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

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Scheck, Mr. Neufeld. The People are represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Darden and Mr. Gordon. The jury is not present. And we are in the midst of argument concerning two matters, one a discovery issue, and secondly, the admissibility of various scientific testing. Mr. Neufeld, at the conclusion of yesterday's court date you indicated there was something--some factual assertion you needed to make for the record.

MR. NEUFELD: Yes. Thank you, your Honor. Just dealing with the sanction part. I'm not going to be dealing with the other part at this moment.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, Mr. Goldberg mentioned that Mr. Matheson was present at the examination that occurred on April 2nd, 1995, but that he wasn't there in the room the entire time. As you will see from his notes, if you've had a chance to look at them, he was there actually observing them when they were looking at the socks through the microscope and when they were taking the photographs through the microscope. In that regard, your Honor, the other fact which needs to be brought to your attention is that when Gary Sims testified they wanted to do the same thing, photo micrographs of the sock that had never been turned over to the Defense, and at that time, your Honor, you said that the issue was--is whether both sides had access to the piece of evidence and were allowed to conduct their own photographic examination. "If that is the case, then since Dr. Blake could have done it and didn't do it, there is no harm, there is no surprise, and I will allow them to introduce the micro"--I'm sorry--"The photo micrographs on a moment's notice," and that was your decision at page 30134 when Mr. Sims was testifying.

THE COURT: Symmetry is a dangerous thing to argue, isn't it, in this situation?

MR. NEUFELD: Well, I think, your Honor, since it involved photo micrographs of the same item of evidence, I just thought I would bring that to the Court's attention.

THE COURT: All right. If you are arguing for me to be consistent, then I think you are arguing against your position, but go ahead. Go ahead.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I also just wanted to bring to the Court's attention that in Mr. Sims' third report which was delivered and signed on April 6th of 1995, contained his experiment conducted during the months of January, February and March, as well, and there was no requirement that the reports be prepared shortly or at the same time that the experiment was actually conducted. Most importantly, your Honor, Professor MacDonnell is here if the Court has any questions for him concerning the chronology concerning when he wrote a report, when he first presented this information or his observations on April 2nd to the lawyers, his business trip to Sweden to teach the Swedish Police institute. He is here. He can answer any questions, so you know, to clear up any--any concerns that the Court might have.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Neufeld. All right. Let's address the other issue.

MS. CLARK: Thank you. Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: Good morning, counsel.

MS. CLARK: I'm mindful of the fact that the Court requested of us to submit suggestions for other possible sanctions, other than preclusion, due to the discovery violations. I would like to set that aside at this time, if I may, because the People firmly believe that the material should be excluded on other grounds completely, so the Court need not waste its time on fashioning a sanction that would be appropriate for the violation that has occurred here. And if I may, I would like to turn our attention to that.

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. CLARK: As the Court can see from the papers that the People have already filed, the Defense proposes to admit the examination conducted of the sock on which they see the powdery substance that lies underneath the cut-out for the stain that was attributed to Nicole Brown. The problem with that--the admissibility of that particular evidence is manyfold. First and foremost, although chain of custody ordinarily is a matter that goes to weight, it can arise or point out, at times go to such a great and severe degree that we are talking about an item that should not be admitted because it is weightless. In this case in particular we have that very situation. We have a sock that has been manipulated by the Prosecution experts, by the Defense experts ad nauseam for the past year. It is critical to the Defense position and to the significance of the evidence that they claim to have seen, which by the way is disputed by our experts. I should tell the Court that as a threshold matter. We have a report forthcoming to the Court, I have a draft of it in front of me, but in any case, setting that to one side, it is critical to their position that what they claim to have seen underneath the cut-out stain on the sock for Nicole Brown have been there prior to all of the testing and prior to the cut-outs and prior to the manipulation of the sock. Because if it is not, then you have nothing, you have no evidence and the sock has now been so materially altered by all of the manipulations that it has undergone as a result of all the testing, not to mention the testing engaged in by the Defense itself, that you have a situation where the current condition of the sock bears no relationship to the condition of the sock at the relevant point in time. Let me just give the Court some idea of all that has gone on. The socks were collected from the bedroom of the Defendant on June the 13th, 1994. At that time they were found in a crumpled condition on the rug and were immediately placed--they were lying together. I meant they were stretched out.

THE COURT: I have a pretty clear picture in my mind what the photograph looks like.

MS. CLARK: Yes, I'm sure you do, we have seen it so many times.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: And they placed it into a paper bag, both socks into one paper bag, where it was kept in a frozen condition for a period of time. On August the 4th pheno testing was conducted of that very stain at the ankle and also of another stain at the toe, I believe of the other sock. Already we have an alteration, not to mention the jostling that has occurred of those socks up until that find, in the process of collection, movement and storage. Greg Matheson began actual testing on the sock in September, `94, and he conducted a further pheno test and then cut a snippet, cut the hole I think that is in issue here. On October 4th, 1994, Gary Sims--

THE COURT: Miss Clark, forgive me for interrupting you.

MS. CLARK: I don't need to do this?

THE COURT: We have had in the record a long chronology of all of the handlings, testings, et cetera, et cetera, of these two items.

MS. CLARK: All right.

THE COURT: Item 13, a and b.

MS. CLARK: Yes. I won't further document.

THE COURT: You don't need to recite it for me, and I think it is contained in the record--

MS. CLARK: It is.

THE COURT: --a fair representation as to what has happened to the socks.

MS. CLARK: All right. Thank you, your Honor. So we know that the observation that is reported by the Defense is not until April of `95. Now--now, the only--the only materiality for the observation made in April of `95 would be if you could show that that condition existed back in August of `94. That can never be shown, and in fact, the opposite inference is the logical one to draw. Furthermore, there is a separate issue here and that is the fact that the manner in which the Defense seeks to prove that the powder underlying the cut-out stain was done by pheno testing. The Court has ruled that phenolphthalein testing results are inadmissible when they are positive, unless there is confirmatory testing. There was no confirmatory testing on that powdery substance. Let me point out a couple of things in that regard on a logical basis. The powdery substance that they see underneath the cut-out could very well have been caused by the friction of the sock sides itself rubbing together after the stain was dried. Very simply. Could have been caused also by merely cutting out the stain and also could have been the Defendant's blood as he took the sock off. We will never know. The Defense has conducted a pheno test. They have arrived at a positive. We don't know whose that is. If it is in fact the Defendant's blood that is found underneath that cut-out, then what relevance is it in terms of planting? It has the opposite inference to be drawn. But in any case, the Court has taken the position, with respect to the admissibility of phenolphthalein tests when they are positive, and the position was that that is inadmissible, so that is a separate reason for the admissibility of that particular evidence. Thirdly, there is a three-prong test that was set forth for the admissibility of this type of experimental evidence which is really what this is and it was set forth in People versus Bonin. Under People versus Bonin they must first show that the testing is relevant. The cases that we have cited to the Court make it clear that you have very broad discretion in determining relevancy, but they have upheld the exercise of that discretion in excluding evidence under the abuse of discretion standard. There are two major problems that I see with the relevancy in this issue. First of all, they have to rely upon the efficacy of their own testing that states that the drying time for the blood on those socks would have been fifteen minutes. The People are not aware of any underlying documentation concerning what the conditions of those experiments were. There is no showing, however, in the record, and here is the--

THE COURT: You are saying that the conditions under which the experiment took place are not documented in any of the notes that you have been given? Is that what you are saying?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: Right. We have some documentation, we have some notes. We don't know exactly what kind of socks. Obviously that is very important. We don't know exactly whether they are exactly like the socks in evidence. More importantly, though, you are talking about an experiment here that can never be relevant because the number of variables that would--that we have in the set of circumstances leading up to the deposition of the sock in the bedroom can never be duplicated because they cannot be precisely known. Of greatest importance, and most gravely, is the Defense assertion that fifteen minutes is somehow the arbitrary time chosen for the time lapse between the commission of the murders and the arrival at home when the socks are removed.

They can never prove that. No one can ever prove that. And the fact of the matter is that it could very easily have been done within ten minutes. After the murders are committed it takes the Defendant four minutes to drive home, another two to three minutes to get into his house. We have him in the bedroom taking those socks off then in seven to eight minutes. How can the Defense prove it happened otherwise? They cannot. And so their assumption implicit here that there was fifteen minutes for the socks to dry is false. But above and beyond that, how any experts can set forth in papers, as Mr. MacDonnell did, that he can conduct an experiment that exactly duplicates the humidity of that night, the heat of the body of the wearer of the socks, the sweating and perspiration that would have been engendered in the vigorous exercise involved in the murder of these two young people that would also have kept the blood wetter, and then the conditions under which he drove back to the--to the house and then removed the socks, perhaps with a wet hand, with a bloody hand that would also have made the socks bloodied and cannot duplicate the amount of time in between and no showing that the material of the sock that they used for the experiment is even the same. And furthermore, there is no showing that the Defense has any theory as to whether the blood on that ankle area was deposited by airborne spatter, by transfer swiping along an already puddle of blood at the crime scene or even swiping next to her body. We don't know if it is a swipe, if it is a spatter. We just don't know what kind of pattern that really is. Moreover, we don't know how much blood was initially deposited on that sock and they can't know. So how did they conduct this experiment? They just kind of made it up as they went along. Picked fifteen minutes, they figured that was a reasonable amount of time, and then decided that that experiment was going to indicate that the socks had to have been dried by the time they were deposited on the floor, which is nonsense. They can't make those assertions. They make a series of assumptions to arrive at a conclusion that is itself unreasonable. Now, if more rationally we look at the very real possibility that the socks were still wet when taken off by Mr. Simpson, then you have an obvious transfer right there, just by the socks lying on top of each other. A logical and a rational and a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, as opposed to this tortured, twisted logic that leads us to a conclusion that is--that is defamatory it is so false. I don't think that we can allow the jury to be subjected to the kind of tortured and twisted thinking that is involved in the conclusions drawn from this irrelevant experiment. The second prong--so I mean we have a problem with relevance because of the assumptions made concerning the drying time. Of course there is also the problem on a fundamental gut level, your Honor, that there is no evidence that anyone planted anything on the socks, and by that I mean I'm not asking the Court to exclude it on a bootstrap argument. Their argument is bootstrapped because is there any indication in the evidence that there was something wrong with these socks and the manner in which they were packaged that would tend to indicate that they were tampered with? The answer is resoundingly no. Has there ever been any testimony or indication that someone went to the freezer where they should have been and they were found somewhere else? Has there ever been any testimony indicating that they went to the back and found the seals tampered with? No. Has there ever been any indication that someone was seen carrying the socks who had no authorization to be in possession of them? No. These are the kind of things, this is the kind of evidence that might under certain circumstances tend to indicate that maybe, maybe something happened untoward with the socks, but there is nothing like that in this case, nothing at all. So now what you have is an observation made long after the fact, a year--a year later almost after their collection, which is totally irrelevant. The second prong of the test deals with substantial similarity of the material circumstances, and again we cited cases to the Court dealing with this aspect, and the tests in this case. I think I've already indicated the numerous problems that you have, the variables that can never been pinned down to make a an experiment of the type performed by the Defense relevant or substantially similar, the problem with the amount of blood, the same fabric, the perspiration of the wearer, the ambient temperature and humidity and was the blood used--did it contain a preservative or anticoagulant. None of these things--none of these things can be determined. I'm talking about the powdery substance underneath the cut-out. We just don't know the answers to any of those questions. And so in this kind of situation the Court has addressed the issue in the Andrews case and that is a case that we did cite to the Court and I think it is particularly relevant because actually the Andrews case had a much more on point experiment than this one is, and that was a civil case in which a plaintiff fell out of a chair in the Defendant's store.

THE COURT: That is the case where they turn around and determine different angles to see how you fall over.

MS. CLARK: Right.

THE COURT: I am familiar with the case.

MS. CLARK: Right. But at least, your Honor, the Court is aware, they had the identical chair. We don't even have that here. We don't have any showing that we have identical socks. In fact, I will tell the Court that we tried to find identical socks and couldn't because they are of such unique quality. And the Court has seen--I think probably felt them, but the material of them is so light and so slick we went out looking all over Beverly Hills and couldn't find socks exactly like those in evidence. So I mean just to let Court know that no mean feat in this case. Ordinarily--no pun intended, feet--but ordinarily duplicating of socks would not be so difficult. In this case it really is. These are unique, unusual quality socks. Now we have to make many more assumptions in this case than they did in the Andrews case. We have to make assumptions concerning the degree of sweat that the Defendant would have had.

THE COURT: I think you mentioned that.

MS. CLARK: Okay. So I'm done with that. The third prong of the test deals with the undue consumption of time, and here we have extremely strong concerns, and let me indicate to the Court what will transpire if this evidence is admitted. If this evidence is admitted, not only will the Defense go into testing with respect to EDTA testing and that kind of expert testimony, but the People on rebuttal will then be--not to mention extensive cross-examination by the People of their experts, but that goes without saying--in rebuttal the People will be now required to call to testify Gary Sims, Greg Matheson, Peter De Forest and two other EDTA experts yet to be determined, to set straight the record. To set straight the jury so that they will understand that what they've been given is a lot of false, misleading and confusing claptrap. But that will take weeks of extra time, and I don't think I'm exaggerating at all in saying this, your Honor, because I have reviewed the materials from the Defense. I have reviewed what Agent Martz will be required to say concerning EDTA. I know how long it is going to take to elicit that testimony more clearly after direct. I think the cross may well be a lot longer than direct in that case, just on a technical basis so the jury will understand what he is really saying and not saying. And then they are going to be calling Dr. Rieders and Dr. Rieders' cross-examination, I can promise the Court, will have to be lengthy because of the assumptions he makes and the false--

THE COURT: But aren't we talking right now about an experiment on how long it takes for blood to dry and the potential for transfer from one side of the sock to the other while in an unused position? I mean, that is what we are talking about.

MS. CLARK: Yes.

THE COURT: EDTA issues are different issues.

MS. CLARK: They are and yet when they want to prove that there is preservative in blood taken from the sock, it is going to be necessary for them to show that in order to draw the inference they want the jury to draw. You know what I mean? They are going to have to put on something about EDTA on the sock stain that was tested for Nicole's blood in order to make the finding really more relevant; otherwise you just find some powder in there, it could be the Defendant's blood, it could be Nicole Brown Simpson's. They want the jury to infer that it is Nicole's blood and they want the jury to further infer that it was planted and that is why it was found there, so I mean, it really does come into it as well. And I agree with the Court. I mean, the primary thing is that, but when you understand the 352 undue consumption of time, you have to consider all the ramifications of admission.

THE COURT: I think the presence of EDTA is a completely different issue.

MS. CLARK: In any case, even if EDTA is not admitted, let's assume they don't call any experts concerning EDTA, I can promise the Court that at least the three scientists I have named will be required to testify to explain what they saw. And among the observations that they will impart to the jury is the fact that they completely dispute Mr. MacDonnell's characterization of what he saw, so I mean, there is a lot of real fundamental problems with this, in addition to the very glaring legal issues that I have pointed out to the Court concerning the admissibility of this evidence. And we urge the Court to exclude it on the grounds that it is not only not productive and undue consumption of time, but much more than that, is really an attempt by the Defense to subvert justice. We are talking about evidence that is not only misleading and confusing, but downright deceptive, and we urge the Court not to allow them to engage in this deception with this jury.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Neufeld.

MR. NEUFELD: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: Good morning.

MR. NEUFELD: Umm, apparently Miss Clark has forgotten the fact that certain matters can be proved through direct evidence and certain matters can also be proved through indirect or circumstantial evidence. It has been the Defense position in this case that blood was planted on the sock and just because we can't produce evidence or an eyewitness who was there when this planting occurred does not mean that we are precluded from bringing it through circumstantial evidence. I think the key issue here was articulated by Miss Clark in her first remarks when she said the evidence is that what was on the inside of the opposite side of the sock directly beneath the ankle stain was powder. That was the testimony of their expert, Gary Sims. That was his opinion, that it was blood, but it was powdered blood; it wasn't a transfer stain. All we want to do is call an expert, all right, who will say he looked at the same phenomena, what Gary Sims described as powdering--as powdered blood, and will say that Gary Sims is mistaken, it is not powder, it is a wet transfer stain, it is blood which has bonded, adhered to the sock in a wet form before it dried. That is a critical point. It is a critical contradiction to the testimony and position offered by the Prosecution's witness, Gary Sims, in this case. The Court cannot be expected, nor can the jury be expected to take as conclusive fact one witness' opinion as to what he observed underneath the microscope on the inside of the opposite side of the sock directly beneath that ankle stain. That would be absurd. That is why we have an adversary system. We are allowed to call witnesses who disagree with the conclusions of their expert. That is all we want to do here. And when you think about that comparison, your Honor, think about the fact that Gary Sims is first and foremost a serologist. He is not an expert on the non-serological aspects of bloodstain interpretation. You have before you, because it was given to the Prosecution in this case, a copy of Professor Herbert MacDonnell's CV. There is no question he is the nation's, if not the world's leading authority on bloodstain interpretation. He has written the three major textbooks which serve as the standard for this particular discipline throughout the world. His books have been translated into different languages and are used in thirty or forty different countries. When he--after he did his examination and he presented his results to us, he immediately took off to give a presentation and teaching course to the government police department of the nation of Sweden--of the kingdom of Sweden. This is who the witness is. They are afraid of hearing from the foremost authority in the country on this particular subject. It is a question of fact for the jury whether what was observed on that sock was powder, which doctor--which Professor MacDonnell disputes. He says it wasn't powder and it is not powder. And one can, if you are an expert on bloodstains and its characteristics, distinguish between dry flaking, which transfers after the fact, and wet blood which bonds to the sock itself. That will be his testimony and there is no surprise about that because that is exactly what it says in his report which was given to the Prosecution. He states on page 1 of the July 11th report in paragraph--in item no. 2: "The inside of the sock directly opposite the cut-out portion also exhibited areas of transfer staining. These stains are on the surface of the fibers as well as in the grooves between the fibers. Many of these stains dried resulting in a, quote, `build up appearance.'" as the nation's leading expert on bloodstain interpretation, what Professor MacDonnell will testify to and what he has said in his report is that what you saw under the microscope with Gregory Matheson sitting there watching them take these pictures is a wet stain transfer on the opposite side of that sock. That directly contradicts the expert testimony of Gary Sims, the serologist called by the Prosecution in this case.

That is what we are talking about here. There are photo micrographs that were taken at that time. They have been turned over to the People. The photo micrographs will be used and exhibited to the jury to corroborate Professor MacDonnell's conclusion and they will be shown to the jury to demonstrate exactly what he did see. It is not powder, it is not flaking, it is wet stain that adhered, that bonded to the surface of the sock on the inside of the other side. So they put the issue in controversy. They made the suggestion through Gary Sims that this was never a transfer stain, that obviously the blood had dried on the ankle while it was being worn. And Professor MacDonnell's testimony will directly controvert that factual assertion by the People. That is why he is being called. So this stuff about powder is their position, it is not a fact which has been resolved yet by the jury. We are taking a contrary position and that is why we are calling the expert. So I think there is no question that it is relevant. I think it is very persuasive and very powerful evidence. And if Miss Clark is that concerned about the search for the truth, she would certainly want the jury to hear this evidence from the nation's premier authority on this subject. Let's see. The second point they make, which is the presumptive tests that is were done, you know, from looking at Mr. Matheson's notes that certain presumptive tests were done that day and the results of those presumptive tests are actually described in Mr. Matheson's notes. In the first place, your Honor, we are not talking about a different stain here. It is Professor MacDonnell's position that this is the same stain that moves right through from one side of the sock to the other side of the sock. That is what he is testifying to. And your Honor has already ruled, if there is corroborative testing done on a particular stain, then the fact that it is this witness' opinion that it is blood is admissible. He will say it is the same--the same blood source that created the stain on the outside just moved right through, seeped right through into the other side of the sock. That will be his expert opinion. Furthermore, your Honor, on the issue of presumptive tests, and on these particular stains, Gary Sims already testified to the reddishness that he saw on that same surface, the opposite side of the inner side. That is what Miss Clark was referring to. Only Mr. Sims said that it is dried blood that was powder. That was admissible. So once he has already described what is on that other surface is dried blood, what we are saying is it is not dry blood powder, that it is wet blood that dried on the surface of the socks. So that fact that it is blood is already out there for the jury. The question is was it powder when it got there in its dry form or was it, as Professor MacDonnell will demonstrate to the jury with compelling photographs and 25 years of experience of doing more bloodstain interpretation than anybody else alive on the planet, that it was not dried powder, that it was in fact a wet transfer stain. So the whole notion of the presumptive test issue is irrelevant in this particular instance. Now, separate and apart from what Professor MacDonnell observed under the microscope and giving his expert opinions as to the significance of what he observed, there is a separate question, and that is sock drying, how long it takes for blood to dry. Professor MacDonnell is not testifying simply on the basis of the notes that were turned over to the Prosecution. He is testifying on the basis of twenty year's experience running institutes all over the world where the students have to do drying experiments on a variety of different types of fabrics; some very, very shear, some much bulkier than the socks in question, but all kinds of fabrics. In fact, in his own laboratory book which we will produce in Court, he will show that one of the experiments he requires all the students to do is the drying time of blood, various amounts of blood, on various different types of fabric. These kinds of experiments he has been doing in case work and teaching and are described in his books for twenty years. There is nothing new or unique to it when he testifies or gives an opinion in this case. He is not simply relying on an impromptu experiment he may have done on June 6th. It is the whole experience he has accumulated after twenty years of doing this kind of work when he gives his expert opinion. Secondly, your Honor, with respect to the--this suggestion by the Prosecution that an experiment has to exactly replicate the conditions, that is not the law. The law requires some kind of substantial similarity, your Honor, and I would simply point out that on numerous occasions in this case the Prosecution has offered experiments in front of the jury which couldn't possibly exactly replicate, it is not possible at all.

For instance, when Gregory Matheson was on the witness stand and he wanted to refute the notion that one and a half ml was missing, he went back to his laboratory that night and he tried to reconstruct how much blood might be lost if you made five or six withdrawals. You may recall that, your Honor, and of course he said I don't remember what kind of pipette exactly was used to withdraw it in certain of the withdrawals and I can't tell you the exact amounts, but given the experiment I did last night, this is how much blood was lost through the transactions. Well, that is an experiment without a report, without the notes, and certainly could not replicate all the different withdrawals that were made from that blood vial over a several-month period of time. Another example, your Honor. The Prosecution, over Defense objection, brought out a new pair of Aris gloves. There is no question, your Honor, that the Aris gloves that Mr. Simpson was asked to try on could not in any way replicate exactly the size of the gloves in evidence as they were on June 12th. That is an unknown fact, all right? In fact, Mr. Rubin even testified that there is some degree, there is some range of variation even within extra large gloves, so that is another instance where an experiment was allowed to be conducted in front of the jury where you could not get exact replication, and we are not saying that exact replication is essential and that is not what we have here either. Another example--

THE COURT: What do we have?

MR. NEUFELD: Well, what we have here are two things, your Honor. Most importantly, it is not even the experiment of June 6th. Most importantly is Professor MacDonnell's body of knowledge accumulated over twenty years in experiments with students, experiments on dozens of different cases in which he can estimate as an expert what is the approximate drying time of--of a smear of blood on socks, whether it is air-dried as opposed to being worn on the ankle, and he will give an opinion based on that. To the extent that they can challenge that opinion, I believe that goes to the weight, not to its admissibility. I believe he will be able to lay the proper foundation when he testifies to show that he has the requisite experience and expertise to render that opinion.

THE COURT: All right. I don't doubt the doctor's credentials, experience, et cetera, et cetera, but we are talking now about similarity, substantial similarity of conditions. Miss Clark, in her argument, raised a number of issues, such as the nature of the fabric itself, the amount of liquid used in the experiment, the porosity of the particular material, the humidity under which the exam was conducted and the actual situation here, the perspiration of the individual involved, the ambient heat, the heat of the body. She raised a number of issues--

MR. NEUFELD: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: --that you have not addressed regarding similarity of conditions.

MR. NEUFELD: I will be more than happy, your Honor. First of all, those are all points, I believe, which frankly go to weight rather than admissibility, just as they do when we challenged Greg Matheson's assertion about how much blood was lost, just as we do when Vannatter testifies to the driving time from Bundy to Rockingham without replicating the same traffic patterns as existed on that night, just as we do when we challenge a glove experiment involving a new glove other than the actual gloves recovered in this case. But just to show some similarity, a substantial similarity, your Honor, let me address each of those points. First of all, Professor MacDonnell, who is an expert, as I said, in bloodstain interpretation, can estimate, based on the amount of blood staining that is still left on the socks, approximately how much blood was swiped onto those socks initially. And by the way, the testimony will be not that it is a drop at all, but it is actually a swipe, a smear, if you will, rather than a drop on the surface of those socks. No. 2, what is interesting about the similarity of the socks, he used very shear synthetic socks for the June 6th experiment, but as I said earlier, he has done, you know, hundreds of experiments on various shear material and blood in the drying time over the 20-year--25-year career that he has had in this particular field. What is fascinating is the admission made by Miss Clark that they were unable to get the exact same pair of socks, and you may recall just how, and I believe her word was, how light and slick the surface was of those socks. Well, the lighter and slicker that surface, the shorter the drying time in fact, so if anything, what Professor MacDonnell will be able to testify to as an expert, that his experiments, if anything, engender longer drying times than the drying time for the sock in question. We are not suggesting we had the exact same socks; we don't, but he will show that, first of all, with a synthetic sock, as opposed to a sock made of cotton, since synthetics are a plastic, the actual fibers themselves don't absorb the blood and so the drying time is much quicker than it would be, for instance, with cotton, with a natural fiber which can absorb the blood, and the lighter and slicker the fabric, as in this case, the shorter the drying time, so he has done a range of experiments so he will be able to testify to what that range is and how these socks would fall within that range of drying times, even without replicating it. Very often an expert witness cannot directly replicate conditions so what he tries to do is bracket it and give an opinion based on the various experiments and wealth of knowledge that he has, even though it is not the same exact. That is all Professor MacDonnell will do in this situation.

THE COURT: The reason I asked the question regarding material, because in my review of the notes and the report there is no determination regarding the determination of what material was selected, how it was selected and how it is similar to the sock here. There is nothing in the materials that gives the Court any clue. And I think just for the--for the record, we ought to mark as a Court's exhibit for this--

MR. NEUFELD: Certainly.

THE COURT: --discussion the package that you provided to the Court yesterday.

(Court's 17 for id = packet of documents)

MR. NEUFELD: What I will do, your Honor, is I can get that additional information on the experiment for you. The other thing I can also do is actually probably produce the socks themselves. But the point I'm trying to make is that although the socks that Professor MacDonnell used are shear and light, they are not as light nor as slick as the actual socks in this case. So if anything, his drying results are actual--from the experiment he did on June 6th are longer, generate longer drying times than it would on the socks in this case, and that will be his expert testimony. That is the point. But I will certainly provide that information for the Court. The other important thing, your Honor, is that when he gives that opinion in his report, the opinion in his report simply says that based on experiments. That is not simply referring to the experiment of June 6th. That is simply based--based on, as I said, experiments that he has conducted over a 20-year period both with his students and in cases on hundreds, if not thousands, of different types of textiles under, you know, all kind of conditions. He has a body of knowledge from those experiments which enable him to give an expert opinion as to the drying time. But I will be more than happy to furnish the additional information for the Court and the socks themselves, because they have been retained. The blood experiment was not--was not contained--did not contain a preservative or anticoagulant. He simply withdrew his own blood and put it onto the sock, so that answers that question. As I said, your Honor, I don't think there is any way one can ever replicate all ambient temperatures and anything else that may have happened.

THE COURT: Was there any attempt at all?

MR. NEUFELD: In this particular experiment?

THE COURT: In this particular experiment?

MR. NEUFELD: Can you just wait one second.

THE COURT: Sure.

(Discussion held off the record between Mr. Neufeld and Professor MacDonnell.)

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, Professor MacDonnell did not try and manipulate the conditions for that experiment. He said it was approximately seventy degrees and in an environment where there may have been eighty percent humidity. But as I said, he simply--he is not stating that as a scientific fact. All right. The point, your Honor, is--and as Professor MacDonnell can explain as well, perhaps better than me if I haven't communicated it effectively, is that the experiment that he did is not the primary basis for his opinion about drying times. It is just something he did, as I mentioned earlier, as an impromptu thing after he came and made his presentation to us on June 3rd, the day before he left for Sweden. He went back home and he just did it and he made notes on what he did and I had asked him to produce every single note that he had regarding the subject matter of his testimony here and so he produced those notes. But I think the experiment is relevant again because he simply wanted to produce a range of values, so he took very extreme conditions, your Honor, extreme conditions as to the amount of blood that was used and how it was put on the sock and under what conditions it was put on the sock. I don't believe that the actual temperature at which the experiment was conducted is--is at issue as to the experiment's admissibility, and I believe that Professor MacDonnell will be able to lay the proper foundation to have those experimental results introduced. But as I said a moment ago, your Honor, even that experiment is not essential for Professor MacDonnell to render his opinion as to drying times on shear fabric such as the fabric in question in this case. Let me just make sure that I have covered every other point.

THE COURT: Let me ask you one other question.

MR. NEUFELD: Certainly, your Honor.

THE COURT: The report indicates that the blood had to be, quote, teased into the fabric. In other words, apparently had to be pressed or manipulated or somehow pushed into the fabric to get it to adhere. In this situation we have what appears to be either a blood drop, which I can see, given the nature of the injuries that the victims suffered, you are saying it is a smear?

MR. NEUFELD: It is a smear and Professor MacDonnell will testify it is a smear.

THE COURT: So you are saying maybe one of the victims grabbed at the socks or something like that and smeared--

MR. NEUFELD: I'm not saying the victims grabbed a sock. It is the position of the Defense, your Honor--

THE COURT: I understand that, but let's just say the perpetrator's socks--

MR. NEUFELD: I'm not saying that, your Honor. I'm saying that that blood was put on those socks long after June 13th.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. NEUFELD: What there is no question about, and what Professor MacDonnell will testify to, it is not a drop, it is not spatter, it is a smear, it is a deliberate smear on the socks and there is no question about that.

THE COURT: Why shouldn't I be concerned that under this experiment with this sock that the material had to be manipulated to get the blood to adhere?

MR. NEUFELD: Oh, no, no, no. It didn't have to. If you look at the note in fact for that experiment on June--just one moment, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. NEUFELD: It is not in the report; it is in the June 6th experiment. What he did on spot 1, as opposed to spot 2--in spot 2 he didn't tease it in. In spot 1 he deliberately put in more and more blood. He put in quantitatively a lot more blood in spot 1 when he teased it in because he deliberately wanted to saturate it to an extreme. Remember I told you he is now doing a experiment to show if I take the most extreme conditions, a lot more blood, to soak in as much blood as possible, so don't just swipe it and make a smear, but instead let's take the blood and almost sort of knead it in like bred or something into the material to make sure it gets all the way through to the other side of the sock and even comes out the other side of the sock on to a glass table so there is actually blood on the glass table that that sock is in. That is why he is teasing it. He is deliberately teasing it. If he didn't do that, if you look at experiment no. 2 in the notes where he says that the human blood was simply swiped over the surface, in that instance he didn't do any teasing at all and he records the drying time for that stain.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Neufeld, let me ask you one other question.

MR. NEUFELD: Sure.

THE COURT: Do you have the citation in the transcript for Mr. Matheson's testimony regarding his observations regarding the powder, what he termed as powder and blood?

MR. NEUFELD: It is not Mr. Matheson's; Mr. Sims.

THE COURT: I'm sorry, Mr. Sims.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: Just in a minute we are going to pull it right up for you. I think it is also in his notes.

THE COURT: No. I would like to see what was presented to the jury in the form of testimony.

MR. NEUFELD: Sure.

THE COURT: Because basically what you have here is two issues: One, whether or not the stain--the stain inside the sock is powder, residue and/or a transfer stain. Issue no. 1. Issue no. 2, is there substantial similarity for the drying experiment? Those are the two issues.

MR. NEUFELD: They are two separate issues I think.

THE COURT: Two separate issues.

MR. NEUFELD: Right.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: All right. What is Dr. MacDonnell's schedule at this point?

MR. NEUFELD: Well, what I would propose, your Honor, is, first of all, since then the micro photographs were turned over last week, the notes were turned over. I would propose, if they need an additional day, that could he stick around until tomorrow to testify or he could testify on Friday morning. He is leaving for Canada a week from Friday for two weeks. So I would very much like to get him in. I think what this is really about is trying to have some more time to prepare cross-examination of Professor MacDonnell, and if that is the case and we can't do it tomorrow and we can't do it Friday morning, Professor MacDonnell will come back early next week, but it is very important to us that he be able to testify at about this time in the case, because, as Mr. Cochran has pointed out, we are trying to move the Defense case along very, very quickly, and we would like to wrap this up in the next couple of weeks.

THE COURT: Yes. All right. Well, why don't you get me the mention in the transcript regarding Mr. Sims. Let me know what Dr. MacDonnell's schedule is. I will take the matter under submission until I have the opportunity to reread the transcript regarding Mr. Sims' testimony.

MR. NEUFELD: You don't need Mr. Sims' testimony? I can give it to you later today.

THE COURT: What I would like to do is finish Mr. Meraz this morning.

MR. NEUFELD: And then decide this.

THE COURT: Perhaps decide this over the lunch hour.

MR. NEUFELD: So you can have the jury come back in, may we step out and look in the computer so that we can generate this without wasting the Court's time.

THE COURT: What will happen is I will have one of my law clerks then pull up the transcript to make it available for me to review this afternoon.

MS. CLARK: May I just respond briefly to Mr. Neufeld, and I mean very briefly? I want to get to Meraz, too.

THE COURT: I think I've heard the argument and I have read the points and authorities.

MS. CLARK: You have and I'm talking about something I have not stated in response to what Mr. Neufeld has represented to the Court.

THE COURT: What issue?

MS. CLARK: Concerning the stain on the sock and the--the appearance of the powder.

THE COURT: Well--

MS. CLARK: It is important that they be able to establish that that powder comes from that cut-out stain.

THE COURT: I understand. Counsel, I understand.

MS. CLARK: It doesn't match.

THE COURT: I understand there is a factual assumption that one belongs to the other. I understand that.

MS. CLARK: Right, but I don't even think that Mr. MacDonnell is going to assert that the powder was in the same configuration as the cut-out.

THE COURT: Well, we can't know that, can we, since it was cut-out and then tested.

MS. CLARK: No. What I'm saying is that the powder underlying the cut-out could match the cut-out so that we would know what was--you know what I mean? Does this make--

THE COURT: I think I have a picture.

MS. CLARK: All right.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MS. CLARK: All right.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Let me know when you--

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I have the cite. More than one, but a starting point will be page--

THE COURT: Counsel, if you would, do you have the photographs, the micro photographs of this particular location, because you did give me--

MR. NEUFELD: Xeroxes.

THE COURT: --Xerox copies from which I can tell exactly nothing.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. NEUFELD: Yes. I will give you the micro photographs that we intend to offer in evidence. What you should know is, is that it will be the Professor's testimony that when you do this micro photograph you are zooming into a very small area and that he saw similar phenomena--

THE COURT: I understand.

MR. NEUFELD: --you know, in a larger area.

THE COURT: If you recollect, we got to see this phenomena under the stereomicroscope with the jury.

MR. NEUFELD: All right.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: All right. Give that information to Mrs. Robertson. We need to clear for the jury.

MR. NEUFELD: Okay. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Let's bring the jury down.

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Scheck.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. The record should reflect all the parties are again present. The jury is not present. Counsel, anything else we need to take up before we invite the jurors to rejoin us?

MR. COCHRAN: Not from the Defense, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: I just want to make sure the Court is aware that we have forthcoming motions on other discovery. We gave that to the Court this morning. I just wanted to make sure the Court knew that was coming.

THE COURT: Ask me if I am surprised. All right. Let's have the jurors.

(Brief pause.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: Mr. Meraz, would you resume the witness stand, please.

John Meraz, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: You are reminded that you are still under oath. Would you state your name again for the record.

THE COURT: All right. Just sit back and pull the microphone close to you, please.

MR. MERAZ: (Witness complies.)

THE COURT: All right. Good morning, Mr. Meraz.

MR. MERAZ: Good morning.

THE COURT: You are reminded, sir, that you are still under oath. Mr. Cochran, you may continue with your direct examination.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you very kindly, your Honor. And good morning ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. COCHRAN

MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, Mr. Meraz.

MR. MERAZ: Good morning.

MR. COCHRAN: Sir, yesterday we were talking about your role in picking up the Bronco vehicle on June 15, 1994. Do you recall that?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I do.

MR. COCHRAN: And I want to, if I can, get a clear picture of the number of times that you had occasion to get inside that particular vehicle. Are you with me on that?

MR. MERAZ: Umm, no.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. I'm going to ask you a series of questions that I'm trying to elicit at least the number of times that you had occasion to get inside the driver's side or driver's compartment of the Bronco. Okay?

MR. MERAZ: Okay.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, yesterday you described for us that when you went to the print shed before you moved this vehicle, did you have occasion to get inside the vehicle at that time?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And at that time, when you looked at that time, that would be the first time you got inside that vehicle, did you see blood inside that vehicle any place?

MR. MERAZ: No, I did not.

MR. COCHRAN: And the first time that you got inside that vehicle can you describe for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if you can, and paint a word picture for us of how you got inside the vehicle the first time at the print shed?

MR. MERAZ: I pulled the car out of the print shed, pulled it out, and as I pulled the car out, I had to get into the passenger side or driver's side, excuse me, driver's side of the vehicle, and I had half my body in and half my body out.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Why don't you, if the Court would allow, step down. This is time no. 1, as I understand it. Why don't you, if the Court would allow, using the seat there as the driver's compartment, and if you can demonstrate it for the jurors, show us how you stepped in, if you can. You may step down from the stand if you need to.

MR. MERAZ: I walked from my truck over to the vehicle, to the white Bronco. I went over to--I opened the door. As I opened the door, I put one hand on the steering wheel, and as I put that hand on the steering wheel I kind of did this, (Indicating), checked the steering, saw that it was locked. The reason I did that is so that--a lot of times if you tow a vehicle the steering wheel will break, it will cause you to hit another car going out, and this is the reason I did that. As I came out, I checked the emergency brake and that was it.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So that is time no. 1?

MR. MERAZ: That is no. 1.

MR. COCHRAN: And when you were inside that vehicle on that occasion, it is your testimony you didn't see any blood, right?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't see any blood.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you see any black or dark gray print powder at that time?

MR. MERAZ: No, I did not.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Were there any keys in that vehicle at that point?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't see any keys.

MR. COCHRAN: And I presume the door to that car was opened, as you described it? You just opened the door; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, the car was unlocked.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now then, you have described for us driving to Viertel's on Temple. Do you recall that?

MR. MERAZ: I recall that, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me ask you this: Did you make any kind of communication or did you call ahead to Viertel's and tell them whether or not you were coming and which vehicle you were bringing there?

THE COURT: I think we have covered this yesterday.

MR. COCHRAN: Did we, your Honor? I know there was a stop. May I just ask one question, your Honor, for clarification.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. MERAZ: I radioed in just before I got ready to leave.

MR. COCHRAN: With regard to that radioing in, did you make any kind of announcement what car you were bringing there?

MR. MERAZ: I had advised the shop that I was in tow with OJ Simpson's car.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, at that time, to the best of your estimation, how many employees did Viertel's have on Temple Street back on June 15 of 1994?

MR. MERAZ: I would say fifty employees. I might be off by two.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So then you got to Viertel, as we recall yesterday, and you parked that vehicle at a point called T-3; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: I would like, your Honor, if I might, to mark as the Defense next exhibit, counsel, I believe you have seen this, 12--

THE COURT: 1254.

MR. COCHRAN: 1254, your Honor.

(Deft's 1254 for id = photograph)

MR. COCHRAN: Counsel has seen this and may I approach just for a moment?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, I have an overhead photograph of what purports to be of Viertel's with some numbers, T-1 through T-5 on them. And I'm going to ask you to take a look at that and tell us whether or not--the witness, your Honor, is indicating he left his glasses and I presume he needs them. May I go back and get them from someone?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. The witness now has his glasses.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: Now you have your glasses and I'm going to ask you to take a look at this next exhibit, Defendant's 1254, and describe for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what is depicted in that photograph.

MR. MERAZ: This is a picture of the yard at Viertel's automotive, described in T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4 and T-5.

MR. COCHRAN: Can you briefly share with us what those different numbers are. What is T-1? What is depicted in T-1?

MR. MERAZ: T-1, if a car is going to be left in the yard a length of time, it is put up there, or if it is drivable, if it has keys, it is put up into T-1. T-2 is basically an evidentiary hold where they hold cars for prints inside.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay.

MR. MERAZ: T-3 is the main yard. That is where all the vehicles come in if they are wrecked. If there is a hold on it, a lot of times we keep them there. T-4, basically cars, if they don't have wheels on them, we basically put them there. T-5, which is directly facing the freeway, they put cars with no wheels on there.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Your Honor, I would like--I don't know if we can do this with the elmo, but I would like to demonstrate this for the jury.

THE COURT: I think we can.

MR. COCHRAN: Let's see if we can. I will ask Mr. Harris to share this with everyone.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, you can look down. There is a monitor to your right. It might be a little bit easier for you.

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that what you just described? The jury can now see the various areas of T-1, T-2, T-3 and T-4 and T-5.

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right, sir. Would you show us, if you can, when you drove onto this lot on this June 15th date with the Bronco in tow, you told us yesterday you parked it at T-3; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Can you just show us generally, and we can get a pointer for you, where on 1254 did you park the Bronco vehicle?

MR. MERAZ: I parked it right in the middle of the lot which is T-3.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. You see that arrow that is on the screen?

MR. MERAZ: The arrow is off.

MR. COCHRAN: Can you direct the arrow in which direction to go and we will try to find it.

MR. MERAZ: Come down. No, come up, come up. Right. Now, go a few inches, right--right there, right in there, (Indicating). You went too far. Right there is where I put the car.

MR. COCHRAN: That is where you put the car?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, can we print that out?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And we will put the initials of "J.M." For John Meraz.

MR. COCHRAN: That is where you put the Bronco when you took it on the 15th and what time of day was that?

MR. MERAZ: It was after eleven o'clock in the morning when I originally picked the car up.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Now, so that we are clear, and I want to make sure--the Court will obviously indulge us on this--I want to address the witness with regard to 1253. We will keep this up for a moment. Yesterday you told us about this form, this vehicle investigation form, and I want to approach, if I can, your Honor, again. And in looking at this form I notice there are two places at the top that has something saying "Hold." In the left upper corner is an indication, your Honor, "Prints/evidence, give special care." There is a box there. Was that box on the form that you had on June 15th? Was that box ever checked?

MR. MERAZ: No, it wasn't.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Is there another box further over that is partially obscured on this form by a paper--by the whole puncher, there is a hole, "Impounded hold" there?

MR. MERAZ: I briefly see it. A little "X" right there on the hold.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And with regard to that, did you have some conversation with the officer who signed this particular form about whether or not there was any special care holds on this particular vehicle?

MR. MERAZ: I asked the officer three times if there was a hold on this car for prints, if there was a hold or okay to release. He stated to me there is no hold--excuse me. He stated there is a hold but there is no hold for prints. He says, no, there is a hold on it. If Hertz comes to pick the vehicle up, it is okay to release to them, but they have to go through robbery division to get it.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. That was as of June 15th that it could be released to Hertz if they came to pick it up, although they had to go through robbery/homicide; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: That's right.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, on this form then, 1253, there is an indication on here "Hold until released to a representative from Hertz corporation, RHD robbery/homicide handling"; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you print that in or did someone else print that in?

MR. MERAZ: The officer did that.

MR. COCHRAN: Is name is H-A-R-O, Haro?

MR. MERAZ: Haro.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you write anything else on this portion of the form?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did. On the right-hand side of the impound I put the license number of the vehicle. On the left-hand side I put where I had put the car, in T-3.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Your Honor, if I might just show this also at this point?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: 1253, and we will come back to that. Let's put 1253 on the elmo.

(Brief pause.)

MR. COCHRAN: Now, the portion--let's start at the top, Mr. Harris. The portion you and I were just talking about at the top in the upper left-hand corner where it says "Prints/evidence, give special care," there was no--that box was not checked, was it?

MR. MERAZ: That box was not checked, no.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, I want you to--the box we were talking about a moment ago, so it is clear for the jury, is over to the right where there is a copy made over, your Honor, a hole for--from a hole puncher. Can you find that, Mr. Harris? Move to your left. Straight up. All right.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, there is a box there. Under that it says some kind of hold, does it not?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And is that what you are alluding to, hold for Hertz?

MR. MERAZ: That right there indicates to me that the car is held for robbery/homicide and if the owner is to pick it up, they would be sent to robbery/homicide to get a release from them.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And who was this vehicle registered to, if you know, sir?

MR. MERAZ: I was told by the officer that the vehicle belonged to Hertz rent-a-car.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Mr. Harris, let's come down on the form and we will look at the portions that Mr. Meraz wrote in his own hand. Now, you described for us a moment ago that you wrote the license number of this particular vehicle; is that correct? Can you show us where that is with the arrow?

MR. MERAZ: Come on down with the arrow. Whoa. Right there, yes, (Indicating).

MR. COCHRAN: Where it indicates on 1253, 3CWS788 you wrote that; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And then you also indicate you wrote the letter and word "T-3"?

MR. MERAZ: On the left-hand side of that with a circle around it.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. All right. And then below that the officer whose name is in this form is Haro, Officer Haro, h-a-r-o, right?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, we can go back to the large exhibit, 1234.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, when you got to the location, you described for us yesterday there were a number of employees around. When you got there, describe for us how many people--how many employees came around you as you put that vehicle in T-3, if you recall?

MR. MERAZ: Umm, it could have been about ten employees there waiting for me.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. They were waiting for you?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you have some conversation with them or any of these employees about whose vehicle this was?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And by virtue of that conversation did you all look--look at the vehicle more closely?

MR. MERAZ: I don't quite follow you.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you have occasion to discuss whether or not there is any substance on this vehicle by virtue--in the conversation with these employees?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And what did you talk about?

MR. MERAZ: Well, the media news people had stated there was blood all over the car.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So based upon your hearing that, what did you do, if anything?

MR. MERAZ: I got curious.

MR. COCHRAN: When you got curious, what did you do?

MR. MERAZ: I looked to see if there was any blood in the vehicle.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you see any at that point?

MR. MERAZ: I did not.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, again, now when you got to the place and you unhooked the vehicle, did you have occasion to get back inside that vehicle again?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Again, we will only do it if it is different than the way you got in the first time. This is time no. 2, can you describe for us, first of all, how you got inside the vehicle on the second occasion?

MR. MERAZ: I did the same thing. I got in the vehicle, put both hands on the steering wheel. I had one portion of my leg into the seat, the other portion of my leg facing out. I extended out like this, (Indicating), looking into the vehicle. I was curious to see if there was any blood.

THE COURT: Indicating looking over his right shoulder.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you recall whether or not you looked at the console area?

MR. MERAZ: I looked all over the car. By meaning "All over the car," I looked in the front of the car.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did you see any blood at that point?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't see any.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you look at the steering wheel?

MR. MERAZ: Steering wheel was right in front of me. I didn't see any there either.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you recall looking at the floor of the vehicle? Did it look like as though the floor or the carpet on the floor had been modified in any way, Mr. Meraz?

MR. MERAZ: The floor mat had been cut at the print shed, so there was no floor mat.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you see anything else that looked different about that vehicle other than the floor mat being apparently missing?

MR. MERAZ: No.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, that was time no. 2 that you were inside that particular vehicle; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, while you were in the vehicle during time no. 2, did you notice any kind of receipts or vouchers at that point at all?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Describe for the jury again what you noticed and where these receipts were.

MR. MERAZ: The door was opened, which is the driver's side, the side that I was in, opened the door. There is a side pocket. There is a couple of receipts in there.

MR. COCHRAN: A side pocket on the driver's side of the Bronco?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And what, if anything, did you do with regard to those receipts?

MR. MERAZ: I took them out of the car. I showed them to the employees.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, why did you take them out of the car?

MR. MERAZ: I guess status, who the man was.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, meaning Mr. OJ Simpson?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. So how many receipts did you take out of the door of the car?

MR. MERAZ: Two.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you have occasion to look at those receipts?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Can you describe for the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what those receipts said?

MR. MERAZ: One beared the name of OJ Simpson on a tuxedo, the other beared the name of Nicole Simpson, address, other miscellaneous stuff on there.

MR. COCHRAN: What were these documents? Were they from a cleaners? What were they for?

MR. MERAZ: Cleaners.

MR. COCHRAN: You saw these yourself and how many were there altogether?

MR. MERAZ: There was two.

MR. COCHRAN: And you read them and you saw both names of Mr. Simpson and Mrs. Simpson; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: So you took them out of the car during the second time you were inside that vehicle; is that right--

MR. MERAZ: (No audible response.)

MR. COCHRAN: --at T-3?

MR. MERAZ: You want to repeat that again, please?

MR. COCHRAN: Sure. Let me see if I can say it again. You took these items out of the Bronco during the second time that you were inside that Bronco when you were at the point T-3 at Viertel's?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And then what did you do with them at that point?

MR. MERAZ: I put them in my shirt, showed them around to the employees.

MR. COCHRAN: How many employees would you say you showed them to?

MR. MERAZ: I have no--no actual count.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And so you kept them in your shirt pocket for a while?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Now, after you dropped that car off at T-3 and after you had taken these two receipts from a cleaners--by the way, do you recall in your mind where that cleaners was located?

MR. MERAZ: Somewhere in Westwood. I don't know the name of it.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Then after that, what did you do? Did you stay there or did you go out on a call?

MR. MERAZ: I went on another call after that.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Then when you left the premises was the Bronco still parked generally where you indicated on 1254?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And was it still opened at that point?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, before you leave, let me ask you a couple of questions about the area at T-3. Who has access to vehicles parked there at T-3 in that particular open lot?

MR. MERAZ: When you say who has access--

MR. COCHRAN: Well, what--do the employees--you described there were maybe fifty employees at Viertel's at that time. Do the other employees have access to that lot? Can they go on that lot? Can they enter it and enter the cars that are there?

MR. MERAZ: They can wander through whatever they want. That same lot there, you have the public that comes in. You have other tow outfits that come in there to pick up cars.

MR. COCHRAN: So this is an area where a number of people come in and out; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And is there anybody who polices or stops you from coming in there or anything of that nature at T-3?

MR. MERAZ: Well, they have a lot guy there and a lot of times he is either too busy to handle everybody and a lot of time they will wander in and a lot of time they get caught and asked to get out.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, you described for us that you had worked there for some 25 years; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And your experiences over this period of time--you are testifying regarding your experiences over the 25 years or so you worked there?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Now--all right. Now, then at some point you told us you went out on a call and that call was unrelated to this--to Mr. OJ Simpson's vehicle, right?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And how long were you on this call before you came back, if you recall?

MR. MERAZ: Umm, quite a few hours.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you have some further contact with the Bronco vehicle on that date of June 15th, 1994?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And about what time of day was that?

MR. MERAZ: About 5:00, 5:10, somewhere in there.

MR. COCHRAN: In the afternoon of the same day?

MR. MERAZ: In the afternoon, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you have occasion then to see that vehicle shortly after five o'clock on June 15th?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Where was the vehicle at that point?

MR. MERAZ: Well, it had been moved from T-3 over to T-2.

MR. COCHRAN: So now if we look at 1254, again in the center there looks like a white building. That is T-2. Is that where it had been moved to?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And for the record, Mr. Harris has put a magenta, I guess, arrow on T-2.

MR. COCHRAN: That is the building it had been moved into?

MR. MERAZ: That is the building.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know who moved that vehicle to that T-2 area?

MR. MERAZ: No, I don't.

MR. COCHRAN: So between the time you left and the time you got back the vehicle was not where you left it in T-3, it was now in T-2?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Did you have occasion to go into T-2 and do something with regard to that vehicle?

MR. MERAZ: When I returned at about 5:05, 5:10, somewhere in there, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Tell us what happened, what you did?

MR. MERAZ: I decided to put the papers back into the vehicle.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. These are the two--

MR. MERAZ: Two--two vouchers.

MR. COCHRAN: Two vouchers? We will call them vouchers that you had?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You decided to put them back; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you put them back in the vehicle?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: When you put them back in the vehicle was that vehicle parked inside of T-2, was it still opened or unlocked?

MR. MERAZ: It was unlocked.

MR. COCHRAN: And what did you do? Did you open the door?

MR. MERAZ: I opened the door.

MR. COCHRAN: And tell us what you did.

MR. MERAZ: I opened the door, put them in the side post and walked away from there.

MR. COCHRAN: Was anybody else around at that point?

MR. MERAZ: No, nobody else.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You put the vouchers back where you had gotten them?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Why did you bring them back and put them back?

MR. MERAZ: I have no idea. I just put them back.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, can you just tell us generally where in T-2 was the vehicle parked at that point?

MR. MERAZ: Just about right there where that indication of T-2, where the circle is, is where it was put in.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Your Honor, we can use--use 1254 for identification at this point and then in the area where it is marked T-2, inside that building is where the Bronco was parked.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And when you looked--when you put the receipts back in that--vouchers back in the Bronco after--shortly after 5:00 on June 15th, at that point did you see any blood inside that vehicle?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't see any. Of course I just went in and opened the door and I didn't see any blood.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you see any powder as though there had been any fingerprinting of that vehicle at that point?

MR. MERAZ: The car was never printed.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You didn't see any powder?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't see no powder.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. All right. After that, after you put the receipt back, did you have occasion to have any contact with the owner of Viertel's lot after that?

MR. MERAZ: I went on a call.

MR. COCHRAN: Another call?

MR. MERAZ: Another call. I returned back 5:00, 5:30, somewhere in there. I was due to get off at 6:00 and management called me in at about 5:40.

MR. COCHRAN: When you went into management, who were you talking to?

MR. MERAZ: To Bob Jones.

MR. COCHRAN: Is he the--who is Bob Jones?

MR. MERAZ: Bob Jones is the manager of the establishment.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Who else was present during this conversation?

MR. MERAZ: It was just him and i.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You had a conversation?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Was the subject matter of that conversation these vouchers or these receipts that you had taken?

MR. MERAZ: I was asked about them, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And were you--you had shown these receipts or vouchers to other employees, had you not?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, when you talked to your--he was your boss, was he?

MR. MERAZ: Manager, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Your manager at that time?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, possible.

MR. COCHRAN: How long had he been your manager?

MR. MERAZ: Umm, I really don't know.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. MERAZ: It is--more than five years.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. More than five years?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Had you been there longer than he had?

MR. MERAZ: He had a couple of years, a few years more than I did.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you had known him for a period of time; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Had you had some relationship with a family member of his?

MR. MERAZ: Not with him.

MR. COCHRAN: With a family member of his?

MR. MERAZ: Not a family of his, but the owner of the establishment of Viertel's.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And the owner is some other person; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: Yes. That is the owner that owns Viertel's automotive.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Had you had a relationship with the owner's daughter?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And when was that?

MS. CLARK: Objection, relevance, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: I can link it up.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: When was the relationship?

MR. MERAZ: The relationship started back in--during the Olympics. The Olympics were in `84.

MS. CLARK: Objection, relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: The relationship started in 1984 or thereabouts.

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: How long did that relationship continue, if you recall?

MR. MERAZ: Until 1991.

MR. COCHRAN: About seven years?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: What was that relationship--was this with the owner's daughter?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Did that relationship end at some point?

THE COURT: I think we just established that.

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, and I was--that was foundational, your Honor. When it ended. The question was, your Honor, when it did end.

MR. COCHRAN: How did that relationship end with the owner's daughter?

MR. MERAZ: Well, when we broke up the relationship of her and I living together, umm, we were still seeing each other up until `82 and then we broke off permanent and she had to work--I had to work there so it was like I had to watch what I had to do.

MS. CLARK: Objection again, relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled. Goes to bias.

MR. COCHRAN: Did the ending--was it a pleasant ending, sir?

MR. MERAZ: In my opinion, no, it wasn't a pleasant ending. She had to work there and I had to continue to work there.

MR. COCHRAN: Both of you continued to work at that location after that?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: That is the man that owns this particular business?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Bob Jones works for the owner, right?

MR. MERAZ: He is the manager, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. In the course of your conversation with Mr. Jones, did he ask you a question about these vouchers or these receipts?

MR. MERAZ: He asked me about the vouchers, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And what did you tell him, if anything?

MR. MERAZ: I denied it.

MR. COCHRAN: You lied to him?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And why did you lie to him?

MR. MERAZ: I was on thin ice and no matter what I said he was going to come down on me.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. When you say you were on thin ice, what do you mean by that?

MR. MERAZ: Well, a few days prior to this I had said a few words--

MS. CLARK: Objection, hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: Some incident occurred a few days before?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Had it involved you and Mr. Jones?

MR. MERAZ: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Or some other employee?

MR. MERAZ: Some other employee there.

MR. COCHRAN: And had you talked to him about that incident? Had you been called on the carpet regarding that incident?

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor, calls for hearsay, relevance.

THE COURT: It is leading. Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: There had been some incident that preceded this; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. And so after you talked to him, you denied having removed these receipts or vouchers. Tell us what happened after that.

MR. MERAZ: He asked me--he said to me, he says that he had had word from other employees there that I had taken these papers out of the car and I denied it. I says, "I don't know anything about it." He says, well--he says, "I have this information." I says, "Well, whatever you got, I don't know what you are talking about." And he asked me to empty my pockets out.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you do that at that point?

MR. MERAZ: No, I refused to.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Then what happened after that?

MR. MERAZ: He said I was suspended.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, at that point, when you were talking to him, what time of evening was this on June 15th?

MR. MERAZ: Ten to 6:00.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Had you replaced those vouchers or receipts back into the Bronco at that point?

MR. MERAZ: They were already replaced back into the vehicle.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. But you still wouldn't let him look into your pockets?

MR. MERAZ: Right.

MR. COCHRAN: After that he suspended you?

MR. MERAZ: After that he suspended me, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: That is June 15th?

MR. MERAZ: June 15th.

MR. COCHRAN: Right before six o'clock in the afternoon?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. After you were suspended, what happened after that?

MR. MERAZ: Well, it was a nightmare to me, I mean, working there all those years.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. MERAZ: I got home.

MR. COCHRAN: So you were suspended as of that date; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Thereafter did you have occasion to go back to that lot on or about June 17th, 1994, two days later?

MR. MERAZ: Yes. He called me, I believe it was Thursday, which would be the 16th.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. MERAZ: And said that him and myself and Bob Jones and Mr. Viertel's would be in conference.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. There would be three of you in conference?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. When was that? Was there a meeting set up at that point?

MR. MERAZ: Yes. This was for the 17th of June.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did you--did you appear on the 17th of June?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And do you recall--and tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury about what time it was that you got there on the 17th of June.

MR. MERAZ: It might have been about 10:30 in the morning.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. When you got there, where did you go, if you recall?

MR. MERAZ: I went directly to bob's office, but prior of me going to bob's office I had noticed that the Bronco had been moved again.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, the Bronco--you told us about it being at the point of T-3. You told us where it was generally at T-2. Now, it had been moved for a third time since it was at Viertel's; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: That's right.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know who had moved it?

MR. MERAZ: No, I was there.

MR. COCHRAN: Can you--if Mr. Harris puts that arrow up there, can you show us the third parking place for the Bronco, if he moves the arrow down. Still in the T-2 area, right?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. MERAZ: Okay. That is where it was the first time. The second time, if you will move that arrow to my left. Keep going. It was--no. Now go--basically the same location as to where the marking of T-2 is, but directly across.

MR. COCHRAN: Across from--

MR. MERAZ: Across from where the--the orange letter is in there, T-2. Right in there is where it was put in, (Indicating).

MR. COCHRAN: This is--is that heading north? Is that north?

MR. MERAZ: That would be the west side of the building.

MR. COCHRAN: West side of the building? All right. Your Honor, can we put a mark there and put "J.M." This point would be the point where the third--the third parking space of the Bronco, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: 1254, I believe.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, at that time did you have occasion to go with Mr. Jones and someone else to that vehicle at that point?

MR. MERAZ: Well, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Tell us what happened.

MR. MERAZ: After we had discussed the things in Bob Jones' office, Viertel walked out, I walked out and Bob walked out, all three of us walked out of there to go look into the Bronco.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And prior to your walking to this point on 1254, the parking place of the Bronco, you had had a conversation with the owner of Viertel's and Bob Jones and yourself; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: How long did that conversation last?

MR. MERAZ: Fifteen to twenty minutes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And after--after that conversation you then walked out of the office over to T-2; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: Well, bob's office is basically in T-2.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. MERAZ: So we walked out of his office.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Now, before we get to the Bronco, with regard to T-2, is--T-2 you have described for the cars that are in there. That is a place where cars are placed where there is some kind of a hold or for some special care?

MR. MERAZ: Yes. Normally 99, a hundred percent of the cars that are towed that have an evidentiary hold on the vehicles, hold for prints or further investigation, they are normally put in there, kept away from the public.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. That is a more secure facility than T-3?

MR. MERAZ: It is supposed to be secured.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Well, is it in actuality? Was it secured?

MS. CLARK: Objection, calls for speculation.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm asking.

MS. CLARK: Conclusion.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Based upon your experience and having worked there for a period of time, tell us about the security regarding at T-2 in that particular building.

MR. MERAZ: Describe it or--

MR. COCHRAN: Yes. Describe it, sir, and how it worked.

MR. MERAZ: Well, cars coming in, you've got the front door that if somebody comes in, there is a button that is raised that lifts the gate up. On the back end of the garage the mechanics work there. On the side, which would be on the east side of the building, there is a door there where the driver's room is. There is a door there. A lot of times a lot of customers would come in there. Not being escorted, they would come through there, catch us napping there, eating lunch or whatever, and we say, "What are you doing here?" "Well, I come to use the toilet."

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So would the fifty or so employees at Viertel's, would they have access to T-2 also, that area?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Objection. That again calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Could they just come in and out?

MR. MERAZ: Well, anybody could come in and go out.

MR. COCHRAN: And that is T-2 also?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, with regard to the vehicle and where it was parked, tell us what happened with regard to that, between you, Bob Jones and Viertel?

MR. MERAZ: I walked out of bob's office and we were walking in T-2 towards the Bronco. Viertel came with us. Bob came with--he was standing next to me. There was two detectives that were in the building, but in the portion of where the drivers eat is where the detectives were. Bob said, "There's two detectives" and Viertel went one way and Bob and I continued going toward the Bronco.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that to kind of throw off the detectives?

MR. MERAZ: Exactly.

MS. CLARK: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: Ask the jury to--

MR. COCHRAN: Well--

THE COURT: Wait.

MR. COCHRAN: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: The jury is to disregard the last question and answer.

MR. COCHRAN: Why did you do that?

MR. MERAZ: Well, Bob didn't want to make it obvious that we were going towards the Bronco.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MS. CLARK: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. The answer is stricken. The jury is to disregard.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: At any rate, did you have some conversation with Bob about how you would get to that Bronco?

MR. MERAZ: Well, we when were going to the Bronco we didn't think the detectives would be in there.

MS. CLARK: Objection again. Calls for speculation, "We."

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

THE COURT: The answer is stricken.

MR. COCHRAN: At any rate, you got to the Bronco at some point; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: When you got there were there any detectives around the vehicle at that point?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: When you got there the detectives were around that vehicle?

MR. MERAZ: No.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did you have occasion to get inside the vehicle or to look inside the vehicle at that point?

MR. MERAZ: I opened the door to the Bronco.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, is this--which time is this? This is time number?

MR. MERAZ: Fourth time.

MR. COCHRAN: The fourth time?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. The vehicle is still unlocked?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Describe for us what you did when you opened the vehicle.

MR. MERAZ: I opened the door and Bob says to me like, "Hurry up," because of the detectives being there. And I said--

MS. CLARK: Objection. Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. The answer is stricken in its entirety. The jury is to disregard. Ask another question.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. After you opened the door--don't tell us what Bob said. You opened the door and then what happened?

MR. MERAZ: I opened the door. I said, "They are not there."

MR. COCHRAN: What do you mean they are not there? What are you talking about?

MR. MERAZ: Referring to the papers that I had removed from there--from the Bronco.

MR. COCHRAN: The papers that you had put back in there?

MR. MERAZ: Exactly.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And you didn't see them at that point; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't see them in there, no.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you know who had taken them after you put them back?

MR. MERAZ: No, I don't.

MS. CLARK: Objection. That calls for speculation that anyone took them.

THE COURT: Sustained. Tardy, though. Go ahead.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you go back to the same area where you placed these vouchers back yourself?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you see them there at that location?

MR. MERAZ: No, I did not.

MR. COCHRAN: Had they been there when you last left that vehicle on June 15th in the afternoon?

MR. MERAZ: They were last there, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: They were not there now; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: They were not there now.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, after that, after you didn't see these vouchers there, what happened after that, sir?

MR. MERAZ: Bob and I walked back to his office.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, at that point you were on suspension; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: Well, he called it investigating is what he called it.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Then after you--after your conversation with him on the 17th were you still on suspension or was your status changed?

MR. MERAZ: I was going to go on vacation and he knew I was going to go on vacation. He says, well--

MS. CLARK: Objection, hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: You were about to go on vacation you just told us?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me ask you this: Without telling us what Bob Jones said, at that point did you go on vacation?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Were you being paid for the time on vacation, if you know?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. So you went on vacation? You had this paid vacation coming, right?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: And while you were out on vacation did you have occasion to come back to Viertel's sometime in or around June 11th of 1994?

MR. MERAZ: I returned back July 11th.

MR. COCHRAN: Did I say June 11th?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: I meant July 11th, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: On or about July 11th, 1994? Tell us what happened on July 11th.

MR. MERAZ: I was due back July 11th and I had called on a Friday prior to July 11th and I wanted to take an extra week of vacation, and while Bob had me on the telephone he says, "Oh, by the way, I need to talk to you."

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you make arrangements to come down and see Mr. Bob Jones after that?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And when--do you recall when you came in on that date?

MR. MERAZ: I went back July 11th.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And what time of the day was that, if you recall?

MR. MERAZ: It was about 10:30, eleven o'clock in the morning.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. And did you come to Bob Jones' office?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: Do you recall whether or not you saw the Bronco at all on that day?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I seen the Bronco.

MR. COCHRAN: And where--was it parked in the same point as we indicated there, 1254, with the magenta arrow there?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Still the same place now?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. Did you go over to it on that occasion?

MR. MERAZ: No. I didn't go to the Bronco, no.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You went to Bob Jones' office?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And did you have a conversation with him?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And did your employment status change as of that day?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, it did.

MR. COCHRAN: And what happened to you?

MR. MERAZ: I was terminated.

MR. COCHRAN: And have you worked there since that date at all?

MR. MERAZ: No, I haven't.

MR. COCHRAN: Now, I notice that you have two lawyers with you today, and have you brought some kind of a lawsuit against Viertel's?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did. I filled a wrongful termination.

MR. COCHRAN: And are these gentleman who are seated back over to my right, are they representing you in that lawsuit?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, they are.

MR. COCHRAN: That matter is still pending now; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: Still pending, yes.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Now, on any of the occasions when you had occasion to either tow the car or be around the car, did you have occasion to look at or make note of the physical condition of this particular car?

MR. MERAZ: Are we--the Bronco?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes, the Bronco we are talking about when you first picked it up at the print shed.

MR. MERAZ: There was an inventory that was made of the vehicle on the date I picked it up.

MR. COCHRAN: That would have been on June 15th; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That is correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you fill that inventory out or did someone else?

MR. MERAZ: I had started the impound sheet there.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that on the form that I previously showed you, 1253?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And, umm--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. COCHRAN: If I might approach again, your Honor.

MR. COCHRAN: This is a copy of 1253 I will place before you. Is there a place on here where you can show us where you started the inventory of that vehicle?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't start the inventory. I started the impound sheet.

MR. COCHRAN: Okay. All right. Was there a place for an inventory of the vehicle, though?

MR. MERAZ: Yes. On the middle of the--of the impound sheet there is an inventory of the vehicle. Indicates "Seat front," so forth.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Did you have occasion to look at that particular vehicle to see whether or not it had any kind of damage?

MR. MERAZ: When I towed it in the vehicle had no damage at all.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. You made a visual observation to determine that yourself?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did. And for me to sign my name on this, I have to go through that vehicle and inspect it myself and then put my signature. Any damage done to that vehicle I'm responsible for.

MR. COCHRAN: Did you do that in this case?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, I did.

MR. COCHRAN: And you didn't see any damage; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't see any damage at all.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. At any time later did you ever see any damage to that particular vehicle at all?

MR. MERAZ: There was no damage on that vehicle when I left it there.

MR. COCHRAN: When you last dealt with it; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: That's right.

(Brief pause.)

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

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel and the Defendant.)

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I need to perhaps mark I think two paragraphs, 1254-A, the printout, and I think there is also a 1254-B, if the Court pleases.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: One last question.

THE COURT: One is T-2 location no. 1 and one is T-2 location no. 2, correct?

MR. COCHRAN: That is correct, your Honor. Thank you.

(Deft's 1254-A for id = photograph/printout)

(Deft's 1254-B for id = photograph/printout)

MR. COCHRAN: You indicated that based upon this inventory, whatever, you didn't see any damage to the vehicle and--other than the--what you have described for us where the carpeting was cut out on the driver's side; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MR. COCHRAN: Very well. I have nothing further of this witness.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK

MS. CLARK: Good morning, Mr. Meraz.

MR. MERAZ: Good morning.

MS. CLARK: Now, as you stated, sir, when Mr. Jones first confronted you with having taken those receipts from the Bronco, you lied, didn't you?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And you told him you took nothing from the Bronco, didn't you?

MR. MERAZ: He asked me about the papers.

MS. CLARK: And you said you did not take them?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: But you had?

MR. MERAZ: This is true.

MS. CLARK: And you put them in your pocket?

MR. MERAZ: Shirt.

MS. CLARK: Shirt pocket, yes?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And then later on--and then he asked you to remove the contents of your pocket, didn't he?

MR. MERAZ: He did.

MS. CLARK: And you refused?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And you refused because you had those receipts in your shirt pocket, didn't you?

MR. MERAZ: No, I didn't.

MS. CLARK: But you refused to empty your pocket for him, didn't you?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And after you lied to Bob Jones and you refused to remove the contents of your pockets, he suspended you; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: Suspended me, yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, when you went back to the Bronco on June the 17th you went with Mr. Viertel and you went with Mr. Jones; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Now, again on that date you were confronted by Mr. Viertel about having taken something from the Bronco, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And you lied again, didn't you?

MR. MERAZ: No, I didn't.

MS. CLARK: When Mr. Viertel confronted you at first on June the 17th and asked you if you took something from the Bronco you said you did not?

MR. MERAZ: That is not true.

MS. CLARK: Mr. Meraz, let me remind you--well, let me first ask you something else. Before you came to this trial, to this courtroom today and yesterday, you testified at a pretrial hearing, didn't you?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: And at that hearing you testified about many of the same things you've testified here in court to, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: I'm going to show counsel page 5389.

MR. COCHRAN: Which one?

MS. CLARK: 5389.

MR. COCHRAN: I think I have different numbers, your Honor. May I walk over there?

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

MS. CLARK: May the record reflect I'm showing it to Mr. Meraz' attorneys as well as to Mr. Cochran.

THE COURT: Yes. Proceed.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Proceed.

MS. CLARK: I'm going to show you the page of a transcript--before I do, it is your testimony at this point that when you went in to see Mr. Viertel and Mr. Jones on June the 17th and they asked you again whether you took anything from the side pocket of the Bronco, you said no, you continued to lie?

MR. MERAZ: That is not true.

MS. CLARK: Do you recall them showing you statements written out by other employees who saw you with those receipts taken from the Bronco?

MR. MERAZ: I remember them showing them to me, yes.

MS. CLARK: And do you also recall, sir, that it was only after they showed you that written statement that said they saw you with the receipt that you took out of the Bronco that you admitted that it was true?

MR. MERAZ: That is not true. That is not true.

MS. CLARK: All right. Mr. Meraz, do you recall being asked the following questions at the pretrial hearing in this matter, page 5389. "You phoned Viertel two days later on June the 17th, did you not? "Answer: Correct. "Question: On that date you met with Mr. Richard Viertel and Bob Jones; is that correct? "Answer: That's true. "Question: And once again on that date you were asked by Mr. Viertel this time if you had removed any items from the Ford Bronco; is that correct? "Answer: That's correct. "And at first you denied taking anything out of the Bronco; isn't that right? "Answer: That is not true. "At first you denied taking anything from the Ford Bronco, did you not? "Answer: At first, yes."

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I don't think that is impeaching. The answer is confusing.

THE COURT: Overruled. Question. Do you have a question?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, do you recall at first denying it to Mr. Viertel and then admitting it only after he showed you written statements of the other employees who saw you holding the receipts that you stole from the Bronco?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, may I--

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. COCHRAN: May I show something to counsel, in fairness?

MR. MERAZ: That is misleading there.

MS. CLARK: I'm asking a question, sir.

MS. CLARK: Do you remember that, sir?

MR. COCHRAN: Okay.

MR. MERAZ: It didn't happen.

MS. CLARK: It didn't happen?

THE COURT: Hold on. There is an objection.

MR. COCHRAN: I have an objection, your Honor. I would like to show the Court something on the record with regard to the transcript.

THE COURT: Miss Clark. Show it to Miss Clark first.

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

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

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

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, I have an objection with regard to this.

THE COURT: Noted. Thank you. Proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: All right.

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

THE COURT: Proceed.

MS. CLARK: Then it is your testimony that when you testified at the pretrial hearing you did not admit that you initially lied to Mr. Viertel again on June the 17th?

MR. MERAZ: When Mr. Hodgman questioned me I had told him--

MS. CLARK: The answer requires yes or no, Mr. Meraz.

MR. COCHRAN: May the witness be allowed to answer?

THE COURT: We all don't get to talk at the same time.

MR. COCHRAN: May the witness be allowed to finish his answer?

THE COURT: He is allowed to finish his answer.

MR. MERAZ: When Mr. Hodgman talked to me--

MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. This is nonresponsive.

THE COURT: I don't know if it is or not. I haven't heard the question.

MS. CLARK: It requires a yes or no.

THE COURT: No, it doesn't. He is entitled to explain his answer. Mr. Meraz, answer the question, please.

MR. MERAZ: When Mr. Hodgman asked me the same question that you had asked me, we were talking about Bob Jones, that I had lied to him, and then he came right back and asked me the same thing that you did. I said no, I never lied to Bob or Viertel on the second day, so I never did.

MS. CLARK: So it is your testimony now that you only lied on the first day; is that right?

MR. COCHRAN: Object on the form of the question now. That is argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Is that your testimony, sir?

MR. MERAZ: I lied to Bob.

MS. CLARK: Is that your testimony?

MR. MERAZ: That is my testimony.

MS. CLARK: And your testimony is currently that you did not lie again to Mr. Viertel and Mr. Jones on the 17th? Is that your testimony?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: But nevertheless, you do recall being shown written statements of your fellow employees who said they saw you with the receipts that you stole from the Bronco?

MR. MERAZ: I never read those statements.

MS. CLARK: You saw them, didn't you?

MR. MERAZ: Well, they were papers shown to me like this.

MS. CLARK: But you claim you didn't read them?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't read them. No, I didn't.

MS. CLARK: But it was after you were shown those statements that you submitted a statement admitting to having taken the papers out of the Bronco; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: That is not right.

MS. CLARK: Did you see the statement that you wrote out for Mr. Viertel?

MR. MERAZ: Excuse me?

MS. CLARK: Did you see the statement that you wrote out for Mr. Viertel?

MR. MERAZ: That I wrote out for Viertel?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

MR. MERAZ: I don't remember me writing a statement to Viertel.

MS. CLARK: You don't recall that? All right. We have time. I'm going to pull that up and show you and I'm going to ask you to identify that. Is that your handwriting?

MR. MERAZ: Okay.

MS. CLARK: Come you, don't recall Mr. Viertel, however, asking you to furnish him with a written statement concerning your position in this matter?

MR. MERAZ: I don't recall that.

MS. CLARK: You don't recall that?

MR. MERAZ: I don't recall ever me signing any statement.

MS. CLARK: You don't recall ever signing a statement concerning your theft of the receipts from the Bronco?

MR. MERAZ: I don't recall that, unless you got something.

MS. CLARK: Oh, you mean you will change your testimony if I show you something?

MR. MERAZ: That is not what I'm saying.

MS. CLARK: What is your testimony, sir? Did you write something out like that or not?

MR. MERAZ: I don't recall myself doing that.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: Now, when you went to the Bronco on the 17th and looked in the side pocket where you said--where you claimed you had put the receipt back, they were not there, correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And in fact they never did turn up again; isn't that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And these attorneys, these two attorneys that are sitting here are representing you in your wrongful termination suit?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: You need two attorneys for that, do you, sir?

MR. COCHRAN: I object to that. Improper question.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. CLARK: So you are looking to get some money out of Viertel for what you claim to be a wrongful termination; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: Not necessarily true.

MS. CLARK: You are not seeking money?

MR. MERAZ: (No audible response.)

MS. CLARK: You are not seeking money in your wrongful termination suit, are you, Mr. Meraz? Is that it?

MR. MERAZ: If it come my way, yes, I will take it.

MS. CLARK: Have you filed legal papers in your wrongful termination suit, Mr. Meraz?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And do those legal papers ask for money from Viertel's for being wrongfully fired?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, assume facts a not in evidence. There may be other things that are asked.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: I haven't seen any dollars signs on those papers yet because I don't know what we are suing for.

MS. CLARK: Don't those pleadings indicate that you are going to be asking for monetary damages in some amount, if not currently known, then an amount that will be determined at a later time?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: So you expect to get money, do you not?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: From the wrongful termination suit?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Thank you, Mr. Meraz. And if you testify here in court today that you took those receipts and you kept them and you never put them back in the Bronco, you will lose that suit, won't you, Mr. Meraz?

MR. COCHRAN: Objected to, your Honor. That is a legal conclusion.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MS. CLARK: In isn't it true, Mr. Meraz, that your lawyers are sitting here to make sure that you never admit to having put those papers back in the Bronco, that you never admit to stealing those papers?

MR. COCHRAN: I object to the form of the question.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained to the form of the question. The jury is to disregard the implication of that question.

MS. CLARK: Mr. Meraz, are you concerned that if you admit to us here today that you stole those receipts from the Bronco and never put them back, that you will lose your wrongful termination suit?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't take them.

MS. CLARK: Could you please answer my question.

MR. MERAZ: I didn't take them.

MS. CLARK: You did take them out of the Bronco, sir, didn't you?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: You did put them in your pocket, didn't you?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And when you were asked on that very same day that you took them out of the Bronco and put them in your pocket, to empty your pockets, you refused, didn't you?

MR. MERAZ: I sure did.

MS. CLARK: Thank you. Are you concerned, sir, that if you admit that you never put those receipts back in the Bronco that you will lose your wrongful termination suit?

MR. COCHRAN: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: I didn't quite follow. Do you want to repeat that again, please.

MS. CLARK: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Are you concerned that if you admit that you took those receipts out of the Bronco and never returned them you will lose your wrongful termination suit?

MR. MERAZ: All I know is that I put those papers back in there.

MS. CLARK: Can you answer my question, sir?

MR. MERAZ: I assume, yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, when you picked up the Bronco on June the 15th you picked it up from the print shed; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And the print shed is a big tin building that is enclosed that has doors that close off; isn't that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And there is a guard shack in which a police officer is posted to guard the vehicles kept in that print shack; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: I have never seen a guard there.

MS. CLARK: Didn't you just testify on direct that you spoke to the guard and told him who you were and he let you in?

MR. MERAZ: The guard shack is across the street at 150 North San Pedro. That is where the guard shack is.

MS. CLARK: And you had to make contact with the person in that guard shack in order to get to the print shed; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: I was directed to get there.

MS. CLARK: Didn't you make--didn't you have to make contact with the person in the guard shack to be let into the print shed, sir?

MR. MERAZ: Most of the time when we arrive.

MS. CLARK: I'm asking about June the 15th?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Thank you. And the Bronco was inside the print shack, wasn't it?

MR. MERAZ: Away from the guard shack, yes.

MS. CLARK: It was inside the print shack, wasn't it?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Now, when you saw that Bronco for the first time on June the 15th you noticed that a floor mat had been missing, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: Which caused you to conclude, as you testified on direct, that evidence had already been removed from the Bronco at the print shack, correct?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. COCHRAN: Misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And as a matter of fact, aren't you also aware that blood had already been removed by Dennis Fung on June the 14th at the print shack?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of the question, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Foundation.

MS. CLARK: You did not see the Bronco on the 14th; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: You did not see the Bronco on the 13th either; is that correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: When you went over to the Bronco, sir, can you describe to us how you opened the door?

MR. MERAZ: Which time are you asking me on this?

MS. CLARK: I'm talking about the first time you saw it on the 15th.

MR. MERAZ: Hum, I backed the car out, brought it out, got out from the driver's side of the tow truck and walked up to it.

MS. CLARK: Okay. You walked up to the Bronco for the purpose of preparing the hookup; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you were going to leave some paperwork in the car as well, weren't you?

MR. MERAZ: I never left any paperwork in the car.

MS. CLARK: Never put any paperwork inside the car?

MR. MERAZ: Never did.

MS. CLARK: What did you do when you first approached the Bronco itself?

MR. MERAZ: When I pulled it out?

MS. CLARK: You indicated to us on direct, sir, that you went over and went inside the Bronco in some manner when it was in the print shack?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't go into the--into the Bronco in the print shack; it was when I brought it out.

MS. CLARK: So you first hooked it up and pulled it out of the print shack?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you did not open the driver's door at all while it was inside the print shack; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: After you pulled it out of the print shack you then went into the Bronco itself?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And did you do that by entering through the driver's side door?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And you used your left hand to open the handle?

MR. MERAZ: Might have used my right hand.

MS. CLARK: Is that what you do when you go to the driver's side of a door?

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor, to the form of the question. He answered the question. Object.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Just picture what you did. You went over to the driver's side of the car to open the door. Do you have a picture in your mind of the way that handle looked?

MR. MERAZ: I have a picture of it, yes.

MS. CLARK: What kind of handle is it, Mr. Meraz?

MR. MERAZ: Oh, it is a handle where you stick your hand and pull up on it and it pulls out.

MS. CLARK: Okay. You used your right hand to open it?

MR. MERAZ: Left.

MS. CLARK: Left hand.

MR. MERAZ: Correction, left.

MS. CLARK: And when you used your left hand to open the door, that driver's side door, you didn't see any blood on the door?

MR. MERAZ: When I opened it?

MS. CLARK: Right.

MR. MERAZ: I looked at the door.

MS. CLARK: And did you see any blood?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't see any.

MS. CLARK: Did you ever see any blood on the driver's side of that door?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't see any blood. I didn't see any.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: All right. Then you got inside and you put both hands on the steering wheel; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: I had both hands on the steering wheel, yes.

MS. CLARK: And did you touch the console area, that is the armrest between the passenger and the driver's side?

MR. MERAZ: I don't think I did.

MS. CLARK: Did you look at the console area?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Did you look carefully at the console area, sir?

MR. MERAZ: I took a glance of it.

MS. CLARK: Well, you got into the car again on the second occasion, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: On that same day?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: June the 15th we are talking about, right?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you looked at the console area specifically again that second time you got into the Bronco on June the 15th?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you looked carefully because you were looking for blood; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: That's right.

MS. CLARK: Have you ever testified before that you were looking carefully for blood?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question, your Honor. That is unfair. Maybe he wasn't asked that question. That is unfair.

THE COURT: Sustained. It is a speaking objection.

MS. CLARK: Did you ever tell your lawyers or anyone else, before you came to court or met with Mr. Cochran, that you were specifically looking carefully for blood in that car?

MR. COCHRAN: Object to the form of that question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MERAZ: That I was specifically looking for blood?

MS. CLARK: Right.

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Who was the first person you told that you were specifically looking carefully for blood when you got into the Bronco on June the 15th?

MR. MERAZ: The employee there at the yard.

MS. CLARK: At Viertel's?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Let me show you again the--

THE COURT: 1254.

MS. CLARK: 1254, your Honor, Defense 1254.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: I believe this is 1254-B.

MS. CLARK: Is it b?

MS. CLARK: Do you see the marker called T-3?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: I notice you had to put your glasses on, Mr. Meraz. Do you use them for driving?

MR. MERAZ: For reading.

MS. CLARK: Only reading?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: I also noticed that you are using them to look at the monitor, correct?

MR. MERAZ: (No audible response.)

MS. CLARK: Are you unable to see the marker T-3 without your glasses, sir?

MR. MERAZ: If I got up here and looked, oh, I could see it. From there to there I could look at it. From here close up I can't see. That is why I have them. Care to look?

MS. CLARK: Mr. Meraz, what color is that marker, T-3?

MR. MERAZ: That marker right there that you are just pointing at right now?

MS. CLARK: Yeah.

MR. MERAZ: Pinkish color.

MS. CLARK: Pinkish?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: You are colorblind, aren't you, Mr. Meraz?

MR. COCHRAN: Object, your Honor. That is magenta or pink. I object to the form of that question.

MS. CLARK: Aren't you?

MR. MERAZ: I don't think I am.

MS. CLARK: Do you think that is pink?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, that is argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MS. CLARK: Are you talking about the arrow or are you talking about the dot that is marked T-3?

MR. MERAZ: About the arrow which is what you wanted, right?

MS. CLARK: No, I said the dot, T-3.

MR. MERAZ: That is green.

MS. CLARK: All right.

MR. COCHRAN: Just a moment, your Honor. I think that is unfair.

THE COURT: Speaks for itself.

MS. CLARK: When you first pulled the Bronco over to the area marked as T-3, was that because somebody told you to leave I there until they made space in T-2?

MR. MERAZ: No.

MS. CLARK: Sir, isn't it true that there was a Mr. Sal Gutierrez there waiting to move it into the secure area known as T-2 and that they had to make room for it, that is why you left it there in T-3?

MR. MERAZ: Sal or Saul, which he is called there at the yard, I told him that I would leave it there and he could do whatever he want with it later.

MS. CLARK: You don't know how quickly he moved it into T-2 because you left; isn't that true?

MR. MERAZ: That's true.

MS. CLARK: You left immediately after you pulled into T-3; isn't that true?

MR. MERAZ: Fifteen, ten minutes alter I might have left.

MS. CLARK: When you came back after going on the out call the car was in T-2, the secure area; isn't that right?

MR. MERAZ: When I came back, yes, it was in T-2.

MS. CLARK: And T-2 is the area where you keep cars that are to be held for evidentiary hold; isn't that right sir?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Regardless of what is on that paperwork, this car was in that area, wasn't it?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: I want to show you some photographs, sir.

MR. COCHRAN: May I see those?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: Now, you indicated, did you not, sir, that you could not see any print dust on the car at all, correct?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And now again you were looking very carefully for that print dust; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: You could see it, if it is obvious. If it is on the car, you could see it.

MS. CLARK: You know what it looks like; is that right?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: Were you looking carefully for print dust that day?

MR. MERAZ: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And you didn't see any, correct?

MR. MERAZ: I didn't see any.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I have here a photograph I would ask to be marked People's next in order.

THE COURT: 528.

MS. CLARK: 528?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Peo's 528 for id = photograph)

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

THE COURT: Proceed.

MS. CLARK: Showing you People's 528, can we zoom in? First of all, wait. Let's back up for a second. You recognize the location that is shown in this photograph, sir? That is the print shack, isn't it?

MR. MERAZ: Yes, it is.

MS. CLARK: And you recognize that car, of course? That is the Bronco, isn't it?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And that is where you picked up the Bronco on June the 15th, isn't it?

MR. MERAZ: That's correct.

MS. CLARK: And in fact that was the position it was in when you hooked it up to your tow truck and pulled it out, correct?

MR. MERAZ: Correct.

MS. CLARK: Zoom in.

MS. CLARK: What do you see there on the door, Mr. Meraz?

MR. MERAZ: Pow