DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

(CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL. DO WE HAVE MR. HARMON OR MR. CLARKE ANYWHERE ABOUT?

MS. CLARK: YES, WE DO, YOUR HONOR, AND THEY ARE PREPARED TO COME IN AND ADDRESS THE COURT. THEY JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU WANTED TO DO IT AT THIS MOMENT.

THE COURT: I THOUGHT WE WOULD TRY TO RESOLVE THAT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE THIS MORNING.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT AWAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SERGEANT ROSSI, WHY DON'T YOU HAVE A SEAT. NO, NOT THERE. THAT IS A JUROR'S SEAT.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ARE THEY ON THEIR WAY?

MS. CLARK: YES.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MR. SCHECK, HAVE YOU READ OVER MR. HARMON'S LETTER OF TODAY?

MR. SCHECK: NO.

THE COURT: THAT MAY SOLVE MANY OF OUR PROBLEMS.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, WHEN DID MR. HARMON RECEIVE WORD TO BE HERE? I THOUGHT I TOLD HIM TO BE HERE AT 9:00.

MS. CLARK: I THINK THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING, YOUR HONOR. HE INDICATED HE DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER YOU WANTED TO DO IT BY LETTER OR IN PERSON, SO WE MADE A PHONE CALL.

MR. DARDEN: HE IS FROM ANOTHER COUNTY, YOUR HONOR. MAYBE YOU SHOULD LOCK HIM UP.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: THAT GETS US MOST OF THE WAY THERE. I MEAN, MISS CLARK, IS HE ON HIS WAY?

MS. CLARK: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: AHA, MR. HARMON. ALL RIGHT. BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER. MR. SIMPSON IS AGAIN PRESENT WITH COUNSEL, MR. SHAPIRO, MR. COCHRAN, MR. DOUGLAS, MR. BAILEY, MR. BLAISER, MR. SCHECK. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY MR. DARDEN, MR. HARMON AND MS. CLARK. MR. HARMON, I HAVE JUST RECEIVED YOUR LATER DATED TODAY'S DATE INDICATING THAT THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION WILL CONDUCT THE EDTA TESTS THAT THEY PROPOSE ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY THE 20TH, AND THAT YOU WILL BE DOING THAT ON ITEMS 13, WHICH ARE THE SOCKS, 59 AND -- WHICH I BELIEVE IS A REFERENCE SAMPLE FROM NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, 72, WHICH IS A NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON REFERENCE SWATCH, 86, WHICH IS A -- APPARENTLY A SWATCH CUT FROM THE BLACK DRESS THAT NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON WAS WEARING, NO. 117, WHICH IS APPARENTLY A SWATCH FROM A -- EXCUSE ME. 117, WHICH IS A SWATCH TAKEN FROM THE REAR GATE, WHICH APPARENTLY IS AT -- PRESENTLY AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN BERKELEY UNDERGOING RFLP TESTING, AND NO. 17, WHICH IS THE DEFENDANT'S REFERENCE SAMPLE; IS THAT CORRECT?

MR. HARMON: THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THE OTHER BIOLOGICAL ITEMS THAT YOU LIST IN PARAGRAPH 2, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOU HAVE NO OBJECTION, PURSUANT TO MR. SCHECK'S PROPOSAL YESTERDAY, TO RELEASE THOSE ITEMS FOR PHYSICAL EXAMINATION WITH THEIR AGREEMENT THAT THEY WILL NOT TEST OR CONSUME ANY OF THE SAMPLES, CORRECT?

MR. HARMON: THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR, AND WITH THE PROVISIONS THAT YOU MADE IN YOUR COURT ORDER LAST WEEK ABOUT US BEING ABLE TO BE PRESENT AND VIDEOTAPE.

THE COURT: AND/OR PHOTOGRAPH, YES.

MR. HARMON: OR PHOTOGRAPH THEM.

THE COURT: AS THE CASE MAY BE. MR. SCHECK, ANY COMMENT?

MR. SCHECK: YES. I THINK THIS GOES SOMEWHAT TO ALLEVIATING OUR CONCERNS, BUT A FEW QUESTIONS. NO. 1, WITH RESPECT TO ITEM 13, THE SOCK, WE HAVE A STRONG DESIRE TO EXAMINE THE SOCK ITSELF. MY UNDERSTANDING IS, IS THAT THERE IS A CUTTING FROM THE SOCK AND I PRESUME THAT THAT IS WHAT THE PROSECUTION INTENDS TO PERFORM THIS TEST ON, AND SO, UMM, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE SOCK AVAILABLE FOR IMMEDIATE EXAMINATION. THAT IS REALLY CRITICAL.

THE COURT: IT IS CRITICAL ON THEIR ISSUE TO EDTA.

MR. HARMON: IT IS INDISPENSABLE TO THAT, YOUR HONOR.

MR. SCHECK: I WOULD INDICATE THAT IN TERMS OF TIMING, I REALLY THINK THAT OUR NEEDS IN THIS REGARD TAKE PRECEDENCE BECAUSE ANY TESTIMONY THAT WILL BE OFFERED BY THE PRESENCE OF EDTA IS CERTAINLY GOING TO BE SUBSEQUENT TO THE APPEARANCE, FOR EXAMPLE, OF MR. FUNG ON THE WITNESS STAND AND WE NEED AN OPPORTUNITY TO PHYSICALLY EXAMINE THAT SOCK, TO HAVE A TRAINED CRIMINALIST EXAMINE THAT SOCK. AT THIS POINT ALL THAT HAS BEEN PERMITTED IS DR. BLAKE TAKING PICTURES OF IT AND THAT REALLY ISN'T THE SAME THING. AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO PERFORM ANY DESTRUCTIVE TESTING. NOW, THEY HAVE A CUTOUT OF THE AREA WHERE BLOOD WAS FOUND, SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IN FACT THAT IS ALL THEY ARE GOING TO BE SAMPLING ANYHOW WHEN THEY DO THE EDTA TESTS, SO IT IS NOT REASONABLE FOR US TO BE WITHHELD THE SOCK. THAT IS JUST -- I AM JUST MAKING THAT SUGGESTION SIMPLY BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT EDTA TESTING OUGHT TO BE PERFORMED AT ALL, GIVEN THE RECORD BEFORE THE COURT, BUT I'M JUST ASSUMING THAT FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT BEFORE I ADDRESS THE ISSUE. JUST TRYING TO BE PRACTICAL, JUST MAKING THAT ASSUMPTION. SO THE FIRST QUESTION THAT I RAISE IS WITH RESPECT TO THE SOCK. WE WANT THE ACTUAL SOCK. THEY CAN HAVE THE CUTTING THAT THEY HAVE MADE IF IN FACT THAT TESTING IS TO GO FORWARD. SECONDLY, I HAVE A SIMILAR CONCERN ABOUT ITEM 117, WHICH IS THE BUNDY REAR GATE. YOUR HONOR, THIS -- THE BUNDY RARE GATE IS AN ITEM THAT THE PROSECUTION OBVIOUSLY HAS HAD FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. THEY SENT IT OUT IN SEPTEMBER TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR TESTING. IT WAS ONE OF THE MATTERS THAT WE HAD HEARINGS AND DISCUSSION ABOUT. I SEE NO GOOD CAUSE WHY THAT TESTING DIDN'T BEGIN UNTIL ESSENTIALLY THIS TRIAL BEGAN. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO -- THE DNA TESTING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE OF EDTA OR OPENING STATEMENTS. THERE IS NO GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DELAY. AND WHAT IS TOTALLY PECULIAR, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT EVEN WHEN WE BEGAN THIS IN THE BEGINNING OF JANUARY, THEY DID NOT INDICATE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE TESTING THIS. NOW, AS FAR AS THIS SAMPLE 117 IS CONCERNED, WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THAT BEING SUBJECT TO EDTA TESTING, NO. 1, BUT NO. 2, I DON'T SEE ANY GOOD CAUSE WHY THEY SHOULD BE -- HAVE SOME PRIORITY ON THE TESTING OF THIS WHEN THEY WAITED SO LONG, FOR NO GOOD REASON THAT I CAN SEE, TO BEGIN TESTING ON THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE. FINALLY, AND THIS REALLY GETS TO THE CRUNCH OF THE ISSUE, THERE IS NO SHOWING HERE BY MR. HARMON AT ALL AS TO WHAT IS EVEN NECESSARY, HOW MUCH SAMPLE IS EVEN NECESSARY TO DO EDTA TESTING.

LAST NIGHT I LOOKED AT THE SUBMISSIONS THAT MR. HARMON MADE TO THE COURT ABOUT EDTA TESTING, WHICH HAD TO DO WITH DISCOVERING EDTA IN TIME RELEASE COLD CAPSULES, IN MOUSSE, FOOD SUBSTANCES WHERE YOU ALREADY KNOW IT IS THERE. THAT IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PROPOSITION THAN TESTING A SAMPLE WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD BE THERE. AND -- AND THIS IS REALLY THE MOST CRITICAL POINT I THINK, IS THAT MR. HARMON WAS INDICATING YESTERDAY THAT THEY HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH SAMPLE IS NECESSARY TO PERFORM THIS TEST, EVEN ASSUMING THAT IT COULD GET PAST KELLY-FRYE AND IT'S RELIABLE ON A FORENSIC SAMPLE, I MEAN NOT EVEN ADDRESSING THAT. I'M JUST SAYING IN TERMS OF WHAT IS REASONABLY NECESSARY UNDER GRIFFIN, THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW MUCH SAMPLE THEY NEED, SO LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT 117, THE SAMPLE FROM THE BACK GATE. DO THEY HAVE TO TAKE, UMM --

THE COURT: HOW MANY SWATCHES DO WE HAVE FROM 117?

MR. SCHECK: I HAVE NO IDEA.

MR. HARMON: I DO.

THE COURT: MR. HARMON.

MR. HARMON: I WILL ADDRESS THAT WHEN MR. SCHECK IS DONE. I DON'T WANT TO CUT HIM OFF. HE IS JUST GETTING STARTED.

MR. SCHECK: WELL, THERE IS NO SHOWING HERE. I WAS ACTUALLY CURIOUS. THE COURT HAD INDICATED THAT IT HAD DONE SOME RESEARCH OF SOME KIND, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I MISINTERPRETED THAT YESTERDAY, ABOUT EDTA TESTING.

THE COURT: IF YOU WILL NOTICE THE COURT ORDER, I CITE TO A LAW REVIEW ARTICLE THAT DISCUSSES EDTA.

MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT.

THE COURT: THAT'S ALL.

MR. SCHECK: THAT'S ALL.

THE COURT: SOMETHING THAT IS RELATIVELY AVAILABLE THROUGH LEXIS.

MR. SCHECK: I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THE KNOWLEDGE BASE WAS.

THE COURT: VIRTUALLY NONE. YOU CAN BE ASSURED OF THAT.

MR. SCHECK: WELL, I DON'T WANT TO PROFESS THAT I HAVE ANYTHING MUCH GREATER, BUT I DID DISCUSS THIS MATTER WITH A DEFENSE EXPERT WHO I THINK IS CONSIDERED ONE OF THE LEADING TOXICOLOGISTS IN THE COUNTRY, DR. READERS, WHO INFORMED ME THAT BEFORE I THINK EVEN THE OPENING STATEMENT, ALTHOUGH I'M NOT SURE OF THE DATE, BUT I THINK IT IS AT SOME TIME BEFORE, MR. MATHESON OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT LABORATORY HAD MADE INQUIRY OF HIM ABOUT WHAT LITERATURE EXISTED OR WHETHER IT WAS POSSIBLE TO DO EDTA TESTING OF THIS KIND, AND OUR EXPERT SENT HIM AVAILABLE LITERATURE HERE. BUT IT IS OUR POSITION THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS TO MAKE A SHOWING AS TO ESSENTIALLY WHAT IS THE EXPECTED SENSITIVITY OF THE TEST. THAT IS TO SAY, DO THEY HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MUCH SAMPLE WOULD BE NECESSARY TO GET A RESULT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER THAT THEY WOULD CLAIM TO BE RELIABLE? AND I'M NOT EVEN ADDRESSING WHETHER OR NOT IT COULD GET PAST KELLY-FRYE OR ANYBODY HAS EVER DONE IT BEFORE. I'M JUST SAYING -- BECAUSE I DON'T THINK ANYONE HAS -- I'M JUST SAYING THAT AS A PRELIMINARY SHOWING ON THE GROUND OF REASONABLE NECESSITY TO DESTROY SAMPLES, PRECIOUS BIOLOGICAL SAMPLES, THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO TELL US HOW MUCH THEY NEED, IF THEY NEED TO CONSUME NEARLY ALL OF THE SWATCHES, THAT -- OR THEY DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THEY NEED TO CONSUME ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THEY HAVEN'T EVEN MADE A PRELIMINARY SHOWING HERE, AND THEY HAVEN'T DONE THAT, AND I DON'T SEE, FRANKLY, GIVEN THE ABSENCE OF THAT SHOWING, WHAT THE GREAT RUSH IS IN TERMS OF EDTA TESTING PRIOR TO THE DEFENSE HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY JUST TO EXAMINE ALL THE SAMPLES SO THAT WE CAN SEE WHAT THERE IS AND WE CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT REASONABLE TESTING, IF ANY, WE THINK WOULD BE NECESSARY, AND THEN THE COURT CAN MAKE A REASONED AND INFORMED DECISION, BASED ON SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, AS TO WHAT IS REASONABLY NECESSARY AND WHAT ISN'T. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IN TERMS OF THE BALANCE OF EQUITIES HERE, IN TERMS OF WHO HAS THE NEED TO EXAMINE THE MATERIAL FIRST, WE MERIT PRIORITY HERE ON, NO. 117, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH THEY DIDN'T CHOOSE TO TEST UNTIL VERY LATE IN THE GAME FOR NO REASON THAT IS APPARENT TO ME. AND CERTAINLY, WITH RESPECT TO JUST LOOKING AT THE REST OF 13, THE SOCK, I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO LOOK AT THE ACTUAL SOCK ITSELF AND THEY CAN RETAIN THE CUTTING IF THEY WANT FOR THE TIME BEING.

THE COURT: MR. HARMON.

MR. HARMON: SOUNDS LIKE THEY REALLY DON'T WANT US TO FIND OUT WHAT IS IN THOSE TWO ITEMS, DOESN'T IT, YOUR HONOR? I GUESS WE NEED TO GO BACK TO LAST SUMMER AND LAST FALL AND REMIND COUNSEL THAT WHILE THEY MAY SAY WE HAVE TO HAVE -- MAKE CERTAIN SHOWINGS IN ADVANCE OF TESTING, THE LAW IN THIS STATE, IN THIS STATE, HAS ALWAYS BEEN GRIFFIN AND THAT IS A RETROSPECTIVE CONCERN. THAT IS, IF WE WANT TO INTRODUCE OUR EVIDENCE, WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT WHATEVER TESTS WE HAD DONE WERE REASONABLY NECESSARY. AND THE COURT RECOGNIZED THIS WHEN YOU ISSUED YOUR ORDER THAT THERE WAS NO PROPOSITION THAT THE DEFENSE HAD LITIGATED AND CAUSED UNDUE CONSUMPTION OF TIME. THE DEFENSE SIMPLY HAS NO RIGHT AT THAT POINT IN TIME TO INSIST THAT WE MAKE THESE SHOWINGS. THAT IS SIMPLY NOT THE LAW IN THIS STATE. WE DON'T HAVE TO SHOW WHY TESTING HAD NOT BEGUN. YOU RECOGNIZED THAT AND WE SURE DON'T HAVE TO SHOW HOW MUCH IS NECESSARY. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF WE CAN'T JUSTIFY, WHEN THEY DON'T LIKE THE ANSWERS THAT WILL CERTAINLY COME FROM THESE TESTS, IF WE CAN'T JUSTIFY WHY WE HAVE CONSUMED WHAT WE HAVE, THEN YOU HAVE SOME RIGHTS AND THEY HAVE SOME RIGHTS TO KEEP US FROM USING THE EVIDENCE, WHATEVER RESULTS ARE PRODUCED FROM IT. WE UNDERSTAND THAT. WE HAVE ALWAYS APPRECIATED THAT. I CAN TELL THE COURT THAT THE SENSITIVITY LEVEL, AND I WILL DESCRIBE WHY WE NEED THE SOCK IN A MOMENT, IS APPROXIMATELY 50 PARTS PER MILLION. NOW, I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT SIZE STAIN THAT MEANS HAS TO BE CONSUMED, I CAN'T ADDRESS THAT, BUT WE WILL ADDRESS THAT WHEN THE DEFENSE CERTAINLY COMPLAINS THAT WE HAVE PROVEN CONCLUSIVELY THAT THERE IS NO EDTA ON EITHER OF THOSE TWO STAINS. SO WE ARE PREPARED TO ABIDE BY THE PROVISIONS OF GRIFFIN, BUT THERE IS SIMPLY NO REASON FOR THE DEFENSE TO INTERRUPT OUR TESTING AT THIS POINT IN TIME, ESPECIALLY AFTER THEY HAVE FORMALLY MADE SERIOUS ACCUSATIONS ABOUT THE SOCK.

AND HAD THEY KNOWN THAT THAT IS MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE IN BUNDY, MR. COCHRAN WOULD HAVE ALLEGED THAT PERHAPS VANNATTER WENT OVER THERE AND SPRINKLED IT ON THE GATE AT SOME LATER DATE. HE JUST DIDN'T KNOW THAT BECAUSE THOSE TEST RESULTS WERE JUST MADE AVAILABLE RECENTLY TO DR. BLAKE. SO HAD THEY KNOWN THAT, THEY CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE MADE THAT ACCUSATION, AND KNOWING THAT THAT IS MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD ON THE REAR GATE, AND WE WILL DEFINITIVELY SHOW THAT THROUGH THE RFLP TESTS, THEY ARE BEGINNING TODAY. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE SELECTED JUST THOSE TWO ITEMS OF EVIDENCE. BUT LET ME DESCRIBE WHY WE'VE SELECTED THE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE, BECAUSE MR. SCHECK JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO GET THE IDEA THAT WE ARE TRYING TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE FAILURE TO SHOW EDTA IS PRESENT MEANS THAT IT IS NOT THERE, AND THIS IS WHY WE NEED THE SOCK. WE NEED THE SOCK BECAUSE EDTA IS PRESENT IN MANY ITEMS AND -- AND IF, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT SOCK WAS IMPROPERLY RINSED IN THE RINSE CYCLE, THERE IS EDTA IN LAUNDRY DETERGENT, SO WE NEED TO DO A SUBSTRATE CONTROL. WE NEED TO SAMPLE EXTENSIVELY FROM THAT VERY SOCK TO PROVE THAT IF THERE IS EDTA ON UNSTAINED AREAS OF THE SOCK, THAT IT IS PROBABLY FROM ONE OF THESE OTHER SOURCES IN THE ENVIRONMENT, LIKE LAUNDRY SOAP. IF THERE IS NO EDTA PRESENT IN UNSTAINED AREAS IN THE SOCK, THEN THAT SUGGESTS THAT AT LEAST THERE IS NO BACKGROUND CONTRIBUTION FROM THE SOCKS THAT COULD HAVE COME FROM SOME OTHER SOURCE. SO HAVING THE SOCK AS A CONTROL IS INDISPENSABLE TO THIS AS A SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT TO PROVE THAT THIS EXQUISITELY SENSITIVE TEST, WHEN IT SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND EDTA ANYWHERE IN ANY OF THESE ITEMS, THAT MEANS IT IS NOT THERE AND THAT IS WHY WE NEED ALL THE ITEMS THAT WE'VE DESCRIBED. WE NEED THE REFERENCE SAMPLE, 59 AND 72, FROM NICOLE. WE HAVE HAD THE O.J. CUT FROM A VERY LARGE STAINED AREA ON NICOLE'S BLACK DRESS THAT CERTAINLY MUST BE FROM HER OWN BLOOD, AND THAT IS ANOTHER CONTROL JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS NO EDTA PRESENT IN HER OWN BLOOD, BECAUSE MANY FOOD SUBSTANCES HAVE EDTA AS A PRESERVATIVE IN IT. THAT IS ANOTHER VITAL CONTROL TO THE TEST. THAT IS WHY WE'VE ALSO SENT 117, THE BUNDY REAR GATE, WHICH THE DEFENSE KNOWS IS THE -- THE TESTS ARE SHOWING THAT THAT IS MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD, AND THEN MR. SIMPSON'S REFERENCE SAMPLE. SO LEGALLY WE'VE TRIED TO PARE IT DOWN. THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO WAIT UNTIL MONDAY. THESE TESTS SHOULD BE DONE MONDAY, AND THE COURT REALIZES MONDAY IS A HOLIDAY FOR EVERYBODY, BUT THEY ARE GOING TO DO IT MONDAY AND WE ARE GOING TO GET IT TO THE EAST COAST ON FRIDAY, AND THESE TESTS, UNLESS THERE IS A POWER OUTAGE OR A BIG BLIZZARD, THEY WILL BE DONE MONDAY. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY REALLY HAVEN'T ADDRESSED IS ALL OF THEIR EXPERTS, AND THIS IS SOMETHING I TOUCHED ON IN MY LETTER, WE SEEM TO HAVE DRIFTED FROM THE COURT'S ORDER OF REQUIRING THESE THINGS TO BE DONE LOCALLY ABSENT A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE, AND WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO WHOEVER IS DOING IT, BUT IT JUST SEEMS TO ME YOU HAVE ORDERED THEM TO DO IT LOCALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE CASE LAW THAT I CITED AND THEY HAVEN'T MADE ANY KIND OF SHOWING OR GOOD CAUSE. YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF HENRY LEE IS THE ONE WHO IS GOING TO LOOK AT ALL THESE OTHER ITEMS, BUT HE IS NOT COMING BACK FROM SEATTLE UNTIL THURSDAY NIGHT. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT DOCTORS BADEN AND WOLF, BUT THEY ARE NOT LOSING ANY TIME. THEY CAN LOOK AT ALL THE OTHER ITEMS THAT WE WILL MAKE AVAILABLE TO THEM AND THAT WE HAVE MADE AVAILABLE TO THEM. SO WE ARE JUST TALKING ABOUT A FEW CRITICAL ITEMS THAT IF THEY WANT TO TRY TO LOOK AT THEM MONDAY NIGHT, IF THE TESTS ARE ALL DONE BY MID-AFTERNOON, WE WILL TRY TO SHIP THEM UP TO THEM WHEREVER THEY WANT THEM TO BE SHIPPED OR WHEREVER YOU TELL US TO SHIP THEM THE SAME DAY, MONDAY. SO TO ME THIS IS A BIG TO DO ABOUT NOTHING, BUT IT CLEARLY REFLECTS THAT THEY ARE CONCERNED. THEY MADE THESE ALLEGATIONS AND THESE TEST RESULTS WILL SERIOUSLY UNDERMINE THEIR CREDIBILITY IN THE EYES OF THIS JURY BASED ON MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. HARMON. MR. SCHECK, ANY BRIEF RESPONSE?

MR. SCHECK: YES. IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE, FIRST OF ALL, MR. HARMON IS EXPLAINING WHY THERE MAY BE RESULTS FINDING EDTA IN THESE MATERIALS AHEAD OF TIME THAT HE CAN THEN EXPLAIN AWAY IF THEY FIND IT. AND HE DIDN'T TELL US WHAT 50 PARTS PER MILLION MEANS IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF BLOOD THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE. IS THAT A HALF MILLILITER OF BLOOD WHICH MAY BE MORE THAN ARE ON ANY OF THESE SWATCHES? BUT I THINK HIS ARGUMENT REALLY PROVES THE WISDOM OF THE SUGGESTION THAT WE ARE PUTTING BEFORE THE COURT. BEFORE THEY TAKE -- CUT UP THAT SOCK ANY MORE AND PERFORM THE DESTRUCTIVE TESTS ON IT, EVEN IF THEY ARE USING IT FOR PURPOSES OF A SUBSTRATE CONTROL, ALL WE WANT TO DO IS LOOK AT IT, AND OUR PROPOSAL WOULD BE IS TO HAVE THOSE MATERIALS SENT, UMM, TO ALBANY, SO OUR EXPERTS, ALL OF THEM OUT THERE WITH THEIR OWN INSTRUMENTS IN A LABORATORY THAT HAS BEEN DEDICATED FOR THIS PURPOSE, CAN LOOK AT IT OVER THE WEEKEND. THAT IS WHAT WE REALLY WANT, AND THE SOCK, OF COURSE, IS ONE OF THE MOST CRITICAL ITEMS, BECAUSE WE WANT TO JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THEM. UMM, THEY CAN VIDEOTAPE, UMM, THAT -- UMM, SO THAT THERE IS NO ALLEGATION THAT ANYBODY PUT ANYTHING ON THEM. OUR REQUEST IS MERELY FOR A TRUE PHYSICAL INSPECTION AND EXAMINATION, NOT A DESTRUCTIVE TEST. THEY ARE ASKING TO PERFORM A DESTRUCTIVE TEST AND THE POINT HERE IS SIMPLY WHICH SHOULD TAKE PRIORITY? AND I DON'T SEE THE GREAT NECESSITY TO HAVE THEM DO THAT IMMEDIATELY RIGHT NOW BEFORE WE EVEN GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THEM. THAT IS ALL.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. AS TO ITEMS 13, 59, 72, 86 AND 117, THIS ALL BEING PROSECUTION EVIDENCE, THEY MAY MAINTAIN CONTROL OF THIS ITEM AND HAVE THAT TESTED BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION CRIMINALISTICS LABORATORY, THAT TESTING TO COMMENCE ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY THE 20TH. IMMEDIATELY UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THOSE TESTS THE PROSECUTION IS TO MAKE THOSE SAMPLES AVAILABLE IMMEDIATELY TO THE DEFENSE FOR THEIR INSPECTION AND TESTING PURSUANT TO THE COURT ORDER. THE COURT NOTES THAT AS TO THE CRITICAL ITEM NO. 13, THE SOCKS, THAT THE DEFENSE HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW THESE ITEMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ALTHOUGH NOT EXAMINE THEM IN A PRIVATE SETTING. THE PROSECUTION IS ORDERED TO TURN OVER THE ITEMS LISTED IN PARAGRAPH 2 OF MR. HARMON'S LETTER OF FEBRUARY 15 FORTHWITH TO THE DEFENSE FOR THEIR TESTING PURSUANT TO THE COURT'S PREVIOUS ORDER. AND THE NON-BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE IS LIKEWISE ORDERED TURNED OVER TO THE DEFENSE FOR THEIR TESTING. I DO MAKE A FINDING THAT GIVEN THE LOCATION OF THE DEFENSE EXPERTS, ALL OF THEM APPARENTLY ON THE EAST COAST, AND THE LABORATORY FACILITY BEING AVAILABLE IN ALBANY, NEW YORK, THAT THEY HAVE SHOWN SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO TEST THOSE MATTERS OUT OF STATE. HOWEVER, THE COURT WARNS THAT THERE WILL BE UNBELIEVABLY NEGATIVE SANCTIONS SHOULD THESE ITEMS BECOME LOST OR DESTROYED.

MR. HARMON: YOUR HONOR, COULD I JUST INJECT ONE THING? I'M NOT SURE IF YOU NOTED IN MY LETTER, MR. HODGMAN, ON NON-BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE, HAS ASKED JUST TO HAVE A COUPLE OF HOURS TO REVIEW THAT, AND I DON'T EXPECT ANYTHING WILL BE EXCEPTED, BUT I JUST WANT TO ADVISE THE COURT.

THE COURT: HE CAN COME AND ASK ME FOR A GOOD CAUSE EXCEPTION TO THE COURT'S ORDER.

MR. HARMON: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNSEL. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE RESUME WITH SERGEANT RISKE? ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY HIGGINS, LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH FOR JUST A MOMENT?

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE SEATED.

(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.

THE COURT: MY APOLOGIES TO YOU FOR THE DELAY IN GETTING STARTED; HOWEVER, YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT WE HAVE BEEN IN SESSION ON OTHER MATTERS SINCE 8:30 THIS MORNING AND SOMETIMES THESE THINGS TAKE LONGER THAN I ANTICIPATE THAT THEY WILL TAKE. ALL RIGHT. SERGEANT ROSSI, WOULD YOU COME FORWARD, PLEASE. RESUME THE WITNESS STAND.

DAVID ROSSI, THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE EVENING ADJOURNMENT, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, SERGEANT ROSSI. YOU ARE REMINDED THAT YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH. MR. BAILEY, YOU MAY CONTINUE WITH YOUR CROSS-EXAMINATION.

MR. COCHRAN: MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MR. BAILEY:

Q: SERGEANT ROSSI, I HAND YOU WHAT HAS BEEN MARKED DEFENSE 1013 FOR IDENTIFICATION AND ASK YOU TO LOOK AT IT AND SEE WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN TELL ME THAT THAT REPRESENTS A MAP OF THE AREA SHOWING BOTH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND 875 SOUTH BUNDY AT THE INTERSECTION OF DOROTHY?

A: YES, IT DOES.

(DEFT'S 1013 FOR ID = BUNDY MAP)

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DO YOU SEE A SCALE ON THAT MAP?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT ESTIMATE OF THE DISTANCE BETWEEN -- BY ROAD -- THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE POLICE STATION AT 1663 BUTLER AVENUE AND 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

A: THREE TO FIVE MILES.

Q: THREE TO FIVE MILES?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: HOW ABOUT ONE MILE, 2842 FEET?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. OBJECTION. IS COUNSEL TESTIFYING?

THE COURT: THAT IS A LEADING QUESTION.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DOESN'T IT LOOK MORE LIKE A MILE AND A HALF?

A: IT LOOKS A LITTLE MORE THAN THAT TO ME, SIR.

Q: OKAY. WHEN WE ADJOURNED YESTERDAY, SERGEANT, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE CORONER HAD NOT BEEN NOTIFIED AS OF 5:00 A.M. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOU PERSONALLY DIDN'T KNOW OF ANYONE HAVING NOTIFIED THE CORONER OF THESE HOMICIDES BY 5:00 A.M. --

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, OBJECTION.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: -- IS THAT CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: THIS IS THE SAME OBJECTION AS YESTERDAY. THIS WITNESS DOESN'T --

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: YES, SIR, THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: OKAY. NOW, IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENT THAT YOU, AS A POLICE OFFICER, HAVE SOME FAMILIARITY WITH THE LAWS REGULATING THE CONDUCT OF HOMICIDE INVESTIGATIONS?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: THERE IS NONE?

A: IF I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, THE LAWS REGULATING THE CONDUCT OF THE INVESTIGATORS THAT ARE HANDLING THE CASE?

Q: NO. IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENT THAT YOU HAVE FAMILIARITY WITH THE LAWS THAT REGULATE HOMICIDE INVESTIGATIONS?

A: YES. LAWS OF THE STATE, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH ANY LAW THAT DICTATES WHEN THE CORONER SHOULD BE NOTIFIED WHEN A DEATH HAS OCCURRED?

A: NO, I'M NOT, SIR.

Q: YOU NEVER HEARD OF SUCH A LAW?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: DID YOU EVER HEAR OF SECTION 10250 OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. OBJECTION. MAY WE APPROACH?

THE COURT: NO. YES OR NO. ARE YOU AWARE OF THE CODE SECTION?

THE WITNESS: NO, SIR.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DO YOU KNOW THAT IT IS --

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MR. BAILEY: I'M SORRY. I'M TOLD I MISSPOKE. NOT THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE, THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE.

Q: DO YOU KNOW THERE IS A HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: HAVE YOU EVER REVIEWED THAT CODE?

A: THE ENTIRE CODE, NO, SIR.

Q: ANY SECTIONS OF THE CODE THAT MIGHT PERTAIN TO YOUR WORK?

A: YES, SOME.

Q: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH A SECTION THAT DEALS WITH THE NOTIFICATION OF THE CORONER IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AFTER DEATH?

A: NO, I'M NOT.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT IS NOT THIS WITNESS' JOB.

THE COURT: THAT IS A LEGAL -- COUNSEL, LET ME SEE YOU OVER HERE AT SIDE BAR.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: COUNSEL, WE ARE OVER HERE AT THE SIDE BAR. MISS CLARK, THIS GUY IS THE WATCH COMMANDER, THE AWC. HE IS IN CHARGE OF THE CRIME SCENE WHEN HE IS THE SENIOR OFFICER THERE. I THINK COUNSEL IS ENTITLED TO ASK HIM ARE YOU AWARE OF A REQUIREMENT TO CALL A CORONER, BECAUSE HE HAD PHYSICAL AND LEGAL CONTROL OF THAT CAME SCENE FOR A RATHER BRIEF PERIOD OF TIME UNTIL LIEUTENANT SPANGLER SHOWS UP, SO I THINK COUNSEL IS ENTITLED TO ASK HIM ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY LEGAL REQUIREMENT TO CALL THE CORONER. HIS ANSWER TO THAT IS GOING TO BE NO AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON.

MS. CLARK: YOU KNOW, IT IS NOT -- GO AHEAD, CHRIS.

MR. DARDEN: THAT IS NOT WHAT IS --

THE COURT: WHEN YOU MAKE AN OBJECTION THAT IT IS NOT HIS JOB, THE OBJECTION IS THAT IT IS IRRELEVANT.

MS. CLARK: YES.

THE COURT: NOT THAT IT IS NOT HIS JOB.

MS. CLARK: I WAS ABOUT TO SAY THAT, I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR.

MR. DARDEN: I APPRECIATE THE --

MR. BAILEY: PLEASE, ONE LAWYER.

MS. CLARK: I ASKED MR. DARDEN TO RESPOND.

MR. BAILEY: THIS IS YOUR WITNESS NOW.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, YOU STARTED WITH THE OBJECTION, SO YOU START WITH THE ARGUMENT.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MS. CLARK: NO. 1 PROBLEM IS THAT IT IS IRRELEVANT WITH THIS WITNESS WHEN HE TESTIFIED ON DIRECT. IT IS ALSO BEYOND THE SCOPE, BECAUSE HE TESTIFIED ON DIRECT THAT THESE ARE NOT WITHIN HIS DUTIES OR HIS PURVIEW. HE IS JUST A WATCH COMMANDER, HE IS NOT THERE -- THE CODE REQUIRES THAT THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER NOTIFY THE CORONER, NOT THE WATCH COMMANDER. HE IS THERE TO MAKE SURE THE PERIMETER IS SECURED AND HE SO TESTIFIED ON DIRECT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT COUNSEL HAS HERE. THAT IS NOT EVEN --

MR. BAILEY: DON'T SNATCH IT FROM UNDER THE JUDGE.

MS. CLARK: THAT IS NOT EVEN THE CODE. IT IS SIGNED BY ONE OF THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS AND IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING PERTINENT TO THIS WITNESS' TESTIMONY.

SECONDLY, COUNSEL IS NOT MOVING ON. NOW HE IS READING THIS CODE INTO THE RECORD AND POUNDING THE WITNESS WITH IT AND ASKING HIM QUESTIONS ABOUT SOMETHING HE HAS ALREADY TEN QUESTIONS AGO SAID I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING, SO WHAT WE ARE DOING IS ALLOWING HIM TO BADGER AND HARASS HIM ON THE SUBJECT MATTER HE HAS ALREADY TESTIFIED HE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE, NO INVOLVEMENT AND HAD RESPONSIBILITY FOR.

THE COURT: BUT MISS CLARK, ISN'T IT A FACT THAT IN FACT THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS HAD TO GO BACK AND REEVALUATE THEIR PROCEDURES TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE CODE SECTION, THAT THE CHIEF OF POLICE HIMSELF HAS ORDERED AN INVESTIGATION FOR THE FAILURE OF THE DETECTIVES? ISN'T IT ALSO A FACT THAT THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CORONER'S OFFICE HAS LODGED AN OBJECTION WITH THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR THEIR FAILURE TO NOTIFY? AREN'T THESE ALL FACTS?

MS. CLARK: I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY ARE. I ASSUME IF THE COURT IS SAYING SO THAT THEY ARE, BUT THIS IS NOT THE WITNESS TO TAKE THAT UP WITH. IF COUNSEL WANTS TO POINT ALL THAT OUT, CALL THE APPROPRIATE WITNESS. THIS WITNESS IS JUST SECURING A PERIMETER, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, YOU NOTICE HE DIDN'T ASK THESE QUESTIONS OF THE FIRST PATROL OFFICER BECAUSE NOBODY IS GOING TO ASSUME THE FIRST PATROL OFFICER HAS ANY AUTHORITY TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN SECURING THE SCENE.

MS. CLARK: BUT THIS IS THE ASSISTANT WATCH COMMANDER. HE IS NOT THE HOMICIDE INVESTIGATOR, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND THAT.

MS. CLARK: HE HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS. THIS IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE WITNESS.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, DO YOU HAVE THE TESTIMONY THAT THE PATROL DIVISION HAS THE AUTHORITY OVER THE CRIME SCENE UNTIL THE DETECTIVES ARRIVE?

MS. CLARK: BUT NOT OVER THE EVIDENCE AND THE BODY, YOUR HONOR. THEY HAVE CONTROL OVER THE PERIMETER. THEY HAVE CONTROL OVER WHETHER TRAFFIC GETS BLOCKED. THAT IS BASICALLY WHAT THEY HAVE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MS. CLARK: THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT WITNESS. I'M NOT SAYING THAT COUNSEL CAN'T GO INTO THIS OR OBJECTING TO THAT. I'M SAYING LET'S GET THE RIGHT WITNESS, AND THE RIGHT WITNESSES ARE COMING. COUNSEL CAN CALL THEM IF THEY ARE PRESENTED.

MR. BAILEY: HOMICIDE MANUAL, YOUR HONOR. I'M SORRY, LAPD MANUAL.

MS. CLARK: THAT HAS GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS WITNESS. COUNSEL, YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND.

MR. BAILEY: YOU SAID IT HOW MANY TIMES ALREADY.

MS. CLARK: MAYBE YOU WILL NOT UNDERSTAND. THIS IS NOT A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATOR. HIS RESPONSIBILITY IS NOT TO SECURE THE SCENE FOR THE PURPOSE OF NOTIFYING THE CORONER. HE SECURES THE PERIMETER.

MR. BAILEY: HIS TESTIMONY WAS THAT HE WAS IN CHARGE.

MS. CLARK: HIS TESTIMONY WAS THAT HE WAS IN CHARGE OF SECURING THE PERIMETER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. THE OBJECTION IS OVERRULED.

MS. CLARK: THAT IS WHAT HE WAS THERE TO DO. MAY I SEE WHAT HE IS SHOWING? THE CODE, PLEASE, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: THE CODE SECTION.

MS. CLARK: MAY I SEE BOTH OF THEM?

THE COURT: AND THE LAPD MANUAL; HOWEVER, I'M GOING TO GIVE DIRECTION TO COUNSEL, THIS IS A VERY LIMITED AREA OF INQUIRY.

MR. BAILEY: I UNDERSTAND.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, MAY I SHOW THE COURT THIS?

THE COURT: I READ IT.

MS. CLARK: NO, THIS ONE.

THE COURT: I READ IT.

MS. CLARK: IT IS EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MR. BAILEY.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: SERGEANT ROSSI, YOU SAID YOU WERE FAMILIAR WITH CERTAIN PARTS OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE?

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, MAY I PLEASE SEE WHAT COUNSEL IS READING FROM?

MR. BAILEY: YOU ALREADY HAVE.

MS. CLARK: HE SNATCHED IT OUT OF MY HANDS.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, HAVE A SEAT, PLEASE.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DO YOU REMEMBER THE QUESTION, SERGEANT?

A: YES, I DO, AND YES, I AM FAMILIAR WITH SOME SECTIONS.

Q: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH ANY PORTION OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE THAT MANDATE THE CALLING OF THE CORONER IN A HOMICIDE CASE?

A: NO, I'M NOT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU FROM TIME TO TIME REVIEW THE LAPD MANUAL?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: DID YOU EVER LOOK AT VOLUME 4?

A: OCCASIONALLY, YES.

Q: GOOD. WHAT ABOUT SECTION 238.46 ENTITLED "NOTIFICATION OF THE CORONER"? DO YOU EVER LOOK AT THAT?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE I HAVE EVER LOOKED AT THAT, NO.

Q: OKAY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO LOOK AT THESE TWO PROVISIONS TO REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION PERHAPS?

A: IF YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. HOW CAN HE REFRESH RECOLLECTION IF HE --

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT YOU DID AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER ACQUAINT YOURSELF WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE?

A: SOME SECTIONS, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU EVER RECALL READING ANYTHING ABOUT THE MANDATE TO NOTIFY THE CORONER?

A: NO.

Q: YOU DON'T? WERE YOU IN FACT IN CHARGE OF THIS CRIME SCENE FROM YOUR ARRIVAL AT 1:25 A.M. UNTIL 2:10 WHEN DETECTIVE PHILLIPS SHOWED UP?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AS ONE IN CHARGE OF THE CRIME SCENE, WERE YOU NOT OBLIGATED TO CARRY OUT ANY LEGAL DUTY IMPOSED ON THE BOSS?

A: REPEAT THE QUESTION, SIR. I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

Q: OKAY. WERE YOU OBLIGATED TO CARRY OUT ANY LEGAL DUTY IMPOSED ON THE PERSON IN CHARGE?

A: REPEAT IT AGAIN. I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. I WAS IN CHARGE UNTIL --

Q: I WILL REPEAT IT AGAIN.

A: I WAS IN CHARGE UNTIL THE DETECTIVE SHOWED UP.

Q: WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A BRACKET FROM 1:25 TO 2:10. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

A: TIME BRACKET?

Q: YES.

A: YES.

Q: THAT IS 45 MINUTES; IS IT NOT?

A: YES.

Q: YOU HAD MEANS OF COMMUNICATION AT HAND, DID YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, DID YOU, DURING THAT 45-MINUTE PERIOD, HAVE A LEGAL DUTY TO CALL THE CORONER?

A: NOT AS FAR AS I KNOW, NO.

Q: DID YOU KNOW IT WAS A MISDEMEANOR TO FAIL TO CALL THE CORONER, SERGEANT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS, SIR.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

MR. BAILEY: MAY I NOW APPROACH THE WITNESS AND SHOW HIM THE SECTION?

MS. CLARK: I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE IS SHOWING. CAN I PLEASE SEE IT, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: THAT IS AN OBJECTION FOR RELEVANCE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, RELEVANCE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MS. CLARK: NO FOUNDATION.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: SO IF THERE WAS SUCH A LAW ON JUNE 13, 1994, YOU WERE NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: OKAY. AND IF YOU VIOLATED THAT LAW, IT WAS UNKNOWING ON YOUR PART; IS THAT CORRECT?

THE COURT: CALLS FOR A LEGAL CONCLUSION.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. I WILL SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION.

MR. BAILEY: VERY WELL.

THE COURT: MR. BAILEY, THIS IS A RATHER LIMITED AREA OF INQUIRY AT THIS POINT.

MR. BAILEY: I UNDERSTAND THAT.

THE COURT: THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: IS THERE ANY LIMITATION, QUITE APART FROM THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, IN THE MANUAL OF THE LAPD, THAT REQUIRES YOU, WHEN YOU ARE IN CHARGE OF A HOMICIDE SCENE, TO NOTIFY THE CORONER PROMPTLY?

A: NOT UNLESS I AM INSTRUCTED BY THE INVESTIGATING DETECTIVE.

Q: WHAT REGULATION ARE YOU REFERRING TO THAT SAYS YOU ARE EXEMPTED FROM THAT OBLIGATION UNLESS THE INVESTIGATING DETECTIVE ORDERS YOU TO?

A: THAT IS OUR DEPARTMENT'S POLICY, SIR.

Q: WHERE IS THE POLICY PRINTED? CAN YOU TELL US?

A: NO, I CAN'T.

Q: IS IT ANY PART OF SECTION 238.46 OF VOLUME 4?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: HAVE YOU EVER READ THAT SECTION?

A: PROBABLY, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER HOW LONG IT HAS BEEN, BUT YES, I PROBABLY HAVE. I READ THE ENTIRELY MANUAL WHEN I WAS STUDYING FOR SERGEANT.

Q: YOU DON'T RECALL NOW WHAT IS IN IT?

A: NOT THAT SECTION.

Q: WOULD IT REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION IF I SHOWED YOU THAT SECTION?

A: POSSIBLY.

MR. BAILEY: MAY I DO SO?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

MS. CLARK: MAY I PLEASE SEE IT?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: WOULD YOU EXAMINE THAT?

A: WHICH SECTION IS IT? THIS ONE HERE?

Q: UH-HUH.

A: 238.46?

Q: UH-HUH, YES.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) OKAY.

Q: DO YOU FIND ANYTHING IN THAT SECTION THAT EXEMPTS YOU FROM NEEDING TO NOTIFY THE CORONER UNTIL THE DETECTIVES ARRIVE?

A: YES.

Q: WOULD YOU READ THE SECTION OR THAT PART OF IT WHICH YOU BELIEVE EXEMPTS YOU FROM THAT OBLIGATION?

A: "IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER TO NOTIFY THE CORONER OF DEATHS OCCURRING." AND I WAS A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATING SERGEANT AND I TAKE THIS AS INVESTIGATING OFFICER, MEANING THE RESPONDING DETECTIVES.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WHEN YOU PERSONALLY OBSERVE ANOTHER POLICEMAN VIOLATING THE LAW, WHAT IS YOUR OBLIGATION?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. I THINK WE HAVE ALREADY ASKED THIS QUESTION, THOUGH.

MS. CLARK: ASKED AND ANSWERED.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. YESTERDAY.

MR. BAILEY: I'M SORRY.

Q: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH SECTION 210.46 OF VOLUME 1 DEALING WITH MISCONDUCT OF OFFICERS AND THE DUTY TO REPORT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DID YOU EVER HEAR ANY DETECTIVE CALL THE CORONER --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: -- THAT MORNING?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: HAVE YOU EVER REPORTED THE FACT THAT THE DETECTIVES HAD VIOLATED THE RULES OF THE MANUAL?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT.

Q: WHAT OBLIGATIONS DO YOU HAVE TO MAKE REPORTS OF A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION OF THIS SORT WHEN YOU ARE AT LEAST TEMPORARILY IN CHARGE OF THE MATTER?

A: THE ONLY OBLIGATION THAT I HAVE IS TO ENSURE THAT A CRIME SCENE LOG IS BEING COMPLETED.

Q: AND HOW DID YOU CARRY OUT THAT OBLIGATION THAT MORNING?

A: WHEN I ARRIVED AT THE SCENE I ASKED SERGEANT MARTY COON WHO WAS HANDLING THE CRIME SCENE LOG, AND HE INDICATED THAT IT WAS A POLICE OFFICER BY THE NAME OF CHRIS CUMMINGS AND HE WAS STANDING VERY CLOSE TO MY PROXIMITY AND I SAW THAT HE WAS -- WAS IN FACT ENGAGED IN THAT DUTY.

Q: AND DID YOU TAKE ANY FURTHER STEPS TO ASSURE THAT THE CRIME SCENE LOG WAS BEING ACCURATELY CARRIED OUT?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: HAVE YOU EVER EXAMINED IT TO SEE THAT IT REFLECTS WHAT YOU REMEMBER?

A: HAVE I EVER EXAMINED THE CRIME SCENE LOG?

Q: UH-HUH.

A: YES, I HAVE LOOKED AT IT.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU FIND INACCURACIES THERE THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO REPORT OR LOG?

A: NO.

Q: ACCORDING TO THE CRIME SCENE LOG ARE VARIOUS PEOPLE ON THE SCENE GIVEN TIMES AND THE DEPARTURE REPORTED AS "UNKNOWN," IF YOU KNOW?

A: I'M SORRY, SIR, WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?

Q: DID YOU KNOW?

A: IF I KNOW WHAT?

Q: WHETHER OR NOT AS TO CERTAIN PEOPLE, INCLUDING THE LIEUTENANT AND YOUR SUPERIOR, CAPTAIN DIAL, THE DEPARTURE TIME WAS LOGGED AS "UNKNOWN"? DID YOU EVER INQUIRE INTO THAT?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: DID YOU NOTICE, FOR INSTANCE, THAT DETECTIVE PHILLIPS ARRIVED AT 2:10 AND DIDN'T LEAVE UNTIL 10:00 A.M. FROM BUNDY?

A: I BELIEVE I SAW WHAT TIME HE LOGGED IN. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TIME HE LEFT.

Q: MY QUESTION IS WHEN YOU REVIEWED THE CRIME SCENE LOG DID YOU NOTICE THAT ACCORDING TO IT DETECTIVE PHILLIPS ARRIVED AT BUNDY AT 2:10 AND DIDN'T DEPART UNTIL 10:00 A.M.?

A: NO, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT.

Q: YOU KNOW THAT IS FALSE, DON'T YOU?

A: NO, SIR, I DON'T KNOW THAT IS FALSE.

Q: DIDN'T HE CALL YOU FROM ROCKINGHAM?

A: YES, SIR, HE DID.

Q: YOU NOW KNOW IT IS FALSE, DON'T YOU?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. BUT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION?

A: YES.

Q: I TAKE IT YOUR REVIEW WAS SOMEWHAT CURSORY?

A: YES, PROBABLY SO.

Q: OKAY. AND OF COURSE THAT SAME ENTRY AS TO DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WOULD BE WRONG, WOULDN'T IT?

A: POSSIBLY. IT IS NOT MY JOB TO REVIEW THE CRIME SCENE LOG. THAT GOES TO DETECTIVE.

Q: I THOUGHT DID YOU REVIEW IT?

A: I LOOKED AT IT.

Q: BUT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT YOUR JOB YOU DIDN'T LOOK AT IT CAREFULLY? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE TELLING ME?

A: I DIDN'T SCRUTINIZE IT, NO.

Q: OKAY. NOW, WHEN OFFICER RISKE CALLED YOU FIRST, I TAKE IT YOU DID NOT NOTE THE TIME ON ANY PIECE OF PAPER OR LOG?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: DID YOU SATISFY YOURSELF FROM YOUR CONVERSATION WITH HIM THAT THE VICTIMS WERE BOTH DECEASED?

A: YES.

Q: DID HE TELL YOU THAT HE TOUCHED THE EYE OF ONE OF THE VICTIMS TO ASCERTAIN THAT?

A: NOT AT THAT TIME, NO.

Q: DID YOU LATER LEARN THAT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: DID YOU LATER LEARN HOW HE ACCOMPLISHED THAT?

A: YES. HE TOLD ME HE WENT AROUND TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE MALE VICTIM AND I BELIEVE HE SAID HE REACHED THROUGH THE FENCE.

Q: SO THAT HE WASN'T TRAMPLING ON THE CRIME SCENE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: WHEN HE SAID THE CRIME SCENE IS SECURE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU ACCEPTED THAT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: DID YOU KNOW, AT THE TIME YOU ACCEPTED IT, THAT HIS TRAINING IN CRIME SCENE PROTECTION WAS ENTIRELY SUPERFICIAL?

A: IT WAS SERGEANT COON WHO TOLD ME THE CRIME SCENE WAS SECURE.

Q: I THOUGHT YOU TOLD US YESTERDAY THAT OFFICER RISKE TOLD YOU THAT BEFORE SERGEANT COON ARRIVED, DID YOU NOT?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: YOU DIDN'T SAY THAT?

A: WELL, HE DID CALL ME AND HE TOLD ME WHAT HE HAD.

Q: DID YOU SAY THAT?

A: BUT I DON'T REMEMBER SAYING THAT.

Q: DID YOU SAY THAT YESTERDAY?

A: I DON'T REMEMBER.

Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO LEAVE IT? DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT AT ANY TIME RELY ON THE TESTIMONY OF THE -- OR THE STATEMENT OF OFFICER RISKE THAT THE CRIME SCENE WAS SECURED?

A: I MAY HAVE. I DON'T REMEMBER WHETHER HE TOLD ME THAT OR NOT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND IF YOU DID RELY ON THAT, DID YOU KNOW AT THE TIME THAT HIS TRAINING WAS, BY HIS OWN ACCOUNT, SUPERFICIAL?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: I'M SORRY, GLOSSED OVER?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. STILL MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY. THAT IS NOT THE ONLY --

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DID OFFICER RISKE EVER TELL YOU, WHEN YOU WERE DISCUSSING THE SECURITY OF THE CRIME SCENE, THAT HIS TRAINING IN CRIME SCENE PROTECTION HAD BEEN GLOSSED OVER?

A: NO, SIR.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: I THINK YOU MENTIONED YESTERDAY THAT DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WAS MAKING NOTES OF THE CRIME SCENE?

A: HE HAD A NOTE PAD WITH HIM.

Q: DID YOU SEE HIM WRITING NOTES?

A: I DON'T BELIEVE I SAW HIM WRITING NOTES. I ASSUMED HE HAD BEEN.

Q: NOW, WAS THERE SOME INTEREST IN LEARNING THE IDENTITY OF THE MALE VICTIM AT THE CRIME SCENE?

A: NOT BY ME, BUT I'M ASSUMING THERE WAS BY THE DETECTIVES.

Q: YOU MEAN DURING THE 45 MINUTES THAT YOU WERE IN CHARGE YOU DIDN'T CARE WHO HE WAS?

A: IT WASN'T THAT I DIDN'T CARE, SIR. IT WASN'T PART OF MY JOB. I WAS MORE INTERESTED IN SECURING THE EVIDENCE THERE.

Q: WAS IT IMPORTANT TO NOTIFY HIS NEXT OF KIN WHO MIGHT BE THREATENED, AS YOU AGREED MR. SIMPSON MIGHT BE?

A: IT WAS IMPORTANT I THINK IF I WAS INSTRUCTED TO DO SO BY THE DETECTIVE, BUT AT THAT POINT THAT WASN'T WHAT I WAS GOING TO DO.

Q: IS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FROZEN TIGHT UNTIL THE DETECTIVES ARRIVE?

A: IN SOME CASES, YES.

Q: ON THIS OCCASION APPARENTLY; IS THAT SO?

A: TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. I WAS WAITING FOR INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE DETECTIVES, YES, SIR.

Q: AFTER 300 HOMICIDES YOU DIDN'T INCLINE YOURSELF TO TRY AND FIND OUT WHO HAD BEEN KILLED; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE IN TAKING AND RUNNING THROUGH THE COMPUTER THE TAG NUMBERS ON THE VEHICLES IN THE AREA?

A: POSSIBLE WITNESSES.

Q: WAS IT OF INTEREST TO YOU TO KNOW WHICH OF THE TWO VICTIMS MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE PRIMARY TARGET OF THE ASSASSIN OR ASSASSINS?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THIS IS BEYOND THE SCOPE, YOUR HONOR, AND THIS IS --

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I THINK THAT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO KNOW FROM A DETECTIVE'S STANDPOINT, YES, SIR.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: NOT SOMETHING IN WHICH YOU HAD AN INTEREST?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. IS IT TRUE THAT UNTIL FIVE O'CLOCK ON JUNE 13 NOBODY KNEW THAT THE MALE VICTIM WAS RONALD GOLDMAN, IF YOU KNOW?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: IS IT TRUE THAT AS OF FIVE O'CLOCK A.M., WHEN YOU WERE ON THE PHONE WITH WESTEC TRYING TO HELP THE OFFICERS GET INTO MR. SIMPSON'S HOME, THAT YOU HAD NO IDEA WHO THE VICTIM WAS?

A: THAT'S TRUE.

Q: AND WHEN IS THE FIRST TIME YOU EVER HEARD THE NAME RONALD GOLDMAN?

A: I DON'T REMEMBER. I DON'T REMEMBER EVEN IF IT WAS THAT DAY.

Q: DID YOU READ IT IN THE PAPERS?

A: OH, I MAY HAVE. I DON'T RECALL.

MR. BAILEY: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. CLARK:

Q: SERGEANT ROSSI, IS IT YOUR JOB TO TAKE NOTES AT A CRIME SCENE?

A: NO, IT IS NOT.

Q: IS IT YOUR JOB TO NOTIFY THE CORONER?

A: NO, IT IS NOT.

Q: IS IT YOUR JOB TO DIRECT THE INVESTIGATION?

A: NO, IT IS NOT.

Q: IS IT YOUR JOB TO CALL FOR A CRIMINALIST TO APPEAR?

A: NO.

Q: IS IT YOUR JOB TO ASK FOR A PHOTOGRAPHER TO COME?

A: NO.

Q: IS IT YOUR JOB AS TO ASK FOR A PRINT EXPERT TO GET THERE?

A: NO.

Q: IS IT YOUR JOB TO DIRECT THE SEARCH AT A CRIME SCENE?

A: NO.

Q: OR THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE?

A: NO.

Q: WHAT IS YOUR JOB WHEN YOU GO TO A CRIME SCENE?

A: AS A WATCH COMMANDER MY JOB IS TO ENSURE THAT THE CRIME SCENE IS SECURE AND THAT ANY EVIDENCE IS PROTECTED AND TO MAKE THE NECESSARY NOTIFICATIONS TO THE DETECTIVES AND TO MY COMMAND STAFF.

Q: SO YOU ARE NOT TRAINED, PER SE, IN HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION; IS THAT RIGHT?

MR. BAILEY: OBJECTION, LEADING.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ARE YOU TRAINED IN HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION, SIR?

A: NO.

Q: SO ARE YOU THERE TO MAINTAIN THE SCENE FOR THE DETECTIVE WHO IS TRAINED IN HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION?

A: THAT IS CORRECT.

Q: AND SO WHEN YOU SAY IT IS YOUR JOB TO SECURE THE CRIME SCENE, AS YOU -- YOU REFERRED TO CHECKING THE PERIMETER IN YOUR TESTIMONY YESTERDAY. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF SECURING THE CRIME SCENE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: SO YOU MAKE SURE THE CRIME SCENE TAPE IS WHERE IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE?

A: THAT IS PART OF IT, YES.

Q: AND THAT NOBODY GOES IN THROUGH THE TAPE WHO ISN'T SUPPOSED TO?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND YOU DO THAT UNTIL THE DETECTIVE WHO IS HANDLING THE CASE GETS THERE?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: NOW, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU HAVE BEEN TO WHAT, 300 HOMICIDE SCENES?

A: IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 250 TO 300 IN MY CAREER, YES.

Q: AND HAVE YOU BEEN TO OTHER HOMICIDE SCENES IN YOUR CAPACITY AS SERGEANT, WATCH COMMANDER, ON PREVIOUS HOMICIDE CASES?

A: YES, I HAVE.

Q: AND IN THOSE OTHER HOMICIDE CASES WHERE YOU APPEARED AS A -- IN YOUR CAPACITY AS WATCH COMMANDER, WHAT FUNCTION DID YOU PERFORM?

A: THE EXACT SAME FUNCTION THAT I PERFORMED AT THIS HOMICIDE.

Q: YOU MEAN IN THOSE OTHER CASES YOU DID NOT NOTIFY THE CORONER?

A: NO, MA'AM.

Q: YOU DID NOT ATTEMPT TO ASCERTAIN THE IDENTITY OF THE VICTIM?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: YOU DID NOT ATTEMPT TO CALL FOR THE CRIMINALIST?

A: NO.

Q: OR PHOTOGRAPHERS?

A: NO.

Q: OR NOTIFY CORONERS?

A: NO. I HAVE DONE THAT, BUT ONLY UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE DETECTIVE.

Q: WHEN THE DETECTIVE HANDLING THE CASE ASKED YOU TO DO HIM A FAVOR AND HELP HIM OUT?

A: THAT IS EXACTLY RIGHT.

Q: SO THIS CASE WAS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHERS?

A: NO, IT IS NOT.

MR. BAILEY: YOUR HONOR, EVERY QUESTION IS LEADING.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU NEEDED TO OBSERVE THE SCENE BEFORE YOU SAW THE DETECTIVES WHO WERE GOING TO HANDLE THE CASE?

A: YES.

Q: WHY IS THAT?

A: BECAUSE THE DETECTIVES WILL COME TO ME BEFORE ANYBODY ELSE AND ASK ME WHAT -- WHAT WE HAD HERE AND I NEED TO GIVE THEM A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE SCENE SO WHEN THEY START WALKING THROUGH IT AND TAKING A LOOK AT IT, THEY KNOW WHERE TO STEP AND WHERE NOT TO STEP AND WHAT TO BE LOOKING OUT FOR.

Q: OKAY. I THINK YOU INDICATED YESTERDAY THAT OFFICER RISKE TOLD YOU HE THOUGHT ONE OF THE VICTIMS MIGHT BE RELATED TO MR. SIMPSON; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: BUT AT THE POINT THAT YOU GOT THERE WAS THERE A CONFIRMATION OF THAT INFORMATION?

A: NO, THERE WAS NO CONFIRMATION.

Q: HAVE YOU EVER MADE NOTIFICATION TO THE NEXT OF KIN IN A HOMICIDE CASE?

A: NO, I HAVE NOT.

Q: ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY POLICY WITH RESPECT TO HOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE, BY TELEPHONE OR IN PERSON?

A: THAT IS DONE IN PERSON IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.

Q: AND IS IT ALSO A REQUIREMENT THAT YOU CONFIRM THE IDENTITY OF THE VICTIM BEFORE YOU GO MAKING NOTIFICATIONS?

A: BY ALL MEANS.

Q: SO UNTIL IT IS CONFIRMED THAT THE -- WHAT THE VICTIM'S IDENTITY IS --

MR. BAILEY: YOUR HONOR, OBJECT TO MISS CLARK TESTIFYING.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. IT IS LEADING.

MS. CLARK: WHICH?

THE COURT: LEADING.

MS. CLARK: WHICH QUESTION WAS LEADING, I'M SORRY?

MR. BAILEY: ALL OF THEM.

THE COURT: COME ON OVER HERE TO THE SIDE BAR WITHOUT THE REPORTER.

(A CONFERENCE WAS HELD AT THE BENCH, NOT REPORTED.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. MISS CLARK, YOU MAY CONTINUE.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT NOTIFICATIONS.

MS. CLARK: RIGHT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

Q: WHAT IS THE POLICY OR WHAT IS THE ROUTINE WITH RESPECT TO THE DISCOVERY OF THE IDENTITY OF THE VICTIMS AND WHEN YOU MAKE NOTIFICATION?

A: WELL, AGAIN, I THINK THAT HAS TO BE JUDGED ON EACH -- EACH CASE HAS TO BE JUDGED ON ITS OWN MERIT AND THAT IS WHAT THE DETECTIVES DO. I THINK IT IS HARD TO GIVE A PAT ANSWER ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

Q: NOW, WHAT IS THE -- IF YOU KNOW, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE POLICY IS WITH RESPECT TO WHO IS ALLOWED TO TOUCH THE BODIES OF THE VICTIMS?

A: NO, I DON'T.

Q: NOW, YOU REMAINED ON THE SCENE AFTER THE DETECTIVES ARRIVED, DID YOU NOT?

A: YES.

Q: FOR WHAT PURPOSE?

A: JUST TO AVAIL MYSELF TO THEM IF THEY NEEDED ME TO DO ANYTHING FOR THEM OR DIRECT ANY OF MY POLICE OFFICERS TO DO ANYTHING.

Q: SO IS IT YOUR DUTY TO ASSIST THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ONCE THEY ARRIVE?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND YOU STAYED THERE UNTIL HOW LONG?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: UNTIL WHEN?

A: I BELIEVE I LEFT RIGHT AROUND 4:10.

Q: NOW, DID YOU JUST TAKE OFF BY YOURSELF OR WHAT -- HOW DID YOU GET TO GO?

A: NO. I RETURNED TO THE POLICE STATION WITH SERGEANT HUSSEY. HE DROVE ME TO THE POLICE STATION.

Q: AND WHO LET YOU GO?

A: CAPTAIN DIAL RELEASED ME FROM THE SCENE.

Q: SHE SAID SHE RELIEVED YOU AT THAT POINT OR WERE YOU RELIEVED BY SOMEONE?

A: I HAD BEEN RELIEVED, AS FAR AS RESPONSIBILITY OF IN CHARGE OF THE SCENE, BY DETECTIVE PHILLIPS PRIOR TO THAT.

I WAS JUST CHECKING WITH MY COMMANDING OFFICER WHO WAS THERE AND LETTING HER KNOW THAT I WAS INTERESTED IN LEAVING TO COMPLETE SOME PAPERWORK THAT I HAD TO DO, AND SHE SAID FINE.

Q: OH, YEAH. I BELIEVE COUNSEL WAS ASKING YOU IF YOU ASKED OFFICER RISKE WHAT HE MEANT BY "SECURED," THAT THE CRIME SCENE WAS SECURED. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?

A: DO I REMEMBER BEING ASKED THAT?

Q: YES.

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU DID NOT ASK HIM WHAT HE MEANT BY THAT?

A: NO.

Q: WHY NOT?

A: BECAUSE I KNEW WHAT HE MEANT BY THAT.

Q: IS THAT COMMON KNOWLEDGE AMONG POLICE OFFICERS, WHAT THAT MEANS?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

A: IT MEANS THAT THE CRIME SCENE IS SECURED AND THAT NO ONE UNAUTHORIZED IS ALLOWED TO ENTER THE SCENE AND THAT ANY EVIDENCE IS BEING PROTECTED.

Q: AND DOES IT MEAN ANYTHING WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE INJURED VICTIMS OR SUSPECTS STILL AROUND?

A: PLEASE REPEAT THE QUESTION.

Q: UH-HUH. DOES IT ALSO HAVE ANY MEANING CONCERNING WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE SUSPECTS IN THE AREA OF THE CRIME SCENE STILL OR INJURED VICTIMS NEEDING ATTENTION IN THE AREA OF THE CRIME SCENE?

A: AS FAR AS THE CRIME SCENE BEING SECURED?

Q: RIGHT.

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DOES IT MEAN WITH RESPECT TO THAT?

A: WELL, IT MEANS THAT -- THAT THERE -- IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THERE WERE TWO -- TWO VICTIMS OF HOMICIDE STILL WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE CRIME SCENE.

Q: OKAY. AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN WITH RESPECT TO SUSPECTS BEING IN THE IMMEDIATE CRIME SCENE?

A: THAT THERE MAY BE. AS FAR AS THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION WAS CONCERNED, WHEN OFFICER RISKE WAS TALKING TO ME, IF YOU RECALL, HE HADN'T HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK IN THE HOUSE YET, SO -- IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE GETTING AT?

Q: NO. WHEN YOU APPEARED AT THE SCENE, WHEN YOU ARRIVED AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY IT WAS ABOUT 1:30?

A: YES.

Q: BY THAT TIME HAD OFFICER RISKE HAD GONE INTO THE HOUSE?

A: YES.

Q: AND AT THAT TIME DID OFFICER RISKE TELL YOU THAT THE CRIME SCENE WAS SECURED?

A: YES.

Q: WHAT DID THAT MEAN TO YOU WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A SUSPECT IN THAT CONDOMINIUM OR THAT WALKWAY?

A: OKAY. AT THAT POINT THEN THAT MEANT TO ME THAT THERE WERE NO SUSPECTS.

Q: IN THAT AREA?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND WHAT DID THAT MEAN TO YOU WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE STILL INJURED PARTIES IN NEED OF ATTENTION, LIVING VICTIMS IN NEED OF ATTENTION IN THAT AREA?

A: THAT THERE WERE NONE.

Q: COUNSEL WAS ASKING YOU YESTERDAY ABOUT INVISIBLE SHOEPRINTS. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: OKAY. NOW, YOU TALKED ABOUT WANTING TO PRESERVE THE EVIDENCE AT THE CRIME SCENE. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: AND WHAT IS THE POINT OF PRESERVING THE EVIDENCE? WHEN YOU SAY "THE EVIDENCE," WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

A: OBVIOUS EVIDENCE.

Q: THINGS CONNECTED TO THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME?

A: YES.

Q: THAT MIGHT HELP SOLVE THE CASE?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, THAT WALKWAY THAT -- WHERE YOU SAW THE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS --

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU SEE IT ON YOUR MONITOR, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: AND DO YOU SEE WHAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO EARLIER ABOUT THE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: NOW, THAT WALKWAY -- THOSE SHOEPRINTS GOING DOWN TOWARD THE REAR ALLEY AWAY FROM THE BODIES OF THE VICTIMS, THAT WALKWAY LEADS -- RUNS FROM THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE BACK TO THE DRIVEWAY AT THE REAR; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS EXHIBIT NO. 45-E.

THE COURT: 45-E. THANK YOU. LET ME KNOW BEFORE YOU CHANGE EXHIBITS. THANK YOU.

MS. CLARK: AND COULD WE HAVE 45-F.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: WE INTEND TO CHANGE THE PHOTOGRAPH. THIS IS 45-F.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND WHAT DO YOU SEE THERE, SIR?

A: THE SAME WALKWAY.

Q: OKAY. AND THE SAME WALKWAY, AND DO YOU SEE MORE OF THOSE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT?

A: YES.

Q: IF YOU COULD LOOK UP AT THE SCREEN FOR A MOMENT, SIR. CAN YOU SEE IT FROM WHERE YOU ARE?

A: YES.

Q: I'M CIRCLING WITH THE LASER. ARE THESE THE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT?

A: YES, THEY ARE.

Q: AND DOWN HERE, (INDICATING)?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO THAT WOULD BE THE WALKWAY THAT YOU USED TO GO FROM THE REAR DRIVEWAY UP TO THE FRONT DOOR?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, IF THERE WERE INVISIBLE SHOEPRINTS, GIVEN THE LOCATION OF THAT THAT WALKWAY, HOW SIGNIFICANT WOULD THAT BE TO YOU IN TERMS OF HOW -- WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE CONNECTED TO THE COMMISSION OF THIS CRIME?

A: IT WOULDN'T BE THAT SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE I WOULD IMAGINE THEY COULD HAVE BEEN ANYBODY'S. I WAS MORE KEYING IN ON WHAT I COULD SEE AND WHAT RELATED TO THE CRIME.

Q: SO IF THERE WERE INVISIBLE SHOEPRINTS -- YOU SAID THEY COULD BE FROM ANYONE?

A: I WOULD IMAGINE SO.

Q: THERE COULD BE LOTS OF PRINTS THERE THAT WERE MADE MAYBE WEEKS, MONTHS AGO?

MR. BAILEY: I OBJECT ONCE AGAIN, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. IT IS LEADING.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OKAY. THE FACT THAT THESE SHOEPRINTS WERE BLOODY, IS THAT WHAT MADE THEM SIGNIFICANT TO YOU?

MR. BAILEY: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHAT MADE THESE BLOODY SHOEPRINTS SIGNIFICANT TO YOU? I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR.

A: THE FACT THAT THEY WERE BLOODY.

Q: AND WHY IS THAT?

A: BECAUSE OF THE BLOOD AT THE IMMEDIATE HOMICIDE SCENE.

Q: AND WAS THERE A LOT OF BLOOD AROUND THE BODIES OF THE VICTIMS, SIR?

A: YES, THERE WAS.

Q: HOW MANY -- HOW MANY SETS OF BLOODY SHOEPRINTS DID YOU SEE?

A: I SAW ONE SET, TWO PRINTS.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: YOUR HONOR, THIS NEXT PHOTOGRAPH WILL BE EXHIBIT NO. 48-F.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT IS SHOWN IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH, SIR?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: AND DO YOU SEE THE LITTLE TAG THAT IS ON THE GROUND JUST INSIDE THE GATE?

A: YES.

Q: AND IS THAT THE REAR GATE?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT DO YOU RECALL SEEING IN THAT LOCATION IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE THE 13TH?

A: THERE WAS A BLOOD SPOT ON THE GROUND.

MS. CLARK: CLOSE-UP.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: YES, YOUR HONOR. THIS IS EXHIBIT NO. 48-G.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND IS THAT THE APPEARANCE, IF YOU CAN RECALL, OF THE BLOOD DROP THAT YOU SAW JUST INSIDE THE REAR GATE?

A: YES.

MS. CLARK: EXCUSE ME. COUNSEL, MAY I SEE THE COPY OF THE PAGE YOU SHOWED THE WITNESS FROM THE MANUAL? THANK YOU.

Q: SIR, YOU WERE SHOWN THIS PAGE BY COUNSEL, SECTION 238.46 OF THE LAPD MANUAL?

A: YES.

Q: AND IN IT -- AND YOU WERE ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYTHING IN IT THAT EXEMPTS YOU FROM HAVING TO NOTIFY THE CORONER OF A HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION?

A: YES.

Q: AND YOU SAID THERE WAS?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEN YOU READ: "IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS TO NOTIFY THE CORONER OF ALL DEATHS OCCURRING."

A: YES, MA'AM.

Q: "INVESTIGATING OFFICER," IS THAT ONE OF THOSE TERMS THAT WE ALL -- YOU ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

A: IT MEANS THE RESPONDING DETECTIVES.

Q: YOU ARE NOT A DETECTIVE, ARE YOU?

A: NO, MA'AM.

Q: YOU ARE A SERGEANT?

A: I'M A SERGEANT.

Q: AND SO IN SAYING THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS IN THAT MANUAL, DOES THAT REFER TO YOU AT ALL?

A: NO, IT DOES NOT.

MS. CLARK: I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.

THE COURT: AND MISS CLARK, DO YOU HAVE YOUR NEXT WITNESS AVAILABLE?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE YOUR NEXT WITNESS AVAILABLE?

MS. CLARK: UH-HUH, I DO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. BAILEY, RECROSS.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. BAILEY:

Q: AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOUR VIEW OF THAT REGULATION IS THAT WHEN THE INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ARRIVE IT WAS THEN THAT THE OBLIGATION TO NOTIFY THE CORONER AROSE; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: IT WAS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.

Q: UH-HUH. AND YOU WATCHED THEM VIOLATE THAT RESPONSIBILITY FOR SIX HOURS, DIDN'T YOU?

A: NO, SIR.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. OBJECTION. THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE AND ASSUMES FACTS NOT EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED, SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU HEAR THEM CALL THE CORONER?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU MENTION TO THEM THEIR RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THAT SECTION AT ANY TIME?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: WHY NOT?

A: IT IS NOT MY PLACE.

Q: YOU WATCHED THEM VIOLATE A REGULATION AND YOU DIDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DOESN'T SECTION 210.46 REQUIRE YOU TO REPORT MISCONDUCT BY OFFICERS EVEN IF THEY ARE YOUR SUPERIORS?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

MR. BAILEY: OKAY.

Q: NOW, YOU SAID ON REDIRECT EXAMINATION, IN RESPONSE TO A WHOLE SERIES OF QUESTIONS, THAT YOU REALLY HAD NO DUTY TO DO ANYTHING DURING YOUR TENURE AS SENIOR PERSON AT THE SCENE EXCEPT PROTECT IT; IS THAT RIGHT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. ISN'T IT A FACT THAT YOUR OBLIGATION, AFTER INITIALLY DEPLOYING PEOPLE TO THE SCENE, WAS TO WORK AS PARTNERS IN PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS AND COMPARE NOTES TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL FACTS HAD BEEN GATHERED? WAS THAT YOUR OBLIGATION?

A: WITH WHOM?

Q: ALL THE PEOPLE AT THE SCENE BEFORE THE DETECTIVE GOT THERE?

A: NO.

Q: IT WAS NOT YOUR OBLIGATION?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. WAS IT YOUR OBLIGATION TO LOCATE AND IDENTIFY WITNESSES, REQUEST THEM TO REMAIN FOR QUESTIONING AND QUESTION THEM SEPARATELY?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. COUNSELS SEEMS TO BE READING FROM SOMETHING. MAY I SEE IT?

MR. BAILEY: I AM PUTTING QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: HE IS ASKING QUESTIONS. YOU CAN'T SEE EACH OTHER'S NOTES WHEN HE IS ASKING QUESTIONS.

MS. CLARK: IT IS PRINTED.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, THE SOURCE OF THAT SHOULD BE PRETTY OBVIOUS.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DO YOU REMEMBER THE QUESTION?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: OKAY. WAS THAT YOUR OBLIGATION?

A: YES. IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN WITNESSES, I SHOULD --

Q: WAS IT YOUR OBLIGATION TO ESTABLISH THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME AND OTHER DETAILS RELATING TO WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY AND HOW AND COMPLETE THE NECESSARY REPORTS? WAS THAT YOUR OBLIGATION?

A: ONLY IF POSSIBLE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU TELL US HOW YOU CARRIED OUT, IF AT ALL, THIS LATTER OBLIGATION?

A: I DID NOT DO THAT, SIR.

Q: OKAY. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT YOU DO THAT?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU EVER READ A PUBLICATION PUT OUT BY THE LAPD CALLED "GENERAL REPORTING INSTRUCTIONS"?

A: NOT THAT I RECALL.

Q: DID YOU EVER READ A SECTION CALLED "CONDUCTING THE INVESTIGATION" WITHIN THAT PUBLICATION?

A: NOT THAT I RECALL.

MR. BAILEY: COULD THIS BE MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION?

MS. CLARK: MAY I JUST SEE WHAT COUNSEL IS REFERRING TO?

MR. BAILEY: CERTAINLY.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MRS. ROBERTSON, 1014.

(DEFT'S 1014 FOR ID = 1-PG LAPD MANUAL)

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, HOW ABOUT IF I HAVE MISS ROBERTSON HAVE A PHOTOCOPY MADE FOR YOU?

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. IN THE MEANTIME THAT IS FINE.

MR. BAILEY: THERE IS ONLY ONE SHORT SECTION.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. BAILEY: MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: YOU MAY.

Q: I SHOW YOU WHAT WILL BE MARKED AS DEFENSE 1014 FOR IDENTIFICATION AND ASK YOU IF YOU HAVE EVER SEEN THAT WRITING BEFORE?

A: I MAY HAVE, BUT I'M NOT SURE.

Q: WOULD YOU THEN PLEASE READ THE SECTION TO WHICH I AM POINTING ENTITLED "CONDUCTING THE INVESTIGATION" TO SEE IF YOUR RECOLLECTION IS REFRESHED AS TO WHAT YOUR OBLIGATIONS WERE THAT MORNING.

A: DO YOU WANT ME TO READ THIS WHOLE THING?

Q: I WANT YOU TO READ IT TO YOURSELF TO SEE IF IT HELPS YOU REMEMBER WHAT YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THE LAST COMMENT BY MR. BAILEY AS BEING ARGUMENTATIVE?

THE WITNESS: (WITNESS COMPLIES.) I DID MOST OF THAT, SIR.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. NOW, A MOMENT AGO, WHEN I ASKED YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAD AN OBLIGATION TO PERFORM THESE DUTIES, YOU REALIZE NOW I WAS READING FROM YOUR OWN GENERAL REPORTING INSTRUCTIONS MANUAL, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. BUT I BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT YOU HAD NO OBLIGATION TO ESTABLISH THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME AND OTHER DETAILS RELATING TO WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY AND HOW AND COMPLETE THE NECESSARY REPORTS. DO YOU WISH TO CHANGE THAT ANSWER?

A: NO, I DON'T.

Q: ALL RIGHT. IS IT SET FORTH HERE THAT THAT IS YOUR OBLIGATION?

A: IF THAT IS POSSIBLE.

Q: SO DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THE MANUAL?

A: IN THIS CASE IT WASN'T POSSIBLE.

Q: DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THE MANUAL?

A: NO, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE MANUAL.

Q: SO YOU ARE SAYING THE REASON YOU DIDN'T UNDERTAKE SOME SEGMENT OF WHAT WAS PRINTED HERE IS BECAUSE IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: OKAY. YOU ALSO I BELIEVE TOLD US THAT YOUR DUTY TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE WAS ONLY TO PRESERVE THAT WHICH WAS OBVIOUS. WAS THAT YOUR STATEMENT ON REDIRECT?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: AND IF EVIDENCE IS NOT OBVIOUS TO YOU IT IS OKAY TO OBLITERATE IT; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: OF COURSE NOT.

Q: WELL, THEN WHY DID YOU RESTRICT YOUR OBLIGATION TO PRESERVE OBVIOUS EVIDENCE?

A: BECAUSE OBVIOUS EVIDENCE IS THE FIRST EVIDENCE YOU SEE.

Q: OKAY. WHAT ABOUT WHAT EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT OBVIOUS, LIKE FINGERPRINTS ON GLASSES AND OTHER THINGS OF THAT SORT?

A: THAT IS IMPORTANT.

Q: IS THAT PART OF YOUR DUTY TO PROTECT BECAUSE IT IS OBVIOUS OR BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE IT OR WHY?

A: IF IT IS WITHIN THE CRIME SCENE, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. TELL ME WHAT STEPS, IF ANY, YOU TOOK TO PROTECT THAT PORTION OF WHAT MIGHT BE EVIDENCE THAT WAS NOT VISIBLE TO THE NAKED EYE?

A: THE AREA WAS CORDONED OFF AND NOBODY UNAUTHORIZED WAS ALLOWED INTO IT.

Q: YOU SAY "UNAUTHORIZED." WHERE IN THE MANUAL DOES IT MANDATE THAT YOU AS A WATCH COMMANDER, AWAITING DETECTIVES, GO TO THE CRIME SCENE PERSONALLY AND GO PAST THE TAPE ONCE IT HAS BEEN SECURED? WHERE IN THE MANUAL?

A: I HAVE NO IDEA.

Q: IS THAT SOMETHING YOU DO SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS A HABIT?

A: IT WAS SOMETHING I DO BECAUSE IT IS MANDATED BY OUR DETECTIVES.

Q: WELL, YOU HAVE DISCLAIMED, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, ANY EXPERTISE OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR SOLVING THE CRIME, HAVE YOU NOT?

A: FOR SOLVING THE CRIME, THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WELL IF THAT IS SO, WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU JEOPARDIZE THE CRIME SCENE BY WALKING ON IT?

A: I DIDN'T JEOPARDIZE THE CRIME SCENE BY WALKING ON IT.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU REALLY HAVE ANY BUSINESS AT ALL IN INSPECTING THOSE BODIES THAT MORNING?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND WHERE IN THE MANUAL IS IT MANDATED THAT YOU DO THAT?

A: I HAVE NO IDEA.

Q: IT ISN'T MANDATED IN THE MANUAL ANYWHERE, IS IT, SERGEANT?

A: I DON'T KNOW.

Q: WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU READ THE MANUAL, DO YOU REMEMBER?

A: COVER TO COVER? ABOUT FIFTEEN YEARS AGO.

Q: AND ANY PART THEREOF?

A: UMM, PROBABLY THREE TO FOUR TIMES A WEEK.

Q: OKAY. NOW, DID YOU RECEIVE, YOU, A COMPLAINT FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE FOR FAILING TO NOTIFY THEM?

A: NO, SIR.

Q: DID YOU LEARN THAT THE CORONER FELT THAT THE LAW HAD BEEN VIOLATED --

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: -- KEPT FROM THE SCENE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DID ANYONE DISCUSS WITH YOU AT ANY TIME, AFTER YOU RETURNED TO YOUR STATION OR BEFORE, THE ISSUE OF THE FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE CORONER TO COME TO THE SCENE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO, SIR.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: TO THIS DAY YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN QUERIED AS TO WHY THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: IS THAT RIGHT?

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MS. CLARK: THAT ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: NO, I HAVE NOT.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: AM I THE FIRST ONE EVER TO QUESTION YOU AS TO WHY THE CORONER WASN'T NOTIFIED?

A: YES.

MR. BAILEY: THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. I'M SORRY. ONE MORE QUESTION.

Q: YOU SAID YOU SAW A SINGLE SET OF FOOTPRINTS. DO YOU RECALL SAYING THAT?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: HOW WOULD YOU KNOW THAT?

A: I SAW TWO FOOTPRINTS.

Q: ARE YOU AN EXPERT IN FOOTPRINTS?

A: NO.

Q: DID YOU EXAMINE A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE FOOTPRINTS?

A: JUST NOW YOU MEAN?

Q: NO, AT THE SCENE?

A: NO.

Q: THERE WERE NO PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN UNTIL YOU LEFT AT 4:10, WEREN'T THERE?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MS. CLARK: ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I DON'T REMEMBER IF PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN WHILE I WAS THERE OR NOT.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: YOU NEVER SAW A FLASHBULB GO OFF, DID YOU?

A: RIGHT.

Q: IT WAS NOT LIGHT ENOUGH TO TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS BY NATURAL LIGHT, WAS IT?

A: I HAVE NO IDEA.

Q: YOU DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS DARK OR NOT, SERGEANT?

A: I KNOW IT WAS DARK.

Q: CAN YOU TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS BY NATURAL LIGHT WHEN IT IS DARK?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, IRRELEVANT.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: IF YOU KNOW?

A: I DON'T KNOW CAMERAS THAT WELL, SIR. I DON'T KNOW.

Q: HOW DID YOU ASCERTAIN THAT THERE WAS A SINGLE SET OF FOOTPRINTS, SERGEANT ROSSI?

A: I SAW TWO BLOODY SHOE -- SHOEPRINTS.

Q: LEFT AND A RIGHT? TWO LEFT? WHAT WERE THEY?

A: I SAW TWO.

Q: HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT ALL THE PRINTS THAT YOU SAW, BOTH OF THEM, WERE MADE BY ONE SET OF FEET?

A: I DON'T KNOW THAT.

Q: OKAY. WHERE EXACTLY, BETWEEN THE TWO GATES, DID YOU SEE THESE FOOTPRINTS?

A: APPROXIMATELY HALF THE WAY BETWEEN THE REAR GATE AND THE FRONT PART OF THE HOUSE. HALFWAY DOWN THE WALKWAY, I SHOULD SAY.

Q: HALFWAY DOWN THE WALKWAY?

A: YES.

Q: NOW, YOU KNOW TODAY, FROM JUST HAVING VIEWED A PICTURE OF IT, THAT THERE IS NO WALKWAY, DON'T YOU?

A: THERE IS NO WALKWAY?

Q: YEAH. BRING OUT 48, PLEASE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: MR. BAILEY, WHICH -- WHICH LETTER?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: E AND F.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: 48-E.

MR. BAILEY: AS LONG AS YOU BROUGHT THAT ONE UP, STOP THERE.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU SEE THIS -- COULD YOU BRING THAT BACK FOR A MINUTE?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: SURE.

THE COURT: 48-G WAS A CLOSE-UP OF A BLOOD SPOT?

MR. BAILEY: YES.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: I'M SORRY, DO YOU WANT ME TO PULL BACK UP 48-B OR 48-G?

MR. BAILEY: BLOOD SPOT.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: THIS IS 48-G, YOUR HONOR. THE FIRST ONE WAS 48-E.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DID YOU SEE THAT BLOOD SPOT THAT MORNING?

A: I SAW A BLOOD SPOT THAT MORNING.

Q: I UNDERSTOOD YOU TO SAY ON REDIRECT EXAMINATION THAT YOU RECOGNIZED THIS BLOOD SPOT. DO YOU OR DON'T YOU?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: WHAT DID YOU MEAN TO SAY ABOUT THIS BLOOD SPOT WHEN IT WAS SHOWN TO YOU ON REDIRECT?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I SAW A BLOOD SPOT IN THE BEGINNING OF THE WALKWAY AREA.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DOES THAT LOOK LIKE THE BLOOD SPOT YOU SAW THAT MORNING?

A: IT LOOKS LIKE THE AREA WHERE I SAW ONE.

Q: LOOK THE AT THE SPOT, IF YOU WILL, ON THIS SCREEN. DO YOU NOTICE THAT IT IS PRETTY MUCH CIRCULAR?

A: YES.

Q: WAS THE SPOT THAT YOU LOOKED AT THAT MORNING THAT YOU ALLUDED TO IN YOUR REDIRECT EXAMINATION A CIRCULAR SPOT OF THAT TYPE?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU HAVE ANY TRAINING AT ALL IN BLOOD SPOTS?

A: NO.

Q: CAN YOU TELL, FROM LOOKING AT THAT SPOT, THAT WHOEVER DROPPED IT WAS STANDING STILL?

A: NO.

Q: YOU CAN'T? OKAY. WHERE -- BRING UP E, PLEASE.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: E.

MR. BAILEY: AND PRINT THAT, IF YOU WILL.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: DO YOU WISH THIS PARTICULAR PHOTO PRINTED?

MR. BAILEY: YES, PLEASE. 1015, MISS ROBERTSON?

THE COURT: NO. THIS IS ALREADY PEOPLE'S 48-G.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: NOW, PEOPLE'S 48-E.

THE COURT: G IS A SHOEPRINT.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: 45. PEOPLE'S 45-E, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. IS THAT THE AREA WHERE YOU SAW SHOEPRINTS?

A: I BELIEVE I SAW IT A LITTLE BIT FARTHER DOWN.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHERE WE ARE IN THAT PHOTOGRAPH?

A: ISN'T THAT TOWARD THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE?

Q: WELL, YOU ARE THE WITNESS.

A: THAT IS WHAT IT APPEARS TO ME, YES.

Q: IS THAT WHAT YOU RECOGNIZE FROM YOUR VISIT TO THE SCENE?

A: WELL, I DIDN'T WALK THAT FAR, BUT THAT IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME.

Q: YOU NEVER WENT UP THE STEPS, DID YOU?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: ANY ENTRY YOU HAD TO PART OF THE WALKWAY OR SERIES OF STEPS AND WALKWAY NEAREST THE ALLEY WAS THROUGH THE ALLEY GATE, WASN'T IT?

A: YES, SIR.

Q: NOW, HOW FAR FROM THE ALLEY GATE IN FEET, IF YOU CAN TELL US, WERE THE TWO PRINTS THAT YOU THOUGHT WERE BLOODY FOOTPRINTS?

A: 50 FEET.

Q: 50 FEET?

A: APPROXIMATELY.

Q: COULD YOU TELL ME HOW YOU WERE ABLE TO SEE THEM SINCE YESTERDAY YOU TOLD US YOU NEVER WENT MORE THAN THIRTY FEET FROM THE GATE?

A: DID I SAY THAT. WELL, THEN MAYBE THIRTY FEET, I'M SORRY.

Q: WOULD YOU LIKE TO ELECT ONE OF THE TWO AS YOUR FINAL STATEMENT ON THAT?

A: I THINK IT WAS PROBABLY CLOSER TO 50.

Q: 50 FEET. YOU DON'T THINK YOU WENT ANY FURTHER THAN THAT?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: SO AS WE VIEW THE EVIDENCE WE OUGHT TO FIND TO BLOODY SHOEPRINTS 50 FEET FROM THE GATE OR LESS, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU SEE ANY OTHER FOOTPRINT AT ANY TIME?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: DID YOU LOOK FOR ANY OTHER FOOTPRINTS?

A: YEAH, I USED THE FLASHLIGHT, BUT LIKE I SAY, I DIDN'T GO ANY FARTHER PAST THE ONES THAT I SAW.

Q: WHEN YOU CAME UPON THIS SET AND YOU HAD YOUR FLASHLIGHT IN YOUR HAND, DID YOU SHINE IT DOWN ON THE WALKWAY TO SEE IF THERE WERE OTHER AND FURTHER FOOTPRINTS?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHAT DID YOU SEE?

A: I DIDN'T NOTICE ANY AT THAT POINT.

Q: SO APPARENTLY SOME PERSON HAD WALKED A DISTANCE FROM THE CRIME SCENE TOWARD THE REAR GATE AND SUDDENLY THEIR SOLES GOT BLOODIED? IS THAT WHAT IT APPEARED TO YOU?

A: NO.

Q: OKAY. CAN YOU TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT, UNDER THE TERMS OF THE MANUAL THAT GOVERN THE CONDUCT OF ALL POLICE OFFICERS IN LAPD, IT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT ARE TO CONFORM WITH ITS RULES AND PROVISIONS AT ALL TIMES? DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

A: YES, I DO.

MR. BAILEY: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. CLARK:

Q: THOSE SHOEPRINTS THAT ARE BEING SHOWN RIGHT NOW IN 45-E -- IS THAT E?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: YES, THAT IS 45-E.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHEN YOU POINTED THEM OUT FOR THE JURY EARLIER, SIR, WERE YOU -- THIS IS TO DEMONSTRATE WHAT THE ONES YOU SAW LOOKED LIKE?

MR. BAILEY: OBJECT AS LEADING.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ARE THOSE SHOEPRINTS -- DO THOSE SHOEPRINTS IN 45-E LOOK LIKE THE ONES YOU SAW FROM YOUR POSITION HALFWAY DOWN THE WALKWAY?

A: YES, THEY DO.

Q: AND HOW FAR BEYOND THE SHOEPRINTS THAT YOU SAW HALFWAY DOWN, APPROXIMATELY HALFWAY DOWN THE ALLEY, WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE WITH YOUR FLASHLIGHT?

A: HALFWAY DOWN THE WALKWAY.

Q: RIGHT. YOU SAID YOU WERE HALFWAY DOWN THE WALKWAY AND YOU TOLD US THAT YOU SHONE YOUR FLASHLIGHT DOWN THE WALKWAY TO SEE IF YOU COULD SEE ANYTHING ELSE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: HOW FAR WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE?

A: OH, MAYBE TEN FEET. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE. IT WASN'T ALL THAT FAR.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, WE HAD TROUBLE PRINTING YESTERDAY. YOU HAD ASKED US TO HAVE HIM DRAW AND IF I MAY AT THIS TIME --

THE COURT: WHAT IS THE STATUS OF OUR --

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: YOUR HONOR, IT IS AGAIN FULLY OPERATIONAL. WE REPAIRED A SLIGHT WIRING PROBLEM THAT DISENABLED THE PRINTER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, REFRESH MY RECOLLECTION. WHICH PHOTOGRAPH IS THIS?

MS. CLARK: THIS IS 43-B-1.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. YOU MAY APPROACH.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.

Q: SIR, IF YOU RECALL YESTERDAY, WE WERE SHOWING YOU THIS PHOTOGRAPH AND TRYING TO LET -- HAVE YOUR PATH -- THE PATH YOU TOOK UP TO THE CALL BOX AREA AT THE FRONT OF THE CONDOMINIUM AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY, HOW YOU AVOIDED THE WALKWAY?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: YOU INDICATED THAT YOU TOOK A PATH THAT TOOK YOU THROUGH THE GRASS?

A: YES.

Q: AND WE WERE TRYING TO TRACE IT BUT IT WOULDN'T PRINT. REMEMBER THAT?

MR. BAILEY: PLEASE, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: THESE ARE FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS, COUNSEL. WE GIVE THEM SOME LEEWAY ON THIS.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: COULD YOU PLEASE TRACE YOUR PATH NOW, SIR.

A: IT WAS OVER TO THE LEFT OF THESE PLANTS, (INDICATING).

Q: THAT BLACK PEN ISN'T SHOWING UP VERY WELL, IS IT? LET ME GET A RED ONE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, I HAVE A RED MARKS-A-LOT.

MS. CLARK: THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: TRY THIS ONE.

A: (WITNESS COMPLIES.)

THE COURT: BETTER?

MS. CLARK: YES.

THE WITNESS: ENDED UP AT ABOUT THERE, (INDICATING).

MS. CLARK: OKAY. FOR THE RECORD, THE WITNESS HAS PUT AN ARC IN RED ON IT. I'M GOING TO SHOW IT ON THE ELMO NOW. AND PERHAPS IF THIS IS NOT DISTINCT ENOUGH, WE CAN -- WE HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO PRINT NOW, WE ARE JUST GOING TO DO IT AGAIN AND WITHDRAW THIS EXHIBIT. COULD WE CUT THE FEED, YOUR HONOR? I'M SORRY.

MR. COCHRAN: CUT THE FEED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT. THE ARC THAT YOU HAVE DRAWN ON THIS EXHIBIT, 43-B-1, SIR, IS THAT -- THAT ARC DESCRIBE YOUR PATH THAT YOU TOOK UP TO THE CALL BOX IN ORDER TO EXAMINE THE SCENE?

A: YES, IT DOES.

Q: AND FROM THAT VANTAGE POINT WHAT EVIDENCE WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE?

A: I WAS ABLE TO SEE A MALE AND A FEMALE VICTIM OF AN APPARENT HOMICIDE.

Q: AND DID YOU -- AND FROM THAT VANTAGE POINT WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE EVIDENCE IN THE AREA AT THE FEET OF RON GOLDMAN?

A: YES, I WAS.

Q: AND WHAT WERE YOU ABLE TO SEE?

A: I WAS ABLE TO SEE AN ENVELOPE AND A DARK-COLORED KNIT CAP, A BLACK GLOVE OR A DARK-COLORED GLOVE.

Q: NOW, YOU INDICATED -- YOU INDICATED, SIR, THAT YOU WALKED 50 FEET DOWN THE ALLEY?

A: DOWN THE WALKWAY.

Q: I'M SORRY, DOWN THE WALKWAY?

A: APPROXIMATELY, YES.

Q: RIGHT. AND THAT IS WHEN YOU SAW THAT LAST SET OF BLOODY SHOEPRINTS?

A: YES.

Q: IS THAT AN APPROXIMATION, THAT DISTANCE, SIR?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: HOW MANY FEET DO PEOPLE HAVE?

A: TWO.

Q: AND YOU SAW HOW MANY SHOEPRINTS?

A: I SAW TWO.

Q: NOT FOUR?

A: NO.

Q: COUNSEL WAS SHOWING YOU WHAT PURPORTS TO BE A SECTION FROM THE LAPD MANUAL CALLED "GENERAL REPORTING INSTRUCTIONS."

A: YES.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

MS. CLARK: MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO. MR. BAILEY, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE YOUR SEAT.

MR. BAILEY: SORRY, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO TAKE YOUR SEAT, PLEASE. THANK YOU.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: ONE, PLEASE.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO NOW THE JURY CAN SEE IT, TOO. FIRST OF ALL, CONDUCTING THE INVESTIGATION. WERE YOU CONDUCTING THE INVESTIGATION, SIR?

A: NO.

Q: NOW, YOU NOTICE THAT AFTER THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH IT TALKS ABOUT OFFICERS WORKING IN PARTNERS, RIGHT?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. AND THEN IT SAYS THAT THERE IS A DUTY TO NOTIFY THE INVESTIGATING UNIT WITHOUT DELAY IF THERE IS A NEED FOR AN IMMEDIATE MAJOR CRIME INVESTIGATION?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND START A CRIME SCENE LOG IF APPROPRIATE. DO YOU SEE THAT?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: DID YOU DO THAT?

A: YES.

Q: DID YOU NOTIFY INVESTIGATING UNITS RIGHT AWAY?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND YOU STARTED A CRIME SCENE LOG OR YOU MADE SURE ONE WAS STARTED?

A: I MADE SURE ONE WAS STARTED.

Q: AND THEN PROTECTING THE SCENE, EG, BANNER TAPE. DOES THAT MEAN THAT CRIME SCENE TAPE THAT WE SAW IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS YOU TALKED ABOUT?

A: YES.

Q: AND DID YOU MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS -- THAT WAS DONE?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: AND THAT THE TAPE WAS PLACED IN THE APPROPRIATE POSITION?

A: YES.

Q: AND IT SAYS "LOCATE ITEMS THAT COULD IDENTIFY THE SUSPECT OR SHOW HOW THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED"?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

Q: IT SAYS THAT? DO YOU SEE THAT ON THE MONITOR?

A: I TAKE THAT AS EVIDENCE, YES, AND WE DID THAT.

Q: OKAY. DO YOU KNOW HOW YOU CAN POSSIBLY DO THAT IF YOU DON'T CROSS THE CRIME SCENE TAPE AND LOOK AT THE CRIME SCENE?

A: NOT -- NO, NOT -- NOT THOROUGHLY, THAT IS FOR SURE.

Q: CAN YOU FLY?

A: NO.

Q: YOU'VE GOT A WALK ON YOUR FEET?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: AND IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THINGS LIKE FINGERPRINTS, IS THAT WHY THE CRIME SCENE TAPE IS PUT UP THERE?

A: THE CRIME SCENE TAPE IS PUT UP TO DISALLOW PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO ENTER THE CRIME SCENE.

Q: AND WHY DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT?

A: TO PROTECT THE EVIDENCE FROM ANY TYPE OF CONTAMINATION.

Q: AND DO YOU KNOW OF ANY WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE APPROPRIATE DISTANCE AROUND THE EVIDENCE IS PROTECTED -- LET ME SEE IF I CAN SAY THIS IN ENGLISH. DO YOU KNOW OF ANY WAY TO DETERMINE WHERE THE CRIME SCENE TAPE SHOULD BE PLACED WITHOUT LOOKING TO SEE WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS?

A: NO.

Q: WITH RESPECT TO LOCATE AND IDENTIFY WITNESSES, WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DID YOU ASCERTAIN WITH RESPECT TO THE ATTEMPT TO LOCATE AND IDENTIFY WITNESSES WHEN YOU WERE AT THE SCENE?

A: WHEN I ARRIVED I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WAS ONE TEAM OUT KNOCKING ON DOORS IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA TRYING TO GET POSSIBLE WITNESSES.

Q: NOW, WITH RESPECT TO ESTABLISHING THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME AND OTHER DETAILS AND COMPLETE THE NECESSARY REPORTS -- FIRST OF ALL, THE NECESSARY REPORTS. WHAT REPORTS?

MR. BAILEY: I OBJECT. SHE IS GOING AHEAD, YOUR HONOR. SHE OUGHT TO READ THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH AND NOT LEAVE OUT THE KEY WORDS.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. IT IS BEING DISPLAYED FOR THE JURORS. THEY CAN MAKE THEIR OWN DETERMINATION. MISS CLARK.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WITH RESPECT TO "COMPLETE THE NECESSARY REPORTS," WHAT KIND OF REPORT IS THE WATCH COMMANDER REQUIRED TO MAKE?

A: AT THE SCENE OF A HOMICIDE?

Q: UH-HUH.

A: THE CRIME SCENE LOG.

THE COURT: IS THAT YES?

MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY, YES. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I'M DOING IT.

Q: OKAY. THE CRIME SCENE LOG. ARE YOU REQUIRED TO FILL THAT OUT, SIR?

A: NO. I'M REQUIRED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS FILLED OUT.

Q: THAT SOMEONE IS DOING IT?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND DID YOU DO THAT?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: IS THERE ANY OTHER REPORT THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE?

A: NO.

Q: WITH RESPECT TO ESTABLISHING THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME AND OTHER DETAILS RELATING TO WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY AND HOW, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANS, WHAT KIND OF DUTY THAT IMPOSES ON THE WATCH COMMANDER AT A HOMICIDE SCENE?

A: THAT IS NOT GENERALLY WHAT THE WATCH COMMANDER DOES. THAT IS USUALLY LEFT UP TO THE RESPONDING DETECTIVES.

Q: NOW, THIS SECTION OVERALL, SIR, ENTITLED "GENERAL REPORTING INSTRUCTIONS," TELL US WHAT -- WHAT IS THIS? IS THIS A -- THIS IS A RULE BOOK YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW HARD AND FAST? DOES IT GOVERN EVERY DETAIL OF YOUR WORK, YOUR SPECIFIC WORK AS A WATCH COMMANDER ESPECIALLY?

A: NO, IT IS JUST WHAT THEY SAY. IT SAYS "GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS," A REFERENCE.

Q: AND IS THERE ANYTHING IN THESE SECTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO YOU BY COUNSEL THAT SPECIFICALLY REFERS TO WHAT YOUR DUTY AS A WATCH COMMANDER SHOULD BE AT A HOMICIDE SCENE?

A: OTHER THAN NOTIFYING THE RESPONDING DETECTIVES AND SECURING IT, NO.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MADAM REPORTER, WHY DON'T WE TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE PAPER.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.

THE COURT: MR. BAILEY.

MR. BAILEY: MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: CERTAINLY.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD AT THE BENCH:)

THE COURT: AT SIDE BAR.

MR. BAILEY: I RECALL, YOUR HONOR, FROM THE TIME THAT WE WERE APPROVING GRAPHICS BEFORE THE TRIAL BEGAN, A LARGE SKETCH DRAWING BY SOME ENGINEER, I GUESS, OF BUNDY TO ALLEY WALKWAY LAID OUT. MR. FAIRTLOUGH THOUGHT IT WAS UP IN THAT GROUP OF EXHIBITS; IT IS NOT. I SIMPLY WANTED TO ASK THE WITNESS AS A FINAL QUESTION WHETHER HE SAW THE FOOTPRINTS BY INDICATING ON THE DIAGRAM, IF IT EXISTS.

THE COURT: DO WE HAVE THAT EXHIBIT DOWN HERE?

MR. COCHRAN: IT HAS NOT MARKED YET, BUT IT IS HERE. IT WAS HERE.

MS. CLARK: COUNSEL IS FREE TO GET HIS OWN. I HAVEN'T MARKED IT AND I AM NOT USING IT WITH THIS WITNESS. I THINK WHAT COUNSEL IS REFERRING TO, IT IS AN OVERALL -- IT IS A -- IT IS ILLUSTRATIVE. IT IS NOT TO SCALE. IT IS SIMPLY AN AREA WHERE SHOEPRINTS -- I THINK SHOEPRINTS AND BLOOD DROPS ARE SHOWN. I'M NOT EVEN SURE WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT. I DON'T THINK THAT WAS COMPLETED ACTUALLY.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN WE HAVE A MINUTE TO TAKE A LOOK FOR IT? I THINK I CAN HELP HIM FIND IT.

MR. BAILEY: ARE WE GOING TO GO, AT ANY RATE, THROUGH TO 12:00?

THE COURT: LET ME TOSS THE JURORS IN THE BACK.

MR. COCHRAN: WHATEVER YOUR PLEASURE, BUT IT WILL ONLY TAKE A MINUTE. I KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT.

THE COURT: BEFORE YOU GUYS START FLIPPING STUFF AROUND, YOU KNOW, THE JURORS CAN SEE, LET ME TOSS THEM THIS BACK AND WE WILL DO THAT.

MS. CLARK: MAY I ASK ONE FAVOR, YOUR HONOR?

THE COURT: SURE.

MS. CLARK: DURING MY REDIRECT MR. BAILEY WAS BACK THERE TALKING TO JONATHAN FAIRTLOUGH AND DISTRACTING HIM WHEN HE NEEDS TO HELP ME.

THE COURT: WHICH IS WHY I ASKED HIM TO GO TAKE A SEAT.

MS. CLARK: PRIOR TO THAT I HAD ASKED COUNSEL TO SIT DOWN AND HE REFUSED.

MR. BAILEY: I WAS TRYING TO LOCATE AN EXHIBIT, AVOID THE DELAY WE NOW SUFFER.

MR. DARDEN: MAY I MAKE A REQUEST?

THE COURT: SURE.

MR. DARDEN: IT IS COMMON COURTESY THAT WE SHOW COUNSEL EXHIBITS BEFORE WE MARK THEM AND THAT HASN'T HAPPENED THIS MORNING. I THINK THAT IS A LITTLE UNFAIR. AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO THAT TO YOU GUYS.

THE COURT: ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE MANUAL PAGES?

MR. DARDEN: YEAH.

THE COURT: I NOTICED YOU HAD THE MANUAL THERE.

MR. DARDEN: SO IF HE IS GOING TO MARK SOMETHING, JUST LET US SEE IT BEFORE YOU EXHIBIT IT TO THE WITNESS.

THE COURT: MR. DARDEN, THE REASON I WASN'T REAL CONCERNED ABOUT THAT IS I NOTICE THAT YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE MANUAL AT COUNSEL TABLE.

MR. DARDEN: ALL 400 PAGES.

MS. CLARK: HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT.

THE COURT: I ASSUMED THAT YOU --

MS. CLARK: AT LEAST GIVE US A PAGE NUMBER.

MR. COCHRAN: BOTH SIDES HAVE DONE THIS AND WE DIDN'T GET PHOTOGRAPHS EITHER. WE ALWAYS WANT TO DO -- WE ALWAYS WANT TO DO THAT.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO STEP BACK IN THE JURY ROOM. THIS WILL BE FIVE MINUTES, PROMISE, SO YOU CAN JUST RELAX A LITTLE, STRETCH YOUR LEGS, USE THE FACILITIES THERE IF YOU NEED TO. I. NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT A FEW EXHIBITS OUT OF YOUR PRESENCE, SO ABOUT FIVE MINUTES. IF YOU WILL JUST STEP BACK INTO THE JURY ROOM, PLEASE.

(AT 11:24 A.M. THE JURY WAS EXCUSED AND THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

THE COURT: SERGEANT ROSSI, YOU CAN STEP DOWN THERE AND STRETCH YOUR LEGS.

MR. BAILEY: IF IT PLEASE THE COURT.

THE COURT: COUNSEL, DO YOU WANT TO PULL OUT THE EXHIBIT?

MR. BAILEY: 45-F, THEIR EXHIBIT. THE FACT THAT THEY HAVEN'T USED IT I DON'T THINK BARS MY USE.

MR. DARDEN: IF IT WAS MARKED 45-F IT HAS BEEN INTRODUCED.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. BAILEY: CAN WE LEARN FROM MR. FAIRTLOUGH IF IT EXISTS?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: YES, YOUR HONOR, HOWEVER, BUT THIS PARTICULAR DIAGRAM HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED BY THE PEOPLE WHETHER OR NOT IT WILL BE USED BY THE WITNESS SO IT HAS NOT BEEN MARKED.

THE COURT: DO WE HAVE IT HERE IN THE COURTROOM?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: WE DON'T HAVE IT HERE.

MR. HARRIS: THE ENTIRE BUNDY AND CONDO AND ONE WALKWAY TO THE OTHER WALKWAY.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. IS IT HERE IN THE COURTROOM?

MR. DARDEN: WE WILL SELL IT TO THEM, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I'M SURE YOU WILL. IS IT HERE IN THE COURTROOM? SIMPLE QUESTION. YES OR NO.

MS. CLARK: NO.

THE COURT: NOT IN THE COURTROOM.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MR. BAILEY: I HAVE SEEN IT IN THIS COURTROOM.

MR. DARDEN: WE MODIFY THESE BOARDS FROM TIME TO TIME BEFORE WE PRESENT THEM. I HAVE NO IDEA OF WHAT BOARD THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT AND I HAVEN'T APPROVED THE USE OF THE BOARD. IF THEY WANT TO PAY FOR THE BOARD --

THE COURT: NO, WE DON'T.

MS. CLARK: WHAT COUNSEL REFERS TO IS BEING WORKED ON. IT HASN'T BEEN COMPLETED. IT IS -- IT IS IN THE PROCESS OF HAVING PHOTOGRAPHS ADDED.

THE COURT: WELL, SIMPLE QUESTION. IT IS NOT HERE, CORRECT?

MS. CLARK: CORRECT.

MR. BAILEY: IT WAS COMPLETED WHEN I SAW IT.

MS. CLARK: NO.

MR. BAILEY: AT LEAST FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO USE IT WITH THIS WITNESS.

THE COURT: WELL, MR. BAILEY, IT IS NOT HERE, AND WE ARE GOING TO FINISH, I HOPE.

MR. BAILEY: ALL RIGHT. MAY WE SUSPEND THIS WITNESS UNTIL WE HAVE A CHANCE TO OBTAIN THE DOCUMENT? I WOULD LIKE HIM TO SHOW WHERE THESE MIGRANT FOOTPRINTS WERE LOCATED.

THE COURT: I ASSUME THAT THE DEFENSE ALSO HAS THEIR OWN SCALE DRAWING OF THE SCENE AVAILABLE TO THEM OR WE CAN ASK ONE OF THE T.V. STATIONS FOR THEIR 3-D MOCK-UPS OF THE CRIME SCENE.

MR. BAILEY: I THINK WE SO ADMIRED THE PROSECUTION'S HANDIWORK WE HAD CHOSEN TO RELY ON IT.

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, WE TURNED OVER --

THE COURT: COUNSEL, I ASSUME BOTH SIDES HAVE A SCALE DRAWING ACCESSIBLE TO THEM. IF YOURS WAS AVAILABLE IMMEDIATELY AND THERE WAS NO OBJECTION, WE WOULD USE YOURS. YOURS ISN'T HERE. WE WILL PROCEED. ALL RIGHT. HAVE WE GIVEN THE JURORS FIVE MINUTES?

MR. DARDEN: I THINK WE STILL HAVE TWO MINUTES LEFT, DON'T WE?

THE COURT: LOOKS THAT WAY.

MR. DARDEN: I WILL TAKE MY TWO MINUTES, YOUR HONOR.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY HIGGINS, LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE.

MR. BAILEY: IF IT PLEASES THE COURT, I WILL ASK TO SUSPEND THIS WITNESS AND NOT EXCUSE HIM.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET'S FINISH WITH HIM, WHAT WE CAN DO.

MR. BAILEY: THAT IS THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD LEFT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. BAILEY: SO I HAVE NO RECROSS WITHOUT THE EXHIBIT AND I INFORMED THE COURT THAT ACCORDING TO --

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, HAVE A SEAT, PLEASE. WE ARE STILL MISSING ONE JUROR. SERGEANT, WHY DON'T YOU RETAKE THE WITNESS STAND, PLEASE.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE NOW BEEN REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. MR. BAILEY, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU NEED AN EXHIBIT AND THAT YOU HAVE CONCLUDED WITH THIS WITNESS UNTIL WE HAVE THAT EXHIBIT?

MR. BAILEY: I HAVE BEEN SAVED BY CO-COUNSEL, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. PROCEED.

MR. BAILEY: I AM ABOUT TO MARK AS DEFENSE I THINK 1016 --

THE COURT: 1015.

(DEFT'S 1015 FOR ID = SCHEMATIC DRAWING/875 S. BUNDY)

MR. BAILEY: LET THE RECORD SHOW I AM SHOWING COUNSEL WHAT WILL BECOME 1016 IDENTIFIED.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DEFENSE 1015.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. BAILEY:

Q: SERGEANT ROSSI, AS YOU LOOK AT DEFENSE 1015 FOR IDENTIFICATION, ARE YOU ABLE TO RECOGNIZE THIS OVERHEAD SKETCH OF THE FLOORPLAN OF 875 BUNDY?

A: NO.

Q: ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE ANY PART OF THAT SKETCH THAT PURPORTS TO SET FORTH THE WALKWAY THAT YOU ENTERED FROM THE ALLEY THAT MORNING?

A: YOU WOULD HAVE TO POINT IT OUT, SIR. I CAN'T READ SCHEMATICS VERY WELL.

MR. BAILEY: FINE. WOULD YOU PUT AN ARROW, PLEASE, ON THE ALLEY ENTRANCE TO THE WALKWAY.

Q: YOU WILL RECALL, SERGEANT, THAT YOU SAID IT WAS ADJACENT TO THE GARAGE?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU SEE THE GARAGE?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU RECOGNIZE BUNDY IN THAT SKETCH?

A: OKAY. NOW, I DO WHEN YOU MOVED IT, YES.

Q: OKAY. CAN YOU POINT OUT TO US ON THAT SKETCH THE FRONT GATE REPRESENTED BY AN ARC, I BELIEVE?

A: NO.

MR. BAILEY: MR. HARRIS, WOULD YOU CIRCLE THE FRONT GATE, PLEASE.

Q: DO YOU SEE THE RED CROSS, SERGEANT?

A: YES, I DO.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. INCORRECT. INCORRECT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MR. BAILEY: STRIKE IT OUT AND DO IT AGAIN.

MS. CLARK: THAT IS THE PROBLEM. WE NEED THE WITNESS TO TESTIFY; NOT MR. HARRIS.

MR. BAILEY: I WANT MR. HARRIS TO INDICATE, FOR PURPOSES OF CROSS-EXAMINATION, A POINT AND ASK THE WITNESS --

THE COURT: COUNSEL, YOU NEEDN'T TALK TO EACH OTHER. YOU NEED TO TALK TO ME ABOUT THIS.

MR. BAILEY: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: MR. HARRIS, DO YOU HAVE AN ARROW? THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT SPOT, SERGEANT?

A: NO, SIR, I DON'T.

Q: OKAY.

A: THAT IS A SCHEMATIC, SIR.

Q: WHAT IS THAT?

A: THAT IS A SCHEMATIC.

Q: THAT'S CORRECT.

A: I HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS BEFORE.

Q: I UNDERSTAND, BUT YOU WERE ON THE SCENE, RIGHT?

A: I WAS ON THE SCENE, YES.

Q: ARE YOU ABLE TO DERIVE FROM THAT EXPERIENCE ENOUGH MEMORY TO PLACE YOURSELF ON THE SCHEMATIC?

A: NO, NOT THE SCHEMATIC.

MR. BAILEY: OKAY. WOULD YOU PLEASE PLACE AN INDICATOR ON THE REAR GATE OF THAT SCHEMATIC, DEFENSE 1015.

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: NO, COUNSEL. HOLD ON.

MS. CLARK: CAN WE HAVE THE WITNESS -- THERE SHOULD BE A QUESTION AT LEAST POSED OF THE WITNESS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT HE --

MR. BAILEY: HE IS WAITING, YOUR HONOR, AT YOUR DIRECTION.

THE COURT: PROCEED, COUNSEL.

MR. BAILEY: OKAY. WOULD YOU LOCATE THE ARROW AT THE REAR OF THE GATE ON THE SCHEMATIC.

Q: SERGEANT ROSSI, DO YOU RECOGNIZE ON THE SCHEMATIC THAT PLACE?

A: NO, BUT IF YOU TELL ME THAT IS THE REAR GATE, I WILL BELIEVE YOU.

Q: I DON'T WANT YOU TO TAKE ANYTHING FOR GRANTED. DO YOU SEE WHAT PURPORTS TO BE STEPS, UP AND DOWN STEPS?

A: THAT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE STEPS TO ME, SIR.

Q: DID YOU GO DOWN ANY STEPS THAT NIGHT WHEN YOU ENTER THE ALLEY EITHER WITH PHILLIPS OR WITH RISKE?

A: YES.

Q: OKAY. AND AFTER YOU WENT DOWN THE STEPS DID YOU THEN GO UP SOME STEPS?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEN DID YOU DESCEND A SECOND SET OF STEPS?

A: I DON'T RECALL.

Q: CAN YOU TELL US, WITH RESPECT TO THE STEPS THAT YOU WENT DOWN AND THEN UP, WHERE YOU SAW WHAT YOU THOUGHT WERE TWO BLOODY FOOTPRINTS?

A: IF THAT IS THE WALKWAY, I SAW THE FOOTPRINTS APPROXIMATELY HALFWAY DOWN THE WALKWAY TOWARDS BUNDY.

Q: ALL RIGHT. DO YOU SEE THE SCALE ON THE BOTTOM SHOWING IT IS 170 FEET?

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. THAT IS -- THAT MISSTATES WHAT IS ON THE DIAGRAM.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

MS. CLARK: 170 FEET OUT TO BUNDY.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. THE JURY CAN SEE THE SAME THING.

THE WITNESS: YES, I DO SEE THAT.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: OKAY. NOW, CAN YOU LOCATE YOURSELF, WITH RESPECT TO THE STEPS THAT YOU WENT DOWN AND THEN UP, AND TELL US WHERE PRECISELY YOU SAW THESE FOOTPRINTS, SERGEANT ROSSI?

A: ABOUT HALF WAY DOWN THAT WALKWAY, SIR.

Q: WITH RESPECT TO THE STEPS?

A: ABOUT 50 FEET FROM THOSE STEPS.

Q: THE DOWN STEPS OR THE UP STEPS?

A: THE ONES BY THE GATE, CLOSEST TO THE GATE.

Q: ALL RIGHT. 50 FEET FROM THE STEPS GOING DOWN NEAR THE REAR GATE?

A: NEAREST THE REAR GATE.

Q: YOU SAW BLOODY FOOTPRINTS?

A: AS I RECALL, YES.

Q: OKAY. SO I TAKE IT THEN THAT YOU SAW THE FOOTPRINTS BEFORE YOU PROCEEDED UP THE STEPS YOU HAVE JUST TOLD US YOU CLIMBED?

A: NO, I DIDN'T.

Q: OKAY. THEN YOU SEE A VERY BRIEF LEVEL AREA BETWEEN THE SECOND SET OF STEPS AND THE THIRD SET AS YOU WALK FROM THE ALLEY TOWARD BUNDY?

A: IF THAT IS WHAT THAT IS.

Q: WELL, ASSUMING THAT IS WHAT IT IS, IS THAT WHERE THE FOOTPRINTS WERE?

A: (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

MS. CLARK: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. THIS WITNESS --

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: I CAN'T ACCURATELY TESTIFY TO THAT, SIR, OFF THE SCHEMATIC. I'M SORRY.

Q: BY MR. BAILEY: YOU SAW THEM TWICE THAT MORNING?

A: YES.

Q: THEY WERE POINTED OUT AND YOU DISCOVERED THEM WITH OFFICER RISKE?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

Q: AND THEN YOU TOOK DETECTIVE PHILLIPS SO COULD YOU POINT THEM OUT TO HIM?

A: YES.

Q: ARE YOU TODAY UNABLE TO LOCATE THOSE FOOTPRINTS ON THIS SCHEMATIC?

A: IF I WAS AT THE SCENE I WOULDN'T. I WOULD BE ABLE TO, BUT NOT OFF THE SCHEMATIC.

Q: YOU CANNOT LOCATE, WITH RESPECT TO THE STEPS, WHERE YOU SAW FOOTPRINTS?

A: NOT ACCURATELY. ALL I RECALL IS, IS THAT THEY WERE APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET FROM THE GATE AS YOU ENTERED THAT WALKWAY GOING TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.

Q: WOULD 50 FEET FROM THE GATE BE TO A SET OF STEPS OR DID YOU SEE THEM ON LEVEL GROUND?

A: IT WAS LEVEL GROUND.

Q: BUT YOU ARE UNABLE TO TELL US WHICH LEVEL SEGMENT OF THAT WALKWAY IS WHAT YOU HAVE IN MIND?

A: THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. BAILEY: THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, ANYTHING ON THAT ISSUE?

MS. CLARK: NO, YOUR HONOR, NOTHING FURTHER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SERGEANT ROSSI, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU ARE HOW EXCUSED AS A WITNESS. I'M GOING TO DIRECT YOU NOT TO DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY WITH ANYBODY ELSE UNTIL THE CASE HAS BEEN CONCLUDED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.

MR. BAILEY: YOUR HONOR, WE WOULD LIKE THE WITNESS NOT TO BE EXCUSED.

THE COURT: HE IS AN LAPD OFFICER. HE IS AVAILABLE. WE KNOW WHERE TO FIND HIM. THANK YOU, SERGEANT. NEXT WITNESS.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE PEOPLE CALL DETECTIVE RON PHILLIPS.

(BRIEF PAUSE.)

RONALD PHILLIPS, CALLED AS A WITNESS BY THE PEOPLE, 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.

THE WITNESS: I DO.

THE CLERK: PLEASE HAVE A SEAT ON THE WITNESS STAND AND STATE AND SPELL YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAMES FOR THE RECORD.

THE WITNESS: RONALD PHILLIPS. R-O-N-A-L-D, PHILLIPS, P-H-I-L-L-I-P-S.

THE CLERK: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: MISS CLARK.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. CLARK:

Q: GOOD MORNING, SIR.

A: GOOD MORNING.

Q: WILL YOU PLEASE TELL US WHAT YOU DO FOR A LIVING.

A: I'M A POLICE OFFICER FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES CURRENTLY ASSIGNED TO WEST LOS ANGELES DETECTIVES WHERE I WORK THE HOMICIDE UNIT.

Q: NOW, HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN ASSIGNED TO THAT PARTICULAR JOB?

A: I HAVE BEEN A DETECTIVE SINCE 1978. I WORKED WEST LOS ANGELES DETECTIVES SINCE 1989 AND I HAVE WORKED THE HOMICIDE UNIT THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF.

Q: NOW, CAN YOU TELL US, SIR, WHAT ARE YOUR DUTIES AS A HOMICIDE DETECTIVE?

A: WELL, I'M A HOMICIDE COORDINATOR IS WHAT I AM. I SUPERVISE A HOMICIDE UNIT. MY RESPONSIBILITIES ARE AS SOON AS A HOMICIDE OCCURS IN THE WEST LOS ANGELES AREA, I AM NOTIFIED BY THE WATCH COMMANDER OR BY MY COMMANDING OFFICER, WHO WOULD BE LIEUTENANT SPANGLER, THAT A HOMICIDE HAS OCCURRED AND REQUEST THAT I ROLL TO THE SCENE. I WILL THEN MAKE THE DETERMINATION ON HOW MANY OTHER DETECTIVES OUT MY HOMICIDE UNIT WILL ROLL TO THAT CRIME SCENE AND THEN I WILL ASSIGN THAT CRIME SCENE TO A PARTICULAR DETECTIVE OR TEAM OF DETECTIVES TO HANDLE IT. I DO NOT INVESTIGATE THE HOMICIDES MYSELF.

Q: DID YOU AT ONE TIME?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHEN WAS THAT?

A: THE FIRST HOMICIDE I EVER INVESTIGATED WAS BACK IN 1970 IN RAMPART DIVISION AND I WENT ON LOAN TO ROBBERY/HOMICIDE DIVISION AND WORKED A MAJOR OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTING WHERE A LOS ANGELES POLICE OFFICER WAS KILLED. I HAVE WORKED SOME HOMICIDE IN NORTHEAST, 77TH AND HARBOR DIVISION.

Q: OKAY. HOW LONG?

A: I HAVE ALSO WORKED SEVERAL HOMICIDES IN RELATIONSHIP TO WORKING AS A ROBBERY DETECTIVE OR VICTIMS OF STORES OR SUSPECTS IN THE COMMISSION OF ROBBERIES WERE KILLED IN THESE ROBBERIES AND I EITHER INDIRECTLY OR DIRECTLY WAS INVOLVED IN THOSE HOMICIDE INVESTIGATIONS AS A ROBBERY DETECTIVE.

Q: HOW LONG WERE YOU A ROBBERY DETECTIVE?

A: SINCE 1978 I HAVE BEEN A ROBBERY DETECTIVE PROBABLY 75, 80 PERCENT OF THE TIME.

Q: YOU HAVE BEEN A POLICE OFFICER FOR HOW LONG?

A: 28 YEARS.

Q: WITH LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?

A: YES.

Q: HOW MUCH OF THAT TIME HAS BEEN SPENT IN WEST LOS ANGELES?

A: AS I SAID, I WENT TO WEST LOS ANGELES DIVISION IN FEBRUARY OF 1989.

Q: NOW, AS OF JUNE 12, 1994, WHAT WAS YOUR ASSIGNMENT?

A: I WAS A WEST LOS ANGELES HOMICIDE COORDINATOR. I WAS ALSO THE WEST LOS ANGELES MAC COORDINATOR, WHICH IS A MAJOR ASSAULT CRIME TABLE THAT WE ALSO HAVE THAT DEALS WITH CRIMES LESS THAN ACTUAL HOMICIDES. I WAS WILL IN CHARGE OF THE CAPS UNIT WHICH WAS A CRIME AGAINST PERSONS UNIT AND I WAS ALSO IN CHARGE OF THE SEX CRIME UNIT. I WORE THREE HATS AT ONE TIME.

Q: HOW MANY HOURS A DAY DID YOU WORK?

A: A LOT.

Q: NOW, THE MAC UNIT THAT YOU DESCRIBED, MAJOR --

A: MAJOR ASSAULT CRIMES. THAT HAS TO DO WITH SPOUSAL ABUSE, SPOUSAL CRIMES, ADW'S, BATTERIES, THREATENING PHONE CALLS, THINGS LIKE THAT THAT BASICALLY HAVE TO DO WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

Q: BY "ADW" YOU MEAN?

A: ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON, I'M SORRY.

Q: AND FOR HOW LONG -- ALL RIGHT. DO YOU CONTINUE TO FULFILL ALL THOSE THREE FUNCTIONS?

A: NO, I DON'T. THE ONLY FUNCTION I HAVE TODAY IS AS THE WEST LOS ANGELES HOMICIDE COORDINATOR.

Q: DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION, SIR, TO THE DATE OF JUNE 13, 1994, DID YOU GET WOKEN UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT?

A: I WAS WOKEN UP ABOUT ONE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING ON JUNE 13 BY A SERGEANT ROSSI.

Q: AND WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT PHONE CALL?

A: HE INFORMED ME THAT THERE HAD BEEN A DOUBLE HOMICIDE IN WEST LOS ANGELES DIVISION, THAT IT HAD OCCURRED AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY, THAT THERE WAS A FEMALE AND I BELIEVE A MALE IS WHAT HE TOLD ME, VICTIMS, AND THAT PRELIMINARILY HE THOUGHT THAT MAYBE THE FEMALE WAS THE EX-WIFE OR WIFE OF O.J. SIMPSON.

Q: DID HE TELL YOU THAT WAS CONFIRMED OR --

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION TO ANYTHING FURTHER. THAT WAS PRELIMINARY. I OBJECT. HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: UPON HANGING UP WITH SERGEANT ROSSI, DID YOU -- WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: UPON HANGING UP I THEN CALLED DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN, WHO WAS IN THE WEST L.A. HOMICIDE UNIT, INFORMED HIM OF WHAT I HAD BEEN TOLD AND REQUESTED THAT HE RESPOND TO WEST L.A. STATION WHERE I WOULD MEET HIM AND WE WOULD TRAVEL TO THE LOCATION TOGETHER.

Q: AND DID YOU IMMEDIATELY ATTEMPT TO NOTIFY MR. SIMPSON OF THE MURDERS THAT YOU HAD JUST HEARD ABOUT?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: WHY NOT?

A: WELL, I HAD NO INTENTIONS OF NOTIFYING MR. SIMPSON. I HAD NO IDEA HE WAS INVOLVED OR ANYTHING ABOUT MR. SIMPSON AT THAT TIME. ALL I WAS TOLD IS IT WAS A POSSIBILITY THAT A FEMALE AT THAT LOCATION MAY OR MAY NOT BE HIS WIFE OR EX-WIFE. I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T MAKE A PHONE CALL AT THAT TIME LIKE THAT.

Q: YOU WOULD WANT TO BE SURE FIRST?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT. COUNSEL IS TESTIFYING.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WOULD YOU WANT TO BE SURE?

MR. COCHRAN: MOVE TO STRIKE.

THE COURT: SHE HAS WITHDRAWN THE QUESTION AND ASKING A NEW QUESTION. PROCEED.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.

Q: WOULD YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE OF WHO THE VICTIM WAS FIRST BEFORE YOU MADE NOTIFICATION?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. SO AFTER YOU CALLED DETECTIVE FUHRMAN, WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: I THEN CALLED A DETECTIVE BRAD ROBERTS WHO ALSO WORKS WEST LOS ANGELES DETECTIVES IN THE HOMICIDE UNIT. I INFORMED HIM OF THE SITUATION THAT I HAD JUST BEEN INFORMED OF AND ASKED THAT HE RESPOND TO WEST L.A. STATION AND PICK UP HIS UNIT AND MEET ME AT THE LOCATION ALSO.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER THAT?

A: I THEN ALSO NOTIFIED -- I BELIEVE I MIGHT HAVE DONE THIS ON MY CELLULAR PHONE ENROUTE TO THE STATION -- I ALSO NOTIFIED TOM NOLAN WHO IS A WEST L.A. HOMICIDE DETECTIVE. I BELIEVE I NOTIFIED TOM NOLAN AFTER I MADE THREE OTHER ATTEMPTS TO NOTIFY THREE OTHER DETECTIVES WHO WERE NOT AVAILABLE, AND THEN I NOTIFIED TOM NOLAN AND HE SAID HE WOULD MEET DETECTIVE ROBERTS EITHER AT THE STATION OR AT THE SCENE, DEPENDING ON WHAT TIME THEY GOT IN THERE TOGETHER.

Q: AND YOU GOT TO THE STATION?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: WHO ELSE WAS THERE OF THE PEOPLE YOU HAD NOTIFIED WHEN YOU GOT TO THE STATION?

A: WHEN I FIRST ARRIVED THERE WAS NOBODY THERE.

Q: YOU WERE THE ONLY ONE?

A: WELL, I MEAN THERE WAS POLICEMEN IN THE STATION BUT NONE OF MY DETECTIVES WERE THERE.

Q: DID SOMEONE EVENTUALLY SHOW UP OF THE PEOPLE YOU CALLED?

A: YES. WITHIN ABOUT FIVE MINUTES AFTER I ARRIVED DETECTIVE FUHRMAN SHOWED UP.

Q: AND ABOUT WHAT TIME WAS THAT?

A: I WOULD SAY IT WAS ABOUT 1:50 IN THE MORNING BECAUSE WE SPENT MAYBE FIVE OR TEN MINUTES INSIDE THE STATION GETTING STUFF READY. I TALKED TO A COUPLE OF OFFICERS AT THE DESK AND THEN WE ROLLED OUT TO THE LOCATION.

Q: NOW, DID YOU GO ALONE OR DID YOU GO TOGETHER?

A: I WENT TO 875 SOUTH BUNDY ALONG WITH DETECTIVE FUHRMAN.

Q: OKAY. DID YOU RIDE IN THE SAME CAR TOGETHER, YOU AND HE?

A: YES. I DROVE AND HE WAS A PASSENGER.

Q: OKAY. WHEN YOU GOT TO THE LOCATION OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY, WHERE DID YOU PARK?

A: I DROVE UP BUNDY AVENUE. I MADE A RIGHT TURN ON DOROTHY BECAUSE I NOTICED THERE WERE SEVERAL POLICE CARS INSIDE THE -- IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET. THERE WAS YELLOW TAPE ACROSS BUNDY AVENUE RIGHT AT DOROTHY, SO I MADE A RIGHT TURN AND PARKED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF DOROTHY JUST EAST OF BUNDY.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: TWO, PLEASE. HIS IS PEOPLE'S 51, YOUR HONOR.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SHOWING YOU PEOPLE'S 51, SIR, DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT WE ARE SHOWING YOU HERE?

A: YES. THAT IS THE INTERSECTION OF DOROTHY AND BUNDY.

Q: CAN YOU TELL US WHICH IS DOROTHY AND WHICH IS BUNDY?

A: THE POLICE CARS THAT ARE FACING -- THE TWO POLICE CARS FACING IN ONE DIRECTION WITH THE LIGHTS ON THE POLICE CAR IS BUNDY. DOROTHY IS WHERE THIS CAR AT THE LOWER PART OF THE PICTURE IS FACING.

Q: OKAY. NOW, THE POLICE CAR AND THE BROWN CAR, ARE THEY -- WHICH DIRECTION ARE THEY FACING ON BUNDY?

A: NORTHBOUND.

Q: AND THE CAR IN THE FOREGROUND OF THIS PHOTOGRAPH IS FACING IN WHICH DIRECTION ON DOROTHY?

A: IT APPEARS TO BE FACING SOMEWHAT EASTBOUND ON DOROTHY.

Q: AND IF YOU COULD ORIENT YOURSELF WITH RESPECT TO THIS PHOTOGRAPH, TELL US WHERE YOU PARKED THE CAR.

A: IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, I THINK I PARKED MY CAR, IT WOULD BE FURTHER EAST OF THE CAR THAT IS PARKED IN THE FOREGROUND OF THIS PICTURE.

Q: ON DOROTHY?

A: ON DOROTHY.

Q: AND ON THAT SAME SIDE OF THE STREET; IS THAT CORRECT?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU DO AFTER THAT?

A: I EXITED THE CAR, WALKED OVER TO THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET WHERE I MET WITH SERGEANT DAVE ROSSI.

Q: AND WHERE WAS IT YOU MET WITH SERGEANT ROSSI?

A: HE WAS STANDING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET AT DOROTHY AND BUNDY MORE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DOROTHY, BUT STILL IN THE INTERSECTION OF DOROTHY AND BUNDY RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET.

Q: CAN YOU TELL US, DETECTIVE, FOR A MOMENT, WHAT IS SERGEANT ROSSI'S RESPONSIBILITY THERE?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR, AS IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. BRIEFLY.

THE WITNESS: WELL, SERGEANT ROSSI IS AN AWC, WHICH IS AN ASSISTANT WATCH COMMANDER. HE -- IN THE ABSENCE OF A LIEUTENANT HE IS IN CHARGE OF WHATEVER WATCH HE HAPPENS TO BE WORKING, WHICH MEANS THAT HE IS THE HIGHEST RANKING OFFICIAL THAT IS WORKING ON THAT WATCH. HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE POLICE OFFICERS, DESK PERSONNEL, JAIL FUNCTIONS. ANYTHING THAT GOES ON IN THAT STATION DURING HIS WATCH HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR. I THINK THAT HIS REASONING FOR BEING OUT THERE --

THE COURT: WAIT.

MR. COCHRAN: MOVE TO STRIKE THE LATTER PART.

THE COURT: HIS REASONING FOR BEING OUT THERE IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION.

MS. CLARK: OKAY.

Q: SO WHAT ARE HIS RESPONSIBILITIES AT THE CRIME SCENE?

MR. COCHRAN: AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, THIS IS 352.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: WELL, HIS RESPONSIBILITY AT THE CRIME SCENE WOULD BE TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE THAT CRIME SCENE UNTIL WE ARRIVE, THE DETECTIVES WHO WERE GOING TO TAKE OVER THAT INVESTIGATION AND TAKE OVER THAT CRIME SCENE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: AND IS IT HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE AND CALL THE CORONER, CALL THE PHOTOGRAPHER AND THE CRIMINALIST?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THE FORM OF THIS QUESTION. THIS QUESTION IS COMPOUND, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MS. CLARK: I WAS TRYING TO PUT IT ALL INTO ONE.

THE COURT: I KNOW. THERE IS AN OBJECTION AND IT IS WELL-TAKEN. SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: IS IT HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO CALL FOR THE CRIMINALIST TO ARRIVE AND EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE?

A: NO.

Q: IS IT HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT THE EVIDENCE IS COLLECTED?

A: NO.

Q: IS IT HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT A PHOTOGRAPHER IS CALLED?

A: NO.

Q: IS IT HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO DIRECT THE PHOTOGRAPHER IN WHAT TO TAKE PICTURES OF?

A: NO.

Q: IS IT HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO NOTIFY THE CORONER?

A: NO.

Q: IS IT HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO SUPERVISE WHAT YOU DO AND DETERMINE WHEN AND HOW YOU SHOULD CALL THE CORONER?

A: NO, IT IS NOT.

Q: WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY ARE THOSE THINGS?

A: ALL THE FUNCTIONS YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT ARE THE DETECTIVE WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THAT INVESTIGATION RESPONSIBILITY.

Q: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE TERM "INVESTIGATING OFFICER"?

A: YES.

Q: AND HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM THE TERM "WATCH COMMANDER"?

A: WELL, IT IS TWO -- TWO COMPLETE SEPARATE FUNCTIONS. THE WATCH COMMANDER IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS; IT IS A WATCH COMMANDER. HE COMMANDS THAT ENTIRE WATCH, WHATEVER THAT WATCH HAPPENS TO BE. AN INVESTIGATING OFFICER IS A PERSON WHO IS ASSIGNED TO A PARTICULAR CRIME OR A PARTICULAR INVESTIGATION THAT HAS TO DO WITH A CRIME. THAT IS HIS SOLE RESPONSIBILITY AS THE INVESTIGATION OF THAT CRIME. HE IS THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER. HE IS -- THE OTHER PERSON IS A WATCH COMMANDER OF AN ENTIRE WATCH.

Q: AND WHEN YOU SAY HE WATCHES THE ENTIRE COMMAND, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

A: WELL, HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING THAT OCCURS ON HIS WATCH. HE HANDLES ROLL CALLS, HE HANDLES END OF WATCHES, HE REVIEWS REPORTS, APPROVES BOOKINGS, MAKES JAIL CHECKS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE JAIL IS BEING RUN ADEQUATELY, SEES THAT PROPERTY IS BOOKED PROPERLY. IF THERE IS A SITUATION THAT WARRANTS HE GO OUT BECAUSE IT IS A MAJOR OCCURRENCE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEN HE HAS TO GO OUT AND SEE WHAT IT IS BECAUSE HE IS GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE TO NOTIFY THE NEXT CHAIN OF COMMAND.

Q: AND THAT IS HIS RESPONSIBILITY, IS TO NOTIFY THE NEXT CHAIN OF COMMAND?

MR. COCHRAN: ASKED AND ANSWERED, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED.

THE WITNESS: IF THE SITUATION DICTATES IT, THEN HE WILL NOTIFY THE NEXT CHAIN OF COMMAND UP AND KEEP ON GOING.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: SO WITH RESPECT TO THE DUTIES OF A WATCH COMMANDER AT A HOMICIDE SCENE, WHAT ARE THOSE DUTIES?

A: I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THAT?

Q: WHAT ARE THE DUTIES OF A WATCH COMMANDER AT THE SCENE OF A HOMICIDE?

A: HIS DUTIES?

MR. COCHRAN: DEPENDS. I THINK THAT IS -- THERE IS A LOT OF FACTS. THIS DEPENDS. ARE THE DETECTIVES THERE NOW? HE CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

MS. CLARK: I WILL MAKE IT MORE SPECIFIC, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: BRIEFLY.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: PRIOR TO THE ARRIVAL OF DETECTIVES, WHAT ARE THE DUTIES OF A WATCH COMMANDER AT THE SCENE OF A HOMICIDE?

A: WELL, HIS DUTIES WOULD JUST BE TO SEE THAT HIS PERSONNEL, WHOEVER IS AT THAT CRIME SCENE, DID THEIR JOB IN AN ADEQUATE MANNER. HE WOULD GO OUT THERE AND LOOK AT IT AND SAY, WELL, I THINK IT IS DONE RIGHT OR THIS IS WHAT YOU GUYS NEED TO IMPROVE ON OR THIS HASN'T BEEN DONE CORRECTLY AND IMPROVE THIS. BASICALLY TO OVERSEE WHAT HIS PEOPLE ARE DOING, TO SEE WHAT HE HAS, SO WHEN HE MAKES A NOTIFICATION TO ME, HE HAS SOME IDEA OF WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT. WHEN HE MAKES NOTIFICATION TO THE NEXT LEVEL, HE HAS SOME IDEA WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT.

Q: AND WHAT WITH RESPECT TO SECURING THE SCENE IS HIS DUTY?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT TO THIS. THIS IS ALL REDUNDANT, CUMULATIVE, 352.

THE COURT: WE ARE GETTING CLOSE.

MS. CLARK: ONE LAST ONE.

THE COURT: WE ARE GETTING CLOSE.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WITH RESPECT TO SECURING THE CRIME SCENES, WHAT ARE HIS DUTIES?

A: WELL, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THE CRIME SCENE HAS ALREADY BEEN SECURED BY THE TIME HE GOT THERE. IT WOULD BE SECURED BY THE PATROL OFFICERS AND THE FIELD SUPERVISORS THAT HAVE ALREADY ARRIVED MUCH HIT FUNG OR HIS RESPONSIBILITY, IF HE WENT OUT THERE, WOULD JUST BE TO OVERSEE IT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT HE EXPECTS OF HIS FIELD SUPERVISORS AND HIS FIELD FORCES WAS ADEQUATELY DONE. AND IF HE SAW SOMETHING THAT WASN'T DONE, BRING IT TO THEIR ATTENTION AS A TRAINING EXERCISE, MAYBE SO IT WOULDN'T OCCUR IN THE FUTURE.

Q: AND KEEP PEOPLE OUT OF THE CRIME SCENE THAT DON'T BELONG THERE?

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT, YOUR HONOR, LEADING.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

MR. COCHRAN: SUGGESTIVE, 352.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED OPEN THE LEADING.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: WHAT ARE HIS DUTIES WITH RESPECT TO ALLOWING -- WHO TO ALLOW INSIDE THE CRIME SCENE?

MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, 352 AGAIN, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OVERRULED. LAST QUESTION.

THE WITNESS: HIS RESPONSIBILITIES OF ALLOWING ANYBODY INTO THE CRIME SCENE? I WOULD ASSUME BY THE TIME HE GOT THERE THAT CRIME SCENE WOULD HAVE BEEN SEALED OFF, AND WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MAYBE HIMSELF GOING THROUGH THAT CRIME SCENE TO ACTUALLY SEE WHAT WAS THERE, I WOULD ASSUME THAT HE WOULD NOT ALLOW ANYBODY ELSE INTO THAT CRIME SCENE OTHER THAN WHO HAD ALREADY BEEN IN THERE PRIOR TO HIS ARRIVAL.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: NOW, WHEN YOU GOT TO THE LOCATION OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY ON THE NIGHT OF JUNE -- IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE THE 13TH, SIR, DID YOU SEE CRIME SCENE TAPE?

A: YES, I DID.

Q: IT WAS ALREADY UP?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: DO YOU SEE THAT IN THE PHOTOGRAPH MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 51?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: AND WAS -- DOES THAT -- DOES THAT TAPE APPEAR TO BE BLOCKING OFF THE TRAFFIC ON BUNDY?

A: YES, IT IS.

Q: WAS IT BLOCKED OFF WHEN YOU GOT THERE?

A: YES, IT WAS. BOTH NORTH AND SOUTHBOUND TRAFFIC HAD BEEN BLOCKED OFF.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: YOUR HONOR, THIS IS EXHIBIT 38.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU RECOGNIZE WHAT IS SHOWN IN P-38, SIR?

A: YES. THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE REAR OF 875 SOUTH BUNDY. I BELIEVE -- WE ARE STANDING ON DOROTHY AVENUE LOOKING NORTHBOUND THROUGH THE ALLEY AT THE REAR OF THAT LOCATION.

Q: AND DO YOU SEE THE CRIME SCENE TAPE THERE?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: AND WAS IT IN THAT POSITION WHEN YOU APPEARED ON THE -- IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS OF JUNE THE 13TH?

A: YES, IT WAS.

Q: WERE THERE OTHER POLICE OFFICERS AND POLICE CARS THERE WHEN YOU ARRIVED?

A: YES, THERE WERE SEVERAL.

Q: WHAT TIME WAS IT THAT YOU AND DETECTIVE FUHRMAN ARRIVED AT 875 SOUTH BUNDY?

A: I ARRIVED AT THAT LOCATION AT 2:10 IN THE MORNING OF JUNE 13.

Q: NOW, WHEN YOU ARRIVED THERE, YOU INDICATED EARLIER, I THINK, THAT YOU MET WITH SERGEANT ROSSI AT THE INTERSECTION OF DOROTHY AND BUNDY?

A: YES.

Q: DETECTIVE FUHRMAN WAS WITH YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND WHAT -- YOU HAD A CONVERSATION WITH HIM?

A: YES.

Q: DID HE -- WHAT DID HE TALK TO YOU ABOUT?

A: HE TOLD ME --

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT. THIS WILL BE HEARSAY.

MS. CLARK: YEAH.

Q: JUST GENERALLY, DID HE TELL YOU WHAT HE HAD SEEN AT THE SCENE THERE?

A: YES, HE DID.

Q: AND DESCRIBED IT BRIEFLY?

MR. COCHRAN: I WILL OBJECT. THAT IS HEARSAY.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DID HE RELATE TO YOU WHAT HE HAD SEEN THERE?

A: YES.

Q: AND THEN WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: AND I THEN ASKED FOR THE OFFICER WHO WAS THE FIRST OFFICER ON THE CRIME SCENE TO ALSO TELL US WHAT HE HAD LEARNED OR WHAT HE HAD BEEN INFORMED, OF WHICH SERGEANT ROSSI ASKED OFFICER RISKE TO WALK OVER.

Q: AND WHAT DID YOU DO NEXT?

A: OFFICER RISKE THEN TOLD ME WHAT HE HAD SEEN AND WHAT HE HAD BEEN TOLD AND WHAT HE HAD OBSERVED.

Q: AND THEN WHAT HAPPENED?

A: I THEN ASKED FOR A PRELIMINARY WALK-THROUGH OF THE LOCATION AND I ASKED THAT OFFICER RISKE DO IT, SINCE HE IS THE ONE THAT KNEW THE MOST ABOUT IT.

Q: AND WAS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT HE WAS THE FIRST OFFICER ON THE SCENE?

A: YES.

Q: ALL RIGHT. WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT, AFTER YOU SPOKE TO OFFICER RISKE?

A: HE THEN TOLD US THAT WE WERE GOING TO APPROACH THE BODIES --

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT AS HEARSAY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: HE --

A: I THEN --

Q: DID HE HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH YOU, SIR?

A: YES.

Q: BASED ON WHAT HE TOLD YOU, WHAT DID YOU DO?

A: WE APPROACHED THE BODIES FROM BUNDY AVENUE ITSELF FROM THE FRONT.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

MS. CLARK: YOUR HONOR, CAN WE CUT THE FEED?

MR. COCHRAN: THIS WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME, YOUR HONOR, TO BREAK FOR LUNCH.

MS. CLARK: MAY I? MAY I?

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE AN APPOINTMENT, MR. COCHRAN?

MR. COCHRAN: WELL, MAY WE APPROACH FOR A MINUTE?

THE COURT: WELL, IF WE DO THAT WE WILL SHOOT UP OUR LAST FOUR MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, CONTINUE, PLEASE.

MS. CLARK: CAN WE CUT THE FEED?

THE COURT: YES, IT IS.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: THIS IS PEOPLE'S 42.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: DO YOU SEE THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT HAS BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 42?

A: YES, I DO.

Q: CAN YOU TELL US, YOU SAID YOU APPROACHED THE -- YOU APPROACHED THE CRIME SCENE?

A: YES.

Q: TELL US, FIRST OF ALL, DO YOU SEE THAT WALKWAY?

A: YES.

Q: DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT?

A: YES. THAT IS THE WALKWAY THAT WALKS FROM THE SIDEWALK ON BUNDY TO THE RESIDENCE AT 875.

Q: AND DO YOU RECALL WHETHER IT APPEARED THEN AS IT DOES NOW IN THIS PHOTOGRAPH?

A: IT APPEARS EXACTLY THE SAME.

Q: NOW, HOW -- DID YOU WALK ON THAT WALKWAY, SIR?

A: NO, I DID NOT.

Q: HOW IS IT THAT YOU APPROACHED THE CRIME SCENE?

A: OFFICER RISKE INFORMED -- I WENT THE SAME WAY --

MR. COCHRAN: OBJECT. NONRESPONSIVE.

THE COURT: SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

Q: BY MS. CLARK: OFFICER RISKE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH YOU?

A: YES.

Q: AND BASED ON WHAT HE TOLD YOU, SIR, HOW DID YOU APPROACH THE CRIME SCENE?

A: I FOLLOWED OFFICER RISKE TO THE CRIME SCENE FOLLOWING BEHIND HIM AS HE WALKED ACROSS THE SIDEWALK INTO SOME SHRUBBERY AND GRASS AND DIRT AREA UP TO WHERE WE COULD VIEW THE BODIES.

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)

Q: BY MS. CLARK: IF YOU WOULD WATCH YOUR MONITOR, SIR, AND TELL US -- AND DIRECT THE POINTER, IF YOU COULD, TO SHOW THE PATH THAT YOU TOOK.

A: IT IS RIGHT IN THAT AREA THERE, (INDICATING).

Q: ALL RIGHT. IS THAT CORRECT?

A: A LITTLE BIT OVER TO THE RIGHT.

Q: TO THE RIGHT?

A: YEAH. RIGHT IN THAT AREA, (INDICATING).

Q: OKAY?

A: AND WALKED UP TO THAT CALL BOX AREA RIGHT THERE, (INDICATING).

MS. CLARK: IF WE COULD PLACE -- OR PLACE AN "X", ACTUALLY.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. HOW ABOUT IF WE PUT "R.P." UP IN THE UPPER LEFT-HAND CORNER FOR "RON PHILLIPS."

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: LEFT-HAND, RIGHT-HAND, WHO CARES.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MISS CLARK, I THINK THIS WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE POINT.

MS. CLARK: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE LUNCH HOUR. DETECTIVE PHILLIPS, YOU ARE ORDERED TO STEP DOWN. YOU ALSO ARE ORDERED TO RETURN AT 1:45.

THE WITNESS: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PLEASE REMEMBER THE ADMONITION TO YOU. DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU ABOUT THE CASE. DON'T CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. WE WILL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL 1:45. COUNSEL, WE ARE GOING TO GO STRAIGHT THROUGH TO 4:00.

MR. COCHRAN: CAN WE HAVE IT CUT DOWN?

THE COURT: YES.

(AT 12:00 P.M. THE NOON RECESS WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF THE SAME DAY.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1995 1:45 P.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. 103 HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE

APPEARANCES: (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

(JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

(CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL.

MR. COCHRAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.

MS. CLARK: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. DEPUTY HIGGINS, LET'S HAVE THE JURY.

MR. BAILEY: YOUR HONOR, BEFORE THE JURY COMES IN, CAN I BRING UP A MATTER OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE? OUR WITNESS HAS GONE TO EL SALVADOR DUE TO HARASSMENT FROM SEVERAL SOURCES ACCORDING TO HER FAMILY. SHE'S TAKEN OFF. NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE HER DEPOSITION IN EL SALVADOR. I THINK WE SHOULD ADDRESS IT PROMPTLY BECAUSE I THINK IT WILL TAKE SOME TIME. I DON'T KNOW ANY WAY TO COMPEL HER TO COME BACK.

THE COURT: THE INTERSTATE COMPACT ON WITNESSES DOES PROVIDE FOR A CONSULAR EXAMINATION OF SOME FORM. I'VE NEVER DONE IT MYSELF, BUT HEARD ABOUT IT.

MR. BAILEY: HAS YOUR HONOR EVER BEEN TO EL SALVADOR? I SOLD THE PRESIDENT AIRPLANES. SO I GOT TO KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE COUNTRY.

THE COURT: MY RECOLLECTION IS, CONTINENTAL AIRLINES STOPS THERE ON THE WAY TO COSTA RICA.

MR. BAILEY: IF WE COULD TAKE A DEPOSITION IN COSTA RICA, I WOULD FEEL EVER SO MUCH BETTER.

THE COURT: SO WOULD I.

MR. BAILEY: I THINK WE SHOULD EXPLORE THE MACHINERY, GET IT IN MOTION. IT'S ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL WE GET HER.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'LL SEND ONE OF MY STAFF TO -- SERIOUSLY, WE MAY HAVE TO ENLIST THE UNITED STATES CONSULATE, ACTUALLY THE EMBASSY FOR THAT PURPOSE. THANK YOU, MR. BAILEY.

MR. BAILEY: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: LET'S HAVE THE JURY, DEPUTY HIGGINS.

MR. DARDEN: SHALL DETECTIVE PHILLIPS RESUME THE WITNESS STAND?

THE COURT: YES, PLEASE.

(THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

THE COURT: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, BE SEATED. WE'RE MISSING ONE. ALL