SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
JANUARY 8, 1997
VOLUME 38

THE COURT: Morning.
MR. PETROCELLI: Good morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: We have a defense declaration regarding witness Fiato.
MR. PETROCELLI: Yeah, I guess Gary Randa has yet to serve anyone.
MR. LEONARD: Not true. He served Dr. Shipp yesterday.
MR. PETROCELLI: This guy is in the witness protection program, and
we're going to object to his testimony, but not on this ground.
THE COURT: Okay. The Court, at this time, will make its rulings on
the objections filed by plaintiff on December 12, 1996, with regards
to the video deposition of Henry Lee. The Court has heretofore
proceeded to make rulings prior to the December adjournment and had
gone up to page 31 -- 33, page 33, line 19. The Court's rulings on
the objections are based upon the written objection and grounds
stated in the plaintiffs' motion which I have referred to as the
one filed December 12, 1996, and the Court incorporates into its
rulings today without further repetition and incorporates by
reference in the grounds for the objections stated in the written
objections. The Court also has considered the argument of counsel
made yesterday in support of the objection and in support of
opposition to the objections. The Court has gone through the
transcript of Dr. Henry Lee, two volumes taken September 7 and 8,
1996; there are approximately 388 pages. The Court is disappointed
in the fact that counsel was not able to work out these differences
as counsel had indicated they would. So the Court has had to go
through these yesterday afternoon and yesterday evening. The Court's
rulings are as follows: I will read the page number -- I'm sorry,
the page number and line number and indicate that the objection is
either sustained which means that it will be excised and excluded
from the videotape, or overruled in which case it will be permitted
to be shown to the jury. Starting with lines -- page 34, line 10
through 17, sustained. Page 34, 22 to 35, page 35, line 12,
sustained, except that page 35 line 7 through line 18 the objection
is overruled. Page 35, line 15 through line 19, sustained, remainder
is overruled to page 36, line 6. Page 36, line 10 through line 20,
sustained. I think for simplicity in as much as the written
objections are in the form of a first number, for example, 37,
indicating page, colon O2, indicating the line, I'm going to read it
in that fashion so that counsel have the written objections before
them and will be aware of the Court's ruling. 37:02, sustained.
37:08 to 37:19, sustained. 39 -- I'm sorry 37:20 to 39:06,
overruled. 39:10 to 39:12, overruled. 39:18 to 41:12, overruled.
41:17 through 43:13, overruled. 43:18 through 44:11, overruled.
44:18 through 45:13, overruled. 45:16 through 46:13, overruled.
51:15 through 54:06, overruled. 54:13 to 55:10, overruled. 56:22,
overruled. 58:03 through 58:05, sustained. 58:08 through 58:15,
sustained. 58:21 through 59:11, sustained. 59:14 through 60:09,
sustained. 60:12 through 60:18, sustained. 60:19 through 60:20,
overruled. 60:25 through 61:03, sustained. 61:06 through 61:11,
sustained. 61:15 through 61:21, sustained. 61:24 through 67:12,
overruled. 67:15 through 68:18, overruled. 69:01 through 70:18,
overruled. 70:24 through 71:13, sustained. 71:17 through 72:07,
sustained. 72:12 through 73:11, sustained. 73:21 through 74:08,
overruled. 74:09 through 74:14, sustained. 74:17 through 75:05,
sustained. 82:10 to -- through 82:25, overruled. 83:03 through
83:08, sustained. 83:11 through 95:5 -- 05, sustained. 95:14 through
100:19, overruled. 102:12 through 106:02, overruled. 106:15 through
106:25, overruled. 108:21 through 109:07, overruled. 109:09 through
109:10, overruled. 109:13 through 110:03, sustained. 110:14 through
111:01, overruled. 111:02 through 111:08, sustained. 111:11 through
111:12, sustained. 111:13 through 112:01, overruled. 112:20
through 115:08, overruled. 115:11 through 117:14, overruled. 117:17
through 117:19, sustained. 117:21 through 117:23, sustained. 117:24
through 118:07, overruled. 118:12 through 119:23, overruled. 119:24
through 120:19, sustained. 120:20 through 121:19, overruled. 121:21
through 124:19, overruled. 125:04 through 127:12, overruled. 127:13
through 127:20, sustained. 127:24 through 129:12, objection was
withdrawn.
MR. PETROCELLI: Withdrawn as to violate stipulation, Your Honor, but
as not to the motion in limine.
THE COURT: 127:24 through 129:12, sustained. 129:15 through 130:20,
objection withdrawn. 130:23 through 131:01, overruled, Sustained as
to 131:02 through 131:04. And overruled as to 131:05 through 132:16.
Overruled as to --let's see, 132:19 through 133:06, overruled.
Sustained as to 133:07 through 133:16. 133:17 through 133:18,
overruled. 134:22 through 136:21, overruled. 138:04 through
138:21, withdrawn.
MR. PETROCELLI: Prior one is withdrawn also, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Excuse me.
MR. PETROCELLI: The prior objection is also withdrawn at line 14.
THE COURT: Okay. 136:24 through 137:24, withdrawn. 140:20 through
141:15, overruled. 141:16 through 142:04, sustained. 142:07 through
142:12, sustained. 144:01 through 144:15, sustained. Remainder of
line -- Of that portion between 142:13 through 143:25 and 144:16
through 146:23 are overruled. 147:01 through 148:07, overruled.
148:10 through 149:03 are overruled. 149:06 through 149:08,
overruled. 149:11 through 149:16, overruled. 149:17 through 150:22,
sustained. 150:25 through 151:09, sustained. 151:13 sustained.
151:14 through 153:07, sustained. 153:10 through 154:01, overruled.
154:05 through 154:07, sustained. 154:11 through 155:07, sustained.
156:16 through 157:06, overruled. 157:10 through 157:14, overruled.
157:15 overruled. 157:18 through 157:20, overruled. 157:22
overruled. 157:25 through 158:05, overruled. 158:08 through 158:22,
overruled. 159:01 through 159:08, overruled. 159:13 through 160:23,
overruled. 160:24 through 161:05, sustained. 161:08 through 161:16,
sustained. 164:21 through 166:15, overruled. 166:18 through -- I'm
sorry, 166:18 through 171:01, overruled. 171:06 through 175:08,
overruled. 175:16 through 178:09, sustained. 178:15 through 179:09,
sustained. 179:16 through 180:22, sustained. 181:09 through 183:04,
sustained. 183:07 through 184:17, overruled. 184:18 through 184:20,
sustained. 184:21 through 185:23, overruled. 187:04 through 187:22,
overruled. 187 -- 187:25 through 189:01, overruled. 189:03 through
189:06, overruled. 189:09 through 189:22, overruled. 189:23
sustained. 190:02 through 190:04, sustained. 190:07 through 190:21,
overruled. 190:24 through 190:25, sustained. 191:02 through
192:06, sustained. 192:09 through 192:22, sustained. 192:25 through
193:03, overruled. 193:05 through 193:16, overruled. 193:22 through
194:06, overruled. 194:07 through 194:11, sustained. 194:13
sustained. 194:16 through 194:18, sustained. 194:20 through 194:21,
sustained. 194:22 through 195:24 through 196:02, sustained. 196:01
through 196:06, sustained. 196:07 through 198:15, overruled. 198:18
through 203:23, overruled. 204:12 through 209:17, overruled. 209:20
through 210:24, overruled. 211:02 through 211:12, overruled. 211:15
through 212:09, overruled. 212:15 through 214:04, sustained. 214:08
through 214:11, sustained. 214:14 through 215:09, sustained. This
next one I don't quite understand the pagination of the objection.
It would appear to me if there was going to be an objection it ought
to run from 354 through 357:18.
MR. BAKER: We need to -- then we need to object to more stuff.
THE COURT: Otherwise the objection makes no sense.
MR. PETROCELLI: Through what line, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Well, the objection as posed runs from 356:01 through
357:18 which looks like a non sequitur on this is it starts as page
354, I don't understand the objection.
MR. PETROCELLI: Actually, Your Honor, why don't you just omit that
line.
THE COURT: Excuse me?
MR. PETROCELLI: Just omit it. We will withdraw the objection on line
6 of page 8, okay. The objection is to lines 1 through 19 on page
356, and I think that's an error there because it's in relation to
Mr. Medvene's cross-examination.
MR. GELBLUM: No, it's not.
MR. PETROCELLI: According to mine it is.
THE COURT: On your -- are you withdrawing the entire objection on
line 6 of your page 8?
MR. PETROCELLI: One second, Your Honor.
(Mr. Petrocelli and Mr. Gelblum converse sotto voce.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Here's the explanation, Your Honor. Because of
the direct exam on the new work which I believe Your Honor has
excluded on lines 1 through 19 on page 356, that's the cross on
that point, so that would come out as well, that's why it's in
there.
THE COURT: Well, what about -- what's the material from 354 through
--
MR. PETROCELLI: We don't have any objection to page 354. I don't see
it on here. They didn't designate that part of the transcript to be
played, so therefore --
THE COURT: Oh, is that what it is? All right.
MR. GELBLUM: The left column is their designated.
MR. P. BAKER: We designated all the direct.
MR. PETROCELLI: 354 is in cross.
MR. P. BAKER: Okay.
THE COURT: So that's not included. All right. So what are you asking
for a ruling on? On your line 6 of page 8?
MR. PETROCELLI: That's the new work on the -- on the imprint.
MR. GELBLUM: It's on both. It starts out --
THE COURT: Well --
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, we're going to withdraw that objection
right there.
THE COURT: All right. Withdrawn then. That's 356:01 through 357:18.

MR. PETROCELLI: One second. We want to make -- are you intending
there to designate our -- you've designated 19 lines of our
cross-examination or so.
MR. P. BAKER: We're not going to play any of your cross.
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. So based on that representation we're omitting
the objection to their designation that appears on line 6, page 8.
THE COURT: Withdrawn.
MR. PETROCELLI: Picking up again at page 358, 358:15 - 24 is where
we pick up.
THE COURT: 358, line 19 through -- 358:19 through 358:24, sustained.
359:03 through 359:07, sustained. 359:10 through 359:15, sustained.
359:18 through 359:23, sustained. 360:01 through 360:05, sustained.
360:13 through 360:18, sustained. 361:04 through 361:14, sustained.
361:18 through 361:22, sustained. 362:19 through 363:05, overruled.
363:10 through 363:23, overruled. 364:02 through 364:09, sustained.
364:16 through 366:02, sustained. 366:04 sustained. 366:07 through
366:17, sustained. 366:21 through 367:14, sustained except as to
367:04 through 367:10, that's overruled. 367:20 through 367:22,
that's overruled. 367:23 through 368:03, sustained. 368:06 through
369:07, sustained. 369:10 sustained. 372:01 through 372:06,
overruled. 374:24 through 375:11, overruled. 375:22 through 376:11,
sustained. 376:15 through 376:19, sustained. 376:21 through 377:21,
sustained. 377:25 through 378:14, sustained. 378:17 through 379:14,
sustained. 379:18 through 379:22, sustained. 379:25 through 380:05,
sustained. 380:08 through 381:01, sustained. 384:20 through 385:03,
overruled. 385:08 through 385:14, overruled. 385:17 through 385:18,
overruled. 385:20 through 385:25, sustained. 386:03 through 386:06,
sustained. 387:03 through 387:07, sustained. And 387:10 through
387:25, sustained.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, very briefly, the
next witness is Kato Kaelin, and I have a couple of issues I want to
take up with the Court. First of all, I want to reiterate that the
Court permitted Mr. Baker to, in effect, take this witness out of
order when I examined him, and Mr. Baker was permitted to go way,
way beyond the scope of the cross, on the representation that he
wouldn't have to come back again. And I just would like to make sure
that we're not going over the same ground again. Secondly, Mr. Baker
has indicated to me in prior conversations, that one of the topics
of examination might involve television appearances by Mr. Kaelin
following his civil trial testimony. And as the Court will recall,
in connection with the prior examination of Dr. Baden, we were not
permitted to play any of those tapes unless there was a foundation
for it, for a particular, for example, inconsistent statement that
was made, or something to that effect. I've asked Mr. Baker before
Your Honor took the bench whether he intended to play any of the
tapes, and he would not disclose that to me. So I just want to make
sure that if the defense intends to play any of these TV tapes, that
we have an opportunity to be heard with regard to the relevance and
an offer of proof. And lastly, Your Honor, on the issue that came up
yesterday when Mr. Tippin was on the stand and he was shown a police
report that he had prepared -- of handwritten notes, I should say,
that had reference to alleged drug use, and I suspect that Mr. Baker
may question Mr. Kaelin about any alleged drug use by Nicole Brown
Simpson. And we objected to that yesterday, but the police report
was admitted. I submit, Your Honor, that there's absolutely no
relevance at all in regard to any issue of drug use by Nicole Brown
Simpson. First of all, there's no proof of it. And secondly, even if
it could be established, under the case of People versus Kaurish,
there has to be some direct link-up, either directly or through
circumstantial evidence, that had anything to do with her murder.
And just throwing out that somebody does drugs doesn't do it. The
Court, in that case, in fact, went even farther and said mere
evidence of motive or mere evidence of opportunity is not enough. If
you're trying to suggest drug use because you want to paint the
picture that a person is involved with unsavory characters,
therefore, there's a third party out there who might have killed
her, you've got to have more than that; you've got to have some
direct evidence or some circumstantial evidence linking any drug use
to her death. And there were other motions in limine that were made
in which the Court, for example, excluded any reference of Faye
Resnick's drug use on this issue. So I would ask that the witness
not be questioned in regard to that issue, Your Honor.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, the plaintiffs have tried to paint the
picture that Mrs. Simpson -- Ms. Simpson was not pursuing Mr.
Simpson, and that that's why he was enraged. We have suggested that
the evidence will show that her behavior was erratic. And my
understanding is that this goes not only to the erratic behavior
that she exhibited in April, May, and the early part of June of
1994, but it also goes to the -- the cross-examination that the
plaintiffs put on, their own witness, in effect, as Tippin was an
employee of theirs, that they -- that he never said -- that is,
Kaelin never said that Nicole Brown Simpson was the person who was
the drug -- using drugs and listed in the Tippin report, Exhibit
2190.
THE COURT: Okay. The Court will preclude examination of Kaelin with
regards to drug use.
MR. BAKER: With respect to what?
THE COURT: Drug use by the decedent.
MR. BAKER: And whether he ever mentioned it to --
THE COURT: That's irrelevant, really. Okay. May we proceed?
THE CLERK: That exhibit is 2198, for the record, not 2190.
MR. PETROCELLI: In regard to the television tapes, can we have
some advance notification before a tape is played in front of the
jury?
THE COURT: All right. So ordered. Bring in the jury.
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. JURORS: Good morning,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
MR. BAKER: Brian Kaelin.
THE CLERK: Just have a seat. You've been previously sworn. You are
still under oath. Would you please state your name again for the
record.
THE WITNESS: Brian Kaelin. BRIAN KAELIN, called as a witness by the
Defendants, having been previously duly sworn by the Clerk,
testified further as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. BAKER:
Q. Good morning, sir.
A. Morning.
Q. How many television shows have you appeared on, with or without
your attorney, since you left the witness stand in this case?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Relevance.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, in terms of -- you have made a career out of
this case, haven't you?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Relevance.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. No.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You -- let me ask you this, sir: You met with the
plaintiffs' attorneys this morning, did you not?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You went over a statement, a police statement that you had given
Detective Tippin before you got on the witness stand today, did you
not?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Have you at any time gone over the witness statement that you
gave Detective Tippin on June 13, 1994?
A. Is that the one that -- last time I was here?
Q. No. June 13, 1994.
A. No; I never went over anything.
Q. You know, about two and a half years ago?
A. No, never.
Q. You were interviewed at the West L.
A. station at 1330, or about 1:30 in the afternoon by Detectives
Tippin and Carr. You recall that?
A. Correct.
Q. And you indicated various things about your relationship with
Nicole Brown Simpson and O.J. Simpson, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you indicated, for example, that O.J. had never indicated to
you he had any problems with Nicole Brown Simpson, correct?
A. I don't -- I don't recollect that.
Q. O.J. mentioned no problems between Nicole and himself. Did you
tell Detective Tippin that on June 13, 1994, sir?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Don't have any reason to disbelieve it if it's in the report of
Detective Tippin?
A. Correct.
Q. Don't have any reason to disbelieve anything that's in the report
of Detective Tippin as relative to what you told him on June 13,
1994 and he recorded as you were being interviewed by him?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, Your Honor. Lack of foundation. He's
never seen a report. It's not his report. He can't vouch for
everything that's in it.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) This is 2198, Mr. Kaelin. Is that the document --
strike that. Have you ever never seen that?
A. No, I never saw this.
Q. All right. But that is the time you were at West L.
A. station when you gave the report, correct?
A. I think I was there a lot earlier than 1:30, but. . .
Q. You were there earlier; that's when that statement was taken. And
you recall being interviewed by Detective Tippin, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you recall that you, in fact, answered some questions of
him?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you recall that it took a period of time, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you told him the truth as you understood it on that day,
true?
A. True.
Q. And I take it that your memory was more fresh concerning the
events of the prior evening than at any time thereafter when you
testified, true?
A. Yeah, probably.
Q. And you were trying to be true and honest as you could in giving
Detective Tippin the information that you did on June 13, 1994,
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, was it your understanding when you told Detective Tippin
that O.J. Simpson was wearing a sweatsuit, that he was wearing a
sweatsuit when he entered the limousine?
A. Yeah. I always thought he was wearing a dark suit.
Q. A dark suit when he entered the limousine?
A. Sweatsuit.
Q. And when -- after Mr. Simpson came out of the house around 11
o'clock on the evening of June 12, 1994, you were with him when you
were talking about the thumps, right?
A. Repeat the question.
Q. Sure. After Mr. Simpson came out of the house, you were with him
when you were talking with him and Alan Park concerning the thumps
that you heard earlier in the evening, correct?
A. Correct.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, it's all been gone over. Page 181, et
seq. of the transcript of November 19.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you had occasion to view Mr. Simpson for a --
for about five to seven minutes, and you thought he was in a dark
sweatsuit when he entered the limousine, correct?
A. In my minds's eye, I always picture him in that dark suit.
Q. You didn't picture him in Levis or Levis jacket; he was in a dark
pants -- dark suit, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And he had dark or white shoes on? Don't recall?
A. I don't recall.
Q. You don't recall any types of shoes he had on?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Now, you were talking to Rachel Ferrara the night of June 12,
1994, when you heard the thumps, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you, in your conversation with her, you talked to her and
told her at 10:30, that it was approximately 10:30, correct?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. It's all been gone over.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You have no reason to disbelieve Rachel Ferrara if
she said that you told her the thumps occurred at about 10:40,
correct?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, Your Honor. Same thing.
THE COURT: I'll permit that.
A. I don't know.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well --
A. I don't -- I mean -- say the question again.
Q. Sure. Rachel Ferrara testified at the criminal trial. You're
aware of that?
A. Correct.
Q. And she testified that you told her that the thumps occurred at
10:40?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, Your Honor. That absolutely misstates the
testimony.
MR. BAKER: The testimony was read into the record.
MR. PETROCELLI: It misstates the testimony. I wish you would ask a
question, not make any representations.
MR. BAKER: You're making a representation.
THE COURT: Well, approach the bench and show me where it's wrong,
Mr. Petrocelli.
MR. PETROCELLI: He should have to show where he testified to this,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: You're making the objection. I'll see the basis for your
objection.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the
reporter.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Ms. Ferrara's testimony was that the only time that
was ever mentioned to her in her conversation with Kaelin was the
time of 10:30, when she asked Kaelin what time it was, and Kaelin
said 10:30. And everything beyond --
THE COURT: Show me.
MR. PETROCELLI: -- beyond that were estimates. I'm looking for it.
MR. BAKER: 2462.
THE COURT: Do you have a copy of Kaelin's testimony?
MR. BAKER: Yeah.
(Court reviews transcript.)
THE COURT: Okay. Objection sustained.
MR. BAKER: Wait just a second.
MR. PETROCELLI: What does that say?
MR. BAKER: 10:30.
MR. PETROCELLI: Kaelin didn't say it was 10:30.
THE COURT: Sustained. You may rephrase the question.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the
presence of the jury.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Do you recall in your conversation with his Rachel
Ferrara, that you and she talked about at 10:30, that it was, in
fact, 10:30?
A. No.
Q. And if she testified to that, you'd have no reason to disbelieve
her, correct?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I don't know if she had a clock when she was talking to me.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You said that you and she discussed at 10:30 that
it was, in fact, 10:30. You have no recollection of that?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. There was nothing about that it was, in
fact, 10:30.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Then it was about 10:30 when you and she discussed
-- about the time, at 10:30, in a telephone conversation you had
with her, before you got off the phone and went to look for what
made the noises, correct?
A. Not correct.
Q. You have no recollection of that, right?
A. I don't remember saying -- if there's a time mentioned, it wasn't
a time involving, I'm sure, the thumps.
Q. In the conversation you had before you got off the phone to go
look to where the noises may have come from, Rachel Ferrara says
that you and she discussed that it was approximately 10:30, when it
was approximately 10:30. Do you recall that having occurred at all,
sir?
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm going to object, Your Honor. It really misstates
the tenor of the testimony of Ms. Ferrara.
MR. BAKER: Your honor -- Your Honor, at 20462 --
MR. PETROCELLI: We're not talking about the time.
MR. P. BAKER: 20462.
(Court reviews realtime computer screen.)
THE COURT: Are you asking about when the conversation occurred, Mr.
Baker? I can't understand from the way this question looks on the
computer exactly what the nature of your question is.
MR. BAKER: Let me see if I can rephrase it to make it clear.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Do you have any recollection whatsoever that,
during the first conversation you had with Rachel Ferrara on June
12, 1994, that you mentioned or she mentioned any time of the
evening?
A. There might have been some mention of time during the evening,
yes.
Q. And do you have a recollection that at approximately 10:30 in the
evening, in your -- during your telephone call with Rachel Ferrara,
that you and she discussed that it was about 10:30?
A. I don't recollect that.
Q. And do you have any recollection that, about ten minutes later --
well, strike that. Do you have any recollection, at approximately
10:40, ever telling her that you heard thumps outside your bedroom
wall?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. This was the subject of --
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: -- extensive testimony, Your Honor, page 168.
MR. BAKER: You can answer that.
A. No, I don't.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, if -- Rachel Ferrara, as far as you're
concerned, is a pretty honest person, isn't she?
A. Yes.
Q. And if she testified that, at approximately 10:30, you and she
discussed that it was about 10:30, and ten minutes later, when you
told her about the thumps and asked her about the earthquake,
you'd have no reason to disbelieve that, either, would you?
A. I don't know if she has a clock there. I can't tell you.
Q. I didn't ask you whether she has a clock there. I said, you have
no reason to disbelieve her, would you, sir?
A. No.
Q. Now, let's go back for a moment, to the -- your testimony
relative to the clothing Mr. Simpson was wearing. You believed that
Mr. Simpson was wearing -- and you testified in the preliminary
hearing and you testified here in this courtroom that Mr. Simpson
was wearing a dark sweatsuit when you went to the McDonald's, right?

A. Correct.
Q. And it had a white zipper down the front, right?
A. Right.
Q. White, both sides of the zipper?
A. Something that contrasted to the suit, right.
Q. It had white on both sides of the opening in the front, correct?
A. There was a zipper that stood out. I believe it could have been
white.
Q. You testified it was white, and it was a white zipper that went
down the front, didn't you, sir?
A. I said that.
Q. And you testified that's exactly the same clothing that he was in
when you watched him get into the limousine, when you came out of
the front of his house; isn't that true?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Well, let's go back.
A. Okay.
Q. You were in Mr. Simpson's house with him, were you not, in the
foyer, when you were going to go look for a flashlight?
A. Correct.
Q. And Mr. Simpson said to you, "it's late; I got to go," went out
the foyer, into the limousine, and you went out behind him, correct?

A. Not immediately.
Q. You followed him. Mr. Simpson went out the front door, and you
went out after him, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you watched Mr. Simpson get into the limousine, correct?
A. At some point I did, yes.
Q. And Mr. Simpson -- and you say Mr. Simpson was in a dark
sweatsuit, true?
A. It's always been that way in my mind's eye, yes.
Q. If you were the only one that testified that he was ever in a
dark sweatsuit in that limousine, or on the airplane, or at the
airport, you'd agree you're wrong, true?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, Your Honor. Argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you're equally wrong about what he was wearing
when you went to McDonald's on the night of June 12, 1994. You don't
recall any better what he was wearing when he went to get a
hamburger at McDonald's than what you recall when you observed him
get in the limousine, do you?
A. I recall the dark suit.
Q. You recall with specificity the dark suit, both at -- going to
get the hamburger and he going into the limousine, because you were
a couple feet behind him and looked at him, right?
A. I've always said it was a dark suit, sir.
Q. And it wasn't, was it?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you tell anybody on television that when you
testified here on November 19 that the jurors all believed you, they
sat up straight in their seats and believed you?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, outrageous.
THE COURT: Sustained. Jury is to disregard that question.
MR. PETROCELLI: Ask that the question be stricken.
THE COURT: Question stricken.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, when Mark Fuhrman was in your room on the
night of -- morning of June 13, 1994, did he ask you to inspect your
boots?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, Your Honor, all this has been gone over.
Starting at page 197. Mr. Fuhrman's conversation starts at 197 and
pretty much goes through 207 about 10 pages.
(Pause for Court to read transcript.)
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Detective Fuhrman went into your bathroom and
looked around in your bathroom on the night of June 13 -- the
morning of June 13, 1994, correct?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. You just sustained it and he asks the
same question, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. PETROCELLI: He's just arguing to the jury right now.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) If Detective Fuhrman testified --
MR. PETROCELLI: Again, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Let him finish the question.
MR. PETROCELLI: He's referring to Detective Fuhrman's testimony
that's been subject of a lot of rulings.
THE COURT: I haven't heard the question.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) If Detective Fuhrman testified in the criminal
trial that he inspected your bathroom, the shower area and the
closet, would you agree that he in fact did that?
MR. PETROCELLI: Calls for hearsay, calls for a conclusion,
argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I didn't see that.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, that room, as I recall it, is about 14 feet
across to maybe 20 feet, and it's 20 feet long, correct? Do you
know?
A. I don't know but you're probably -- you know, if you measured it
-- I didn't measure.
Q. Well, the approximate size. I'm not saying -- it wasn't a big
room, let me put it that way.
A. Right.
Q. And from where your bed was in that room, the bathroom adjoins
it, and it's not exactly a master bathroom, is it?
A. Correct.
Q. I mean a small little area, true, the bathroom?
A. Yeah. I don't know what the measurements would be.
Q. It's got?
A. Shower, bathroom sink.
Q. Sure. But it's not exceptionally spacious, is it?
A. No.
Q. And you were standing at the doorway when Mr. Fuhrman came in,
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And then Mr. Fuhrman went over and inspected your clothes, true?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. That's completely gone over, page 202.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You never saw Detective Fuhrman in your bathroom
or in your closet, ever?
THE COURT: Objection sustained. He was asked that question and he
answered that.
MR. BAKER: Nothing further.
THE COURT: Anything else of this witness?
MR. PETROCELLI: No, no questions.
THE COURT: You may step down.
THE WITNESS: Go ahead.
THE COURT: You're excused. Call the next witness.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, we're checking to see if he's here.
MR. PETROCELLI: If the Court please, may we approach before the
witness.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench with reporter:)
MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, our understanding is this witness
is being called to see whether or not he told Officer Tippin --
MR. LEONARD: Tippin?
MR. MEDVENE: -- Tippin, on or about June 15 that he received a phone
call from a news reporter on June 12 sometime between 10 and 10:30
with respect to a double murder, and this witness said he didn't
have any such information.
MR. LEONARD: What?
MR. MEDVENE: Mr. Tippin already was questioned about this. We object
to Officer Merrin's testimony because it's hearsay, what questions
he was asked by a news reporter. But more importantly, it's
irrelevant because under Your Honor's ruling, clue evidence cannot
be admitted unless the defense can show some tie-in to the offense
in question. And all they're trying to establish here is that
there was a call by a news reporter asking Officer Merrin if he had
heard about a double murder being committed on June 12 and -- and
about 10, 10:30, and he said no. So unless there's some tie-in to
the murders of Ms. Brown and Mr. Goldman, Detective -- or Officer
Merrin's testimony is not relevant under Your Honor's prior ruling.
THE COURT: Mr. Leonard?
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, this is a person who was holding themselves
out to be some type of a reporter, a woman called between 10:30 --
10 o'clock and 10:30 on June 12 asking if there had been a report --
a report of a double homicide. That is completely inconsistent with
their theory of the case, particularly their time line, the time of
the murders. It's also inconsistent with the murders having been
committed by a single assailant. Obviously, there was -- first of
all, this witness will testify there was only one double murder that
night anywhere in West L
A. So he's someone who has knowledge of a double murder being
committed. That's completely inconsistent with their theory, No. 1,
that only one person was involved and, No. 2, the time line, and I
think it's highly relevant, Your Honor. I think there's no reason
that we shouldn't be able to get into this at this point. Also, this
was not -- this was not -- as far as we know, this witness was not
followed up at all. This is before the jury. I think we have a right
to corroborate what Sergeant Merrin has already -- excuse me, what
Tippin has already testified to. I think it's relevant for the
reasons I stated.
MR. MEDVENE: Your Honor, if we -- they want to call a witness, I
don't think the witness to call, Officer Merrin, is relevant. I
think that's what they want to do, but I think that's irrelevant.
They can't --
MR. LEONARD: How could we? They didn't follow up on it.
MR. MEDVENE: They can't show that the call from a news reporter,
whether what -- whatever the news reporter was talking about had
anything to do with this case. There's no indication it has anything
to do with the murders of Goldman or Nicole Brown. They have to show
under Your Honor's ruling some connection or --
THE COURT: What's the connection?
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, it's a circumstance. Just like -- Just like
Nancy Ney. I mean, here we have a caller named Nicole. It's the
same -- it's the same kind of evidence. Why should they be able to
put in Nancy Ney's statement and we can't put this in. It's the same
type, it's a circumstance; it's a circumstance that's inconsistent
with their circumstantial case. I can't think of anything that would
be more relevant. I mean, you allowed the Nancy Ney hearsay in. That
was total hearsay, not connected other than by circumstance.
THE COURT: Touche.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.) STEPHEN R. MERRIN, called as a witness on behalf of
the Defendants, was duly sworn and testified as follows:
THE CLERK: 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 state and spell both your first and your last
names for the record.
THE WITNESS: Stephen R. Merrin. First name with a P-H, last name
M-e-r-r-i-n. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. LEONARD:
Q. Good morning. Is it Sergeant Merrin?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you employed?
A. Employed by the Los Angeles Police Department. I'm a Sergeant.
I'm in charge of the West Valley vice unit.
Q. How long have you been employed by the Los Angeles Police
Department?
A. 24 and a half years.
Q. Directing your attention to June 12, 1994, particularly on the
evening of that night, were you assigned to the West LA division?
A. No, sir, I was not.
Q. Where were you assigned, sir?
A. I was the patrol watch commander for Wilshire community police
station.
Q. Now, just explain in brief terms what a watch commander is?
A. Basically that's the individual that's responsible for that
particular watch, that particular time frame. I was the p.m. watch
commander. I was responsible for the officers that were patroling
Wilshire from approximately 2 in the afternoon 'til 10:30 at night.
Q. Now, again, directing your attention to June 12, 1994, in
particular around the time of 10 to 10:30 p.m., did you receive a
phone call from a woman who asked you if a double homicide on the
west side was being handled? Do you recall that, sir?
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor, calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I received a phone call from a female. It basically -- with that
line on the conversation.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) She asked you if a double homicide on the west
side of Los Angeles was being handled, correct, sir?
A. Not a double homicide. She said that -- she asked me if we were
sitting on two bodies on the west side?
Q. What does a double 187 mean, sir?
A. It means that there was two people that had been killed.
Q. What does a 187 term mean in police jargon?
A. Murder.
Q. Homicide, right?
A. Right.
Q. Did you tell a Detective Tippin on approximately July -- on July
7, 1994, that a woman had called at about 10 to 10:30 p.m. on June
12 and asked if a double 186 was being handled on the west side.
THE COURT: Do you know what a 186 is?
Q. 187. Excuse me.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you, Your Honor.
A. During the conversation, yes, it did get around to that, but the
original portion of the conversation was she asked me if we were
sitting on two bodies on the west side.
Q. Now, the woman represented to you that she was -- was somehow
associated with Channel 4; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Were there any double homicides on the west side other than the
one that occurred at 875 South Bundy on the evening of June 12,
1994, sir?
A. Not to my knowledge.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
THE COURT: Cross. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY
MR. MEDVENE:
Q. You have no information of any kind, do you, Sergeant Merrin,
that whatever the call was about had anything at all to do with the
murders of Ron Goldman or Nicole Brown?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, calls for speculation.
(Court reviewed realtime computer screen.)
THE COURT: In the form in which it is asked, sustained.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You have no personal information that whoever
called was referring to the murders of Nicole Brown or Ronald
Goldman, do you?
MR. LEONARD: Same objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Do you have any idea or any personal knowledge
what the caller was referring to?
MR. LEONARD: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. No, sir, I do not.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And you received calls as watch commander
several times a day asking whether or not you've heard of any
murders or crimes that have gone on in the area that you have any
association with?
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object as irrelevant and vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You receive many calls a day asking if there are
any murders by the police reporter's?
A. At least 12.
MR. LEONARD: Objection, irrelevant and vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. At least 12 calls a day from the news, the press, different news
rooms.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Does the Wilshire area cover Brentwood?
A. No, sir, it does not.
MR. MEDVENE: Nothing further. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. LEONARD:
Q. Mr. Medvene asked you if you received calls on occasion from
reporter's about murders, correct? If there are any murders
reported, right? Remember him just asking you that?
A. Yes, sir, I certainly do.
Q. This caller didn't ask you if any murders had been reported. She
asked you if you had been sitting on two bodies that had been found
on the west side; isn't that correct, sir?
A. That's correct.
MR. LEONARD: No further questions. RECROSS EXAMINATION BY
MR. MEDVENE:
Q. And you had no knowledge as you took the call of any murders in
the Wilshire area that you have anything to do with; is that
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you have nothing to do with -- the watch commander shift of
Wilshire has nothing to do with Brentwood; isn't that correct?
A. That's correct.
MR. MEDVENE: Nothing further. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. LEONARD:
Q. I asked you before on direct examination if you were aware of any
other double homicides on the west side other than the one that
occurred at 875 South Bundy. Your answer was you were not; is that
right, sir?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. And I take it you followed up after you got this phone call
about whether or not there were any other homicides; is that right,
sir?
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, outside the scope, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may reopen.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You followed up, didn't you?
A. I followed up, yes.
Q. You found out there hadn't been; isn't that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. By the way, you know this phone call came in certainly before
10:45 'cause that's when you left that night, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. That was the end of watch, EOW?
A. That's correct.
Q. Thank you.
MR. LEONARD: No further questions.
MR. MEDVENE: No further questions.
THE COURT: Thank you. You may be excused.
MR. BAKER: Dennis Fung. DENNIS FUNG, previously called as a witness
on behalf of the Defendants, previously sworn, testified as follows:

THE CLERK: You've been previously sworn. You are still under oath.
Would you state your name again for the record.
THE WITNESS: My name is Dennis Fung. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. BAKER:
Q. Good morning.
A. Morning.
Q. As I recall, Mr. Blasier examined you, and Mr. Blasier has had
some major surgery and it's doubtful he will return to the trial. I
want to go back to the -- to the trash bag that you indicated you
left Rockingham with Mr. Simpson's reference vial in it. Remember
that?
A. Yes.
Q. What else did you have in the trash bag besides Mr. Simpson's
reference vial?
MR. LAMBERT: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Do we have a copy of his testimony?
MR. LAMBERT: I only have one copy.
THE COURT: Cite me a page.
MR. LAMBERT: Apparently I don't have a page cite. And I -- if you
want me to find a section I'll find it for you. It will take me a
couple of minutes. I think you would remember. This was a subject of
lengthy cross-examination.
THE COURT: This has been a long trial.
MR. LAMBERT: True.
THE COURT: I can't remember every word that is spoken by counsel.
MR. BAKER: The objection will take longer than the testimony, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: I imagine so.
MR. GELBLUM: Page -- November 5, page 63.
MR. BAKER: Got about three questions on this, Your Honor.
MR. LAMBERT: Well, I'll withdraw it, Your Honor. Let him answer it
again.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you have trash in the trash bag?
A. There may have been crime scene labels in there, but I don't
think there was any trash in there, no.
Q. Well, you picked up the numbers that you placed down on the
concrete and you put them in that trash bag, didn't you?
A. I don't specifically recall doing that. They may have been in
there, but I don't recall.
Q. You went into the house, this is on the afternoon of the 13, you
came out of the house and were going to leave before Vannatter
arrived at the house, and then suggested to Andrea Mazzola that she
go back in and take one more quick look around; isn't that true?
A. Yes.
Q. And Vannatter wasn't there when you started to leave the house,
isn't that correct, the first time? And then you --
A. When we brought --
Q. You made the decision to go back in to see -- check to see if
there was something else, correct?
A. We brought the crime scene kit and some items of evidence out to
the truck and then went back in for a second look, yes.
Q. And you picked up the little numbers that you had on the
driveway, you threw those numbers in the trash bag as trash with the
reference vial of Mr. Simpson's blood, right?
A. That's possible, but I don't recall if that actually happened or
not.
Q. Well, let me ask you this: When you didn't have the trash bag to
carry around sterile reference vials of blood, did you -- the trash
bag was there so that you could put trash in it when you left Mr.
Simpson's home; isn't that true?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, that has been -- the purpose in using the
trash bag was specifically gone into, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may answer.
A. The trash bag was used as a carrying device, it wasn't used as a
trash bag.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, the numbers were trash after you used them,
weren't they, on the driveway and in the foyer?
A. I don't consider it trash, no.
Q. Okay. They are valuable pieces of paper, right?
A. I don't know how valuable they are, but they are not trash.
Q. Well, in any event, all of the blood spots -- and you put those
little pieces of paper around in the foyer, were perfectly round,
correct? I mean they didn't look like Mr. Simpson, Allan Park, Kato
Kaelin, didn't look like anybody had stepped in it, true?
A. Now, which drops are you talking about?
Q. In the foyer when you had your little numbers. And you collected
those at 4:30, remember, Item 12?
A. They did not appear to have been stepped in.
Q. And you collected the foyer blood drops at 4:30, and -- it was at
4:40. Then you were up in Mr. Simpson's bedroom where you collected
Item 13 which were the socks, right?
A. It was around that time. Those are relative times.
Q. Well, you didn't put relative times on your log. You put the
times that item and event occurred; isn't that true?
A. Those times are ballpark figures.
Q. So they are all just ballpark figures now that there's been a big
issue as to whether or not the socks were there when the videotape
-- these numbers have become ballpark figures; is that what it is,
Mr. Fung?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Your log is supposed to show the times that you do
various things when you're at a crime scene; isn't that true, sir?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, what's the purpose of putting down the time
if it's a ballpark figure, Mr. Fung?
MR. LAMBERT: Same objections, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I do not use those or that column in the crime scene sheet when I
do my crime scenes unless it -- it is outside the parameters of when
I got there and when I left. Ms. Mazzola decided that she was going
to write down those times and she went ahead and filled in those
times.
Q. Well, do you think that these forms that you're using at a crime
scene, it's kind of your decision as to whether or not you should
use them or fill in the appropriate blanks?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, in violation of the Court's
pretrial orders, Your Honor, in limine order No. 11.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The times that are down on the sheets that you and
Ms. Mazzola filled out at the crime scene at Rockingham indicate the
times that you accomplished various tasks; you would agree with
that?
A. As I stated before, those are pretty close to the times that they
happen, but they are ballpark figures.
Q. Pretty close to the time things happened, you wouldn't put down
that you collected the red blood stain or red stain in the foyer,
this perfectly round blood stain in the foyer, at 1630, if in fact
it was 1610, would you? You wouldn't be off 20 minutes, would you?
A. I would say they were within 10 minutes.
Q. Just happened to be 10 minutes?
A. Well --
Q. You know the issue relative to the socks, don't you?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Are you trying to tailor your testimony relative
to the collection of the socks in the bedroom, Mr. Fung?
A. No.
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. No, I'm not.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you knew that in the bedroom -- by the way,
did it look like, on the bed, right in front of the socks, did it
appear that anybody had sat down on that bed and had taken those
socks off?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Well, do you recall there was a piece of luggage there, that you
couldn't even sit down on the bed to take the socks off that were
sitting so perfectly on that little throw rug?
A. I don't recall that, no.
Q. Do you recall whether the straps were up and down -- up or down
on the luggage, Mr. Fung, when you were in the room?
A. I'd have to refer to the photographs.
Q. Do you recall that Sergeant Luper picked the straps up when he
was looking for items underneath the -- underneath the bed?
A. I do not remember Sergeant Luper picking those up.
Q. Do you remember him getting under the bed to look for items,
right?
A. I don't recall that.
Q. Do you recall that there was any evidence of blood whatsoever on
that throw rug in the middle of the area right behind Mr. Simpson's
bed?
A. I did not -- I did not detect any blood on that throw rug.
Q. You didn't detect any blood in the area, did you, in the bedroom
at all, did you?
A. No, none was detected.
Q. Now, you testified in this courtroom on November 5 that item
number 12 was collected at 4:30. You didn't say ballpark then, did
you?
A. I was referring to the -- to my notes and that's what the notes
say.
Q. And when you testified that item number 13 was collected at 4:40,
you didn't say ballpark then, did you?
A. I think I said they were approximate times. I --
Q. Well, let me read what you said so that you have it.
MR. LAMBERT: Let's have the page and line.
MR. BAKER: 51, line 7 through 11.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Oh, I'm sorry. Item 12. (Reading:)
Q. 4:30, correct? Your answer: Correct.
Q. And item number 14 was at what time? Item 14 was at 4:40. That's
your answer. You didn't mention ballpark then, did you, sir?
A. Apparently not.
Q. Now, in terms of your collection of these socks, you then picked
the socks up and put both socks in one container,
cross-contaminating the socks, correct?
MR. LAMBERT: Argumentative, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: Do you want to play that video. Then we'll --
MR. LAMBERT: Like to know what it is before --
MR. P. BAKER: Number 901.
MR. LAMBERT: It's already been played.
MR. P. BAKER: It was not in evidence when Mr. Fung testified the
first time.
THE COURT: Okay. Overruled.
(Videotape played.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you --
MR. BAKER: Stop it. Back it up, please.
(Tape is halted with view of bed.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That strap had been picked up by Sergeant Luper,
had it not?
MR. LAMBERT: Asked and answered, Your Honor. He just said he didn't
see that.
THE COURT: You may answer if you know.
A. I don't know.
MR. BAKER: All right. Go ahead.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now --
MR. BAKER: Back it up.
MR. P. BAKER: I'm sorry. I apologize.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) There's a fireplace --
MR. BAKER: Stop it right there. That obliterates what I wanted to
see
(indicating to screen.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) This fireplace is at the end of Mr. Simpson's bed,
is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. In other words, if you're lying on the bed with your head back up
against the headboard, you'd look at that fireplace, correct?
A. It was at that time, yes.
Q. Okay. And then this is the throw rug down here
(indicating to Elmo screen). That is kind of a pale beige, is it
not, sir?
A. There's a print pattern on it.
Q. A light color, it's pale, is it not, there's not any dark colors
on it?
A. There's -- no, just some portions are darker than others. There's
a pattern on it.
Q. There's no blood whatsoever on that throw rug, correct?
A. I did not detect it.
Q. And it was never collected by you or anybody from the LAPD to see
if there was blood that had allegedly transferred from these found
socks to that rug, isn't that true, sir?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, violates in limine order No. 11.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: I didn't hear your ruling, sir.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You didn't ask that that carpet be picked up and
collected, did you, sir?
MR. LAMBERT: Same objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, did you just pick the socks up with your
hands, sir?
A. No.
Q. What did you pick them up with?
A. I don't recall exactly how I did it. I may have used the gloves;
I may have used the scoop method.
Q. You don't have a recollection if you picked them up with your
hands or not, isn't that true?
A. No, I know I didn't.
Q. Now, you do recall that you took the Rockingham glove to the
Bundy crime scene at the direction of Detective Lange, correct?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You walked into the crime scene with a brown bag
with the Rockingham glove pursuant to orders from Detective Lange,
did you not?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, asked and answered. It's all been gone into.

THE COURT: I don't recall that one. Overruled.
A. Can you repeat that?
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You took the Rockingham glove, the glove that was
purportedly found on this little side pathway behind Mr. Simpson's
house, and took that glove at the direction of Detective Lange and
you took it over to Bundy in a brown paper bag and took it onto the
crime scene, correct?
A. Yes.
MR. BAKER: Show that tape, please.
(Videotape played.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And let me ask you if this is you with the brown
paper bag and the glove that you took onto the Bundy crime scene
pursuant to the request and orders of Detective Lange?
MR. P. BAKER: 2258.
(Exhibit 2258 displayed at 1:18:17.12.)
THE COURT: Is there a question?
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Is this you?
A. That is me.
Q. And is that the brown paper bag containing the Rockingham glove
that you were requested to bring onto the crime scene by Lange?
A. I don't recall if that was it or not. It may have been but I
don't know.
(Tape played to 1:18:18.24)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) One other area. And I apologize for skipping
around. When you --
MR. BAKER: Phil, you can cut that off.
(Mr. P. Baker complies.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) When you collected the socks, no matter whether
you did it with your hands, your gloved hands or the scoop method,
there was no debris on those socks, were there?
A. I did not detect any debris on it. But I didn't look for it,
either, that closely.
Q. You didn't look, right?
A. Not that closely.
Q. Well, you picked the socks up, and in however method you did it
--
MR. BAKER: It's wonderful when they pass you a note and you can't
read what it says
(indicating). I know it's my son's writing. I just can't read it.
MR. PETROCELLI: It says no further questions.
MR. BAKER: Is that "sit down?"
(Laughter.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you had the socks and you had to have them in
a scoop or in the -- and the bag open to put the socks in, right?
A. Correct.
Q. So you had them within a couple of feet of your eyes, true?
A. No, at least arm's distance.
Q. And you didn't notice any dirt, any soil, any blood, nothing,
correct?
A. Those were collected so that that could be done at a later time
back at the lab.
Q. Maybe you didn't understand my question, sir. You're a
criminalist, are you not?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. You're not paid to close your eyes and not see things, are you?
A. No.
Q. And when you're at a crime scene and there's been a double
homicide, I take it that you're extremely vigilant about looking for
everything that may be evidence in the case, true?
A. That's correct.
Q. And your vigilance, if you will, is heightened because you know
this is a high-profile crime and you knew it on June 13, 1994, when
you picked up the socks in the bedroom at 4:40; isn't that true?
MR. LAMBERT: Argumentative, Your Honor, gone into before.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You didn't see any soil, no debris, no blood, no
nothing on those socks?
MR. LAMBERT: Asked and answered, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may answer.
A. They were dark socks, and I --
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) What did you see? Did you see any soil, debris,
blood, sir?
A. I did not detect any, no.
Q. Now, did you -- in your view, in looking at the gloves, did you
determine where the cuts were on those gloves, if any?
A. We were -- we're talking about the gloves now?
Q. Yes, the gloves. Yes, sir. I switched to the gloves. Sorry.
A. I did note when I got back to the laboratory some -- some cuts on
them.
Q. Now, the left-handed glove was the glove that was found near the
hat which was underneath the railing of the fence, right?
A. Referring to my notes.
Q. Please do.
(Witness reviews notebook.)
A. The glove from Bundy was a left-handed glove, yes.
Q. How many cuts were on the glove from Bundy, Mr. Fung?
A. I didn't make a note of that.
Q. Did you make a note of any cuts on the gloves?
A. I know at the -- a day or so after -- a day after the -- I had
collected them, they were asking if -- to describe different -- the
different gloves. I did it telephonically and I -- but I didn't
write it down.
Q. Well, was there a cut on the top of the fourth finger of the left
glove?
A. I'd have to see photographs of the glove. I don't recall.
Q. Let me show you.
MR. P. BAKER: Next in order. Two numbers.
THE CLERK: 2309.
(The instrument herein described as a photograph of glove was marked
for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2309.)
(The instrument herein described as a photograph of glove was marked
for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2310.)
MR. P. BAKER: Okay.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Do you see the cut on what would appear to be the
top portion of the fourth finger?
(Witness reviews photograph.)
A. Not really.
Q. Right there.
A. Yes, I do see that.
Q. And that cut does not go through the lining of the glove, does
it?
A. Actually, from what I recall, there was a rock that was -- a
piece of rock or something that was stuck in the glove, like someone
had hit it, the glove -- was wearing the glove, hit it real hard,
and a piece of concrete or something from a wall had embedded into
the finger.
MR. BAKER: You want to get the --
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Whatever happened to the rock?
A. It was with the glove when I booked it. I don't know.
Q. And it just kind of -- like the lens, it's just kind of gone?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, does it look like a rock in that picture?
MR. P. BAKER: Next in order would be 2311, close-up of top of fourth
finger.
(The instrument herein described as photograph of close-up of fourth
finger of glove was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit
No. 2311.)
MR. BAKER: Do you want to put that on the Elmo.
(Exhibit 2311 displayed on Elmo.)
Q. Now, does that look like a rock to you or does that look like a
cut?
A. There's a damaged area on the finger that -- there you go.
Q. That area?
A. This area here could be -- could be that rock that I remember.
Q. Well, that's exactly the same area I pointed to on the other two
exhibits, isn't it, sir?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And you're telling me that's not a cut?
A. Well, there's an area of damage on there. I don't know if it's a
cut or if it was caused by a rip.
Q. Now, are you telling this jury that there was a rock in that
exact area, and you have a recollection of that when you collected
the Bundy glove on June 13, 1994?
A. Yes.
Q. And you didn't see the damaged area because a rock was on it; is
that what you're telling this jury?
A. I'm telling you that damaged area was where a rock was.
Q. And you couldn't see the damaged area because there was a rock on
top of it; is that your testimony, sir?
A. I'm saying it was embedded in that damaged area.
Q. So it was embedded in the damaged area?
A. Yes.
Q. And you couldn't see the light-colored lining through the damaged
area; is that your testimony, sir?
A. I don't recall seeing the lining. I -- I believe I left the rock
in the glove.
Q. Now, when you collected that glove at Bundy, the glove was with
the palm up, correct? In other words, that portion of the fourth
finger would have been down in the dirt area at the crime scene next
to the sidewalk, correct, or walkway?
A. I don't recall if the palm was up or the back hand was up.
Q. Does that look like that could be a -- a bite mark from possibly
a dog?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you ever look at Mark Fuhrman's notes where he
noted that the area was possibly a dog -- a bite mark, that the
suspect was possibly bitten by a dog? Did you look at those notes?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: Asked if he looked; doesn't call for hearsay.
THE COURT: I sustained it.
MR. LAMBERT: Ask that the question be stricken, too, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Stricken.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In doing your work as a criminalist, did you look
at any of the detectives' notes that were at the crime scene on June
13, 1994, Lange, Fuhrman or anybody else?
A. I was never given access to those notes.
Q. You don't know whether Fuhrman's notes indicate that the witness
was -- that the suspect may possibly have been bitten by a dog
because of that bite mark?
MR. LAMBERT: Same objection. Ask that the question be stricken.
THE COURT: Sustained. Stricken.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And if --
A. You know, I'm sorry, looking at the photograph more closely now,
it's in the knuckle area instead of the fourth finger area that the
rock was in.
Q. You said that's the knuckle area?
A. Yes.
Q. That's a cut in the glove?
THE COURT: No, that's not his testimony.
A. No, I'm sorry --
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I'm sorry?
A. It's this area here that I was talking about, and this very well
could be a -- I was mistaken.
THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, take ten. Don't talk about
the case; don't form or express any opinions.
(Recess.)
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
MR. BAKER: Would you put that up?
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I want you to indicate to the jury where you
believe -- where you believe you --
MR. P. BAKER: This is 2308.
(2309 displayed on Elmo.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) This is the area we've determined was a damaged
area, correct?
A. Yes, that is a damageed area.
Q. And your earlier testimony here was there was a rock in there and
you couldn't see any of the light colored area underneath it,
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And your present testimony is -- where was the rock?
A. I'm not sure now whether it was the right glove or the left
glove, but there was an area of damage which would be analogous to
the knuckle area instead of the finger.
Q. So there was an area of damage found -- how big was this -- was
this rock, sir, eighth of an inch, quarter of an inch?
A. Small. It was like a piece of debris that would come off a stucco
wall or something.
Q. And did -- did you make any effort to ensure that that wasn't
lost?
A. I booked it with my -- with the evidence.
Q. I mean you didn't put any piece of tape or book it separately or
put it on scotch tape or anything like that?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Okay. Now, I put before you the earlier two photos that I had
asked you to review, sir.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, does that appear to you to be the left glove or the glove
that was located at Bundy?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. Okay.
MR. BAKER: And let me have --
MR. P. BAKER: On the screen is 2309.
THE CLERK: It was misidentified as 2308.
MR. BAKER: The left glove is which number?
MR. P. BAKER: That, I believe, is Civil Exhibit 129.
THE CLERK: If you want to mark that glove by reference and have a
new case right now, we have a photograph of that glove -- I mean
exhibit number. Would you like to mark that as a new exhibit number
by reference or --
MR. BAKER: Yeah, that's fine.
THE CLERK: New exhibit number by reference is 2312.
(The instrument herein referred to as a left-hand glove was marked
for identification by reference to Criminal Case Number BA097211 as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 2312.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I'm putting before you 2312 which was Evidence No.
77 in the criminal trial that, at least I was told, was the Bundy
glove. Where is the damage area on the fourth finger of that glove;
do you see any damaged area at all on that?
A. I do not.
Q. Now, there's some markings down here with some lines on the glove
pointing to some stains in the glove, correct?
A. I'm not sure this is the same glove.
Q. Well, I'm pretty sure it isn't, aren't you? I mean there's no
damaged area on the ring finger of that glove, is there?
A. No, there is no damage on this.
Q. All right. Now, you didn't do any criminalist work on the gloves
after you collected them, did you, sir?
A. No.
Q. So let me ask you this, because I'm obviously confused, is the
area, pointing to the stains, is that commonly done when a
criminalist is -- is examining something like a glove?
A. I didn't put those marks on there, so I can't comment as to why
they marked them in the fashion that they did.
Q. Okay. There is a letter -- it would appear to me at least that
there's a letter A, correct, on the palm of the left glove, true?
A. Yes.
Q. And it would appear to me that there is a stain above that where
the arrow is, correct? Right there. You got better eyes than I do.
Come on.
A. There's some type of mark on there, yes.
Q. And over on the surface there is a letter O, it would appear, and
two stains, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, this picture of Mr. Fuhrman pointing at the glove
--
MR. P. BAKER: That's a blowup of Exhibit 40.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) -- taken somewhere around 4 o'clock in the
morning.
MR. LAMBERT: Object to that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: What are you objecting to?
MR. LAMBERT: Object, assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: On what fact is allegedly not in evidence.
MR. LAMBERT: Time of the photo.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Rokahr's testimony from the deposition is that, sir.
MR. PETROCELLI: There's evidence going in different directions on
that, Your Honor, so --
MR. BAKER: Let me say something. This photograph was taken at
nighttime, okay.
MR. LAMBERT: Object even to that, Your Honor, assumes facts not in
evidence. Why didn't he ask the question?
THE COURT: Are we going to go through and search the record to see
when that photograph was taken, if that's your objection. You have
some objection to that photograph?
MR. LAMBERT: No. Why doesn't he ask a question about the photograph
instead of making an argument about when it was taken.
MR. BAKER: When I need legal advice from my adversary, I'll ask for
it in writing.
THE COURT: Go ahead and ask the question.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That picture of Fuhrman pointing to the glove
shows the palm up, does it not?
(Witness reviews blowup.)
A. Yes, it does.
Q. If, in fact, the glove had a mark and was noted as a damage cut
on the ring finger of the left hand noted by Mr. Fuhrman in his
notes, would he have had to have picked the glove up to have seen
that cut because it's not visible as it lies on the ground there,
true, sir?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, hearsay, argumentative.
THE COURT: Argumentative, sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) There's no way to see where the damaged area is on
that glove in the position that it is in, you would agree with that,
sir?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, calls for speculation, conclusion on the
part of witness. He wasn't even there when that photograph was
taken.
THE COURT: You may argue that. Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You collected the glove, didn't you?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You couldn't see the damaged area before you picked the glove up,
could you?
A. When I picked up the glove I didn't look at it for damage.
Q. This is this high state of vigilance and you didn't look at it
for damage?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You were trying to collect evidence from a crime
scene, that evidence was within feet of both of the bodies of the
victims, was it not, sir?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you look at the glove before you put it in a
bag?
A. I did look at the glove before I put it in the bag, yes.
Q. Was it in this position when you collected it?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, this has all been gone into in length the
first time around. I do have a page reference.
THE COURT: Give me a page reference.
MR. LAMBERT: Page 10, November 5, you want me to bring it up.
THE COURT: Bring it up.
(Counsel hands transcript to Court.)
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, may I be heard on that?
(The following proceedings were held at the bench with the
reporter:)
MR. BAKER: We have never heard of this pebble before.
THE COURT: That's fine. You can ask about the pebble.
MR. BAKER: My point --
THE COURT: Blasier went through four pages of examining this witness
as to how he observed it at the time.
MR. BAKER: My point is that he now can't tell us which glove this
pebble was allegedly embedded in and whether it's indigenous to
the area is where I'm going. I want to know if it was in that
position when he believes that that glove was found.
THE COURT: So ask that. You can ask about the pebble.
MR. BAKER: All right.
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, when you collected the right hand glove at
Rockingham, was there any cut on it?
A. I don't recall if there was or not.
Q. Have no recollection of that?
A. Not at this point in time, no.
Q. Did you -- was the -- was the pebble embedded in that glove when
you picked it up, whichever glove it was?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. As if somebody had stepped on the glove perhaps and embedded it
into the leather?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, it was pushed into the leather and you saw
this little pebble that you say would be consistent with something
being knocked off a stucco wall, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And did see whether there was any cuts or tears in the glove,
right?
A. I don't recall. I know that there was damage to the gloves. I
don't know where they were though and or which one it was.
Q. Where's the damage if this is the Bundy glove, you would agree
with me there isn't one bit of damage to that glove, correct?
A. If that is the Bundy glove.
Q. It's a left-handed Aris Isotoner glove.
MR. BAKER: Put it on the Elmo and show us the whole thing.
(Glove displayed on Elmo.)
MR. P. BAKER: I need to take down this.
MR. BAKER: I'm sorry. I apologize.
(Counsel removes blowup.)
A. No evidence there.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) No evidence of a tear, correct?
A. I -- there is none, no.
MR. BAKER: Turn it over.
(Glove is turned over.)
MR. BAKER: Pull it the other way, please, Phil.
A. This is the A -- there's a spot that's discernible but barely.
Q. If you can pull it over there's an O here spot here, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, the gloves were taken, after you as a criminalist picked
them up, and maintained by Los Angeles Police Department until they
were introduced into evidence, right?
A. Can you repeat that again?
Q. The gloves, after you picked them up at Bundy and Rockingham,
were maintained by LAPD, true?
A. If they were -- they were booked into evidence in the evidence
control unit.
Q. Now, on the right-hand glove, cuts on that, sir, did you notice
those?
A. There may have been cuts. I don't --
Q. Have no recollection of that either?
A. No.
Q. And you don't know if the pebble was in the right or the left,
correct?
A. I don't recall at this time.
Q. And what color was the pebble?
A. It was a light color.
Q. So it kind of like -- it showed -- that is, it was visible
because of the contrast of the color of the pebble in the glove?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, would you have made any notations on your records anywhere
if you saw cuts on those gloves?
A. No.
MR. BAKER: Could we just pass this glove to the jury, please.
THE COURT: You may.
(Jurors review glove.)
Q. You will certainly agree, Mr. Fung, that the glove that was
booked into evidence and the glove that is pictured as Items 301 and
302 are not the same, correct?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, calls for speculation, conclusion.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, the glove didn't miraculously get the hole
repaired, did it?
MR. LAMBERT: Argumentative, same thing.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Can you tell from visualizing this glove if that
was the glove that you picked up at Rockingham?
MR. LEONARD: Excuse me. For the record, do we have a --
MR. BAKER: What's the number on that, please.
THE CLERK: Do you want to mark it by reference 2313.
MR. LEONARD: That is the Criminal Trial Exhibit No. 164
A.
THE CLERK: Correct.
MR. LEONARD: Which is the right glove?
(The instrument herein referred to as the right-hand glove was
marked for identification by reference as Defendants' Exhibit No.
2313.)
THE WITNESS: This appears to be.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And did the other appear to be the glove that you
picked up at Bundy?
A. It was very similar to it, yes.
Q. This one you say appears to be, and that one you say is similar,
and the reason that you can't say that that was the glove that you
picked up at Bundy is that there are pictures taken by the LAPD that
show a hole in the ring finger of the glove that was picked up at
Bundy and the glove booked into evidence has no hole in it, correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. The photo appears to have a defect in it and that glove does not.

Q. (BY MR. BAKER) There's no doubt in your mind there's a defect
from the photograph; isn't that true, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Now, relative to the glove that you have no doubt that
you picked up at Rockingham, is there cuts on the top of that glove?

A. Yes, there are.
Q. Are there cuts on the bottom or wear marks on the bottom of that
glove?
A. There's damage to the palm side, yes.
Q. Now, on any of these either -- of these gloves, did you compare
whether those cuts would match any cuts on Mr. Simpson's hand?
A. That was not my duty, no.
Q. So you didn't?
A. I did not.
Q. And the glove that we've seen in evidence that has cuts on it is
the right glove, correct?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Okay. And Mr. Simpson had no cuts on his right hand.
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, this glove certainly looks like it has a fair
amount of wear; you would agree with that?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, Your Honor, calling for speculation on the
part of the witness.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. It appears to have been worn, yes.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And the left glove doesn't appear to have
virtually any wear on it; isn't that true?
A. Well --
Q. You need to look at it again?
MR. BAKER: May I borrow that for a minute.
(Indicating to juror.)
(Counse l retrieves glove from juror.)
A. They're about the same.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So in your estimation the wear on both of these
gloves is the same?
A. Approximately, yes.
Q. Okay. I'd just pass those gloves to the jury, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you want to start from seat No. 1 again since you're
going to pass two instead of one?
Q. That looks -- those look like approximately the same amount of
wear, you say?
A. From -- I'm not a glove expert.
Q. I understand.
A. But --
Q. There may not be such a -- never mind.
MR. BAKER: I don't think I have anything further at this time.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY
MR. LAMBERT:
Q. Just a couple of questions, Mr. Fung. First, in regard to this
trash bag that was used to transport the blood vial, is it uncommon
for criminalists to use something like a trash bag to transport some
evidence?
A. No, it is not.
Q. In this instance, in addition to transporting the blood vial,
were there any other items of evidence that were also put inside the
trash bag to be transported?
A. I believe there may have been.
Q. So you transported several items of evidence plus these cards
that you picked up off the ground in the trash bag; is that your
best --
MR. BAKER: Argumentative, speculation and leading as well. That
whole area was gone into, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Is it your best recollection, sir, that when you
took out the blood vial in the trash bag, you also took out some
other items of evidence in that trash bag?
A. To the best of my recollection, yes.
Q. Thank you. You were also asked some questions by Mr. Baker
relating to your prior testimony in this case as to when you picked
up the socks and Mr. Baker read you a part of that testimony. I'd
like to read the rest of it to see if that accurately reflects your
recollection. These are questions that -- by Mr. Blasier.
MR. BAKER: Well, Your Honor, I would object that he's not impeaching
him. Ask him questions and that's what he can use the transcript
for, nothing else, other than argument. I don't think.
THE COURT: I don't think -- the plaintiff is entitled to have the
entire statement read in rather than just part.
MR. LAMBERT: This is from page 50, line 28, Your Honor.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) (Reading:) Now, what do your records show in
terms of the time that you processed number 12?
A. Number 12 has the time of -- I'm referring to my notes -- 4:30
in the afternoon.
Q. You have that in your notes?
A. Well, on the evidence collection, item number 12 --
Q. Oh, I'm sorry. Item number 12. 4:30, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Item number 14, what was -- was at what time?
A. Item 14 was at 4:40.
Q. And you collected the -- or at least labeled the socks between 12
and 14, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What time did you physically collect the socks?
A. The socks were collected within -- somewhere within that time
frame there. So you did not intend to imply that those times were
precise times, did you?
MR. BAKER: Objection, leading, suggestive.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Did you intend those times to be precise times,
Mr. Fung?
MR. BAKER: Same objection.
THE COURT: Go ahead and answer it.
A. They are ballpark figures; they're not exact.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Well, in regard to these gloves that are
somewhere with our jury now, after you collected those gloves, were
you involved in much further work with them at LAPD?
A. Once I had booked them into evidence, I did not see them again
until the trial.
Q. So you weren't really that familiar with what happened to those
gloves afterwards?
A. No, I'm not.
Q. Okay. And when you collect items of evidence like the gloves or
the socks, is it your purpose at the time of collection to inspect
them for whatever evidence they may contain?
A. I collect them so that they can be analyzed at a later date, and
if there's some evidence that -- that I see that needs to be further
collected, I will make that another item number and collect it
separately.
Q. But other than that, you don't purport to be closely examining
those items of evidence for additional evidence at the time of their
initial collection; is that what you're saying?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay.
MR. LAMBERT: I have no further questions. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY
MR. BAKER:
Q. Now, why don't you explain to this jury how the stone and the
hole that was in the -- that was in the glove when you collected it
just disappeared. Tell us how that happened.
MR. LAMBERT: Beyond the scope, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I can't explain.
MR. LAMBERT: Argumentative, as well.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You have no explanation whatsoever why that hole
is not there now, right?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) What other items -- Mr. Fung, tell this jury every
item you removed from the trash bag other than the reference vial of
O.J. Simpson's blood. Tell them.
A. Excuse me?
Q. What other items -- you said to Mr. Lambert you removed other
items from the trash bag besides Mr. Simpson's reference blood. Tell
this jury what it was.
A. I can speculate.
Q. You have been.
MR. LAMBERT: Move to strike the comment as argumentative.
THE COURT: It's stricken.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Mr. Fung, let's -- have you got it there, you got
anything there that tells you if there was one other item in that
trash bag?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative. Let him answer the question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. There may have been items 15 and 16 in that trash bag.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And there may not have been, right?
A. I don't specifically remember.
Q. So you don't know of any other -- as you sit here now, you know
of no other items in the trash bag except the trash, the little
numbers on the driveway and the reference vial of Mr. Simpson,
right?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, use of the word trash.
THE COURT: Trash is stricken.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Correct?
A. To the best of my recollection, 15 and 16 were in the plastic bag
along --
Q. That would be speculation?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative. He said to the best of his
recollection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. That's the best of my recollection.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You don't know if -- what was in the trash bag.
The only reason you know Mr. Simpson's blood vial was in there was
there was a videotape showing you put it in there, correct?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. That helps refresh my recollection.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You didn't have any recollection to be refreshed,
you just couldn't refute what was on the videotape; isn't that
correct, sir?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Went into the last time as well.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In your -- in your prior testimony, you were asked
what time did you physically collect the socks, and your answer was
the socks were collected within -- somewhere within that time frame
there, referring to the time frame between 4:30 and 4:40, correct,
sir?
A. Within the ten-minute period either way.
Q. Well, you didn't say in your testimony when you visited with us
on November 5 anything about ten minutes either way. You said, after
you reviewed your notes -- (Reading:)
Q. What time did you physically collect the -- Let me read it all.
(Reading:) Now, what do your records show in terms of the time you
processed number 12?
A. Number 12 has the time of -- I'm referring to my notes -- 4:30 in
the afternoon.
Q. Have you that in your notes?
A. Well, on the evidence collection sheet, item number 12 --
Q. Oh, I'm sorry. Item 12. 4:30, correct?
A. Correct. And item 14 was at what time? Item 14 was at 4:40.
Q. You collected the or at least labeled the socks between 12 and
14, correct?
A. Yes. What time did you physically collect the socks? The socks
were collected within -- somewhere within that time frame. And that
time frame that you referred to, sir, was the time frame between
4:30 and 4:40, was it not?
A. The times on the -- written on this sheet are approximate.
Q. Maybe you didn't understand my question. I'll give you another
opportunity. In your answer that I just read, "The socks were
collected somewhere within that time frame there," you were
referring to the time frame between 4:30 and 4:40, were you not,
sir?
A. Perhaps you didn't understand my answer.
Q. Well, that's not the test, Mr. Fung.
A. May I finish?
Q. No, you may not. Answer my question.
MR. LAMBERT: Your Honor, I ask that the witness be able to answer.
THE COURT: The witness is not answering. The witness is arguing with
counsel.
MR. LAMBERT: Counsel is being argumentative.
MR. BAKER: I don't need your comments about my comments.
THE COURT: Mr. Baker, we don't need that either. Go ahead and
answer.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You were referring to the time between 4:30 and
4:40 when Mr. Blasier asked you when you collected the socks, were
you not?
A. No, I was not.
Q. You weren't referring to that?
A. I was referring to what I just explained to you.
Q. You were referring to -- in your answer to that question, you
weren't incorporating the time frame between 4:30 and 4:40, right?
A. The time frame I'm referring to is a ballpark figure.
Q. You were referring to the time frame that you had just mentioned
in the previous questions of between 4:30 and 4:40; yes or no?
A. And those, between 4:30 and 4:40, they could go either way --
Q. And you never --
A. -- in time.
Q. You never mentioned in any of your testimony about the time of
the socks, either in this courtroom on November 5 or in the criminal
trial in your testimony for days, that you were talking ballpark
figures. Today is the first time you have mentioned your terminology
of ballpark figures, ten minutes either way, true?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: I don't have anything further. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY
MR. LAMBERT:
Q. Mr. Fung, let me read to you from one other page of your
testimony. This is a question --
MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to this.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. LAMBERT: Let me show you the quote.
THE COURT: I think we've done this enough.
MR. LAMBERT: He just said --
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. LAMBERT: -- in front of the jury --
MR. BAKER: You're arguing.
THE COURT: Sustained. You're excused.
THE COURT: Okay. We'll adjourn till 1:30.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench with the
reporter:)
(The notes of the proceedings at this point were ordered sealed by
the Court, not to be opened, Transcribed, or destroyed except upon
order of a Judge of the Superior Court.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
THE BAILIFF: Is the jury excused, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Jury is excused to 1:30.
(At 12 P.M. a recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1997 1:40 P.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE. APPEARANCES:
(Per Cover Page)
(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)
(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the
presence of the jury.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, before lunch during Mr. Fung's
examination by Mr. Baker, he asked a series of three questions which
I just had the reporter find and read back, which indicates that
Mark Fuhrman's notes indicated in the notes that there was a dog
bite mark on the glove. And I went and checked Mark Fuhrman's notes
which were briefly identified by Mr. Baker as Exhibit 847 in the
examination of Detective Ronald Phillips, and there is absolutely no
mention whatsoever of any dog bite mark on any glove, and Mr.
Baker's question directly represented that there was such a marking.
The only reference to dog bites in the notes is at page 3 of the
notes where it says at rear gate of Nicole Simpson's residence two
blood spots at bottom inside of cage area might have been where the
dog was kept, suspect ran through this area suspect upon being
bitten by dog. There is nothing in these notes about any marking
on a glove caused by a dog bite as reflected in Mark Fuhrman's
notes. And we ask that the jury be admonished that there is no such
evidence in the notes of Mark Fuhrman, there is no such mention,
just like this Court admonished the jury with regard to, for
example, Mr. Gelblum was asking Mr. Groden about photos which
allegedly were taken, and the Court specifically told the jury that
that was innuendo and to be disregarded. And we believe that was
highly prejudicial because Mr. Baker knew that the notes didn't say
that and yet he so represented they did. I can show you the notes,
Your Honor.
(The instrument herein described as a notes of Mark Fuhrman was
marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 847.)
THE COURT: I believe you objected, Court sustained it and struck it,
so there's no point in doing anything.
MR. PETROCELLI: There was no good faith basis for asking the
question, Your Honor, and that's the test. When we have a document
and the document is being absolutely misrepresented to the jury, and
it's highly prejudicial.
THE COURT: Bring the jury.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I have one other thing. That is that we had
called the LAPD to get Officer Donald Thompson back, who is the --
the officer you may recall who was about a foot taller than my son,
and he's the -- we asked him to come back. The LAPD says we're not
going to have him come back unless you resubpoena him and pay us
more money. What I would like from this Court is just an order he
was not excused, he was placed on call. I would just like an order
from this Court requiring LAPD to produce him here at 8:30 Monday
morning.
THE COURT: So ordered.
MR. BAKER: Thank you.
(Jurors resume their respective seats.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, at this time we'd like to read the
deposition of Jim Merrill taken on May 28, 1996, in Chicago. JIM
MERRILL, called as a witness by the Defendant via deposition
testimony, testified as follows: (Reading of selected portions of
the deposition transcript.) Mr. Leonard reads the questions and Mr.
P. Baker reads the answers.)
Q. Would you state your name, spelling your last name for the
record.
A. Jim Merrill, M-e-r-r-i-l-l.
Q. How old are you, Mr. Merrill?
A. 28.
Q. Are you presently employed?
A. Yes.
Q. What do you do for a living?
A. A mortgage broker.
Q. How long have you been at your present employment?
A. Since January of this year.
Q. Prior to that, where were you employed, sir?
A. Hertz Corporation.
Q. What was your position at Hertz Corporation?
A. I was a commercial sales representative.
Q. How long did you work for Hertz Corporation?
A. Just over two years.
Q. Were you a commercial sales representative during your entire
tenure at Hertz?
A. Yes.
Q. And in very general terms what did your job involve as a
commercial sales representative?
A. Basically, keeping accounts, established accounts, that we had,
happy, and actively pursuing accounts.
Q. Now, drawing your attention to June 13, 1994, did you have
occasion to meet O.J. Simpson that day?
A. Yes.
Q. And where did you meet him?
A. At O'Hare Airport.
Q. And without discussing anything anyone told you, how was that
meeting arranged, why was it that you were there?
A. Well, he was in town for a golf outing that we were having that
day and I -- I don't know whether I was chosen or whether I chose to
go out there to help participate in the planning of this event, went
to go pick him up.
Q. Was there anyone else with you to pick Mr. Simpson up?
A. Bombay Shaw.
Q. Was he also an employee of Hertz?
A. Yes.
Q. And where did you go to pick up Mr. Simpson?
A. At the gate where he arrived.
Q. This would be at the airport?
A. Yes.
Q. That would be O'Hare Airport?
A. O'Hare.
Q. What did you do after you first saw Mr. Simpson at the gate?
A. Well, he came walking out of the gate, we shook hands and had a
mild discussion about the flight and then walked down the corridor
to the baggage claim department.
Q. Can you describe his demeanor as he walked out the passageway
from the airplane?
A. Looked a little bit tired, kind of looked like he was happy to
get off the plane.
Q. Okay.
A. He was just like you and I are just talking right now, we were
just talking like two human beings.
Q. You said you had a mild discussion with him. Without discussing
the content of the discussion, can you describe his demeanor during
the discussion?
A. Laid back, relaxed, cordial.
Q. Where did this conversation take place, was it at the gate or
while you were walking towards the baggage claim area or was it in
both places?
A. Well, we basically just shook hands as soon as he came off the
plane and started a discussion at that point as we were walking.
Q. After you met him at the gate, you walked to where, the baggage
claim?
A. Right.
Q. How much time did you spend in the baggage claim area with Mr.
Simpson, approximately?
A. Good estimate, maybe 15 minutes.
Q. Where were you and Mr. Simpson during that 15 minutes?
A. When we were in the baggage claim area?
Q. Yes.
A. We proceeded down the corridor, got in the baggage claim area and
sat down on a bench, bench seat just in front of the baggage claim
area to the right of where the bags were coming.
Q. You were seated next to him. Were you seated on his left or his
right, if you recall?
A. I was seated on his left. He was to my right.
Q. How long did you and Mr. Simpson sit on the bench together before
something else occurred?
A. Just give you my best estimate, was probably 10 minutes, 10
minutes, 10 to 15.
Q. And during that 10-minute period, what, if anything, occurred?
A. Obviously people were coming up, asking for his autograph,
talking to him at the same time I was.
Q. And what was Mr. Simpson's demeanor during that 10-minute period
when people were coming up to him and talking to him and asking for
his autograph?
A. Well, he was very friendly, he was very cordial to the people
coming up to him. That's the best way to describe it.
Q. And can you approximate how many people came and asked for his
autograph during that period?
A. I can just give you an estimation. Probably ten -- in the area of
ten people, minimum, ten to fifteen.
Q. Is that your best recollection right now?
A. It's been two years. That would be my best.
Q. Do you recall testifying at the trial that it was 15 to 20?
A. It very well could have been.
Q. Does that refresh your recollection?
A. Yes, 15 to 20 could be -- There was a lot of people there.
Obviously I did not count how many people were around.
Q. And so describe, if you will, what Mr. Simpson did physically
when the people came up and asked him for his autograph.
A. Well, he was shaking people's hands, you know, waving, saying hi,
things like that, signed a few autographs. That's about it.
Q. You recall Mr. Simpson signing several autographs, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. I want you to describe for me in as much detail as you can the
actual physical movements that you observed Mr. Simpson do while he
was signing the autographs?
A. Okay. Well, I recall when he was sitting to the right of me, when
we first sat down he was sitting with his elbows on his knee like
this,
(indicating) just in a very relaxed way; and we were discussing, you
know, just different things. And at that point people started to
come up, he was shaking hands, he was grabbing articles like this,
signed a couple things
(indicating). Is that an adequate explanation.
Q. I'm just trying to get your best recollection of what you recall
him doing and you've indicated that he was shaking hands with his
right hand, then he was grabbing objects with his left hand to sign;
is that what you're saying?
A. To the best of my recollection.
Q. You said something about an article or articles. What do you mean
by that in reference to signing autographs?
A. I don't recall whether they were magazines, whether they were
pieces of paper. I don't recall.
Q. But you recall seeing him sign several articles, correct?
A. Okay. I've got to give you an estimate, maybe three, maybe three
to five.
Q. Okay.
A. That's my best guesstimate.
Q. And you've already described for us the actual hand motion that
Mr. Simpson made when he signed those articles; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. What, if anything, occurred when Mr. Simpson was not signing
autographs while you were sitting on the bench?
A. We were having conversations.
Q. And again, without describing the substance of the conversation,
what was Mr. Simpson's demeanor during those conversations you would
have with him?
A. Again, cordial.
Q. And at the end of that 10-minute period, what happened next?
A. Well, the bags began to come out on the carousel, and Mr. Simpson
stood up and walked over to the carousel and I stayed by his other
bags.
MR. LEONARD: Over to 15, line 9. (Reading of selected portions of
the deposition transcript.)

10-minute period. You just said Mr. Simpson went toward the
carousel; is that right?
A. Right.
Q. And what did you do?
A. I stayed at the bench.
Q. Why did you stay at the bench?
A. He just said that he was going to go grab his bag.
Q. Were there any other bags in the area that you saw?
A. As far as his bags?
Q. Yes.
A. Two bags.
Q. Did you see at any point Mr. Simpson carrying any other bags?
A. Two bags.
MR. LEONARD: Okay. Down to page 16, line 22. (Reading of selected
portions of the deposition transcript.)
Q. When you saw Mr. Simpson coming out of the passageway from the
plane, was he carrying anything?
A. Yes.
Q. What was he carrying?
A. Two bags.
Q. Can you describe those bags?
A. I remember distinctly a black duffel bag, looked like it was
leather, and I remember a garment bag, dark color.
Q. Where were those bags, if you know, when Mr. Simpson went over to
the baggage carousel?
A. There were actually two. I can't describe specifically, but they
were on the ground and they were next to me.
Q. What happened after Mr. Simpson went over to the baggage
carousel?
A. He grabbed his golf bag. I witnessed him do that. I subsequently
grabbed his other bags in my hand and we proceeded out the door.
Q. Where did you go?
A. We walked over to the car where Mr. Shaw was waiting.
Q. What happened when you got to the car, what happened next?
A. Well, opened the doors and proceeded to put the luggage in the
car. We put the golf clubs in the trunk and the other bags in the
back seat. I believe Mr. Simpson was hanging on to one bag, and I
don't recall which one it was.
Q. Mr. Simpson was carrying the golf bag, correct?
A. Right.
Q. And how many bags did you carry out -- carry out to the car?
A. Two.
Q. And you placed those in the car?
A. We got to the car, we were figuring out where we were going to
place all of the luggage because the car was very full of
promotional materials, golf clubs, whatnot. So I placed them on the
ground. At that point, we were trying to decide where we were going
to put the golf clubs and I believe Mr. Simpson placed the golf
clubs in the back of the car, of the Towncar.
Q. You mean the trunk?
A. In the trunk, right. Because that's where they were. That's
where they were when we left. And the other two bags went inside the
car in the passenger compartment.
Q. When you say the passenger compartment, you're talking about the
rear passenger compartment?
A. I believe one bag was in the front with him. I don't recall which
one.
Q. What happened next?
A. We said good-bye to Mr. Shaw. He decided to take a bus back to
the Hertz location and we proceeded to the hotel.
Q. Did you enter the hotel with Mr. Simpson?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you at some point go up to the registration desk with Mr.
Simpson?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell me everything you recall occurring at the registration desk?

A. We walked up, obviously made his appearance, began to get his
keys and whatnot to go up to his room. I recall him signing one
autograph, specifically. That's about it.
Q. You watched him sign the autograph?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall whether he signed the autograph right on the
registration desk, is that where he signed it?
A. To the best of my recollection, yes, took it down and signed it
right there
(indicating).
Q. Again, you made a motion with your hands. Is that the motion you
recall Mr. Simpson making with his hands when he signed the
autograph?
A. Yes. He reached out, grabbed the paper and signed it.
Q. You were standing there observing him when he did that?
A. I was right next to him.
Q. Did you carry any bags into the hotel?
A. I do not remember.
Q. Do you know if Mr. Simpson carried any bags into the hotel?
A. Two bags were in the hotel, the only thing was left with me was
the golf bag.
Q. Where was that left?
A. In the trunk of the car.
Q. Was why that left in the trunk of the car?
A. We were going to be getting together later that morning to go to
the golf course for a golf outing. So instead of bringing it up to
the room, he left it with me.
Q. What time, if you recall, was Mr. Simpson supposed to arrive at
the golf outing?
A. I left it up to him. We had to be there, I believe it was about
-- by 11:30 just to make sure everything went well because he was
going to have an autographing session there as well. And we teed
off, I believe, at 1 o'clock.
Q. Was there any exchange of any kind between yourself and Mr.
Simpson just prior to your leaving the hotel?
A. Exchange as far as.
Q. After you observed Mr. Simpson at the registration desk, and
after you observed him sign at least one autograph, what happened
next with regard to you and Mr. Simpson?
A. Well, we said goodbye. Obviously, he was tired. Said go up, take
a nap, and let's get in touch a little bit later. I gave him my
business card and I wrote my phone numbers, both my home and my
cellular number, on the back for him to get in touch with me later
if he needed to.
Q. Now, from the point that you first saw Mr. Simpson when he left
the airplane at the gate until you left him at the hotel, did you
notice anything unusual about his hands?
A. Just that they were large.
Q. Did you notice any cuts or blood or bandages on his hand?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Where did you go after you left the hotel?
A. I went home.
Q. What happened next with regard to Mr. Simpson?
A. I received a call from him on my cellular phone in my house. I
kept a cellular with me in the event he called. And he was asking me
in a very frantic way to come back to the airport and pick him up.

Q. You say come back to the airport?
A. I'm sorry. Back to the hotel.
Q. Do you recall approximately when you received that phone call?
A. I believe it was around 8:30.
Q. And what did you do?
A. I immediately got in my car and proceeded to the airport.
Q. How long was that telephone conversation?
A. Couldn't have been more than 5, 10 seconds.
Q. And describe Mr. Simpson's demeanor during that telephone call?
A. He was very -- just sounded very frantic, just -- almost
desperate.
Q. What did you -- and so you proceeded -- you then got -- what did
you -- did you do, get changed?
A. No, I was fully clothed.
Q. You got in your car and you headed towards the hotel?
A. Yes.
Q. What happened next?
A. I received another call from him, I would say approximately five
minutes later, and he just proceeded to ask me where I was in
regards to the hotel and how soon it would take for me to get there,
and that was about it, and he said he would call me back.
Q. Would you describe his demeanor during that telephone call?
A. Again, he was -- sounded like he was in a hurry, very frantic,
desperate, I knew something -- at that point, I knew something had
happened. I don't know. I actually thought that somebody had made
him mad at the hotel.
Q. After that phone call what happened next?
A. I received another call from him, and it increasingly got more
desperate is the best word I can use, almost like he had nobody else
to call. He asked me again where I was, almost asking me for advice
on what he should do. And I let him know that I was -- with that
traffic the way it was, I was a good 30 minutes from the hotel.
Q. And with regard to the third phone call, do you recall anything
else Mr. Simpson said or anything else, any other sounds you heard
from him during that phone call?
A. He just sounded very desperate when I asked him -- Yes.
Q. What was that?
A. At one point he began to cry. When I asked him what was going on,
because I was actually very concerned, I had no idea what was going
on, and I was just asking for an answer, he didn't give it to me, he
began to cry and that was about it.
Q. What was the next thing that happened during your ride to the
hotel?
A. Traffic was actually pretty light that day and I was making
pretty good time. I made an attempt to contact him, called the hotel
to let him know I was making pretty good time and I may be able to
take him back to the airport. He wasn't in his room. To the best of
my knowledge, I recall the receptionist or whoever worked up in the
front telling me that he was out in the parking lot and that they
would go get him. I told them --
Q. And then at some point Mr. Simpson came on the phone?
A. Yes.
Q. And what happened next, after the receptionist said she would go
get Mr. Simpson, what happened next?
A. Somebody went to go get Mr. Simpson because he came on the phone
and apparently was going to get a taxi or something, and said that
-- I told him that I may be able to take him. He said, well, maybe
I'll wait for you.
Q. You ultimately arrived at the hotel?
A. Yes.
Q. And when you arrived?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. What happened when you arrived at the hotel?
A. When I arrived at the hotel, I walked into the lobby, told them
-- told them I was Jim Merrill from the Hertz Corporation here to
assist Mr. Simpson in getting back to the airport. They said that he
had already left.
Q. What did you do at that point?
A. At that point I hopped in my car in hopes that I can get his
remaining luggage to the airport in time for him to get on the
flight and have it with him.
Q. Did you then drive directly to the airport?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you successful in getting the golf bag on the flight?
A. No.
Q. Just so the record is clear, when you say remaining luggage, what
are you referring to?
A. The golf bag.
Q. And when you arrived at the airport why were you not successful
in getting the golf bag on the plane?
A. He had already -- already left. I had missed him by about five
minutes.
Q. So you missed the plane?
A. I missed the plane.
Q. Directing your attention to the 14th of June, did you receive a
phone call from Mr. Simpson?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell me what Mr. Simpson said in that phone call?
A. I don't -- I don't recall word for word. He gave me an
explanation of what happened the day before. Obviously, by then I
knew what had transpired. That was basically the whole conversation.

Q. Was there any discussion about the golf bag?
A. Yes.
Q. Who initiated that discussion?
A. I initiated that conversation.
Q. Why did you ask him about the golf bag?
A. I didn't ask him about the golf bag. Just in the course of the
conversation, I mentioned that I tried to get the golf bag to him in
time, knowing that he was going back to L.
A. or -- wherever he was going, and that I put it on the -- a plane
that left just after his.
Q. Do you recall any further discussion about the golf bag in that
conversation?
A. Well, he asked whether or not I had made any arrangement to have
it delivered to him. And I said no, I didn't, I just got it there. I
gave him the baggage ticket number, and he just said, well, I guess
I'll have somebody go pick it up. And then that was the whole basis
of that conversation.
MR. LEONARD: I don't have any further questions.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, with regard to this witness and the next
two, Mr. Kilduff and Partridge, that the defense will be reading by
way of deposition, we already read our direct in our case and I will
defer not to repeat any of that. There may be a line or two in
context that gets repeated, though. Okay. Starting at page 32.
MR. P. BAKER: Okay.
MR. PETROCELLI: Line 1 -- we're going to 33, line 14. Okay.
MR. P. BAKER: Okay.
(Selected portions of the deposition of James Merrill were read by
counsel, Mr. Petrocelli reading the questions, and Mr. P. Baker
reading the answers.)
MR. PETROCELLI: (Reading:)
Q. You were asked a number of questions by Mr. Leonard about Mr.
Simpson's demeanor both before he arrived at the hotel and then on
the phone afterwards. And I would like to follow up on that a little
bit. First of all, you had never met O.J. Simpson before the morning
of June 13, correct?
A. No.
Q. You had never even spoken to him, correct?
A. Never.
Q. And you had never had any kind of conversations with him about
anything, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. So you didn't have any idea how Mr. Simpson expressed himself
when he was upset or angry, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Or if he was depressed, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Or you didn't have any idea how he expressed himself if something
was really bothering him, let's say, with his personal life, but he
still had to go to work and be on the job and do his job, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you knew nothing about the way his emotions and his inner
feelings operated, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And when you made observations about Mr. Simpson being relaxed
when you picked him up at the airport, and cordial, you were basing
that simply on how you would observe normal people behave, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You knew nothing about Mr. Simpson's personality or behavior in
particular, correct?
A. That's correct.
MR. PETROCELLI: Going down to line 24, page 33.
MR. P. BAKER: Okay.
MR. PETROCELLI: (Reading:)
Q. Well, you know that when you testified that he was relaxed, that
that is an answer that the defendant -- defense is seeking to put
on in this case, correct? You understood that, right?
A. More than likely, yes.
Q. You understood that -- that the defendant is trying to show that
he was relaxed and therefore did not exhibit the frame of mind or
the behavior of a man who had just murdered his ex-wife, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you have been interviewed by members of the defense a number
of times, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You spoke to Pat McKenna?
A. Correct.
Q. He interviewed you on June 23, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And you spoke to F. Lee Bailey at a hotel room at the Four
Seasons, correct?
A. That's correct
Q. And you've had subsequent conversations with Mr. McKenna, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you came out to Los Angeles to testify for the defendant,
O.J. Simpson, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And the defense paid your expenses for that trip, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you spoke to the lawyers for the defense before you testified
at the criminal trial about your testimony, correct?
A. Carl Douglas.
Q. And Mr. Douglas examined you at the trial, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And before he examined you, he went over the questions that he
was going to ask you, and your answers, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And one of the areas that he went over was that you would testify
that Mr. Simpson was relaxed and cordial when you first encountered
him, correct?
A. That is correct, he did ask that question.
Q. You've spoken to Mr. Leonard before today?
A. Yes.
Q. On how many occasions?
A. One occasion.
Q. That was last evening -- when was that?
A. That was last evening.
Q. On the telephone?
A. Over the telephone, yes.
Q. And Mr. Leonard went over the questions and answers for today's
deposition?
A. Yes.
MR. PETROCELLI: And now go to page 37, starting at line 14.
(Reading:)
Q. Now, after Mr. Simpson called you and apologized on the morning
of June 15 -- that should be June 14 -- did he ever call you again
later that week to apologize for anything else?
A. No.
Q. Did he call to talk to you about what was happening in your life,
how things were with you?
A. No.
Q. Did he call -- excuse me. Did he talk to you about anything that
week?
A. No, just that one call.
MR. PETROCELLI: Going down to -- continuing. (Reading:) So after --
MR. LEONARD: I'd like to pose an objection. This was all read, this
part, in their case. They've already done this.
MR. PETROCELLI: Well, I'm skipping down to line 19, anyway. Okay?
MR. P. BAKER: Okay.
MR. PETROCELLI: (Reading:)
Q. The last time you ever spoke to O.J. Simpson was on June 14,
correct?
A. That's correct.
MR. PETROCELLI: Picking up at page 39.
MR. P. BAKER: Okay.
MR. PETROCELLI: Line 23.
MR. P. BAKER: Okay.
MR. PETROCELLI: (Reading:)
Q. Now, during the entire time that you were with Mr. Simpson, from
the moment you encountered him at the gate at the airport in Chicago
until the time that you left that hotel, when he got into the
elevator, you never inspected his hands, correct?
A. I wasn't looking specifically at his hands, no, I was not.
Q. And you never examined his hands, correct?
A. With the exception of shaking his hand, no.
Q. You had no reason to examine his hands, correct?
A. No. That's correct.
Q. You did not know at that point in time that there had been a
murder in Los Angeles, right?
A. No.
Q. Let alone the murder of Mr. Simpson's ex-wife, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So, for example, you didn't notice whether he was wearing a ring
or not, correct?
A. Not to the best of my knowledge, no, I did not.
Q. And you didn't notice if he was wearing a watch, correct?
A. No.
Q. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you didn't notice, for example, whether he had hair on his
fingers, correct?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. You didn't really know whether or not he had a cut on his finger,
correct?
A. I did not see a cut.
Q. You did not see any blood, correct?
A. I did not see -- yes, I did not see blood or --
Q. And you did not see a band-aid, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. You're not saying that he could not have had a cut on his finger,
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. That's not what you're saying, correct?
A. I misinterpreted the question.
Q. You're not saying that you were so familiar with his hands that
-- and had so examined his hands, that you could positively say that
he had no cut on his finger, correct?
A. I couldn't give you a hundred percent accurate answer on that.
Q. Because you had no reason to look at his fingers in particular,
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And at no time did Mr. Simpson, for example, put out his hands in
front of you to observe, correct?
A. Not that I noticed.
Q. He never said to you, for example, Mr. Merrill, look at my
fingers?
A. No.
Q. Or look at my hands?
A. No.
Q. I don't have any cuts; he never said that, right?
A. No.
Q. He never drew your attention to his hands or his fingers,
correct?
A. I don't think he willingly did.
Q. Correct?
A. Correct.
MR. PETROCELLI: Down to page 44 at line 4. It's the last entry, I
think. (Reading:)
Q. At the criminal trial, Ms. Clark asked you the following question
--
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I'm going to object, and I'd ask to
approach.
THE COURT: Okay.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the
reporter:)
MR. PETROCELLI: For the record, the question and the answer is
beginning at page 44, line 4, through page 45, line 1, and it is to
impeach his prior testimony elicited by Mr. Leonard about no cuts.
MR. LEONARD: Can I just -- well, you go ahead.
THE COURT: Page 44 what?
MR. PETROCELLI: Right where the blue line is.
THE COURT: Okay.
(Pause for the Court to read transcript.)
MR. LEONARD: Number one, he just asked the same line of questions.
That's just repetitive. And number two, it's not a prior
inconsistent statement. It's not --
MR. PETROCELLI: You elicited him to basically establish, in part,
that he didn't have -- see any cuts; therefore, Mr. Simpson didn't
have any cuts. You asked those questions in your direct. That's
directly responsive.
MR. LEONARD: It's argumentative. He said he just didn't see any.
This is asking for speculation. He just asked that line of
questions. Now he's repeating the same lines that Clark did at the
criminal trial, so there's really no -- it's repetitive, it's
redundant.
MR. PETROCELLI: He was quibbling on his answer.
MR. LEONARD: No, he wasn't. He went down the line with him. No,
seriously, he's just doing the same thing again, but using Clark as
the mouthpiece.
THE COURT: I enjoy your enthusiasm.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I hope you don't interpret my oral
argument as having less enthusiasm because I don't yell and point,
but -- You're getting a little boisterous.
THE COURT: You are animated.
MR. LEONARD: Sorry about that.
THE COURT: Sustained. It's redundant.
(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Yeah, that's it, Your Honor, I don't have any
further questions.
MR. LEONARD: Just one second.
(Pause.)
MR. LEONARD: Okay. Yeah, I've got some. Page 126, line 3. Got that?
MR. P. BAKER: Yep.
(Selected portions of the deposition of James Merrill were read by
defense counsel, Mr. Leonard reading the questions, and Mr. P. Baker
reading the answers.)
MR. LEONARD: (Reading:)
Q. You were asked about interviews you gave to --
MR. LEONARD: These are questions by me on redirect. (Reading:) You
were asked about interviews you gave to the defense investigators
for Mr. Simpson and lawyers for Mr. Simpson. In fact, the first
interview you gave to anyone regarding your interaction with Mr.
Simpson was to a Los Angeles police detective and a Chicago police
detective; is that correct? What was the first interview you gave to
anyone regarding the interaction with Mr. Simpson on June 14, 1994?
A. To the best of my recollection, it was LaFall, L-a capital
F-a-l-l, if that was his name.
Q. Who is he?
A. He worked for the LAPD.
Q. Do you recall approximately when this interview was given?
A. I would say I think it was like 3 o'clock.
Q. I'm sorry, the date?
A. The date, I believe it was either Wednesday or Thursday -- the
following Wednesday or Thursday.
Q. Within two or three days of the event?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Now, you were asked by Mr. Petrocelli if Mr. Simpson ever
displayed his hands to you. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were asked if Mr. Simpson ever said, hey, look, I have a
cut, or words to that effect. Do you recall being asked that?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you observe at any point, Mr. Simpson attempting to conceal
either his left or his right hand?
A. No.
Q. With regard to your observation of Mr. Simpson, did you ever see
him, for instance, put his hand under his leg? Did you ever see him
do that?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you ever see him keeping his left hand in his pocket for an
extended period of time?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever see Mr. Simpson take any what you thought were steps
to try to conceal his hand?
A. No, I did not.
MR. LEONARD: That's all I have.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, I would ask to be able to read one
question and answer from his prior testimony in view of him going
back into the same area.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you. Page 44.
MR. P. BAKER: Okay.
MR. PETROCELLI: Referring to -- starting at page 4.
(Selected portions of the deposition of James Merrill were read by
counsel, Mr. Petrocelli reading the questions, and Mr. P. Baker
reading the answers.)
MR. PETROCELLI: (Reading:) At the criminal trial, Ms. Clark had
asked you the following question at page 36,819 at line 7 -- do you
remember being examined by Ms. Clark?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. You were under oath, correct?
A. I was under oath.
Q. And you were telling the truth there, correct?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And she asked you, quote: You can't tell us whether there were
any cuts on his finger on June the 12th, just that you didn't see
any, correct? And then you answered: That's correct. End of quotes.
Was that a true answer that you gave?
A. Yes, it was.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.
MR. LEONARD: No further questions. One second, Your Honor.
(Pause.)
MR. LEONARD: This is the deposition of David -- excuse me -- Raymond
David Kilduff, taken on May 28 of 1996, in Chicago. Questioning by
myself and Mr. Petrocelli. Page 6, line 8.
(Selected portions of the deposition of Raymond David Kilduff were
read by counsel, Mr. Leonard reading the questions, and Mr. P. Baker
reading the answers.)
Q. Could you state your name for the record, spelling your last
name, please.
A. Raymond David Kilduff, K-i-l-d-u-f-f.
Q. And are you employed?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Where are you employed?
A. The Hertz Corporation.
Q. What is your position there?
A. Division vice-president, central division sales.
Q. Can you explain in general terms what your job entails?
A. Yes. It's running the central mid-Atlantic United States
corporate accounts, taking care of -- doing a lot of negotiating
with the corporate accounts, setting up functions. We bring in, in
this particular case, customers from those areas, the big corporate
customers, to a golf outing.
Q. So one of the functions that you have presently setting up
affairs for customers; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And was that the case as of June of 1994, did you have the same
general responsibilities in your job?
A. The same.
Q. Directing your attention to June 13, 1994, was there a function
that was to take place that day regarding the Hertz Corporation?
A. Yes. We had a golf outing in Mission Hills Country Club.
Q. Is Mission Hills in the Chicago area?
A. Yes, it's about 30 minutes from O'Hare.
MR. LEONARD: Over to page 8, line 1. (Reading:) Now, at some point
in the morning -- morning of June 13, did you have occasion to see
O.J. Simpson?
A. Yes, I'd gone to O'Hare to pick him up, yes.
Q. And approximately when was it that you saw O.J. Simpson?
A. Approximately about 8:30 I think in the morning, somewhere around
there, 8:30, 8:40.
MR. LEONARD: Over to page 9, line 2. (Reading:) Where was it that
you saw -- you first saw O.J. Simpson that morning?
A. Sitting outside the O'Hare Plaza on a bench.
Q. Now, prior to that occasion on the morning of June 13, 1994, had
you ever seen O.J. Simpson before?
A. Yes.
Q. And on how many occasions had you seen O.J. Simpson?
A. Twice.
Q. When was the first time prior to June 13, 1994 that you had seen
O.J. Simpson?
A. At our national sales meeting, about 12 years ago.
Q. And where was that meeting?
A. In Arizona.
Q. Did you spend much time with Mr. Simpson at that national sales
meeting in Arizona?
A. Yes.
Q. And when wa