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.)
(Pages 34333 through 34344, volume 177A, transcribed and sealed under separate cover.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Neufeld, Mr. Blasier. The People are represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Darden, Mr. Escobar, Mr. Wooden. Good morning, counsel.
MS. CLARK: Good morning, your Honor.
MR. BLASIER: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: Yes, your Honor. Yesterday we were provided with two more charts or at least proofs of charts that the Prosecution intends to use with Mr. Deedrick. I wanted to bring our objections to the Court's attention now so that the Prosecution can have time to change these before Mr. Deedrick testifies. I don't know if the Court has been provided with these or not. These are two--
THE COURT: No, I have not.
MR. BLASIER: --comparison charts. Perhaps I could provide you with mine.
THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, would you make a quick photocopy for me, please, or do you have additional copies?
MR. BLASIER: No, I don't. I have my own here. The charts purport to show comparisons between various known samples and various evidence samples. They indicate that known samples are consistent with evidence samples and we don't have a problem with that. That is the way these things are described. What we have a problem with is two things. They have pictures on these to demonstrate what the known samples are. As you can see on the hair chart, they have "Defendant." Now, the proof that you have doesn't have the pictures on it. The picture they want to put on this is the mugshot of Mr. Simpson and then they have other pictures titled "Nicole, Ron," with pictures from the crime scene of the dead bodies. We feel that that is clearly unduly prejudicial, that it is intended to inflame the jury. It is certainly not necessary to have Mr. Simpson's mugshot to demonstrate that exemplar hairs came from him. All of these boxes do show the associations of the hair and fiber evidence for the evidence talk in terms of Ron's shirt, Nicole's dress and they are not referred to by their last names, which is the conventional way to do that in court. I think it is not coincidental that they use the names Ron and Nicole and Defendant rather than O.J. Simpson and Goldman. I think that was done for a specific purpose, to show a contrast between Mr. Simpson with his booking photo, and the victims, and I think it is unnecessary to the purpose of this chart and we object to those aspects of the chart. We would request that they use last names as they have used in other charts, I believe, and not be allowed to use the Defendant's mugshot.
THE COURT: Miss Clark, do you have the actual board available?
MS. CLARK: No, your Honor, and that is why I very much appreciate counsel's taking this up at this time, because once we finalize the boards, to change it is very difficult, and with the Court's ruling, this final ruling, we will be able to finalize the board. Let me indicate to the Court, no. 1, to obviate the one argument made by counsel, we are not using the crime scene photographs of the victims as they were found at Bundy for the identifying pictures in the hair summary board. We are using live photographs of them. With respect to--
THE COURT: All right. We've already scene two live photographs of both Miss Brown Simpson and Mr. Goldman.
MS. CLARK: I think they are the same two, your Honor, that we have used before.
THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, I think they are in the book, in the front box. Those are People's exhibits?
THE CLERK: 29 and 27.
MS. CLARK: Right.
THE COURT: 29 and 27.
MS. CLARK: Same ones and we are using the same ones again, only smaller.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CLARK: Also--
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: I take it you are not using the Time magazine booking photo?
MS. CLARK: I'm sorry?
MR. COCHRAN: Or Los Angeles magazine.
MS. CLARK: I didn't hear the Court.
THE COURT: Never mind. Which booking photo are you using?
MS. CLARK: I'm not using the Time magazine photograph, no, your Honor. With respect to type--to the other objections, let me indicate to the Court, Mr. Scheck made certain objections to me about these boards and of the objections he made I found one to be a fair objection, which was we initially had the boards entitled simply "Hairs" and then the other one "Fibers." Mr. Scheck objected on the grounds that the arrows simply going from the Defendant, Nicole, Ron, Kato, the dog, for example, to the items, inferred identity or uniqueness where the witness' testimony would really just say "Consistent with," and even though I felt that his testimony would clarify that and would indicate with no--in no uncertain terms that we are not indicating through his testimony uniqueness and it was nice and simple this way simply, having the title "Hairs" with the arrows, fewer words, I thought that perhaps if there was any indication by such a title that we are trying to indicate uniqueness, that it would be unfair. And it is untrue and I intend to bring it out completely and fully with Mr. Deedrick, that we are not indicating uniqueness or identity so what we did is I asked that the board be modified to indicate "Fibers of" for the exemplar items, then "Consistent with" and "Fibers of," and the same thing is going to be done with hairs, so I did modify the boards to that extent.
THE COURT: So the arrows are gone?
MS. CLARK: No, the arrows are there because it indicates the transfer, but the title indicates that it is not identity we are saying. We are saying it is consistent with and that will be the testimony as well. So now there is no misleading--no arguably misleading aspect to it.
THE COURT: All right. Well, then the two things we need to discuss, from what I understand from Mr. Blasier's comment, is the use of the booking photo and the use of the first names, the use of Defendant and the comparison of Ron and Nicole. There is no objection to Kato, the dog.
MS. CLARK: I don't know what his last name is, your Honor. With respect to Ron and Nicole, we used their first name because they are shorter. I wanted to make these boards as simple as I possibly. I really honestly did not think, had no conscious thought of the psychological aspects that counsel is mentioning. It is simple and short. They have been referred to in testimony repeatedly as Ron and Nicole, and in fact, some of boards refer to the Defendant as O.J. We have section--"Item no. 213, fibers rear cargo, O.J. Bronco." I mean, people are referred to by their first names throughout this trial and this is no exception. I don't think there is the psychological impact that counsel is worried about. With respect to the use of the booking photo, it is a fair depiction of the Defendant. I will show the Court the photograph, but what are we supposed to do? Show him carrying the football over the--I mean, this is a fair depiction of the Defendant with his hair and the hair is the important thing here and it is one full head shot. There is nothing--
THE COURT: All right. May I see the photograph, please.
MS. CLARK: Certainly. I mean, there aren't numbers on his--
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: That is usually the Defense objection to these kind of pictures is that the photograph includes the number and we do not have that, and I should indicate this is going to be in that fashion. Right now there is a name tag but it is going to be in this fashion.
THE COURT: A name tag.
MS. CLARK: There is a name tag.
THE COURT: A photo name tag.
MS. CLARK: Right.
THE COURT: All right. May I see the photograph?
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Thank you.
MS. CLARK: And then I should indicate to the Court the other photographs that are going to be used.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier, I think the People have obviated your objection to the photographs of Miss Brown Simpson and Mr. Goldman.
MR. BLASIER: Not at all, your Honor. May I be heard?
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. BLASIER: We strenuously object to the two professionally taken photographs of the victims and a mugshot of Mr. Simpson. We suggest--they don't need pictures at all. You don't need to look at a picture of any of these people. None of the hair comparisons are going to be done based on a photograph. They are going to be done on a microscopic analysis. If they have to use pictures, they can use driver's license pictures of all three. That would at least be equal. "O.J." Is a lot shorter than all the names on here. "Defendant" is shorter or longer than "Goldman." I think that is a ridiculous reason to give. They should all be stated in the same way.
THE COURT: All right.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, he is the Defendant. I mean, he is.
THE COURT: I realize that.
MS. CLARK: Okay. With respect to the photographs, I don't know, I think that too much is being made of this. The People are entitled to use the best photographs they took to depict what is in issue here and the photographs that we have selected had been selected because their hair is shown clearly in these photographs whereas in driver's license photographs they are not nearly as well depicted. Those are not--the booking photo is a professional shot.
THE COURT: My recollection of Mr. Goldman's driver's license is he is wearing some kind of bandanna.
MS. CLARK: Correct, which obscures his hair. Let me also indicate that with respect to the photographs on the fiber board, the boxes for Ron's shirt, pants and the knit hat and glove show those items in the crime scene photographs in context, and the reason that they are shown in that manner, the victims are not shown. I mean, the faces are not shown, but their bodies are shown. Let me show the Court what I'm talking about so that it will be a little easier. I will show Mr. Blasier.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MS. CLARK: With respect to the jeans, with respect to the glove, we have these items depicted in the crime scene because the context in which these items exist are very important to explain the transfer of hair and fiber. What we are showing by these boards is that they receive the hairs and fibers that they did as a result of contact between the Defendant and both victims and items of fiber that he transferred to them and that was transferred between them, and so the context in which the bodies are found, their location vis-à-vis each other and the items of evidence that was found--were found near them is very important to explain the evidence and why we find it where we do. So that is why we use those photographs for the boards, the fiber board, as opposed to separate photographs taken in the lab.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, we will provide a picture of Mr. Simpson if the Court feels that pictures are necessary to any of this. We don't think they are, but we should be provided the opportunity to provide a photograph rather than a mugshot.
THE COURT: All right. Do you have a photograph that is contemporaneous to the time?
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel and the Defendant.)
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, since when does the Defense get to construct the People's exhibits?
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, if I can have a moment, I'm sure we can.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Our position is these are all argumentative. We don't think there should be any pictures at all. If there are to be pictures, they should be of equal quality.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.
MR. COCHRAN: Another matter, your Honor.
THE COURT: With regards to this?
MR. COCHRAN: No.
THE COURT: Well, let me--
MR. COCHRAN: Sure, sorry.
THE COURT: While I have the train of thought going here.
MR. COCHRAN: Sure.
THE COURT: All right. As to the use of photographs of Miss Brown Simpson and Mr. Goldman, I agree that the photograph does depict their facial characteristics and their hair, which is the whole issue here, and the objection will be overruled as to the use of the photograph of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. As to the use of the photograph of Mr. Simpson, this is a professionally taken photograph. I mean, this is a photographer employed by the Los Angeles Police Department who took this photograph. The relevance is its proximity in time to the events of June the 12th and it depicts Mr.--the condition of Mr. Simpson's hair at a time contemporaneous or almost contemporaneous to the time in question and it appears to be dated June the 13th. So I find the objection, which I take to be a 352 objection, I find that the probative value here clearly outweighs any prejudicial impact. It appears to be a normal photograph. I will direct the Prosecution, however, to delete the name tag at the bottom. As to the photographs of the shirt of Ronald Goldman, the shirt itself appears to be one of the lab demonstration photographs that the jury has already seen. I will overrule the objection to that. The pants does depict Mr. Goldman in the planter area, it does depict a--the presence of the ferns and the other--the agapantha plants and other material and accurately depicts the state in which Mr. Goldman was found vis-à-vis hair, fiber and other debris that is found, so I will overrule the objection to that. However, as to the nomenclature on the board, I think we need to be consistent on that and I think that the dignity of the victims indicates that they should be referred to by their formal names.
MS. CLARK: All right.
THE COURT: All right. And that the Defendant should also be referred to by his formal name. All right. That is the Court's order. Are we clear? Miss Clark?
MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. I'm writing it down right now.
THE COURT: All right. Miss Robertson.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Cochran, you had one other matter.
MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. COCHRAN: The Court will recall yesterday that the Court had instructed the People to give us the list of their remaining witnesses at nine o'clock today.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. COCHRAN: And we are 9:18 now.
THE COURT: We are curious?
MR. COCHRAN: Yes. We want to know so I'm just calling to inquire on that.
MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, Mr. Hodgman will be down a little later in the morning with that information at about 10:30, if that is okay.
THE COURT: That's fine. 10:30 is fine.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, one other item, if I may.
THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. NEUFELD: Good morning, your Honor. Your Honor, it came to our attention yesterday that Mr. Rockne Harmon sent another letter to Dr. Kary Mullis. You may recall two things about this, your Honor: One is that you were concerned--
THE COURT: All right. This is not a matter we need to take up right now. I want to use the time in front of the jury with the jury.
MR. NEUFELD: May I talk with you right after the lunch break then, your Honor?
THE COURT: Let's take it up at the lunch break.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you very much.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you have a copy of the letter available?
MR. NEUFELD: I do.
THE COURT: Why don't you give that to Mrs. Robertson so I can peruse it.
MR. NEUFELD: Great.
THE COURT: All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.
(Brief pause.)
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, before the jury comes out, may I present another photograph and would you consider that?
THE COURT: If you have it, I will look at it.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
THE COURT: All right. Miss Brockbank, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Susan A. Brockbank, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: All right. Good morning, Miss Brockbank?
MS. BROCKBANK: Good morning.
THE COURT: You are reminded, ma'am, that you are still under oath. And Miss Clark, you may conclude your direct examination.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MS. CLARK
MS. CLARK: Miss Brockbank, there was one last item that I think we did not cover, item 285. On the date of August the 23rd, 1994, were you visited at the SID lab at LAPD by Mr. Deedrick?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I was.
MS. CLARK: And when you were paid that visit did you recover a piece of--item of evidence and examine it with him?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And what was that item?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, that was the shirt of Ronald Goldman, item no. 81.
MS. CLARK: And where did you recover it from?
MS. BROCKBANK: From the serology freezer from the box that it was packaged in.
MS. CLARK: And in what manner was it packaged when you recovered it from the serology freezer?
MS. BROCKBANK: It was still in its paper bag.
MS. CLARK: And was it taped shut?
MS. BROCKBANK: I believe so, yes.
MS. CLARK: Was there some kind of a seal across it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, tape.
MS. CLARK: And the tape was undisturbed?
MS. BROCKBANK: As I recall, yes.
MS. CLARK: Where is it that you took the shirt to?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, we examined on it a laboratory bench in the serology unit following my normal procedures.
MS. CLARK: Clean paper, gloves, lab coat?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And was Mr. Deedrick also--I don't know, how was he dressed?
MS. BROCKBANK: He had on gloves. I don't believe he had on a lab coat.
MS. CLARK: What exactly did you do with the--with Ron Goldman's shirt?
MS. BROCKBANK: We basically processed it a second time, scraping it down using the large spatula, like I described before, over the white paper to see if we could collect additional trace evidence, hairs and fibers, that sort of thing, from the shirt.
MS. CLARK: Did you examine the spatula first or cleanse it in any way to make sure that it was clean?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And what is it you did with the spatula?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, rinsed it, you know, with ethanol and wiped it down, made sure there were no hairs or fibers on it.
MS. CLARK: Then you collected the debris that you scraped off of the shirt on August 23rd into a bindle?
MS. BROCKBANK: Actually this time we placed the debris in a petrie dish which is basically like the pill boxes I was describing yesterday, only it is what we have in our lab is a square rather than a circular dish and it is plastic. That is a photo of it right there, (Indicating).
MS. CLARK: We are showing right now on the screen a photograph that is taken from the board that is People's 436 for the record, item 285.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MS. CLARK: And you gathered the debris into that plastic container?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Do you see anything in it now?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm--
MS. CLARK: In the photograph?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MS. CLARK: What was done with the debris collected in that petrie dish?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I believe Mr. Deedrick transferred it to one of his little pillboxes when he return to the FBI lab.
MS. CLARK: And you see a little pillbox--actually you can look down at your monitor if it is more helpful. Do you see a pillbox with debris in it to the right of that in the photograph?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: And is that the pillbox you were referring to that Mr. Deedrick uses?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Now, after you collected the debris into that petrie dish, what did you do with it on August 23rd?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, well, we repackaged the shirt and returned it to the serology freezer first off and then we took the petrie dish with its contents over to the trace analysis lab and Mr. Deedrick did some examinations of the contents of that petrie dish while I basically stood by.
MS. CLARK: So you actually observed him making the examination at LAPD on that date?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Did he do any mounting at that time?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, he did.
MS. CLARK: Was that done in permount?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it was.
MS. CLARK: Do you see slide mailers in this photograph?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: Did he use slide mailers like those?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, yes. The--the blue one there is one that he used and the others may have been mounted later. I believe he only mounted one slide on that day.
MS. CLARK: Did you do any mounting?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, I did not.
MS. CLARK: He did it all?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And after he completed his examination of the slide and the debris that was collected on August 23rd, what was done with the slide that he created and whatever remained in the petrie dish?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, those items were--the--the petrie dish itself was sealed up with a piece of tape by me and the petrie dish and the slide were placed in my evidence locker. And then I began--well, Mr. Deedrick left. He had other business in town that week. And two days later, on the 25th, he returned and I gave him those items after booking them. I wrote out a property report, booked them into our property unit and then released them to him.
MS. CLARK: So they were in your possession from the time of collection virtually until you gave them to Mr. Deedrick to take back to the FBI?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And when you say you booked them, you just got the bar code on them like before and took them right back?
MS. BROCKBANK: I got the bar code on them and--let me see. I believe we actually had them sign them out or sign them out in some way to release them to him.
MS. CLARK: Okay. But you did not leave them in property?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MS. CLARK: Okay. The white envelope that is to the left of the petrie dish and the slide mailers, what is that?
MS. BROCKBANK: That is an analyzed evidence envelope. That is what I placed the petrie dish and the slide mailer containing the slide into when I booked them into property.
MS. CLARK: When you released them to Mr. Deedrick were they packaged into that envelope?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, they were, and the envelope was in a sealed condition. I had placed evidence seals on it, the red and white seals you see running the length of the package and across the top and the bottom.
MS. CLARK: Now, you examined for us--for me last night the hair and trace chain of custody board that has been marked People's 436?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: You testified yesterday to the dates of collection of all of the items, did you not?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Did you make any mistakes in your testimony?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MS. CLARK: However, were there some mistakes in the dates that were written on the board?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, there were.
MS. CLARK: You brought those to our attention?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: So with respect to item no. 110, you testified that you collected debris from the glove at Rockingham on both June 21st and June 23rd, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And that date has not been added to the board?
MS. BROCKBANK: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: And we will do so, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CLARK: And with respect to 163 to 165, the date of 7/20 is incorrect, and as you testified yesterday, it was July 27th?
MS. BROCKBANK: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: And with respect to 166 to 167, the date of July 20th should be July 28th, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: And for 169 you only collected that evidence on August 2nd, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: Okay. The board will reflect the accurate testimony that you gave.
MS. BROCKBANK: Thank you.
MS. CLARK: Did you also then examine the elimination board that has been marked as People's 451 at my request?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And for the record, your Honor, that is the--
THE COURT: Mr. Escobar, do you want to give us a hand here.
MS. CLARK: That is the eliminated hair samples board.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: If we can just hold it for a minute.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, counsel, Mr. Escobar is standing right in front of juror no. 7 so why don't we put it up.
MS. CLARK: Okay.
(Brief pause.)
MS. CLARK: Did you examine all the information on that board, Miss Brockbank?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And is it correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it is.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: I have nothing further.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, folks.
THE JURY: Good morning
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER
MR. BLASIER: Good morning, Miss Brockbank.
MS. BROCKBANK: Good morning.
MR. BLASIER: I take it from your direct testimony that you worked pretty closely with Mr. Deedrick from the FBI?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, for some of my examinations, yes.
MR. BLASIER: You spent how much time in Washington? Was it two weeks?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it was.
MR. BLASIER: And during that time did you spend most of your time with him while he is conducting his comparisons and analysis?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I did.
MR. BLASIER: You worked alongside of him?
MS. BROCKBANK: Basically, yes.
MR. BLASIER: When he would look at something in the microscope, he would show you and you would look at it, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And I think you indicated to Miss Clark that you agreed with his comparisons and conclusions?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I did, those that he showed me.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to ask you a couple of general questions about hair and fiber in general. Are there any professional societies that are devoted solely to the examination of fiber and trace evidence?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, societies I'm not sure. There are several groups and I just don't know all of them right offhand or any of them I could really name for you and be accurate.
MR. BLASIER: Are you members of any groups?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, I'm not.
MR. BLASIER: When you say "Groups," what kind of groups are there?
MS. BROCKBANK: I have heard a group for DNA called Twgdam. I think it is called Twghair or something along the same lines as Twgdam, only for hairs and fibers.
MR. BLASIER: Are you aware of any standards that they have established for hair and fiber analysis?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, not specifically, no.
MR. BLASIER: Now, are there any professional magazines that are devoted to hair and fiber analysis?
MS. BROCKBANK: There are many professional magazines devoted specifically just to hair and fiber. I'm not really sure.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that in the last fifty years there has been very little change in the technology with respect to hair and trace evidence?
MS. BROCKBANK: I've only been involved for the last five years, but umm, there has been very little change over the last five years, I can say that much.
MR. BLASIER: And have there been some attempts to improve the ability to discriminate with hairs and fibers that really have not been very successful?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: It is not--certainly the amount of resources that have been devoted to hair and fiber are far less than such things as DNA, for instance, would you agree with that?
MS. BROCKBANK: I would agree, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Same thing with other forensic areas like serology, there has been a lot more in the way of technology development in those fields than there has been in hair and trace?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Are there ever any seminars that are devoted specifically to hair and trace on a regular basis that you know of?
MS. BROCKBANK: There are some. I know Mr. Deedrick mentioned to me that he was going to one a few weeks ago, but I didn't go myself.
MR. BLASIER: And do you--so that is one seminar that you heard about from him?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Have you heard of very many others that are devoted just to that topic?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that the reason for that--for the somewhat lack of resources that are devoted to this particular area is because of the inability to really establish any kind of unique identifications with hair and fiber?
MS. BROCKBANK: Could you repeat that? I'm sorry.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that the reason why there has not been a whole lot of technological resources put into that area and there has not been a whole lot of development is because of inability to really establish any kind of unique identifications with hair and trace evidence?
MS. BROCKBANK: That may be the reason, yeah.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when you are looking at fibers you are really only looking for a couple of characteristics of a fiber, correct, usually?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, you are--
MS. CLARK: Objection. This is beyond the scope and it is also overbroad and vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: With most fiber exams you are looking at the fiber to try and identify the type of fiber and usually doing a comparison between a known fiber and a questioned fiber.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. You are looking at is it nylon, is it cotton, is it wool?
MS. BROCKBANK: Right.
MR. BLASIER: And with synthetics you may be able to look at other things like the cross-sectional shape and the diameter of the surface area, delusterant type of things?
MS. CLARK: This is beyond the scope. Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: There are many characteristics, yes, you can look at.
MR. BLASIER: Now, with things like cotton and wool you look basically at the type of--type of material it is and the color, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, yes, those will be two things.
MR. BLASIER: And you can also, if you have enough of a fiber, you can do certain kind of analysis on the dyes in the fiber to try and determine what is the chemical composition of the dyes in a fiber, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: None of that was done in this case, was it?
MS. BROCKBANK: None of that was done by me. I'm not sure what Mr. Deedrick did or didn't do.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, when you take a look at one fiber--a known fiber against an evidence fiber, if those appear to be similar, you can't from that conclude that they came from the same place, can you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Not to my knowledge, short of a physical match where if you have like a patch of cloth that is torn out of a piece of clothing where you can physically piece it back in, you would be able to say that that came from that garment, but short of that I am not aware of anything where you can definitely say it came from one item.
MR. BLASIER: And we don't have any patches of clothing in this case that you are aware of, do we?
MS. BROCKBANK: Not that I am aware of.
MR. BLASIER: We are basically talking about very small pieces of a thread or a piece of cotton or whatever?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yeah.
MS. CLARK: Objection, beyond the scope, calls for speculation. She didn't examine these things.
THE COURT: Overruled. That wasn't the testimony. Proceed.
MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that when manufacturers produce fibers they generally produce them in fairly substantial quantities?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I would think so, but I don't have any particular knowledge in that area.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. There are no data banks of fibers that you can go to and see how common or rare a particular fiber is, are there?
MS. BROCKBANK: That I don't know. There may be. I am not aware of it.
MR. BLASIER: Well, you do this kind of analysis all the time, don't you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, as far as fiber analysis goes, my analysis has really been limited to just comparing known to questioned fibers and I haven't really done any research beyond that point as far as frequencies or how often fibers are made or anything of that nature.
MR. BLASIER: If there were some data bank available where you could get that information, I'm sure you would have access to it, wouldn't you?
MS. CLARK: Objection, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: You are not aware of any such databases that exist with respect to fiber?
MS. BROCKBANK: I am not aware of one.
MR. BLASIER: Are you aware of any methods available to narrow down the source of a particular fiber if the information you have is what kind of fiber it is, nylon, cotton, whatever, and the color, with those two pieces of information to be able to tell who manufactured it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, again that is not something I have ever done so I am not really sure.
MR. BLASIER: So you are not aware that there is any way to do that, are you?
MS. BROCKBANK: I am not aware, no.
MR. BLASIER: Are you aware of any kind of databases that tell you what percentage of the fibers out there in the world fall into a particular category, such as blue black cotton, ten percent of all fibers or going to be blue black cotton? There is nothing like that, is there?
MS. BROCKBANK: Again, not that I am aware of.
MR. BLASIER: You are not aware, are you, of any technique that allows you, once you know that two fibers are both, let's say, cotton and both of blue black, to assess some kind of a numerical description to that to explain what the significance of that is?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, could you repeat that one more time, I'm sorry.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know of any technique at all that is used in your expertise, your specialty, that allows you, once you say, okay, we have an evidence fiber that is cotton, blue black, and we have another fiber that is cotton blue black, to tell you what the significance of the fact is that they look alike?
MS. BROCKBANK: Again, not that I am aware of.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, with hair, when you are looking at hair, collecting hair and looking at it, you use various general categories to describe what you are seeing, do you not?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And do you have--there is a form that you use when you do--when you look at a hair and write down things that you observe about it that is kind of like a chart that is broken down into categories, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have one of those with you, a blank one?
MS. BROCKBANK: Probably not a blank one.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: I have a document that I will have marked, please.
THE COURT: 1217.
(Deft's 1217 for id = document)
MR. BLASIER: 1217.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Miss Brockbank, let me show you Defense exhibit 1217. Is this the work sheet that you use when you are looking at hairs?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it is.
MR. BLASIER: And that one, that one is the work sheet that you used for item no. 58, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you didn't observe any human hairs in 58 so it is blank, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: But that shows the categories that you use?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it does.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, could we put this on the elmo, please?
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Could we zoom in the on the column on the left categories a little bit.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Now, could we move it up so that the curl--you can see "Curl" a little better.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: This is an example of some of the characteristics that you use to describe what you see when you look at a hair, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And taking, for example, the curl category, it is only broken down into three different subgroups, right?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, as far as this form goes, the things that are listed in that area, using curl, you see tight, loose or none. They are general descriptions that you can use, but it is not limited just to that.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. So you have three categories on your form, but there could be others that you might use?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Is that true with the other categories on there?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that these categories are very subjective in a sense that it is what you see, and you use a word to describe what you see that you feel comfortable with, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: This particular form is not some sort of an industry standard form, is it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Not at all.
MR. BLASIER: There is no standardization at all, is there, in the area of hair analysis in terms of specific descriptions that you give to specific characteristics?
MS. CLARK: Objection, that calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I have seen guidelines for, you know, terminology to be used, but there is no hard and fast rule that you must use a certain terminology.
MR. BLASIER: So each examiner can choose pretty much what they feel comfortable with in terms of describing characteristics?
MS. BROCKBANK: Pretty much.
MR. BLASIER: And a lot of these characteristics are somewhat general in nature, are they not?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, yes, some of them are general.
MR. BLASIER: In other words, something that you might describe as heavy curl, someone else might say, ah, that is just a medium curl or a light curl?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: So with this kind of analysis, with hair analysis, there is--you don't have the ability to--well, let me rephrase that. Different examiners use different terminology and different characteristics, don't they?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Objection, that calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: So if you describe, if you list eight or ten that you have observed on a particular hair and that hair is given to somebody else, they might have different descriptions for the same hair?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, they might.
MR. BLASIER: So there is no way for you to just provide a description to some other examiner someplace and have them have the ability to compare using just your description, that description with some other hair?
MS. BROCKBANK: That would not be a real good idea, no.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, with hair analysis and fiber analysis, do you undergo any kind of blind external proficiency testing?
MS. BROCKBANK: We don't undergo any blind testing. We do have proficiency tests but they are not blind. We know that we are being tested.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when you do those proficiency tests is it the same kind of comparison that you do in case work; namely, that there are only two things, a known sample with an evidence sample?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, not really.
MR. BLASIER: What does it usually entail?
MS. BROCKBANK: For our fiber proficiency tests that we get, sometimes you are comparing, you know, two or three different items to each other, so you may not just have one, this one.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
MS. BROCKBANK: As far as our hair proficiency tests, we usually have like ten known hairs that we are comparing to a questioned hair, so there are several comparisons that you actually do; not just a one-on-one.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Is ten pretty much the limit in terms of the number of questioned hairs that you ever might examine at one time to compare with a known hair?
MS. BROCKBANK: There is no limit. As far as case work goes, it is a case by case basis. You can examine many, many questioned hairs compared to a known or vice versa. You can have one questioned hair compared to many known standards, but there is no limit on the number.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Do you keep any kind of record that allows you to compare a hair that you are looking at in one case with something that you might have looked at a year ago?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, other than these hair work sheets that I fill out, that is my written record, but again, you don't perform a hair comparison on paper. You need to do a visual comparison.
MR. BLASIER: So you really don't, just because of the nature of this kind of analysis, you don't have the ability to say, gee, I saw a hair like that two years ago in a case and then go get that case?
MS. BROCKBANK: If you had a memory that good, you could go get that case and examine the hair side-by-side.
MR. BLASIER: You don't, do you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Not generally, no.
MR. BLASIER: I mean, it is not like fingerprints, for instance, where you--there is a uniform way to characterize fingerprints and there is computers that have everybody's fingerprints in them that have been fingerprinted and you can go off and say have you ever seen this print before?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, it is not like that.
MR. BLASIER: No such system like that?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: Are there any databases at all that allow you to look at a particular characteristic in a hair and tell you how common or rare it is?
MS. BROCKBANK: I don't believe so.
MR. BLASIER: Now, with hairs you indicated that when you collect an exemplar you collect a representative sample from all over the head?
MS. BROCKBANK: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And that is because in one head you are going to have different kind of hairs?
MS. BROCKBANK: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: There is no uniformity, no uniqueness one hair to the other in a single person?
MS. BROCKBANK: Well, you generally do see a lot of similarities.
MR. BLASIER: But there may be a lot of differences, too?
MS. BROCKBANK: But there is usually a range of all of those characteristics that you observe. You will usually see a range. I don't just see one, you know, carbon copy on every hair. That is just not how it is.
MR. BLASIER: It is not like DNA where every cell in the body has the same DNA?
MS. BROCKBANK: Correct, it is not like that.
MR. BLASIER: This technology we are not counting molecules here; we are looking at very general things?
MS. CLARK: Objection, vague.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: We are not doing any kind of molecular analysis with hair and fibers; we are looking at very general categories, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Objection, that is vague, too.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: Would a good analogy for hair analysis be that it is like looking at a leaf and trying to match it up to a specific tree in the sense that a particular tree might have different kind of leaves that look a little different?
MS. CLARK: Objection, compound, vague, unintelligible.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Do you understand the analogy of picking up a leaf from the ground and trying to match it to a tree?
MS. CLARK: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence she ever has.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, yes, I understand that.
MR. BLASIER: And like a leaf, you could look at one leaf on a tree and it may not look the same, but it still might come from the same tree?
MS. BROCKBANK: If you picked up a leaf and it didn't look like the leaves on a tree I wouldn't think--
MR. BLASIER: Let's say an oak leaf, but it doesn't look exactly like the one that came from that tree. It still could have come from that tree and still have a different look?
MS. CLARK: Objection, calls for speculation, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to ask you about exclusions with hair analysis. You are familiar with--you have done some conventional serology work in your past, have you not?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, I have not.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. You are generally familiar with some of the things that are done in conventional serology?
MS. BROCKBANK: Generally familiar, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And if you have--if you are doing genetic marker testing and you find a genetic marker in your evidence that is different from your known, you know you've got an exclusion?
MS. CLARK: Objection, irrelevant, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Now, with hair analysis, you can't necessarily, if you see one hair that looks--has some different characteristics from another hair, that doesn't necessarily mean they are excluded, does it?
MS. CLARK: Objection, vague.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: You have an evidence hair and it doesn't look exactly like a suspect hair or a known hair, that doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't come from the same source, does it?
MS. CLARK: Same objection, vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: Well, the point of doing a hair comparison is looking at a known sample, getting an idea of the range of characteristics in that known sample and then comparing that questioned hair to it. If--if the questioned hair is different, then you can exclude it from coming from that source.
MR. BLASIER: Well, let me ask it a different way. If you take an exemplar from somebody and you only take a couple of hairs from one part of the head and you have an evidence hair and it doesn't look identical, that doesn't necessarily mean it didn't come from that person, just from a different part of the head.
MS. CLARK: Objection, irrelevant, improper hypothetical.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. CLARK: Also assumes fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. BLASIER: Am I accurate?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, if you your exemplar that you are dealing with is not an adequate exemplar, then I would agree, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. So if you don't have enough exemplar to make up your known sample, even--even what might be an exclusion or might appear to be an exclusion can be somewhat equivocal as well, if you don't have enough known sample to compare it to?
MS. CLARK: Objection, irrelevant, calls for speculation.
MS. BROCKBANK: That will be correct.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, with respect to the exemplar that you took from Mr. Simpson, you counted and you had taken 93 hairs?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Have you taken exemplars from suspects in other cases?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I have.
MR. BLASIER: Do you always take in the area of ninety to a hundred hairs when you take an exemplar from somebody?
MS. BROCKBANK: I usually try to get a minimum of thirty and I generally don't count them, because under this--in this case the reason I counted them was because I was working under a court order where I was given a ceiling, a number of a hundred hairs but generally I don't count, but I usually attempt to get at least thirty.
MR. BLASIER: So the number that you got here was three times more than what you normally attempt to get?
MS. CLARK: Objection, that misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: You normally try to get thirty hairs, at least thirty?
MS. BROCKBANK: A minimum, yes.
MR. BLASIER: You got ninety hairs, so you got three times your minimum?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when you collect exemplar hairs, you convert those into slides so that you can do comparisons, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And did you do that with Mr. Simpson's hair?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I did mount some of his hairs when I was back at the FBI lab.
MR. BLASIER: And did Mr. Deedrick mount some also to your knowledge?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I do think he mounted some additional slides.
MR. BLASIER: How many slides were made, exemplar slides for Mr. Simpson?
MS. BROCKBANK: I don't know.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have that information in your record?
MS. BROCKBANK: I may have some. Let me just check.
(Brief pause.)
MS. BROCKBANK: I mounted five slides, each with five hairs on them, and then I believe Mr. Deedrick mounted additional hairs.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know how many slides he mounted?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, I don't.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the exemplars that you took from the various police officers, approximately how many hairs did you take from them?
MS. BROCKBANK: Again I was attempting to get a minimum of thirty.
MR. BLASIER: So you did not take as many hairs--or did you take as many hairs from the police officers as you took from Mr. Simpson?
MS. BROCKBANK: I didn't count them.
MR. BLASIER: How many slides did you make of the exemplars of the police officers for comparison purposes?
MS. BROCKBANK: I made none.
MR. BLASIER: How many did Mr. Deedrick make?
MS. BROCKBANK: I don't know.
MR. BLASIER: Is--do you generally put the same number of hairs on a slide as Mr. Deedrick does?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: I think you indicated yesterday that you do one to five and he does several?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: I'm not sure what the difference is.
MS. BROCKBANK: Well, umm, I--I do generally put one to five hairs on a slide, and when I mount that slide. I actually use a system to where I can identify each single hair on that slide based on a numbering system. The slide I give a number. For instance, the first slide I mount would be no. 1 and then I would have a lettering system a through E, if I have five--five hairs on that slide. Starting from the end of the slide you have A, B, C, D, E, so I space them out on the slide. Mr. Deedrick I believe mounts hairs, many, several, many, I don't know the right terminology, but on a slide and some of those hairs may be overlapping and such on the slide. He doesn't specifically number every hair that is on that slide like I do.
MR. BLASIER: So the slides that you make, you have the ability, once you have done the work, to actually look at an individual hair by itself, not obscured or covered over or overlapped by another hair, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: There may be a little overlap, but you can tell which hair you are talking about.
MR. BLASIER: And you provide some sort of letter identification so that if you look at hair C from that slide today and make some sort of comparison or observations, you can come back six months from now or a year from now and pick out the specific hair you were thinking of and you were looking at when you made those notes, can't you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: You can't do that with Mr. Deedrick's slides, can you?
MS. BROCKBANK: I probably couldn't.
MS. CLARK: Objection--
MS. BROCKBANK: I'm sorry.
MR. BLASIER: Is it a lot more time consuming to make slides that way?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: That is the proper way to do it, isn't it?
MS. CLARK: Objection. That is argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I don't know if there is a proper and improper way of mounting slides. That is the way that I was taught to mount slides at LAPD.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, you prepared five slides, exemplar slides of Mr. Simpson and Mr. Deedrick prepared some additional slides, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Did you feel it was necessary to have five slides to give you a representative sampling of Mr. Simpson's hair for a comparison purposes?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, actually Mr. Deedrick asked me to mount 25 hairs, which is what I did.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. And you felt it was necessary to have that many slides or that many hairs for a proper comparison?
MS. BROCKBANK: Not necessarily. In the past I have mounted as few as eight to ten hairs for a comparison, so 25 is a reasonable number to mount. Depending on the variation you see in a person's hair, you may want to mount, you know, up to a hundred hairs. If there is not a lot of variation, you can mount as few as eight.
MR. BLASIER: And the more that you use for exemplar purposes, the better your ability to make an unequivocal statement that we have an exclusion or we have a similarity?
MS. BROCKBANK: I--
MR. BLASIER: Because you've got a good representative of a person's head hair?
MS. BROCKBANK: Right. I would agree with that.
MR. BLASIER: And would you agree that the fewer number of hairs that you have on a slide, the less your ability to make an unequivocal statement about exclusion or inclusion?
MS. CLARK: Objection. That is overbroad.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. CLARK: Calls for speculation.
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, the fewer hairs you have in an exemplar?
MR. BLASIER: Yeah.
MS. BROCKBANK: I would agree, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Would you ever use, using the procedures that you have been trained to use, only two slides for an exemplar for comparison purposes from a single individual?
THE COURT: Counsel, that question is vague, because we don't know how many hairs are on each slide.
MR. BLASIER: Well, let me ask you about then the number of hairs in a slide. Obviously--let me ask you, if you have a lot of hairs on one slide, that hampers your ability to really make an individual analysis of each individual hair, doesn't it?
MS. CLARK: Objection, vague. Hampers her or someone else?
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: For you if you are looking at a slide that has a whole bunch of hairs in one slide that may be overlapped and not marked, that hampers your ability to do a very specific comparison or analysis of each individual hair, doesn't it?
MS. CLARK: Objection, irrelevant.
THE COURT: "A whole bunch" doesn't help us a lot. Let me see counsel at the side bar with the court reporter, please.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: We are over at the side bar. Miss Clark, you made the mistake of asking this witness the question did you look over the shoulder of Mr. Deedrick? Did you see the comparisons he made? Did you agree with those comparisons? That is why I'm giving Mr. Blasier room to cross-examine her about how she does the comparisons because you asked the same question, did you have the same opinion Mr. Deedrick had. But we are getting way overboard in the amount of time that we are spending on this because she didn't actually testify to any comparisons and I think I have given you enough leeway to talk about technique and all of this. And I think we have about hit the end of the line. Also, objections are made while standing; not while seated.
MR. BLASIER: And not speaking.
MS. CLARK: They haven't been speaking.
THE COURT: No. Close. So let's wind up this end and move on.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Proceed.
MR. BLASIER: Miss Brockbank, I note from your CV that you also have provided training in field investigations for hair and trace analysis or collection of hair and trace evidence?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, for other criminalists?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Is that at LAPD?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Incidentally, your primary training in learning the techniques that you have described how do you this kind of analysis, did you obtain that--get that at LAPD or someplace else?
MS. BROCKBANK: At LAPD.
MR. BLASIER: Did you receive any training at the Orange County crime lab?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, I think you described that the trace unit at LAPD is in its own little separate room; is that right?
MS. BROCKBANK: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And how big is that room?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, maybe about a quarter of the size of this courtroom.
MR. BLASIER: And is that your--is that room used by you just for hair and trace analysis or are there other kinds of different analyses going on in that room at the same time?
MS. BROCKBANK: Well, as far as our trace unit, umm, as I mentioned earlier, we perform several types of analysis; hair and fibers, shoeprints, tire tracks, tool marks, paint, glass, so quite a variety that--of different types of analysis do go on there, not just hair and fiber.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, is that room--is there a fan in that room?
MS. BROCKBANK: Not a fan. We do have an air conditioning system.
MR. BLASIER: Now, is one of the things that you are trying to be careful of when you are doing collections of hairs and fibers is not to have a lot of air current going on in the room, right?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Because this stuff is very volatile and can get blown from one place to another if you are not careful, can't it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, if you are not careful, yes, it could.
MR. BLASIER: And do you try to take precautions to make sure that there aren't a lot of people walking around in the room with maybe lab coats that are flapping on and off or whatever to limit the amount of air current that might be in the room?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, there generally aren't a lot of people walking around. I don't know that walking around creates tremendous air current, though.
MR. BLASIER: You wouldn't recommend, though, as a procedure, that you conduct this kind of analysis and collection in a room with a lot of people in it doing other things, would you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, if they are doing things where they are just sitting in one place, I don't think that would really matter. If they are walking by briskly, and up know, you are working in a crowded situation, I would say no.
MR. BLASIER: Now, hair and trace evidence is many times difficult to see just with the naked eye looking at a distance, is it not?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, looking at a distance, yes.
MR. BLASIER: If you were looking at a hat or a glove on the ground, for instance, and you were standing up, it would be very difficult for you to identify any hair and fiber evidence on that article, wouldn't it?
MS. BROCKBANK: You may be able to see it, but you may not.
MR. BLASIER: I mean, the--when you remove hairs, for instance, from the cap, you do a very careful analysis and you roll it very carefully and you look at it very closely in order to see these things, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And you see things when you do that that you can't see with the naked eye unless you are specifically looking for them?
MS. BROCKBANK: That could be correct, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And you have to be very careful because items such as this can get dislodged fairly easily and just fall off, can't they?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, it probably has a lot to do with whatever it is on. You know, if you are talking about layers and fibers on some smooth surface, it would be very easy I think for those to get dislodged if that moved around. Clothing items, depending on the weave of the clothing, may hold those fibers a little more strenuously so moving it around a little they may not fall off. It just really depends.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. And there is no real data that tells you with a particular fabric how well that holds a foreign fiber or not, is there?
MS. BROCKBANK: Not that I am aware of.
MR. BLASIER: And you can, if you brush--if you brushed my coat on something that had some hair on it, that hair could get transferred to my coat pretty easily, couldn't it?
MS. BROCKBANK: That would be possible, yes.
MR. BLASIER: If I touch somebody else it could go to somebody else or some other place and get transferred over and over and over again, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: That could be possible, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And one of the limitations in this kind of analysis is that you have no way of telling when you say something, a hair or a fiber on an object, how many different levels of transfer it has gone through from its original source?
MS. BROCKBANK: You would have no way of knowing that just by looking at a fiber on a surface, no.
MR. BLASIER: And hair and fiber is--they are both very stable in the sense that they don't break down real quickly, correct?
MS. CLARK: Objection, vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: So if your hair--if you have a hair that falls on the ground it is going to stay a hair for a long time?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it will.
MR. BLASIER: So we have no way of looking at a hair or a fiber and telling from the appearance how long it has been since that was on its original source?
MS. BROCKBANK: Well, sometimes when you are looking at a hair or a fiber you do see things that might indicate it has been there awhile, like dirt accumulated on the fiber itself, or in the case of a hair that has been there for awhile, it might actually have like bite marks on it where some insect activity has occurred, and that is something that I have seen from time to time in evidence from crime scenes.
MR. BLASIER: So that might be one indication that if you see a hair with bite marks on it, that that is an indication it has probably been there for awhile, maybe?
MS. BROCKBANK: Most people don't walk around with hair on their head that insects are chewing on, so--
MR. BLASIER: Now, in your lab you are very careful not to have two items of evidence out at the same time unless it is absolutely necessary, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, that would be correct, unless you are performing a comparison between those two items and you need to see them at the same time.
MR. BLASIER: And the reason for not having them out together is because of the volatility of this kind of evidence? You want to make sure that you don't have something moved from one object to the other?
MS. BROCKBANK: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when evidence is at a crime scene lying on the ground, for instance, for a long period of time, there is no way to protect those individual pieces of evidence to prevent transfers of hair and fiber evidence from one to the other, is there?
MS. BROCKBANK: There is no way to protect those items, no. I mean, anything you did to protect those would probably create more of a problem.
MR. BLASIER: And there is no way to prevent--let's say, hypothetically, that you have some detectives at a crime scene and they are walking around and they are looking at things, if they have hairs and fibers that have transferred to their clothing, there is no way to protect the evidence from those things falling off clothing and landing on the ground or on an evidence object, is there?
MS. CLARK: Objection, vague, unintelligible, overbroad.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I don't think there is a way to prevent that, but then again, I don't know how often, you know, people are just dropping hairs and fibers, or if, you know, it takes some sort of actual contact to transfer fibers.
MR. BLASIER: So there is no data that you are aware of or studies that you are aware of that measure that in terms of how easily hair and fiber can be transferred from one person to another, one object to another?
MS. BROCKBANK: There may be some studies, but I am not specifically aware of any.
MR. BLASIER: Now, people lose generally a hundred hairs a day, don't they?
MS. BROCKBANK: I have read that, yes.
MR. BLASIER: So over a thirty day period each person loses maybe 3000 hairs, roughly?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: That is a lot of hairs, isn't it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it is.
MR. BLASIER: And would you agree that a person's natural environment where they spend time, is likely to have hairs that have fallen out of their heads?
MS. BROCKBANK: I know mine does, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, let me ask you, hypothetically, if several police officers, several detectives spent some time at Mr. Simpson's home in an area where he spends a lot of time, perhaps sitting on furniture or whatever, moving around, it is possible that they could pick up trace evidence that might be at that location on their clothing, without knowing it?
MS. BROCKBANK: That would be a possibility.
MR. BLASIER: And that if they then go back to Bundy to the crime scene before anything has been collected, there is a possibility that things that they might have picked up at Rockingham could be transferred to Bundy?
MS. BROCKBANK: That could be possible.
MR. BLASIER: Is one of the reasons why you try to protect a crime scene quickly, to get the evidence preserved as quickly as possible, is to prevent those kind of cross-transfers and compromise of the evidence?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Is one of the reasons why you might want to wear protective footwear at a crime scene is to prevent your transferring or your depositing fiber evidence or hair evidence that might be on your shoes or on your--in the cuffs of your pants?
MS. CLARK: Objection, this is beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, that may be one reason to wear protective footwear. Usually when we wear that it is to prevent transfer of blood, if there is a particularly bloody crime scene, to us. A lot of the protective wear that what he use, gloves, lab coats, protective footwear, disposable jumpsuits, are more of a protection for us as far as dealing with, you know, blood contaminated evidence, but it also works the opposite way, to protect the evidence from us contaminating it.
MR. BLASIER: For instance, if you had been in your car and picked up some carpet fibers in your shoes, putting on protective footwear would prevent those fibers from getting deposited to where you walk, wouldn't they?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that it would be improper procedure at a crime scene to bring something into the crime scene, such as a blanket, which might have trace evidence already on it, and hence expose the evidence to whatever might have been on a blanket, umm, that is not something that--
MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor, beyond the scope, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: That is not something I would recommend doing.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, would you agree that you also would not recommend taking something like a blanket or a large object and splaying it out or putting it down in a way that causes air current that might move other things around in a crime scene.
MS. CLARK: Objection. This calls for speculation and assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that in order to preserve a crime scene, at least as to trace and fiber evidence, you want to be careful not to do anything--anything that creates air current that might move the evidence around?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I would try to do that.
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry.
MS. BROCKBANK: I wouldn't want to do anything that promoted that.
MR. BLASIER: And would you also, in order to preserve the integrity of any hair and trace evidence that might be at a crime scene, avoid moving one object across another object--well, let me be more specific. Dragging a body across pieces of evidence? You wouldn't want to do that, would you?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, I would not.
MR. BLASIER: You would not want to move pieces of physical evidence from one place to another before they are collected, would you?
MS. CLARK: Objection, beyond the scope, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, when I'm collecting evidence at crime scenes, I do not move evidence until I collect it.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. If you pick something up, did something with it, just held it or whatever and then put it down at a different place, that might compromise the integrity of any trace evidence on that item, wouldn't it?
MS. BROCKBANK: It might, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Moving things across dirt, for instance, that alone might cause the object to pick up hair or fiber that is in the dirt?
MS. BROCKBANK: That could be a possibility.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that if there are two different environments, two different locations where a person spends time, that it is likely that you might find trace evidence of that person at both of those locations?
MS. CLARK: Objection, calls for speculation. Assumes fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: If you have--let's--hypothetically, if you have a person who--
THE COURT: This exceeds the scope of the direct examination, counsel.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether there are any studies that look into whether dogs and their fur can transfer trace evidence from one place to another?
MS. CLARK: Objection, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: There may be studies but I am not aware personally of them.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether or not dogs or animals lose hairs faster than people do?
MS. BROCKBANK: Again, I don't know the rate animals lose hairs.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that you would not--would it not be unusual to find an abundance of dog hairs consistent with a dog that frequents a particular area?
MS. BROCKBANK: I would not find that unusual.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: The notes that you would prepare, you do that when you do your work, you do that contemporaneous when you prepare the work?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: They are all done in chronological sequence and describe in great detail what do you from one step to the next?
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MS. BROCKBANK: Usually.
MR. BLASIER: That is the procedure that you have been taught is the proper procedure?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Do you ever--if do you something on an item of evidence that you have already done something on before, do you ever just go back to your old notes and just kind of make a notation that you have done something else to it or do you create a whole new note in sequence so that you can reconstruct exactly what you have done from start to finish?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I usually make new notes just continuing on where I left off. Umm, in this case on I believe the little glove diagrams that I made, I did add some additional notes to them and I made a note of that in sequence that I did add additional notes to it.
MR. BLASIER: So even when you do that, you can tell what you did?
MS. BROCKBANK: Right.
MR. BLASIER: And you don't have to rely on your memory to remember what you did, you can look at your own paperwork a year, two years from now and this is what I did?
MS. BROCKBANK: Right.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you told us in a lot of detail about how you change your gloves between every single item that you look at?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I do.
MR. BLASIER: And that is the proper procedure that you have been taught, is it not?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And you change paper between every single item that you look at, don't you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I do.
MR. BLASIER: And that is good procedure, isn't it?
MS. BROCKBANK: I believe so.
MR. BLASIER: And that is because even though you look at the paper, you may miss something? Let me be more detailed. After you are done looking at an item, you examine the paper to see if there is any trace evidence there and if you see trace evidence you try to put it back in the container?
MS. BROCKBANK: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: If you don't see trace evidence, you get rid of the paper, don't you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And that is because some of this you may just miss?
MS. BROCKBANK: There may be something there very tiny that you might miss. There also may be biological contamination, you know as far as--because a lot of the evidence we deal with is bloody evidence and so you don't want that around for the next item, so you just want to make sure you've got a clean working surface.
MR. BLASIER: And you are careful to have a lab coat on at all times?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And that is to prevent things from your clothing getting into the evidence, isn't it?
MS. BROCKBANK: That and also to prevent things that I'm working with to get on me.
MR. BLASIER: Now, do you use a new lab coat each day?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, no.
MR. BLASIER: How frequently do you change?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I wear the same lab coat most of the time. It is laundered weekly, and you know, if I was to get something on it, then I would launder it, you know, immediately. I do have two lab coats that I can--
MR. BLASIER: Alternate?
MS. BROCKBANK: --alternate on, if I need to.
MR. BLASIER: Mr. Deedrick didn't wear a lab coat?
MS. BROCKBANK: I don't believe so.
MR. BLASIER: Did he change gloves between every single item?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm--
MS. CLARK: Objection, that is vague, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: Between every single evidence item that he examined in your presence, did he change gloves?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, he did.
MR. BLASIER: Did he change paper on the table between every evidence item that he examined in your presence?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, we were doing this together, so I don't know if he changed paper or I changed paper, but paper would have been changed, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, you testified on direct that you saw--there was--some of the hairs that you examined had what appeared to be blood on them. Do you remember that testimony?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I do.
MR. BLASIER: You have no way of telling, from looking at a hair that appears to have blood on it, when the blood got on the hair, do you?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: You have no way of telling whether the blood was on an object and then the hair got on it or the hair was on the object and then the blood got on it, do you?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: And you have who way of telling whether the hair and the blood got together before they got on the object either, do you?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you talked about the difference between water mounts and permounts yesterday. Do you remember that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, water mounts I think you said was not the desirable procedure?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. What did you say about that?
MS. BROCKBANK: That may have been what I said.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
MS. BROCKBANK: It is not the desirable procedure.
MR. BLASIER: And the reason for that is because it affects your ability to look at colors, doesn't it?
MS. BROCKBANK: To look at most characteristics of the hair; color being one of them.
MR. BLASIER: It doesn't prevent you from counting hairs, does it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Well, it could if two hairs happened to be, you know, crossing over very close to each other. Because of that, you know, difference, the dark black line I told you about, you may actually obscure a couple hairs.
MR. BLASIER: When you counted the hairs in this case on the wet mounts, were you pretty careful about--were you very careful about counting the number of hairs?
MS. BROCKBANK: I try to be careful.
MR. BLASIER: And you take your time and you count everything that is there that you see?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And you indicated that some of the slides that you mounted and counted and recorded the number of hairs, when they got to Washington more hairs were found on those slides, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Well, they were just water mounted by me, so no hairs were found on the slides, but in the bindles.
MR. BLASIER: So after you--after you look at it on the water mount, you take it off that and put it in the bindle?
MS. BROCKBANK: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And you are careful to make sure that you don't add anything to the bindle when you do that?
MS. BROCKBANK: That's correct, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And when those bindles got to Washington some of them had more hairs in them?
MS. BROCKBANK: Than I had counted, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have--you were asked to look at the property reports yesterday to tell us what the description was for the blood-stained items that you also looked at in either box no. 1 or box no. 2. Do you remember that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have those property reports with you?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: You were asked to tell us what the description was and you said that the descriptions were swatch or swatches. Do you remember saying that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Almost every one of those descriptions in the property report was singular, "Swatch," wasn't it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Swatch.
MS. CLARK: Objection, this is irrelevant.
THE COURT: It is vague.
MR. BLASIER: How many of the items that Miss Clark read to you, while we were standing up there, referred to anything other than swatch singular?
MS. CLARK: Objection, this is irrelevant.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, what time are we going to break?
THE COURT: About four or five minutes; 10:30.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: You indicated yesterday that you put--at one point you put both gloves on the floor to do a comparison photograph?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And they were on separate pieces of paper?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, they were.
MR. BLASIER: Are you positive about that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Could we have exhibit 444, please. (Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: May we put People's 444 on the elmo?
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Is that a picture of the comparison that you did on the floor?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Do you see any seam showing individual pieces of paper between the gloves?
MS. BROCKBANK: I do not see a seam.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have any other picture that shows that, that shows a seam?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I don't.
MR. BLASIER: Let me go back for a minute to your hair description chart. Back out of that a little bit.
THE COURT: And this is 12--
MR. BLASIER: 1217.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. BLASIER: I want to ask you just one more question about hair analysis. Is there any standard in the field of hair analysis for what characteristics have to be present to say that two things are consistent?
MS. BROCKBANK: Not that I am aware of.
MR. BLASIER: So one examiner may have different criteria in terms of what specific characteristics or the number of characteristics that they require before they say something is consistent than another examiner?
MS. CLARK: Objection, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: That may be correct.
MR. BLASIER: You referred to at one point that people or somebody was sent back to Mr. Goldman's apartment to get an exemplar from a hairbrush. Do you remember that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: That is a fairly common procedure if you need extra hairs from--extra exemplars, to get them from a person's hairbrush, isn't it?
MS. BROCKBANK: It is something I personally had never done before. I understand that it is done.
MR. BLASIER: And you would expect to find a person's hair in their hairbrush?
MS. BROCKBANK: I would.
MR. BLASIER: If someone had access to, for instance, the Defendant's hairbrush, they could get exemplars, probably a substantial number, from his hairbrush, couldn't they?
MS. BROCKBANK: I would imagine so, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, perhaps this might be a good time.
THE COURT: All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our mid-morning break at this time. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. We will see you back here in fifteen minutes. Miss Brockbank, come back in fifteen minutes. All right. Thank you.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. We also have present with us Deputy District Attorney William Hodgman. Good morning, Mr. Hodgman.
MR. HODGMAN: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you have some word for us?
MR. HODGMAN: Well, I have some words in the sense that I have a request. There are certain things going on, your Honor, that I am supervising and coordinating at the moment. I was going to ask the Court for tomorrow morning because we should have these things resolved by tomorrow morning. They are very late breaking and the investigative efforts will be determinative.
THE COURT: Come on up here. Madam reporter.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
(Pages 34423 through 34429, volume 177A, transcribed and sealed under separate cover.)
THE COURT: All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. COCHRAN: May we have just a second, your Honor?
THE COURT: Sure.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel and the Defendant.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Miss Brockbank, would you resume the witness stand, please. And the record should reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. All right. Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor. Miss Brockbank, ladies and gentlemen.
MR. BLASIER: Miss Brockbank, I would like to ask you some questions about the carpet sample. That is item no. 33, is it not?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, how large a sample was that or is it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I didn't measure it, but it is probably two to three feet long and a foot and a half to two feet across.
MR. BLASIER: It is a somewhat large and bulky item, is it not?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: You can't put it in an envelope?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: Would it be fair to say that it probably has thousands and thousands of fibers in it from the Bronco?
MS. BROCKBANK: I would imagine so, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, did you take note--when you ultimately examined it did you take note of the edges of where it was cut in terms of how much of the circumference around it was carpet as opposed to rubber matting? You know what I'm asking?
MS. BROCKBANK: I know what you are asking and I believe all of it was.
MR. BLASIER: Was carpet?
MS. BROCKBANK: I believe so.
MR. BLASIER: And did you make any note of what cutting device was used on the carpeting to see how rough or smooth the edge was?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: Is it your experience, in working with fiber evidence, that fibers from a carpet like that come off?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And particularly if you cut along an edge of a carpet like that, it tends to cause things along the edges to fall off, too, doesn't it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, that item was too big to be stored in a bag, wasn't it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it was.
MR. BLASIER: So it was stored, the first time you saw it, it was wrapped up in a piece of paper?
MS. BROCKBANK: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And it was in box no. 2, right?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I believe so.
MR. BLASIER: Do you want to double-check that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, if I could.
(Brief pause.)
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it was in what I designated box no. 2.
MR. BLASIER: When you first saw that it was June 21st, was it not?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Did you get box no. 2 from the evidence control unit?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I did.
MR. BLASIER: And you took it in--where did you take it first?
MS. BROCKBANK: Into the trace unit.
MR. BLASIER: And you opened the box and this large thing in paper was there?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And it was there in the same box as several other evidence items, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Was it your intent at that time to examine the carpet?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, not at that time, no.
MR. BLASIER: What was your purpose in opening box no. 2 at that time?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, to examine the two gloves and the two hats that were also in that box.
MR. BLASIER: Had you been given some instructions to examine just those items and no other items?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: So you did not conduct a close inspection of the carpet or the container that it was wrapped in, did you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, other than to note it was paper wrapped and sealed, no.
MR. BLASIER: When you say "Sealed," did you examine it carefully to determine that every seam in the paper that might lead to the inside was covered with tape?
MS. BROCKBANK: Not every seam. I mean, it was closed with tape. Umm, there were no, you know, large gaps. I couldn't see any carpet sticking out of any orifices.
MR. BLASIER: But you didn't carefully check each possible opening in the seam, did you, for tape?
MS. BROCKBANK: Inch by inch, no.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Did you even know it was a carpet in there?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, at that time, no.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you had no knowledge at that time that you might be comparing fibers from that object with evidence items that were contained in the same box, did you?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, I did not.
MR. BLASIER: Now, that carpet fiber, you have seen individual fibers from the Bronco carpet, haven't you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Since that time, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And the ones you have seen are tan, nylon fibers, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: I believe so, yes.
MR. BLASIER: The color also described is rose beige as well, same color?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, that box that contained the carpet wrapped up in paper was the same box that contained the Rockingham glove in a paper bag, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: The same bag--the same box, excuse me, that contained the knit cap?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: The same bag that contained the Bundy glove?
MS. CLARK: Objection, misstates the testimony, same bag.
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry, same box that contained the Bundy glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: How was the paper folded that contained the carpet or did you even notice that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, at that time, no, not really.
MR. BLASIER: Did you actually take the packet of carpet outside of the box on that--that time?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, I didn't.
MR. BLASIER: So it was left inside the box?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it was.
MR. BLASIER: Did you ever take it out during that particular examination on the 21st?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: So is it fair to say that you did not conduct a careful examination of the inside of the box to see whether there might be any carpet fibers that have gotten out of the package or under the package in the corners of the box?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, I did not.
MR. BLASIER: What is the first thing did you after you opened that box was to look at the Rockingham glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: The first thing I did after opening the box? I believe I examined the hats first and then the gloves.
MR. BLASIER: Now, did you examine the Rockingham glove first or the Bundy glove first?
MS. BROCKBANK: Item no. 9, I believe.
MR. BLASIER: Yeah.
MS. BROCKBANK: I examined first, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when you looked at the Rockingham glove, it was in a bag, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: You opened the bag. Did you take out the glove before you looked in the bag?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes. Well, I mean no, I opened the bag, I looked in the bag, I see the glove, so I took the glove out.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. So you take the glove out and did you examine the glove or did you examine the bag or do you remember?
MS. BROCKBANK: Well, I took the glove out, laid it on my piece of paper and then I looked in the bag again.
MR. BLASIER: And when you looked in the bag you saw some debris?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Could you tell when you looked in the bag, before you emptied it, whether there was a tan carpet fiber in the debris in the bag?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: When you emptied out the bag, can I assume that you held it with one hand and had the other hand out like I'm doing and dumped the bag out into your hand?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: How did you do it?
MS. BROCKBANK: I held the bag with one hand and I--reached in with the other and got what I could see and kind of tapped the bag over a piece--a piece of paper.
MR. BLASIER: So in addition to reaching in and removing something, you tapped the bag so that anything that might be on the bag would go on the paper?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Did you note whether--once everything was on the paper, did you see a tan carpet fiber or tan fiber?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: You have no way of knowing if there was a tan fiber in there, whether it came from the inside or the outside of the glove bag, do you?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: You wouldn't--would you agree that it is not an appropriate procedure, had you known, to store that large piece of carpet in the same box with evidence items from which you are going to ultimately do some comparison?
MS. BROCKBANK: As far as that fiber evidence?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, if--it probably would not be my first choice.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Would you want to keep those separate before you do any kind of comparison to prevent the possibility that they got cross-contaminated without you knowing about it?
MS. BROCKBANK: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, paper bags a lot of time with this kind of evidence are used because they are porous and they allow air to go through to dry things? Is that why paper bags are used?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: But paper bags have a lot of seams and creases in them on the inside and outside that can catch things, don't they?
MS. BROCKBANK: Where the bottom is kind of glued shut, I guess there are some creases there, yes.
MR. BLASIER: That is one of the reasons why rather than just reaching in and looking in and getting debris, you tap it to make sure that things that might have adhered to the inside or outside fall out?
MS. BROCKBANK: Well, I'm trying to get things from the inside, but there may inadvertently be something on the outside.
MR. BLASIER: The sample--the debris that was on the paper after you turned the bag over from the Rockingham glove, did you assign that a number?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, that was all part of item no. 110.
MR. BLASIER: And item no. 110 was all of the things that you had removed, all the debris that you had removed from that particular glove over the various times that you hooked at it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: That particular bindle, when you went to Washington, that was one of the ones that you took with you, was it not?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it was.
MR. BLASIER: And was that opened by Mr. Deedrick in your presence or opened by you in his presence?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes. Opened by him in my presence.
MR. BLASIER: And he marked each of the bindles that you had prepared from not only that item but other items were marked right at that time when they were opened?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, they were.
MR. BLASIER: What was the marking given? What was the number given to that particular bindle, that is, the one--the debris from the Rockingham glove bag that you turned over and tapped?
MS. BROCKBANK: It was given a Q number and I don't know it off the top of my head and I didn't record it in my notes.
MR. BLASIER: Would it be on the picture there? Would you be able to see it from the picture?
MS. BROCKBANK: Probably.
MR. BLASIER: Maybe we can put this down so that she can look at it closely.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Do you see item 110 over on People's no. 443--
MS. CLARK: 436.
MR. BLASIER: 436?
MS. BROCKBANK: May I get up?
MR. BLASIER: Sure.
MS. BROCKBANK: (Witness complies.)
MR. BLASIER: Second one down from the right, on the right from the top?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, FBI number is indicated as Q3A, B and C. Is that consistent with your recollection?
MS. BROCKBANK: Again, I didn't make any note of it. According to the chart, that is the number he assigned.
MR. BLASIER: Can you look at the picture--each bindle was marked Q3A, B or C, was it not, in your presence?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Can you see that picture closely enough to tell what the marking was on the debris from the bag on the Rockingham glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, the descriptions of the bindles are actually on the other side of the bindles.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
MS. BROCKBANK: So I can't really tell you. They are marked Q3A, B and C, but I don't know which one is A, which one is B and which one is C.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Miss Clark will check and we can stipulate to that.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you on, was it, two other occasions that you examined that particular glove and removed debris from the glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: On one other occasion.
MR. BLASIER: One other occasion and that was what date?
MS. BROCKBANK: On June 23rd.
MR. BLASIER: Let me--I have a picture of what is on the board. Can we put that on the elmo so we can get that kind of straight?
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Has this photograph been marked, Mr. Blasier?
MR. BLASIER: No. It is a photograph from the board.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. BLASIER: It is the second--
THE COURT: As to item which?
MR. BLASIER: As to item no. 110.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. That will identify the photograph.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, Miss Clark is prepared to stipulate that that debris item is Q3C, and we will double-check just to make sure.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CLARK: I'm wrong, we'll change it.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the debris that was in that bag or that wound up on the paper on the table, you have no way of knowing when that or if it even came off of the glove, do you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, the glove is the only item that was in that bag so I would feel fairly certain that it did come off that glove, yes.
MR. BLASIER: But you have no idea when, do you?
MS. BROCKBANK: When it came off the glove? Sometime after or during the process of putting it in the bag, I would guess.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. But you--the procedure that is used at SID--well, let me withdraw that. Your procedure is that when you remove debris from an evidence item you put it in a separate bindle rather than just putting it back in the bag with the original item, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And do you also do that if you are examining an item like you did with the Rockingham glove and find debris in the bag, you preserve that in a separate bindle marked, dated, initialed, so that you can go back and reconstruct when that debris got there, don't you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when you are examining an item and debris winds up on your paper, sometimes you just pour it back in the bag rather than putting it in a separate bindle, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: I don't follow you. Could you--
MR. BLASIER: I think you described sometimes. For instance, I think when you were examining the shirt or maybe some of the other clothing items where you put them on the paper to examine them, put them back in their bag, and if you see any debris on the paper you fold a crease in the bottom of it and pour it back in the bag?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, I don't believe I testified to that.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. When that happens, what do you do with what you find on the paper?
MS. BROCKBANK: I would place it in a bindle and so mark it.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. That is the proper procedure anytime something falls off of an item?
MS. BROCKBANK: That is what I would do, yes.
MR. BLASIER: When you examined the Rockingham glove after preserving the debris in the bag, did you ever see a tan carpet fiber from the glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: I may have seen a tan carpet fiber, but not recognized it as such. When I was examining, you know, the item and picking off hairs and fibers, as I'm picking them up I'm seeing them, but I may not know them for what they are as far as a tan carpet fiber, so it may have been there, but I didn't know until later that there was a tan carpet fiber there.
MR. BLASIER: You are not aware of anything that you picked off the glove that was a tan carpet fiber?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm--
MS. CLARK: Objection, that calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when you looked at the Rockingham glove, one of the things that you told us you did is that you removed some debris from the wrist area?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And describe that debris to me again.
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I believe it was hairs and fibers, and as I recall, it was kind of stuck to the glove.
MR. BLASIER: On the inside or the outside, do you know?
MS. BROCKBANK: On the outside.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you indicated that the wrist was folded up and disturbed in some fashion I think is what you said. Do you remember that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And when you say "Folded up," do you mean that it looked like it had been maybe turned over as if someone were looking at the edging or the seam or the inside part around the wrist?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: How do you mean folded up?
MS. BROCKBANK: I mean the--like the hem was kind of pulled out--out of shape, it was distorted.
MR. BLASIER: And then you did examine the hem itself and saw that some of the thread from the hem had been taken out?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know who did that?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: So you don't know whether that was done by Dennis Fung or Andrea Mazzola or Collin Yamauchi before you got the glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I don't know if it was done by anyone or whether that was just damage to the glove that existed when it was collected.
MR. BLASIER: Have you ever seen a picture of the Rockingham glove after it was collected from Rockingham and after it got to the lab but before it got to you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And where have you seen that picture?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I probably looked at it when I was in the lab. I think Dennis Fung had some photographs of the gloves taken after collecting it, but before I got it.
MR. BLASIER: After collecting it at the lab?
MS. BROCKBANK: The pictures were taken at the lab.
MR. BLASIER: And these were pictures that--when were you shown those pictures?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I don't know. It was sometime actually after I had examined the gloves.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether those pictures were taken before or after he examined the Rockingham glove at the lab?
MS. BROCKBANK: That I don't know.
MR. BLASIER: Now, in the bag with the Rockingham glove, was there a hair bindle that had been removed by Dennis Fung?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: Do you remember the pictures that you saw of the glove at the lab before you got it? Did it have Collin Yamauchi's initials around the wrist area?
MS. BROCKBANK: I don't recall.
MR. BLASIER: Did it have any cuttings taken out of it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, not that I recall.
MR. BLASIER: When is the last time you saw those pictures?
MS. BROCKBANK: Months.
MR. BLASIER: When you examined the Rockingham glove for debris did you just do a visual exam or did you use any kind of magnifying device?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I just performed a visual exam.
MR. BLASIER: Did you do a close visual exam like you have described for the knit cap where you hold it up to your eyes and roll every part of it so that you can see everything that is on it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I did.
MR. BLASIER: Is that generally in your experience satisfactory for seeing hairs and fibers that you need to collect?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it has been.
MR. BLASIER: Do you remember seeing anything on the Rockingham glove, at the time that you did that close examination, that looked like tissue?
MS. BROCKBANK: Body tissue?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I remember seeing what appeared to be blood, but tissue specifically, not that I recall.
MR. BLASIER: And would it be part of your procedure that had you seen something like that you would have preserved it or called it to somebody's attention or made some record of it?
MS. BROCKBANK: I may have. I don't know. I don't know that I would have.
MR. BLASIER: But you don't recall seeing anything like that, do you?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, I don't recall.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to ask you about the knit cap, that is item no. 38, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: You described in some detail how you examined the hat, both inside and out, and I was a little confused by some of the steps. Did you look at the outside of the cap first?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I did.
MR. BLASIER: And did you do that close examination that you described to us on the outside of the cap first?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And while you were doing that were you--the hat was over the piece of paper?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And presumably the inside of the hat was exposed to the paper while you are looking at the outside or did you make some effort to keep the inside of the hat from being exposed to the paper? Do you understand what I'm asking?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I think I do. Umm--
MR. BLASIER: Did you hold it right side up or--
MS. BROCKBANK: Right. And I don't know the--I don't remember how I held the hat.
MR. BLASIER: So is it possible that you held it in a way that debris from the inside might fall down on the paper?
MS. BROCKBANK: Possibly. I don't remember observing anything falling, just only what I was picking off.
MR. BLASIER: And the things that you picked off, what did do you with them?
MS. BROCKBANK: Placed them into a bindle.
MR. BLASIER: Where did you have that bindle?
MS. BROCKBANK: Just to the side, so I was holding the hat here, there was a large piece of paper here, and the bindle was right to the side here, (Indicating).
MR. BLASIER: Now, when you did the inside of the hat, you used the same procedure?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And you turned the hat inside out?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Did you change paper?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes--or no. I'm sorry, no, I didn't.
MR. BLASIER: You left the same paper there?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the hairs and fibers that you picked off the inside of the hat, what did you do with those?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I put them in a separate paper bindle.
MR. BLASIER: Now, that separate paper bindle, was that sitting on the table right next to the hat?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, similar to what I just described.
MR. BLASIER: Opened?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, it would be opened when I placed something it in and then I close it.
MR. BLASIER: So each time you place a new hair or fiber in there, you close it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yeah, I fold it over.
MR. BLASIER: Fold it over completely like you do when you store it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, like I--well, not completely. It is a tri-fold, three--you know, both ways and I would fold it over one way, not the complete folding.
MR. BLASIER: And was the bindle from the outside hairs that you had collected and fibers also sitting there at the same time?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I think you described that after you went through that process, you then scraped the outside or shook it gently?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, just--just gently kind of scraped with my hands to see. Well, I did the inside first as far as the scraping goes.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Then you turned it back outside and did the outside?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: What was the color of that knit cap? What was the color of the fibers in it?
MS. BROCKBANK: It was dark blue.
MR. BLASIER: Umm, did you see any tan nylon fibers in that cap at any time?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, again, I may have seen them and not recognized them for what they were. Umm--
MR. BLASIER: Do you recall--
MS. BROCKBANK: But I don't recall specifically seeing a nylon carpet fiber.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. And the tan--the color tan is substantially different than the color of the cap; is it not?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Would that make it easier to see a tan fiber, that color hat, than if it were a closer color to the hat?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, it would make it easier to see, I would think, but when I am removing trace evidence I'm not making a note of every little thing that I'm seeing.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
MS. BROCKBANK: If you told me--
MR. BLASIER: Uh-huh.
MS. BROCKBANK: --so, I may have seen it, it may have been there. I may have removed it and just not made that cognitive note of it.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. May I have a minute, your Honor?
(Discussion held off the record between Mr. Blasier and Mr. Morton.)
MR. BLASIER: Now, we are still talking about June 21st for the cap?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: How many bindles did you make from your examination of the cap that day?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I believe I made three; one of the hairs and fibers removed from the inside, one from hairs and fibers removed from the outside and I believe there was one with debris, plant material.
MR. BLASIER: Was that debris that had been in the bag or debris that had fallen off while you were doing your examination or debris that you had separated from hair and fiber?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I don't really recall. I think it could have been a combination of all of those.
MR. BLASIER: And do you feel fairly confident that from your careful examination of the cap that you noticed and removed all of the hairs and fibers of interest from that cap?
MS. BROCKBANK: All of them that I could see, yes, I did remove.
MR. BLASIER: Now, do you know what numbers your bindles were assigned at the FBI?
MS. BROCKBANK: Again, no.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Umm, that item of evidence was taken to the FBI by you in August to be examined by you and Mr. Deedrick, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, were you present when he physically examined the knit cap?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Did you see him conduct his examination?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: How did he examine the hat? Just briefly describe what technique he used to examine the hat.
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, he had it on a lab bench which he had covered with paper and I believe he used a magnifying device to observe the hat and he was rolling it between his fingers looking and picking things out. I don't remember if he scraped it or not. I don't really recall that.
MR. BLASIER: Now, he prepared a bindle of additional things that he found on the hat that you hadn't, did he not?
MS. BROCKBANK: I believe he did.
MR. BLASIER: And were you present at the lab when he was examining items of evidence that had come from the Bronco; namely, the shovel, the plastic bag and the towel?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I was present there while he examined quite a lot of evidence, and--but I wasn't, you know, standing over his shoulder every minute. I was in other--in another part of the lab and he kind of called me over when he found something interesting he wanted me to look at, basically.
MR. BLASIER: Is it accurate that he examined many things from the Bronco just prior to the time that he examined the knit cap or do you know?
MS. BROCKBANK: I have no idea.
MR. BLASIER: You indicated that you found some animal hairs inside the Bundy glove. Do you remember that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I believe I did.
MR. BLASIER: Now, animal hairs are fairly easy to distinguish from human hairs, are they not?
MS. BROCKBANK: Usually.
MR. BLASIER: And with animal hairs again you are looking at some characteristics to the hair; color as well, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Dogs are a little more difficult to do comparisons with because they may have several different colors in their coats, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: I have never performed any comparisons with animal hairs.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. When you found the animal hair inside the Bundy glove, do you remember how far inside the glove it was?
MS. CLARK: Objection, that misstates the testimony, "Inside."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: But it was inside the glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, is that assuming, assuming the dog wasn't wearing a glove, of how hair and fiber from one source through several transfers can wind up in another place such as inside a glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: I think that would be a good example.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
MS. BROCKBANK: I don't think many dogs wear gloves.
MR. BLASIER: So would you agree that the fact that you might find a hair inside of something like a glove doesn't necessarily mean it came from a hand inside the glove?
MS. CLARK: Objection, that calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: You described, when you examined Mr. Goldman's jeans, that they were heavily soiled. Do you remember that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I do.
MR. BLASIER: And by that do you mean that they had a lot of dirt on them?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: In all different locations on the jeans?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I don't remember specifically what locations, but I do remember there was a heavily soiled area.
MR. BLASIER: Consistent with someone moving around in the dirt a lot?
MS. BROCKBANK: I don't know. Someone laying in the dirt perhaps.
MR. BLASIER: Well, did you notice whether it was limited to one side, the same side of the jeans that the body was found on? Did you make any note of that?
MS. BROCKBANK: I didn't make any note of that. I don't--at that point in time I don't know that I had ever seen the photographs. I don't really know how the body was laying, but I do vaguely remember that there was like a concentration in one general area. I don't remember what area.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. When you examined Mr. Goldman's shirt, were there any buttons missing?
MS. BROCKBANK: I don't know.
MR. BLASIER: Did you ever conduct an examination to determine whether any buttons had been ripped off of his shirt?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, I did not.
MR. BLASIER: You can tell by looking at thread from where a button come off whether it has been ripped off a shirt or cut off, can't you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I would think you might be able to. That is something I have never done.
MR. BLASIER: Did anyone, to your knowledge, examine the shirt to determine whether any buttons were missing?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, no one did that, to my knowledge.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to ask you a couple of questions about the bags that came from the Coroner's office with the clothing.
MS. BROCKBANK: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: Do you recall testifying about that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And you conducted an examination of those bags on what date?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, that would be the same date that I examined the clothing, which would have been July 27th.
MR. BLASIER: July 27th?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Umm, and those were bags that were--did not have the clothing in them, but had been stored in the same--was it in a box? Was all the clothing in one box?
MS. BROCKBANK: All the victim's clothing was in one box. Each item was in its own individual bag and then there was this bundle of bags from the Coroner's office.
MR. BLASIER: And it was your understanding that the bags that the clothing were in had been supplied by Denise Lewis or she had put the clothing from the Coroner's bags into new bags?
MS. BROCKBANK: That was my understanding.
MR. BLASIER: As far as you know, was your examination of the old bags the first one that--the first examination that was done at LAPD to see whether there was any debris in the bags?
MS. BROCKBANK: I believe so, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, with items of clothing especially, let's say, a pair of pants that is heavily soiled, has a lot of blood on it, those are the kind of items that can very easily shed things when they are put in bags, taken out of bags, put back in bags, can't they?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, the--I would think the soil would tend to fall off.
MR. BLASIER: Would you expect to find debris in a bag, if it contained an article like that, for any significant period of time?
MS. BROCKBANK: I would expect that, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the clothing had been at the Coroner's office from June 14th until the lab received it on the 27th? Is that your understanding?
MS. BROCKBANK: I don't know when the lab received it.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when you looked at the bags, you looked at the shirt bag first?
MS. BROCKBANK: Could I refer to my notes?
MR. BLASIER: Sure.
MS. BROCKBANK: (Witness complies.) Umm, no, I examined the jeans first, then the socks, then the shirt.
MR. BLASIER: The jeans, then the socks, then the shirt? Is that what you said?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Is it your understanding that the socks were in a different bag at the Coroner's office from the jeans?
MS. BROCKBANK: Oh, I think maybe I'm thinking of something different. Umm, did you say when I examined the clothing or the original bags of clothing were in?
MR. BLASIER: Original bag from the Coroner's office that the clothing had been while it was at the Coroner's office?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, those bags I don't know what order I examined them in.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, when you examined, however, the bag that had contained the shirt, there was debris in it, as you might expect, was there not?
MS. BROCKBANK: There was some debris in it.
MR. BLASIER: And did you preserve that in the way that you have described?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: When you examined the bag that had supposedly contained the pants and the socks of Ronald Goldman, there was no debris in it, was there?
MS. BROCKBANK: None that I observed.
MR. BLASIER: Is it fair to say that it was consistent--the appearance of that bag was consistent with nothing like the pant and the sock having been in it and shed any debris?
MS. BROCKBANK: There was no debris likes hairs and fibers that I observed.
MR. BLASIER: And when you examined the bag from the Coroner's office that had supposedly contained Nicole Brown Simpson's dress and panties, there was nothing in it, was there?
MS. BROCKBANK: I did not observe anything, no.
MR. BLASIER: There was no debris, was there?
MS. BROCKBANK: I did not observe any, no.
MR. BLASIER: You have no way of knowing--you have no personal knowledge, no way of knowing whether or not the victim's clothing at some point was all stored in the same bag, do you?
MS. BROCKBANK: I have no personal knowledge of that at all, no.
MR. BLASIER: When you were back in Washington you testified that a number of things had--a number of exemplar samples were sent back from here while you were there, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And they included exemplars, fibers taken from various places in the Bronco, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And were you present when Mr. Deedrick examined those different exemplars?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I may have been in the lab. Again, I wasn't standing over his shoulder watching him work.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether or not those exemplars contained many different kind of fibers from the Bronco, in addition to just the tan nylon fiber?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, that I don't know.
MR. BLASIER: You told us about how a very, very small fiber had been removed from a piece of tissue at the Coroner's office. Do you remember that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Was there a black and white videotape made of that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, there was a videotape. I don't recall really whether it was black and white or not. It may have been black and white. It was made by Steve Dowell.
MR. BLASIER: How long was this videotape?
MS. BROCKBANK: I don't know.
MR. BLASIER: And the videotape was to preserve him or you removing this fiber from this piece of tissue?
MS. BROCKBANK: He removed it; I did not.
MR. BLASIER: Did you see what he did with this videotape?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: May I have a minute, your Honor?
THE COURT: Certainly.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, may we approach?
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: We are over at the side bar. Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: There is obviously a discovery problem here. We now know that there is a videotape that the Coroner's office took that we have not been provided in discovery. I don't know what other videotapes he might have taken, but it is my recollection that the Court requested that the Prosecution make an effort to find all the videos that were taken and to make them available, and this one obviously has not been made available, to my knowledge.
MS. CLARK: I didn't know it existed. This is the first time I've heard about it.
MR. BLASIER: It is in her notes.
MS. CLARK: In my notes?
MR. BLASIER: Right.
MS. CLARK: I never saw it.
MR. BLASIER: It is right in there.
MS. CLARK: Well, I mean, counsel obviously read her notes a long time before he came into court, and if he saw that mentioned--
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Steve Dowell is the one who took it; is that correct?
MR. BLASIER: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: He's the Coroner's person.
MS. CLARK: Right.
THE COURT: Then we will call the Coroner's office? Right, right, right, and--
MR. COCHRAN: Lunch hour?
THE COURT: Hopefully.
MR. COCHRAN: Do you want Carl to do it now?
MS. CLARK: We can both ask for it.
MR. COCHRAN: Can their side do it because it may save some time in getting it over during the lunch hour and I just want to save time.
MS. CLARK: I will do it. Not personally; I will get somebody on it.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. CLARK: Can I ask one thing? I forgot that these side bar transcripts are released and I made a reference to--
THE COURT: I sealed that one from the last one because we talked about personal things.
MS. CLARK: Right, and can I just ask that whatever comment I made at this last side bar today about my son be also--
THE COURT: That was--that is why I sealed it.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Because I did it again.
THE COURT: Yes. I sealed it.
MS. CLARK: I will remember. Thank you, your Honor.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Proceed.
MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. BLASIER: Miss Brockbank, you indicated in your notes when you did that, that a video was taken, did you not?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, can I look at my notes?
MR. BLASIER: Sure.
MS. BROCKBANK: (Witness complies.) Yes, I did.
MR. BLASIER: Now, at some point you described, and we mentioned this briefly before, the police officers were sent back to Mr. Goldman's apartment to look for hair exemplars from a hairbrush, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, actually it wasn't Mr. Goldman's apartment; it was to his parent's home.
MR. BLASIER: His family. And the purpose of doing that was just to find an exemplar, additional exemplars, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, ma'am.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to ask you a couple of questions about the March 4th visit to the lab where I was present and other people were present who you described yesterday. Do you remember that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Was it your understanding that the purpose of that visit was for members of the Defense to examine articles that were there at the lab made available to us?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Were you present when the boxes were opened that had come back from Albany?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I don't know if I was there when the boxes were opened or not. I was in the room where you were looking at paper bags, which was separate from the room where they were looking at evidence.
MR. BLASIER: Was one of your responsibilities that day to make sure that all of the bindles containing possible hair and trace evidence that were supposed to be in those boxes were actually there?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, no. I was just asked to observe and take notes of what was being examined.
MR. BLASIER: Who had that responsibility?
MS. CLARK: Objection, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Also assumes facts not in evidence. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know if anyone had that responsibility?
MS. BROCKBANK: I don't know.
MR. BLASIER: Did you at some time during that day become aware that a bindle was missing from the box?
MS. BROCKBANK: I believe someone mentioned that, yes.
MS. CLARK: Objection.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Do you recall that--
MS. CLARK: Objection, hearsay, motion to strike.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: --a bindle that Dr. Lee had put in the box of debris from the hat, the knit cap?
MS. BROCKBANK: I remember--
MS. CLARK: Same objection. Same objection. Hearsay, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: I remember someone saying something to that effect.
THE COURT: All right. That will be stricken then as hearsay. The jury is to disregard.
MR. BLASIER: Have you ever made any effort to locate any bindles that are unaccounted for from that evidence?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, I have not.
MR. BLASIER: Are you aware of your own personal knowledge of anyone conducting any kind of an inquiry at LAPD or the D.A.'s office to try and find any missing bindles?
MS. CLARK: Objection. This calls for speculation, hearsay, no foundation, assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I am not aware of that.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Miss Brockbank, I want to ask you some questions about the socks, item no. 13. You indicated that at some point, I believe it was on August 4th, that Collin Yamauchi directed your attention to some fibrous material on the socks?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you had examined some evidence for hair and trace evidence from this case on June 21st, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: June 23rd?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: July 27th?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Any other dates before August 4th that you had specifically been assigned the duty to examine evidence for hair and trace evidence?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I could go through my book and read you all the dates.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. There are other dates, aren't there?
MS. BROCKBANK: Probably, yes.
MR. BLASIER: How many times between when you started working on the case on the 21st and August 4th did you conduct examinations of the physical evidence in this case for hair and trace evidence?
MS. BROCKBANK: (No audible response.)
MR. BLASIER: Just give me an approximate number of times.
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, maybe twenty. I don't know if that--if even that many. I would really have to count through my notes to give you an exact number.
MR. BLASIER: Is that probably close, twenty times?
MS. BROCKBANK: I think that would be close.
MR. BLASIER: And these socks, item 13, were contained in what box?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, box no. 2.
MR. BLASIER: And after June 21st, when you got box no. 2, until August 4th, where did that box--where was that box kept?
MS. BROCKBANK: In the serology freezer.
MR. BLASIER: So it was never sent back to the evidence processing--evidence control unit to be re-bar coded into their security system, was it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Not to my knowledge.
MR. BLASIER: Between June 21st and August 4th you never looked at the socks, did you?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: Did anyone direct you to look at the socks between June 21st and August 4th?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: Now, on August 4th I take it you were examining items at--in the trace unit?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: What items were you examining?
MS. BROCKBANK: Can I refer to my notes?
MR. BLASIER: Sure.
MS. BROCKBANK: (Witness complies.) Actually the only notes I have for August 4th is just the removal of evidence from those socks, so I must have been working on other cases that day.
MR. BLASIER: So you weren't even in the process of looking for evidence in this case for hair and trace evidence, were you?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: Now, do you know how Mr. Yamauchi or at what point he went and got the socks from box no. 2?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: When he summoned you to the serology unit, he already had the socks in front of him out of the bag?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Both socks together?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: On the same piece of paper?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Being examined at the same time?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And he came to ask you to look at something on the socks, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And you looked and you saw--
MS. BROCKBANK: Some fibrous material.
MR. BLASIER: What was that material?
MS. BROCKBANK: Something that could be a fiber or a hair, I'm not really sure just by looking at it, so I call it fibrous.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. It is not like a clump of anything, is it?
MS. BROCKBANK: It could be. It could be a clump.
MR. BLASIER: It is very small, wasn't it?
MS. BROCKBANK: I don't recall it being very large.
MR. BLASIER: Now, do you know whether or not Mr. Yamauchi--let me rephrase this. Did you see the bag in which or the envelope in which the socks had been stored?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I believe there was a bag, umm, off to the side on--you know, off to the side of that piece of paper, on the piece of paper.
MR. BLASIER: He was taking no precautions whatsoever to protect one sock from cross-contaminating the other, was he?
MS. BROCKBANK: I believe both socks were contained in the same bag, so no, he wasn't.
MR. BLASIER: And that is because they had already been cross-contaminated by being stored together, right?
MS. CLARK: Objection, that assumes--
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: They had been stored together, hadn't they? Isn't that your understanding?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I think you testified yesterday that after you took that fibrous material off of the sock you changed your glove, your gloves and the paper? Did you say that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I don't know that I said that after the socks.
MR. BLASIER: I mean, you left the socks there with Collin Yamauchi, didn't you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I did.
MR. BLASIER: Did you see whether or not he changed his gloves before he went on to another item or changed paper?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, since I had left the room, no, I don't know what he did after I left.
MR. BLASIER: Did you notice whether or not the sock, once Collin Yamauchi had taken them out of the bag and put them down on the paper together, whether they were turned inside out or inside in?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, I don't know whether they were inside out, right side out, umm, which is why I just collected what I did from inside and outside and placed that all in one bindle.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether or not the fibrous material that you took was on the inside or the outside?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, no.
MR. BLASIER: And I take it you don't whether it was the right sock or the left sock?
MS. BROCKBANK: Or the left sock, that would be correct also.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to ask you some questions about the gloves. You measured the evidence gloves, I'm talking about the Rockingham and Bundy glove, for the first time on June 21st, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And they were dry at the time you measured them, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that there was a difference between the Bundy glove and the Rockingham glove in terms of the apparent bloodstains on them?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: There was less apparent bloodstains on the Bundy glove than on the Rockingham glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, it--as I recall, the--the Bundy glove, which was 37--
MR. BLASIER: Uh-huh.
MS. BROCKBANK: --had kind of a heavy stain near the wrist area, and the other glove, the Rockingham glove, just seemed kind of not as--not a real heavy stain in any one location that I recall, but just kind of an all-over stain look to it.
MR. BLASIER: There were unequal amounts of apparent blood between the two gloves?
MS. BROCKBANK: That's how it appeared to me, yes.
MR. BLASIER: When you measured those two gloves on the 21st, the two evidence gloves, they were the same size, weren't they?
MS. BROCKBANK: On the 21st they--
MR. BLASIER: Approximately?
MS. BROCKBANK: They were within a half an inch. All the measurements were within a half an inch.
MR. BLASIER: Well, they were closer than that, weren't they?
MS. BROCKBANK: I think it was a half an inch.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes. There were some fingers that were as far off as a half an inch in measurement.
MR. BLASIER: Which is bigger?
MS. BROCKBANK: Item no. 37, which was the Bundy glove, was bigger than the other one.
MR. BLASIER: In how many fingers?
MS. BROCKBANK: In every finger except the thumb. The thumb the measurement was--well, no. Actually it was bigger in the thumb. Umm, on the--on item no. 9 I had described how the thumb measurement I took two measurements. If the edge was actually folded under, it was six inches. If the edge was laid out in the distorted fashion that it wanted to lay, it was six and a half inches, whereas the item no. 37 in its normal state folded under was six and a half inches, so--
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, you measured those gloves again, the evidence gloves, just a couple days ago, didn't you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I did.
MR. BLASIER: And that was right here back in the jury room, wasn't it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: The evidence gloves just a couple days ago were the same size approximately as they were a year ago, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, there was a little bit of variation. Right glove was actually a little bit bigger--the Rockingham glove was a little bit bigger than it was a year ago, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And those gloves that you had had been frozen quite a number of times between when you measured them last year and you measured them a couple of days ago, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: I would imagine so.
MR. BLASIER: There was no indication that freezing and thawing had caused those gloves to change size in any respect, correct?
MS. CLARK: Objection, that calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Was there anything done to those gloves other than freezing and thawing--well, let me withdraw that. And you have no way, no personal knowledge that the gloves, the evidence gloves, were any different in size on June the 12th than they were on June the 21st, 1994, when they were measured for the first time, do you?
MS. CLARK: Objection again, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: Could you repeat that question.
MR. BLASIER: You have no knowledge, no personal knowledge indicating that those gloves, the evidence gloves, were any different size on June the 12th, the night of the murders, than they were on just the 21st when they were first measured by your agency?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, since I did not measure them on the 12th, I have no idea what size they were on that night.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you were asked to measure some extra large gloves that Miss Clark had upstairs a couple days ago, were you not?
MS. BROCKBANK: Say that again.
MR. BLASIER: Down here you were asked to measure some extra large gloves, Aris Isotoner gloves, that Miss Clark gave you a couple of days ago in the courtroom, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: I believe it was in her office.
MR. BLASIER: And would you agree that the measurements you took of each of those two gloves, the new gloves, they were both considerably larger than the evidence gloves?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, they were.
MR. BLASIER: And in fact those two gloves differed from left hand to right hand? They weren't a uniform size, were they?
THE COURT: Which two gloves are we talking about?
MR. BLASIER: The new extra largest that you looked at that Miss Clark--
MS. BROCKBANK: Could I refer to my notes?
MR. BLASIER: Sure.
MS. BROCKBANK: (Witness complies.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MS. BROCKBANK: Those two gloves did show a little variation from one to the other to within a quarter of an inch.
MR. BLASIER: They were both substantially larger than the evidence gloves?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, they were.
MR. BLASIER: And you have no objection?
MS. CLARK: Objection, "Substantially larger.". The measurements speak for themselves.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: And you have no information indicating that the evidence gloves shrank or shrunk between just the 21st of 1994 and when you measured them one year later, do you?
MS. CLARK: Objection, speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you are aware of the efforts made in this case to try and identify shoeprints left at the crime scene, are you not?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, somewhat.
MR. BLASIER: And the extensive efforts to try and find any record indicating that Mr. Simpson ever owned a particular pair of shoes?
MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. This is beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Did you or anyone with the Los Angeles Police Department, to your knowledge, attempt to determine whether hairs consistent with Mr. Simpson were present on any blankets in the condo?
MS. BROCKBANK: I was not asked to do that.
MR. BLASIER: Any bedding in the condo?
MS. BROCKBANK: I was not asked to look at any bedding.
MR. BLASIER: I'm talking about the Bundy condo.
MS. BROCKBANK: Yeah. I was not asked to look at any bedding.
MR. BLASIER: Any clothing in the Bundy condo?
MS. BROCKBANK: I was not asked to look at any.
MR. BLASIER: Any old hats or head gear belonging to Mr. Simpson that might have been at the Bundy condo?
MS. BROCKBANK: Could you repeat that?
MR. BLASIER: Were you ever asked or anybody at Los Angeles Police Department ever asked, to your knowledge, to examine any hats that might have belonged to Mr. Simpson that might be present at Bundy?
MS. CLARK: Objection, that calls for speculation, assumes facts not in evidence, "That might be."
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Were you or anyone at LAPD ever asked to check on whether Mr. Simpson's children had any of his clothing at Nicole's condo?
MS. BROCKBANK: I was not asked to do that.
MR. BLASIER: Were you or anyone at LAPD ever asked to check the carpeting in Nicole Brown Simpson's condo to see what kind it was?
MS. BROCKBANK: Again, I was not asked to do that.
MR. BLASIER: Were you or anyone ever asked to check the carpeting in the cars she owned to see if they had tan carpeting?
MS. BROCKBANK: Again, no, I was not asked to do that.
MR. BLASIER: Were you or anyone at LAPD, to your knowledge, ever asked to check the outside of Nicole Brown Simpson's condo in the soil areas to determine what kind of hairs and fibers might be there through normal traffic in that area?
MS. BROCKBANK: Again, I was not asked to do that.
MR. BLASIER: Did you or anyone at LAPD, to your knowledge, ever try to find out the type or color of carpeting in the car that Mr. Goldman rode to Nicole Brown Simpson's condo that night?
MS. BROCKBANK: I was not asked to do that.
MR. BLASIER: Did you or anyone else ever check, to your knowledge, to see what kind carpeting are in cars possessed or owned by the brown family who might have been frequent visitors at Nicole's condo?
MS. BROCKBANK: I was not asked to do that.
MR. BLASIER: Any cars belonging to any people that might have been frequent visitors to Nicole's condo?
MS. BROCKBANK: I was not asked to look at any of that.
MR. BLASIER: Were you ever asked to look at the carpeting in Ronald Goldman's apartment?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: Were you ever asked to look at any carpeting of service vehicles that might have been at Nicole's condo before the murders?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MR. BLASIER: Were you or anyone at LAPD, to your knowledge, asked to look at carpeting in police vehicles that might have been at the Bundy scene to determine whether they had tan carpets?
MS. BROCKBANK: I was not asked to do that.
MR. BLASIER: Was anyone, to your knowledge, asked to look, to check at the homes of the police officers that were at the crime scene to see whether they had tan carpeting there?
MS. BROCKBANK: I don't know if anyone was. I was not.
MR. BLASIER: Did you or anyone at LAPD make any effort at all to try and find out who manufactured the carpet in Mr. Simpson's Bronco?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, no one at LAPD, to my knowledge, did, as far as the crime lab goes.
MR. BLASIER: How about any attempt to locate other manufacturers that produced the same kind of tan carpet?
MS. CLARK: Objection. This is all beyond the scope of her testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: I did not and no one in LAPD did, to my knowledge.
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry?
MS. BROCKBANK: To my knowledge.
MR. BLASIER: Any effort that you are aware of to try and find out how much of that carpeting exists?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, again, I did not do that and no one at LAPD did, to my knowledge.
MR. BLASIER: Is it accurate to say that the reason none of that was done is because the fiber in the carpeting is extremely common and it would be very difficult to establish where it might be found and where it might not be found?
MS. CLARK: Objection. That calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Was any effort made, to your knowledge, by either yourself or LAPD, to try and find the availability or commonness of any fiber found in this case?
MS. CLARK: Objection. LAPD didn't do the comparisons.
THE COURT: Sustained. Speaking objection.
MS. CLARK: I'm sorry.
THE COURT: The ground is relevance, scope.
MS. CLARK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Did you do any such research?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, I did not.
MS. CLARK: Same objection.
THE COURT: Too late.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: Would this be a good spot, Mr. Blasier?
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Yes. And then may we approach after?
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the morning session. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't allow anybody to communicate with you, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. As far as the jury is concerned, we will stand in recess until 1:00 P.M. all right. And Miss Brockbank, 1:00 P.M., please.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(At 12:06 P.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1995 1:03 P.M.
Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)
(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)
(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Darden, are you able to argue this photograph issue?
MR. DARDEN: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Is there anything we need to discuss that doesn't require Miss Clark? But I'm inclined to start, counsel. Is there some reason we can't start?
MR. DARDEN: The witness isn't here.
THE COURT: Well, we haven't finished--you mean Miss Brockbank?
MR. DARDEN: Right. She is with Miss Clark. There are only four elevators apparently that stop on this floor from our floor.
THE COURT: Well, the old elevator excuse, huh?
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, while we're waiting, we have it looks to me like over 10 charts. We've never seen any of these. We've never seen any proofs. I don't know what they are. It's not something we can look at in just a couple minutes. I don't know why we weren't provided these before.
MR. DARDEN: That's why we brought them down now.
THE COURT: All right. These are for use with Mr. Deedrick?
MR. DARDEN: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. And, Miss Clark, would you approach with Mr. Blasier for just a second, please.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, Mr. Cochran has brought another photograph that he's proposing for use instead of the other photograph.
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, the information I have, I indicated to the Court this morning that I would ask to have a photograph brought down. We did over the lunch hour. I understand this photograph is fairly recent. It certainly shows Mr. Simpson's hair. It's certainly a more--picture that more--is more representative of Mr. Simpson than the photograph taken on June 13th or June 17th, the other one we had. I would ask your Honor to take a look at it.
THE COURT: Why don't we mark it for the record purposes.
MR. COCHRAN: Mark it as Defendant's next in order?
THE COURT: 1218.
MR. COCHRAN: 1218?
THE COURT: 1218.
(Deft's 1218 for id = photograph)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Cochran, any other comment regarding this?
MR. COCHRAN: No, your Honor. I think that would be--that's a picture that would be fair for all parties. I think that it's representative of the things that Miss Clark indicated she wanted to show a picture of Mr. Simpson's hair. It's a picture when he's not in custody. The man is in his 40's and he's never been in custody before this time. I think it's fair to show a picture of how he looked, and certainly this is how he looked back in June as opposed to when he's been at the police station. We would all agree that's a time of some trauma and unfairness. Even your Honor mentioned the photograph where--that was used on some national publications which wouldn't be fair. The picture they're trying to show is more akin to the national magazine's unfair pictures than that picture that is representative of how he looks, how he looked. So that's the point.
THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark.
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, it's not representative though for the photograph of the Defendant's hair. The problem with the photograph proffered by counsel today is that not only is it a black and white photograph, which doesn't accurately depict the color of the Defendant's hair, but we don't know exactly when it was taken. The photograph that the People intend to use we know was taken on June the 13th, mere hours after the murders were committed, and it is in full color as well. So I mean, it still remains that the photograph the People have been permitted to use by the Court is the most representative and complete picture. Mr. Cochran is missing the point. The point is not to use some portfolio shot for the Defendant. The point is to show a shot of the Defendant's hair that gives the most description, the most accurate description of the appearance of that hair as of the time of the murders.
MR. COCHRAN: If they want that, you know what I suggest? If that's--so I don't miss the point here, if they want that, we have a video of Mr. Simpson, how he appeared on June 12th in the evening hours at 5:30 or 6:00 o'clock. We can stop that video and take a picture of that. They want to see how he looks on that day, smiling, happy, saying goodbye to his friends at that scene, I'd be glad to do that. You know, this is not a portfolio shot. This is a shot of Mr. Simpson, and I think it's just unfair to try to take a picture of him after he's in custody or at least been at the police station. And sure, it's a picture where he doesn't look shaven and I'd ask the Court to hold those two pictures up. Your Honor is fair. What we want to do is to give the jury--this is for People's exhibit. And they want to see how he looks--and if you want to see how he looks, want a color picture, Defendant's 1003, that's how he looks. It shows him--we can prop this if you want, and this is actually in color. And so, you know, we have some fundamental fairness here I think we're entitled to. That's their exhibit board and it's clear what they're trying to do. So we just don't think that's fair. And I think your Honor is an experienced former trial lawyer and you understand about tactics. But I don't think that's a fair tactic. If they're going to put his picture on their exhibit, then have it be a fair picture. Have him be referred to as O.J. Simpson, not the Defendant. He's not nameless or faceless and that's not a representative picture of this man.
THE COURT: I've already directed that. I've already made that order.
MR. COCHRAN: Yes, you did. Thank you. This is consistent with that--with your order.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. The offered picture is in black and white, does not show the complete hair, and the photograph that we know is dated 12-13 is a more accurate depiction. So the objection is overruled. All right. We have Miss Brockbank available to complete?
MS. CLARK: We do.
THE COURT: All right. And, Mrs. Robertson, have we heard anything back from the Coroner's office?
THE CLERK: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Would you check on that? My understanding is, Mr. Blasier is going to conclude his cross-examination, reserving the right to cross-examination when that videotape becomes available. Is that my understanding correct.
MS. CLARK: I thought we were going to have it available at 1:00 o'clock. It's not?
THE COURT: No. Apparently Mr. Dowell was out to lunch, did not have a pager. So they wouldn't even know--they were unable to speak to him until 1:00 o'clock. So I'm having Mrs. Robertson make a follow-up phone call.
MS. CLARK: Before we resume, Mr. Blasier had been asking earlier about photographs that may have been taken of the gloves in the lab on June the 14th.
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And I indicated at sidebar that someone left this photo album in my office. I have not previously seen these photographs, but if I have them in my possession, then the Defense must have them as well. And I'm going to point them out to Mr. Blasier at this time so that he can use them if he chooses to on cross-examination.
THE COURT: Do we know who took these photos or where?
MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. It is indicated in the call sheet, June the 14th, "Mw." I believe that's Mike Wilson, and it says location, SID crime lab. Mr. Fairtlough informs me also that the Defense was furnished these photographs quite a long time ago. They were numbered and furnished to them along with the information identifying when and where they were taken.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, if we could maybe have this for a little while so we could compare it to what we have. I don't have any more questions to ask her about these, but I want to make sure that we do have these.
THE COURT: All right. All right. Excuse me, counsel? Mrs. Robertson advises me that they have over--at the Coroner's office, that Dr. Lakshmanan's staff has located the tape and it's on its way over.
MS. CLARK: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: Also, I'm not sure whether Miss Clark was here when I raised the issue of all these new boards that are here. I just had a chance to glance at some of the pictures. I don't think we've ever been given any of the pictures that are on this board, any of these boards. We strongly object. I thought we were supposed to have exhibits the night before a witness was to testify. And not only that, I think we're supposed to have pictures a long time in advance of the time they're being used, and we would object to any--
THE COURT: Well, let's take a look at the boards.
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, that's not true. Mr. Deedrick sent two sets to the Court. One set was for the Defense, one set was for the People. We put ours on boards. They've got all these photographs.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I've asked everybody. No one has any recollection of receiving any pictures from Mr. Deedrick from the Court. I don't know if there would be a record of that. I've never seen them.
THE COURT: There should be because we keep a log of everything we've received and when it comes in and when it's distributed to counsel.
MR. BLASIER: Could we check that before we get into any of this with him?
THE COURT: I guess we'll have to. Mrs. Robertson, would you have Mr. Byrne find the log of all that evidence.
MS. CLARK: We're checking with Mr. Deedrick right now.
THE COURT: All right. And, Miss Clark, would you determine--can you determine the approximate time? That would help me narrow it down because our log is chronologically kept.
MS. CLARK: Right now.
THE COURT: All right.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Miss Clark, these are all the photographs of the hair and fiber?
MS. CLARK: That's correct.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Byrne is going to check the Court's log. Is there anything we can accomplish while we're doing that?
MR. BLASIER: I don't know if she has any redirect.
MS. CLARK: I have a brief amount of redirect. We can do that. Also, we may as well look at the boards now. We have to look at them anyway whether they have the photographs or not.
MR. BLASIER: We're going to have to try to correlate them. I know they're labeled. It's not just pictures. We're going to have to take some time to correlate the labels with the pictures.
THE COURT: Well, I'll tell you what. Let's finish the testimony of Miss Brockbank, and then we'll move on to the issues regarding Mr. Deedrick.
MS. CLARK: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. That will give Mr. Byrne some time to locate that matter in the log.
MR. NEUFELD: And, your Honor, I think we can take up the matter of the Harmon letter to Dr. Mullis at the end of today--
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. NEUFELD: --because Mr. Harmon won't be available until then.
THE COURT: Fine. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.
MS. CLARK: We are verifying it now, your Honor. I believe the Defense expert, Myra Scholberg, was given all the photographs by Mr. Deedrick back in I guess September or October.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. BLASIER: My understanding is, they were given to the Court. Isn't that what I was just told?
MS. CLARK: That's what I thought. But I just learned he furnished them directly to the Defense expert.
THE COURT: Well, we'll take that up as soon as we finish with Miss Brockbank.
MS. CLARK: She's ready.
THE COURT: She's ready. She would like to go home.
MS. CLARK: She would.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CLARK: Me too. We have a short day tomorrow, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes. If you recollect, one of our jurors has a doctor's appointment. So we're going to break at 3:00 tomorrow. Is it 3:00 tomorrow, Mrs. Robertson? 3:00 tomorrow.
MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. I have here a signed receipt by--
THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on. Show it to counsel.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Miss Brockbank, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Susan A. Brockbank, the witness on the stand at the time of the lunch recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: All right. Good afternoon, Miss Brockbank.
MS. BROCKBANK: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: You are reminded you are still under oath. And, Mr. Blasier, do you have any further questions?
MR. BLASIER: No further questions.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, sir. And, Miss Clark, do you have any redirect for Miss Brockbank?
MS. CLARK: Yes, briefly. Thank you, your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK
MS. CLARK: Miss Brockbank, you were asked a series of questions by counsel concerning photographs taken of the Bundy and Rockingham gloves on June the 14th in the SID crime lab?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: I'm going to show you--
MS. CLARK: I would ask that this photograph be marked People's next in order, your Honor, People's 452.
THE COURT: 452.
MS. CLARK: 452. Thank you.
THE COURT: Photograph appears to be say item 9.
MS. CLARK: Item 9 and appears to have a glove with two rulers in it.
(Peo's 452 for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: Miss Brockbank, do you recognize what's shown in People's 452?
MS. BROCKBANK: It appears to be the glove, item no. 9.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, did you examine this photograph in my office over the noon hour?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And contained with this photograph, was there a tag filled out by the photographer indicating the date of June the 14th?
MS. BROCKBANK: I didn't actually look at that.
MS. CLARK: The photograph of a tag, your Honor, ask that it be marked People's 453.
THE COURT: 453.
(Peo's 453 for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: Do you see that tag?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And the date indicated is?
MS. BROCKBANK: 6-14-94.
MS. CLARK: And the DR number, do you recognize that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And what is that?
MS. BROCKBANK: The DR number on this case.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, directing your attention back to People's 452, item no. 9, is that the Rockingham glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: And does that appear to be the condition in which you first saw it on June the 21st?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it does.
MS. CLARK: I have another photograph, your Honor, ask that it be marked People's 454.
THE COURT: 454.
(Peo's 454 for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: You described earlier, Miss Brockbank, some damage that you saw to the hem of the glove, item no. 9, the glove from Rockingham?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Showing you the item that's been marked People's 454. Awfully dark. Do you see the hem of that glove depicted in 454?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: And does that--does that look familiar?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, yes. That--this photograph, just below the corner where the two rulers meet, you can see an area where the hemline is disturbed and you can even see a loose thread there, though you can't see it very well.
MS. CLARK: Now that we've zoomed in, can you see it?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes. You can see that loose thread going right across the top, and still your overhead is not that clear, but the hem is--
THE COURT: Miss Brockbank, try the monitor.
MS. BROCKBANK: Well, I mean for the jury, it's not that clear. I can see it on my monitor. But you can't really see it very well here. The hem is actually loose in that area and that thread that you see on this monitor is from that hem being loose.
MS. CLARK: Now, you described earlier, you kept saying that the hem would--the way it would lie by itself, the way it wanted to lie?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Meaning what?
MS. BROCKBANK: That it basically folded up flat so that the actual edge of the leather was now at the rim of that opening rather than the fold that would be there if the hem was in place.
MS. CLARK: And it seemed to--when you just let it lie down by itself, it would lie with the hem hanging down?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: You described also item no. 19 as the hair that was contained in the coin envelope which was placed in there by Dennis Fung.
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Hair from the Rockingham glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Do you recall looking at that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: I have another photograph on the June 14th series I'd ask be marked People's 455.
THE COURT: -5.
(Peo's 455 for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: Showing you People's 455, do you recognize what's shown to you in this photograph bearing the item--the name--the words, "Item 19"?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Tell us.
MS. BROCKBANK: It appears to be the hairs and fibers, item 19, that had been removed by Dennis Fung.
MS. CLARK: And is that the way they appeared when you examined them on June the 14th--excuse me--June the 21st?
MS. BROCKBANK: They were folded inside a paper bindle, but other than that, yes.
MS. CLARK: All right. Now, before you actually saw the gloves on June the 21st, had Collin Yamauchi already examined at least one of those gloves?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, he had.
MS. CLARK: Now, you indicated that as far as the bloodstain appearance goes, item no. 9, the Rockingham glove looked different to you.
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it did.
MS. CLARK: Than the Bundy glove.
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: With respect to item no. 9, the Rockingham glove, did you observe blood there--there to be blood on the fingers of that glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: It appeared to be discolored basically just all over.
MS. CLARK: Fingers? Palm?
MS. BROCKBANK: Fingers, palm, everywhere.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, being shown on the elmo and on your monitor right now is photograph 452. Can you see any evidence of the discoloration you're speaking of on the finger of the glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: Just that dark--the darkness of that brown leather that you see.
MS. CLARK: With respect to item no. 37, the Bundy glove, did you observe in my office over the noon hour a tag dated June the 14th, 1994, with the initials, "Mw," underneath which there were photographs of the Bundy glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: I didn't really look carefully at the tag, but I did see them.
MS. CLARK: The photograph of the tag, your Honor, People's 456?
THE COURT: 456.
MS. CLARK: Thank you.
(Peo's 456 for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: And of the Bundy glove bearing "Item no. 102, photo id," People's 457?
THE COURT: So marked.
MS. CLARK: Thank you.
(Peo's 457 for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: Showing you first of all People's 456, do you recognize that tag?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And what is it?
MS. BROCKBANK: It's a part of--part of a form filled out by our photo lab. It's dated 6-14-94 with the initials, "Mw," and then "Sid crime lab" as the location.
MS. CLARK: The location where the photographs were being taken?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And that's the date when the photographs were taken, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: "Mw," does that--do you know a photographer with those initials who works for LAPD?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: And his name?
MS. BROCKBANK: Mike Wilson.
MS. CLARK: And showing you 457, are you familiar with the system of photo id numbers and item numbers?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And is photo id no. 102 the photo identification number given to the Bundy glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: I believe it was.
MS. CLARK: And showing you--and when you look at this glove, does this appear to be the Bundy glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it does.
MS. CLARK: Left-handed glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Now, you described the condition of that glove as different in terms of being bloody than the Rockingham glove in your observations of June the 21st.
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: Can you indicate to us on this photograph what area it was where you saw the blood primarily?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, it's a little difficult to see on this photograph, but it was towards that--that--that notch area there. It was in--I'm not sure if it was even on that side. It might have been on the opposite side of the glove.
MS. CLARK: All right.
MS. BROCKBANK: But there was a bloodstain, a heavily stained area--
MS. CLARK: Let me show you--
MS. BROCKBANK: --near this end of the glove.
MS. CLARK: I'm sorry. Let me show you another photograph.
MS. BROCKBANK: Okay.
MS. CLARK: Showing it to counsel. People's 458, part of the same series.
(Peo's 458 for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: Showing you People's 458 now, Miss Brockbank--
MS. CLARK: Can you back up?
MS. CLARK: All right. You can see item no. 102 here?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Again, this appears to be the Bundy glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Can you see an area in this photograph that appears to match your recollection of the area that you described as being mostly bloody area in this glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes. On the end towards the right-hand side of the screen--and you're looking at a left glove here, the thumb is to the top of the screen--near the opening on what would be the back of the hand area is a crusty stain. You can see there part of it is actually chipped away, and that's the heavily blood-stained area that I mentioned before.
THE COURT: Okay. Indicating the area of the glove that appears to be near the label.
MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor.
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Towards the--it's on the back of the hand toward the wrist area of the glove. And I'm going to ask Mr. Fairtlough to circle it. That's good.
MS. CLARK: Is that accurate, Miss Brockbank?
MS. BROCKBANK: The circle could be a little bigger, but that's the area.
MS. CLARK: Why don't you direct the arrow.
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, okay. If you start there, go over to the left, now down, now back across towards the right. Okay. And then back up. That's better.
MS. CLARK: Thank you. May we have this print--we'll print this and mark it 458-A?
THE COURT: 458-A.
(Peo's 458-A for id = photograph)
MS. CLARK: And that was the primary area of bloodstaining on that particular glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: That was the primary area that I made notice of, yes.
MS. CLARK: Since you measured the gloves on June the 21st, have they been subjected to manipulation by various people in the course of testing?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: In the course--and in the course of testing and in fact, if people had tried the gloves on, might that cause them to stretch?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. CLARK: Well, you indicated on cross-examination that other--different examiners might use different words to describe the hairs that they see under the microscope?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: When you mount hairs on a slide in permount, is that slide and that hair then available for other examiners to look at?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: And regardless of what words any examiner might use, can they all look at the same hair?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And render opinions about whether there is a match or not a match?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. CLARK: All right. In this case, you took an exemplar from Mr. Simpson of--you counted 93 hairs?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Have you ever--and you recall what that looked like in terms of the amount that it looked to you before you actually counted them and determined them to be 93?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Have you ever taken that amount of hair for an exemplar before in any other case?
MS. BROCKBANK: Just on a gross appearance, yes.
MS. CLARK: You haven't been required to count the hairs before, have you?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MS. CLARK: Or since?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MS. CLARK: Now, with respect to taking exemplars, Miss Brockbank, you were asked in this case to go and see if the Goldman family had a hairbrush that belonged to Ron Goldman?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I was.
MS. CLARK: Have you ever been asked to do that before?
MS. BROCKBANK: No, I have not.
MS. CLARK: If you have an opportunity to take hair from a person's head, whether they are alive or not, would you prefer to do that or get the hair from a hairbrush?
MS. BROCKBANK: I would prefer to get the hair from the actual head of the person whom that hair belongs to.
MS. CLARK: You feel you would get a better exemplar that way?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: When you took notes of the hairs that you're looking at in order to characterize what you see, whether it's questioned or known hairs, you fill out that work sheet that counsel showed you on the elmo?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Once you fill out that sheet, writing in notes about what you see, if you go back to look at those same hairs again on a different day, do you fill out a new work sheet?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MS. CLARK: Do you add whatever you see on the second time you look at it on that old work sheet?
MS. BROCKBANK: If I see something additional to what I saw on the first day, I might add it on there, yes.
MS. CLARK: All right. Now, with respect to the collection of the interior and exterior hairs and fibers on the knit cap, item no. 38, did you take some precaution to prevent the mixing of the interior hair and fiber from the exterior hair and fiber?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes. As--as they were taken off the hat, they were placed in separate bindles. I--as I said earlier, I examined the exterior of the hat first to remove those hairs, placed them in a bindle. That bindle was placed in a coin envelope and set aside before I examined the interior of the hat. I changed or--no. I think I said I did not change my gloves. But I turned the hat inside out. I made sure there was nothing on my gloves before I turned the hat inside out, removed the hats or hairs from the inside of the hat, placed those in a separate bindle. And so that's how they were kept separate.
MS. CLARK: Okay. So are you satisfied, Miss Brockbank, that you did not cross-transfer the hairs between the inside and the outside of the cap?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: When you removed the shirt belonging to Ron Goldman from the bag into which it was placed by Denise Lewis, can you describe for us how you removed it from the bag?
MS. BROCKBANK: The shirt was rather large and, you know, was inside the bag, kind of tightly packed in there. So I reached inside and pulled the shirt out with the bag basically inverted and the shirt and any contents of the bag I think came out along with it, because when I looked in the bag, there was nothing remaining in that bag.
MS. CLARK: So if debris had been tapped in from the butcher paper on which the shirt had been examined, was tapped into the bag by Denise after she packaged the shirt in there, then that debris would have come out as you removed the shirt?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: You indicated on cross-examination that you did not know whether item 33 was a piece of carpet at the time that you were doing inventory, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: Is that because you could not see any portion of carpet protruding from the packaging?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. CLARK: And why is it that you did not know it was a piece of carpet contained in that packaging for item 33?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, it was completely wrapped in paper.
MS. CLARK: Was there any tear or any opening in that package that would have permitted the fibers to escape into the box in which it was contained for item 33?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: None that I made any note of. None that I remember.
MS. CLARK: Well, is that something that's important to you as a hair and trace analyst?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: So if you had seen a rip or a tear in that piece--in the packaging for item no. 33, is that something that would have attracted your attention?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. CLARK: Have you ever seen packaging--items that were packaged--items of evidence that were packaged in which the packaging was torn in any other case? Has that ever happened to you?
MS. BROCKBANK: It may have. I can't think of any particular one right offhand.
MS. CLARK: Nevertheless, the packaging of items is important to you as a hair and trace analyst, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: You make note of how things appear when you make contact with them?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And you did notice specifically the appearance of item no. 33 and the manner in which it was packaged?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And you have no recollection of seeing any kind of rips or tears in that packaging, correct?
MS. BROCKBANK: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: Did you see any rips or tears in any of the individual bags containing the items like the gloves, the knit cap or the Bronco cap?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MS. CLARK: Those bags were intact and sealed?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, they were.
MS. CLARK: So did you see any tear or opening in any of the bags that I just mentioned for those items that would have permitted carpet fibers from item 33 to get out of the packing for item 33 and into the bags of those items, the caps and the glove?
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MS. CLARK: I think you indicated that when you collect hair and fiber from items of evidence, as you're collecting, you keep the bindle folded?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Can you describe or show us with a piece of paper how you do that? Want a piece of paper?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, please.
MS. CLARK: For the record, I've just torn a piece of paper off a legal pad.
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And given it to the witness.
MS. BROCKBANK: Basically this is how I would fold a bindle. Fold the paper in thirds, as I described earlier, and then in thirds in the opposite direction; then in a closed condition, I would tuck one side into the other side of the bindle. So that would be completely closed. While I'm working on something, I would have had it folded in this manner (Indicating).
MS. CLARK: For the record, when she says "In this manner," it is folded in thirds and the edge of the paper that is the end of the paper is lying folded over, but not completely closed down.
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. BROCKBANK: I would remove the evidence if I use the hat as an example, remove the evidence with my hands, open the bindle, place what I removed in the bindle and then reclose it, continue on my work.
MS. CLARK: And you did that in this case for each item of evidence?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: All right. Now, you counted fewer hairs than Mr. Deedrick for a couple of items of evidence that we discussed previously.
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And you indicated that you did not add any hairs to those bindles yourself.
MS. BROCKBANK: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: Now, was there any opportunity for hairs to fall into the closed bindles that were inside the closed coin envelopes that were kept inside the closed analyzed evidence envelopes?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation. Vague as to "Ever."
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MS. CLARK: Okay. The bindles that you--that contained the hair and trace that you put into it from each of the items of evidence, when you completed your collection, did you immediately close them?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And by that, I mean, not just folded over the way you've demonstrated that you do during collection, but the way you indicated before with it completely folded up and tucked in.
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And so did you close them up in that manner in each instance after you collected all of the hair and trace from any particular item?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And then you indicated earlier you placed that into a coin envelope that you--in which you tucked the flap in?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And then placed that in an analyzed evidence envelope?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And was that flap closed also?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: So was there any opportunity for hair or fiber to fall into any of the bindles that you kept stored in that manner?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Argumentative. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MS. CLARK: You indicated you collected hairs from Nicole's dog Kato and the Defendant's dog Chachi?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: What was the demeanor of Chachi when you collected fur hair from him?
MS. BROCKBANK: Chachi was pretty sedate.
MS. CLARK: And what about Nicole's dog, Kato?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. CLARK: How did Nicole's dog Kato behave when she--when you collected the exemplars from him?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. CLARK: Can we approach?
THE COURT: When did you collect this from the dog Kato?
MS. BROCKBANK: I believe I collected the dog hairs on--was it November 30th? I could check my notes to verify that.
MS. CLARK: I think it's on the board.
MS. BROCKBANK: On the board? I think it's November 30th.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. CLARK: Well, what was the manner you used to collect hairs from Kato?
MS. BROCKBANK: Basically petting him and grabbing hairs as I went. Not really forcibly pulling, but gently kind of pulling and petting at the same time.
MS. CLARK: Is that the preferred method for collecting hairs from dogs?
MS. BROCKBANK: That's how I was basically instructed to do it. This was the first time I have collected hairs from dogs.
MS. CLARK: Did you attempt to collect hair from Kato by brushing or combing?
MS. BROCKBANK: I did bring a comb and a brush and Kato didn't like that very much. So I decided to use my hands instead.
MS. CLARK: Was Kato acting agitated with you?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. CLARK: How was Kato behaving with you?
MR. BLASIER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. CLARK: May I have a moment, your Honor?
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: Did anybody assist you in collecting hairs from the dogs Kato and Chachi?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: Assist in the collection?
MS. CLARK: Correct.
MS. BROCKBANK: No.
MS. CLARK: You did that by yourself?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: I have nothing further.
THE COURT: Mr. Blasier?
MR. BLASIER: Thank you. Very briefly. May I have a minute?
(Discussion between the Defense attorneys and the Defendant.)
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER
MR. BLASIER: Miss Brockbank, when you looked at the two evidence gloves, the Rockingham glove and the Bundy glove, here in court the other day, did they have the same appearance as when you looked at them on the 21st with the exception of some cuttings having been removed?
MS. BROCKBANK: Umm, they weren't all crumpled up any longer. They seemed to be kind of laying out on their own pretty--pretty much.
MR. BLASIER: Did they appear to have the same staining that they had when you looked at them last year on the 21st?
MS. BROCKBANK: They appeared to, yes.
MR. BLASIER: So the appearance in terms of the distribution of what appears to be blood on them to your knowledge hasn't changed since when you saw them back on the 21st of last year until you saw them here a few days ago?
MS. BROCKBANK: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And the Bundy evidence glove, you compared the measurements of that left-hand glove with the left-hand new glove that Miss Clark provided with you--to you in court the other day; did you not?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And that left Bundy evidence glove is considerably smaller than the left new glove?
MS. CLARK: Objection. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. BROCKBANK: It was smaller, yes.
MR. BLASIER: May I have a minute, your Honor?
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel and the Deputy District Attorney.)
MR. BLASIER: Miss Brockbank, when you examined box no. 2 that had the gloves, the cap and the carpet in it--do you recall just being asked questions about that?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Did you even take the carpet bindle out of the box?
MS. BROCKBANK: I didn't take it completely out, no.
MR. BLASIER: So you never even examined portions of it that might have been on the bottom that you didn't remove out of the box, did you?
MS. BROCKBANK: Well, I did actually. I moved it around, but didn't actually lift it and take it out of the box.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. And you didn't do--so whatever examination you did of that was while it was still basically in the box?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: That's all I have.
THE COURT: Miss Clark.
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK
MS. CLARK: So you saw item 33's packaging in its entirety?
MS. BROCKBANK: Yes.
MS. CLARK: That's all.
THE COURT: All right. Miss Brockbank, thank you very much. You're excused. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to change to a different witness. There are a few things I need to take up out of your presence. So let me ask you all to step back in the jury room. We'll call you back in probably in about 10 or 15 minutes.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, she's subject to recall?
THE COURT: Yes.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. The record should reflect the jury has withdrawn from the courtroom. Counsel, have we resolved the manner in which the photographs of the hair and fiber evidence were shared with the Defense?
MS. CLARK: Do we have that receipt back? We had furnished counsel with a copy of the receipt signed that indicated the photographs had been turned over to Myron Scholberg--
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MS. CLARK: --on September 27th, 1994.
THE COURT: All right. Is Mr. Deedrick available?
MS. CLARK: That's where the photographs went. Mr. Longetti was special master assigned to help with the transfer of things to the Defense expert, and this receipt shows that he signed for them, pick up--picked them up on September 27th, 1994; and they were all given by Mr. Deedrick to him with directions to furnish them to Mr. Scholberg. And that was back in September. So they have them somewhere.
MR. BLASIER: Well, this receipt says that Mr. Longetti got them. I don't know whether Mr. Scholberg got them just to look at them briefly or whether he was provided--
THE COURT: Well, let's have Mr. Deedrick come on in. He was the one that directed all of this if I recollect correctly.
MR. NEUFELD: He doesn't know either.
MS. CLARK: He doesn't know?
MR. NEUFELD: Just to save some time, your Honor, I called Mr. Longetti's office. There's no answer. I called Mr. Sholberg's home. There's no answer. I asked the gentleman from the FBI. He said he just gave them to Longetti and he didn't get them back from Longetti, but he doesn't know what Longetti did with them, if anything.
MS. CLARK: Oh, come on.
THE COURT: The issue is what was the direction that Mr. Deedrick gave to Mr. Longetti with regards to the photographs.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, none of this resolves the fact we haven't seen these boards, not until just now. We haven't seen them yet.
MS. CLARK: Well, they raised the discovery issue. So I'm saying discovery was given, and Mr. Deedrick can probably answer that question for us since he's right here now. But after he does that, we can just--I would like to show counsel all the boards. We have a lot to show them.
THE COURT: Yes. Let's do that. But let's settle that one last question.
MS. CLARK: Mr. Deedrick, what, if any instructions did you give to Mr. Longetti when you gave him the photographs that are indicated in the receipt dated September 27th, 1994?
MR. DEEDRICK: I was told to turn over photographs and original notes plus the evidence for examination by the expert.
MS. CLARK: By the Defense expert, Myron Scholberg?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's right.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. CLARK: Was anything ever--after you gave these things to Mr. Longetti for the purpose of furnishing them to Mr. Scholberg, the Defense expert, did you get anything back from Mr. Longetti?
MR. DEEDRICK: Just the original evidence. Not the photographs or the notes.
MS. CLARK: So the notes and the photographs did not come back to you?
MR. DEEDRICK: Did not.
MS. CLARK: Just your slides?
MR. DEEDRICK: Well, just the slides and some of the items that I had provided.
THE COURT: All right. Let's see the boards.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Are these in any particular order, Miss Clark?
MS. CLARK: I'm sorry, your Honor?
THE COURT: Are these in any particular order?
MS. CLARK: They should be. If they're not, they will be.
THE COURT: All right. This first board is entitled "Black head hairs, 16 different individuals."
MS. CLARK: They are in order presentation I am informed.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CLARK: Except for there are three large teaching boards?
(Discussion between Deputy District Attorney and Mr. Deedrick.)
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, just one question. I don't know if the People are representing that we also received these pictures in advance or copies of these pictures?
MS. CLARK: These are--no, I'm not representing that. These are taken from the FBI atlas. They are not evidence in this case.
MR. BLASIER: Well, then they shouldn't be used.
THE COURT: They're a demonstration of 16 different types of black head hair, is that what this is?
MS. CLARK: Exactly.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, we object to this kind of demonstration without some showing that these 16 people are somehow representative of the black population as a whole or some data can be given as to what distribution these people are or where they came from.
THE COURT: What is this, Miss Clark?
MS. CLARK: This is just to demonstrate ranges of characteristics. It's not meant to be dispositive or it's not meant to represent all possible hairs that might exist or what they all might look like in the entire world.
THE COURT: All right. When we say black head, are we referring to persons with black hair or African American hair or what?
MS. CLARK: African American hair.
THE COURT: And it's just demonstrative for Mr. Deedrick to be able to explain to the jury the different kinds of appearances of hairs that he sees under the microscope. We have one for Caucasian hairs as well.
THE COURT: All right. Let's see that.
MS. CLARK: That--I showed counsel the photographs because they need to be mounted.
THE COURT: These are also from the FBI atlas?
MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Next item.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, for the record, I object to these on the same grounds as the implication here from both of these exhibits is that there's some well-defined way to break hair down in categories as referenced by this board when in reality, there may be many kinds of hair similar to the one in the top left, but slightly different, that difference examiners would see differently, and I would object on that basis.
MS. CLARK: That's what cross-examination is for. The witness is not going to represent that there's no other kinds of hairs in the world but these. He is going to say this is a sampling showing how they look different under the microscope. That's all it is.
THE COURT: All right. Let me see the third one.
MS. CLARK: Can I ask a question--
THE COURT: I'm sorry.
MS. CLARK: --as a point of organization, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Who's doing--I'm getting objections from Neufeld and from--
THE COURT: No. You're getting--no. Mr. Blasier is handling this, so I assume he's handling the witness.
MR. BLASIER: No, I'm not. Actually Mr. Bailey is, but I'm handling the boards.
THE COURT: All right. One person on the boards. Known head hairs from Nicole Brown Simpson.
MS. CLARK: This shows the photographs of Nicole's exemplars as seen under a microscope and where he found matches in the questioned evidence. Not all of them, just some as a representative sample.
THE COURT: Are we confident in our terminology "Match"? Is that something that's in the nomenclature for hair comparison?
MR. BLASIER: It is not.
MR. BAILEY: I would ask that the word not be used because after all the DNA evidence--
THE COURT: Well, excuse me, counsel. We're going to get one counsel on this. Mr. Bailey, do you want to handle this or Mr. Blasier?
MR. BAILEY: Yes, I am handling it, your Honor. And I'm asking the word "Match" not be used. The most the hair technician can--
THE COURT: Well, here's the issue. Who's handling this witness?
MR. BAILEY: I am.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CLARK: Why don't we inquire of the witness whether the term "Match" is appropriate or not. He's the expert.
THE COURT: Well, we'll get to that. We're looking at the boards first. This is a comparison of hairs. I take it the top row is Nicole Brown Simpson exemplar hairs and the bottom row are hairs from various places associated with the crime scene, correct?
MS. CLARK: That's correct.
THE COURT: All right. What's the objection to this?
MR. BAILEY: We don't object to it.
THE COURT: All right. Next board. All right. This board is entitled, "Known head hairs from Ronald Goldman," four photographs, two photographs to the right head hair from Goldman's shirt. Any objection to this?
MR. BAILEY: No objection.
THE COURT: All right. Nice boards.
MS. CLARK: You like them?
THE COURT: Yeah. All right. This is entitled, "Elimination head hair samples," and appears to have 16 photographs of hair which is--each one of which has a name which appears to represent one of the many witnesses who have testified with regard to this case.
MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. As the Court will recall, Miss Brockbank testified to the collection of exemplars of various police and lab personnel who were then--whose hair was then microscopically compared by Mr. Deedrick, again, certain questioned hairs in the evidence, and this board was prepared to demonstrate the differences in their hair and why they did or did not match the hairs.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. BAILEY: Yes, there is, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BAILEY: In addition to the running objection to the fact we were not shown these the night before the witness was called, the prior witness has testified in order to fairly compare head samples, they have to be taken from different parts of the head. We do not believe there were sufficient samples taken here until the evidence shows to the contrary.
MS. CLARK: Except we have a stipulation to that effect. We have a stipulation to the effect that the exemplars were taken from the police and lab personnel in a forensically appropriate manner.
THE COURT: All right. Let's see the next one.
MR. BAILEY: Also, your Honor, for the record--
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. BAILEY: --we did not get these photographs we do not believe.
THE COURT: Miss Clark?
MS. CLARK: I don't know.
THE COURT: All right. Check on that.
MS. CLARK: I know that the hair samples were of course furnished to the Defense, the samples themselves.
MR. BAILEY: I don't believe, your Honor, that these had been collected by the time we were furnished photographs.
MS. CLARK: The hair samples themselves were sent to the Defense a number of times.
THE COURT: All right. Next board.
MS. CLARK: These are the known head hairs taken from the exemplar for the Defendant and the photographs that depict the questioned hairs recovered from the evidence at the crime scenes which match those hairs in the opinion of our expert, Mr. Deedrick.
MR. BAILEY: No objection except the failure to show the night before.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CLARK: I don't think we're going to get to the testimony concerning those last couple of boards until tomorrow.
THE COURT: Well, let's see where we are. Let's see the next one. How many of these do you have, Miss Clark?
MS. CLARK: Five more.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CLARK: And then teaching boards.
THE COURT: Let's go.
MS. CLARK: This is another board, same thing, Defendant's head hairs from the known sample and then photographs from the crime scene evidence, photographs of hairs recovered from the crime scene, evidence which I believe Mr. Deedrick will testify are matched.
THE COURT: The interesting one being also Q23, the hair from Goldman's shirt, and I can't see Q47.
MS. CLARK: Q47, hair from the knit cap.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bailey.
MR. BAILEY: No objection except the same objection.
MS. CLARK: This board compares the known cotton fibers from Ronald Goldman's shirt to questioned cotton fibers recovered to items of evidence at the crime scene, one from the Rockingham glove--excuse me--two from the Rockingham glove and then one of the photographs depict the--from the Bundy glove and two of the photographs from the knit hat.
MR. BAILEY: No objection.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CLARK: Okay. This is fibers that are from the knit hat found at the crime scene, your Honor, the blue knit cap, and the known is K47. These were exemplars I believe removed by Mr. Deedrick himself from the cap, and those are compared to questioned fibers from Mr. Goldman's shirt in the lower two. On this other side, K17 is a known fiber from Nicole Brown's dress and that's compared to fiber found on Mr. Goldman's shirt in Q23.
MR. BAILEY: No objection.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CLARK: This is the board concerning the match of Bronco carpet fibers. On the upper row, we have known samples, K14, 9. We have two for K14 and one for K9. K9 shows the scanning electronmicroscope photograph of the fiber. The other two I believe are microscopic photographs. They're compared to fibers found on the Rockingham glove and on the knit cap.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BAILEY: Can you make the representation as to whether they were ever given to the Defense? I thought I'd been through everything, hair and trace. I haven't seen them.
THE COURT: Mr. Bailey, which photographs have you not seen?
MR. BAILEY: Any of those.
THE COURT: Miss Clark.
MS. CLARK: I don't--if I can be given a moment to find out.
THE COURT: All right. Let's see the next one. Let's hold that one aside.
MS. CLARK: This was the last board made. So it may be that we just got these photographs.
THE COURT: All right. This is bluish black cotton fiber associations.
MS. CLARK: That's correct. The bluish black cotton fiber, your Honor, there is no known exemplar for. However, Mr. Deedrick found bluish black cotton fibers on the Rockingham glove, on Mr. Goldman's shirt and on the Defendant's socks, which all match each other, which is indicative of what was worn on the night of the murder.
MR. BAILEY: Without much further foundation, we object to that exhibit.
MS. CLARK: Well, the foundation is all going to be laid by the expert.
MR. BAILEY: At the moment, we haven't heard it, and we object.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CLARK: This is a comparison--this is a--one of the bluish black cotton fibers that we indicated was found on Ron Goldman's shirt. The upper one was found to be wrapped around the bloody hair that matched those of Nicole Brown. The lower one is another fiber found on Ron Goldman's shirt. Again, the blue black cotton fiber. To the left of that, those two photographs, as you face the board is a fiber, a blue cotton fiber from Ron Goldman's jeans for the purpose of demonstrating some of the differences that can be seen in fibers and in their color. So the two on the right-hand side are a match to each other and the single photograph to the left of that is there for comparison purposes.
MR. BAILEY: Same--
THE COURT: How do you explain the wrapping around affect?
MS. CLARK: The wrapping around of the fiber around her hair? The--that during the murder, the Defendant was wearing fabric of this kind of fiber, the blue black cotton fiber, and that in the course of stabbing, got some of her hair or in the course of grabbing her by the hair back, in the course of the stabbing, got one of her hairs on his clothing, which, when he went back to Ron Goldman, transferred to Ron Goldman's shirt.
THE COURT: That's an awfully tight wrap around of a small fiber around a hair is the point I'm making.
MS. CLARK: Mr. Deedrick will be able to explain that.
THE COURT: Just curious. All right. Mr. Bailey, your objection is what?
MR. BAILEY: Same as before, your Honor. I don't think there's an adequate foundation. After Mr. Deedrick testifies, perhaps they can lay a foundation. But I don't see one yet.
MS. CLARK: The foundational deficiency that counsel is referring to is the lack of a known standard?
MR. BAILEY: Among others.
THE COURT: This is head hairs from Ronald Goldman. All right. Mr. Bailey, any objection to this?
MR. BAILEY: No. No, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Dog hair comparisons.
MS. CLARK: On this board, we have the known samples in the upper row. Again, the first three as you face it from the left to the right, being from Kato, and the last one from Chachi on the upper row. And on the bottom row, we have questioned samples taken off the glove found at Bundy, one of which Q7A appears to match Chachi's hair and then the other questioned samples that match Kato are from the glove at Rockingham and the glove at Bundy.
MR. BAILEY: No objection.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CLARK: Now, we have teaching boards. Carpet fiber variations.
THE COURT: Mr. Bailey?
MR. BAILEY: No objection.
MS. CLARK: And again, this is another instruction board concerning fibers.
MR. BAILEY: No objection.
THE COURT: Take it away.
MS. CLARK: There you go.
THE COURT: I've seen it. Thank you. Last one.
MS. CLARK: Cotton fibers. Teaching board, again instruction.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. BAILEY: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. All right. I have--
MS. CLARK: Then we have summary boards, which you've already seen.
THE COURT: Yes. All right. I have five objections--
MS. CLARK: I'm sorry. There's one more thing. With respect to the educational, we have a series of photographs on laser showing the microscopic comparisons, how they're conducted and the different--
THE COURT: Don't you think we should see those?
MS. CLARK: Sure. What is--that's why Mr. Fairtlough will show it to us now on laser.
THE COURT: Shouldn't we have seen these a while back?
MR. BAILEY: We haven't seen the corrected board I don't think.
THE COURT: How many of these photos do we have on the laser disk?
MS. CLARK: Of these teaching photos, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. CLARK: John? Five or six? Your Honor, we had--
THE COURT: All right. The first one is transmittance, appears to have something to do--what is this? Color wave length?
MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Blue fiber. Blue fiber. All right. Mr. Bailey, any objection to this?
MR. BAILEY: No, your Honor.
MS. CLARK: Color comparison chart.
THE COURT: All right. Let's see the next one? Absorbance. Any objection to this?
MS. CLARK: That shows measurement by light absorbance, comparison of fat fibers. It's an example, right. It's not our evidence, correct?
MR. DEEDRICK: No. It's just an example.
MR. BAILEY: No objection.
MR. DEEDRICK: Absorbance, brown cotton fiber, brown cotton fiber.
MS. CLARK: Again, an example, not our evidence.
MR. BAILEY: No objection.
THE COURT: Next one.
MS. CLARK: This is for the purpose of teaching, the components of hair.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. BAILEY: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CLARK: Again, same thing, purpose of teaching, components of hair.
THE COURT: Titled "Hair shaft."
MR. BAILEY: No objection.
MS. CLARK: Same thing for teaching.
THE COURT: Fibers.
MS. CLARK: Fibers.
MR. BAILEY: No objection.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CLARK: This shows the process of examination using--
THE COURT: Indicating the use of a microscope.
MR. BAILEY: No objection.
MS. CLARK: This shows the process of mounting.
THE COURT: A hair.
MS. CLARK: A hair.
MR. BAILEY: No objection.
THE COURT: All right. This is hair analysis, pulling evidence from a pillbox.
MS. CLARK: Placed on glass slide, cover slip.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. BAILEY: No objection.
THE COURT: Next.
MS. CLARK: Permount.
MR. BAILEY: No objection.
THE COURT: Next.
MS. CLARK: Blotting off the excess solvent.
MR. BAILEY: No objection.
MS. CLARK: Looking at the slide under the stereomicroscope.
MR. BAILEY: No objection.
MS. CLARK: And a close-up view of the slide under a stereomicroscope.
MR. BAILEY: No objection.
MS. CLARK: We already did this. Fiber analysis. This shows the FTIR with microscope attachment.
MR. BAILEY: No objection.
THE COURT: Next.
MS. CLARK: This shows another form of fiber analysis, the microspectrophotometer. Another aspect of fiber analysis is the florescent microscope.
MR. BAILEY: Can we go back to the other one? I'm speaking with Dr. Morgan.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BAILEY: No objection.
THE COURT: All right. Next.
MS. CLARK: Florescent microscope.
MR. BAILEY: No objection.
THE COURT: Next.
MS. CLARK: This is--this just demonstrates the photograph that is taken as a result of the magnification done by a scanning electron microscope.
MR. BAILEY: I can't read the writing in the upper right corner. Do you know what it says?
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: 1991 bronco-1850 nylon.
MR. BAILEY: Pardon me?
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: 1991 bronco-1850 nylon.
MR. BAILEY: No objection.
THE COURT: Next.
MS. CLARK: Same thing.
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: `92-`94 bronco-1405 nylon.
MR. BAILEY: We haven't seen these before. Do I understand these are from other broncos?
MS. CLARK: Yes. Right? Wait a second. Oh, oh. From other broncos?
MR. DEEDRICK: Representation from a Bronco. Yes, that year.
MS. CLARK: From `92? Or `92 to `94?
MR. DEEDRICK: It doesn't matter. I think it was a `94 model where I got a sample from.
MS. CLARK: It was a--not this Bronco?
MR. DEEDRICK: No.
MR. BAILEY: So for comparison purposes.
MR. DEEDRICK: It's an illustration to show how they changed.
MR. BAILEY: No objection.
THE COURT: Next.
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: 1995 Bronco, 1405 nylon.
MR. BAILEY: Well, it's kind of late in the game to be showing us all this, and I don't see what a `95 Bronco has to do with a `94 Bronco.
MS. CLARK: It just shows the changes, the manufacturer changes.
MR. BAILEY: The fact of a change to `95 is not historical in the case, right?
MS. CLARK: It's illustrative of the differences that you can find in fiber shapes and cross-sections.
MR. BAILEY: No objection.
THE COURT: All right. Next.
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: These are the last two. This is an elmo version.
MS. CLARK: Again, teaching. This will be--
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. BAILEY: No objection.
THE COURT: All right. The Court's had an opportunity to look at these exhibits. You may take your places again, counsel. All right. Either side have any other comments they want to make as to these items?
MR. COCHRAN: Will your Honor allow us a moment to have a break to have further comment? Can we have perhaps--will the Court allow us 10 minutes?
THE COURT: To confer on these exhibits?
MR. COCHRAN: Yes. Yes, your Honor.
MR. BAILEY: We haven't seen most of them before or had a chance to discuss them.
MS. CLARK: I do apologize, your Honor, but we were correcting and fixing and changing them up until literally this morning.
THE COURT: Well, counsel, they're only asking for 10 minutes right now.
MS. CLARK: No. I'm apologizing to counsel.
THE COURT: Okay. Take 15. Also, the record should reflect, counsel, I did receive a videotape from Dr. Lakshmanan. So if you want to deputize somebody to come back and take a look at it.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record. All right. Good afternoon again, counsel. Mr. Bailey, have you had the opportunity to look at some of the materials?
MR. BAILEY: We have looked at all of the materials that were just exhibited to us, and we have conferred among ourselves. It is unfortunate at this stage of the trial that the Prosecution has seen fit to commit a deliberate discovery violation of the worse kind. The elimination photos were created in December 1994. Those photos were created--
MS. CLARK: 1994 we were given--
THE COURT: Referring to the bluish black cotton fiber matter.
MR. BAILEY: Bluish black fiber. At 2:45, we were handed these photos. I thought your rule on turning over photos was crystal clear a long time ago. Certainly there is no excuse for this. Dr. Morton and I have probably put in hundreds of hours on this one issue. We're totally disabled to examine any of these materials, have the ability to challenge them, and this was a deliberate surprise to cause that result at a stage in the trial where continuance is no remedy because that's punishing this jury which has been punished enough. There is only one remedy for these violations, your Honor, and that is preclusion. It would be totally unfair to stop this trial long enough to permit us to go through each one of these photos. Dr. Morton has seen the original, but he's had no basis to compare and see whether they're taken out of context, whether this is a piece of advocacy or a fair presentation. As to that photo in particular, it can never be anything else. The sources of blue fiber in California or the United States are infinite, and we will need to prove up and be able to cross-examine all the possible sources, particularly from the environment where these were taken, and that's going to take some time, and we could have done it had we been given any kind of decent notice. As far as the photos of the Bronco from various years, that was sprung on us today. Now, we've been checking carpet all over the United States very dutifully in order to be able to represent this Defendant in a responsible way, and at no time have we ever run across a notion that there is a periodic change. Had we been warned of that, we could have checked it out and either said, "Yes, that's correct. We won't take the Court's time up with a meaningless challenge," or been able to cross-examine on the point as to when the changes were made, how many million yards of each fabric were created, what cars they were installed in, what houses, et cetera, et cetera. The last matter that I would like to take up, and it's one that is very disturbing and we've been waiting for it to erupt, the FBI book on hairs and fibers says very clearly that the most that can ever be said is that a hair or a fiber is similar to or cannot be eliminated from a same source, but can never be identified--
THE COURT: Or consistent with.
MR. BAILEY: Consistent with is permissible. Match is never permissible and is a highly dangerous word because a lay jury looking at photos of hairs of ostensibly the same color with some similar characteristics may get the impression, if the wrong language is used, that this is an identification of a Defendant when it's a far cry. There is not, your Honor, even a database from which one could come up with frequencies as is attempted to be done in DNA. No one knows how many people have hair that is indistinguishable from that on the hat or from that of the Defendant. And for any hint to be given that this even comes close to identification of the Defendant's hair would be a ground for mistrial, and I would ask, your Honor, if that happens, you strike all the testimony on hairs because the parties are forewarned. I do not expect there's been any change in FBI policy about the value of this evidence since this was published in 1977. If there is, none of us has heard about it nor did any of the literature go any further than this, and the use of the word "Match" or "The same as" or any similar articulation is simply deadly.
THE COURT: If you recollect, I think I was the one who noted that initially.
MR. BAILEY: Yes. I know, your Honor, but I heard the word in Court today. That's why I'm hoping you enforce the word very strenuously. What we don't need at this point is a mistrial. Even if the Defendant could not be tried again, to prevent him from putting on his very strong case before this jury, this Court and this country, after suffering all these months would be a greater injustice than if he was struck dead right this moment.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bailey, so I understand the nature of your objections, since obviously I'm not privy to this information either, you're objecting to the bluish black cotton photographs.
MR. BAILEY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You're objecting to the photographs regarding the periodic change in Bronco carpet.
MR. BAILEY: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: And you're objecting to what else?
MR. BAILEY: The hair elimination photos of the police officers and others who were on the scene. Those could have been given to us last December or no later than January. There's one final objection, your Honor, which I noted during the recess. You note that the chart on the dog hair comparisons compares three of Kato's hairs to the two gloves and suggests that Kato's hairs or hair similar to Kato, consistent with, were found on both gloves. The last column suggests that a hair similar to Chachi was found on the Bundy glove. Now, that could be taken as having some significance if certain inferences were drawn. However, after that comparison was made and after the witness came to his conclusion that they were similar, he discovered by accident that there were many, many dog hairs in on Goldman's home, that they were similar to Chachi's and those have not been mounted to give the jury an opportunity to look at that comparison, because if Ron Goldman had dog hairs on his clothing and they dragged Ron Goldman's body out and it touched the glove, that would certainly explain the presence of a dark hair, not Kato's. Obviously, Kato's hairs being on both gloves is not of very significance, but the Chachi's one is. Now, we're reading from Mr. Deedrick's notes about his after discovery and about his comparison and about his statement that they're similar, and the failure to mount those should preclude that last column from coming before the jury.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Miss Clark.
MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. Counsel's hyperbole notwithstanding, the photographs of which he complains concerning discovery were photographs taken for the sole purpose of creating an exhibit in court. The evidence itself was turned over to counsel long ago and on many occasions.
THE COURT: All right. We're talking about the hair elimination photos, correct?
MS. CLARK: Correct. As well as the photographs--as well as the blue black cotton fiber photographs. All of the evidence has been--has been given access to the Defense on multiple occasions. With respect to the photographs of everything with the exception of the elimination standards board and the blue black cotton fibers, those photographs were given over to Mr. Scholberg on September 27th. We received a phone call from Mr. Scholberg some minutes ago in which he informed us that no one from the Defense team has called them--called him today contrary to their representations to this Court just a half an hour ago or so. He was sitting at home and his phone has not rung. He is still at home and available for conversation. He is in possession of the photographs, with the exception of which I've already noted to the Court. Nevertheless, the photographs are not the evidence. The photographs are simply taken for the purpose of preparing exhibits in court. It is the Court's order and my understanding that exhibits are to be shown to the Defense the day before. We anticipated that cross of Susan Brockbank would take longer than it did and we anticipated showing the Defense all of the boards in their completed form at the close of business today with the idea that none of them would even begin to be used until tomorrow. The reason for that is that the boards had to be modified and changes needed to be made and then labeling before they were complete. I wanted to be able to show the boards to Defense in the manner in which we intended to present them in Court so that any objections that we drew would be based on what we're actually intending to use as opposed to anything that still needed to be modified. So the boards were not even completed until this afternoon. So with respect to the--these exhibits--and it is a complaint I understand from the Defense about the exhibits--we will agree not to use the blue black cotton fiber board until tomorrow and we will agree not to use the elimination standards board until tomorrow. And I think that that would bring us into compliance with the Court's order. There was no willful desire to withhold this from Defense. We didn't have it to present to them. It was only an exhibit. It's not evidence in and of itself. And so until the exhibit is prepared, we have nothing to show. With respect to the complaint counsel raises concerning the significance of the match between the blue black cotton fibers found on various items of evidence, that sounds like fertile ground for cross-examination, but it does not sound like an objection that is legally sustainable in terms of preclusion of any of the evidence. And with respect--and I believe we will lay the foundation for that with Mr. Deedrick. He will indicate to the Court why it is appropriate to declare a match between those questioned fibers in his experience and judgment.
THE COURT: Is he going to say it's a match?
MS. CLARK: Shall I ask him?
THE COURT: Well, I assume you've interviewed him.
MS. CLARK: I have and we have used the term "Match." I have not specifically asked about that term because I did not think that it would be objectionable because it's never going to be indicated to the jury that there's a match without also saying that he cannot rule out other hair type--other possible sources that have the same characteristics as the questioned hair or the exemplar hair as the case may be. There will be no time in which Mr. Deedrick will state a conclusion without that qualification. So there's not going to be any misleading to the jury, and the Court is well aware that it is not my practice to put an expert on the witness stand or any witness on the witness stand to say something that is not forensically or legally defensible or appropriate, and I have never given counsel any reason to believe that I'm going to ask Mr. Deedrick to make a conclusion concerning identity on the hairs or the fibers.
THE COURT: All right. Well, let's start from the top then. With regards to these photographs that I have here to my left, the bluish black cotton fiber associations, with regard to these eight photographs, when were they--when did they come into possession of the Prosecution?
MS. CLARK: We never got the photographs, your Honor. Mr. Deedrick prepared the board for us. You know what I mean? We weren't furnished with a stack of photographs. He brought a board in with him that we just completed the labeling on this afternoon.
THE COURT: When were these--when did Mr. Deedrick conduct this analysis with regards to the blue black cotton fiber? Ballpark.
MR. DEEDRICK: End of `94 perhaps.
THE COURT: All right. And is this information in the--in his report that was given to the Defense?
MS. CLARK: Oh, yes. As was the evidence itself given to the Defense. I mean, the Defense has had the fibers as well as his reports and notes concerning all of the items that we're going to present.
THE COURT: And do the notes indicate taking the photographs?
MS. CLARK: No. Again, the photographs, however, your Honor, are not taken for any purpose analytically speaking. They're not taken for the purpose of assisting Mr. Deedrick in his examinations or in forming any conclusions. The photographs are taken solely to illustrate to the jury what it was he saw. It's solely a demonstrative exhibit. That's its only purpose.
THE COURT: When did the Prosecution become aware of the existence of these photographs?
MR. DEEDRICK: They were sent, but I don't recall the date they were sent out.
MS. CLARK: I mean--the boards that I was aware of were the boards containing the Defendant's known hair samples compared to the questioned hair samples.
THE COURT: No. My question is--
MS. CLARK: But the blue black--
THE COURT: The blue black--when were these photographs given to the Prosecution?
MS. CLARK: Well, the board was brought into us--the first time I saw it was last week and it was not labeled appropriately. I asked that it be relabeled so that it would be more precise as to the source of everything, and that was completed today. And I thought I understood the Court's order concerning exhibits to be that it was to be presented to the Defense the day before presentation in court. Have I misinterpreted the Court's ruling concerning exhibits?
THE COURT: Not regarding exhibits. But this is evidence. It's not just exhibits.
MS. CLARK: Well, it's photographs of the evidence. But it's--the photo--you know, the point here is, your Honor, the photographs--the witness does not compare photographs. The witness compares the fibers themselves. The photographs are only taken for the purpose of showing something to the jury for explanation and demonstrative purposes, for teaching. I really don't understand the problem here. You know, the Defense has had the--
THE COURT: No. Counsel, the problem is this. You have a picture of a fiber from the Rockingham glove. You have a picture of a fiber from Mr. Goldman's shirt. You have two fibers that are similar that are found on Mr. Simpson's socks. I mean, obviously--and you've got a picture of Mr. Simpson on the evening in question wearing what appears to be dark blue or black clothing. And I suspect that you're going to argue from that that given the nature of the struggle between Mr. Goldman and the alleged assailant and given the type of clothing that Mr. Simpson was wearing, you're going to argue--and given the fact that it's on the socks and it's on Mr. Goldman's shirt and it's on the right-hand glove, you're going to argue that this is fiber from the clothing of the assailant.
MS. CLARK: Yes, your Honor, I am, but--
THE COURT: And doesn't this--don't these photographs demonstrate the similarity of the blue black fiber?
MS. CLARK: Well, yes. And the Court has used the operative word "Demonstrate" because I could make that argument to the jury with the witness' testimony, which the Court would not preclude because discovery of the conclusion reached by the witness concerning his examination of the evidence was timely furnished to the Defense as were the fibers themselves timely furnished to the Defense not once, but four, five times. So now, the only thing we're talking about is the fact that the witness has prepared an exhibit for the jury to graphically demonstrate what his testimony is going to give and which the Defense has known about for months.
THE COURT: All right. My question is, when were these photographs provided by the FBI to the Prosecution?
MS. CLARK: The photographs were mounted on a board by the FBI and the board was brought in--I last saw it last week, your Honor, in an incomplete form.
THE COURT: Mr. Deedrick, when were these photographs taken?
MR. DEEDRICK: In late `94. I can't tell you specifically what date.
THE COURT: And when were they provided to the Prosecution?
MR. DEEDRICK: The charts weren't sent until probably April maybe, April or May, I believe all the charts that were prepared from the photographs. The last charts came in probably right around the first of June I believe.
THE COURT: All right. How about the Bronco changes? Can I see that again, please? Mr. Fairtlough.
MS. CLARK: Now, again, these are not the photographs of the Defendant's Bronco carpet. These are simply illustrative photographs of carpet fibers from the years `92 to `94?
MR. DEEDRICK: No. `91 through `95.
MS. CLARK: Taken for illustrative purposes in demonstrating differences between carpet fibers.
THE COURT: Is mention of this made in any of the reports prepared by Mr. Deedrick?
MS. CLARK: Mention of the taking of photographs?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. CLARK: I don't believe so.
THE COURT: And when did these photographs come into the possession of the Prosecution?
MR. DEEDRICK: Last week.
MS. CLARK: Last week.
THE COURT: And, Mr. Deedrick, where did you get these photographs?
MR. DEEDRICK: They were taken in the laboratory.
THE COURT: And these are samples provided by Ford Motor Company?
MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, they were.
THE COURT: Did you write a report with regard to this?
MR. DEEDRICK: No.
THE COURT: All right. How about the hair elimination photos? When were those taken?
MS. CLARK: When were the photos taken?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. DEEDRICK: That would have been in December of `94.
THE COURT: And when were they transmitted to the Prosecution?
MR. DEEDRICK: And all of the charts came about the same time.
THE COURT: So would be April or May?
MR. DEEDRICK: That's correct.
THE COURT: All right. The last thing is the objection regarding the fact that the noninclusion of another Chachi hair? Is that what the problem is?
MR. BAILEY: No, your Honor. Hairs from Goldman's home that look similar to Chachi's--to Mr. Deedrick according to his notes.
THE COURT: Got it. All right. Miss Clark, any comment on that?
MS. CLARK: That will be the subject of expert testimony, your Honor. It certainly--since counsel is well-aware of the facts of the examinations conducted by Mr. Deedrick, it's subject to cross-examination. Mr. Deedrick has certain conclusions that he's drawn from what he has seen. The existence of other similar dog hairs that I believe--well, I don't know what Mr. Deedrick would say concerning that. I had not determined whether I would even ask Mr. Deedrick about the comparison of the Chachi hairs. I have shown all of the boards that we have without the intention necessarily of introducing all of them before the jury. The reason that--
THE COURT: All right. Let me ask you a factual question. The representations from Goldman, was this from Mr. Goldman's apartment or from the Goldman residence in--
MR. BAILEY: The apartment.
MS. CLARK: His apartment, yes.
THE COURT: His apartment. All right. Okay.
MS. CLARK: Let me also indicate this to the Court. I had no--I did not know what boards had been sent in because I'm in one place, they came into another. But it wouldn't have matter had I known because I needed to interview Mr. Deedrick and see what, if any, boards I wanted to use, and those interviews did not begin until--I mean, I spoke to him a long time ago in general about all of our evidence in this case, but that was before he even had taken a lot of these photographs. When we really sat down to prepare for his testimony, it was last week and a little bit the week before. And it was only last week, after having gone through what he would testify to, that I began to look at the boards to see what, if any, of them that he prepared that we wanted to use. At this point, I've been over-inclusive and shown everything with the idea in mind that not necessarily all of it would be used. But I didn't want to take any chances knowing that, you know, we have to produce these boards a day in advance.
THE COURT: What aren't you going to use at this time?
MS. CLARK: Well, what I--I can't remember. I had seriously considered not using the dog hair comparisons board. I hadn't even made a final determination as to whether or not I would ask Mr. Deedrick about the Chachi hairs.
THE COURT: All right. In the scheme of things, that's probably the least of my concerns.
THE CLERK: Uh-huh. With respect to the--
THE COURT: But I'm more concerned about the fact that this blue black cotton fiber--I mean, I can see the demonstrative purpose for this. It's pretty clear. To say that the photograph is not evidence is not a credible argument. The fact that these photographs were taken in the end of `94 and that they were delivered to the Prosecution sometime in April or May, that would trigger the obligation to turn copies of those photographs over if the People intend on using evidence of blue black cotton fibers.
MS. CLARK: Well, your Honor, but the--
THE COURT: As to the hair elimination, the fact that these photographs were taken in December of `94 and transmitted to the Prosecution in April or May, and if there's a reason--I mean, if they're evidence in this case, they should have been turned over to the Defense.
MS. CLARK: But, your Honor, I--you know, there's a real distinction to be made here. The witness made an examination and a comparison, and his conclusions and all of his examinations and notes were turned over to Defense in a timely fashion. That's the evidence. The fact that he took photographs--
THE COURT: All right. If that's the evidence, then you don't know the photographs.
MS. CLARK: The photographs are an assistance. They're a demonstrative tool as the Defense has been using them and springing them on us at the last minute as well. And we've had--we've had numerous occasions to object to the Defense withholding their demonstrative exhibits until the very last minute. But we were not attempting to do that in this case. I didn't even know what I was going to use until a few days ago and I didn't know what final form it would take until all the corrections were made, and I did not intend to have to use them, even think about using them until tomorrow because the cross-examination did not take as long as I thought it would.
THE COURT: All right. I'm not as concerned about the one-day rule as far as turning over exhibits. But I am concerned about the failure to turn over photographs. They're clearly evidence. I don't care what you call them. All right. Any other comment? Mr. Bailey.
MR. BAILEY: Three points, your Honor. First, Mr. Neufeld did place a call to Mr. Scholberg, dialed his number, got no answer.
THE COURT: I'm not concerned--
MR. BAILEY: I'm sure you're not terribly concerned about that, but I want the record to be straight. Number two, to exacerbate this situation, more than a month ago, I went to Miss Clark and said, "For my purpose, I would like to shorten down wherever possible the presentation of expert evidence, and I know there's a lot of it. Could we get together and go over what it is you want to present?" She put that on the record. I was watching her on television when she told you, said we were going to do that. So this all could have been avoided. Furthermore, these pictures that were handed to us at 2:45 aren't worth much without the labels. If we can't see the board speaking to the jury, we don't know what the board's going to say. And they certainly could have given us fair warning about this and given us an opportunity to answer it on Mr. Deedrick's cross. And we don't have that opportunity now, and preclusion is the only fair remedy. Their suggestion that these are not evidence flies in the face of the evidence code. They are evidence because if you're not going to admit them as evidence, the jury should never see them. And the suggestion that because we saw the fibers through a microscope, we're not harmed by these photos popping up is specious. That's like saying because you visited the crime scene, you're not entitled to see the photos of the crime scene we intend to put in evidence. Your Honor would never buy that and yet it's the same story. Thank you.
MS. CLARK: You know--Mr. Bailey raises the very point I'm trying to make. They have seen the fibers themselves. They have seen the notes and conclusions of the witness. They could take their own photographs as well. Nothing has been precluded them at all. The only thing that we have done is to graphically depict what they already know to be the case in terms of the witness' testimony and his conclusions. They're not taken by surprise. But in no way are they surprised by the fact that Mr. Deedrick has made the conclusions that are depicted on this board, and that's really the bottom line. There is not surprise. Now they can see the photographs, all right. They can see the photographs, but they know what the conclusions are. And Mr. Bailey and I spoke about shortening down the testimony, and that concerned Denise Lewis and Susan Brockbank. I told him what I was going to elicit from Mr. Deedrick, and that has not changed. I have not misrepresented to him what he would be testifying to. I was not aware of all the boards that were possible to be used at the time we spoke. As soon as they were corrected and ready to be shown to the Defense, they are shown. The Defense has ample time now and to the conclusion of business today and even into tomorrow to examine the photographs and get advice from their experts as to how to handle them on cross-examination, because the bottom line for cross-examination is not the photographs, your Honor. The cross-examination will go to the substance of the testimony and the weight and power and force to be given those conclusions concerning questioned fibers that have no known standard to be compared to, and the photographs aren't going to change that cross-examination at all. And that's the bottom line. That's why what you're doing is simply preventing the jury from understanding better what the witness is talking about. That's what the Court is basically going to do if it precludes the use of the photographs. But it will not--but in allowing the use of the photograph, it won't change counsel's cross-examination. His cross-examination has to remain the same because the conclusions were known to him. The ground--the groundwork is laid for what the cross has to be. The existence or nonexistence of photographs does not change that cross-examination in any way, shape or form. And that's what matters in terms of the right to be prepared.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Well, there's an old Chinese saying that a picture is worth a thousand words. There's no other reason to present these photographs other than to use it as clearly evidence of the fiber evidence that we have here and the other comparisons, and to argue it's not evidence is a specious argument. All right. The objection to the--first objection was to the atlas--first two objections were to the atlas photos regarding various types of fibers. Those objections will be overruled. Those are general demonstrative exhibits, and I think counsel is well-prepared to deal with those. As to the dog hair fiber--excuse me--the dog hair comparison board, I think the fact that the chart does not include dog hairs that were later found at Mr. Goldman's apartment and that those dog hairs at Mr. Goldman's apartment are comparable to those from the dog Chachi, I don't think that's an objection to preclude the use since the Prosecution uses it without that information at their peril since the obvious argument will be that by not including it, they're attempting to hide something or not providing a complete picture. As to the Bronco comparison, the--they appear to be electron microscope pictures of those fibers, I will overrule the objection to their use. However, the Prosecution may not use those until the Defense has had time to conduct any additional investigation that they need to conduct.
It appears to the Court that an obvious area of inquiry would be to the Ford Motor Company to ask them about the types of fibers that are installed in the broncos and whether or not that changes over time, whether or not there's any uniqueness to the source. Since these photographs were made available to the Prosecution only last week and because this information was available to either side, anybody could have picked up the phone and called Dearborne and gotten this information. I don't find a violation there. I am much more troubled, however, by the hair elimination photos and the blue black cotton--blue black cotton fiber photos. I have to take into consideration the fact that the Defense did have in its possession Mr. Deedrick's reports regarding the comparisons and in fact had access to the samples themselves. However, the photographs are an important part of that analysis. And what I will do is, since the Defense has their counsel here, has their expert here, has the photographs with their markings here, I'm going to recess this matter until tomorrow morning at 9:00 o'clock. I'm going to direct the Prosecution to make all of these exhibits available to the Defense overnight. They can examine those.
If that is still not adequate time to prepare and to compare the reports with those fibers, then I'll consider other sanctions, as I would like to finish this case sometime this lifetime.
MR. BAILEY: Your Honor, I would certainly object to Mr. Deedrick testifying that the Ford Motor Company told him something. I think that's inadmissible hearsay.
THE COURT: Well, that's another issue.
MR. BAILEY: I understand. But I would suggest in order to expedite matters that Mr. Deedrick make known to us who his sources were so we can cut to the quick and try and get this trial back on the road.
THE COURT: I agree.
MR. BAILEY: I also hope that you will make a ruling on the word "Match." I'm very troubled about that.
THE COURT: As am I. I think I've already indicated my concern with that. But it depends on what the foundation is. Maybe something miraculous has happened. But Mr. Deedrick's reputation is well-known, and I don't think we're going to see anything strange, I don't think.
MR. BAILEY: I should hope not.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, may I just say one thing more--
THE COURT: No. No.
MR. NEUFELD: --about the phone call?
THE COURT: No. I'm not worried about that. That's a nonissue. All right. I'm going to order the Prosecution to make all--to leave all of these boards here in the courtroom. We're going to recess until tomorrow morning at 9:00 o'clock. I'm going to direct the sheriff's department to allow the Defendant and his counsel to remain in the courtroom with the exhibits so that they can review these matters. And we'll start tomorrow morning fresh at 9:00 o'clock, but we'll see where we are.
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, may I offer to the Defense the ability to confer with Mr. Deedrick?
THE COURT: No. I was about to do that too.
MS. CLARK: Okay.
THE COURT: I'm going to order Mr. Deedrick to remain to consult with Defense counsel and asked to answer any questions that they may have of him. All right. Would you take the exhibit down, please. Let's have the jurors, please. Mr. Fairtlough, would you move the easel.
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Yes, your Honor.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: We're over at the sidebar. Any other comment about the Grisham book?
MR. COCHRAN: Yes. I knew you would say that. I guess I did. Contrary to who wrote this little summary, Michelle Cardswell, there's significant other portions of it. I would like to have it typed up. There's only reference to pages 145, 147. Shawn Chapman read it in detail and gave me a detailed thing, and from pages 145 to--147, 152, 153, 154, there's significant information about physical violence, battery, bruises, "He'll kill me. He'll kill me. I can't file for divorce." And I would like to have an opportunity to type this up. I know the jury may be unhappy about this. It may be fiction, but I think there's enough in here, more than what you have. I would like to type it up, give it to you. I can give you this. I don't think it's fair to give you this without having it typed up. It's notes from Shawn Chapman of the actual book. There's considerable here, more than I think you were told. So if I can have this typed up for you tomorrow morning.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. COCHRAN: And then you can make a final decision, if that's all right.
THE COURT: I don't want to spend the time reading it.
MR. COCHRAN: She read it. I will give it to the Prosecution tomorrow morning. Shawn didn't have to read it, but she did it.
THE COURT: All right.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon again. My apologies to you again for the delay in getting started with the next witness' testimony. Certain things came up that I needed to discuss with the lawyers, and it's taken us obviously more time than I had anticipated. Some other things have come up that I need to deal with that I'm going to have to do out of your presence. So I thought I'd call you out, let you all go home for the day, and we'll try to start again tomorrow morning fresh at 9:00 o'clock. Please remember all of my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any opinions about the case, conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you nor are you to allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. Have a nice evening. See you tomorrow morning, 9:00 o'clock. All right. And I'll see counsel as soon as we've cleared the jury.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All counsel are again present. Mr. Neufeld, you had a matter you wanted to bring to the Court's attention?
MR. NEUFELD: I did, your Honor. Thank you. Your Honor, yesterday, we received a copy that was cc'd to Mr. Cochran's office of a letter to Dr. Gary Mullis, who, as you know, is one of the scientists who has been retained by the Defense who will be testifying, we hope will testify as an expert in this case. This was a letter sent to him by Rockne Harmon, one of the Prosecutors in this case. Your Honor, the request I have is a very simple one, which is an order from the Court that the Prosecutor cease and desist from all communication with Dr. Mullis, and the reasons are as follows: As you may recall, it was the efforts on behalf of Mr. Harmon with respect to another expert retained by the Defense, Dr. Rieders, that precipitated an order by you that Mr. Harmon's conduct was reprehensible.
You may also recall that Mr. Harmon made certain statements, very disparaging and inappropriately derogatory statements about Dr. Mullis in this courtroom, which had nothing to do with the issues at hand, and he was reprimanded by the Court for those remarks. It is against that backdrop that Mr. Harmon reaches out and tries to communicate with Dr. Mullis. And I can only tell you that I spoke to Dr. Mullis after looking at the letter, and Dr. Mullis sees these letters as harassing, whether or not that was the intent of Mr. Harmon, and he does perceive it as an act or an effort at intimidation, whether or not that is the intent of Mr. Harmon. One of the things I would note in the letter, your Honor, which troubles me, for instance, is this suggestion that perhaps Dr. Mullis is violating some California law. He mentions in the letter to Dr. Mullis that:
"The law in California requires the Defense to provide reports of expert witnesses to the Prosecution in advance of the expert's testimony. To date, we have not been provided with any report from you concerning the issues you intend to address," unquote. As you know, there's a duty to turn over a report if one exists, and, of course, we cannot instruct the witness not to prepare a report. Mr. Harmon knows that Dr. Mullis has testified in other cases and there were never any reports prepared in those other cases as well by Dr. Mullis. But when Dr. Mullis read this paragraph, he asked me or there was--he was concerned that perhaps he had violated some law, and that's what Mr. Harmon was accusing him of because he had not prepared a report in this matter. Obviously, he's not a lawyer. Obviously discovery requests are to be made to counsel, not to the witnesses themselves. Just--in its entirety--and I'm not even suggesting that there was any ill intent on the part of Mr. Harmon. But when you look at the record of what's happened in this case with respect to Dr. Mullis and what Mr. Harmon has said and what he did with other witnesses, in particular Dr. Rieders, all I'm asking the Court to do is simply ask Mr. Harmon to stop communicating with Dr. Mullis, and if he has any requests to make, it can be made through me, his counsel, and other communication will happen when and if Dr. Mullis testifies in this case. Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.
MR. HARMON: Sure. I'd like to clear up the history that Mr. Neufeld has constructed about what's happened in this case. I made a disparaging comment about Dr. Mullis. And if you revisit that, that was an inappropriate response by me to inappropriate garbage that Professor Thompson injected into this record when you interrupted him and you reprimanded him for the kinds of personal attacks that he made on me. That's--that's the--
THE COURT: Well, let's not--
MR. HARMON: No. Well, that's the reality of what happened. So I can't--I'm not going--
THE COURT: Let's not revisit that.
MR. HARMON: Well, I'm responding to the revisitation and the reconstruction by Mr. Neufeld, and I think I have a right to do that, your Honor, because that's not what happened. Okay? Dr. Mullis says this is harassing. I want to read the letter, okay? I'm going to read everything that I sent to him.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Harmon, I do have the letter dated June 21st, 1995 before me and I have read the letter.
MR. HARMON: Well, you know, people are going to think he's telling the truth about what he said about what's in the letter when that is not what the letter contains. If Dr. Mullis feels harassed by a request to talk to him, the Nobel Prize winner, about stuff he's been blabbing all over the world on every tabloid that would invite him, then I think you should question Mr. Neufeld about that representation.
THE COURT: Well, counsel, I assume that you have videotapes of all of those interviews and that will be ample fodder for your cross-examination. The only issue I'm concerned about is that it's clear to the Court from our discussions that Dr. Mullis is an expert with substantial credentials who has been retained as an expert to consult with the Defense. As such, he is somebody who is, I assume from the representation from Mr. Neufeld, consulting with them in the preparation and presentation of whatever Defense they choose to present. As such, the Court's concern, obviously as I indicated in my ruling of May 27th, is the invasion of that relationship between counsel and the expert witness, which is their work product, and it's protected by the attorney-client privilege.
MR. HARMON: That's it in a nutshell, your Honor, and I would be happy to address it right now.
THE COURT: That is the issue.
MR. HARMON: That is. It's the only issue. All the rest of the things are attempts to inject irrelevant material in here.
THE COURT: And just so the record is straight, I'll make this letter of June 21st, which includes the letter of February 2nd, which includes a transcript from another case, two pages of the transcript, I'll make that a Court's exhibit no. 1 for the purposes of this hearing so your record is full.
MR. HARMON: Sure. I would appreciate that, your Honor. The Court mentioned your order of May 27th. I think--and I invite the Court--I'm not asking you to rewrite that, your Honor, but I'd like you to consider this point which applies to this very situation too. Unbeknownst to me, when I contacted Dr. Rieders, who is the subject of your Court order--in fact, he was a Defense expert. He was listed on the October--can't recall the date. I have it here, a Defense expert. Now, that's a critical point. And I really invite the Court to reread your order about my reprehensible conduct in light of the argument or the overwhelming authorities in this state because that is a controlling issue.
Can the Prosecution contact an expert who is on the witness list who, as Mr. Neufeld said, will testify? You've characterized it a little differently. You said he's consulting with them. Of course, he does that in leading up to it, but he will testify. That's the only reason he's on the witness list. That's to appease us that they can't sandbag us with his sudden appearance, but they can sandbag us with the content of his testimony and not provide a report. So can we contact an expert on the witness list who has publicly expressed his intent to testify in numerous, numerous media interviews? Now I think there's a couple of subcategories to that that apply to this case that help you really focus on what the issue is. Does the fact that no expert report has been filed by that person, does that somehow undermine our ability, legal ability to interview that witness? Or put it another way. If he had given us an expert report, would we be able to talk to him about the content of the expert report or the notes? We've gotten a few notes from Dr. Lee. It is my position to point out the--the difference between Dr. Lee and Dr. Mullis and argue that there's no legal distinction that--we can contact Dr. Lee. The only reason they've given us those notes, because that's what he intends to testify about. Now, certainly we should be able to interview him ahead of time about the content of his notes. And the fact that you have allowed them to not turn over reports by saying, "Well, we're not going to write them. We haven't told them not to," should that undermine our ability to interview a witness that we would be legally entitled to interview had he, in fact, written a report or had he written notes. And, of course, there's no legal distinction between those two categories. So should we be able to do less by interviewing him and contacting him, because the thing that has triggered our ability to do it is the fact that they've listed him as a witness. It's plain and sample. They have--he will testify. We must recall that the reason behind prop 115 under 1054(A) was to promote the ascertainment of truth in trials by providing timely pretrial discovery, to say nothing about the saving of all the court time about hashing these things out ahead of time.
So we haven't been given anything. We're not entitled to contact those people. Well, the overwhelming authority in California clearly makes the distinction that Mr. Neufeld seems to be unaware of, and that is--and this is both in criminal cases and in civil cases--that once that per--it is made clear that that person will testify, the work product privilege no longer applies. And the cases that stand for that proposition are--interestingly one that the Defense injected when Professor Thompson was here, County of Los Angeles versus Superior Court, 222 Cal. App. 3D. 647 at page 654 as well as Shadow Traffic Network versus Superior Court, 24 Cal. App. 4th--I'm sorry--24 Cal. App. 4th, 699, as well as National Steel Products Company versus Superior Court, 164 Cal. App. 3D., 530 or--I'm sorry--210 California reporter. I've got a mixture of different reporters here--page 536, and a case that we cited for the proposition that they should be forced to turn over reports whether or not they exist, Woods versus Superior Court, 25 Cal. App. 4th, 188. And those cases all stand for the proposition that once you make it clear that that witness will testify, the work product privilege no longer applies.
And isn't that analogous to the situation that compels them to list the witness that they intend to call at the trial under 1054.3? The only reason Dr. Mullis is on the witness list is if they intend to call him at the trial. That's why they had to list him. Now, you have allowed them not to turn over any material that exists in any form, and I don't intend to reargue that. We had an extensive hearing on Friday afternoon about that. Now, if they want to invoke the work product privilege, there's a simple remedy for them. Take him off the witness list. But if they take him off the witness list, they can't testify. By the Court's ruling on Friday and what they seek to do today by overextending the ruling that you made in a different context that I sincerely ask you to reconsider now that I pointed out that Dr. Rieders was listed as of October, they have listed those people, and once they are listed, we should be entitled to communicate with them. If you allow them to get away with what happened on Friday as well as impose this kind of limitation on us--your order of May 27th specifically said the harm that's involved in contacting one of these experts is unintentional disclosure of work product privilege. And if you read those cases, that privilege does not apply because they have listed them on their witness list. So the harm that you perceived at that point, not realizing that even Dr. Rieders was on that witness list, clearly does not apply with Dr. Mullis. He's been on their witness list for quite some time and, mistakenly on my part, and I suggest to the Court should not apply to the order that you made on May 27th. One of the things that the Court seemed to recognize that is nowhere in any of the 1054 sections--and I would hope the Court doesn't intend to apply it in this context about invoking or losing the work product privilege. I think the Court described some sort of fluidity exception because of the dynamics of the trial and issues evolving and some things being important and then disappearing, and that perhaps the Defense could change their mind at the last minute about the nature of the testimony of any of these experts. Now, that's nowhere in any of these cases that interpret 1054 and it's certainly not in any of the ballot information about prop 115. I would hope that you wouldn't do the same here, because if you do, if you allow them to say, you know, "He's on the witness list, he's done a lot of things for us, but until they rest, we're not really sure what he's going to testify about because we need to see the full content of their case," well, first off, that denies us the right to a fair trial that 1054 describes. It's going to waste an awful lot of the Court time when we litigate these witnesses one by one. But just imagine other subcategories of this fluidity exception. Just imagine we have the indecisive Defense attorney who says, "You know, I have these alternative theories, your Honor, but I can't--I just can't decide which one to advocate until I flip a coin or I talk to my wife about it. So until that happens, I'm invoking the work product privilege because I haven't decided which areas of his testimony I intend to present," or just imagine the alcoholic Defense attorney who is in a drunken stupor all the time and because he's never sober, can't make a rational decision until he sobers up. Under this fluidity exception that seems to have been applied, I can't conceive of any reason any Defense attorney would ever turn over any material under the reciprocal discovery provisions that were enacted by the voters under Prop 115. To do so under this newly recognized fluidity exception would be incompetent for any Defense attorney. 1054 once again promotes the ascertainment of truth and it's supposed to do that in advance of the trial. That's all we want.
It's the same voters who vote for all elected officials that voted overwhelmingly in support of proposition 115. They've been--the Defense has not been forced to comply with what we believe the appropriate construction of 1054.3 is, and we intend to pursue that ourselves by talking to these witnesses ahead of time. I believe that when you read the letter and the transcript of Dr. Mullis, this is his idea. This was his suggestion that he testified about in a case in November where it would save an awful lot of time to have the scientist get together ahead of time. I cannot imagine what has happened to him since November that would cause him to change his mind. I invited him to identify the issues. I would have all the appropriate scientists there. We would sit down and discuss it so that we could focus on real issues and not the illusory issues that have been injected into this case. Furthermore, if we are denied the opportunity to have contact with those experts, which we're legally entitled to do, to seek to have that kind of a discussion with them, then we will never be able to elicit the fact that they have declined to do so, which I believe we're legally entitled to do.
So with those comments, your Honor, I would like you to read those cases and realize the work product privilege ceased to exist the instant they submitted that witness list. The harm that you perceived concerning the contacts I had with Dr. Rieders, which I think when you see the witness list that was in existence long before I ever contacted him, you will realize that legally we are entitled to have those contacts with them, legally they are entitled to refuse to talk to us and legally we are entitled to elicit their refusal from them should they in fact testify in this case. Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: I'm not going to revisit those issues because obviously Dean Uelmen and--dealt with those last week and they were resolved by the Court. There is no legal right that gives the Prosecutor the ability to send a letter to a witness basically demanding a report from him suggesting that the failure to turn over a report may be a violation of California law and trying to intimidate him into speaking with the Prosecution. All I'm simply saying here, your Honor, is that in light of what--this is not on a clean slate. I'm simply asking that since it is being communicated to me by Dr. Mullis that he regards Mr. Harmon's efforts as harassment and the efforts of the Prosecution in this case as harassment, that they cease and desist from communicating with him either by telephone or in the mail or any other means of communication. If they have something that they wish to communicate, they can do it through counsel.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
MR. NEUFELD: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harmon, the Prosecution is ordered to direct any communication to Dr. Mullis through Defense counsel. Anything else?
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, could we consider my letter to Dr. Mullis or request for an interview?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. We'll stand in recess. The sheriff's department is to make Mr. Simpson available. Mr. Deedrick is to remain. People's exhibits, photo exhibits are to remain. All right. All right. We'll be in recess.
(At 4:30 P.M., an adjournment was taken until, Thursday, June 29, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
The People of the State of California,)
Plaintiff,)
Vs.) No. BA097211)
Orenthal James Simpson,)
Defendant.)
Reporter's transcript of proceedings Wednesday, June 28, 1995
Volume 177 pages 34345 through 34600, inclusive
(Pages 34333 through 34344, inclusive, sealed)
(Pages 34423 through 34429, inclusive, sealed)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCES:
Janet M. Moxham, CSR #4588 Christine M. Olson, CSR #2378 official reporters
FOR THE PEOPLE: Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012
FOR THE DEFENDANT: Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I N D E X
Index for volume 177 pages 34345 - 34600
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day date session page vol.
Wednesday June 28, 1995 A.M. 34345 177 P.M. 34488 177
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGEND: Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden d Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
PEOPLE'S witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
Brockbank, Susan A. 177 (Resumed) 34363C 34371Bb 34503C 34526Bb (Further) 34529C
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
WITNESSES direct cross redirect recross vol.
Brockbank, Susan A. 177 (Resumed) 34363C 34371Bb 34503C 34526Bb (Further) 34529C
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBITS
PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
452 - Photograph 34503 177 of a glove - item 9
453 - Photograph 34504 177 of a close-up view of a tag
454 - Photograph 34505 177 of the hem of a glove with LAPD scientific rulers
455 - Photograph 34507 177 of hairs and fibers - item 19
456 - Photograph 34509 177 of a close-up view of a tag
457 - Photograph 34509 177 of a palm side of a glove - item 102
458 - Photograph 34511 177 of the top of a glove - item 102
458-A - photograph 34512 177 of a close-up view of a glove with a green circle - item 102
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
1217 - 1-page document 34379 177
1218 - Photograph 34491 177 black and white photo of Mr. O.J. Simpson