGUILAR: Not aware.
MR. DARDEN: You didn't compare the prints of any of those individuals or any individuals fitting those categories to the prints left at the scene; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: Now, is it uncommon to find fingerprints on areas or any areas that are accessible to the public?
MR. COCHRAN: Object. That's vague, indefinite, uncertain, unintelligible.
THE COURT: Vague.
MR. DARDEN: Well, let's take a car, for instance. You have a car, right?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: You drive the car places and you park it, right?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: You park it on the street?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. It's accessible to the public?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Irrelevant and immaterial.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DARDEN: It wouldn't be uncommon to find fingerprints on a vehicle that has been parked out in public, right?
MR. AGUILAR: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: And it wouldn't be uncommon to find prints on that vehicle that could not be matched to any known individual; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: That's correct.
MR. DARDEN: And by your testimony today--well, strike that.
MR. DARDEN: Thank you, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.
MR. COCHRAN: Just a few questions, your Honor. Thank you.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. COCHRAN
MR. COCHRAN: Mr. Aguilar, you work for the Los Angeles Police Department; is that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: You don't work for Mr. O.J. Simpson, do you?
MR. AGUILAR: No, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: And you were getting your directions, sir, were you not, from the investigating officers in this case, the Prosecution; isn't that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: I'm sorry.
MR. COCHRAN: You were getting your information from the investigating officers in this case, Lang, Vannatter, Fuhrman, Phillips; isn't that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: On who to compare the prints to?
MR. COCHRAN: Yes.
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Isn't that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And you never talked to Mr. Simpson, did you?
MR. AGUILAR: No, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Your job is working for the Prosecution; isn't that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: No, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: Your job is working for the Los Angeles Police Department?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you were called by the Defense in this case; isn't that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: You weren't called by them, were you?
MR. AGUILAR: No, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you heard all the nice questions that Mr. Darden asked you, and despite all those--
MR. DARDEN: Objection.
THE COURT: Counsel, you don't need the rhetorical.
MR. COCHRAN: I said nice, but I'll withdraw it.
MR. COCHRAN: You heard the questions that Mr. Darden asked you, right?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: You don't know anything about any mechanic, do you, sir?
MR. AGUILAR: No. I indicated I didn't know if they had one or not.
MR. COCHRAN: Or gardener or anything like that, do you?
MR. AGUILAR: No, I do not.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. What you came here to tell us, isn't it correct, sir, that--
MR. DARDEN: This is leading, your Honor. This is leading.
MR. COCHRAN: I'm asking--I haven't finished the question.
THE COURT: Finish the question.
MR. COCHRAN: What you came here to tell us, isn't it true, that there was 17 lifts lifted from Bundy, and of those 17 lifts, there are nine lifts that were identifiable, but you can't tell us who made those prints; isn't that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: Objection. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: And further, in addition to that, Mr. O.J. Simpson was excluded from all the lifts taken as early as June 13th, 1994; isn't that correct?
MR. DARDEN: Objection. That misstates the evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COCHRAN: Mr. O.J. Simpson was excluded from the identifiable prints as early as June 13th; isn't that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And then you further confirmed that and excluded Mr. O.J. Simpson in July of 1994; isn't that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: Now, you were asked some questions about gloves and prints. If--with regard to gloves, did you ever try to take any prints, fingerprints off any of the gloves in this case, sir?
MR. AGUILAR: No, sir.
MR. COCHRAN: Were you aware that there was one glove that had little if any blood on it in this case?
MR. AGUILAR: I'm sorry?
MR. COCHRAN: Were you aware that there was one--
MR. DARDEN: Objection. Speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. DARDEN: Exceeds the scope.
MR. COCHRAN: Were you aware that there was a difference in the amount of liquid on the gloves in this case?
MR. AGUILAR: No, sir.
MR. DARDEN: Objection. Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Well, he's indicating he's not aware of that fact.
MR. DARDEN: That it is a fact.
THE COURT: Or that it is a fact.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. COCHRAN: With regard to--Mr. Darden asked you some questions about persons wearing glove--wearing gloves. If a person didn't have a glove at the Bundy scene, it's very likely that you might find a fingerprint, isn't that correct, sir, if they touched certain surfaces; isn't that correct?
MR. DARDEN: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. COCHRAN: If an individual had a non-gloved hand and they touched the railing that you saw at Bundy, it's possible that you would get a latent print; isn't that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: It's possible, yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Just as you found a print from Detective Phillips; isn't that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, if an individual had suffered a cut on their hand and their hand was bleeding and they touched an area like a railing or something conducive to a print, you might find a bloody print; isn't that correct?
MR. AGUILAR: Might.
MR. COCHRAN: And if a person were bleeding and they touched up against a wall like this stucco you were talking about, you might find some blood on the wall; isn't that right?
MR. DARDEN: Object to badgering.
THE COURT: Sustained. It's beyond the scope of this witness.
MR. COCHRAN: Well, you didn't find any bloody fingerprints out there, did you?
MR. AGUILAR: There were none. That's correct.
MR. COCHRAN: There were none, were there?
MR. AGUILAR: Right.
MR. COCHRAN: It wasn't Mr. Simpson's job or his representatives to tell you whose prints to collect, was it, sir?
MR. AGUILAR: I'm sorry.
MR. COCHRAN: It wasn't Mr. Simpson's job or his representatives to tell you whose prints to collect, was it?
MR. DARDEN: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. We know who he works for, counsel. We know who gave him the directions.
MR. COCHRAN: You're right.
MR. COCHRAN: You were asked some questions about Miss Nicole Brown Simpson's sisters. Are you aware they live down in Laguna Beach in Orange County? Are you aware of that?
MR. AGUILAR: I don't know where they live.
MR. DARDEN: That's irrelevant, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly, your Honor. Thank you very much for coming.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Darden, do you have any recross?
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. DARDEN
MR. DARDEN: Did the Defense ever ask you to do any additional comparisons, sir?
MR. AGUILAR: No.
MR. COCHRAN: Object. Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled. Anything more?
MR. COCHRAN: Oh, no, nothing else, your Honor. May he be excused?
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Aguilar, thank you very much, sir. You are excused. And let me return to you lift card 10 of 17, and the Court will substitute the photocopy back, both sides, and I'll give that to Mrs. Robertson. Mr. Aguilar, thank you very much, sir.
MR. AGUILAR: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Let me see counsel at the sidebar without the court reporter, please.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, good news and bad news. I'll let you contemplate that concept for a few moments. I don't know if I should tell you the good news first or the bad news and I can't figure out which is which at this point. The good news is that the Defense tells me that if we go according to schedule, and of course depending on the variabilities of cross-examination, they anticipate calling their last witness on Monday, August the 28th, which is a week after next, the Monday after the week after next. That's the good news. And I've asked the Prosecution to begin scheduling their rebuttal witnesses for the week of August the 28th. So there's light at the end of the tunnel. That's the good news. Bad news is, the witnesses who are scheduled next in order are from out of state, and we've had scheduling difficulties and we're not going to be able to present you any further witnesses today and tomorrow. So you're going to have a long day tomorrow to--and I've told the sheriff's about this, and hopefully we'll use the time to finish up any personal errands that you have, any additional trips to target and all of that. So we'll try to see if we can't get you out to the beach for an extra day or some other activity. I apologize to you, but as you know, as I mentioned to you when we started the case, these things happen. There are scheduling problems. Also, there's a legal issue that I need to address with the lawyers, and my anticipation is, it will probably take me personally perhaps 20 to 30 hours of working to prepare for that hearing. So while you are taking care of personal business and going to the beach tomorrow and all of that, I'll be here working as usual. So it's not that we are sitting around wasting time. We'll also take the time, remainder of today to take care of some other legal issues and we'll put the time to good use in your absence. But we just don't have any other witnesses to present to you at this time. I'm sure you understand this has been a long trial and sometimes when you have witnesses coming from far distances, it's hard to make these arrangements, and that's what happened to us today. But there is light at the end of the tunnel. I've told the lawyers we need to pick up the pace a little once we get the witnesses here because I would like to see this jury as it sits today decide this case. All right. Remember my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any opinions on the case, conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you or allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. As far as the jury is concerned, we'll stand in recess until Monday morning, 9 o'clock. We'll stand in recess.
(At 1:50 P.M., an adjournment was taken until, Monday, August 21, 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, August 17, 1995 volume 208
Pages 42055 through 42221, 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I N D E X
Index for volume 208 pages 42055 - 42221
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day date session page vol.
Thursday August 17, 1995 A.M. 42055 208 P.M. 42182 208
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROCEEDINGS
Motion re nighttime crime scene view 42055 208
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
DEFENSE witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
Aguilar, 42126c 42185d 42211c 42218d 208 Gilbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
WITNESSES direct cross redirect recross vol.
Aguilar, 42126c 42185d 42211c 42218d 208 Gilbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBITS
DEFENSE for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
1322 - 2-page document 42131 208 from the Los Angeles Police Department latent print section
1323 - 2-page report 42138 208
1324 - 6-page document 42146 208 entitled "Los Angeles Police Department homicide worksheet - latent print section"
1325 - 1-page document 42159 208