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

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted; also appearing, Matthew H. Schwartz, Esquire, and Ron Regwan, Esquire, on behalf of Laura Hart McKinny.)

(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. Mr. Simpson is again present before the court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Neufeld, Mr. Scheck, Mr. Blasier. The People are represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Goldberg and Miss Lewis. The jury is not present. Counsel, the record should reflect that on Friday evening, August the 18th, the Court, in the presence of counsel, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Scheck, Mr. Neufeld for the Defense, and Mr. Hodgman and Mr. Yochelson and Mr. Fairtlough on behalf of the Prosecution, in the company of the investigating officers, went to the Bundy crime scene to determine whether or not the conditions were satisfactorily adjusted so that they were substantially similar to the conditions as they were on June the 12th, 1994. And after approximately an hour at the crime scene on Friday evening, after extensive discussion, comparison of photographs, modification of lighting, et cetera, et cetera, the Prosecution chose to withdraw their request for a crime scene view at nighttime. And as a result the Court canceled the viewing that was scheduled for Sunday evening, August the 20th, and that is my recollection of what occurred. Any comment as to that particular issue?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: Submitted? I just wanted the record to reflect our activities of Friday evening.

MR. SCHECK: Just so the record is clear, that the Court made every effort to substantially replicate what occurred and the critical factor was the light that was near the gate where the body of Nicole Brown Simpson lay, and once that had been repaired, the decision was made.

THE COURT: All right. The problem being is that the photographs really didn't give us a clear angle or clear appreciation of the angle of that light, and as we discussed on the record last week, photographs are dependent upon the speed of the film, the aperture, the exposure. And so it is hard from the photographs themselves to recreate the lighting conditions as they existed that evening, so there was a Defense objection to begin with and then the Prosecution withdrew their request. All right. Mr. Scheck, anything else on that issue?

MR. SCHECK: Yes. But the Court's concern that the lighting be restored as much as possible to the condition as it was that day was a wise one, because when we did do that, I think it was clear to all parties that there was substantially more illumination on our visit last Friday evening than there was the previous visit, and that was more in keeping with what is depicted in the photograph taken that evening by the police.

THE COURT: Well, you objected, you won, so I guess there is nothing much more to say, is there?

MR. SCHECK: No, no. I just wanted to make the facts clear.

THE COURT: All right. Any comment on that issue on behalf of the People?

MS. CLARK: Only, your Honor, briefly, that the neighbor who lived next door to Ms. Brown indicated that the lighting as it existed on the night--on this last Friday night, was considerably brighter than it had been on the night of June the 12th, and he said, according to his memory, that was not representative. Detective Lange similarly indicated that the lighting no longer represented its condition, that it was considerably brighter on Friday night than it had been.

THE COURT: All right. Since the Court could not substantially recreate the conditions then, I think this is the appropriate decision. All right. This morning the Court directed counsel to confer with regard to the next witness, Defense witness, who is Mr. Ragle is my understanding. And Mr. Goldberg, you are handling that matter?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Did you have the opportunity to speak with Mr. Blasier and Mr. Ragle and discuss the matter you needed to address?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, I did. I wanted to address a couple matters before the court before we started, if I may do so.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: No. 1, your Honor, Mr. Blasier, I believe--and maybe it was a miscommunication--had told me that Mr. Ragle was not going to be testifying to anything that related to the notes that they turned over within the last couple of weeks in discovery. And I believe--

THE COURT: What was the subject matter of Mr. Ragle's notes?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, they covered a wide range of topics. The only one that is relevant for what I'm about to say is notes as to the August 26, `94, Bronco search which--and Mr. Blasier could probably give us--

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

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. There are some August the 26th, `94, Bronco notes and that I believe there is another little sketch that was provided from a viewing in April of the Bronco.

THE COURT: April, `95?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, your Honor, of this year. And I did not know that he was going to testify to that because of the--excuse me. It looks like the date on that is March 14th of `95. I did not know he was going to testify about these things because Mr. Blasier seemed to indicate to me that he was only going to be talking about things that had to do other than the notes. So there has been, without any question, a discovery violation here in my view. I mean, these notes are old and they were just turned over to us very recently. However, I don't think that I can say in good faith that these particular matters, as I understand Mr. Blasier's offer of proof this morning, would require a delay as a sanction and therefore I'm not requesting that, because they--Mr. Blasier has represented to me that the only thing about the Bronco that Mr. Ragle is going to be testifying to is whether or not he could see certain stains on the door. And if that is true, I can't legitimately say that I need more time to prepare on that particular issue, if that is all his testimony is confined to. However, we would be requesting a sanction for the discovery violation in the way of a jury admonition, and this just came to my attention this morning, so I didn't know that I was going to be addressing your Honor on this. The second issue is as to the scope of Mr. Ragle's testimony. The People have previously argued to the Court in a number of different contexts, citing the Supreme Court case of People versus Kaurish at 52 cal.3D 648. In fact, I think I discussed it a little bit last week in another context with respect to Michele Kestler. The language saying that: "We agree that it is--it was not material to any issue in this case. The defectiveness of the evidence gathering techniques in this case, if any, is not measured in comparison to other purportedly superior techniques." In other words, that the issue when we are talking about forensic evidence and evidence gathering techniques is what techniques were used, were those techniques defective in any way so as to undermine the probative value of the evidence. Looking at other techniques that could have been used or other hypotheticals as to how someone else would have gone about investigating a crime scene, while it may be interesting, does not, in the words of the Supreme Court: "Assist the jury in determining to what extent the method employed actually produced probative elements, nor can it help the jury assign a weight to the evidence." My understanding of Mr. Ragle's testimony is that he wants to testify to how the crime scene should have been processed, techniques that should have been used, techniques that he is critical of and so on. And I just think that that kind of wide-ranging inquiry into the overall competence of the crime scene investigation is not probative, in light of this language, unless it is limited and tied to specifically what effect this could have had on the evidence that we actually have produced in this trial. And I don't think that that is the intent, from my conversation with Mr. Ragle, of this testimony and I don't think that he is intending, if I'm understanding what he told me, to say, okay, the effect of this is that now the DNA results are less reliable because of the following, because he is not an expert in DNA analysis, so just to say, well, I don't like the way that they collect it, without being able to tie it to an effect, in my view and I think in the California Supreme Court's view, is not probative and should not be allowed. So there should be at least some strict limitation on his testimony, if not out and out preclusion of his testimony, depending on exactly how they want to structure the testimony.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Good morning, your Honor. Let me first talk about the purported discovery violation. This is a--this is a one-page--actually a half a page handwritten note about the Bronco when they went out there in March to look at it. There was no testing done. Mr. Ragle did nothing except look. This is not discoverable under Hines or any of the other cases. He doesn't intend to rely on this particular note. All he is going to testify about is that the specks that Dennis Fung identified as the specks of blood that Mark Fuhrman described can't be seen or most of them can't be seen once the door is open.

That is the total of his testimony on that point. This is not even discoverable. I think it was given to them last week anyway. It is less than half a page. As to his testimony in general, umm, they have presented through all their witnesses opinions as to whether this crime scene or these crime scenes were processed appropriately or competently. All Mr. Ragle is here to do is to testify as an expert on crime scene processing techniques, to testify as to whether the techniques used in this case were acceptable or not, were competent or not. That is all. It is rebutting the opinions given by all of their witnesses about the appropriateness of the way they did certain things. Obviously if he testifies that it is inappropriate to put wet swatches in a plastic--in a plastic envelope, it is difficult to express that without expressing what is the right way--how you are supposed to do it, what do you need to do to protect the evidence, to protect the integrity of the evidence. I don't intend to spend a lot of time on techniques that weren't used in this case. The primary purpose of his testimony is the techniques that were used in this case or whether they were acceptable or not from a forensic or investigative standpoint.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, to respond to the last issue first, it may be possible that the Court simply has to rule on a question by question basis as to Mr. Ragle's--the propriety of Mr. Ragle's answers, because I would agree with counsel that at least in the one hypothetical example that he gave, if he is saying it is improper to put items in a plastic bag and what kind of effect that that could have, that that probably would be subject--a proper subject of testimony. But then if you ask the next question, well, what other techniques can be used, it may or may not be crossing the boundary into the territory that I think Kaurish prohibits, so maybe this is more in the nature of simply trying to state what our position is up front. And maybe your Honor does simply have to rule on a question by question basis on those kind of issues.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. GOLDBERG: As to the discovery violation, if I may, your Honor, and I'm sorry because I did not know this issue was going to come up until literally a few minutes prior to addressing it in court, but on this one page, it is as counsel represented, a page indicating his observations and there is what purports to be a little sketch of the Bronco on it, so it clearly is a report of observations of experts that is discoverable. What I should have brought to the Court's attention that I failed to is that this also indicates that there were twelve photos and they have photographic numbers, and I seem to recall that when this occurred Mr. Ragle did take photographs, and I don't have the photographs of this, so the photographs are a form of documentation of an expert of an observation of evidence.

THE COURT: Excuse me. Mr. Goldberg, were you present for this viewing?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, and I had no idea what they were up to. I mean, you have to--it is difficult to get into the conspiracy mode sometimes to figure out what is going on, because they were looking at little cracks in doors, so I just thought, these guys are meshugge and didn't know--didn't know what they were up to, so I wasn't particularly watching that carefully what they were observing.

MR. SCHECK: He has got to pronounce that word better.

MR. GOLDBERG: What?

MR. SCHECK: Meshuggena.

MR. GOLDBERG: This is Los Angeles. It is an L.A. pronunciation.

THE COURT: Yeah, but for somebody that is a Goldberg, Mr. Goldberg.

MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah, well--

THE COURT: Having grown-up in the Los Feliz district, I have heard that expression before.

MR. GOLDBERG: At any rate, I don't have those photographs.

MR. BLASIER: We don't intend to use any of those photographs.

MR. GOLDBERG: It is still documentation of what was done.

MR. BLASIER: It is real evidence. We also are not using any of those photographs.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: They were there. There were several police officers there. They could have taken any pictures they wanted to.

THE COURT: All right. Well, I believe as Mr. Goldberg indicated in his last comment, that the issue of whether or not Mr. Ragle's testimony will go into other techniques and how far the Court will allow is really a question by question issue by issue subject by subject determination that the Court has to make, so I take that as simply that the Prosecution wants the Court to be on notice to expect those issues as they come up. I take that as a premature objection. As to the purported discovery violation, I find no violation since the Prosecution was in fact present at the time these observations were made. They had equal access to those observations, they could have taken their own photographs. They do have the notes in plenty of time to prepare for cross-examination of Mr. Ragle. None of this is, to my recollection, going to be rocket science, so I think we can proceed. All right. Lastly, counsel, I spent some time over the weekend dealing with the offer of proof regarding the Fuhrman tapes, so-called, and I had great difficulty dealing with it. And Mr. Cochran, do you want to address that issue?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, I will, your Honor.

THE COURT: Tell me what to expect.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me tell you what to expect. I apologize to the Court. As the Court knows, I was out of town. Did your Honor receive a redacted copy of the original tapes turned over by Messers. Schwartz and Regwan? Is that correct? And I understand that your Honor was not given the first 48 pages; is that correct?

THE COURT: Apparently something was given to me this morning.

MR. COCHRAN: I brought that down for you this morning, and let me see if I can explain the confusion and tell you where we are and how we straightened it out. Of course the Court is aware that we overoptimistically said we would be able to get you a verbatim word for word transcript of this pretty quickly. That is now finished and by the end of the day Mr. Douglas will walk through those doors with hopefully a redacted verbatim transcript and an offer of proof that is key to our transcript. With regard to Miss McKinny's transcript, some of the pages are off. We had discovered this in North Carolina. Also, as the Court is aware, the first tapes have been--the first tape had been taped over and she had--the first 48 pages apparently you hadn't been given, and I discovered that last night when I returned and I gave those to your Honor's clerk this morning.

THE COURT: Well, I spent several hours this weekend. At first it was so incoherent I couldn't figure out what was going on, but I figured since time was of the essence I ought to at least try to make some sense of it.

MR. COCHRAN: Sure, sure.

THE COURT: After going through your offer of proof and trying to correlate it with the tape and the transcript, I couldn't do it, and I don't think it is my obligation going through twelve hours of tape looking for particular excerpts.

MR. COCHRAN: It certainly isn't. These items are on the tapes and it is important that you be able to hear them. And I have asked today Messers. Jerry Uelmen, Bailey, Douglas, are keying the offer of proof to the tapes and to the first transcript, of course, which is not on tape which she did, and you will have them by five o'clock. In addition to that, you are aware that we have cleaned up all but three of the tapes for background noise and I understand that by ten o'clock tomorrow morning the remaining three will be cleaned up, so you will have those, so you will have the--everything.

THE COURT: I will have clean cassettes and a coherent transcript and an offer of proof that is keyed to the--

MR. COCHRAN: Key to our verbatim transcript.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: By five o'clock and the remaining three transcripts will be here by ten o'clock tomorrow morning. Okay. And I apologize that the Court had to go through anything that caused you any problems because you got a flavor for it, but we want it to be so that you will understand exactly where they are keyed directly in and we will have it. And while we are about that, I would like to find out, just for a matter of scheduling witnesses, how you plan to do that. Let's assume that you have that--the offer of proof and the transcripts and everything in it, you will have our brief--we filed a brief regarding the admissibility of that this morning. What would be your Honor's pleasure? When will we get to the 402 hearing, given that schedule that I just laid out?

THE COURT: Well, see, that is the dilemma, because I had hoped to spend this weekend doing all of that, reviewing the tapes and comparing it and then hearing argument and considering the Prosecution's objections, because I didn't want to lose the jury time.

MR. COCHRAN: Sure.

THE COURT: But now it appears I'm going to have to use court time and my own after hours time to do this.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. We will be ready as much as we can to have witnesses to fill in at least until you reach the point where you say, okay, let's do this.

THE COURT: All right. Let me see counsel at side bar 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. Thank you, counsel. I just want to make sure we have witnesses and our scheduling together. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. With respect to the Court's order we filed today concerning the difficulty in locating those passages on the tapes, I should indicate to the Court that with respect to the first entitled segment of the Court's order, "Racial epithets," all of those portions are not on tape. That tape has been destroyed. All we have is Laura McKinny's transcript, quote-unquote. It is not a verbatim transcript. I believe that is the same problem that you are going to find with the incidents of misconduct.

THE COURT: Well, why don't we save this argument.

MS. CLARK: I'm not going to argue. I'm just informing the Court that you will not find it in the transcript because there is no tape.

THE COURT: That goes to weight that I have to accord it to see whether it is trustworthy, reliable.

MS. CLARK: All I am alerting the Court of is if you are listening for this on tape, you will not hear it. None of this is on tape.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: With respect to the verbatim transcript, we have prepared verbatim transcripts of the all of the tapes that exist and we agreed with the Defense, I agreed with Mr. Bailey last week, to furnish them a copy of our transcript if they will give us a copy of theirs, and we agreed on that.

THE COURT: Mr. Cochran just reiterated that.

MS. CLARK: I could also request whatever the Defense is giving to the Court, they furnish a copy of that also.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: We will do that.

THE COURT: All right. Let's--is this on the tapes issue?

MR. SCHECK: No, this is on the discovery of Dr. Lee. You can take this up now, you can take this up--

THE COURT: I would like to finish the Fuhrman tapes first. We have counsel for Miss McKinny here who faxed to the court and I think counsel a letter indicating their concern that transcripts of these tape-recordings have leaked out. Gentlemen.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Schwartz, good morning.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Good morning. We are here to follow up on that letter that we wrote to you. We are concerned about these persisting violations of the court order. As the Court may or may not be aware, last Friday morning the Los Angeles times printed an article that contained a verbatim portion of our client's protected intellectual property. And furthermore, the Reuters news organization transmitted over the wires across the country for everybody to see additional portions verbatim of our client's protected material.

THE COURT: Do you know the source of that? Is there any court document that may be the source of that?

MR. SCHWARTZ: We suspect that it could have originated from the Defense's offer of proof, but we are not sure, but the giving of this information to the media at this point in time, especially since nothing has yet even been ruled admissible, is obviously in direct contradiction to this Court's protective order.

And there have been three sets of our client's material that have been disseminated during these proceedings. The originals went to the court and we tendered a complete copy to the Prosecution and a complete copy to the Defense. Therefore, the people responsible for violating the court order are here today, and this Court shares with our client a vested interest in the enforcement of this court order. Obviously our client is interested in protecting her propriety interest. But this Court has to be concerned about the challenged to its authority that has occurred. If this challenge does not go unanswered, then perhaps the dominion of the Court could be threatened and the force and effect of future rulings of this Court could be affected. And therefore we are asking this Court to request the attorneys on both sides to conduct their own investigations and try to find the source of these leaks, and if they are unsuccessful, by perhaps close of business Wednesday or Thursday, we would like to ask the Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing wherein Mr. Regwan and I will be able to conduct direct examination of the journalists who carried these stories throughout their organizations. And the news shield, the shield law will not pose a problem, your Honor, because the shield law will not protect officers of the court from violating a court order. If the shield law is raised, umm, then it would unconstitutionally impinge on the independence of this judiciary and so the shield law will be inapplicable. We have done the research. It will be a very easy proceeding and we will just bring in a couple of reporters point blank and ask where did you get this information from, and they will be able to tell us.

THE COURT: Mr. Schwartz, do you have a copy of the Defense offer of proof that was filed late last week?

MR. SCHWARTZ: No, I don't, your Honor. I believe that was filed under seal.

THE COURT: All right. My staff compared that offer of proof with the quoted passage from the Los Angeles times article. I did not read the article myself; however, they showed me highlighted portions and they appeared to come from the offer of proof. What I will do, Mr. Schwartz, I will--first of all, I'm going to direct counsel on both sides to file all documents with regards to this issue with the Court under seal.

Secondly, Mr. Schwartz, I'm going to direct that the clerk of the court give you a certified copy of the offer of proof so you can compare it with the news leaks and we will see if we can at least pare down what the source--probable source is.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay.

THE COURT: Then we will take it from there.

MR. SCHWARTZ: Would you like me to reappear after I have had an opportunity to review the offer of proof?

THE COURT: Yes. You can notify the Court of your position by mail, as we are going to be busy with other witnesses.

MR. SCHWARTZ: All right. Thank you very much, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Anything else before we start with Mr. Ragle?

MR. COCHRAN: Just one other thing, your Honor. I just got a call from Mr. Douglas about Dr. Reichardt. He is scheduled for tomorrow morning and we cannot get him here today at all, neither he or his lawyers.

THE COURT: Well, I think we are being optimistic if we think we are going to finish with Mr. Ragle today.

MR. COCHRAN: That will not be a problem.

MR. DARDEN: I will be ready tomorrow.

MR. SCHECK: I want to bring up the Dr. Lee matter maybe after we break or maybe just before we begin in the afternoon to set the discovery issue straight. We had some discussions about that this morning.

THE COURT: All right. You handed to the Court, Mr. Scheck, a number of copies of your upcoming photo boards.

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

THE COURT: Most of which look very familiar to the Court.

MR. SCHECK: Yes. Your Honor, the--what has happened is that Dr. Lee I guess over close to a month ago filed a report in this case. We have turned over all the notes. We turned over to the Prosecution Xeroxed copies of photographs taken at Albany and other photographs that they previously had from Dr. Lee, and photographs from these boards, some of which, many of which are their own photographs. I should note, with respect to the Albany photographs, that they had a photographer and they had a witness on the scene for everything that was examined in Albany, so they have their own copies or an opportunity to look at those pictures.

In any event, there is one, I believe one, maybe two, but one more board that is not reflected in those copies which I know is arriving today that is just a blow-up of other pictures that are contained within those boards and other pictures that the Prosecution has had available to it. The--Mr. Goldberg this morning--now, the other thing, that there was mention of access to Dr. Lee and opportunities to talk to him and find out about his testimony and that was broached by Mr. Hodgman and others at the crime scene. What you should know is that the Prosecution--we have a difference--and I will just chalk it up to misunderstanding--that I had communicated to Mr. Goldberg that when the Prosecution talked with Dr. Lee, because he is always available to talk with the other side, that is his policy, it is a standing policy, that I wanted to be on the line so that we could have a record of it. He doesn't recall it and that is fine. I don't want--I don't want to dispute that. That is not an issue. They did, I believe, speak--they sent some questions to him. He was in Indonesia. They spoke with him about two or three weeks ago, then--

THE COURT: That man sure gets around, doesn't he?

MR. SCHECK: He does. Then the--Mr. Hodgman and Mr. Goldberg, I believe, had a fairly extensive conversation with him, either Saturday or Sunday, they can tell you best. I know from Dr. Lee that--

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Scheck--

MR. SCHECK: --Peter de Forest, the rebuttal witness, went over those boards with him on Sunday.

THE COURT: Wait. Rather than tell me all this history, what is the bottom line?

MR. SCHECK: The bottom line is they are saying to us this morning that until--that they demand photo pictures of every photograph that we turned over in the Xeroxed materials. We only have one set of the Albany photographs. I offered to let them have any particular Albany photograph that they wanted. I have for them photographs of all pictures on the boards, plus they have a copy of the boards, plus Dr. de Forest spent four hours with Dr. Lee in his home yesterday going over the boards and going over his testimony, and Dr. de Forest is their expert and their rebuttal witness. More than this we can't do. I can endeavor to try--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: Those are color Xeroxed and they are terrific, so I don't know what else it is that they want by way of discovery. I guess, you know, I'm unfamiliar with rules in this jurisdiction extensively, I guess, but the only other thing they could possibly want is for me to open up my files and show them the entire work product. This is unprecedented in my experience as a criminal defense lawyer. They have had an opportunity to talk with this man, to see every picture, to look at everything he is going to say prior to his testimony, go over it with a fine tooth comb.

THE COURT: So all I need to do--

MR. SCHECK: I don't know what else to tell you.

THE COURT: All I need to do is ask Mr. Goldberg what more do you want?

MR. SCHECK: I don't know what else to tell you.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I want more, your Honor, and I would have liked it much, much earlier. And I am not prepared to give an in-depth argument on this issue right now because I don't have any notes as to dates and when I received things. The generality is that the Defense has dumped an enormous amount of documentation that is relevant to Henry Lee within the last few weeks relating to a number of different examinations of different items of evidence, and basically his testimony is going to cover the gamut of almost everything that came from the crime scene. So I would like to make at some point a much more extensive argument, obviously it will have to be in the very near future, because of discovery sanctions, because it has impaired on our capacity to be ready. And I'm simply not prepared to say now, well, this report came from an examination in February and we didn't receive it until just two weeks ago. I just can't do that at this point, but I will be able to.

THE COURT: When?

MR. GOLDBERG: I will try to get it together as soon as I'm out of court on Mr. Ragle. You know, I worked all day on Saturday and Sunday on Henry Lee and trying to prepare to the best of my ability with a great quantity of material. Now, the photographs that are being referred to counsel has told come from a variety of different examinations. Some of them were from the Albany trip, some of them are from the LAPD examinations.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Goldberg, forgive me for interrupting you, but if you are not prepared to address the issue at this point, why don't we start with the jury with Mr. Ragle, at least give them something to do today. You and your other people that are assisting you can put together the items and we can take it up at that time.

MR. GOLDBERG: The only reason it might be helpful to address this now is on the very limited issue of the photographs, setting everything else aside. I asked counsel for the actual photographs and he said that the color Xeroxes are sufficient. That might be helpful to resolve now because it will probably take them some time to provide those to me if the Court feels that the People are entitled to them, so the Court might want to decide that now so that they can get those photographs to me as quickly as possible. Now, the reason why we believe we are entitled to the actual photographs, as opposed to Xerox copies, color Xerox copies, is that in this case, as the Court knows, we have put photographs up on the elmo and very frequently the Defense will point out to some little speck somewhere or the absence of some speck somewhere or staple holes in the case of that exhibit, and hinge a massive theory of the case around the existence or nonexistence of that speck. These photographs are purportedly examination quality photographs of things like impressions of things like hair and trace material in soil and the like.

THE COURT: How many photographs are we talking about?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, there are approximately, and counsel could give you a more accurate estimate than I could, approximately I would say fifty pages of discovery containing photographs and each page contains two or three photos and Mr. Scheck perhaps has quantified that.

MR. SCHECK: I can get to the point. Maybe we can solve this. Every photograph that we intend introduce into evidence and that is on those boards they can have. Just so you know, the dispute is that we gave them more, we gave them photographs from Albany--and I thank them for pronouncing Albany as Albany--we gave them that. So now what he is saying is I want photocopies, not Xeroxed copies of all these other things that you are not going to introduce that you gave to us which you didn't have to give in the first place. Now, I only have one set of those at the present time in terms of photographs and I gave him Xeroxed copies of it and I have said to him--

THE COURT: These are color Xerox copies?

MR. SCHECK: These are color Xerox copies and they are terrific. And I said to him, if there is any particular one of these photographs that we don't intend to introduce into evidence--he is going to get all the ones which we intend to introduce, which I submit is our only legal obligation here--if you want another one of those and you need to see it, I will give you that print, so--

THE COURT: Seems like a non-dispute then. All right. Settle it over the lunch hour, give him whatever photographs he wants that you are not going to use.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I would like all of the ones--I would like all of them.

THE COURT: You are being unreasonable. They have given you color photographs. They can exhibit to you the original. He has indicated he will give you any one that they are not going to use. Settle it between yourselves at lunch. You guys are wasting my time here. All right. Let's have the jury. Are they upstairs?

THE BAILIFF: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Bring them down.

(Recess.)

THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not 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 that we have now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: My apologies to you for the late start this morning. I had a number of issues that we needed to determine out of your presence. I also wanted to give you fair warning, there is one major issue that I need to resolve with the lawyers that is coming up. My guess is that it will take me about twenty hours to examine the issues and the evidence that is being presented to me, and I anticipate using my evening hours to try to do most of that, but it may also include some court time. And I just wanted to give you a warning that there may be substantial dark time coming up this week, just so you know. All right. The Defense may call their next witness.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, the Defense calls Larry Ragle.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Ragle.

John Larry Ragle, called as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: Please raise your right hand. 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. RAGLE: 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. RAGLE: My name is John Larry Ragle. It is J-O-H-N, Larry, L-A-R-R-Y, Ragle, R-A-G-L-E.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Ladies and gentlemen, good morning.

THE JURY: Good morning.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Ragle, you are here to testify as an expert in crime scene processing techniques, are you not?

MR. RAGLE: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, could you give us a brief description of your undergraduate training, educational background.

MR. RAGLE: I attended the University of California at Berkeley and I received a bachelor's of science degree in criminalistics, which is now called forensic science, at Berkeley, in 1959.

MR. BLASIER: And do you have any specific training as a police officer?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what does that training consist of?

MR. RAGLE: I'm a graduate of the California peace Officer's Association academy.

MR. BLASIER: And what year did you graduate from the academy?

MR. RAGLE: 1957.

MR. BLASIER: Now, could you describe your employment between 1956 and 1960.

MR. RAGLE: In 1956 I became a member of the Berkeley Police Department. I was a patrol--patrolman and an investigator until 1960.

MR. BLASIER: And in 1960 where did you go?

MR. RAGLE: In 1960 I became an employee of the Orange County Sheriff's Department here in California.

MR. BLASIER: And in your capacity with the Orange County Sheriff's Department from--now, that was from 1960 to what year?

MR. RAGLE: 1989.

MR. BLASIER: And from 1960 to 1976 did you have a particular area that you worked in?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: What was that?

MR. RAGLE: My assignment was as a general criminalist.

MR. BLASIER: And what was the nature of your responsibilities as a general criminalist?

MR. RAGLE: As a generalist I investigated all types of crimes, either at the crime scene or analyzing evidence in court and testifying to my findings in court.

MR. BLASIER: During that period of time did you conduct any investigation into homicides?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Any investigations into double homicides?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did you--was your primary responsibility investigating crime scenes themselves?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. BLASIER: What was your primary responsibility?

MR. RAGLE: My primary responsibility was analyzing evidence.

MR. BLASIER: That would be after evidence was collected at a crime scene it would be your job to analyze it?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now from 1976 to 1989 what was your position?

MR. RAGLE: In 1976 I was promoted to at that time what was called a chief criminalist and that was the manager of the crime laboratory, the tox--and the toxicology laboratory.

MR. BLASIER: That is basically the person that is in charge of the whole crime lab?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And you held that position until what date?

MR. RAGLE: (No audible response.)

MR. BLASIER: What year?

MR. RAGLE: Technically in 1977 that position was changed and it became--the title became the director of forensic science, so actually I held the position of chief criminalist for one year. In 1977 the crime laboratory and the toxicology laboratory was combined with the identification bureau, which is the--all the crime scene investigators, and the Coroner's office.

MR. BLASIER: Would it be fair to say that your job was similar to Michele Kestler's job in Los Angeles County, your job in Orange County was similar?

MR. RAGLE: You could say that. There was additional responsibilities.

MR. BLASIER: Additional responsibilities that you had?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what did those consist of?

MR. RAGLE: The Coroner's office, for one, was an organization investigates all types of deaths, not just deaths that are suspected crimes, the crime scene identification bureau and the Cal I.D. Bureau, which is the automated fingerprint system, and then the Coroner's toxicology section, and those are not part of the Los Angeles Police Department SID.

MR. BLASIER: Now, in your capacity as the director of the Orange County crime lab, approximately how many people did you supervise?

MR. RAGLE: (No audible response.)

MR. BLASIER: At any given time?

MR. RAGLE: Well, the lab grew during that period of time and by the time I retired there were between 100 and 110 employees.

MR. BLASIER: And how many of those people were criminalists or toxicologists?

MR. RAGLE: Approximately sixty.

MR. BLASIER: What types of cases would you respond to or your people would respond to from the Orange County crime lab?

MR. RAGLE: In the criminalistics section, which would be the--similar to the Los Angeles Police Department's SID, the types of crime scenes that we responded to would be questioned deaths, drug laboratories, post bomb detonation scenes, arsons.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did you go to crime scenes that were being processed just by the Orange County Sheriff's Department or other police agencies in Orange County?

MR. RAGLE: Both.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the--I think you indicated that the Coroner's office was also under your direction at some point in time. What period of time was that?

MR. RAGLE: From 1977 until 1986 or `85, right in that time range, nine years.

MR. BLASIER: Now, at the time that you retired from the Orange County crime lab, is it accurate to say that that was considered to be one of the best crime labs in the country?

MR. RAGLE: It--it was and I believe it still is.

MR. BLASIER: Can you give me a rough estimate of the total number of crime scenes that--well, let me ask you this about homicides: How many homicides per year are there in Orange County?

MR. RAGLE: The average would be around 150. It can--it has been--starting when I first was an employee of the department, somewhere around fifty to sixty, and by the end of my career there were--homicides were somewhere in the number of 200.

MR. BLASIER: And approximately how many of those homicides would your office be involved in processing the crime scene?

MR. RAGLE: Approximately half.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the other half would be processed by who?

MR. RAGLE: By some of the cities who had--two cities had crime laboratories, small crime laboratories, or by their field evidence technicians.

MR. BLASIER: For all of the homicides handled by the Orange County Sheriff's Department, would it be your responsibility, or the people working for you, to process those scenes?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Since your retirement in 1989 what have you been doing?

MR. RAGLE: Primarily I've been acting as a consultant in the management areas of forensic science.

MR. BLASIER: And do you have a company that has a name?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: What is that?

MR. RAGLE: The center of forensic science.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when you say "Consulting," what sorts of consulting do you do?

MR. RAGLE: The--really falls into a couple different categories. One would be the needs assessment, that is, what type of response should a crime laboratory be able to offer to the criminal justice system, to all levels of the criminal justice system, and then also in the area of laboratory design, space allocations, relative to staffing and case load.

MR. BLASIER: Have you been involved over your career with designing crime labs or redesigning crime labs?

MR. RAGLE: Both.

MR. BLASIER: Can you give us just a couple of examples?

MR. RAGLE: Well, the laboratory in Orange County is the one I'm most familiar with because that laboratory was redesigned on several occasions unsuccessfully. That is, we made a design but nothing ever happened with that design. But ultimately, at the conclusion of my employment, the county agreed to build a new forensic science facility.

MR. BLASIER: And have you worked for other counties as a consultant--

MR. RAGLE: I also wanted to say that I was also involved in the design of what is called the forensic center in Orange County, which is the morgue, and then I have worked for other counties.

MR. BLASIER: What other counties have you worked for?

MR. RAGLE: As a consultant, after I retired, San Diego County and Contra Costa County. Before I retired, Ventura County, Santa Clara County and San Diego County.

MR. BLASIER: And does that involve law enforcement officials from those counties contacting you and retaining you to help them with their crime labs?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, do you have any teaching experience?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Are you currently teaching classes?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I am.

MR. BLASIER: And what is the subject matter of the classes that you teach now?

MR. RAGLE: The class that I am teaching for the University of California at Los Angeles is a class called crime scene investigation or field evidence technician class.

MR. BLASIER: And just generally what does that encompass?

MR. RAGLE: It encompasses the process of processing a crime scene, the entire scope of processing a crime scene.

MR. BLASIER: And how long have you been teaching either that course or other courses that have the same topic?

MR. RAGLE: That course started in 1968 and it is essentially unchanged in its nature, although there have been technical improvements in crime scene process.

MR. BLASIER: Now, how long does that class take, the way it is now?

MR. RAGLE: The class is a two-week class, a two-week class involving the students being at the classroom eight hours a day.

MR. BLASIER: And what is the--the students that take your class, who are they primarily made up of?

MR. RAGLE: The--right now it is about a 50-50 split. That is, about half of the students are police officers, sworn police officers, and the other half are civilian employees of law enforcement agencies. Occasionally there is a student who would--is seeking employment in some sort of law enforcement agency that takes a class.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did you want to add something about the length of time that your classes take?

MR. RAGLE: Well, I didn't want to imply that I was involved in the class for the entire two weeks. My part of the class is two days of each session.

MR. BLASIER: Now, do you have any FBI agents in your class?

MR. RAGLE: There have been, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did you--did any--has the FBI been sending people to your class partly as a result of your involvement in this case?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that calls for speculation and irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: Well, during your work on this case for the Defense, have you had contact with FBI agents?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And since that--

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Approximately how many people have attended your class since it started in 1968?

MR. RAGLE: In the neighborhood of 4000.

MR. BLASIER: Have any people from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department attended your classes?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know how many?

MR. RAGLE: I don't know how many. It would be the total number of the people assigned to their Crime Scene Investigation Bureau.

MR. BLASIER: To your knowledge has anyone from the L.A. Police Department SID ever come to any of your classes?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. BLASIER: Have you been an lecturer at any law school?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And where is that?

MR. RAGLE: In Orange County.

MR. BLASIER: Have you ever testified as an expert in court?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: Approximately how many times?

MR. RAGLE: If you include every type of case, close to a thousand times.

MR. BLASIER: And is that primarily when you were working with the Orange County crime lab?

MR. RAGLE: Exclusively.

MR. BLASIER: During that period of time were you ever--

MR. RAGLE: I was going to say I have testified a few times in Berkeley, but on rare occasion.

MR. BLASIER: But most of your experience testifying has been in your capacity with the Orange County crime lab?

MR. RAGLE: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Have you ever been called as a witness by the Defense?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Approximately how many times?

MR. RAGLE: (No audible response.)

MR. BLASIER: Let me limit that to when you were with the Orange County crime lab.

MR. RAGLE: Five or six times.

MR. BLASIER: And was that result of the Defense retaining you or for some other reason?

MR. RAGLE: That was--some other reason.

MR. BLASIER: And what would that be?

MR. RAGLE: The results of my examination in the laboratory favored their client.

MR. BLASIER: Could you describe the professional organizations that you belong to?

MR. RAGLE: I'm a member and the past president of the California Association of Criminalists, CAC. I'm a member emeritus of the California society of crime laboratory directors. I'm a fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Science. And I'm a member emeritus of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors.

MR. BLASIER: And have you received any appointments during your career in your area of expertise?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: What sorts of appointments?

MR. RAGLE: I've been a member of the California Department of Justice DNA advisory committee. This was part of the attorney general study on DNA. I was a member of the California Department of Justice, what they call CCI, which is the criminalist--California Criminalistics Institute, which is a training organization, and that role included recommending types of classes and training that would benefit crime laboratory employees. I was a member of the California Department of Justice's Cal I.D. User committee. The user committee was a group of people like myself who were managers of laboratories that were in the process of installing the California computerized fingerprint identification system called Cal i.d. and I've been a member of the state of California epidemiology study group and I was a member and the chairperson of the FBI committee on what was called forensic science operations and procedures committee, which was a committee that recommended to the FBI training section the types of research and the types of classes that would be most beneficial to law enforcement agencies.

MR. BLASIER: Who appointed you to that FBI committee?

MR. RAGLE: The president of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, or the board, I'm not sure which. I think as a group they make those appointments.

MR. BLASIER: Do you hold any licenses or certificates in your area of expertise?

MR. RAGLE: Technically no longer.

MR. BLASIER: Have you held licenses?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And why don't you tell us what those are.

MR. RAGLE: At one time I was licensed as a supervisor of the forensic alcohol analysis, a state license. I also was certified as a generalist in the field of criminalistics by the California Association of Criminalists, and that particular certification is now defunct, it expired after five years--actually, it didn't really expire after five years; it was changed to a different organization and I have to take a new examination this year if I'm going to be certified again.

MR. BLASIER: Is that the organization that provides accreditation to crime labs as well or is that the American association?

MR. RAGLE: It is not the same, no; it is a different--a different board.

MR. BLASIER: Does--do you know whether the California Association of Criminalists still certifies criminalists?

MR. RAGLE: No, they don't.

MR. BLASIER: Who does that now?

MR. RAGLE: The American Board of Criminalistics.

MR. BLASIER: Have you published any articles or made any presentations concerning your field of expertise?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Could you describe briefly what some of those publications and presentations are?

MR. RAGLE: Early on I did some presentations on toxicology tests that I had developed in the laboratory on determining amphetamines and amphetamine type compounds in body fluids. I published an article--not an article, but a chapter on forensic science in a textbook that was generally called "Principles of investigation," something like that. I don't remember the exact title. I made presentations at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences on two particular cases that I felt were something that the scientific community should be aware of.

MR. BLASIER: One of those involved the falsification of evidence?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, it did.

MR. BLASIER: Tell us briefly what that was about.

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Do you currently have a book that is in the process of being published?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: And what is the name of that book?

MR. RAGLE: "Crime scenes."

MR. BLASIER: Is that a textbook or is that a general interest book?

MR. RAGLE: It is a general interest book.

MR. BLASIER: Was that book completed prior to the time that you were hired to work on this case?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, it was.

MR. BLASIER: But it hasn't yet been published?

MR. RAGLE: It has been published. It will be released this year some time.

MR. BLASIER: Now, during your tenure with the Orange County crime lab did you ever have any experiences with outbreaks of contamination?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what--what was the response to the outbreak of contamination that you had experience with?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, there is no foundation for qualifications on PCR.

THE COURT: Sustained. Also vague.

MR. BLASIER: Prior to being retained by the Defense in the Simpson case, had you been hired by the Defense in any other criminal cases?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And approximately how many?

MR. RAGLE: Two.

MR. BLASIER: Were those large cases like this one or were they relatively minor cases?

MR. RAGLE: Well, they were--I don't know if you could call them relatively minor. My aspect in the case was relatively minor.

MR. BLASIER: Have there been other instances where you have been asked to work on the Defense side of criminal cases where you have refused?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Does that happen fairly frequently?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you have received compensation for your services during this case, have you not?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: When did you first become involved with the Simpson case?

MR. RAGLE: In the latter part of June of 1994.

MR. BLASIER: And that was at whose behest?

MR. RAGLE: Dr. Henry Lee asked if I could be of some assistance.

MR. BLASIER: And have you been involved working with the Defense on a somewhat continuous basis since this time?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, may we approach on a matter?

THE COURT: With the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side. Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: I wanted to make an offer on the falsification of evidence presentation. I think it is relevant to the issues in this case. It is a situation where he was asked to investigate the possibility that fingerprints were falsified, so I would like to go into them very briefly.

THE COURT: Have we got any falsified fingerprints in this case?

MR. BLASIER: Not fingerprints, no, but other issues of falsification certainly.

THE COURT: All right. Based upon that offer, the ruling stands.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Ragle, you indicated that you first became involved approximately June 26th of last year?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And have you been regularly involved in the case on a semi-continuous basis since that time?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Has that involved numerous meetings and sessions where we have discussed crime scene processing issues?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, it has.

MR. BLASIER: And have you watched much of the testimony in this case on television about crime scene processing from the detectives, as well as the forensic people as well as the Coroner?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: Can you tell us approximately how much you have been paid so far in this case?

MR. RAGLE: To date approximately $35,000.

MR. BLASIER: And what is your regular billing rate?

MR. RAGLE: My regular billing rate would be $200.00. That is not what I've been charging in this case.

MR. BLASIER: And what have you been charging in this case?

MR. RAGLE: For attending the meetings, half of that, a hundred dollars an hour. For monitoring testimony on TV, $50.00 an hour.

MR. BLASIER: And is the amount that you have been paid so far, does that cover everything you have done or do you have a certain amount that you will be billing after this?

MR. RAGLE: Last billing submitted included June and I haven't been paid for that, or possibly--June. I didn't do anything in July, and now this month.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Now, Mr. Ragle, given your training and experience in the area of crime scene processing, do you have an understanding of the minimum standard of practice which should be used to process crime scenes?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did I ask you to try and break down the processing of a crime scene into some categories for me?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, you did.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, could we have two slides marked next in order?

THE CLERK: 1326.

MR. BLASIER: 1326-A and B.

THE COURT: Fine, a and B.

(Deft's 1326-A & 1326-B for id = slides)

THE COURT: Do you have any more you need to show, Mr. Blasier?

MR. BLASIER: I showed these to him before.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

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

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, may we approach on this?

THE COURT: All right. With the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar and I have been shown two boards, one of which is entitled "Crime scene processing" and the other which is "Chronology."

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I don't have an objection necessarily to the top one. I believe that we had a three-day rule on showing charts and diagrams and I didn't receive this until this morning, so it should be excluded on that basis. The problem with the chronology is--and I haven't checked out every single time because I just didn't have time because I only saw it this morning--some of them are off. For example, Dennis Fung and Mazzola received a call at 5:26, so that is only--that is four minutes off, but it is off. They arrived at Bundy--excuse me--at Rockingham at 7:10. They left Rockingham at ten o'clock, so they probably arrived at Bundy at about 10:10 or 10:15 and I just haven't checked the rest of the--the times, but the point is, is that some of them are incorrect and shouldn't be used.

MR. BLASIER: They are all intended to be approximate times, Judge. Whether it is a minute or two off is not significant. The purpose of this chart is just to show when criminalists were called, when the bodies were found, just the general delay that occurred. I mean, I will state that they are approximate times.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, I'm going to direct you not to use this until Mr. Goldberg has had the opportunity to check the times. I take it this is in your computer, though?

MR. BLASIER: Yeah.

THE COURT: It is on the hard drive?

MR. BLASIER: Yeah.

THE COURT: That can be changed?

MR. BLASIER: I am getting to this right after this one. That is the problem.

MR. GOLDBERG: We can always do it orally.

THE COURT: Yeah. All right. That is the order. All right. Thank you.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

MR. BLASIER: Could we have 1326-A, please.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Ragle, can you see the monitor there to your right?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I can.

MR. BLASIER: And the categories on the chart, "Recognition of evidence," "Protection of evidence," "Documentation," "Collection" and "Preservation," those are the categories that you broke down the various steps of crime scene processing into?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Could you tell us briefly what--we want to go through each of those categories--what you mean by the term "Recognition of evidence"?

MR. RAGLE: The recognition of evidence in this context means that the individual, either the police officer or the field evidence technician or the criminalist, has either an innate ability, an intuition or special training in what types of evidence would be important at a particular crime scene. Since every crime scene the evidence varies. They have to be aware of the consequences and the significance of particular types of evidence and then set forth some method of capturing that.

MR. BLASIER: And the term "Protection of evidence," what do you mean by that?

MR. RAGLE: The protection of evidence in relation to the first category, the recognition, both of those are sort of ongoing processes throughout any crime scene investigation. The protection specifically is taking some measure that will assure that that evidence isn't changed, once the investigative team arrives--arrives at the scene, so that the concept here is that if they could, they would freeze the entire evidence and they would pick it up and take it to some safe haven, so they set up barriers, they maintain a log of the people who come in and out of the crime scene, and most importantly, they minimize the type and the number of people that come in and out of the crime scene.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the term "Documentation," how are you using that term?

MR. RAGLE: That is an all--sort of an all-encompassing term that would include the specifics of the location of each item that is believed to be evidence at the time, which appears to be relevant to the investigation at the time. And it includes photography, at least three different types of photographs, general photographs of the scene where this object might be seen off in the distance, a close-up photograph of it, what I would call an orientation photograph, and then a very close-up photograph where there is some documentation as to the size and the nature of that particular item, what it might be. Then those items that are considered relevant are measured very precisely relative to some fixed objects at the crime scene, so that if it is necessary that whole crime scene could be reconstructed and people who weren't at the crime scene to begin with could--could recognize and understand where each item of evidence was. And then finally the evidence is documented, carries on into some of these other--other phases, which is the collection of the evidence.

MR. BLASIER: All right. "Collection," how are you using that term?

MR. RAGLE: The collection--the physical--physical picking up of the object in such a way that its value as evidence is maintained. And it may be packaged, it may be something that has to be carried in--to maintain its integrity, its originality. It might have to be packaged and something just carried in your hand like a pizza box or some type of open container like that. A loaded weapon is an example.

MR. BLASIER: And "Preservation of the crime scene," what does that refer to, or "Preservation of the evidence"?

MR. RAGLE: The preservation of the evidence again is an ongoing subject. It pertains to maintaining that evidence in as close to its original condition as possible and that begins obviously with the protection of the evidence, so nothing happens to it, and then ultimately in the way it is packaged, so it is packaged in something that accommodates the object, that doesn't add to any--any destruction of the evidence, that doesn't change the nature of the evidence. And then the preservation goes on until then, how that evidence is stored. Some objects have to be stored frozen, some refrigerated, some dry.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when you talk about protection of the evidence and keeping it in its original condition, does that include also any trace evidence that might be on pieces of evidence in terms of maintaining that it is in the same place when it was found as when it is collected?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, it does.

MR. BLASIER: Why is it important that these steps be done properly?

MR. RAGLE: The main reason is that if evidence is in any way degraded or altered, its potential, what I call individuality, its uniqueness can change, can be lost. Obviously if evidence is--is not--you go back to step 1 in this outline. If evidence is not recognized or--or properly documented or collected, it can leave a lot of unanswered questions. Many crime scenes contain a lot of information that could answer questions, and so if these things are not done, evidence of a person's involvement might be overlooked or evidence of a person's non-involvement might be overlooked.

MR. BLASIER: You used an analogy with me when we were discussing this of a dictionary. Could you explain that to the jurors, please.

MR. RAGLE: In sort of a simplistic statement that I said is that every crime scene is like a book or a dictionary. I mean, if you know where to open up the pages and look up the information, you can answer many questions, and most crime scenes, not all, but most crime scenes are loaded with information, if the crime scene team is trained and interested in finding this information.

MR. BLASIER: Now, what are the consequences that can result when this is not done properly?

MR. RAGLE: Well, you miss the information. What I mentioned a moment ago, particularly--

MR. GOLDBERG: No question pending.

THE COURT: Sustained. Next question.

MR. BLASIER: Well, you talked about evidence losing its individuality. What did you mean by that?

MR. RAGLE: A good example of that would be like if the fingerprint was discovered at a crime scene that had all the detail that could be established to show ownership of that fingerprint and it is not collected possibly or ignored until something--somebody smudges it and now all you can say is it is a fingerprint and it might have fingerprint characteristics, but the fine detail is now missing, and the fine detail is what is necessary for identification.

MR. BLASIER: Now, given the resources available to the Los Angeles Police Department, do you have an opinion as to whether their processing of the crime scenes in this case--and by "Crime scenes" I'm talking about Rockingham and Bundy--fell above or below minimum standards of practice?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, your Honor, no foundation.

THE COURT: Foundation sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with the resources available to the Los Angeles Police Department?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with their crime lab?

MR. RAGLE: Somewhat.

MR. BLASIER: And have you followed all the testimony about the manner in which the crime scenes were processed in this case?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: And you are familiar with their crime scene truck and the equipment that they have testified to that they have available to them?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, do you have an opinion--with that understanding in mind, do you have an opinion as to whether their processing of the crime scenes in this case fell above or below a minimum standard of practice?

MR. GOLDBERG: Still no foundation, not relevant, calls for opinion and speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer.

MR. BLASIER: You can answer.

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I have an opinion.

MR. BLASIER: And what is that opinion?

MR. RAGLE: That it fell below a minimum standard.

MR. BLASIER: Now, what is your basis for that opinion?

MR. RAGLE: The basis of the opinion--my opinion that it fell below a minimum standard--

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I'm going to object. Calls for a narrative.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MR. RAGLE: The outcome of the evidence, the things that occurred to the evidence that caused it to lose some of its individuality, some of the items that were contaminated at the evidence (Sic) in the sense, for instance, there was something placed over a body at that evidence--at that crime scene, which was a mistake in the sense of the choice of whatever it was, not a mistake necessarily to cover a body if it is in public view, and there is some question of--of just humanistic aspect of covering up the remains of somebody.

MR. BLASIER: Well, let's talk about that specifically. You are familiar with the testimony that a blanket was removed from inside Nicole Brown Simpson's condominium and was placed over her body?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I am.

MR. BLASIER: And when you indicate that that was a mistake, could you tell us which aspect of that is a mistake?

MR. RAGLE: Well, there are really two aspects. The first is the fact that they picked something from the crime scene.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, again this is not relevant pursuant to our previous argument this morning.

THE COURT: Overruled. Noted. Thank you. Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: They selected something from the crime scene and used that and that leaves a lot of unanswered questions as to that--the condition of whatever it was they picked, I believe a blanket. But the biggest problem, from my perspective, is that they then did not collect that blanket and retain it for whatever evidential value it might have had because it was in contact with one of the bodies. There are--there are all kinds of possibilities of transfers from--if not from the blanket to the body, from the body to the blanket, and that would have been helpful and is just something that should have been done.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you indicated that there may be humanistic reasons to cover a body at a crime scene. Are there any legitimate investigative or forensic reasons for covering a body at a crime scene?

MR. RAGLE: Only if weather conditions would cause that need.

MR. BLASIER: Now, suppose hypothetically that the blanket that was used had recently been laundered. Does that make any difference in your view?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. BLASIER: Why not?

MR. RAGLE: Well, you still don't--unless you have the blanket to look at, you still don't know what might have been on it or not on it, and more importantly, you don't know what was transferred to it after it was used.

MR. BLASIER: Now, are you familiar with the testimony that there were some blood droplets on the back of Nicole Brown Simpson?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: In your opinion is the manner in which that was handled proper?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. BLASIER: Would you please explain your answer.

MR. RAGLE: Well, that obviously is very important evidence, and it was not collected at the crime scene and there was some explanation as to why it was not collected at the crime scene which I find unacceptable.

MR. BLASIER: What is your understanding of that explanation?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, this calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: Well, is your opinion based on your understanding of what the reason was that that was not collected?

MR. RAGLE: Can I answer that in a narrative form?

THE COURT: No.

MR. BLASIER: No.

THE COURT: What is the basis of your testimony? Was it the testimony that you heard?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. BLASIER: And what is your understanding of that testimony?

MR. RAGLE: That it was not the job of the criminalist, it was the job of the Coroners to collect that sample.

MR. BLASIER: When you say that is not acceptable, what do you mean by that?

MR. RAGLE: Well, until the Coroner's experts are at the scene, by putting the body in a body bag, all that evidence is destroyed or at least contaminated.

MR. BLASIER: Is it important in your view that the Coroner's office, the Scientific Investigation Division people and the detectives, work closely together?

MR. RAGLE: Is it my observation that they work closely together?

MR. BLASIER: No. Is it your opinion that they should?

MR. RAGLE: That they should, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And from what point in the investigation should that occur?

MR. RAGLE: From the very beginning.

MR. BLASIER: Now, let me ask you some questions about timing of when various people were called to this crime scene occurred. Are you familiar with the time frame in which the criminalists were called, the Coroners were called?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I am.

MR. BLASIER: Now, what is your understanding of when the bodies were found?

MR. RAGLE: 12:15 A.M.

MR. BLASIER: And when were the--when was the first call to the criminalist, approximately?

MR. RAGLE: My understanding is it was 5:30.

MR. BLASIER: And what is your understanding as to when criminalists arrived at the Bundy scene to begin processing that scene, approximately?

MR. RAGLE: 7:00 A.M.

MR. BLASIER: Is there any--in your opinion any legitimate investigative or forensic reason to be served by not calling criminalists for approximately ten hours to the primary crime scene?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Let me back up one question. Did you--what is your understanding of when the criminalists arrived at the Bundy scene to begin processing that?

MR. RAGLE: At the Bundy scene?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. RAGLE: I believe 10:15 or in that--in that time frame. 10:15, I believe.

MR. BLASIER: Now, in your opinion is there any legitimate investigative or forensic reason or purpose to be served by not having the criminalist at the primary crime scene for ten hours?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. BLASIER: What is your understanding as to when the criminalists began processing Rockingham?

MR. RAGLE: Began processing Rockingham?

MR. BLASIER: Yes, or arrived at Rockingham?

MR. RAGLE: 7:00 A.M.

MR. BLASIER: Now, we've had testimony that the detectives, Lange, Vannatter, Phillips and Fuhrman, left the Bundy crime scene at approximately five o'clock in the morning to make a death notification to Mr. Simpson. In your opinion is that an appropriate procedure to take?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation for his opinion.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: In your view is there any legitimate investigative or forensic purpose for the investigative detectives to leave the crime scene for a period of time to make a death notification?

MR. GOLDBERG: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: How many people does it generally take to make a death notification?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative. Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. Foundational problem with all that line of questioning.

MR. BLASIER: Well, are you--did you watch the testimony of the detectives in this case as to when they went to Rockingham and for what purpose?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have an opinion on whether it is an appropriate procedure to use in investigating a crime scene to have all the detectives leave the primary crime scene to go to what might be a secondary scene?

MR. GOLDBERG: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Ragle, do you have any experience on the procedures that are used to make death notifications in homicide cases?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: And what does that experience consist of?

MR. RAGLE: As the director and in charge of the day-to-day operations of the Orange County Coroner's division, I am aware of how notifications are made.

MR. BLASIER: And do you have an opinion as to the appropriateness of having four detectives leave the primary crime scene to go to a secondary scene to make a death notification?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Let's abandon this line of questioning on the foundation.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: Foundation. It is not there.

MR. BLASIER: In your opinion what is the importance of having criminalists respond to a crime scene as soon as possible?

MR. RAGLE: The reason that you would want a criminalist to come to a crime scene as soon as possible is the nature of some evidence is in question, is perishable, and you never know what the weather conditions may be, so the sooner they arrive, the less chance of any degradation or loss of evidence.

MR. BLASIER: When you say some evidence is perishable, what do you mean by that?

MR. RAGLE: Biological materials, for example, blood in a hostile environment, such as a crime scene, the ground is not in its normal environment, go bad.

MR. BLASIER: What is the importance of having the Coroner called to a crime scene as soon as possible?

MR. RAGLE: My experience with having the Coroner come to the crime scene as soon as possible is that they are trained in establishing or estimating the time of death.

MR. BLASIER: Is it important that all of those agencies begin working together at the very earliest moment?

MR. RAGLE: In my opinion it is, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Are you aware of any legitimate investigative or forensic reason to not begin processing the Bundy crime scene until ten hours after the bodies were discovered, approximately?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled on that basis. Go ahead and answer the question.

MR. RAGLE: There is no reason that I know of.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have an opinion on the appropriateness of only--with the complicated crime scenes present in this case--of only having one type of criminalists working all crime scenes?

MR. RAGLE: Do I have an opinion?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. RAGLE: I would say it would be inappropriate.

MR. BLASIER: What would be the appropriate procedure?

MR. RAGLE: The appropriate procedure would have been to--would be to call at least a second team of criminalists.

MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with the equipment that Andrea Mazzola and Dennis Fung had available to them in their crime scene truck for examining for latent shoeprints--shoeprints evidence at the crime scene?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Are you aware of whether or not there was ever any search done in the dirt area of the Bundy crime scene for latent shoeprints?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation, no foundation, no personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: In the reports that I was given I found no evidence that that was done.

MR. BLASIER: And do you know whether or not the Los Angeles Police Department in their crime scene trucks has equipment to conduct such an analysis?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, calls for speculation, no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: Well, actually there isn't any special equipment needed to look for shoe impressions in soil, other than a flashlight at night.

MR. BLASIER: Is there--in your opinion is there any legitimate investigative or forensic reason not to do that at a crime scene such as Bundy?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, that is improper. It is contrary to the evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Do you remember the question?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

THE COURT: Is there any reason not to look for footprints?

MR. RAGLE: No.

THE COURT: Next question.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: May we have just a second, your Honor?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Ragle, what techniques are available to look for shoeprints in dirt at night?

THE COURT: He has answered that already.

MR. BLASIER: What is the role of oblique lighting in examining shoeprints?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: Oblique lighting is light at an angle and light at a sharp angle, so any indentations, and whatever it is, whether it is soil or indented writing or anything like that on a piece of paper, the shadowing accentuates fine detail so it allows a person to see something that could be very subtle or something quite obvious.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I have two photographs that I think are actually entered in one form. Those are just blow-ups that I would like to have marked.

THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, this would be 1326 and 1327--

THE COURT: Excuse me. 1327 and 1328.

THE CLERK: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. The first one will be 1327, Mr. Blasier.

(Deft's 1327 for id = photograph)

(Deft's 1328 for id = photograph)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Incidentally, Mr. Ragle, are there any advantages to looking for shoeprints at night versus in the day?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: What are those advantages?

MR. RAGLE: The oblique light, which would be holding a flashlight at a very sharp angle in the dark, allows you to accentuate any fine detail much greater than if you had ordinary daylight radiating down from various angles and reflecting off other surfaces.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Is that also true for shoe impressions or residues on hard surfaces as well as dirt?

MR. RAGLE: Not necessarily with oblique lighting, but with other types of lighting it might be.

MR. BLASIER: Let me show you what has been marked as Defense 1327--Mr. Harris, I think we can do this up here.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. 165, can you see that?

JUROR NO. 165: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. BLASIER: I would like to put up 1328 at the same time.

THE COURT: All right.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Ragle, can you see the two photographs we have put up?

MR. RAGLE: Not very well.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. You can step down and take a look at them, if you like.

MR. RAGLE: (Witness complies.)

MR. BLASIER: You have seen those photographs before, have you not?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: And what is 1327 a picture of?

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Ragle, would you address the jury when you are giving your answers, please.

MR. RAGLE: I don't know which one is 13--

MR. BLASIER: The one on the left.

MR. RAGLE: Okay. This is a photograph of the glove and part of the pavement that was a sidewalk at Bundy, and this is apparently the hat and someone pointing their finger at this particular item.

MR. BLASIER: Now, we've had testimony indicating that is Detective Fuhrman pointing at a glove. Is there, in your opinion, any legitimate investigative reason for having a picture with a detective pointing at a piece of evidence?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. BLASIER: What is the standard procedure with respect to photographing items of evidence with respect to having people in the photographs?

MR. RAGLE: It is generally avoided.

MR. BLASIER: And why is that?

MR. RAGLE: Part tradition and part it obliterates part of the photograph.

MR. GOLDBERG: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: Does having a person walking around a crime scene cause any potential problems as well?

MR. RAGLE: Certainly unnecessary.

MR. BLASIER: Now, 1328 is a picture--a later picture of the glove with an evidence tag on it. You have seen that one before?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I have.

MR. GOLDBERG: Objection, that misstates the evidence. There is no tag on it.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: With a number card--number card that says "102"?

MR. RAGLE: Next to it.

MR. BLASIER: Next to it?

THE COURT: All right. That is a photographer's i.d. number, correct?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did I ask you to compare those two pictures to determine whether there had been any alteration of that particular area of the crime scene between the first picture and the second picture?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is cumulative. We have gone into this at length.

THE COURT: We have previously.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: I'm not saying I'm going to sustain the objection, but we have visited this issue before.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: I'm going to be very brief on this, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Ragle, is it important, in the process of protecting a crime scene, that evidence not be altered or moved or picked up or replaced prior to the time of its collection and processing?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, it is.

MR. BLASIER: Why is that important?

MR. RAGLE: For the reasons I expressed before; the integrity of the evidence is then in question, the potential of adding or subtracting something from the evidence that can occur.

MR. BLASIER: You can resume your chair, please.

MR. RAGLE: (Witness complies.)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm wondering if we might display these to the jurors? I'm not sure they can all see them.

THE COURT: 1386, can you see those? If you want, Mr. Blasier, you can bring them up and display them in front of the jury box; however, these photographs have been displayed before. This is to allow the jurors to recollect and refresh their recollections as to these two items.

(The exhibits were displayed to the jury.)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm wondering if this might be an appropriate time to break?

THE COURT: Are you about to shift?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to take our break for the lunch hour. Mr. Ragle, you can step down. You are ordered to come back at one o'clock. We will stand in recess until one o'clock. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any conclusions about the matter until the matter is submitted to you, or allow anyone to communicate with you about the case. We will stand in recess until one o'clock. And Mr. Goldberg, Mr. Scheck, confer with each other on those other two issues. All right. Thank you.

(At 11:59 A.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 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 COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. Counsel, anything we need to discuss before we invite the jurors to join us?

MR. BLASIER: Yes, your Honor. Very briefly.

THE COURT: You always scare me when you say very briefly.

MR. BLASIER: No. This will be brief. I will ask the Court for a little bit of latitude with Mr. Ragle. I know that some of these materials have been covered before. However, it's all been through our cross-examination of Prosecution witnesses. Mr. Ragle is the first person we put on as our witness on crime scene practices.

THE COURT: I understand that.

MR. BLASIER: The other point is, I intend to ask him questions regarding the movement of evidence, the envelope and the glove prior to collection. And I wasn't here on Thursday or Friday, but I understand that there was a bench conference where the Court stated that it was the Court's impression that there had been testimony explaining how those items got moved. We have--we do not recall any such testimony. I want to make sure that we're clear on what's in the record before I pursue that avenue. We have not found any reference anywhere to any witness explaining how those items got moved. That's our current understanding.

THE COURT: Well, that's not my recollection. My recollection is that we've heard testimony from the investigating officers, Lange and Vannatter, that there were certain items in place, that bodies were moved and then they were replaced and photo cards placed.

MR. BLASIER: I don't--we don't recall any such testimony.

THE COURT: Yep. Yep.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: I mean, they acknowledged obviously from the photographs that the items were moved in some fashion, but I don't recall any testimony where they said, "Yeah, I did it," or, "He did it," and this was just to put things--

THE COURT: No. I recollect an explanation for that. But that's not to say that you can't have your expert say that's not a good idea no matter how it happened.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

THE COURT: For obvious reasons. But I just might add that the jury I think can figure that out. You don't think so, Mr. Scheck?

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor--

THE COURT: No. Rhetorical question. Let's have the jurors.

MR. SCHECK: When we can talk, we should have a discussion about what the record states and doesn't.

THE COURT: Well, I have a pretty clear recollection that that's already occurred. All right. Let's have the jurors, please.

MR. COCHRAN: Can we have some latitude on this?

THE COURT: I don't know. You have to ask Mr. Blasier. He's the one making the argument for himself, Mr. Cochran.

(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. Mr. Ragle, would you resume the witness stand, please.

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

THE COURT: All right. Good afternoon, Mr. Ragle. The record should reflect Larry Ragle is on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Blasier. Mr. Ragle, sir, you are reminded you are still under oath. Mr. Blasier, you may continue with your direct examination.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. BLASIER

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Ragle, I just wanted to ask you a couple more questions about latent or faint shoeprint or other impressions that might be left at a crime scene. Did I understand your testimony before lunch to be that the nighttime is a much better time to locate such prints if they exist than the daytime?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: If we're talking about a nighttime outdoor location, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what equipment is available if a latent or faint shoeprint was visible or was identified that way? Are there procedures available to make a record of that and preserve those prints?

MR. RAGLE: There are lifting devices that are available, static electrical dust lifting devices and there's ordinary rubber lifting devices that are available.

MR. BLASIER: And do those techniques allow you to preserve such prints so that they can be analyzed later or examined by any parties later?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, they do.

MR. BLASIER: Are you aware of whether or not the Los Angeles Police Department SID division has such equipment available to it?

MR. RAGLE: It's listed in their procedurals handbook, their--they call it their crime scene policies and procedural handbook or field scene, something like that.

MR. GOLDBERG: Motion to strike. Nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Sustained. Answer is stricken. Jurors to disregard. The question was, do you know if they have the equipment, not what their manual says.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know if they have such equipment?

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. BLASIER: Is that equipment that's readily available to law enforcement agencies everywhere?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would like to show Mr. Ragle Defense 1071.

THE COURT: Which page, counsel?

MR. BLASIER: Well, I'm going to show him the manual initially.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. BLASIER: Show you 1071. Does that appear to be the field manual that you were just referring to?

MR. GOLDBERG: There's no foundation that he can authenticate that, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: This is the document that I was referring to.

MR. BLASIER: Is it important in your view for a crime lab to have a manual in place that sets forth procedures to be used by criminalists in processing crime scenes?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And there's been testimony that that manual has never been actually adopted, that it existed for several years and has never gotten past the first draft stage. In your opinion, is that acceptable procedure with respect to having your methods documented?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MR. RAGLE: Is it--the question is, is it acceptable to not have these methods--

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. RAGLE: --adopted?

MR. BLASIER: Not have any methods set forth in a manual that guides everybody on collecting evidence the same way.

MR. RAGLE: I don't understand the question.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. Have you reviewed that field manual, the portions of it that relate to evidence collection?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: And do you have an opinion on whether certain parts of that manual state procedures, correct procedures that should be used in processing evidence?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, they do.

MR. BLASIER: Let me ask you one question about death notification. What is the standard practice with respect to death notifications in homicides cases?

MR. GOLDBERG: Same objections previously made.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Do many of the suggestions or comments that you've made about inadequacies with the Los Angeles Police Department relate to the prevention or the detection of evidence tampering?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the evidence. He didn't talk about any inadequacies in the department.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Do you recall when we talked about the five categories of processing a crime scene and what the general framework is, what your goals are in processing crime scenes?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And how does that relate to prevention or detection of evidence tampering?

MR. RAGLE: The step that I described as documentation, all of that--all the efforts within that particular step are intended to maintain the integrity of the evidence, the identity of the evidence and to establish that only authorized individuals who either collected the evidence or in any way open the evidence or work with the evidence or record it.

MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with tamper-resistant seals for evidence items?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, have you followed the testimony with respect to the drawing of Mr. Simpson's reference blood and the procedure that was used to preserve that and transport it?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I am.

MR. BLASIER: Now, let me show you People's exhibit 163-H. That is a sample envelope that corresponds to the envelope used to contain Mr. Simpson's reference sample. Is that what that appears to be to you?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the procedure set forth on that envelope indicate that it should be sealed once the evidence--

MR. GOLDBERG: Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: What is the proper procedure with respect to sealing evidence at the time that it's collected in your view?

MR. RAGLE: With this specific item or any item?

MR. BLASIER: Well, let's take that item as an example.

MR. RAGLE: Any--anytime the sample is placed in a container like this and then transferred from one person to the other, the evidence should be sealed by the person who is the originator of the evidence.

MR. BLASIER: And what's the reason for having it sealed at that early stage?

MR. RAGLE: So that its identity and integrity is without any question.

MR. BLASIER: In your opinion, is it acceptable to place a reference blood vial in that envelope and have it remain unsealed for several days?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, calls for speculation. No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: Also irrelevant.

THE COURT: You can answer the question.

MR. RAGLE: In my opinion, that's not a good practice.

MR. BLASIER: What is your opinion as to the proper technique that should be used in terms of marking evidence as it's collected?

THE COURT: Isn't that kind of vague, because we have such a wide range of different types, some of what can't actually be marked itself, so--

MR. BLASIER: Let's take, as an example, the swatches that were made from bloodstains, and I'm going to ask you specifically about the procedure that should be used to identify those or mark them. In your opinion, what is the appropriate procedure to use once that item is collected?

MR. RAGLE: Since swatches cannot be actually written on, they should be documented by counting them, by placing--placing them in some sort of container where they will be dried if they're not already dry. Ideally, they would be either photographed or sketched and then they would be placed in a package and sealed; and in this case, since it's available, sealed with some sort of tape such as this tape.

MR. BLASIER: And, again, what is the reason for that?

THE COURT: I don't think we need to ask questions again.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: We don't need to ask questions again.

MR. BLASIER: Does the LAPD field manual that is not actually in effect provide a procedure for fully documenting the collection of evidence?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: No authentication, no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: I believe it does, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, with respect to removing dry bloodstain from various surfaces, do you have an opinion on the proper way that that should be done?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what is that opinion? I mean, how should that be done properly?

MR. RAGLE: Well, the best way to remove a sample of blood from any dry surface that's not movable--the best way, if it's on a movable surface, is to move the surface directly to the laboratory by the process we've already discussed, the documentation, packaging and preservation.

But if it's on something that cannot be moved, the first attempt should be to at least evaluate whether or not some of it can be scraped off of the surface with a probe or with a scalpel blade or something like that so that the blood is left in as close to the same condition it was at the crime scene. If that's not possible or if only part of the sample can be removed that way, then the next step is to dampen something, either a swatch, the technique that's used in Los Angeles or at least by the Los Angeles Police Department, or a cotton swab similar to a q-tip, and to dampen that and then to apply that to the remaining stain or whatever is left of the stain until all of that is transferred onto the cotton.

MR. BLASIER: Now, there's been testimony in this case that wet blood swatches were stored in plastic bags. In your opinion, is that an acceptable technique to use to preserve blood swatches?

MR. GOLDBERG: That completely misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: That is not a proper technique.

MR. BLASIER: Why not?

MR. RAGLE: It's a very hostile environment for any biological material to be placed into, first of all, any plastic bag, particularly when it's wet.

MR. BLASIER: Now, what is the proper procedure in terms of whether that--whether blood swatches should be dried right at the scene or dried later?

MR. RAGLE: It's my opinion they should be dried at the scene.

MR. BLASIER: Now, again, with respect to documenting such things as bindles or containers with blood swatches in them, is it important in your view that they be initialed by the person who actually does the collection?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: If more than one person is involved with handling or collecting that evidence, is it important that both those people be indicated on the packaging material?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, it is.

MR. BLASIER: We've had testimony in this case that the plastic bags that contain the wet swatches were transported back to the Los Angeles Police Department and then discarded. Do you have an opinion on whether that was an appropriate procedure to follow in the collection and processing of bloodstains?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I have an opinion.

MR. BLASIER: And what's your opinion?

MR. RAGLE: That anything that contained the evidence such as the plastic bag should be retained.

MR. BLASIER: And why is that?

MR. RAGLE: To answer any question that comes up later; was there anything in the plastic bag that could have interfered with any subsequent test, was the bag itself something that could interfere with any subsequent test, was there any residue of the sample, since it's placed in there wet, that could be of some value for further testing.

MR. BLASIER: Is preserving packaging material important if there's some question down the road about whether evidence has been switched or altered in some fashion?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for a legal conclusion.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And if there's blood residue left on the inside of the plastic bags, can that be useful in testing whether or not a later sample actually came from that bag or not?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: You're familiar with the term a "Photo log"; are you not?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I am.

MR. BLASIER: And what's the purpose of a photo log?

MR. RAGLE: A photo log is like a diary. It's a sequential list of photographs that are taken at any particular event involving an investigation.

MR. BLASIER: And you have an understanding as to whether or not a complete photo log was kept by Los Angeles Police Department that documents the order in which pictures were taken at the Bundy or Rockingham scenes?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation, no personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have any knowledge of whether or not a photo log was maintained for photographs that were taken at Bundy and Rockingham?

MR. GOLDBERG: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: I have some information.

MR. BLASIER: And do you have an opinion on whether or not appropriate documentation with respect to a photo log was kept of photographs taken at the Bundy and Rockingham scenes?

MR. GOLDBERG: Compound, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Foundation. Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: From your knowledge of what was done with respect to creating a photo log, do you have an opinion on whether or not that was done adequately by the Los Angeles Police Department?

MR. GOLDBERG: There's no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Did you attempt to locate a photo log from the Los Angeles Police Department showing the order in which photographs were taken at Rockingham and Bundy?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Have you ever seen such a log?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: No.

MR. BLASIER: Is such a log important?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: In your opinion, is it an acceptable procedure to process a crime scene such as Bundy and Rockingham without keeping a photo log?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled. Is it an appropriate practice to keep a photo log?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, it is.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Specifically with respect to evidence items such as the socks that were found at Mr. Simpson's residence in this case, do you believe that it's important that a complete documentation be maintained as to when photographs were taken, in what sequence of evidence, items such as that?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with the use of videotaping or video cameras in the processing of crime scenes?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I am.

MR. BLASIER: How is a video camera useful in processing a crime scene?

MR. GOLDBERG: It's speculation unless he's used one himself.

THE COURT: Foundation.

MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with techniques that are used to document crime scenes through the use of videotaping?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague, "Are you familiar."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what are those techniques?

MR. RAGLE: The technique of walking through a crime scene and viewing the scene through the camcorder.

MR. BLASIER: Now, does that serve some purpose with respect to briefing other officers on what is at a crime scene?

MR. RAGLE: That's exactly what I recommend in my teaching of crime scene investigators; is to use this camcorder, particularly the kind that has a viewing screen on it for a quick review. For people who arrive at the crime scene who want to know or who need to know what the crime scene looks at, rather than having them walk through the scene again and in adding any other possible changes to the scene, to view the scene on a camcorder.

MR. BLASIER: Now, what is the--what's the disadvantage of having--of not having a videotape to show other officers?

MR. RAGLE: Well, if they generally have a need to know, they have to go into the crime scene and walk through it.

MR. BLASIER: Why isn't just taking still photographs acceptable by itself?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, he didn't say that. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained. It's leading.

MR. BLASIER: Well, can the same purpose be achieved by taking still photographs at a crime scene?

MR. RAGLE: To some extent, Polaroid photographs taken at a crime scene because they're developed almost instantly. But regular photography requires, even if there's an all night one-hour service, at least an hour.

MR. BLASIER: Now, do you know whether or not the Los Angeles Police Department has videotaping equipment available to it?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, we've had testimony that the only scene videotape that was taken was for insurance purposes at Rockingham after a search was conducted. In your opinion, is that a proper use of the videotaping equipment that they had available to them?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Foundation.

MR. BLASIER: In your opinion, is it acceptable or unacceptable if a police agency has videotaping equipment available to them to not take any videotapes of a crime scene?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: There's been testimony that Detective Fuhrman used the interior of Nicole Brown Simpson's condominium as a sort of command post after he arrived at the scene. Do you have an opinion on whether or not that was an appropriate use of the inside of Nicole Brown Simpson's condominium?

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. Misstates the evidence.

MR. BLASIER: There's been testimony that the inside of the condominium was used by police officers to either sit down and make notes or conduct briefings of other police officers. Do you have an opinion on whether or not that is appropriate?

MR. GOLDBERG: That misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: It's compound.

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.

THE COURT: It's compound.

MR. BLASIER: What's your understanding of the use to which the inside of Nicole Brown Simpson's condominium was used by the Los Angeles Police Department at the time that they arrived at the crime scene?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay, irrelevant, no personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: I heard the testimony of some of the investigating officers.

MR. BLASIER: And that was as to what?

MR. RAGLE: To going inside the condo.

MR. BLASIER: Now, is that an acceptable procedure in your mind?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "Acceptable." No foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Do you see any--

THE COURT: Counsel--counsel, just focus in on the particular witness that sat on the couch and made notes, focus in on the particular witness who used the telephone, focus in on the particular witness who used the lights. Let's not--these are very vague questions, unless you want to narrow it down to the evidence in this case.

MR. BLASIER: With respect to Detective Mark Fuhrman using the inside of the condominium to sit down and write his notes, do you have an opinion on whether or not that was appropriate?

MR. GOLDBERG: It's vague. No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: It is inappropriate to do that unless that area had been processed for evidence before that time.

MR. BLASIER: And why is it important that the inside of Nicole Brown Simpson's condominium be processed in any fashion?

MR. RAGLE: Because it is adjacent to and at least in my opinion part of the overall scene.

MR. BLASIER: Now, are you aware of I believe it was Officer Riske's testimony, that he used a telephone inside of Nicole Brown Simpson's condominium to I believe contact other police officers? Do you recall that testimony?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: And do you have an opinion on whether or not that was an appropriate action to take on his part?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: I have an opinion, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what's your opinion?

MR. RAGLE: That that was inappropriate to use the phone inside the victim's house at that time.

MR. BLASIER: And why is that?

MR. RAGLE: The most obvious reason would be, if somebody else had used that phone that's involved in this situation, there could have been fingerprints on that phone. The other reasons are because of technology today and redialing. And, again, I'm not on my own knowledge, but testimony I heard, that there's other mechanisms on that phone that would indicate the last incoming call that--

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony. Motion to strike the witness' last answer.

THE COURT: All right. As to the technology regarding last incoming phone number, that will be stricken. Not supported by the evidence.

MR. BLASIER: Well, is there--do you have an understanding of whether that telephone was able to store the last number that was used to call out?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, there's no personal knowledge, no foundation for that.

THE COURT: Overruled. But we talked about last number redial is what we talked about.

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

THE COURT: And he's already answered that question.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

MR. BLASIER: What's your understanding as to the timing as to when the Coroner's office removed the victims' bodies with respect to that crime scene being actually processed?

MR. RAGLE: That the bodies were removed at approximately 10:15.

MR. BLASIER: And was that before or after that crime scene was processed?

MR. RAGLE: This would have been before criminalist Fung and Mazzola did at least most of their processing.

MR. BLASIER: Have you reviewed the testimony of Detective Lange with respect to his reasons why the bodies were removed prior to the time that the crime scene was processed?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: Do you recall him using a term "Close-in crime scene"?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would like to read from page 17638 and ask the witness his opinion of this explanation if I might.

THE COURT: Do you want to give counsel the cite?

MR. BLASIER: 17638.

MR. GOLDBERG: I didn't bring my full set of transcripts from the whole trial.

THE COURT: Why don't you show it to him, please.

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

MR. BLASIER: Now, Mr. Ragle, I want to read to you the testimony from Detective Lange with respect to why the scene was processed in that manner and ask for your opinion about this. "Bundy was a close-in crime scene. The victims were close to one another. The evidence was close to the victims. A determination was made, as one example, to remove the victims prior to the evidence because of this. If the evidence had been several feet away or out in the street or something else, perhaps the victims would have stayed at that location while the evidence was collected. You just have to deal with what you have." Do you have an opinion on whether that is an acceptable explanation for why the bodies were removed prior to the time that the crime scene was processed?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "Acceptable." No foundation.

THE COURT: Foundation for the opinion. Examination of the crime scene photos, appreciation for the proximities, you need a foundation for that.

MR. BLASIER: In forming an opinion that you have, have you considered the crime scene photographs that you've reviewed as well as testimony about the order in which things were done and the proximity of various pieces of evidence to the bodies?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: And do you have an opinion based on that as to whether Detective Lange's explanation for why that was done is acceptable or not?

MR. RAGLE: I have an opinion.

MR. BLASIER: And what's your opinion?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it's vague as to "Acceptable."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: It is my opinion that that is not an acceptable explanation.

MR. BLASIER: Why not?

MR. RAGLE: It is 180 degrees in opposition of how a close-in crime scene should be processed. The evidence that is nearest the body--you have to start from the outside and work your way in and you can't move--you could move the victim and you should move the victim obviously if the victim--if the victim's alive. I mean you have to endanger the evidence to save the person's life. That happens a lot. If there is no chance of that, then it's a slow methodical approach to the victims and it's the last thing you would do, would be to move the victims, and you should never move the victims over the evidence or have to move the evidence in order to move deceased individuals.

MR. BLASIER: Now, have you examined photographs of the various pieces of evidence in this case and determined that some items of evidence were moved from the taking of one picture until some later picture, specifically the envelope and the glove?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: What is the importance in your view of determining how that kind of movement of evidence took place?

MR. RAGLE: The appropriateness did you say?

MR. BLASIER: What is the importance or is there any importance to trying to determine how evidence got moved prior to the time it was collected?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: Yes, there is some importance to that.

MR. BLASIER: And what is that importance?

MR. RAGLE: The importance is--I'm looking over here. I thought the photos were still there--is that the--

MR. BLASIER: Would you like to refer to those?

MR. RAGLE: I don't think I need them. It's just that any evidence that is in the path of the movement of the deceased or the people--to lift an adult, it requires at least two people. So there has to be an intrusion into the very heart of the crime scene here, and obviously anything that is in the way can get moved or it can get stepped on or it can get altered.

MR. BLASIER: Now, with respect to trace evidence such as dirt or other trace evidence that might be on an item of evidence such as the envelope, what's the proper procedure to use to preserve that type of evidence?

MR. RAGLE: You're talking about loose material or--

MR. BLASIER: Any trace material that might be apparent on an item that's on the ground.

MR. RAGLE: Okay. I believe the appropriate material to remove any evidence that is fragile is to do it at the crime scene, to inspect the evidence, to determine if there's something that would be lost if you attempt to pick it up and put it in a container, and if that's the decision of the criminalist, to collect it there rather than take the chance of losing it.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you talked a little earlier about the proper photographic documentation for items of evidence. Let's talk specifically about blood drops. Have you reviewed the photographs that have been made available to you of the--what's been called the Bundy blood drops?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: And do you have an opinion on whether or not that photographic documentation that you have seen is adequate?

MR. RAGLE: It is not.

MR. BLASIER: And why is it not adequate?

MR. RAGLE: Excuse me. Yes, I have an opinion.

MR. BLASIER: And what is that opinion?

MR. RAGLE: That it's not.

MR. BLASIER: Why is it not adequate?

MR. RAGLE: There are a couple of reasons. Every photograph of something like that that's close up--I think I mentioned this earlier--should have a ruler, and in the case of something like blood drops, should have a indication of the direction, compass or not the direction necessarily of the movement of the blood, but of north or some--some reference point so that a viewer later on can see this, the ruler can tell them the size, and obviously there has to be some other indicator or marker or number, an item number, something like that and then direction of north.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I have a photograph to mark next in order.

THE COURT: This would be 1329? 1329.

(Deft's 1329 for id = photograph)

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, may I put this on the elmo?

MR. BLASIER: Let me show you what's been marked as Defense 1329. That's a picture of one of the Bundy drops that's been referred to; is it not?

MR. RAGLE: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And can you use this picture as an example of how that was improperly documented at least through this picture?

MR. RAGLE: Only one of the items that I suggested a moment ago shows up in this photograph, and that is, there is a tag indicating a photo number. That's appropriate. What's inappropriate about that tag by the way is the placement of it, it is too close and is obliterating or at least--I shouldn't say obliterating--it is masking the area underneath the piece of paper. It looks like a 3 x 5 card or something like that, and that's too close. There should be-- it could be this close if another photograph is taken without anything in it, but what is missing here entirely is a ruler and a pointer or a notation that north is to the top or to the bottom, to the side, whatever the photograph is, however it was oriented.

MR. BLASIER: That's all.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Ragle, is it important to--when processing a crime scene, to preserve blood spatter evidence that might be on items in the direct--in the immediate vicinity of the crime scene?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, it is.

MR. BLASIER: And are you familiar with blood spatter that appears on the gated area in the--surrounding the area where Mr. Goldman's body was found?

MR. RAGLE: I've seen the photographs that were supplied to me, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what's the importance of adequately preserving that kind of evidence?

MR. RAGLE: Eventually, a scene like this, there would be some attempt to interpret what happened, reconstruct the events; and all that cast-off blood or spattered blood, or whatever the reason that blood appeared there, could be used to determine what happened.

MR. BLASIER: And from the material that you reviewed, do you have an opinion on whether that aspect of the crime scene was adequately documented?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: What materials have you reviewed with respect to that area of the crime scene?

MR. RAGLE: Series of photographs that were supplied to me.

MR. BLASIER: And from the photographs that were supplied to you, assuming hypothetically that those were the only photographs to preserve that evidence, do you feel that--

MR. GOLDBERG: Improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: --do you feel that the photographs that you were provided adequately document the blood spatter on that area of the crime scene?

MR. GOLDBERG: Improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: We're vague because we don't really know what we're talking about here, which photographs we're talking about.

MR. BLASIER: Well, the photographs that you reviewed were what? What did they show?

MR. RAGLE: Referring to the--to the gate and to the railing?

MR. BLASIER: The metal fence that surrounded the area where Mr. Goldman's body was found.

MR. RAGLE: There was an assortment of photographs that showed various blood, what would be called blood spatter or splatter.

MR. BLASIER: Now, if that is adequately documented through photographs and measurements and any other means available, is it possible to attempt to reconstruct what might have happened in that area, at least partially, that accounted for that blood?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: Well, that would be the purpose of taking the photographs.

MR. BLASIER: We have had testimony that criminalist Fung at the direction of Detective Lange removed the glove in the bag that had been found at the Rockingham area and took it into the Bundy crime scene, climbing over Mr. Goldman's body I believe to show it to Detective Lange.

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained. Restate the question.

MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with the testimony that Dennis Fung took the Rockingham glove inside of a bag into the Bundy crime scene to show it to Detective Lange?

MR. RAGLE: Yes, I am.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have an opinion on whether or not that is an appropriate technique to use?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to appropriate. No foundation. Also, it wasn't a technique.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. RAGLE: I have an opinion.

MR. BLASIER: And what's your opinion?

MR. RAGLE: My opinion, that nothing should be taken back into the crime scene from one crime scene to the other.

MR. BLASIER: Why is that?

MR. RAGLE: I