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 24956 through 24982, volume 136a, transcribed and sealed under separate cover.)
(The following proceedings were held in open Court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Good morning, counsel. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All counsel are again present, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Scheck, Mr. Blasier, Mr. Neufeld. The People are represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Darden and Mr. Goldberg. The jury is not present. All right. Let's have the jurors, please.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, we have a number of matters that need to be resolved before we take Mr. Matheson. I'm wondering if you want to do that now.
THE COURT: Yes, perhaps we should. Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: There are several matters. There is the ruling on the serology chart.
THE COURT: All right. I received letter briefs from counsel on both sides with regard to that issue. Mr. Blasier, do you have any further comment you wish to make on that issue that is not included in your letter brief?
MR. BLASIER: Well, the People just filed--at least they handed me an unfiled copy of further paperwork on this this morning. I don't know if the Court has had a chance to review this or not.
THE COURT: I was handed something and told that was going to be resubmitted.
MR. GOLDBERG: And then I said that we were not. There was one typographical error which I corrected in hand and then dated it so that the Court can look at it.
THE COURT: All right. Mrs. Robertson, would you grab that off of my desk.
MR. BLASIER: As I understand the argument in this new paperwork, the People are taking the position that there should be no testimony about the EAP b results of the blood under Nicole Brown Simpson's fingernails on the basis that they are now saying that unless they can testify about these other inconclusive results, this now becomes an inconclusive, and that argument makes no sense to me. First of all, I'm not sure how to respond to it because it is a senseless argument. There are a number of statements--
THE COURT: You mean to say it is a contradictory argument. Go ahead.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Both. I mean, there are other statements in this brief that are just flat not true. They talk about how the typing results for the pool of blood under Nicole Brown Simpson showing a banding pattern consistent with a type b and they say that this result was called an inconclusive B. I would like to have marked, Mr. Matheson's report on this.
THE COURT: Yes.
(Deft's 1126 for id = document)
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Blasier, if you will look at page 2 of this report you will see that item no. 42, which is the blood under Nicole Brown Simpson, Mr. Matheson concluded that it was an inconclusive; not an inconclusive b, but an inconclusive. If you look also at the blood on Nicole Brown Simpson's thigh, which is item no. 85-a and b, in this brief they just filed it is described as an inconclusive BA. In Mr. Matheson's report--
THE COURT: No. 85.
MR. BLASIER: Yes. In Mr. Matheson's report it is an inconclusive; it is not an inconclusive BA. The--you will also note that the fingernails, which were items 84-a and b, are not inconclusive at all; they are a b, a straight b, and to represent otherwise it is just simply not scientifically correct. Now, they may try to explain, well, it sure looks like a b but maybe it was a BA at some point in time, and we are prepared to deal with that particular argument, but to change the result to say they were inconclusive before but now we need to make them something else, it is scientifically fraudulent in our view and should not be permitted. So we would submit the matter with those comments on this brief that they just filed, as well as what I've already submitted in my brief before.
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: Actually, your Honor, it would be scientifically fraudulent not to admit them and that is why we felt so strongly about this and have insisted on this, to the extent that we have, in filing a number of points and authorities, and making a variety of arguments. We would like to call Mr. Matheson in a 402 hearing because we do believe that when the Court understands these issues and they are not--it is not immediately apparent why the Prosecution is taking the position that we are and why the Defense is taking the position that they are. In fact, there is a certain aspect to it that is counter-intuitive, because if you just look at the results on their face, the EAP result of the pool of the victim's blood being an inconclusive b is inconsistent with the Defendant and is inconsistent with the victims in this case and would seem to lend a theory that someone else deposited it, so you would think that the Defense should be seeking to get that result in, that the Prosecution would be seeking to exclude that result, because why would we want to put on a result, a--albeit an inconclusive one, that is inconsistent with anyone in this case. Why would the Defense want to exclude that result? It does seem to be counter-intuitive. But when the Court understands that scientifically, we know that the pool of the victim's blood has to be her blood and therefore we know that the true type is a BA and we know that that is not what we see when we test it, that tells us something about what is happening under the environmental conditions at the crime scene and it tells us that type EAP BA blood is degrading in such a manner as to create the appearance of a B. And I think Mr. Matheson can communicate this to the Court that I cannot and that is why we would seek to put him on for the purposes of explaining this and perhaps using a chart that we have that we would use with the jury to explain what this banding pattern looks like when it is not degraded, what it looks like when it is degraded, to explain the scientific literature that identifies this problem that we quoted in our most recent brief and to discuss the literature that says that according to some analysts you are required, as a forensic scientist, to look at the pool of blood and blood on the victim's clothing as a control study to determine whether or not you in fact have degradation on this one particular marker, because it has certain problems in terms of degradation that the other markers could not have.
And we have cited the literature which says that Mr. Matheson is required, according to these authors, to do the precise thing that he is doing and that he should not, if you accept these authors, express an opinion about the blood under her fingernails unless he has also looked at what is happening in the pool of blood and the blood that is on her clothing or on her person. Now, counsel has given you a copy of the analyzed evidence report which says--which simply reports inconclusives. It does not give an indication as to whether it is an inconclusive b or an inconclusive BA or what have you. On the electrophoresis work sheet, which in light of counsel's argument I should probably also mark, only unfortunately my copy has writing on it--I would like to give the Court a clean copy. I'm going to get a clean copy to mark, but it talks about the EAP result on 84-a and b which are the fingernail scrapings and 85-a and b which are the dots of blood that came from Nicole Brown Simpson's thigh. And the way that it is called on the electrophoresis work sheet, which is the one which is done contemporaneously with the testing while you are actually looking at the plate, the analyzed evidence report is an external document for the Court and the attorneys and so on, but was actually a document that is generated at the time of the analysis, what Mr. Matheson says on 84-a and b, that being the fingernails, is b question mark and the question mark typically--
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Goldberg, let's cut to the chase here. Let's assume as a result of this challenge the Court needs to conduct a 402 hearing. What is your time estimate as to how long that will take? And how do you suggest we accomplish this as expeditiously as possible, understanding we have a jury sitting in the jury room?
MR. GOLDBERG: I understand that, your Honor, and I don't like 402 hearings and I don't believe that 402 hearings should almost ever be done with live testimony, so this is not--this is contrary to my ordinary practice, because I understand what the Court is afraid of here, and that is that it is going to turn into a little bit of a mini trial on an issue where the Prosecution feels that there is no factual or legal issue for the Court to resolve. The bottom line conclusion that Mr. Matheson is going to give is that based on the totality of the evidence that he has in front of him, that the EAP results under the victim's fingernails are in fact a BA.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Goldberg I asked you two specific questions. How long is this going to take and how do you suggest we do it?
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now--
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: Could we have a moment, your Honor? Thank you.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: The way I would suggest it, is this: Counsel has raised an objection to the People's chart. They haven't tried to limit the scope of Mr. Matheson's testimony or somehow force him into giving an opinion that is scientifically unsound and is contrary to what he believes as a forensic scientist, so what I would suggest is this: If the Court still has a problem with the chart itself for some reason, after looking at the People's brief and the Court believes that it would be helpful to hear more about this issue, then Mr. Matheson should simply be allowed in front of the jury to testify as to this result, to other results, to how he has interpreted them, to the forensic science literature and what he believes the literature requires in making this kind of an interpretation and his bottom line opinion. And after that I think it will become clear to the Court that the chart itself should come in as well as summarizing what is actually placed on the electrophoresis work sheet because the electrophoresis work sheet does in fact provide the 85 as a BA question mark or an inconclusive BA and all of our results to the chart do in fact come either from the electrophoresis work sheet or from the analyzed evidence report, so it is a summary of business records.
THE COURT: Are you suggesting that I conduct this 402 hearing in the course of the presentation of Mr. Matheson?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, yes.
THE COURT: I've heard that before. Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: We certainly object to that and let me make it clear we are not objecting to Mr. Matheson testifying as to how a BA degrades and what makes it look like a B. We are fully prepared to cross-examine him on that issue. But what we are objecting to is inconclusive results are anything other than that on and analyzed evidence report that he prepared was prepared after the work sheets and was based on the observation of the other work sheets. This is the report that he submitted for the attorneys and for the Court and for everyone else who wants to know these are the results that he called and he called them inconclusive and we object to him testifying to anything other than that.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. All right. The Court finds that this particular issue as presented is an issue that goes to the weight of the testimony, the weight that is accorded to the testimony; not necessarily its admissibility. However, having said that, the Court anticipates that we are going to see rather extensive cross-examination as to this particular issue and I have to indicate to counsel for the Prosecution that given Mr. Matheson's original report, I suspect I'm going to have to give rather wide range to the Defense as to these "Inconclusive indications and degrading samples." let's have the jurors.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, there are other issues as well.
THE COURT: Such as?
MR. BLASIER: The Prosecution just brought in a new chart this morning on this very issue, the fingernail, and we have no objection to anything on the chart except there is a picture of Nicole Brown Simpson's body from a long-shot that I think it may have been used before in some other context, but it has no meaning really on this particular chart, and we think it is really gruesome and unnecessary.
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg, will you get to that chart before we break for lunch?
MR. GOLDBERG: I don't anticipate that I will, but it is possible.
THE COURT: All right. Let's assume that we are not going to get to it and I will take a look at it over the lunch hour. I would like to get rolling.
MR. GOLDBERG: I believe it is a photo that has been introduced. And counsel has another motion.
THE COURT: It has to have some relevance, though, but I will look at it over the lunch hour.
MR. BLASIER: We did have an additional motion that Mr. Neufeld is prepared to argue that we filed this morning concerning the order of proof. In essence we are objecting to his testifying to any test results on Mr. Simpson's blood without proper foundation of the person who drew the blood. And Mr. Neufeld is prepared to--
THE COURT: Well, I assume I will hear that objection as soon as there is some testimony regarding the blood, foundational objection.
MR. BLASIER: And finally there was a brief filed on Thursday, I believe, about the business records exception and--
THE COURT: Regarding chain of custody?
MR. BLASIER: Regarding chain of custody. We have no objection to testimony from Mr. Matheson about what amounts to ministerial acts, putting things in packages and sending them off to any other labs, and we would object if they have any intention of offering testimony from Mr. Matheson about tests that some other person did or evidence collection that some other person did under that exception. But I understand from Mr. Goldberg, they don't intend to do that, so that may be a moot point.
MR. GOLDBERG: I don't have a present intention of doing that.
THE COURT: Terrific. Glad to hear it. Let's have the jurors.
MR. BLASIER: Finally, we would object in advance, to avoid a side bar, that if they intend to ask Mr. Matheson any questions about anything our experts have done, either at some other location or in Los Angeles, we object to that and want to be heard about that before that is done.
THE COURT: All right. That would seem appropriate. Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: I do have a present intention of doing that, your Honor.
THE COURT: This morning's session?
MR. GOLDBERG: I don't think we are going to get to it this morning.
THE COURT: Okay. Give me a head's up when that comes so we can discuss that out of the presence. Let's have the jurors, please.
(Brief pause.)
(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 remaining members of our jury panel. Previously in chambers the Court conferred with counsel. The Court has found good cause to excuse from further service juror no. 2. Mrs. Robertson, would you please draw a number of an alternate juror to take seat no. 2.
THE CLERK: Juror no. 1427, will you please have a seat in seat no. 2.
THE COURT: All right. Mrs. Robertson, at the noon break, you will renumber the seats and provide Court and counsel with a revised juror chart.
THE CLERK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, would you call the People's next witness.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. The People call Gregory Matheson to the stand.
Gregory Matheson, called as a witness by the People, was sworn and testified as follows:
THE CLERK: Please raise your right hand. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this Court, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
MR. MATHESON: I do.
THE CLERK: Please have a seat on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.
MR. MATHESON: Gregory Matheson, G-R-E-G-O-R-Y M-A-T-H-E-S-O-N.
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, what is your occupation and your assignment?
MR. MATHESON: I'm employed by the city of Los Angeles working for the Los Angeles Police Department Crime Laboratory. I am currently what is called a Chief Forensic Chemist 1 which is an assistant director of the laboratory.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And sir, in that capacity or in any other, are you part of any conspiracy in this case to frame the Defendant?
MR. MATHESON: No, I am not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Or part of any cover-up for the purposes of framing the Defendant?
MR. MATHESON: No, I am not.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, you said you are the Chief Forensic Chemist?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. That is the title.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what--why is it called that?
MR. MATHESON: Well, that is a civil service class that it was assigned to that position a while back. It exists in two steps; the Chief Forensic Chemist 1, which is an assistant director position, and the Chief Forensic Chemist 2 which is the laboratory director.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And how many Chief Forensic Chemists are there in the crime laboratory?
MR. MATHESON: Well, there is a total of three; one director and two assistants.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. I'm going to get into your training and experience in a few moments, but did you perform some of the conventional serological testing on some of the biological evidence in this case?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And also, did you participate in managing the sending of items out for analysis to outside laboratories?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, do you have a degree that qualified you to become a criminalist at the Los Angeles Police Department?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what was your degree in?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I have a degree in criminalistics from California State University at Long Beach.
MR. GOLDBERG: When did you get that, sir?
MR. MATHESON: It was in May of 1977.
MR. GOLDBERG: And I want to ask you about some of the other courses that you took since then. Do you have your curriculum vitae in front of you?
MR. MATHESON: (Nods head up and down.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you need to refer to that to give us specific dates and times?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: The record should reflect that Mr. Matheson does have before him a ring binder with a number of pages in it.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, since you graduated in 1977, have you taken a fairly large number of courses in furtherance of your training and experience as a criminalist?
MR. MATHESON: At that point it depends on what you mean by "Courses." I have had a handful of what I would call formal training or courses, along with attendance in a number of seminars and meetings and that type of thing.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. I just want to go through some of the courses and seminars that are pertinent to the issue of serology. And let's start with the 1982, two-week FBI class. What was that about?
MR. MATHESON: Well, in 1982 I took a two-week course called buy chemical methods of blood stain analysis that was offered at the FBI academy in Quantico, Virginia. That was mainly about the electrophoretic determination of genetic marker types. It is the steps or the process that is used in what has been called in conventional serology to identify the types of enzymes that are present in the body.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Just so that we are defining some of these terms, when you say "Conventional serology," that is distinguished from what?
MR. MATHESON: That term came around as DNA analysis in forensics started becoming possible or used within the field. In a way to define the difference, we started calling the systems and techniques that we had used for many years as conventional and the rest as being DNA.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you say "Electrophoretic techniques," we will get into this in some more detail further down the line, but can you just give us a simple definition?
MR. MATHESON: Well, electrophoresis is a process or a technique whereby a gel is poured, sample of biological material is placed on the one end of it, an electrical current is passed through it and the end product is a sequence of bands that can be interpreted to tell what you type of blood you are looking at.
MR. GOLDBERG: And were these techniques, the electrophoretic techniques and ABO type testing, around for a significant period prior to the use of DNA technology?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, they were.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in 1987 did you attend a serology symposium?
MR. MATHESON: At--
MR. GOLDBERG: Dealing with collection and preservation of evidence?
MR. MATHESON: There was a symposium held that year which involved attendance by a large number of forensic scientists mainly in the California area. I did attend it; however, I was also one of the working groups that met with one of the committees for several months prior to that in preparation of the meeting. The area that I was involved in was standards and training.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And what was the focus of this particular symposium?
MR. MATHESON: The focus of that symposium which was to elicit what was the standard practice or the consensus of practice within the forensic community at that point in time.
MR. GOLDBERG: In terms of what?
MR. MATHESON: What we were calling conventional serology.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did this deal with any of the collection and preservation aspects or just the testing aspects?
MR. MATHESON: No, it also involved a collection and preservation.
MR. GOLDBERG: And was there any product that was generated as a result of the symposium, such as a manual or pamphlet or publication?
MR. MATHESON: There was kind of a loose-covered document that I don't know the number of pages. It is about a quarter of an inch thick.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And did that cover the subjects of the collection, preservation and the conventional testing?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, was a lot of focus placed at this serology symposium into the mechanics of how you actually collect a stain from a crime scene?
MR. MATHESON: The actually getting down on your knees--
MR. GOLDBERG: Right.
MR. MATHESON: No, it didn't go into that aspect of it very much at all.
MR. GOLDBERG: And do you know why?
MR. MATHESON: The only reason that I can--
MR. BLASIER: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, you were part of this working group?
MR. MATHESON: No. The working group I was in dealt with training.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Has the actual mechanics of how you collect a stain been a controversial issue or a widely discussed issue in the forensic field?
MR. MATHESON: No, it is not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why not?
MR. MATHESON: Because it is a fairly basic process. Even in reviewing a number of forensic tests, there--texts, there is very little reference to that step. They talk about locating the stains and eventually then, you know, packaging and preserving them, but the actual collection is not addressed very often.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, going back to some of the courses that you took, in 1989 did you take, I guess, two classes at the University of New Haven, Connecticut?
MR. MATHESON: Well, they were held at the university, however, they were--you know, it wasn't like a university course, but it was held at that facility.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you tell us what the two classes were?
MR. MATHESON: Well, one of them dealt with the ABO typing of bone samples and the other one was an overview of DNA.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you say "ABO typing," you are referring to what?
MR. MATHESON: Well, that is--it is a fairly common what we call genetic marker. As a matter of fact, it is the genetic marker that most people are aware of. You are either a type a, type b, type o or type AB, and that is a system that hospitals usually use when they are cross-matching bloods for transfusions.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is that also used in blood banking?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, what is commonly referred to as your blood type.
MR. GOLDBERG: How long has that system been around?
MR. MATHESON: I believe it was originally identified at the turn of the century, 1900.
MR. GOLDBERG: So one of these courses dealt with--was it just ABO typing of bones or also--or did it also deal with electrophoresis?
MR. MATHESON: No, that was strictly ABO.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And you said the other course had to do with DNA techniques?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what type of DNA techniques did that deal with?
MR. MATHESON: I believe it was mainly about RFLP, but we also spoke about the PCR technique.
MR. GOLDBERG: And those are two of the techniques that are used in DNA typing?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And was this course instructed by a leading advocate of using DNA technology in forensic cases?
MR. BLASIER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Was the person that taught this course in favor of using DNA technology in a forensic setting?
MR. MATHESON: Well, actually it was taught by several different people. They brought in several different speakers to talk on different subjects, but yes, most of the people that were there were there because they believe in the technology.
MR. GOLDBERG: And was there any particular individual that is prominent in the forensic field that taught this course?
MR. MATHESON: One of the people that was involved in both setting the course up and presenting it was a Dr. Henry Lee, which is the head of the Connecticut State crime laboratory.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does he advocate using or support using DNA technology in forensic cases?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, foundation, hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, did he actually teach some of the courses--one of the courses that you attended?
MR. MATHESON: I believe he was involved in presenting some of the information.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Did he appear to be a supporter of using DNA technology?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, he did.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in January of 1990 did you take a two-week course relating to DNA technology in forensic cases?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And where was that course held?
MR. MATHESON: That course was held at--in Denver, Colorado, at the Analytical Genetic Testing Center.
MR. GOLDBERG: What did the course--how long of a period of time did the course last?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it covered two weeks. The first week dealt with the technique I mentioned before, RFLP typing in general, the basic background to it, involved actually performing some of the tests. The second week focused a little bit more on the technique that was used by the FBI.
MR. GOLDBERG: And then in June of 1990 did you attend some training at the University of New Haven Cetus Corporation?
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I object at this point as being irrelevant and beyond this witness' expertise.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: What was that training?
MR. MATHESON: That was a course that was offered by the Cetus Corporation which I believe at the time was the manufacturer of the PCR kits that were being used for forensics, and it involved the theory and practice and techniques in PCR analysis, along with some hands-on, getting a chance to run the techniques ourselves.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And how long was that course?
MR. MATHESON: I believe it was five days.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in addition to these courses that we just mentioned, did you attend seminars of the California association of criminalists?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when did you start attending those seminars?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I became a member of the California association of criminalists in 1979 and attended every seminar I could go to from that time until now. I believe they are held twice a year and I think I have only missed three or four over that time period.
MR. GOLDBERG: How long are those seminars?
MR. MATHESON: Normally two and a half days; full day Thursday and Friday and half day on Saturday.
MR. GOLDBERG: What range of topics do they cover?
MR. MATHESON: Just about anything to do with forensic sciences.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do they deal with serology issues in these seminars?
MR. MATHESON: Many times serology is one of the main topics of discussion, both in the papers that are given and outside of them.
MR. GOLDBERG: And by the way, what is serology?
MR. MATHESON: Serology deals with the analysis of body fluids.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, and you said that these seminars by the California association of criminalists are twice yearly?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct; once in the fall and once in the spring.
MR. GOLDBERG: And as a result of attending these seminars do you learn the practices that are standard within the criminalistics profession?
MR. MATHESON: That is part of it. Like I said, the seminars have a wide range of topics from particular techniques that may be used in the future that are just becoming available to us, to hints and tips on how to do, you know, current techniques better and just generally kind of dealing with the--you know, the topic in general.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are the forensic scientists who attend these seminars coming only from California or do they come from other places as well?
MR. MATHESON: No, they can come from just about anywhere. As a matter of fact, our last meeting, which was held in the fall, was done in conjunction with the forensic science society from England and we had a number of attendees join us from England.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, is there also an organization known as the American Academy Of Forensic Sciences?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And are you a member of that organization?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I am.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you attend their seminars?
MR. MATHESON: I have attended about four of them, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And how long are their seminars for?
MR. MATHESON: Well, they tend to--the actual papers or technical presentations are basically the same as a CAC meetings, the California Association Of Criminalists, in that they are about two and a half days. The meeting itself can run anywhere from six to eight days because there is an awful lot of ancillary type of activity that goes on.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is that--are those seminars along the same line as the California association of criminalists or do they differ?
MR. MATHESON: Well, in that they cover a lot of different areas of forensics, they are the same. They are significantly larger, though, because that is a national organization and it is composed of not just criminalists, but forensic pathologists, odontologists and dentists, and a lot of different areas in forensics, and each of these specialties are meetings, you know, at the same time in different areas of the same facility.
MR. GOLDBERG: So when you attend one of these meetings, do you go to all of the presentations or just the ones that are involved in your area of specialty?
MR. MATHESON: Well, you can't go to all of them because a lot of them are running at the same time. I try and not just stay with what I have spent most of my time with and that is serology. I like to attend all these that seem interesting or appropriate but will get out and get some exposure to some of the other areas.
MR. GOLDBERG: And as a result of attending these meetings do you also get an idea of the standards and practices that are being used in the forensic community on a nationwide basis?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you mentioned this manual that was generated from the serology symposium, but other than that, have you had the opportunity or have you had time to publish papers yourself while you have been working at the Los Angeles Police Department?
MR. BLASIER: Object to the form of that question as--
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: I have never personally published any sort of scientific paper.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why is that?
MR. MATHESON: Well, normally an awful lot of the papers that appear in scientific journals and that type of thing deal with research, validating existing systems, bringing new systems on line, that type of thing. My interest has not been in research. I enjoy applying the technology. I have always enjoyed doing case work, and a mere fact of the fact that we are with the Los Angeles Police Department and out criminalistics laboratory has a very high case load, there is unfortunately a lot of crime in this city and it does keep us busy just doing case work. So it is a combination of the two things. I don't have a strong interest to get out there and push and do that and I enjoin doing case work and there is plenty of case work to do.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you say "Case work," you are referring to what?
MR. MATHESON: Anything that comes into the laboratory associated with a crime or incidents within the city of Los Angeles. It could range from--the type of case which the laboratory gets run the gamut from narcotics to serology cases associated with homicides and rapes to blood alcohol analysis, just about anything.
MR. GOLDBERG: Let's turn a little bit to your professional career. When you were in school getting your degree in criminalistics, did you work for any law enforcement agencies?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: What agency did you work for?
MR. MATHESON: For the Culver City Police Department.
MR. GOLDBERG: And in what capacity did you work for the Culver City Police Department?
MR. MATHESON: My title was a community service aid and then it got changed to community service officer. Basically it was a student position, it was part-time during school and then full-time during vacations and holidays. I worked a couple of different assignments. I was with them for about five and a half years. Initially I was assigned to patrol where I would go out and assist with booking prisoners when they came in and taking burglary reports, simple things. Occasionally I would have to write parking ticket, that type of thing. I eventually, actually as soon as I could, got transferred out of that area into our identification unit because that interested me more, and in that unit I learned how to process a crime scene, fingerprint burglary scenes, photographed scenes, go out and fingerprint and photograph whatever type of crime scene that happened to come up.
MR. GOLDBERG: You said identification unit. What is that?
MR. MATHESON: Well, normally crime laboratories tend to exist only in the larger cities, the counties, state, you know, federal government, that type of thing. Small municipalities as a rule do not have crime labs. They have called what are called ident sections or identification sections. They focus in on evidence collection, fingerprinting and photography.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you were working with the identification section at the Culver City Police Department, were the people that you were working with criminalists or did they have some other job classification?
MR. MATHESON: Well, we are talking about a small department. The person that I worked directly with would be another civilian. It happened that the two people that I worked for, they were ident--identification technicians, they were both retired; one from the Los Angeles Police Department as a fingerprint person and another was retired from the L.A. County sheriffs as a fingerprint person.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did they also do things like collect biological evidence or was it limited to fingerprints and the like?
MR. MATHESON: No. If there was a reason, if there was a crime that involved biological stains or evidence, either they or I would, depending on who handled the particular scene.
MR. GOLDBERG: So they were collecting biological evidence even though they were not criminalists?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Is that standard throughout the state in terms of the way law enforcement agencies or many law enforcement agencies collect biological evidence?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, sir, are you aware of the standard and practices in a variety of law enforcement agencies as a result of your participation in these various state and national organizations that you have testified to?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, vague as to "A lot" of police agencies.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: I am aware that the personnel that are used to perform different tests varies from agency to agency.
MR. GOLDBERG: And do some agencies use criminalists, whereas other use technicians, identification technicians?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, that is correct. I mean, in the case of the city of Los Angeles we have criminalists, we do not have I.D. techs or identification technicians. We use criminalists to collect that. As I mentioned, many smaller municipalities that don't have crime labs have their I.D. techs collect the evidence, and actually, there are some cities that have their own crime lab that also hire I.D. techs who are the ones that go out and process mainly the simple scenes, but process scenes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, when did you first join the Los Angeles Police Department as a criminalist?
MR. MATHESON: It was in June of 1978.
MR. GOLDBERG: And by the way, are you a sworn personnel as a criminalist?
MR. MATHESON: No, I am not. Our criminalists are civilians.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you first joined the Los Angeles Police Department in 1978, what was your first assignment?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I was hired in as a criminalist 1 and I was assigned to the toxicology unit.
MR. GOLDBERG: And how long were you at the toxicology unit?
MR. MATHESON: I worked toxicology from June of 1978 until I believe it was early January of 1980, so approximately 18 months.
MR. GOLDBERG: What was your next assignment after you were finished in toxicology?
MR. MATHESON: Okay. After working toxicology I was transferred to what we call a special testing unit and in that unit I dealt with maintaining a couple of analytical instruments, running some of the more unique or unidentifiable drugs or narcotics, bomb debris analysis, poisons analysis, variety of different things.
MR. GOLDBERG: So what does special testing unit do in terms of--I mean, do they just test anything and everything that is unknown or what?
MR. MATHESON: Well, with the way our laboratory is laid out, the special testing unit has some specific assignments, such as any sort of bomb residue case, a poison case, that type of thing would go directly to that unit. Bottom line, that basically the people that work that unit get whatever doesn't fit into any of the other units. It is things that may require some sort of unique or special handling.
MR. GOLDBERG: You were there for 18 months you said?
MR. MATHESON: Actually it was a little longer. I believe it was from January of 1980 until I think it was August of `81, so that would be about 20 months.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And where did you go after you were finished with your assignment in special testing?
MR. MATHESON: After that I was assigned to serology.
MR. GOLDBERG: And how long were you assigned to the serology unit?
MR. MATHESON: Well, as a criminalist 2 or doing bench work would have been until I believe it was May of 1988 when I was promoted to what was called a crime 3 then which is our supervisor position.
MR. GOLDBERG: Were you a supervisor in serology initially?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I was.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, you used another term, you said "Bench work." is that the same as case work or different?
MR. MATHESON: That is a term that is used for the person that is actually sitting working on the evidence doing the analysis is called bench work.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. How long have you been a supervisor at the Los Angeles Police Department and the crime laboratory? How many years?
MR. MATHESON: Actually I probably should have referred to my notes before. It was May of `89 when I was promoted, so it would be from May of `89 until October of `94 that I was a supervisor.
MR. GOLDBERG: So when you were first a supervisor, were you supervising anything other than serology at first?
MR. MATHESON: Well, my unit was rolling. I was also a member of one of our special field response teams that goes by the name of the forensic accident investigation team. That was formed while I was a Crim 2. Myself and two other criminalists were assigned to this. It was a special assignment to go out and collect evidence from specialized crime scenes, mainly those that were vehicular-related homicides, hit and runs, that type of thing. When I became a supervisor in May of `89, I was a supervisor then of serology plus of this team that I was on.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you initially became a supervisor and you were supervising this team in serology, did you still play an active role in the bench work that was going on in the unit?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And in addition to that, did you also have any function in terms of reviewing reports and confirming results and the like?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. As supervisor of the unit, one of your goals is to or jobs is to review the analytical notes that come out of the criminalists or the analysts that work in the units. Before a report can be submitted out, we want to have it reviewed by a supervisor and either signed as being complete and accurate or returned to the analyst for either correction or updating, whatever it would require.
MR. GOLDBERG: Were you performing any function in terms of actually reading other people's electrophoresis plates or photographs of the plates?
MR. MATHESON: Actually for the first, oh, three plus years of being supervisor of the unit, I was still doing case work. Obviously it wasn't at the same level as I was before, but I was still an analyst within the laboratory. In addition to that, these electrophoresis plates that I previously described with the band on it, they were always co-read, either the original person that did the run, plus somebody else that was following up on it. It didn't have to be a supervisor, it could be a co-worker. I continue, as a matter of fact to this date, still continue to occasionally co-read plates.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, approximately six months ago did your position within the crime laboratory change?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what did it change to?
MR. MATHESON: Well, in October of 1994 I was promoted to my current position of Chief Forensic Chemist 1 and I currently manage what's called the forensic analysis section of the crime laboratory, which includes not only serology, but other units, such as our trace analysis unit, chemical possessing unit, which does fingerprints in-house, our firearms unit, the vali unit and questioned documents.
MR. GOLDBERG: And are you still performing bench work in this capacity, generally speaking?
MR. MATHESON: No, I have not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are you still performing work in terms of looking at other people's electrophoresis plates and co-reading them?
MR. MATHESON: Occasionally. It is not near as often as it used to be obviously, but if somebody has some work that has been completed and they want it reviewed and there isn't anybody else available in the unit, for whatever reason, then they have come and asked if I would go back and do a co-reading on it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are there any plates that only you are qualified to read or that you are--or that you have to read in the laboratory?
MR. MATHESON: There is one system that--called haptoglobin that I tend to read more than anything else.
THE COURT: How do you spell haptoglobin?
MR. MATHESON: H-A-P-T-O-G-L-O-B-I-N, I think.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why is it that you tend to co-read that more than others?
MR. MATHESON: Well, everybody has their own interest when it comes to a particular system or something within the unit. One of the criminalists that works the unit now is the one that runs them the most and she and I have worked together with it on the past, so I tend to read them for her when she has one of these come available. I haven't done it in I think it has probably been a month or month and a half, so either she is not running that system as often or somebody else now in the unit is training to co-read.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to some of the professional organizations that we asked about, is there also an organization called the American Board Of Criminalists?
MR. MATHESON: It is the American Board Of Criminalistics, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what is that organization?
MR. MATHESON: That is an organization whose function--actually, sole function, is the certification of criminalists on a national basis.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you play any active role in that organization?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: What was that?
MR. MATHESON: I was involved in forming it. I believe it was in 1987 or `88, a group of people was called together and I was one of those that was invited to attend as a guest because I had some experience in certification, program a meeting held back in Chicago, and out of that meeting is eventually born the American Board Of Criminalistics, an incorporated nonprofit organization. And as I said, I was part of that original planning group of it, and then for the first two years of its existence, which I believe it was from February of `90 of `92, I sat as the vice-president of that organization.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you say that this was involved in certifying criminalists, what does that involve?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the process of certifying somebody is that you want to know or have some sort of indication that they possess the basic skills, you know, minimum skills and knowledge to be able to perform their job. And in criminalistics, there was a lacking of a system like this, particularly on a national basis, so what we did is in establishing this organization, gave the profession of criminalists throughout the country a body with which they could apply to, take a test, do proficiency testing, these types of things, to be able to demonstrate that they have the minimum criteria necessary to do this type of work.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what type of showing does a person have to make or criminalist have to make in order to get this certification?
MR. MATHESON: Well, there is actually a couple different levels of this certification process. To be in the American Board Of Criminalistics, to be what is called a diplomate, you have to have two years experience in forensic science. You have to pass a written examination that is on general criminalistics, not in any one particular field, and be working in the field, actively working in it.
MR. GOLDBERG: And do you have that?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, is there also an organization known as the California association--well, we talked about the California association of criminalists. You said you joined in 1979?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you hold any sort of positions within that organization, other than just being a member?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
MR. GOLDBERG: And in 1987 did you begin to hold an office in that organization?
MR. MATHESON: Well, in 1987 I was--I was made the chair of the certification committee. At that time the California association of criminalists was interested in starting the certification program, actually before the national effort began, and the first step toward doing that is putting together a committee. I was the first chair of that committee when it was formed, I believe it was either in January or February of 1987, and I held that position until the program was actually up and running and we were testing people and organizing certificates.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And did your status in that organization change in approximately May of 1990?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. In May of 1990 I was appointed to the position--a board of directors position called the regional director south. Our association is basically divided into north and south and I sat on that position on the board of directors for one year.
MR. GOLDBERG: And then in May of 1991 did you run for president of that organization?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did. Actually it is--you run for president elect. It is a three-year committee. The first year you are president elect you sit on the board, it is a board position, kind of learn the job. The second year is as president of the association. The third year then is the immediate past president where you still stay on the board, have an active position in it, but it gives you a chance to wind down and assist the current president.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you serve in that capacity for those three years?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: So then your term ended in May of `94?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you continue to serve on any committees or any organization within the California association of criminalists today?
MR. MATHESON: At the moment I currently belong to two committees. One of then is the publication committee that is involved with putting together our newsletter, and the other is a financial review committee. I would have liked to have been more active on it, but I have been a little busy lately, so though I belong to them, I haven't been as active as I would like to be.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are you also a member of the California association of crime lab directors?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I am.
MR. GOLDBERG: What is that?
MR. MATHESON: That is association that--I don't know what their current membership is, I think it is probably in the eighty to ninety range--that is made up of managers and supervisors of crime laboratories mainly in California, but we also have members from other states.
MR. GOLDBERG: And while you were working in the serology section of the Los Angeles Police Department can you give us an estimation of approximately how many ABO types--ABO tests you performed during that period of time?
MR. MATHESON: I would like to--I didn't memorize those numbers. I did make myself up a review chart of the type of tests and the quantities that I did. During the course of my--my career in serology--
THE COURT: Hold on just a second. Let counsel review the chart that you are referring to.
THE COURT: Sure.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Proceed.
MR. MATHESON: Okay. In the area of ABO typing I estimated that I have done approximately 6500 of those type of tests.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And approximately how many electrophoresis tests have you performed on something called PGM subtype?
MR. MATHESON: That would be--it was approximately a thousand.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, I would like to ask you a little bit about crime scenes. Have you had any experience in actually going out to crime scenes during your professional career at the Los Angeles Police Department in processing crime scenes yourself?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
MR. GOLDBERG: And approximately how many crime scenes would you say that you have processed?
MR. MATHESON: My best guess is about 150. I didn't have real good statistics on that, but I think that is my best estimate. I think it is conservative.
MR. GOLDBERG: Have you ever rigged up any mock crime scenes for training purposes?
MR. MATHESON: A couple, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And when you attend these seminars at the California association of criminalists and the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, do they cover to some extent--do they cover crime scene investigation as some of the topics in those seminars?
MR. MATHESON: Sometimes they do, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Have you trained any people within the Los Angeles Police Department in terms of crime scene investigation?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
MR. GOLDBERG: Have you trained any people outside of the SID section in crime scene investigation techniques?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Who would that be?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I have been one of the instructors in a couple of our detective training courses that we offer. One of them is the sexual assault detective school. They obviously focus more on scenes and evidence collection relating to sexual assault. I also have taught for a couple of years in our homicide detective school, teaching them open the division's capabilities, SID's capability when it came to crime scene and simple evidence collection techniques. I also teach at a detective supervisor school and we touch lightly on field techniques.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you say "Evidence collection technique," have you ever taught detectives how to collect a stain using LAPD's procedures?
MR. MATHESON: Talking about a biological stain?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why are detectives taught that?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I--we want the detective to be able to have the capability of collecting biological stains, blood drops, that type of thing, if a criminalist isn't available. Though we do have an on-call system where a criminalist is available to be called out anytime of the day or night to assist with evidence collection, we are not always called. Sometimes the--the scene may only have one or two drops or one or two items. You don't feel it is necessary to call us, but that is still evidence that we want to have captured for later analysis, so we have been for I believe it is the last at least six or eight years, training homicide detectives mainly on the proper techniques for collecting biological evidence. We supply them with a blood collection kit, which is simply a file box with the tools that are necessary in it to collect those samples.
MR. GOLDBERG: And are they taught how to, you know, take a control and use the distilled water and use the tweezers and the whole nine yards?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. They are both shown in a demonstration form. We talk to them about it. It is demonstrated to them, and if time permits, we have them practice it within the class.
MR. GOLDBERG: And are detectives in fact collecting biological evidence in the Los Angeles Police Department and submitting it to your laboratory for analysis?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, they do.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, does the Scientific Investigations Division also have a field unit?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, we do.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is that--who supervises that now?
MR. MATHESON: Right now the unit is--they have a lead criminalist or what we call a criminalist 3 that is in charge of that unit. That person also works in another unit. Our trace supervisor is the immediate supervisor of them and then I manage it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, why wasn't the field unit assigned to processing the evidence or collecting the evidence in this case?
MR. MATHESON: The--deciding who ends up processing a scene is mainly a function of what time the call comes in. Like I mentioned a few minutes ago, we have people that are on call, criminalists that are on call 24 hours a day seven days a week. However, if a call comes in during working hours, normal working hours, which for our field unit is 7:30 to 4:00 Monday through Friday, rather than send the off watch person who may be up the night before or may be going out the following night, we send somebody from this field unit to do the evidence collection.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is the field unit--are the people assigned to the field unit necessarily more experienced in crime scene processing than the individuals that are criminalists who are on rotation?
MR. MATHESON: No, not necessarily. They can be. Our field unit consists only of Crim 2 individuals or those people that are advised to the point where they could handle a crime scene by themselves if they had to; however, they--we rotate people through that unit just like we rotate people through our off-watch on-call situation.
MR. GOLDBERG: So if in this case the evidence shows that there was a Bronco search that occurred on the 14th during the daylight hours, why would the field unit not respond to that, as opposed to Mr. Fung and Andrea Mazzola?
MR. MATHESON: Well, what we try and do is maintain some consistency throughout a particular case. If it is possible, the person that handled the scene, say, the night before or week before, if some sort of follow-up occurrence occurs, like a car search or an additional scene, we want the same people handling it that handled the original scene, so in that case that is why we do not send out somebody from the field unit.
MR. GOLDBERG: Would you always have to--if you had two criminalists that responded to the first scene on day no. 1, will you always send the same two criminalists to the second scene or can just one or the other go?
MR. MATHESON: We can--it depends on the circumstances. We can just send one of the team, or if neither one of them is available, we will go and send somebody from another part of the laboratory.
MR. GOLDBERG: But is there any rule that if you use two on day one, you have to use the same two on day two?
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And typically within the Los Angeles Police Department Crime Laboratory do you always send two criminalists to investigate a crime scene?
MR. MATHESON: We try and get two people out to a scene whenever possible, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are there instances where only one is sent?
MR. MATHESON: Well, we make an evaluation as to the complexity of the scene. If it appears that it is going to be something very simple, maybe a simple car search or something that involves going to a tow yard and doing examination, there are times where we will send only one, but we believe two people can do a better job.
MR. GOLDBERG: And was there ever any management decision that was made not to send Andrea Mazzola out to subsequent--certain subsequent scenes after the 14th?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: As far as--I mean, there are obviously decisions made when somebody is sent or not sent, so in that case it was. There has never been a decision made that said she will not handle any more scenes, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: That is what I meant, there was never a decision like that?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: So if on a subsequent scene, because of the complexity, you only needed one person, you would only send one person out?
MR. MATHESON: That is possible, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in this particular case, before testifying, have you watched some of the proceedings or heard some of the proceedings on television or on the radio?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
MR. GOLDBERG: And have you heard some of the testimony and seen some of the testimony related to the crime scene processing?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you also speak to me about the testimony that you were going to give?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What were the nature of those discussions?
MR. MATHESON: Mainly it was--it was a two-way thing. I was in--preparing you for what I was going to be testifying to, just as you would talk and tell me some of the areas that we were going to discuss. Normally it is just acquainting each of us with styles and with general topic areas that are going to be brought up during direct examination.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you also provide me with some instruction in terms of how ABO typing and electrophoresis is performed and certain technical topics such as that?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. That was part of my comment about preparing you for it. There has been kind of a training process going on to a quaint both or to acquaint you with the techniques and the procedures that we use.
MR. GOLDBERG: Have you also talked to any Defense lawyers and given--provided them information about the case as we have progressed?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is there any rule within the LAPD crime laboratory with respect to talking to Defense lawyers? I mean how does that work?
MR. MATHESON: The only rule that we have deals with discovery materials and that is, is that if items are going to be released to the Defense, that the Prosecution--Prosecutor's office is aware of it and that if it isn't your own, that the original criminalist is aware that this information is being provided. Beyond that there is no specific rules about who you can or cannot talk to with regards to a case.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you talk to Defense lawyers?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is it common for criminalists to speak with the person that is going to be calling them as a witness prior to getting on the witness stand and testifying?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. It is not only common, it is preferred. We want to make sure that everybody understands what is going on, that you have a chance to discuss the issues.
MR. GOLDBERG: Let's get a little bit into the issue of collecting evidence. First of all, what does it mean, from a criminalistics standpoint, to collect evidence at a crime scene?
MR. MATHESON: Well, collection involves everything from documenting where the evidence is, describing the item of evidence that is being collected, the actual process of picking the evidence up off of the ground or off of whatever item it might happen to be, eventually packaging and describing it for a property report and then what is called booking it in or placing it into our property facility.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when evidence is collected at the--by a criminalist at the Los Angeles Police Department Scientific Investigations Division, do you use some sort of form in the field for the purposes of doing that?
MR. MATHESON: We have actually a couple Dennis Fung sets of forms, one of them that I believe is called a crime scene checklist and the other is a vehicle search checklist.
MR. GOLDBERG: I wanted to show you Defense 1107 for identification and ask you some questions about that form.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: It is the page, your Honor, that is in table form. Chart form I should say.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Is the resolution good enough so that you can see that, Mr. Matheson?
MR. MATHESON: I can see it. I can't read it, but I can see what it is and I recognize what it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. That is one of the pages in the crime scene identification checklist?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is this page typically filled out contemporaneously with the evidence collection or with certain phases of the evidence collection?
MR. MATHESON: Most of the information is; some of it is filled out later on.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, in terms of the numbers and measures, are those done at the time that the measurements are actually done or shortly thereafter?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I would expect it to. The item number, along with a kind of brief description of what it is, such as red stain, coat, whatever it happens to be, along with the location of where it was found, the--you know, if it was on the street or on a bed, and then measurements in the room or location, if that is appropriate.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, are there any strict rules in the Los Angeles Police Department laboratory with respect to how this form is to be filled out?
MR. MATHESON: No, there isn't.
MR. GOLDBERG: And do you have a function now, in reviewing these forms, after they come back from the field?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the photo i.d. Number column or i.d. Photo number, actually, excuse me, it just says, "I.d. Photo," what is that to be used for, generally?
MR. MATHESON: For me I have always considered that a check box as to whether or not a photograph was taken of a particular item out at the scene. Sometimes it doesn't happen, either a photographer is not available or whatever, and that has been the place where I see, yes, a photo was taken, check it off.
MR. GOLDBERG: Have you noticed any other practices?
MR. MATHESON: I believe that there have been a couple people that use that as an indication of maybe an alternate location if there was a different number used or something. I am aware that people have different interpretations of what that column means.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is there any requirement that you have to check off everything in that column?
MR. MATHESON: Not at this point, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, let's move the form over a little bit.
MR. GOLDBERG: What about the "Buy" column? What is that to be used for?
MR. MATHESON: My understanding of that, is that is a spot where you put your initials, the person that was involved in collecting the evidence.
MR. GOLDBERG: What if you were working in a team, how is that to be used?
MR. MATHESON: Well, in the same way. If a--you have a couple of people out there and for some reason it may be important at some point to know who picked it up, it would be nice to have the initials of the person who was involved in it, but it is not necessarily required.
MR. GOLDBERG: And if you are working in a team and both people saw a particular piece of evidence collected, is there any standard practice with respect to whether you say the person that physically picked it up, his initials should go in there, or both people's or how is that handled?
MR. MATHESON: No. We don't have consistency on that.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And what about the "Time" column? How do you use the "Time" column personally?
MR. MATHESON: Normally you use the "Time" column to bracket things. If I am going to be--many times in the situation of picking up evidence, you go through and you locate the evidence, have it photographed. You put your numbers down and have it photographed with the numbers, do your measurements. You kind of work in groups of items and say a particular vicinity or locale at a scene. What I would do is record the time of the first item in a group that I pick up, rough guess as to what time it is, you know, look at my watch or something like that, and then I record the time of the last item in that group and just run a line between them. Sometimes I don't even record that information on this form. I have also been known to write it on the packaging or the envelope and then come back and fill that information in later.
MR. GOLDBERG: So if you had ten items, you would know--in that particular group you would know when the first and the tenth were collected with some specificity?
MR. MATHESON: Roughly, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And then everything else would just be an arrow between those two times?
MR. MATHESON: A line, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do other criminalists use that in the Los Angeles Police Department?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And are there other practices that are used?
MR. MATHESON: Well, there are some people that record the time for each and every time that they pick up.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, from a serology standpoint, if you are talking about a stain that was collected at, let's say, eleven o'clock and then a second stain that was collected at 11:15, is there any forensic significance to knowing that one was at a 11:00 and the other one was at 11:15, generally?
MR. BLASIER: Objection--
THE COURT: Objection.
MR. BLASIER: --to the phrase forensic "Significance." no foundation as to what that means.
THE COURT: Vague.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, is there any significance from a serology standpoint to the time difference?
MR. MATHESON: No, there isn't.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, within the forensic community, based upon your membership in these various organizations that you have discussed, are you aware of any consistent practice with respect to when you are working in a team investigating crime scenes whether you should signify who physically collected a particular piece of evidence, whether you should separate it out?
MR. MATHESON: I don't remember having any discussions about that.
MR. GOLDBERG: That is not a hot topic within the forensic community?
MR. MATHESON: No, it isn't.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. What about the issue of the times? Is that a--
THE COURT: Would you locate that item.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: What about with respect to the portion of the list that says "Time" or notating the time? Does that appear to be a controversial or hot topic within the forensics community as to how you should fill that kind of information out?
MR. MATHESON: Not specifically as to how it should be filled out.
MR. GOLDBERG: What is the goal that is--the criminalist is trying to achieve in generating this paperwork? I mean, why do you even have to bother with it?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the main reason is to be able to locate where the items came from. The most important piece of information that is on there or the sequence of information that exists on that form is the item number, the location where the item came from and a description of the item itself. That way you can track that item through the system. Many of the other items that are on there are nice to have, but the most important thing are those three items; the number, the location and a brief description of what it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: So do those three items help you to place a particular piece of evidence back in the crime scene? In other words, figure out where it came from specifically?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. Well, it relates back to the photo that was taken of it, so you can see a picture of how it was at the scene and gives you a location of, you know, in general where it was.
MR. GOLDBERG: But if you have a photograph, is it absolutely necessary to even have this kind of information? I mean, isn't it duplicative to a certain extent?
MR. MATHESON: Well, to a certain extent, but not completely. Photographs are not perfect in their depth or their perception as to where they are. It is still nice to have, you know, measurements to generally locate where it is in relation to other items in relation to a room or in relation to a victim, something like that.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, is there any rule within the Los Angeles Police Department as to whether this form can be filled out in pencil or pen or any other writing instrument?
MR. MATHESON: No, there isn't.
MR. GOLDBERG: And with respect to erasures, is there any rule on that?
MR. MATHESON: No, there isn't.
MR. GOLDBERG: If the form is a mess to the point that it is difficult to read, can the criminalist rewrite it?
MR. MATHESON: Are we talking about the whole form?
MR. GOLDBERG: Or portions of it?
MR. MATHESON: There is no rule that says they can't rewrite or clarify certain areas of the document.
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe we can just look at the next page.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: 17, 18 and 19.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: This is also 1107, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Have you seen this--taken a look at this document before?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
MR. GOLDBERG: For instance, on this document, if you wanted to clean it up to mays it in numerical order and because some--some of the items appear to have been erased and written over, is there any rule that would prohibit you from doing that?
MR. BLASIER: Objection to leading.
THE COURT: Overruled. But we have gone over this.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, but--
THE COURT: Previously.
MR. GOLDBERG: But it is something that the Defense made a lot about it.
THE COURT: But we have gone through it, we have discussed it. You can get his perspective as a manager, but I think we have about covered it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Just one question on this and we spent about an hour on it during the Defense case.
THE COURT: Well, counsel, one question. Proceed.
MR. MATHESON: Can you repeat the question?
MR. GOLDBERG: If I don't get in trouble.
MR. GOLDBERG: With respect to this type of form, if the criminalist wanted to clean this up because there are erasures or just to put things back in numerical order, would there be any rule against that?
MR. MATHESON: There would be no rule with them rewriting it from an administrative point of view. I would like to have the original still thrown in with the notes, but if it made things clearer to rewrite things or reorder them, that would be fine.
MR. GOLDBERG: But is there any written policy or oral policy on that one way or another, that you are aware of?
MR. MATHESON: No, there isn't.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you said that part of your function is to--currently as a supervisor is to review--thank you--crime scene identification checklists when they come back. Did you do that in this particular case? Did you review these?
MR. MATHESON: Well, as the--when I was a supervisor of the trace and--or serology unit, I also at one point was given the trace unit. One of my duties did involve the review of field notes as it related to crime scenes. These were not reviewed prior to their photo identifying and distribution.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why was that?
MR. MATHESON: It was mainly a function of the hecticness at the time. We were involved both in this case and along with many other ones that go on constantly within the city. Mr. Fung does not work directly in our facility, he is in one of our satellite locations, and he had the notes with him for a period of time, and it was just a matter of circumstances that by the time we got copies of the original ones for distribution, they had not been reviewed at that point.
MR. GOLDBERG: And who was supposed to actually review those while you were the trace supervisor? Was it supposed to be you personally or did you have someone under you?
MR. MATHESON: The normal process would be the notes would be left in a box in our trace unit. They would be initially reviewed by our lead or the Crime 3 of the field unit and then he would give them to me with a recommendations of either filing them because they are complete or suggested things to advise the criminalist on when it came to maybe making them more complete prior to filing.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you have a Crime 3 of the trace unit at the time that this case was--at the time that Mr. Fung and Miss Mazzola went out and investigated the crime scenes?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Was he at that time reviewing them or were you doing it?
MR. MATHESON: It was--we were both doing it. He was--he was reviewing the majority of them, but I was also involved in that.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And what is the purpose of reviewing them at all?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it is kind of a two-fold purpose. One of them we are looking to see if they are complete or as complete as possible, that they have recorded things like field tests that were performed, that--mainly that they were as complete as if there were areas that were left undone, we would send them back to the criminalist, and if he had that information available, we would ask them to make them complete. If they didn't have it or they would have to just make guesses on the information, we didn't want that. At that point it becomes a training process in that we point out to them maybe you should put a little more detail here, you should make sure your measurements are all included, whatever it happened to be, so that the next time they went out in the field their notes would be more complete than they are currently are.
MR. GOLDBERG: So on occasion you will ask someone to actually add something to the crime scene identification checklist, to add some additional information?
MR. MATHESON: I will if I'm sure that they know that information, that they are absolutely positive, that they are not just putting something in there to fill it in.
MR. GOLDBERG: And that review process serves as a training function?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, on the crime scene identification checklist in this case, there has been some testimony that Andrea Mazzola was placed on as the officer in charge on the Bundy list, her name.
MR. MATHESON: I am aware of that, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is there any significance to that?
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why is that done typically? What does that signify?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the OIC or officer in charge, just normally by habit it is the person who is on call. Officially that weekend Miss Mazzola was the criminalist on call. When Detective Headquarters Division, which is the section of our department that dispatches us, has a homicide scene where a criminalist is requested, they go to a sheet that we supply them on every Monday and Friday, and refer to the name of the criminalist that is available, and the name appearing on that sheet was ms. Mazzola. She then, because of the fact that she was a Crime 1, would call the Crime 3 that was responding to her, the supervisor, in this case, Mr. Fung. So it merely was an indication of the fact that it was her weekend on call and her name was placed on top.
MR. GOLDBERG: And that is how it is typically done? Is that what you are testifying to?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to collecting evidence again, do you have a practice that when you are talking about biological evidence, of collecting representative samples?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What does that mean?
MR. MATHESON: To me a representative sample is--well, probably the best way to do it is by an example. If you have a blood trail that leads away from a scene or into a scene, whatever, if you have a blood trail that consists of thirty or forty drops that goes on for a block or two, it would be unnecessary and inappropriate to pick up every single drop of blood along that trail, because you can tell by looking at it that it is a continuous trail being dropped by the same person. What we would like to see, rather than picking up all forty of them and spending the time doing that, is to pick up what we call a representative sample of that trail, a blood sample from the beginning, maybe one or two in the middle, depending on how long it is, or more, and one from the end. I would also expect somebody that is doing a trail like that to collect any sample that appeared out of place or not consistent with the trail. That is my definition of what a representative sample from a crime scene is.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what about in a situation as in a car like the Bronco in this case? Do you have to collect every last stain in there or do you take a sample of them? How do you do it?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it depends on the quantity of blood that is present. If there are a couple of stains that are grouped together, then I would say, no, you probably are not going to collect every single one of them. I would expect that in doing a car search you would pick up samples from different areas within the vehicle that represent the possibility of different blood samples coming from different individuals.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what is the purpose of taking representative samples in situations like the ones you have talked about, as opposed to just collecting every last stain that is there?
MR. MATHESON: Well, we deal with reality when it comes to resources. We have only a certain number of people that are available to collect evidence and a certain number of people to analyze evidence and at some point you have to be practical, you have to decide that you are spending too much time picking up every one of these 20 samples where that time could be better spent evaluating other parts of the scene, getting the samples packaged and ready to go. And then ultimately, when it comes to the serology unit, they are not going to analyze all of those items as a rule anyway, they are going to have relied on the person at the scene to pick up the best samples, the ones that are most representative of the crime and the people that were involved and it is the best utilization of the resources so that we can get as much provided for the people of Los Angeles as we can with the resources that we have.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you Judge how well a criminalist has done in terms of processing or investigating a crime scene with biological evidence by figuring out the quantity of stains that he or she collected?
MR. MATHESON: No. We have had some people that collect very few but always seem to find the most probative sample, and we have had people in the past that collect many, many samples, but don't always give us the best information.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you say most probative, you mean what?
MR. MATHESON: Ones that answer the questions, ones that if there is multiple people bleeding at a scene, that we are getting blood from multiple people and not just from one. Whatever is necessary to get the most appropriate or the best information out of the evidence that is there left at the scene.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, is this idea of using selectivity in collecting evidence one that is discussed in some forensic science literature?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I am aware of it being discussed elsewhere.
MR. GOLDBERG: And specifically, did you look at the discussion of this idea in Henry Lee's book on crime scene identification, the one that I always refer to as Henry Lee child's edition?
MR. MATHESON: I have seen that information in his book, yes, that you need to be selective in the samples that you collect.
MR. GOLDBERG: And I would like to just show you one portion of this book and see whether you have taken a look at it. It just has big print. That is the big print book. You recognize it?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: Yes, "Child's" referring to the size of the print.
MR. GOLDBERG: Referring to the size of the print, big print. It was my idea of a joke, but anyway.
THE COURT: You are obviously not at the age where you need bifocals.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I am getting there.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: May I approach the witness?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. GOLDBERG: And directing your attention to page 79, the first full paragraph, maybe you could just--have you considered that paragraph? Have you read that before?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have read it before.
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe you could just read what Dr. Lee says about collecting evidence where it starts "Recognition" and--well, maybe just starting there through the rest of the paragraph.
MR. MATHESON: "Recognition of evidence involves selectivity and a general understanding of logic of crime scene. If all objects at the scene are collected and submitted to a forensic laboratory for further analysis, the forensic facility will be overwhelmed. If critical evidence is omitted or improperly preserved, the use of sophisticated equipment cannot salvage the investigation, hence correct crime scene search and collection methods are of paramount importance."
MR. GOLDBERG: So basically it is a balancing act between not wanting to overwhelm the laboratory with too much and not wanting to miss the relevant evidence?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the Bronco--well, I will get into that later. Have you heard some testimony to the effect that in this particular case that there were five stains at Bundy location, all of which were collected, whereas there were three stains at the Rockingham location, a, b and c, that were not collected?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is there, from a forensic science standpoint, in terms of crime scene identification, based upon your understanding of the evidence in this case, any reason for that?
MR. MATHESON: There is a--my understanding of it, yes, there is an explanation for that.
MR. GOLDBERG: What is that?
MR. MATHESON: Well, in the case of the items that were collected from Bundy, that was the crime scene. We had two victims there and there were blood droplets that appeared to be inconsistent with having come from either of the victims, so they would indicate somebody else had been present at that location. At that point it made sense to collect as much as possible of that, keeping in mind what I said before, if it had been extremely long I would have expected them not to collect all of them but to collect a good representative sample of what we have there as far as the blood goes. As far as the other location at Rockingham, that was not a crime scene, it was another location that may or may not have been involved, and they used a little bit more selectivity there, collecting a stain at the beginning, at the end, and leaving some of the ones in between in place.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your understanding is that there was no body or evidence that a crime actually occurred at that location?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is it your understanding that there was no body or evidence that a crime was actually committed at that particular location?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: It is okay. I will withdraw the question.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, did you also hear some evidence to the effect of a--I'm not sure if it was triangular, but a little corner piece of paper that was in the area of the entrance to the caged-off area not having been collected?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what is your view on that?
MR. MATHESON: As far as I am concerned--
MR. BLASIER: Well, I'm going to object to that question as being vague.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Should that have been collected?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why?
MR. MATHESON: The area that we are talking about, as far as this crime scene goes, is fairly limited in size and not like--again, using an example, if the crime had occurred in an alley where there was a lot of debris, a lot of trash around, then some selectivity should have been done. You are not going to collect every bit of paper, every bit of trash that is in an alley. This particular area, though, was smaller, I assume had some maintenance done on it with some regularity, possibly cleaning up. A piece of paper in that location kind of stands out as being potentially involved somehow, and had the criminalist been aware of it existence, should have collected it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And could the non--could the failure to collect that item have in any way affected any of the other biological evidence, some of which you tested in this case?
MR. MATHESON: No, not in any way.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe we can just get a picture. I'm sorry. While they are looking for that, let me go on to another topic and then we will come back to it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Does the Los Angeles Police Department use plastic baggies or plastic bags for the purposes of putting the wet swatches until they have had an opportunity to dry them?
MR. MATHESON: The plastic baggies are used to transport the evidence, yes, until they can be taken back to the laboratory, opened up and allowed to dry.
MR. GOLDBERG: And how long has that procedure been used?
MR. MATHESON: Well, that is the one that I learned pushing 17 years ago, so it has been in use at least that long.
MR. GOLDBERG: And during the 13 or so years that you were involved in the serology, was that--was that right, was it approximately 13?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, approximately 13 years.
MR. GOLDBERG: What affect, if any, did you observe on that collection technique on the evidence that you were actually testing?
MR. MATHESON: Well, considering it was the technique that was used and it was the standard technique in our laboratory, and we would with regularity analyze evidence items that would give us good typeable or identifiable results, I would have to say that the use of that technique was appropriate and effective for bringing samples into the laboratory for analysis.
MR. GOLDBERG: And during the 13 or so years that you were in serology, did you notice any particular problems in terms of evidence being degraded to the point where you couldn't get results?
MR. MATHESON: Well, there is not an ongoing problem at all with degradation that I can relate back to the bags. Occasionally we would have a piece of evidence come through that had been allowed to stay in the bag, that is very inappropriate, and that would show us problems with that evidence.
MR. GOLDBERG: Under what circumstances would that happen?
MR. MATHESON: If the person forgets to take it out, if they were not properly trained. That would happen sometimes with the detectives. It is just is a situation that would occur, though very rarely.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sometimes when the detectives were collecting some of the stains?
MR. MATHESON: Occasionally, but rarely.
MR. GOLDBERG: And in those instances where it was not taken out of the bag to dry for an extended period--well, when you say "Extended" what do you mean?
MR. MATHESON: I mean as far as ultimate packaging, it then gets put on a shelf and is left anywhere from many days to months.
MR. GOLDBERG: You mean you would have situations like this occasionally with detectives?
MR. MATHESON: Where we would see a blood sample still left in a plastic bag?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah.
MR. MATHESON: Occasionally but rarely.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what happened on those samples?
MR. MATHESON: Normally they were degraded. You won't get false results; you would just get no results.
MR. GOLDBERG: What do you mean you wouldn't get false results?
MR. MATHESON: Well, except for a very specific situation, degradation of a sample doesn't change the type to another type; it just makes it so you don't get no information at all.
MR. GOLDBERG: So when you say "No information," when you do your tests what do you come up with?
MR. MATHESON: No result. There is no typeable result that is obtained.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: So in that particular instance, if the perpetrator's blood has in fact been lifted from a crime scene or a crime location and the results have been degraded to the point where you don't get any information, would that benefit the perpetrator?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: MR. GOLDBERG: Would that cause the perpetrator to be falsely included as a possible donor of the stain?
MR. MATHESON: No, it would not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Could it cause the perpetrator to be falsely excluded?
MR. MATHESON: No, there is no information there at all; it just wouldn't provide any forensic information.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, let me just go back to this photograph. I would like to mark this photograph as People's 205 for identification of what appears to be the little piece of paper. I think it is depicted in some other photographs.
(Peo's 205 for id = photograph)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: May I approach the witness?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Matheson, I would like to show you 205. Is this your understanding of the piece of paper that we just questioned you about?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Can we see that?
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And is this the piece of paper you said that would you have collected if you had been out at the crime scene?
MR. MATHESON: If I was aware, yes, that is one of the items.
MR. GOLDBERG: Assuming it hadn't been covered over by a blanket or some other item and you had seen it?
MR. MATHESON: If I had seen it, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, is this the kind of thing where there is a hard and fast rule that you should collect it or is this the kind of thing about which reasonable forensic scientists could differ? I mean, how would you characterize it?
MR. MATHESON: When it comes to what to collect, there are very few hard and fast rules. That is what is acquired with experience, the mental picture of what you collect and what you don't collect. So far as a hard and fast rule whether or not somebody should collect it or--or told to collect it by a manual, no, that doesn't exist.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And in your estimation, Mr. Matheson, if this particular piece of paper were located in an area where there was a fairly extensive pooling of the victim's blood, would this be the kind of evidence that you would want to test for biological evidence showing the victim's blood type?
MR. MATHESON: I don't believe I would recommend this particular item to be tested for the biological evidence on it, particularly in light of other evidence that was collected.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, going back to the issue of collecting--
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Why would you not recommend that that be collected--tested for biological evidence?
THE COURT: Do you want to rephrase that.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why would you recommend that that piece of biological evidence or the biological evidence on it not be tested further for genetic markers?
MR. MATHESON: Like I just mentioned, we have to look at the whole scene and we do have other items of biological evidence that provide information as to what possibly occurred. This particular one being found in close proximity to the victim, being heavily blood-stained, at some point we do have to make some assumptions and the assumption would be that the blood that is present on that is coming from the victim herself. At some point, if it really seemed necessary, or if there was a lot of other evidence in the case, we may want to go after and analyze some of the individual drops, but it would be a low priority when it comes to that.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: I just wanted to show one of the overall photographs of the crime scene that has already been marked.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I wanted to show him People's--
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: It is 43-d, and I guess this is--it is a bloody photograph, but--so the Court might want to cut the feed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, showing you what has been previously marked as People's 43-d, in this area of the pooling of the blood, how much, if any, of that blood on the sidewalk--it is not a sidewalk--in this walkway should be tested?
MR. MATHESON: On that particular location very little of that blood--it is--common sense does come into play when you are picking and choosing which items to analyze or which items to collect, and common sense would tell you that by far, if not all of the blood that is visible in that picture is coming from the victim herself. I would want at least one sample or item of that blood to be collected as a standard of the victim, but--
MR. GOLDBERG: And if the evidence showed that the piece of paper were found in what would be the upper right-hand portion of the photograph, would that location be consistent with the answer that you previously gave about why you would not want to test that necessarily for biological evidence?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is there anything about the photograph and the placement of the object that would relate to your answer previously given as to testing the piece of paper for biological evidence?
MR. MATHESON: Well, given the location of that piece of paper and the way it is heavily stained, I wouldn't say that we would never test it, but it would be a very low priority.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, getting back to the issue of collecting stains, have you looked at the Los Angeles Police Department manual, specifically section 525.2, as to booking of biological evidence?
MR. MATHESON: I--yes, I have. I have looked at a number of manual references. I would like to make sure that the one you are talking about is the one I'm thinking of.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm just going to show this to refresh the witness' recollection.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, showing you a section of the Los Angeles Police Department manual, do you recognize that?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: And specifically 525.2 talks about preserving wet stains?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does that state in the second sentence that "Plastic containers or plastic wrap shall not be used as a packaging material"?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.
MR. GOLDBERG: What is your understanding of that requirement?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the--the operative term there is "Packaging." We teach an inconsistency with the manual at that paint and say that biological evidence should never be stored or packaged for permanent storage in plastic.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when you say "Packaging," final packaging, what are you talking about?
MR. MATHESON: When the items are submitted to our property division for storage until such time they are analyzed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. I will get into that a little bit more later. So in terms of the usage of plastic bags for transporting a stain from the scene to the laboratory when it is dried, within the forensic science community and among serologists, is that one acceptable technique for collecting a stain?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, does the Los Angeles Police Department--let me just ask you another question about the manual first. Is this manual, the manual provisions dealing with the booking of evidence, are they up to date?
MR. MATHESON: No, they are not.
MR. GOLDBERG: In what manner are they not up to date?
MR. MATHESON: A perfect example is, is we currently have within part of SID a property room that is called the evidence control unit and we have a courier system which are light-duty officers that travel throughout the city at night collecting evidence from the different stations and bringing them down to our evidence control unit for final storage. Both of these functions have been in existence for at least, well, I believe two to three years, one of them longer than that, and there is no reference to either one of them that I am aware of in the manual.
MR. GOLDBERG: In other words, there is no reference to this new evidence control unit that you have at SID in the manual?
MR. MATHESON: That is my understanding, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And if a piece evidence is collected from a crime scene, biological evidence, in a manner that is forensically accepted, but the manual provisions have not been updated in such a way so as to authorize that particular collection, would it affect the outcome of the test?
MR. MATHESON: Well, first off, I would rather they followed the proper procedure rather than following the manual.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
MR. MATHESON: If that is the way that we are doing something, then it is better to use a procedure that is going to give you the best results than a reference in the manual that may be outdated.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the crime scene truck, is there a refrigerator in the crime scene truck?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, there is.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what kind of materials are stored in the refrigerator?
MR. MATHESON: Mainly it is chemicals, particularly chemicals that we use for field spot tests.
MR. GOLDBERG: Would there be any problems in storing biological evidence in the refrigerator?
MR. MATHESON: Any problem with it?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah.
MR. MATHESON: No. There isn't a lot of space, but there wouldn't be a problem with it.
MR. GOLDBERG: What about spillage? Is there any issue concerning spillage of these chemicals on to the biological evidence?
MR. MATHESON: Well, ultimately that could be a problem, but we don't have a lot of spillage in them, but we do carry chemicals in there.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, is there any rule that you are supposed to use the refrigerator when you are collecting a stain?
MR. MATHESON: No, there is none.
MR. GOLDBERG: What about with respect to the whole blood? When whole blood is collected and a criminalist comes into possession of it, does that whole blood that is taken as a reference sample have some preservative in it?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.
MR. GOLDBERG: I would just like to show you what has been previously marked as Defense exhibit 11--1111--excuse me, 1112, and 1124 for identification, two purple-topped tubes. Do you recognize those items?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: What are they?
MR. MATHESON: They are two sample of two different brands of blood collection tubes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What is the significance of the purple tops?
MR. MATHESON: The color of the top of any tube indicates the preservative or anticoagulant that is present inside of the tube. Purple, that happens to pertain to something that goes by the initials of EDTA.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you use purple-topped tubes in the laboratory?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, we do.
MR. GOLDBERG: And do they come from the manufacturer with the EDTA in them?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What does it do?
MR. MATHESON: It--I'm not sure if it is just an anticoagulant or if it is an anticoagulant preservative, but it helps the blood to stay in such a position that it is available or typing.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is it helpful when you have EDTA to refrigerate that reference sample immediately?
MR. MATHESON: Not immediately.
MR. GOLDBERG: How long can you keep the purple-topped tube out or should you keep it out before you refrigerate it?
MR. MATHESON: I don't know if I know of any particular, you know, specific time frame. I would like--personally I would like it to get into a refrigerator as soon as it is possible. However, I do know that we get legitimate results if it is not placed to a refrigerator as soon as possible, so I can't give a specific time frame on that.
MR. GOLDBERG: What happens if you get a reference sample from a living victim or a living Defendant--the Defendant has to be living--and the activity from the tube is lost genetic activity?
MR. MATHESON: Well in that situation that creates a little bit more paperwork, I'm sure, but the source of that blood is still available. We can get additional tubes.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, would this be a good spot?
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe could I just ask one more question to tie this up, if I could?
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what is the effect therefore if the genetic activity is lost from one of these tubes?
MR. MATHESON: Well, if it is lost, then the information from that particular tube is no longer available to us; however, if we can get an additional sample from that individual, the results would be exactly the same as from the first tube.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what if you couldn't get an additional sample from the individual? Would you get a false inclusive as a result of the blood vial having degraded?
MR. MATHESON: No. You wouldn't get a result. There would be nothing to compare the information from your evidence items to compare it to.
MR. GOLDBERG: Similar to the case of a dried stain taken from a crime scene?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that is similar to the explanation that you previously gave when we were discussing the stain taken from a crime scene?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct, in that if you lose the information, there isn't anything there to compare it to. You do not make then erroneous comparisons; inclusions or exclusions.
MR. GOLDBERG: And in this particular case were you able to test and get results from the reference sample that came from the Defendant?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you test the reference sample in this case, item no. 17?
MR. BLASIER: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: I didn't hear grounds.
THE COURT: Foundation.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. I will take it up--maybe we could take it up during the--
THE COURT: All right. The person whose cellular telephone went off is ordered to immediately surrender that telephone.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: In this section of the courtroom.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: If I don't get a response from anybody, everybody is going to be searched in and out of the courtroom for the presence of cellular telephones and pagers. We have had number problems with this. We have disrupted these proceedings six times already.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: I don't want to have to order the bailiffs to search each individual person, so the person with the cellular phone--
AN UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: There was a couple ladies back here and they left.
THE COURT: Their purses were searched when they left.
AN UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Oh.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. The bailiffs are ordered to search each individual entering the courtroom. No pagers, cellular telephones, any noise devices may not be allowed in the courtroom from this point hence. All right. We will be in recess, one o'clock.
(At 12:01 P.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)
Los Angeles, California; Monday, May 1, 1995 1:00 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: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All the parties are again present. Mr. Blasier, when we recessed, you indicated that there was something about--we had one other issue, one of the boards that you had an objection to.
MR. BLASIER: Actually now there are two issues, Judge. They just brought another board in.
THE COURT: All right. Well, let's take a look at the first board.
MR. GOLDBERG: Which board?
MR. BLASIER: The fingernail board.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is it okay if we arrange this in this manner so it's--
THE COURT: Yes. I have before me a board that's entitled, "Nail clippings, scrapings, Nicole Brown." and my recollection, Mr. Blasier, you made an objection to the photograph that appears on the bottom?
MR. BLASIER: That's correct. On the bottom and middle.
THE COURT: What's the nature of the objection?
MR. BLASIER: It's overly gruesome, doesn't add anything to the topic of the fingernails. It adds nothing. It tends to inflame the jury resulting in an emotional reaction rather than non-emotional. I object to it on those grounds. It's already in evidence I think in some other form. I would object to having it on the chart as well.
THE COURT: What's the other evidence, markings of this particular photograph? Mr. Fairtlough, do you know that?
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Yes, your Honor. I believe it is People's exhibit no. 42. Let me just check and verify that. Actually, your Honor--I am sorry. It is not yet in evidence. There are very similar photographs to it that are People's exhibit no. 42, which bear the frame counter number 0039. This bears the frame counter 0040. Does the Court wish to see the two photos?
THE COURT: No. I recognize the scene that's depicted there. All right. Mr. Goldberg, why do we need this?
MR. GOLDBERG: What?
THE COURT: Why do we need this?
MR. GOLDBERG: The reason is that this goes back to the EAP issues. The Court recalls the Defense made a big deal in the opening statement about someone else's blood being found under Nicole Brown's fingernails, and we're going to address that in some great detail. The Court knows that one of the things we want to do in order to do that is to put on evidence as to the testing of item no. 42, which is the blood underneath Nicole Simpson, Nicole Brown. And what I want to be able to show here is why it was reasonable from a forensic science standpoint to make an inference about the results under the fingernails from the results on the pool of blood. I want to show that they are in contact, that she is lying in that area and that the blood that Mr. Matheson tested, item no. 42, is subject to the same environmental conditions and was deposited on the crime scene at the same time presumably as the blood underneath the fingernails.
THE COURT: So you're saying the relevance is the location and position of the hands from whence the nail scrapings come?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah, in contact with the pool of blood and then the relevance of the hands themselves, the close-ups of the hands, which I believe may also be in evidence according to Mr. Blasier. Is that they do the same thing. They're showing that this is all really part of one contiguous and continuous blood source, and therefore, we can take test results from a variety of locations in that source of blood under the fingernails and interrelate them trying to figure out what's happening to the items underneath the fingernails.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier, do you have any response to that?
MR. BLASIER: Just that the jury has seen these pictures over and over and over again. You can't even see item 42 in any of these pictures. I think it's irrelevant and cumulative and prejudicial.
THE COURT: All right. The Court finds that in this particular context, the location and position of the hands relative to the crime scene itself, the pool of blood and the location of Nicole Brown Simpson as she was found, that there is significant probative value with regards to the nail clippings and scrapings and that the jury has already seen a similar picture to this in a relevant context. I don't think it will have the inflammatory effect that counsel argues. So the objection will be overruled. All right. What's the second board?
MR. BLASIER: There's a new chart that just was brought down at 1:00 o'clock I believe, and it concerns testing by the Defense. And this was an issue that we talked about a number of times before. We're waiting for a ruling from the Court on issue related to these items on this board I believe. And we have--we weren't aware that they were going to have a board like this. We strenuously object to the Prosecution going into anything concerning what we have done during the course of our confidential privileged investigations. We have stated many times that we are not challenging chain of custody for any of these items during the period of time when we had possession of them. There is virtually no probative value. Clearly there's a prejudicial effect to what they want to do. We strenuously object to any testimony concerning what happened to items when they were in our possession or what didn't happen to items.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, with the Court's permission, maybe Mr. Harmon could address this because he's going to use this with one of his witnesses and mine in order to establish the authentication for the exhibit.
THE COURT: All right. Let me ask you though, Mr. Goldberg, before you go one question. When do you anticipate using this?
MR. GOLDBERG: I'd say I probably have about an hour and a half worth of material to cover to two hours is my best guesstimate prior to this board.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harmon.
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, this--remember, we proposed the stipulation that could accomplish what this board accomplishes, and it kind of disappeared from everybody's agenda. This board is our attempt to utilize the provisions that you made in your order on February 8th. They would like everybody in the world and this jury to think they never tested any evidence in this case, and that's simply not the case. They took part of our samples in October. They did not have writing on them. That was pursuant to the Court's order. Mr. Matheson can lay the foundation for that being turned over. When they came back, they had all these names and dates all over them, and that's the subject of what we're going to discuss Wednesday afternoon, but it's also contained in the stipulations. And so absent them stipulating to a very sanitary, you took our evidence, you brought it back, you consumed part of it in the testing, which is what you afforded us the opportunity to do, we have to prove it, and this is one way that we begin proving it, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: The critical phrase there is "Consumed in testing." we've stated from the beginning we have no objection to the jury being told that the reason there is a half of three swatches missing is because it was provided to the Defense. The jury needs to know nothing beyond that. Mr. Harmon wants to get into what we may have done in a confidential privileged basis where he wasn't there. He doesn't have the foundation to go into that. He wants to raise some sort of specter that because we've tested evidence, that we got results we didn't like, which is not--
THE COURT: So your objection is characterizing it as having been used in testing rather than just having been given to you for whatever purpose you deem appropriate?
MR. BLASIER: Correct.
THE COURT: So if the Court's instruction to the jury is that on such and such a date, this item, for example, item 47, the possession of which was given to the Defense, that a certain portion of that was given--was removed and given to the Defense and then the remainder returned to the Prosecution on a subsequent date, you have no objection to that--
MR. BLASIER: No problem with that at all.
THE COURT: All right. Then you would have I take it then no objection if that is the limitation on the testimony here with regards to these packaged items?
MR. BLASIER: Well, I would object to the introduction of these large photographs and the packaged items with all sorts of signatures on them that presumably Mr. Harmon is going to feel the need to explain to the jury where they came from. Nothing is added by this chart that isn't conveyed to the jury by what you just said, what the Court just said.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harmon.
MR. HARMON: Well, we've been pussyfooting around with this for months now, Judge, and every time--you know, we tried to make it in a direct very sterile way, and then they dodged it, then they filed this prosecutorial misconduct when any fool can read what happened to these things. And now when we're about to prove things, which is what the jury trial is about, now they want you to just tell them something. Well I'd rather that--we're not asking for a stipulation. We're not asking for an instruction. We're asking to explain the factual history of what happened to these samples. And whatever legal instruction you give at a later point I'm sure will comport with the process--or the due process requirements, that we can't comment on the Defendant not testifying or them not presenting any evidence. But this is the factual history, the chain of custody of these things. And we've tried in many ways to resolve this. And now when it comes time through the logical witness to begin the proof process, now they want you to just tell them something that's just not quite true, consistent with the factual history of these stains. I think we should just prove it, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Thank, you counsel. I'll contemplate that. Mr. Goldberg, let me know when you're about to launch into that. We'll take a break. And I need to look at two cases before I rule on this.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Let's--
MR. BLASIER: One other quick issue, your Honor. Mr. Goldberg showed us some papers, some handwritten lab notes this morning that we have never seen before. He indicated that he thought they had been turned over. Mr. Scheck and Mr. Neufeld and I have never seen them. We don't yet have copies of them. I would ask that we be provided with copies and that he not elicit any testimony concerning these documents until we've had a chance to explore them and find out why we didn't get them in a timely fashion.
THE COURT: What are these things, Mr. Goldberg?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, these are not lab notes. This is an item that was generated on 6-29-94 which are the handwritten copies of the inventory that was done that was the subject of the Griffen hearing and it was subsequently generated in a typewritten form. Counsel says that he does not have it in a handwritten form, but I believe that the handwritten copy of this was introduced at the Griffen hearing itself as an exhibit, as exhibit k to that hearing. But he is correct, it does not have l numbers or d numbers. But if they went through the Griffen hearing materials, they'd find that this is, as I said, exhibit k.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, are you going to get to any information on that at this point before our next recess?
MR. GOLDBERG: I could. And as I said, it's identical to--well, I'll probably get to it sometime around when we address the photographs that are the subject of the Court's other pending--
THE COURT: All right. Is there an item k from the August hearing? Will you pull that out, Mrs. Robertson?
MR. GOLDBERG: But at any rate, it should be identical to the typewritten one that was generated from it.
THE COURT: Was that during Mr. Matheson's testimony?
MR. GOLDBERG: No. I believe that was during Miss Kestler's testimony.
THE COURT: How many pages are these handwritten notes, Mr. Goldberg? Is this the 11 pages?
MR. GOLDBERG: That's correct, your Honor. Apparently it was marked by Mr. Scheck.
THE COURT: All right. Item k in the transcript, in the list of exhibits at page 6, transcript of August the 23rd indicates item k are handwritten notes, 11 pages dated June 29, 1994. And the testimony was that these were then converted into the computerized, computer-generated printout and they were, as you indicate, marked by Mr. Scheck for the purposes of that hearing. Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: Well, I wasn't aware. I knew they're not in the lab work. These are handwritten notes, that we were under the impression we were given all of the handwritten notes prepared by people at SID. I don't believe those are in any of the discovery documents. Whether they were proceeded at the time of that hearing or whether Mr. Scheck got a copy, I'm just not sure. But I know there is a typed document that presumably mirrors that.
THE COURT: Well, it appears that Mr. Scheck had them for the use of the Griffen hearing. So the argument that you haven't seen these before--I'll allow--I'll have the staff make you a photocopy of what Mr. Goldberg has. Do you have any additional copies, Mr. Goldberg? Mr. Goldberg, do you have any additional copies?
MR. GOLDBERG: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Would you give that to Mr. Burn for me, please, and, Mr. Burn, would you make some photocopies of that? All right. Let me know before you get to that particular document and we'll get a copy for counsel. All right. Let's proceed.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, also, we had a number of foundational objections right before lunch that we need to resolve.
THE COURT: That's correct. All right. What's the nature of your objection, your foundational objection?
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, Mr. Neufeld has prepared the brief on this, ask that he argue that if possible.
THE COURT: Well, you're the one presenting the witness, counsel.
MR. BLASIER: Well--well, we strenuously object to have Mr. Matheson testify about the results of any testing conducted on Mr. Simpson's reference sample without a proper foundation being established, and that foundation being testimony by the nurse who drew it, the manner in which it was drawn, how it was preserved, how it was logged in, how it was packaged and how it got to the point where he performed testing on it. The foundational question, as the Court is aware, we're raising serious questions about foundation, chain of custody, packaging, collection--
THE COURT: Do you have any argument that's not included in Mr. Neufeld's written argument?
MR. BLASIER: No.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, your Honor, on page 19367 of the transcript, it's volume 110, Detective Vannatter's testimony, he did testify to seeing the item drawn--to the Defendant being in the jail dispensary and blood sample having been drawn and that he then took that blood sample and dropped it off to Mr. Fung at the Rockingham location. Actually the chain of custody on the blood sample has been more thoroughly explored in this case prior to Mr. Matheson's testimony than any other exhibit that I can recollect in any of the previous trials that I've been involved in. I believe we've gone into this for hours and hours and hours and we have testimony leading from the time that it came out of the Defendant's arm to the time that it was packaged up in the gray analyzed evidence envelope and booked. That's the first argument. So just simply factually, the Defense is wrong. The second argument is, on order of proof, the Court has complete discretion with respect to the order of proof and how witnesses are going to be called. If we were to require a chain of custody to be done on every item prior to the witness testifying to it, then we would not be able to get into evidence of the fingernail scrapings, because we haven't heard from the Coroner yet, or the clothes that came from the Coroner on which some testing was done, which we clearly can do, and we would not be able to present evidence on the victim's reference vials which came from the Coroner. A lot of these things have to be tied up later, and we also have a situation here where items of evidence were exchanged back and forth between cellmark and the Department of Justice. So how would you do that? I mean, one of those organizations has to testify first. So if cellmark testifies first, they're going to be testifying to items, some of which--
THE COURT: Let's look at the item that we're talking about here today.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, the point is this, your Honor; is that there are dozens of items, the chain of custody of which is going to be proved through other witnesses, whether they're Coroner's witnesses, whether they're DOJ witnesses, whether they're cellmark witnesses or whether they're other SID witnesses. We also have--
THE COURT: I'm not interested in that issue or that argument. I'm just interested in this blood vial, this particular situation.
MR. GOLDBERG: And that's what I'm trying to address, is order of proof, which is contained in penal code section 320, which says that, "Except as otherwise provided by law, the Court in its discretion shall regulate the order of proof." and we just know that the case law is replete with instances where courts have virtually absolute discretion in doing this. This case has to be presented or should be presented in some kind of orderly way. And we could call a lot of witnesses twice, you know, once for chain of custody and then for their respective tests. It doesn't make any sense to do it that way. So certain aspects of the chain of custody will have to wait until later to be proved. So that's the second argument. And the third argument is a business records argument. We have a case of People versus Aguilar which I cited in--which was cited in the points and authorities that we prepared and stands for the proposition that you can prove a chain of custody of narcotics evidence of a police officer that was deceased by his notations on the evidence package. As the Court is familiar, evidence packages typically contain a chain of custody statement where the police officer fills out what he did with the chain of custody of the item, and that was held to come in under--as both an official and business record. In this particular case, Mr. Peratis filled out that same type of chain of custody statement which is in the pictures, the photographs of the analyzed evidence envelope.
THE COURT: Has Mr. Peratis been--
MR. GOLDBERG: Been what?
THE COURT: Been withdrawn--has Mr. Peratis been withdrawn from the People's witness list?
MR. GOLDBERG: No.
THE COURT: And he will be testifying.
MR. GOLDBERG: He may be testifying at some point.
THE COURT: Isn't that something I need to know now?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, the issue is one of chain of custody and the issue is one of foundation. And the Court asked is that something the Court needs to know now. We believe that that issue--
THE COURT: No. Your argument is order of proof. You're telling me that you don't need to call this guy right now.
MR. GOLDBERG: Right. And if the Court concludes we do need to call him at some point, we absolutely will obviously. We're going to do whatever needs to be done in order to establish the chain of custody of these items.
THE COURT: No. Implied in your order of proof argument is that that person will be coming sometime during the case in chief.
MR. GOLDBERG: Or maybe coming at a later time if the Court so orders or if the Court so finds.
THE COURT: Later than the case in chief.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, no. Later in the case in chief.
THE COURT: Okay. All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: But the first argument, as I said, your Honor, is that we don't need to call him at all legally because we've established it through an eyewitness, Detective Vannatter. And the third argument is that we don't need to do it because we have the business records and we have a case that's on point that says that chain of custody statement on the envelope does qualify as an official record.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier, any brief response?
MR. BLASIER: This is not a chain of custody argument. This is a foundational argument. And we would ask the Court to use its discretion which we accept the Court has to say this is important, this person should be on first to establish the foundation before Mr. Matheson testifies about test results. Mr. Peratis was on their witness list. He was going to be called before Mr. Matheson until the People changed their mind a week or so ago. We would ask that that be done first and that the Court not allow the Prosecution to suspend this witness' testimony or Mr. Peratis' testimony for some indefinite time in the future.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. I agree that I believe also that the Court has not unbridled, but certainly wide discretion as far as the order of proof is concerned. I will allow Mr. Matheson to testify to these matters subject to a motion to strike if Mr. Peratis is not called as a witness. All right. Let's proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Just for the record, is the Court rejecting the People's argument about Detective Vannatter being an eyewitness to the drawing and transmittal of the blood?
THE COURT: I'm saying--no, I'm not rejecting that as testimony, but there are other things that perhaps are missing in the foundation; medically approved method, use of a particular vial. Who knows. I haven't examined Detective Vannatter's testimony from months ago.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah. I just wanted to make sure the Court wasn't ruling on that issue at this point.
THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jury, please.
(The following proceedings were held in open Court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Be seated. All right. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: All right. The record should reflect that Mr. Gregory Matheson is again on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Goldberg.
Gregory Matheson, the witness on the stand at the time of the lunch recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: Good afternoon, Mr. Matheson.
MR. MATHESON: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: You are reminded, sir, you are still under oath. And, Mr. Goldberg, you may continue with your direct examination.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. GOLDBERG
MR. GOLDBERG: You were talking about EDTA vials and not refrigerating them. Can you give a simple explanation as to what happens if a vial were not refrigerated for a lengthy period of time and the material degraded? What happens?
THE COURT: Isn't that question kind of vague, lengthy period of time?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, let's say it's not refrigerated for a long enough period of time so that the material degrades, however long that is. What happens?
MR. MATHESON: Well, as far as an analogy or an explanation, it's similar to the degradation of any form of biological evidence or sample. I like to use as an example, when it comes to, you know, field evidence which could then I suppose be carried through over to a blood vial that was improperly stored, it's just like having a piece of meat or any other sort of biological entity. If you leave it sitting out on your counter, eventually it's going to rot to the point where it's going to be unusable or go bad. In the case of biological evidence or blood in a blood vial, eventually under improper storage conditions, the components within it are going to rot and break down and become unusable for forensic purposes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And when you say unusable, what do you mean?
MR. MATHESON: That when we use those items in our testing, we will get no results.
MR. GOLDBERG: But does the degradation that takes place or can take place in a blood vial, is it going to change the nature of the blood that it appears to be someone else's?
MR. MATHESON: Well, as a rule, it won't change. It will just go to the point where you can not get any sort of result. There is one exception to that, but as a rule, it will not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And when you say one exception--I don't want to go into this in detail right now--but are you talking about one particular genetic marker?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now--excuse me. When you ship biological material out to an outside laboratory, is it shipped in a frozen condition?
MR. MATHESON: No. Not at this time. We place them into like a federal express or something like that overnight pack and ship it.
MR. GOLDBERG: So there probably--there may be as much as a 24-hour period of time that it is not frozen as it's being transmitted?
MR. MATHESON: That is correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what is the effect of that?
MR. MATHESON: It doesn't appear to have any. We originally when we started submitting evidence for DNA analysis used to package them in cold packs and created very large containers, and we got away from that and have not noticed any change in the results or, you know, the quantity of positive typing results that we've obtained.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And were you in fact able to perform conventional testing to determine the genetic markers on the reference sample, item 17, in this case?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I was.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, going back--to continue on with our evidence collection questions, when evidence is being collected at a crime scene, do you use clean instruments or sterile instruments?
MR. MATHESON: They're clean, not sterile.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is that--is it sufficient to use clean instruments?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: What's the distinction between clean and sterile?
MR. MATHESON: Well, in the case of a sterile instrument, it's something that's been autoclaved at a high temperature to remove absolutely every little bit of any form of biological material or, you know, to render it useless in essence. They're sterile. It would be like in surgical instruments and that type of thing. Clean is a matter of wiping them down using a--what we call a chem-wipe, which is a, you know, scientific tissue and a little bit of water or something wiping off all the residue that's on it.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is it accepted forensic practice to use clean instruments as opposed to sterile in the field when you're collecting biological instrument--biological samples?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: Have you ever noticed any problems with that in the years that you've been in serology?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Vague.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: Have any problems been encountered as a result of using clean instruments in terms of contaminating samples?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Vague, lack of foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, when you use clean instruments, do you use the clean instruments to pick up the control and the swatch?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And if there were a problem in using a clean instrument, would you expect that to show up somewhere in the testing?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Well, that's one of the reasons you take a control, is to--you're handling it in the same way as you are the evidentiary bloodstain or whatever biological stain it happens to be. And if there was a problem in using clean rather than sterile, I would expect to see an on-going problem with results showing up in our controls.
MR. GOLDBERG: And have you noticed any such problem in the years that you've been in serology?
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: What about change in gloves between the collection of biological specimens? Is that something that's necessary?
MR. MATHESON: Not between every one. Just as a matter of course, I would expect somebody to change them if the gloves got particularly dirty or bloody from handling something. But just to say you have to change it between every item, that's not necessary.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why?
MR. MATHESON: Well, for one thing, you want to be using techniques that limit as much handling as possible with that item. Whether you're wearing gloves or not wearing gloves doesn't mean that you're going to be grabbing the item in inappropriate ways. You are trying to limit the amount of contact that you have with it. And as a rule, even with gloves on, your gloves never come in contact-- particularly when you're talking about swatching bloodstains or something like that, come in direct contact with the evidence item itself. So there would be no need to change your gloves in between.
MR. GOLDBERG: Would it be possible to collect stains from a crime scene--well, of course it would be possible. But could you collect stains from a crime scene without using gloves?
MR. MATHESON: If you use good practice and not handle the evidence or not allow it to come in contact with your skin, sure, you could do it without gloves.
MR. GOLDBERG: Would there be some health concerns in doing it that way?
MR. MATHESON: That's--yeah. That's true. I mean, that's one of the major reasons for wearing gloves and a lot of this protective equipment, is to protect the operator from the evidence as opposed to the other way around.
MR. GOLDBERG: And if there were some problem at the crime scene where a person were collecting the evidence by touching the swatches with their hands instead of using tweezers, could the controls detect whether that had caused contamination?
MR. MATHESON: If somebody chose to collect bloodstains by just using their fingers and then chose to use the exact same technique on the controls--that's one of the reasons for the control like I mentioned before. If the technique is the same and you're transferring information or biological material from your own hands onto the evidence, you also then would be transferring it onto the control and I would expect the control to show that.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And let's say that you decided to use this technique, if you want to call it that, of just collecting the evidence with your hands as opposed to tweezers. That would be--would that be an improper technique in your judgment?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it would be improper.
MR. GOLDBERG: But would that improper technique cause the blood at a crime scene to somehow change into someone else's blood?
MR. MATHESON: No, it's not going to change in any way. You may be adding additional information to it from your own biological material, but it wouldn't change what's already there.
MR. GOLDBERG: And similarly on the tweezers example, where we were talking about clean versus sterile, is there any way that using clean tweezers could change the biological information in the blood?
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why is that?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it's--it's--actually we touched on it off and on before in that the only thing that's going to happen to a bloodstain is, through degradation, you're going to get no result as opposed to a changing in the type or the addition--if the tweezers happen to be not as clean as you think or, you know, have become contaminated in some way, you're going to have the addition of information to it rather than the changing of the existing type that's there.
MR. GOLDBERG: And if you were collecting a series of stains using one of these improper techniques or the improper technique of not changing gloves and using the glove itself to collect the stain as opposed to the instrument, would you expect it to somehow change the biological information in all of the stains consistently?
MR. MATHESON: I'm not sure I understand the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: In other words, if you had five stains at a crime scene, would you expect the same changes to occur to all five stains?
MR. MATHESON: If your--if your gloves are dirty to the point where you are adding information to it and continuously doing this, then you're going to see--if I understand the question right, you will then see this additional or contaminant showing up in all of the samples. Potentially if you start off with a contaminant from your first sample and don't recontaminate it so to speak, eventually you would use it up and I guess your last sample may not show as much. But I don't--
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. When you say "Contaminant," what do you mean by that?
MR. MATHESON: Well, contaminant is really anything that doesn't belong in its original situation, example being, a bloodstain that is left at the scene of a crime is a contaminant to that scene. Anything that's added to that blood after the fact is contaminant to that blood. It's something that doesn't belong.
MR. GOLDBERG: So is there any more precise definition of contaminant that's used in the forensic science community to discuss when information is being added to a stain or to a piece of biological evidence that didn't originate in that evidence?
MR. MATHESON: I'm--as far as--I mean, contaminant is what I described before. I'm not aware of any particular definitions when it comes to biological evidence. It's just the addition of something that didn't belong there to begin with.
MR. GOLDBERG: And so it's a fairly ambiguous term? Somewhat ambiguous.
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Mischaracterizes the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: I don't know if it's ambiguous so much as there is not a forensic definition of contamination versus, you know, any other definition of contamination.
MR. GOLDBERG: So using the definition that you gave, could you consider the blood drops themselves of a suspect deposited at a crime scene as being a contaminant?
MR. MATHESON: It would be a contaminant to that location, right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, as to a--the collection techniques that were used in this particular case, did you view a videotape of Andrea Mazzola demonstrating the collection process of a stain?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you see any problems that arose in the collection of the mock items in that case--
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: --that could affect the collection?
MR. MATHESON: I didn't see anything in the way that she handled the situation, the tweezers, that type of thing that would affect the ultimate integrity of the evidence.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I want to show you that videotape, but apparently they don't have it right here. Let me ask you a few more questions about collecting biological evidence. Is biological evidence, can it be deposited both through direct and indirect forms?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what is the distinction?
MR. MATHESON: Well, if I understand the question, a direct deposit would be if I cut myself and then proceeded to drip it--excuse me--at a scene or a location. An indirect--is that the other?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah.
MR. MATHESON: I believe an indirect or potentially secondary transfer of that evidence or stain would be if I was to drip some of my blood onto a piece of cloth or something like that, then that piece of cloth came in contact with something else, thus transferring it a second time.
MR. GOLDBERG: And do you as a serologist type both kinds of evidence, evidence that was deposited as a result of a direct transfer as opposed to indirect transfer?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: If you had a situation where a suspect leaving a crime scene stepped in a pool of blood and then went into a vehicle and transferred that blood into the vehicle, would that be direct transfer or indirect transfer?
MR. MATHESON: By the definition given earlier, I would call it indirect.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does your laboratory type that kind of a stain?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, if you view the suspect's action as a collection procedure, in terms of collecting the evidence in the pool of blood from the crime scene, would that be a forensically accepted collection technique?
MR. MATHESON: No. It would not be acceptable to collect a bloodstain from a bottom of a shoe.
MR. GOLDBERG: So why is it that in cases where evidence is collected on the bottom of a shoe, you can still go ahead and test it?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the blood is still the blood. I mean, it's a situation where regardless of whether it was dropped directly from a person or transferred from one to another, it still has some significance. You're aware of the fact that it was not dripped there, particularly when you see a smear or something along that line, but there's still information that can be derived from that sample as far as the genetic types that are present.
MR. GOLDBERG: Was--does the fact that the evidence is collected on the bottom of a shoe change the genetic markers in the evidence?
MR. MATHESON: No, it doesn't.
MR. GOLDBERG: So can it change the blood from the victim's blood into someone else's blood?
MR. MATHESON: No, it doesn't.
MR. GOLDBERG: Let me give you another hypothetical situation. Let's say you had a situation at a crime scene where a cat walked into the crime scene and collected some of the blood by stepping in it with it's paw. Could you collect the evidence off the cat's paw and still test that?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, we could. I would want a control collected from a clean paw to see if the cat contributed anything to it, but you could test it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So if evidence at a crime scene could be collected by a house cat, do you think that the criminalists Andrea Mazzola and Dennis Fung were qualified to collect the evidence in this case?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Argumentative. Silly.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is silly an objection? I didn't know that.
THE COURT: Why don't you rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: That's okay. I'll withdraw that question.
MR. GOLDBERG: I would like to show you the video that's been marked as 1117 for identification.
THE COURT: Noting that we have seen this several times, Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: I know, your Honor, but I'm not going to stop it. We'll just run it all the way through.
THE COURT: All right.
(At 1:45 P.M., People's exhibit 1117, a videotape, was played.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Mr. Matheson, did you notice that she did touch the ground with her right hand, gloved hand?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: Does that present a problem?
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why not?
MR. MATHESON: I would be concerned if her hand touched the ground and then she took--with the glove on and then she took her glove--gloved finger or something and smeared it around in the bloodstain. But with the process of using the forceps or the tweezers, the glove never comes in contact with the evidence itself.
MR. GOLDBERG: And now she is laying down the control by card no. 5?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Assuming, sir, that the water in this control eventually migrated over to the stain, would that present a problem?
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the water is the exact same water that is being used to dampen the control swatch and dampen the--eventually the swatch you use to collect the bloodstain and the fact that--as you notice, she takes her control very close to the stain. So the substrate or the concrete that it's sitting on is going to be, you know, basically the same under the stain as is under the control. The worse it's going to do is maybe slightly dilute the bloodstain and it may actually start moistening it up and making it easier to collect. No, that's not a problem.
MR. GOLDBERG: Would it change the result in any way, the migration of the water?
MR. MATHESON: No, it would not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, if you look closely, it appears that some swatches fell out of the cap?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Does that present a problem?
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why not?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I don't believe that at any point does she take any of those swatches and use them to collect any of the sample. They're left sitting down there--actually they're brushed aside at some point. You're going to drop them occasionally. I mean that's just--that's just the nature of--there's a lot of swatches in that vial. You shake them out, a few are going to fall on the ground. I suppose it could be a minor littering problem if they didn't pick them up when they were done. But as far as the evidence goes, no, it doesn't affect it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now she's collecting the stain from the item that was labeled no. 5 in this demonstration?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now she appears to be putting stain 5 into one of the plastic bags?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are those the kinds of plastic bags that you use at the crime lab when you're collecting stains?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now we've gotten up to the point where she's already collected the control and the stain from card no. 5?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Have you seen anything up to this point that would cause the results that you obtained to change into someone else's blood?
MR. MATHESON: No, I have not.
MR. GOLDBERG: That it would present a problem in terms of the analysis of the blood?
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Has her collection procedure been in accordance with the way that you're training people at the crime laboratory to collect evidence?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Matheson, she appears to be working on the second stain at this time?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is there any problem with not changing tweezers or gloves between stain 5 and stain 6?
MR. MATHESON: No, there isn't.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why is that?
MR. MATHESON: Well, as I mentioned earlier about the gloves, the gloves are not coming into direct contact with the evidence. That's not a problem. If you'll notice, she has cleaned the tweezers several times between each of the steps using--dampening the chem-wipe that I mentioned before, the tissue, with what appears to be water and then wiping the tips of the tweezers or forceps off very carefully.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is this collected in such a way so that the swatch itself does not come into contact with the gloved hands of the criminalist?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, she appears to just have written something on the plastic bag. What do you write on the plastic bag when you're collecting a stain?
MR. MATHESON: Actually depends. Obviously within one envelope--eventually when you're collecting a stain off of something like concrete or off of a surface, you're going to end up with a coin envelope or the manila envelope containing two separate plastic bags with the samples in it. Usually I like to mark either the item number on it or if I don't do that, at least the c on the control plastic bag. However, there have been times where it was very obvious which was my control and which was the stain. The stain was blood colored and very heavy and the control was either relatively clean or kind of a grayish. So it didn't matter whether I marked them or not because it was obvious which was which.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, just before this, she dropped a few more swatches. Again, did that present any problem in terms of the collection of stain 6?
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: She's just placed the swatch of no. 6, the blood swatch, into the envelope?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Have you seen any problems in the collection procedure to this point?
MR. MATHESON: No problems with the collection procedure. The only thing that I would-- if this was a training issue or something for us or if we were looking at it, I would suggest that maybe it would be worth going back with another swatch on the evidence sample and collecting up a little bit more blood. But as far as the collection technique itself, it's just fine.
MR. GOLDBERG: So if it were a real stain, you'd want to use more swatches on both 5 and 6?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, to get as much of the sample as possible.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Thank you.
(At 1:55 P.M., the playing of the videotape was concluded.)
MR. GOLDBERG: And why is it that you use multiple swatches on a single stain?
MR. MATHESON: Well, we teach the people to select a swatch size that's appropriate for a stain. If you have an extremely small drip, you don't want to use a real large swatch because then the bloodstain gets kind of diluted out over the swatch itself. If you have a large stain--and theoretically, she could have gone with a larger swatch on that than she had in--you know, that she had chosen. But odds are, that was among the largest one that was in the vial. So instead of going to a much larger one that isn't available, just use multiple smaller ones.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is that typical, that multiple swatches are used in collecting a stain?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when multiple swatches are used, is the criminalist supposed to notate how many swatches they used at the crime scene?
MR. MATHESON: There's no rule to that effect, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Why is it that you don't have a rule in place that you should notate exactly how many swatches you used on a particular stain?
MR. MATHESON: Because we've never found it to be important to know exactly how much is there. You've got your photograph of the stain. The evidence is the stain that's down there and the swatches are immediate and collected on.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, let's say that someone at a crime scene, a police officer, didn't know how to collect a stain, had used a completely improper technique such as taking out a handkerchief and spitting on it to dampen it and then collected the stain using that technique, submit it to you for analysis. Would it still be possible to type even in that extreme situation?
MR. MATHESON: You could--yes, you could still do an analysis on that stain.
MR. GOLDBERG: Wouldn't the police officer have arguably introduced some contaminant that could be tested as a result of spitting in the handkerchief?
MR. MATHESON: Definitely. It would be an improper way to do it, but it could still be typed.
MR. GOLDBERG: So what would you do in order to resolve that problem?
MR. MATHESON: Well, in a situation like that, if that was the only evidence that we had available to us, we would be able to run the particular stain. I would want to run a control area from the Kleenex and also get some saliva from the particular officer.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, what could you do if you had some saliva from the particular officer in order to sort out what the genetic markers were in the person who deposited the stain?
MR. MATHESON: Well, if you had saliva from the person and then that particular marker appeared in the saliva, you'd know the type of the individual who spit onto the handkerchief. This-- how that affects your ultimate interpretation will depend an awful lot on the types that were found in the stain and on the types of the person. It's obviously going to lessen some of the value of that stain, but there's still information there.
MR. GOLDBERG: Could you still determine whether the genetic markers of the stain were consistent with the suspect even though this collection procedure had been used?
MR. MATHESON: It's possible. It would depend on the types of the people and how the results came out. But it's possible.
MR. GOLDBERG: But would the spitting actually cause the genetic markers of the suspect in the stain of blood to somehow change or would they still be there?
MR. MATHESON: No, they'd still be there. You'd just be introducing additional information to it in the form of the types of the person with the saliva.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does the Los Angeles Police Department serology section in fact type cases routinely where there are mixtures, where there's more than one donor to a particular stain or particular item of biological evidence?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. Every sexual assault case we do by nature, if there's semen present on a sexual assault kit that's collected from a victim, you're dealing with a mixture of body fluids.
MR. GOLDBERG: And in those kinds of cases, are you still able to test that mixture to determine whether it contains genetic markers that are consistent with the suspect?
MR. MATHESON: We're able to do the tests. However, because of the fact that it's a mixture, our chances of giving a very definitive answer to what's coming from the victim and what's coming from the suspect is less than when you're dealing with just a bloodstain, but there is still information to be derived.
MR. GOLDBERG: And are there still instances where you're able to find that there's certain markers that are consistent with the suspect, but inconsistent with the victim?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. We do on occasion include suspects based on what we find that's foreign to the victim and could have come from that suspect.
MR. GOLDBERG: And so in these sexual assault type cases, do you usually get evidence of a mixture from two people?
MR. MATHESON: Many times, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And then if you get a mixture from two people, what do you have to do in order to figure out which part of the mixture belongs to the suspect and which part of the mixture belongs to the victim?
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this line of questioning. It's irrelevant as to mixed bloodstain.
THE COURT: Close. I think this is just a--let's wind this up.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. I'll withdraw that question then.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, if bloodstains can be collected by people who are not criminalists, why does the Los Angeles Police Department use criminalists or try to use criminalists in collecting these stains?
MR. MATHESON: Well, a criminalist is not just performing the function of collecting a stain. What we have in our laboratory is what's called a generalist's philosophy where we try and teach a criminalist about all aspects of forensic science. They may specialize in one particular area like toxicology or firearms or serology. But over--through experience and involvement with other criminalists, we try and get them to have a sense of the whole concept of forensics. So by having somebody out there at the scene that works in the laboratory and is acquainted with all the different possibilities that exist, when it comes to analyzing physical evidence, it just enhances the possibility of collecting the best possible evidence.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, at crime scenes, does the police department use both criminalist 1's and criminalist 2's and 3's for the purpose of investigating a crime scene?
MR. MATHESON: We send--yes. We send all those out. Matter of fact, we send out at times supervisors and lab directors go also.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you send a criminalist 1 to a crime scene, are they paired with someone?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. As long as they're a criminalist 1, which is for the first 18 months of their employment, they will always go with either a Crime 2 or a Crime 3, preferably a criminalist 3.
MR. GOLDBERG: What is the purpose of sending a criminalist 1 with a criminalist 3?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it's all part of the learning process. We're always learning new things when we're out there and for that first 18 months or so, we try and get them out to as many scenes as possible, exposed to a lot of different conditions and types of scenes, to the variety of techniques that different criminalists have as they go through their career and allow them to then establish their own, you know, mind set or experience to collecting evidence so that when the time comes that they are doing one on their own or potentially training someone else, they have all the experience that is afforded to them.
MR. GOLDBERG: So what is it that the criminalist 1 is learning in this first 18 months? Are they learning the physical mechanics of how to pick up evidence? Are they learning the mental processes that the criminalist goes through?
MR. MATHESON: Well, they're learning both. It depends on the background of the individual. If we have somebody starting a laboratory that has some sort of forensic background or experience, odds are they've picked up the mechanics. We're going to confirm that the first, you know, couple of times they go out. But, you know they're not difficult techniques. After that, it's a matter of just getting exposed to an awful lot of different ways of looking at a scene, the way of thinking about how to go about processing it and just constantly picking up experience. I still go on crime scenes myself where I learn something from somebody else on either a better way to do it or, you know, thinking about something that I hadn't thought of.
MR. GOLDBERG: So after the criminalist 1 already knows the mechanical techniques of how to pick up say biological evidence and shoeprint lifts and the like, why is it that you just don't set them loose and let them go to the crime scenes themselves for the remainder of their probationary period?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it's--kind of like we were talking about before. We want them to get as much experience as possible when it comes to how to evaluate a scene. We can teach anybody to go out there and do some of the mechanics, but there's this buffer, this 18 months from the time somebody starts until they are considered crime scene ready or that's a target that we shoot for where you are learning, you're just--like I say, being exposed to new situations, new things, taking in as much information you can about the mind set of investigating a crime scene.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you say mind set of investigating a crime scene, what are you talking about?
MR. MATHESON: The different philosophies of what type of evidence exists, how to approach the evidence, how to think through and look selectivity that we were talking about earlier as far as trying to find the evidence that's most important to the questions at hand.
MR. GOLDBERG: Which part of being a criminalist in your experience in terms of investigating crime scenes is more difficult? The mechanical part of how to pick up a piece of evidence or the mental component of what type of evidence to pick up?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it's definitely the mental component because, like I just said, I've been doing it for almost 17 years and I'm still learning stuff out there. I go out to a crime scene and almost always get a little more insight on how to handle a scene.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when the criminalist is at the crime scene, do they have an obligation to investigate whether there have been any alterations in the crime scene?
MR. MATHESON: Their primary function there is the collection of the evidence. The information as to whether or not something has been altered is really not very deep. We sometimes record if like a rescue unit had been in prior and dealt with the scene or something along that line. But normally we have our hands pretty full just looking for the evidence and collecting it, documenting and collecting it so that when it comes to searching down very little bit of information as to whether something was touched or something was moved, no, that's not our duty.
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe we can see Defense 1081.
MR. GOLDBERG: This is a--is this a portion of the crime scene identification checklist form?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: And here there's a little section that says, "Has the scene been altered; if so, by whom and how?" how is that portion of the checklist supposed to be used?
MR. MATHESON: I have always used it and taught other people to use it that it is for gross information. Like I just mentioned, if the rescue unit had arrived prior to our being there because they many times leave things behind that we don't want to collect as evidence if it was brought in after the fact. Such things as if an area was washed down prior to our arrival which does happen sometimes. More of that gross type of information.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is the criminalist ever supposed to do formal witness interviews of the people to determine whether the scene's been altered so that this area can be filled out?
MR. MATHESON: No, they're not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, what about crime scene security? What does the criminalist have to do with providing for security or seeing that security is provided for at the crime scene?
MR. MATHESON: Our major concern when it comes to crime scene security is just like wearing gloves or other protective equipment. I want to make sure that this--excuse me--the scene is secure for my own safety and protection. That's--I'm going to arrive, I'm going to make sure there are officers at the scene or detectives or somebody else that's present. The fact that we're civilian, that's important. As far as making sure that there are--is tape up or officers present to keep out people that may alter the scene, it's not our responsibility to do that. There have been instances where I have been working a scene and somebody has walked through the tape and is like heading into the crime scene or something and I will see it before the officer and I'll point it out, say, "We need to get this person out of here," but that is not my prime focus. My prime focus is in on the evidence and in on the evidence collection.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, at a crime scene, is it typical that photographs are taken both before the body is removed and then after the body is removed?
MR. MATHESON: Normally, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why is that done?
MR. MATHESON: Well, to properly process a crime scene, you want the photographer in there as early as possible before--you know, obviously there are certain things that must occur. If you have a victim, there's going to be an initial responding officer, somebody going in to clear the scene or whatever. That's prior to our arrival. But as far as processing a scene, we want a photographer to go in even before the criminalist to document everything exactly how it is before we get in there and start, you know, moving things around or taking measurements or walking through the scene. We then have the--after the overalls or the general shots are taken, have our individual evidence items photographed, and that can be happening either before or after the bodies are present.
MR. GOLDBERG: How often is it that a piece of evidence is moved between the before photographs and the after photographs?
MR. MATHESON: It happens occasionally.
MR. GOLDBERG: And in what context does it happen?
MR. MATHESON: Well, there are times where a particular piece of evidence may have some information on it that is needed at the moment, a piece of paper with some writing on it, an item that we want checked for blood or something like that. If the photographer isn't available, there will be times--knowing that the overalls were taken, knowing that the general scene has been placed with photography, we may pick that item up, run a presumptive test on it or, like I said, like a piece of paper with some writing or something and then try to place it back for the close-up picture just prior to collection, and sometimes it's not going to be placed back in the exact same location. And it does occasionally happen too that during the course of your processing, you may accidentally bump something or you may kick it. You try real hard to watch where you're stepping, but sometimes you do get focused on other things that you're doing and evidence does get moved. That's one reason why it's so important to get the photographer in there first because those are the pictures that place the evidence items where they belong or where they were originally, and then the subsequent photography is mainly to identify that item, to get good close-up pictures of it so at a later time, you can compare it to what you have in front of you.
MR. GOLDBERG: So part of the reason for taking the four photographs is so that if an item of evidence is moved, you can determine exactly where it was initially?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in the testimony that you heard, did you hear some evidence as to a phenolphtalein test being performed on the glove at the Rockingham location?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is that acceptable from a forensic standpoint and from a crime scene investigation standpoint?
MR. MATHESON: You mean as far as running a presumptive test in the field?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
MR. MATHESON: It is. However, it depends on the particular item. If there was an evidence item or an extremely small spot of blood or an extremely small stain that you thought might be blood and that by running your presumptive test was going to consume either all or a major portion of that stain, I would not want the criminalist to run it. I wouldn't run it myself. I would just collect it where you can then do that same test in the laboratory, but on a much more micro scale. However, many times in the field, we do test objects and bloodstains for the presence of blood, and if you have a large stain, you can see an area that's discolored, in this case, the glove, that was showing--because it was a black glove, you didn't necessarily see what was obviously red blood on it.
MR. BLASIER: I would object to the narrative response.
THE COURT: We are. We've gone beyond the original question. Proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, would you have done a phenolphtalein test had you been asked by one of the officers there to perform one in the field?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: In this particular case, based upon your understanding of the evidence, would doing a phenolphtalein test harm or somehow interfere with the ability to do future testing on that glove?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Vague as to this particular case.
THE COURT: Overruled. I take it we're talking about the--
MR. GOLDBERG: Phenolphtalein.
THE COURT: Which glove?
MR. GOLDBERG: Talking about the Rockingham glove.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. MATHESON: The only thing it would do would be to remove a small amount of the blood that was present. It would not alter the type any.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do the criminalists comply with reasonable requests that are asked of them at the officers at the scene?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, they do.
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: And would it be reasonable in your estimation under the facts and circumstances of this case as you know them to have requested a criminalist to do a phenolphtalein test on the Rockingham glove?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: It's vague. What is, you know, reasonable in a scientific sense, is that what we're interested in?
MR. GOLDBERG: In a scientific sense, from a forensic science standpoint.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. Yes, I believe it would be reasonable.
MR. GOLDBERG: Generally speaking, at a crime scene, how do criminalists interact with the detective?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: It's vague.
MR. GOLDBERG: What is the relationship in terms of the collection of the evidence between the detective and the criminalist?
MR. MATHESON: As far as the collection of the evidence, that's the domain of the criminalist. Normally when we arrive, the detectives have already been there. They do the walk-through with us. We interact with them, get their opinion as to what they have found, what evidence they are interested in collecting and we note those items either, you know, mentally or on paper, depending on the person, and do a search ourselves. So we try and interact with them, you know, working as a team regarding that aspect of the crime, and that is the scene and the collection of physical evidence.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, did you also hear some testimony about a blanket that was at one point brought out for the purposes of covering Nicole Brown?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what kind of problem would that blanket present if any in terms of the biological evidence at the Bundy location?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, if a blanket were brought out into a crime scene--are you familiar with the layout of the crime scene?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I am.
MR. GOLDBERG: --into the area where the body of Nicole Brown had been laying for the purposes of covering her and then the blanket remained there after she was removed, would that present a problem in terms of the biological evidence that was collected from the Bundy location?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Vague and no foundation.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the vague--the question is unintelligible.
MR. GOLDBERG: Would that present a problem in terms of contaminating any of the biological evidence?
MR. MATHESON: If a--would depend--it would depend on what the blanket had on it to begin with. If the blanket had, you know, large quantities of blood or had blood on it and then that blood came into contact with something we eventually ended up collecting, then we would have contamination occurring at that point. If it was a clean blanket as far as the biological evidence is concerned and it does not come in contact with the collected evidence item, it should have no effect.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Well let's assume hypothetically that the blanket had some saliva from the Defendant in this case on it that had dried and did not come into contact with the stains that were collected along the trail. Would the blanket present a problem in terms of contaminating those stains?
MR. MATHESON: No, it would not.
MR. GOLDBERG: What would you have to do in order for the blanket to contaminate the stains?
MR. MATHESON: The biological stain on the blanket would have to come--somehow come into direct contact with the biological sample that was being collected. And even then, unless there was some moisture present, you would not have significant transfer. If one or both of them was damp and they came in direct contact with each other, then that would be a problem. You would have potential transfer of one body fluid into the other that's contaminating it. But beyond that, it should not have a problem.
MR. GOLDBERG: And so even in the case of direct contact, you're saying that the biological material on the blanket would probably have to be wet in order for there to be a transfer?
MR. MATHESON: For there to be a significant transfer. I would not like to see that happen and I would be concerned about any sample that that happened to, but the transfer would be significantly less than if one or both were damp.
MR. GOLDBERG: And if it did not come into direct contact, then you're saying that if we were to assume that the only biological evidence were the hypothetical dried saliva, it would not present a problem?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, does DNA tend to fly around in the air at a crime scene and deposit itself wherever it happens to land?
MR. MATHESON: Just randomly floating around the scene?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah.
MR. MATHESON: No, I wouldn't expect that to happen.
MR. GOLDBERG: And if you have a crime scene where biological evidence has been deposited by a suspect who was bleeding on a trail of stains, do you expect biological evidence from one stain to migrate to the other stain if we assume that these are discreet drops?
MR. MATHESON: I don't see any way that, if they're discreet drops, how you would get one transfer into the other unless there was something carrying it from one to the other.
MR. GOLDBERG: But it doesn't just like hopscotch from one stain to another in some fashion?
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, did you also hear some evidence to the effect that the glove from the Rockingham location was in a brown paper bag and was brought into the caged-off area where the body of Ron Goldman was located?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what problem if any does that present in terms of contaminating the crime scene?
MR. MATHESON: Well, merely bringing an item in in a paper bag should have no effect whatsoever on the evidence at that location.
MR. GOLDBERG: What about on the glove?
MR. MATHESON: You mean evidence from the scene getting into the--onto the glove?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah.
MR. MATHESON: The same thing. You're--it's inside of a paper bag. It's not coming in direct contact with any of the evidence at the scene. I don't see where it would be a problem.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, there was also some evidence of some socks being recovered at the Rockingham location. Are you generally familiar with that?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I am.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you took a look at those socks yourself?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct. A couple times.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, would you expect there to have been flaking from blood encrusted on those socks at the time that they were taken off based upon what you saw?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you do an analysis on the socks yourself?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And were you familiar with the extent to which blood was visible on the socks from the naked eye?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, was there sufficient quantity of blood that you would expect flaking off the socks at the time they were taken off?
MR. BLASIER: I'm going to object to that without further foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained. Expertise.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Under what conditions, sir, will blood flake off of clothing, if you know?
MR. MATHESON: Well, if you have--it kind of depends on the quantity. If you have a--well, let me take a step back again on that. By flaking off, I mean, you are going to have the potential of very small minute quantities of blood falling off, which could be called flaking, or if you have a very heavily stained item that has crusts of blood on it, then flaking could be visible chunks of the blood falling off.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, when you saw the socks, were there any visible chunks of blood of the kind that you just described that might fall off?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation as to time.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: When did you see the socks, sir?
MR. MATHESON: The first time I saw the socks was on June 29th, 1994.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what did they--did they have that kind of blood, blood that was in sufficient chunks that you would expect it to flake off at that time?
MR. MATHESON: No, they did not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, when an item such as the socks is collected in the field, is the criminalist supposed to do a close physical examination of it prior to collection?
MR. MATHESON: There's no rule that says that they have to do a--a close examination of any of the items they collect at the scene.
MR. GOLDBERG: Would there be any reason to?
MR. MATHESON: None other than maybe personal curiosity. If you have an item that you are collecting anyway, there would be no particular good reason to do a very minute examination of that item at the scene.
MR. GOLDBERG: After you've already made a decision to collect the item, is there any reason from a forensic standpoint to inspect it any further on the scene?
MR. MATHESON: Not in general. If there was some particular piece of information somebody was interested in depriving from, then maybe it would require a closer look. But once it's been decided to collect, then you're going to do that back at the laboratory.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in terms of the removal of the bodies from the Bundy location, do you feel that a decision should have been made to wait until the criminalist had the opportunity to look at the area where the bodies were removed before they were removed?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And how do you go about making that decision as to whether to allow the Coroner in first or the criminalist in first?
MR. MATHESON: Well, normally we like to get in and do our search, get our overall photos, do our search and collect at least all the evidence right around the body or bodies prior to the Coroner's arrival. Our concern is the total scene where theirs is the victim, and we like to get done as much of our work is possible so as to limit--to limit the amount of activity in and out, around that evidence until it's collected.
MR. GOLDBERG: So how are you balancing the need for them to do their work against the need for you to do your work?
MR. MATHESON: Well, I mean, I'm looking at it from my perspective. From my perspective, the information that we get and the evidence that's surrounding the area is just as important or more so than what they may derive from the bodies at the scene, and I'm going to be protective of that and want to get my work done first before there's any chance of any sort of disruption or contamination caused by--there's a lot of handling involved when the Coroner's office arrives.
MR. GOLDBERG: So from your perspective, would it have been desirable to wait--have waited even longer before allowing the Coroner's people to have access to the bodies?
MR. MATHESON: From my perspective, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, we've had a lot of discussion about what Andrea Mazzola's exact job description and title is. Can you tell us what her title is?
MR. MATHESON: She's a criminalist 1.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is there such a category as a criminalist trainee?
MR. MATHESON: No, there is not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you use that term officially to designate a criminalist 1?
MR. MATHESON: No, we do not.
MR. GOLDBERG: And also, there was a description of a mini academy. Are you familiar with that term?
MR. MATHESON: The first time I heard mini academy was in this Court. There is an SID academy, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: So you just refer to it as "The academy"?
MR. MATHESON: Well, we refer to it as SID academy. It's a simple way of talking about training courses we have for new people.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But in terms of an academy, it's not a thing where you sleep in dormitory-style housing for a period of time, is it?
MR. MATHESON: No. It's much more informal than that.
MR. GOLDBERG: And at the mini academy, are the criminalists trained in how to do the physical collection techniques at a crime scene?
MR. MATHESON: That's one of the things that are discussed.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what other kinds of things come up at that mini academy just in general? I'm sorry. Academy.
MR. MATHESON: Part of that set of training courses is to acquaint new people with what criminalistics is all about. The people that we hire many time are not fully acquainted with forensics, do not have prior forensic experience. So part of that process is teaching them what the other units are about, giving them an overall concept of what criminalistics is.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you say that they all are not acquainted with criminalistics or forensics, does that mean that you're hiring some people who don't have degrees in criminalistics?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: So what are their degrees in?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the requirement for the position is a baccalaureate degree in a natural science. And we have many people that have degrees in chemistry, biology, biochemistry. I believe we have one in zoology, one in oceanography. We want people that--or require that people have a degree in a science so that they've learned basic scientific principles and the scientific method and that type of thing, and then we train them within the laboratory about forensics.
MR. GOLDBERG: Were you aware that Andrea Mazzola did have a degree in criminalistics?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I was.
MR. GOLDBERG: And on the 13th of June, were you aware that Andrea Mazzola and Dennis Fung were processing the crime scenes at the Rockingham and Bundy locations?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I was.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is it generally desirable to have more than two criminalists handling a given case in terms of collecting the evidence on a single day?
THE COURT: Haven't we covered this already?
MR. GOLDBERG: Not with this witness.
THE COURT: We talked about having teams and the advantages and listing documents--
MR. GOLDBERG: More than two. I haven't discussed that.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: That's an issue that came up. I'll be very brief. Then I'm moving on to another area, your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, be brief. Then we're going to take a break.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
MR. MATHESON: Two is actually a fairly optimal number. I have done many scenes by myself and I feel that that is not the best way to do it. I've done several scene--many scenes with two people, and that is great because you've got somebody working with you, you can bounce ideas off of each other, get assistance when it comes to taking notes, collecting the items. You actually do it quicker and I think better with two. When you get past that into three and even four, which would be excessive, you just have too many people in the scene. Many times, the scenes in a crime that we go out to, the location of them is very limited and you just start getting too many bodies in there, you start bumping into each other and it's not as easy. So two is probably the best number to handle as a crime scene search team.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. Your Honor, I was now going to get into another--
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Area.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take a recess at this point for 15 minutes. Please remember all of my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any opinions about the case, don't allow anybody to communicate with you, do not conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. Mr. Matheson, you can step down. You are to return in 15 minutes. We'll stand in recess for 15.
(Recess.)
(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 parties are again present. The jury is not present. Counsel, during the course of Mr. Matheson's testimony, Mr. Byrne, my research attorney, gave each party a photocopy of the handwritten 11-page list of evidence items in this matter. I did have Mrs. Robertson get the exhibits from the August griffin hearing and August, `94, griffin hearing, and it does include a copy of this as item k, so the Defense did mark that, they did have access to it at that early time, so the record should be clear. And Mr. Blasier, you have a copy of that now before you?
MR. BLASIER: I do, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you feel you need any additional time before we move into this item?
MR. BLASIER: No.
THE COURT: All right. As to the second item, the board that the Prosecution proposes to use regarding the Defense testing of evidence items, we are taking those item matters out of Prosecution's custody for evidence purposes. I'm going to ask the Prosecution not to use that board this afternoon because I'm not comfortable with the state of my research at this point. All right. Let's proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, there was one other issue that I wanted to bring up and that was I wanted to maybe--I guess what would be a 402 type motion as to what extent Mr. Matheson will be allowed to discuss the issues of PCR typing and PCR type issues, which he is not testifying to in direct except only extremely tangentially to the extent that evidence collection has some overlap to the issue of how a sample can be contaminated. It is subsequently going to be tested, both conventionally and genetically. Specifically, there was an issue regarding some--a lot--not a lot in number, but a lot as in discreet identifiable number of test kits that were provided to the Los Angeles Police Department by Roche Pharmaceutical sometime before this case, I believe it was many months, in which there was a procedure that was identified with the kits that I'm sure counsel probably intends to get into with perhaps other witnesses, but Mr. Matheson does not have any personal knowledge of that, nor has he read any documents, to my understanding, pertaining to that, so we would ask that they be precluded from getting into that area on cross-examination of the witness.
THE COURT: Well, having not heard anything about it yet, I'm loathe to make any kind of a ruling on the basis that this is prematurely brought before the Court. If it exceeds the scope of the direct examination--
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm sure the Defense will come up with some reason that it is within the scope or necessary to cross-examine Mr. Matheson about it. I don't know.
THE COURT: Well, I haven't heard it yet.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, there has been plenty of questions about contamination and that is directly on point in terms of contamination for later DNA testing, so I think it has already been raised.
THE COURT: Perhaps, but within the specifics of this witness' knowledge regarding PCR testing and the exquisitely sensitive nature of that test, I don't know if he has the expertise to testify to that.
MR. BLASIER: He is in charge of the lab.
THE COURT: I don't know. We will see. It is not here yet, guys. All right. Let's have the jurors.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
(Brief pause.)
(The following proceedings were held in open Court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury. Mr. Gregory Matheson is again on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Goldberg. Good afternoon again, Mr. Matheson.
MR. MATHESON: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: You are reminded, sir, you are still under oath. And Mr. Goldberg, you may continue with your direct examination.
MR. GOLDBERG: Good afternoon. Ladies and gentlemen.
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Matheson, I wanted to ask you some questions about the Scientific Investigations Division facility. Where is that located?
MR. MATHESON: It is located in a city building called the C. Irwin Piper Technical Building or Piper Tech for short.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, at this time I would like to mark as People's next in order 206 for identification which is a board that contains photographs and a map of the SID facility.
THE COURT: All right. People's 206.
(Peo's 206 for id = posterboard)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bancroft, I'm going to need you to help me with this. Proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, directing your attention to People's 206 for identification, do you recognize this exhibit and the photographs on it?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is there any sort of accreditation agency that covers crime laboratories in the United States?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, there is.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is that a public entity or a private entity or--
MR. MATHESON: Well, it is association made up of crime laboratories that have been accredited. It is called the ASCLAD or American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors Laboratory.
MR. GOLDBERG: But I mean is that a governmental agency or is it a private agency outside the government?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it is not--my understanding is it is not an agency in and of itself. Most of the members of it are accredited laboratories which are government.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is it mandatory under state or federal law that you have that accreditation from this organization?
MR. MATHESON: No, it is not. It is a voluntary process.
MR. GOLDBERG: Does it cost money to become accredited?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.
MR. GOLDBERG: A how much?
MR. MATHESON: It depends on the laboratory. The cost is associated with--it is actually associated with a couple of things. One of them is if there are any sort of facility changes or something obviously the agency has to come up with the money to meet the accreditation standards, but just to apply, there is a fee associated with the inspection process, and my understanding is for an agency of our size it could be anywhere from say ten to $30,000.
MR. GOLDBERG: So you would have to pay ten to $30,000 to get this accreditation?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does it allow you to do anything that you can't do now?
MR. MATHESON: No. It is just a review by this outside agency of whether or not we meet the standards that they have established.
MR. GOLDBERG: Has this city come up with the ten to $30,000 for you to be able to buy this accreditation?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it is not a matter of buying the accreditation. It is paying for an inspection to see whether or not you pass. No, to this day we have not received the funding to do that.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, turning your attention to this map that is 206 for identification, does this depict the Piper Tech portion of the SID Scientific Investigations Division?
MR. MATHESON: (No audible response.)
MR. GOLDBERG: The map?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. The map itself covers the area that is part of SID and Piper Tech, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And are there facilities that SID has that are outside of Piper Tech?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, there is.
MR. GOLDBERG: And are there photographs of the facility that are outside of Piper Tech over here if you look in the upper left-hand corner?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. There is actually two graphs that depict part of our laboratory that is located inside of the police administrative building or Parker Center.
MR. GOLDBERG: That was where the old dragnet series was filmed?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct. At least that is--it looks like that, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, what is done, if you know, in the facility that is located at Parker Center?
MR. MATHESON: The suite of three or four rooms that we have over there are part of our PCR laboratory.
MR. GOLDBERG: And PCR is?
MR. MATHESON: It is a technique used to identify DNA markers that are present in body fluids and other biological samples.
MR. GOLDBERG: You said that did you conventional testing on some of the evidence in this indication?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And.
MR. GOLDBERG: What facility did that take place in?
MR. MATHESON: That testing all occurred at Piper Tech in the serology unit.
MR. GOLDBERG: So that would represent, when we are talking about Piper Tech, the area that is depicted on the SID Piper Tech map on this exhibit 206?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, how old is the Los Angeles Police Department Scientific Investigations Division?
MR. MATHESON: I don't know, but the crime laboratory has been in existence since 1923, I believe.
MR. GOLDBERG: Was it the first crime laboratory that was set up in the country, to your knowledge?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Even before the FBI?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And how old is this physical plant?
MR. MATHESON: I believe we moved here in February of 1990, I think or `91. `90.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, do you have certain security procedures that are in place in terms of the physical plant located at the Piper Tech facility?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, we do.
MR. GOLDBERG: And who is in charge of that?
MR. MATHESON: I'm the security manager of that facility.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And specifically do you have a card key system to get in and out of the facility?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. We have--it is an electronic tracking system that you have to use an electronic card and it reads your card, determines whether or not you have access to a particular door at that time of day and that day of the week. If--if you do, then it unlocks the door for you and allows you to enter the facility or any of the individual labs at that point. If you don't, the door remains locked.
MR. GOLDBERG: And you can see the photograph up on the elmo that says "Card key entry"? No?
THE COURT: I think we are upside down. Mr. Matheson, why don't you grab the pointer.
MR. GOLDBERG: I see it is a little lopsided as oriented under here on the elmo.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why don't you, just using pointer on the hard copy, 206, what is depicted in this photograph?
MR. MATHESON: What we have here is a photograph that shows the door frame, alongside here somebody's hand that is holding one of our access cards in it, and there is an antenna inside of the wall. If you hold your card up in the vicinity of that antenna, it reads your card, reads the code that is on the card, checks the computer to determine whether or not you have access to that door at the time of day, that day of the week.
MR. GOLDBERG: And who has access to the crime laboratory?
MR. MATHESON: The people that work in the facility. The access levels vary. It depends on whether we are talking about the outside entrance or the interior one or the variety of different labs. It is limited to the people that work in the facility or the other members of our crime laboratory that happen to work in some of the outside locations.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Well, let's start with just if you want to get into the portion of the facility--maybe we can see the outside of the crime lab photograph that says "Sid Piper Tech." we had it up there a little while ago. Okay. Is this the outside of the facility?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. This is the outside wall of the laboratory, which is within the larger building called Piper Tech.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, do you need a card key entry to get through this door?
MR. MATHESON: Not during normal working hours which are Monday through Friday from the morning until the evening. On weekends and at night and in the very early morning that door remains locked and the only way you can get in is by having one of the card keys and having access to the facility at that time.
MR. GOLDBERG: So who has the authority, through these card keys, to get into the facility either in the evening or off hours?
MR. MATHESON: Well, we do have some light-duty police officers that work as couriers. They work in the A.M. hours, so they have access in getting in. All of the criminalists can enter into the facility during--through this outside door anytime of the day or night and we also have the opportunity to make temporary changes likes sometimes our administrative staff or our support staff needs to get in to do some work on a weekend or something like this and we will do a temporary change on their access so that they can get in to work.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does the call-out line from that photograph where this facade is located, the tiles--
MR. MATHESON: Yeah. This particular wall along this area here, (Indicating), on the--near where the says "Entrance," that is that door right there, (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: After you get into the entrance, if you can see the area that says "Lobby."
MR. MATHESON: Yes, right in this area right here, (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: Can we see that photograph.
MR. GOLDBERG: Then there is another door on the right side of the photograph and a window on the left. What is the door?
MR. MATHESON: Okay. The door that is depicted on the right side of the photograph here is the door that actually goes into the hallway area of the laboratory. Like I mentioned before, this outside door unlocks and stays unlocked during what we consider our normal business hours, so anybody can come and go during that door; however, to get actually into the laboratory you need to again show your card to an area so that the antenna can pick up the code and then it allows you in if you have access to it.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can the couriers go in there?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, they can.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what about the criminalists?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, after you are through that door--if we could see the picture that says "Entry corridor." does that show the view that you have after you have entered through that door?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct. Right after walking through this door, (Indicating), that is your view down the hallway. You are looking down now in this direction, (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: And the hall is kind of in a square that goes around the facility?
MR. MATHESON: Right. The hallway, once you get passed here, (Indicating), anybody, you know, once they have passed through that door, has access to this hallway area and then back over, (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So when you are saying "That door," on the diagram, are you pointing to the door that is next to the call-out--that is just to the left of the call-out line that is adjacent to photograph no. 21 that says "Entry corridor"?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct. It is a door that is directly opposite the entrance into the lobby.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you said "Here," there is what appears to be a corridor and it has various red crosses in it.
MR. MATHESON: That's correct. There is a corridor that runs basically around the--not the perimeter, but through the middle of the laboratory. You can walk all the way around without going back to this one point, (Indicating).
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, other than the couriers, do any uniformed police officers have access to the corridor, the area past--in the corridor that you just described?
MR. MATHESON: The only other uniformed officers that have a card key that gives them access into the laboratory is we do have one officer that works as a narcotics analyst within the laboratory and that would be it, other than the couriers.
MR. GOLDBERG: Does he have a degree in criminalistics?
MR. MATHESON: No. I believe his degree is in chemical engineering.
MR. GOLDBERG: So he is actually working as a criminalist in one of the laboratories?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: So he is the only officer that has access to the corridor area, other than the couriers?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: What about detectives?
MR. MATHESON: No. Detectives would have to be escorted in or allowed into that corridor area.
MR. GOLDBERG: With a criminalist?
MR. MATHESON: With a criminalist or with other personnel that happen to have access to it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, there are any windows in any part of this facility?
MR. MATHESON: Not looking to the outside. The only windows that we have are from some laboratories into the hallway.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, let's take a look at the evidence processing room. Up in the upper right-hand corner of the photograph on the left side, what does that depict?
MR. MATHESON: Okay. This picture marked "Sid EPR," EPR stands for evidence processing room is--points to an area in the upper right-hand corner of the map here that is marked "Evidence room." this is the area where--when evidence is collected out in the field, it is brought into this room to be dried and then eventually identified, marked and stored or prepared for storage.
MR. GOLDBERG: And there appears to be a roll-up door in this photograph on the right-hand side. What is that?
MR. MATHESON: That's--on the right-hand side of the photograph here is a door that pulls up, rolls up here, rolls up towards the top, and it is this thinner line to the right of the evidence processing room, 29-b.
MR. GOLDBERG: And the call-out line on that photograph depicts where the photograph is showing?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, that roll-up door, do you have to roll it up by going inside the evidence processing room?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. The only way to roll it up is on the inside of the wall next to the door between the storeroom and the evidence processing room, is a control button that says, I think up, down and stop or something like that. That is the only way that door can be opened.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does the--the door to the evidence processing room itself, I guess it would be the door that is between the storeroom and the evidence processing room, is that also card key controlled?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, who has access to this room?
MR. MATHESON: The--the door that exists between the storeroom and the evidence processing room, all criminalists have access to that room 24 hours a day seven days a week so that they can bring evidence in there. Other personnel, such as our lab technicians that we have in the laboratory and some of our student workers, have access to that room during normal working hours, during the day, Monday through Friday. The support staff, clerical staff, do not have access to that area.
MR. GOLDBERG: So that the support staff do have access to the corridor area, don't they?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, they do.
MR. GOLDBERG: But they can't get into the evidence processing room through their card keys?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: What are the student workers?
MR. MATHESON: Student worker, that is a position that we have, I believe we currently have three of them. They are people that have an interest in forensics, are working toward their degree for eventually becoming a criminalist. The positions we currently have for them is we have one in toxicology, one in our trace unit and one in serology. They assist the criminalists with like preparing some of the chemicals, whatever needs to be done, that can free up the criminalist to do case work.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in terms of the evidence processing room, can someone who has a card, well, with respect to any of the card key entry areas, can someone who has a card bring in someone who doesn't?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And in the case of police officers, are police officers allowed into the evidence processing room?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And if they were allowed in there, would they have to be accompanied by someone?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: So they do not have a card to get into that portion of the facility either?
MR. MATHESON: No. They would not be able to get in there without being escorted by somebody.
MR. GOLDBERG: Other than the one gentleman who is working as a chemist in the toxicology, did you say?
MR. MATHESON: In our narcotics.
MR. GOLDBERG: Narcotics. All right. Let's take a look at the evidence control unit now. This is showing what ECU lobby, the photograph?
MR. MATHESON: The photograph that is marked "ECU lobby," ECU stands for evidence control unit. That is a property storage room that is actually run from within SID. The Los Angeles Police Department has property officers and we have a property division, but SID has our own property room of items that are--will probably be eventually analyzed, so they are very nearby and under our control. The picture that is depicted and marked "ECU lobby" is an area that is just off of the laboratory lobby, marked "Lobby" on the map here. The only way to get to it is from the outside entrance through the criminalistic lobby and into the ECU lobby.
MR. GOLDBERG: So when a police officer is coming to the laboratory to pick up evidence for Court, where does he or she go?
MR. MATHESON: They go into the ECU lobby. They can only--the front door is unlocked so they can come in there. They pass through the criminalistic lobby into the ECU lobby and there is a couple of windows where our property officers can interact with them, find out what evidence they need and then they go back and get them and bring it forward to them.
MR. GOLDBERG: And that is what they would do if they wanted to check out evidence that needed to be brought to Court to be introduced?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, let's take a look at the inside the ECU. Let's see if we have a good photograph of that.
MR. GOLDBERG: There is something that says "ECU freezer." what does that depict?
MR. MATHESON: The picture down here that is marked "ECU freezer," (Indicating), is a shot taken approximately what would be in this--on the map it is marked "Evidence control unit room 36," partway between the lobby and what is marked as "Freezer." looking in the direction toward the freezer, it shows the door. Very large freezer area where we store our biological evidence.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, who can actually come into the evidence control unit?
MR. MATHESON: The access through the door that goes from the ECU lobby into the evidence control unit itself is limited to our property officers that actually work in that facility can come and go through there. The administrative staff of the crime laboratory, in other words, the captain that we have and then the three directors have access to that, plus a couple of our supervisors also have access into it, such as the narcotics supervisor who has to check in and out narcotics a lot for analysis, it simplifies life for everybody for him to be able to get access to that area.
MR. GOLDBERG: What about the criminalists?
MR. MATHESON: The criminalists do not have access through that door until somebody from--this does have access allows them in.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, if a person, a criminalist, has brought back wet stains from a crime scene in the plastic bags and then has dried them, they do that in the evidence processing room that we saw earlier with the roll-up door?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And after those are dried and the paperwork is filled out and they are ready to be booked, what do they do with them?
MR. MATHESON: Well, once all the paperwork is done and they are packaged and all the seals are in place on the packages, they are taken from the evidence processing room to the lobby of the evidence control unit at which point they are turned over to a property officer for storage. If it is a biological, it is stored in the freezer. If it is a liquid blood or urine sample, it could be stored in some refrigeration units we have. Everything else goes on just shelves that are room--room temperature storage.
MR. GOLDBERG: So when the criminalist brings items into the evidence control unit window for the purposes of booking them, they are in a sealed condition at that time?
MR. MATHESON: They are supposed to be, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are there any circumstances in which they can't be sealed?
MR. MATHESON: Well, if the item is so large that it doesn't fit into an envelope or a box, a sample again being a shopping cart, I had to book a shopping cart myself about four or five months ago, obviously that is not going to be sealed into a big box, there is no reason to, so a tag is placed on it and it is stored back in the evidence control unit.
MR. GOLDBERG: But items such as the coin envelopes with the biological evidence in this case, those kind of items or the packages containing the reference vials, those were sealed before being booked?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now--and if the freezer--if they go into the freezer, they are going into the freezer that is depicted here in photograph no. 26?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, what about the reference vials? Where do those go?
MR. MATHESON: The reference blood vials, because you do not want to freeze liquid blood that are in the vials, we just want to refrigerate them, there are units that for the--well, it is a motorized type of unit that holds bins that is refrigerated. The blood vial in its sealed envelope is placed into a bin, placed into this unit and then can be rotated up and out of sight or out of the way if you need to look for another one.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why don't we take a look at the photographs that says "ECU rotomats." it is photograph no. 27.
MR. GOLDBERG: This is part of the evidence control unit that we are looking at now?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is. The picture that is marked "ECU rotomats" is of these units that I was describing that had the bins in them that can be rotated up and down, are located mostly all along the wall that is on the bottom of the map on the chart.
MR. GOLDBERG: Why don't we take a look at the photograph that says "ECU rotomat refrigerator," 29.
MR. GOLDBERG: This is one of the types of refrigerators into which the reference vials are placed?
MR. MATHESON: Yes. It works in exactly the same way as the regular rotomats, but it is refrigerated so we can keep the item cool in there.
MR. GOLDBERG: So then do these bins go all the way up to the ceiling and in a circle kind, of a conveyor belt type mechanism?
MR. MATHESON: That is the best way to explain. There are shelves that can be rotated allowing us to get a large amount of storage in that area and being able to bring down a particular bin that you are interested in and remove your evidence item.
MR. GOLDBERG: When reference items are stored in the rotomat refrigerated, are they stored in alphabetical order, numerical order or in some particular kind of order?
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: So how does anyone ever find a reference vial?
MR. MATHESON: There is an evidence tracking system that we use in ECU and in the laboratory that allows us to use bar codes and when a, for example, a reference blood sample inside of its sealed envelope when it is first booked in by a criminalist or whoever it is, is given a bar code. That package then is taken back to one of--and I think we have three that are refrigerated--placed into an open bin. The package is scanned, bar code is scanned, the location is scanned, they just put it wherever there is space for it, and that information is loaded into the computer so if you wanted at a later time to find that blood sample, you would have to access the computer, enter into the DR number and find out what the item number is and tell us where which bin is located and in which unit.
MR. GOLDBERG: So if you tried to look for it manually, how difficult would that be?
MR. MATHESON: It is horrendous because we have probably at least a couple thousand blood samples stored in there. You would have to go through every one of them and manually look at each one of them.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the items that just have--require shelf storage that don't require being placed in either a refrigerator or the freezer, where do those go?
MR. MATHESON: Well, looking again at the diagram, we have shelf storage units that start down in the evidence control unit with where the word "Room" is and run down the middle of this corridor passed where it says "Evidence control," there is bins that are along the walls next to the freezer, along the walls next to what is marked "Flammable storage," and then there is also--those are for the larger box items. There is also shelf storage in--in the rotomats.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does all of the evidence that LAPD has in its possession, is all of it placed into this room, the evidence control unit?
MR. MATHESON: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: What evidence is?
MR. MATHESON: We want to only have evidence in the ECU that may some day be analyzed by the crime laboratory. The department receives very large quantities of evidence everyday and most of it we will never see within SID, within the laboratory, so we limit it to those things that will eventually be analyzed.
MR. GOLDBERG: And are there security procedures that are set up--well, let me ask you this first: In the evidence control unit is there any evidence that is inherently valuable that is kept?
MR. MATHESON: Well, we have narcotics in there.
MR. GOLDBERG: And do you have anything else?
MR. MATHESON: (No audible response.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Of inherent value?
MR. MATHESON: We have long guns, handguns. I believe there is some money. I don't know where that is stored, but there are things that have value in and of themselves.
MR. GOLDBERG: So are the security procedures that are in place designed to deal with the inherently valuable evidence such as the narcotics and the firearms?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And to your knowledge has this facility ever had any problems with that kind of evidence being misplaced or stolen?
MR. MATHESON: No, not to my knowledge.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, let's go to the serology lab and take a look at that, a photograph that says "Inside serology."
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Matheson, what does this photograph depict?
MR. MATHESON: This is a photograph that is taken inside the serology unit depicted on the map here says "Serology 25." the 25 is the room number. That particular photograph would have been taken probably about where the "Z" is in the zone 6 to 7 looking towards the right.
MR. GOLDBERG: And towards the end of it is what appears to be a metal door that is somewhat obscured towards the end of the room. It appears to be left of the clock?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What is that?
MR. MATHESON: That is a door that goes into a combination refrigerator and freezer within the serology unit. It is located--they are both located down on the right side here of the unit itself, (Indicating). You would enter through that metal door into the refrigerator and then walk through another door into a freezer.
MR. GOLDBERG: What is the purpose of the freezer in that room?
MR. MATHESON: Well, serology deals exclusively with body fluids and they are biologicals, as mentioned earlier, that needs to be stored in such a condition so that they won't degrade, and the best way to do is to keep it frozen. So while the case is in progress, it may be quite a while from beginning to end that that evidence is within the laboratory, and we want to have freezer storage immediately accessible to the criminalists that work in that unit.
MR. GOLDBERG: How does the evidence get from the evidence control unit into serology so that a criminalist can start working on it?
MR. MATHESON: Well, at some point a request is made by a detective to do an analysis. They take the--the criminalist receives the request, takes it over to the evidence control unit and in the lobby hands this request to one of our property officers, and the property officer looks in the computer to find out where the locations are for the evidence, retrieves it from the freezer, the refrigerator rotomats or wherever else it happens to be located. It is then released to the criminalist who has, like I mentioned, these bar codes. The evidence packages are bar coded or scanned. The Criminalist's bar code is scanned. Then they carry it back to the unit where they work, use serology as an example, back in the serology unit. Then the criminalist is supposed to scan again, now that it is in the serology unit, scan the packages, scan their i.d. So that the evidence tracking computer knows where it is at at that moment.
MR. GOLDBERG: And while you were working on the evidence in this case, where was it stored?
MR. MATHESON: It was all stored--all the biological items that I worked on was stored in the serology freezer.
MR. GOLDBERG: In the serology--the freezer in the serology lab?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to getting into the serology lab, what is required there in terms of access?
MR. MATHESON: Well, the door into the serology lab, which is located in the top part of the room here that is marked "Serology 25," (Indicating) is a card access door just like I described before. Anybody wanting to go through that door has to display their card--their access card to the area where the antenna is in the wall, and if they have access to that room that time of day, that day of the week, you will hear the door unlock and you can walk through it.
MR. GOLDBERG: And who has access to serology?
MR. MATHESON: All the criminalists do during normal working hours. Any one of them can get into that area. The student worker that works for serology and trace can get into that area during normal working hours. And we have a photographer and some latent print experts that work in our laboratory, they also have access to it during normal working hours. Off watch and on weekend the serology criminalists are the ones who have access to it; the other criminalists do not, along with management.
MR. GOLDBERG: So if someone wants to work on evidence on the weekend, who can get into serology to work on evidence?
MR. MATHESON: The criminalists that work that unit.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what about access by police officers to serology? How does that work?
MR. MATHESON: For a police officer to get into that unit they would have to be escorted by somebody that has access to it.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, let's take a look at the instrument lab just quickly.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: What is this part of the laboratory?
MR. MATHESON: This photograph depicts an area of the instrument laboratory, which is room no. 21 located actually on this diagram below serology. The photograph is being taken about where this blue diagram here, (Indicating), is looking toward the right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, did you do any of your work in this case in the instrument lab?
MR. MATHESON: No, I did not.
MR. GOLDBERG: And let's take a quick look at the SID Parker Center amplification room. We discussed that briefly.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you do any of your work in the SID Parker Center amplification room?
MR. MATHESON: No, I did not.
MR. GOLDBERG: And let's take a quick look at the Parker Center preparation room. And did you do any of your work in this room?
MR. MATHESON: No, I did not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. All right.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Matheson, in 1994 approximately how many cases did the serology laboratory process?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: I would have to refer to some notes I made of those statistics.
THE COURT: Is this that same sheet you were referring to earlier or different?
MR. MATHESON: I will have to look.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier, do you want to see that.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Can I be provided with a copy of this, please?
THE COURT: Sure. Do you need it now, Mr. Blasier, or at the conclusion of the Court day?
MR. BLASIER: At the end of the Court day.
THE COURT: Just remind me to do that.
MR. MATHESON: That particular sheet doesn't have the data as far as that goes.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Matheson, why don't you mark that with a post-it.
MR. MATHESON: Sure.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. MATHESON: Well, at the moment I can't locate the page that I had that information on.
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe you can just give us an approximation.
MR. BLASIER: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: I would say conservatively we did between four and 500 cases.
MR. GOLDBERG: And how does that break down just roughly in terms of the type of cases? Are they rape cases or homicide cases?
MR. MATHESON: They are split pretty closely 50-50. We do a lot of both.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what percentage of the homicide cases in Los Angeles--well, how many homicide cases in Los Angeles did the crime laboratory criminalists respond to for purposes of crime scene identification?
THE COURT: For what time?
MR. GOLDBERG: In `94.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you have that statistic?
MR. MATHESON: I believe we did in the low two hundreds was the total number of cases that we responded to.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what percentage of the total number of homicides do you respond to?
MR. MATHESON: Oh, it would be approximately in the area of ten to twenty percent.
MR. GOLDBERG: And who was doing the crime scene investigation on the other eighty to ninety percent?
MR. MATHESON: The detective.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, did you remove some stains or collect some stains from a console that was in the serology laboratory for this case?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And perhaps we could see People's 172 for identification.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Ask you to step down for a second, Mr. Matheson.
THE COURT: All right. People's 172 which is a board that was previously described as the Bronco evidence. Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, directing your attention to the photograph that has the call-out lines 303, 304 and 305 on it, do you recognize what is depicted there?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what is that?
MR. MATHESON: That is a--what has been described as a console that was removed from the Bronco.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you remove some stains from that?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: Which stain numbers?
MR. MATHESON: 303, 304 and 305.
MR. GOLDBERG: Does the call-out line depict the approximate location that those stains would be oriented on the console?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you saw the console, where was it?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, vague as to time.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: It was in the serology laboratory at the crime lab.
MR. GOLDBERG: What date was this?
MR. MATHESON: On--
MR. GOLDBERG: When you removed the stains?
MR. MATHESON: On September 1st, 1994.
MR. GOLDBERG: Was anyone else present?
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm sorry. We object to this line of questioning based on chain of custody, arguments we've already made.
THE COURT: All right. Noted. Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Was anyone else present?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Who was that?
MR. MATHESON: I believe that a--I know that a Mr. Ragle was present and Mark Taylor and there were a number of other people, including members of the Defense team that were present. I don't have the list in front of me right now.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when you removed those items from the console, 303, 304 and 305, how did you do it? Using what technique?
MR. MATHESON: The same technique that was demonstrated by ms. Mazzola in the videotape and on the board, dampening a small cotton swatch with distilled water, applying it to the stain, allowing it to absorb onto the swatch and then placing it in a plastic bag for, you know, later drying and following that with a control.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, on this particular item, the console, did you see anything--any marks or indication that it had been swatched previously?
MR. MATHESON: There were two of the three years that I had--that I collected items off of that appeared to have already been sampled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Which areas were those?
MR. MATHESON: That would be the ones that are marked 303 and 304.
MR. GOLDBERG: And do those correspond to any photographs that we have on this diagram, the Bronco?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.
MR. GOLDBERG: Which ones?
MR. MATHESON: That would--they--the area that I collected evidence as 303 is roughly the same area as marked in the upper right-hand photograph as item 30, and the area where I collected 304 is in the same area as what was marked as 31.
MR. GOLDBERG: What evidence did you see that indicated previously that they had previously been swatched?
MR. MATHESON: Well, you could see where a portion of the blood appeared to have been removed.
MR. GOLDBERG: In terms of what?
MR. MATHESON: (No audible response.)
MR. GOLDBERG: I mean, was there no blood there or was it spread around? What did it look like?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Overruled. What did it look like?
MR. MATHESON: Just looked like a portion had been removed. There was a lighter area that is consistent with how I have seen stains after I have removed blood from them.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, when you remove a stain from an object like this, is it totally gone as if it had been cleaned or is there something still left afterwards?
MR. MATHESON: Normally there is a little bit still left.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So there was a portion that you said was lighter, as if parts of that stain had been removed?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And did you remove portions of the stains in the areas that were in the vicinity of 31 and 30?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: What did you do with those items after you removed them?
MR. MATHESON: Eventually they were opened up, allowed to air dry, packaged in bindles and coin envelopes and booked into our evidence control unit.
MR. GOLDBERG: Were they booked in a sealed condition?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: I wanted to show you People's 200 for identification.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, when criminalists go out to a crime scene, you said that they make a vehicle search--excuse me--a crime scene identification checklist?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when they go out to a vehicle search, there is a form that is used for that?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does the form indicate the date and time that they see certain items?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is supposed to.
MR. GOLDBERG: And have you seen a--let me show you People's 200 for identification.
MR. MATHESON: Okay.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is that a vehicle identification search pertaining to the Bronco?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does it indicate that the--what date the console was removed from the Bronco?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.
MR. GOLDBERG: What was that?
MR. MATHESON: August 26, 1994.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, after it was removed from the Bronco and brought to SID, do you know where it was stored?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: Where was it stored?
MR. MATHESON: In the serology unit. We have had a large layout table that is in the middle of the room and most of the items were sitting on that table.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you. You can resume the witness stand.
MR. MATHESON: (Witness complies.)
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Actually, you don't have to move--well, we will probably be using that again in about five minutes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, directing your attention to the date of October the 30th of 1994, did you take some cuttings from an item of evidence, no. 81?
MR. MATHESON: Okay. I'm referring to a serology case summary sheet blood analysis that indicates that, yes, on October 30, `94, I did remove some cuttings.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, may I--
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier, do you have that?
MR. BLASIER: I'm not sure what he is referring to.
THE COURT: Why don't you show that to him.
MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe you can just give us the "L" number if it is on there.
MR. MATHESON: "L" number 408.
THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, do you have that?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I wanted to mark as next in order "L" number 409 as People's 209--I'm sorry, 208.
(Peo's 208 for id = document)
THE COURT: This is a single page, Mr. Goldberg?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, it is, your Honor.
MR. GOLDBERG: And sir, did the shirt bear the DR number, the packaging the shirt was contained in, bear the DR number in this case?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it did.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can you tell us what the DR number is?
MR. MATHESON: 94-0817431.
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm going to put 409 up on the elmo in a second. You may want to look at it on your notes.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Showing you the page that is entitled "Serology item description notes," People's 408--208 in this case, do you recognize that?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: What is it?
MR. MATHESON: It is a page that is called "Serology item description notes." it is where I made notes and a sketch indicating the areas where I sampled item no. 81, a shirt.
MR. GOLDBERG: And on these--how are these serology item description notes used in the ordinary course of the crime lab's business?
MR. MATHESON: Normally they are used in conjunction with what's called a summary sheet. The summary sheet does that, it just summarizes the information that is found for a particular item. Attached to that would be a serology item description notes which allows a more complete description of the item that you are working with.
MR. GOLDBERG: And in this particular case what does your sketch indicate?
MR. MATHESON: Well, it shows a very rough rendition of a shirt with the letters a through h indicating areas where I made small cuttings of sample removal and a circled area marked "Control" where I removed a control sample.
MR. GOLDBERG: After you removed those items, cut those items, what did you do with them?
MR. MATHESON: I placed them into individual bindles and then into a small manila coin envelope placing them in the serology freezer.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, were those sealed?
MR. MATHESON: No, I don't believe so.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, did you also review the documents in this case, including the serology item description notes, to determine when various items were mailed out and transmitted to outside laboratories?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. I would like to direct your attention to the series of charts that we have labeled as People's 177 for identification.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Matheson, showing you People's 177, the board that contains items 6 through 24, do you recognize that?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you have the opportunity to review this exhibit prior to your testimony today?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you have the opportunity to check it against various items of--various reports that are maintained in the ordinary course of the crime lab's business?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, you already mentioned the serology item description notes. Did you review serology item description notes in conjunction--let me ask you this: What document did you look at specifically in checking these boards?
MR. MATHESON: I looked at a large--large quantity of documents, both what we have described as serology item description notes, also some cover letters, transmittal letters, and analyzed evidence reports indicating where things had gone and when, documents of that type that are all prepared during the course of these samples being prepared and submitted to outside agencies.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, generally speaking, when you are going to send the sample to an outside agency, can you describe what kind of documentation you go through in doing that?
MR. MATHESON: Well, when we need to send an evidence item out to another agency or a company to do work that we don't do ourselves, what is first done is a request to evaluate. We do it in the area of DNA analysis, request to evaluate DNA evaluation on that item, and that is a form in and of itself that gives the item numbers, describes the condition of the item, whether or not the person that is doing the evaluation thinks that there is sufficient evidence to send out or not. Ultimately then where it goes, which laboratory, the date that it went, how much is remaining of that item within our laboratory. There is also associated with that these item description notes, like I previously described, to give a more definitive explanation of what the evidence actually looked like, rather than just of a brief red stain or something along that line. Also prepared along with that is what is called an analyzed evidence report that just is that these items were sent to such and such a laboratory on a certain date which is then part of our permanent file, just like an analyzed evidence report as if we had done the work, letting the detective and the D.A.'s know, or whoever, that something had gone out for analysis on this date for this laboratory. And there is also then a cover letter that is prepared to the laboratory that is being sent to which describes the items that are being sent to them, giving them a very limited information about what the case is involved and who to contact in case they have any questions.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you also use something called a serology case summary sheet for this?
MR. MATHESON: The serology case summary sheets tend to be more toward analysis of the items; however, occasionally we will grab a form just to have something to write on as far as that has lines.
MR. GOLDBERG: And are all these standard forms that are used in the crime lab's business?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And will the analyst then use these documents, such as the serology item description notes--
MR. BLASIER: I'm going to object, lack of foundation or vague as to "Crime lab business."
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: Are all of these documents ones that are used in the ordinary course of shipping items out when the crime lab does that?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, they are.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to the usage, for example, of the serology item description notes, if the analyst is preparing the items to go out and packaging them, does--when does he fill out that document in relationship to the preparation and packaging of the items?
MR. MATHESON: That is the document that is prepared while the evidence is actually sitting in front of him.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, does this exhibit, People's 177, essentially compile or does it compile information from all of these various documents and just summarize them in one place?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.
MR. GOLDBERG: And how voluminous were the documents that are represented here that are compiled in 177?
MR. MATHESON: Well, this, along with a couple other charts, filled about a two-inch binder.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now, directing your attention to item no. 6, just to start with an example, we don't have to go through each and every one of these, when you were verifying the information in item no. 6, what did you look at?
MR. MATHESON: The piece of information there of interest for myself was regarding the trip to DOJ--well, starting at the beginning, as far as the property report goes, these items were in fact collected on June 13th and that was confirmed by a property report.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So the information in the left-hand column generally comes from a property report?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, because that is the document we use when things are collected.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you take a look at the photograph in cell no. 6 under "Collected LAPD" to see whether you recognized the writing and the DR number?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And to verify that that was one of the items in this case?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, what does "Cellmark" mean?
MR. MATHESON: Cellmark is the name of a company located on the east coast that we use for our RFLP type DNA analysis.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is that someone that you have used in a number of past cases?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what does "DOJ" mean?
MR. MATHESON: DOJ stands for Department of Justice. In this particular case it is the California Department of Justice Bureau of Forensic Sciences Lab in Berkeley, California.
MR. GOLDBERG: So that is part of the State of California?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you verify that according to the records an envelope containing swatches from no. 6 was sent on the 12th of August?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you also look at the photograph?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: What did you look at the photograph for?
MR. MATHESON: I wanted to confirm that one of those eight coin envelopes that are depicted there was in fact the coin envelope that was used to transport item no. 6.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did it have the item number and the DR number?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is that typically how you would do it if you were sending less than the entire number of swatches? Would you put it in a different coin envelope to send it out?
MR. MATHESON: Normally in the process when the samples are being prepared to be sent to an outside laboratory, if we don't send all of the evidence, a portion or a cutting of it is taken from the original bindle and envelope and a new bindle and envelope is prepared which is then sent back to cellmark.
MR. GOLDBERG: And that would be sent in a sealed condition?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, there is a little icon under 12--8/12/94 and the legend says "Swatch" with an "Es swatches." what does that icon represent?
MR. MATHESON: That is to indicate in the case of item no. 6 all that was sent was one of the stained swatches, no control.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you verify the correctness of this icon?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: So in this particular case swatches containing presumably blood were sent but a control was not sent?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And FBI, what is that?
MR. MATHESON: "FBI" stands for the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, in terms of this verification procedure that you testified to, did you look at the other items on this board and go through the same verification procedure of checking the documents and also the packages?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And was the information on this board correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to item no. 17, it says--it is what appears to be a reference vial. Can you take a closer look at that for a second.
MR. MATHESON: (Witness complies.) that's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Was that the reference vial that you did some testing on?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you check the records to determine whether according to the records another item of evidence, entitled "O.J. Simpson blood exemplar" was created from that?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. BLASIER: Objection, hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: No foundation.
THE COURT: The jury is to disregard.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you check a record to verify what says "O.J. Simpson blood exemplar"?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: What did you look at?
MR. MATHESON: Some notes that was prepared by Mr. Yamauchi during the course of sampling the exemplars. It is our habit to try and get portions of a liquid blood when we receive it onto what are called swatch cards so it can then dry out and be frozen rather than just stored refrigerated in the blood vial.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does the analyst generate one of these records that you have described contemporaneously with doing that?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you check that record to verify this entry?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, the little card that is represented there, the white thing, what is that?
MR. MATHESON: Well, that is the exterior of one--they are commercial swatching cards that we have. If you open that up, there is four black circles, approximately an inch in diameter. Portions of the blood or pipette are delivered to each of those four spots and allowed to dry.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to item no. 13, for example, did you take a look at the picture of the exterior packaging to see whether the item number and the DR number was represented?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And did you also check the records to see that that was sent out on September 26, `94?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: So with respect to item 23, for example, that would have been sent out on September the 14th of `94?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: But with respect to that item, did you verify that both swatches and a control was sent?
MR. MATHESON: Per the records, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Thank you. Let's see the next one.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I have an objection to another board. Could we briefly approach while they are finding it?
THE COURT: Yes, with the Court reporter, please
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
MR. BLASIER: Mr. Simpson wants to see these. As they are going through them he wants some way of seeing them. Can you put them on his monitor? I know you are watching it on Court T.V. I think. I think he has a right to--
THE COURT: Well, I will tell you what. Let's do this. Let's put them where we normally put them against the wall there for the jury to see.
MR. COCHRAN: We can stay in our seats, too. Unless he can walk over with me and stay awake.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, Mr. Cochran has complained about the highly exciting and stimulating nature of this portion of the direct examination, but if counsel wishes to stipulate, I will be more than happy to do that.
THE COURT: No. Let's put the easel over--
(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)
THE COURT: Mr. Fairtlough, do you want to join us, please.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. We need to angle the easel so that Mr. Simpson can see the exhibit. He would like to see these things. So can you put it back in the standard position and let's see how much we can get out of that.
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: What I can do is raise it up so that if I position it I can raise the easel up but he might miss the bottom portion from where he is sitting, but he should be able to catch most of it from the top.
THE COURT: Let's try that.
(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Juror no. 1, is that too extreme for you to see? Well, we are sort of defeating our purpose here. Let's put it back at a straight ninety degree and then we will proceed at that point. We may have to move some of those exhibits from out back there so we can get a little more depth here. All right. Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: I only have about two minutes of questions on this one.
MR. GOLDBERG: I now direct your attention to the board that has 25 through 44 on it. Did you go through this same verification procedure on this board that you had previously discussed?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And was the information contained on that board true and correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it was.
MR. GOLDBERG: I see Mr. Fairtlough has disappeared.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, are you ready to proceed to the next chart?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Fairtlough, rather than move all those right now, we will do that later. Let's move on to the next chart.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, this is the one that has items 45 through 57. Mr. Matheson, on this particular chart did you notice something in reviewing it that you wanted changed?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, could we have the exhibit number?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, these are all 177.
THE COURT: 177, this is items--we have it marked by items, item numbers.
MR. GOLDBERG: We may have put a letter. It may be c.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: But it has 45 through 57.
THE COURT: Noted. Thank you. Proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: Which was that?
MR. MATHESON: That was in the case of item no. 51 under "DOJ 9/26/94," the icons for swatch and control had been omitted.
MR. GOLDBERG: We have some icons here. Maybe with the Court's permission we could just put them on.
MR. GOLDBERG: That is as to 9/26/94?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
THE COURT: Which item was this?
MR. MATHESON: Item no. 51.
THE COURT: 51. All right.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: So a stain and control icon?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: While he is doing that maybe I--well, I will just wait.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Other than that, Mr. Matheson, did this board correctly state the information that was contained in the business record that you have previously described?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it did.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Thanks. Let's go on to d.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: And Mr. Goldberg, these are which items?
MR. GOLDBERG: 177, I believe this should be d, and this is item 59 through 82.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to item no. 59, Mr. Matheson, did you also take a look at some documents, as you previously testified when we were asking you about item 17, in order to verify the creation of the Fitzco card under "Nicole Brown blood exemplar," if you understood that question?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Did you do that?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when did it indicate that the swatches were made from item no. 59?
MR. MATHESON: On June.
MR. BLASIER: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: What documents did you look at?
MR. MATHESON: It was the same document mentioned before, prepared by Mr. Yamauchi, describing the swatching of the items.
MR. GOLDBERG: That is prepared in the same way that you previously testified when I was asking you about 17?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when did that document indicate that the swatches were prepared from 59?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, improper foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, this is done in the ordinary course of business?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is the document that you looked at prepared contemporaneously with the swatching?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. This is a standard form that is used in the lab?
MR. MATHESON: Well, we don't have a standard form to just--just to describe the production of these swatches. He used one of the ones I mentioned earlier as a note page.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. But are those items that you use, the analysts use to describe what they are doing and when they are creating a particular piece of evidence?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And when did that indicate that the Nicole Simpson blood exemplar was created?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: May we approach?
THE COURT: No. Proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Counsel hasn't specified what element he is saying is missing.
THE COURT: He doesn't have to. It is missing. Proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. You looked at a document; is that correct?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And that document was prepared by who?
MR. MATHESON: Mr. Yamauchi.
MR. GOLDBERG: And this is a document that is prepared at or near the time that the swatch is created?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And this is a document that is used by serologists when they are preparing swatches?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you check that document against the item that is referenced as the Nicole Simpson blood exemplar?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did it reflect--does this accurately reflect the information on that document?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, no foundation, calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. And when did it indicate that that swatch was created.
MR. BLASIER: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained. We are missing item d, counsel.
MR. GOLDBERG: What?
THE COURT: We are missing item d.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, is this done in a manner that is trustworthy?
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
THE COURT: Sustained. Calls for a conclusion. He has to describe the manner in which it is repaired.
MR. GOLDBERG: He just did that.
THE COURT: That indicates its trustworthiness.
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Matheson, when does the analyst actually write down the information?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: As they are performing the work they are preparing note pages describing the actions that were taken.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what do they describe?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: That swatches were prepared of particular items on a particular date.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what did that--when did that item--when was that item prepared, according to this document?
MR. BLASIER: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled at this point.
MR. MATHESON: June 15, 1994.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Now did you go through the same process with respect to the Ronald Goldman blood exemplar?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is the information contained there accurate?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you want to go through this all over again?
THE COURT: There is an objection, counsel. It is your burden. Proceed.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
THE COURT: What document.
MR. GOLDBERG: What type of document did you look at in order to verify the information under "Ronald Goldman blood exemplar"?
MR. MATHESON: I believe it was an item description note.
MR. GOLDBERG: Was that the same type that you just testified to when you were talking about 59?
MR. MATHESON: I believe it was the exact same document.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And what did that document indicate in terms of when the swatch entitled "Ronald Goldman blood exemplar" was created?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: That it was prepared on June 15, 1994.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did it come--did the swatch come from the vial no. 60?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: According to the document?
MR. BLASIER: Objection based on hearsay and no foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MR. MATHESON: According to the document the swatch was made from the whole blood vial.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is that the same answer that you give with respect to the Nicole Simpson blood exemplar?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Does this board accurately indicate when items from the swatches were mailed out and to whom?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to item no. 81, did you look at the photograph in the cell under "Collected LAPD" to determine whether you could recognize the packaging?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And is that the shirt from which you took certain cuttings that you testified to earlier this afternoon?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, that's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Where are those indicated on this board?
MR. MATHESON: The cuttings that I made are indicated in the next cell down opposite 81-a through h cuttings.
MR. GOLDBERG: And where says "October 30, `94, Greg Matheson"?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: So that is when you took cuttings from item 81?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does the cell under "DOJ" that says "1/13/95" indicate when that was mailed out?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, with respect to item no. 82, what is that?
MR. MATHESON: When samples are collected from the Coroner's office they prepare both a liquid sample and a swatch of blood. That is the outside packaging or the envelope that contains the swatch that was prepared at the Coroner's office marked as Nicole Brown's reference.
MR. GOLDBERG: So that is not done, that particular swatch is not done by SID, it is done by the Coroner's people?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And does the cell under "DOJ" under "9/7/94" indicate when that was sent out?
MR. MATHESON: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you. Let's take a look at the next board. This is the final.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Matheson on this board did you also find something that you wanted to change?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: What was that?
MR. MATHESON: That on this cell next to where it says "293, fibers and control," it has a date of "8/26/94" and then "Matheson" as to when that was collected and the actual date on that was 9/1/94.
MR. GOLDBERG: Was this an item that also came from this object in the Bronco that was collected from the Bronco?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct. The item was not in the Bronco when I did my collection.
MR. GOLDBERG: What was it that you took it from?
MR. MATHESON: I believe that was a section of the floorboard or floor carpeting.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. That had been collected by someone else?
MR. MATHESON: The carpeting had, that's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: Right. And what did you do? What technique did you use to collect 293?
MR. MATHESON: Just cut portions of the fibers away from the carpeting and placing them in a bindle, closing the bindle up and then making a control cutting and placing that in another bindle and putting it in a coin envelope.
MR. GOLDBERG: So this was not the cloth swatch technique?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And the control was a cloth swatch or just another piece of carpet?
MR. MATHESON: It would be more cuttings of fibers.
MR. GOLDBERG: So where did you cut from in order to get the control?
MR. MATHESON: Nearer to the stain but in an area that did not appear to be stained.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right. Now, with respect to item no. 84 and 85, let's start from 80--with 84. Do you recognize what is depicted in that item?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what is that?
MR. MATHESON: Item no. 84 is a L.A. County Coroner's envelope used to store collected fingernail scrapings or fingernail clippings and/or scrapings.
MR. GOLDBERG: Did you do some testing on 84?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: So this was something that was not collected by SID people?
MR. MATHESON: That's correct.
MR. GOLDBERG: And with respect to the other items on this chart--and this chart contains 84 through 305 for the record--did you verify the correctness of the information contained on this chart?
MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: And perhaps with the Court's permission later on we could change the 8/26 date to 9/1?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Next I would like to mark another exhibit that is entitled "Additional LAPD evidence disposition" board as 209.
(Peo's 209 for id = posterboard)
MR. BLASIER: Okay. May we approach?
THE COURT: Yes, please. Tell you what, ladies and gentlemen, I need to--why don't you turn that around, Mr. Fairtlough. All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to need to talk to counsel about this next exhibit. Probably take us more than five minutes, so I'm going to call it quits as far as you are concerned for the day. I have a few other matters I need to talk to the lawyers about. Please remember all of my admonitions. Do not discuss the case among yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. And we will see you tomorrow morning at nine o'clock. All right. As far as the jury is concerned, we will stand in recess. And Mr. Matheson, you may step down. You are ordered to return 8:45 tomorrow morning.
MR. MATHESON: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. I will see counsel as soon as the jury has cleared.
(At 4:25 P.M. the jury was excused and the following proceedings were held in open Court:)
THE COURT: The record should reflect that the jurors have withdrawn from the courtroom. Mr. Fairtlough, can you swing the easel around there so that we can all see the next board.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: And Mr. Goldberg, how many of these do we have?
MR. GOLDBERG: One.
THE COURT: This is it?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah. These are only--these are what I called the round trip items.
THE COURT: The round trip?
MR. GOLDBERG: Items that came back and then went out again, so they had to be put on a separate board.
THE COURT: All right. Are there any other items similar to this that we need to talk about?
MR. GOLDBERG: You mean boards? No.
MR. BLASIER: There is one other board.
MR. GOLDBERG: I didn't know counsel had any objection to this because I think we have had it down here for awhile, and I thought we had an agreement that we were supposed to know so we could make modifications.
THE COURT: This raises that issue.
MR. GOLDBERG: I understand what the issue is, but we sometimes come on with patches if we think there is a problem.
THE COURT: The point of my question to you, Mr. Goldberg, are there any other exhibits that you have not previously shown to the Court and Defense counsel that you intend on using tomorrow?
MR. GOLDBERG: I don't think so, because I think I have shown all of them. Let me just check.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: They have everything. I'm going to also use the analyzed evidence report that is l-371 that was used in Mr. Cochran's opening statement. That is on laser and it has certain pull-outs on it, very similar to what he used in his opening statement.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier, you are familiar with that document?
MR. BLASIER: I don't know that I have seen that. Has it been used before?
MR. GOLDBERG: No, except in the opening statement.
MR. BLASIER: I would just like a chance to look at that tomorrow morning.
MR. GOLDBERG: Then I also have--
THE COURT: Mr. Fairtlough, do you have the ability to pull that up right now?
MR. GOLDBERG: I also have an electrophoresis work sheet that they have, except it is on laser, and it also has a pull-out on it.
THE COURT: All right. Let's see them both.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: If you recall from my revised counsel conduct order, this is what we are going to do everyday at 4:30, look at new exhibits for the next day.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, it is my understanding that that order doesn't apply to impeachment materials.
THE COURT: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
THE COURT: Any affirmative stuff that you intend on presenting, I want to see it at 4:30 the day before so we don't have to stop and start; affirmative evidence as opposed to impeachment evidence.
MR. BLASIER: Well--
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: I need to clarify that in a moment.
THE COURT: Well, let's start with what the Prosecution has.
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: There are three sections to it. This is section a.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: This is section b.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: This is section c.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Blasier, you now recollect having seen these reports?
MR. BLASIER: Oh, yes. I had no objection to this.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. BLASIER: I hadn't seen it in the laser form.
THE COURT: All right. Next item.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: The next item is the EAP type B.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Apparently that is not on laser.
MR. BLASIER: I have no objection to this.
THE COURT: All right. What is that, for the record?
MR. GOLDBERG: That is electrophoresis work sheet and it has a "B" and a question mark under item 84-a and 84-b.
THE COURT: All right. Is there a "L" number on that?
MR. GOLDBERG: It is l-383. I have shown all of these exhibits this morning, so there is nothing new.
THE COURT: All right. And Mr. Blasier, there are no objections to those other items?
MR. BLASIER: No.
THE COURT: All right. Let's talk about additional LAPD evidence disposition summary chart, People's 209. I take it, Mr. Blasier, your objection is to column 2?
MR. BLASIER: Correct.
THE COURT: What case law are you aware of that precludes the Prosecution from, in their presentation regarding the integrity of the evidence, to not put this on? What precludes them from doing that?
MR. BLASIER: Well, I think we briefed this before in the motion on the stipulation. I don't have that at hand, but the--
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: I am just asking do you have any other additional--
MR. BLASIER: Nothing additional, no.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. BLASIER: I'm assuming what it is being offered for is just to establish where the items were during a certain period of time.
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
MR. BLASIER: And you don't need to go into what happened to the items, speculate about what might have happened to the items and who had them. We are willing to stipulate to that. We are not challenging it. I know we can't make them stipulate to it. And we are not challenging it and it seems inappropriate that they should be able to go far beyond what limited probative value this information has.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, if the chain of custody were stipulated to, which would be the normal way things are done--
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Goldberg, you know there is nothing normal here.
MR. GOLDBERG: I know that, but even if it was partially stipulated to--
MR. BLASIER: We will stipulate to it.
THE COURT: Hold on.
MR. GOLDBERG: If they are going to stipulate that the only portion of the chain of custody that they are contesting is between the scene and the evidence processing room, which they have already contested through Mr. Fung, and then that is it, then a lot of this becomes irrelevant, but that is apparently not what they are doing. They are I think contesting almost every portion of the scene, even after the things were in the laboratory. Between the time that things were at the laboratory and mailed out they wouldn't even stipulate to laying the foundation on these boards.
THE COURT: All right. My inclination, though, is to say that the Prosecution is entitled to show that for a period of time these items, as designated here, were in the possession of representatives of the Defense, and that is the end of it.
MR. GOLDBERG: We are hot going to say--
THE COURT: I don't recollect particularly how much was used of any particular swatch.
MR. BLASIER: Well, the problem with that is that opens the whole area up as to what we did with them and we will have to go into the fact that we weren't allowed to do anything to them, that we weren't allowed to perform my testing, that it was just an examination. And it seem to me we are going to get off on a real long trail here that has very little impact on what limited value this information has when we are not contesting it.
THE COURT: So how do you propose to do this?
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: Yes, your Honor. If the information is going to come in that we had these items, then it needs to also come in that we were not allowed to do anything to them other than examine them. We were not allowed to take samples for testing. We were not permitted to do anything other than physically look at them.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, do you have anything else to add that is beyond the points and authorities submitted regarding the proposed stipulation?
MR. GOLDBERG: No, but I did want to clear--clarify one thing for the record. The Court said that you were inclined to allow this along with any evidence as to what happened, and generally speaking, I think that that is actually what I intended to do with every single item, with the possible exception of item no. 6, because item no. 6 went out to Albany, did not have any hair in the bindle, but when it came back it was photographed. And it does, so however it happened and whoever was responsible, that bindle became accidentally contaminated which is kind of interesting because it was still tested and I believe still came out as clean, it doesn't have any biological evidence on it. Obviously no one would intentionally contaminate a piece of evidence, but it is sort of interesting and it would probably be very interesting for these jurors that it did become contaminated, as the Defense has used that word, and still there was absolutely no impact on the evidence that was tested, so I think that it is relevant to bring that out.
MR. BLASIER: Actually I'm sorry, that is not accurate. That hair was there when we got it and we have fully documented that.
THE COURT: All right. Well, we'll see. I'm sure it will come out in front of the jury in some form. All right. I want counsel here, Mr. Goldberg, Mr. Blasier, I want you gentlemen here at 8:30 and we will continue the discussion. As I mentioned to you, I am not comfortable with the state of my research on this particular issue, so I just want to have a little more time.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can I just point out one thing?
THE COURT: I think we are done with the argument.
MR. GOLDBERG: Something else about the chart if I could; not a further argument. But I did want to point out in all of these items the only reason that we are putting these items went to the Defense, even though there were many more, is because they went to the Defense between the time that we received them back and the time that we mailed them out again.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: I also wanted for the record to say that we would like to use some photographs of the socks that have not been previously marked but which counsel has, and I am going to use this EAP phenotype block diagram which they have seen probably about a month ago now, but they may have forgotten that they saw it, so I wanted to put that on the record.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. BLASIER: I don't have any problem with that.
THE COURT: Counsel, what we are going to do is find some other way to store all of these because we need a little more working room. Also counsel have been inviting their witnesses to take the witness stand prior to the Court coming out. It is for the Court to invite witnesses to take the witness stand. All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: I'm sorry, your Honor. Different courts have different practices.
THE COURT: Yeah, yeah.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, one other matter, if I may?
MR. NEUFELD: Just timing.
THE COURT: That is why we are here at 4:30.
MR. NEUFELD: Right. There is--just, you know, at this point in time we still have not had any introduction of the actual results of either the conventional serological or DNA tests.
THE COURT: I suppose that is tomorrow.
MR. NEUFELD: I just wanted to bring to the Court's attention right now, to consider as an additional ground for at this point precluding that kind of testimony tomorrow morning from Mr. Matheson, is that it is not just simply a question of foundation testimony from the nurse, the blood itself hasn't been introduced into evidence. And frankly, I have looked at the California law and I don't know of any cases, for instance, which say that it is okay to have a laboratory technician testify that a certain substance contained cocaine or heroin without first introducing the drugs that have been seized and I know of no case law in California that sustains the introduction of test results without the blood coming into evidence and we would oppose, on an additional ground, the introduction of any results until the blood it is introduced.
THE COURT: All right. Noted. Thank you. All right. See you gentleman tomorrow. Mr. Blasier, one more thing?
MR. BLASIER: One more thing.
THE COURT: You yielded the floor to Mr. Neufeld so I assumed that you were done today.
MR. BLASIER: I don't want to run afoul of the Court's order. I have some slides that I prepared to illustrate points I intended to make with Mr. Matheson on cross-examination. It was my understanding, because that was impeachment material, that I don't need to provide that to them now, but I just to make sure that I'm clear on that.
MR. GOLDBERG: They have a very loose definition of "Impeachment material" and I know we have gone over this over and over again.
MR. BLASIER: Not any new original evidence or anything like that.
THE COURT: No. What I would require you to do, however, is prior to the session that you are going to use it, advise the Court and counsel that you have got it, just in case there are any objections to it, without--without discussing it with the witness that is involved.
MR. BLASIER: That's fine. I will do it after he is done with his direct.
THE COURT: All right.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Also, on many of these items, as the Court knows, we have very voluminous photographs and so on. I don't bring everything, but I bring this cart down everyday. That is only a very small fraction.
THE COURT: Also, you are going to have the notebooks piled up there on the second tier below, but sometimes it obscures views.
MR. GOLDBERG: I tried to do that.
THE COURT: Keep it below the level of the rail.
MR. GOLDBERG: I may have put that notebook there just a few moments ago. I'm not sure.
THE COURT: Okay. But I'm sure some of your minions upstairs, if they hear that we are using those other photos, will rush them down here.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah, but it would be some delay of ten or fifteen minutes or whatever, depending on how crowded the elevators were at that time.
THE COURT: Well, be prepared. All right. Anything else? All right. We will stand in recess, 8:30 tomorrow morning, counsel. Thank you.
(At 4:45 P.M. an adjournment was taken until, Tuesday, May 2, 1995, 8:30 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 Monday, May 1, 1995
Volume 136 Pages 24983 through 25235, inclusive
(Pages 24956 through 24982, 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 also present: Jana Winograde, Esquire Steven M. Perry, Esquire
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I N D E X
Index for volume 136 pages 24983 - 25235
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day date session page vol.
Monday May 1, 1995 A.M. 24688 136 P.M. 25080 136
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Matheson, Gregory 136 24998gb (Resumed) 25101gb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alphabetical Index of witnesses
Witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
Matheson, Gregory 136 24998gb (Resumed) 25101gb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBITS
People's for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
205 - photograph of 25064 136 A sheet of paper on the ground at the crime Scene
206 - posterboard 25155 136 Entitled "Sid - photo tour" Scene
207 - 1-page document (Not marked on the record) entitled "Personal statistics - casework" of Gregory Matheson
208 - 1-page document 25190 136 Entitled "Serology item description notes"
209 - posterboard 25219 136 Entitled "Additional LAPD evidence disposition Summary"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
1126 - analyzed evidence 24985 136 Report dated September 8, 1994, by Gregory Matheson