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 parties are present. Mr. Simpson is present with counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Scheck, Mr. Blasier. The People are represented by Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Darden. The jury is not present. The record should reflect that this morning at eight o'clock the Court met with counsel to go over several items of demonstrative evidence that are being offered at this time by the Defense. The first item was a set of 25 photos dealing with electrophoresis with regards to the contention that a BA will degrade to a B. The Court heard the objections and will number these for the purposes of the record as 1 through 25 for the purposes of this discussion. The Prosecution indicated that it had no objection to item no. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. No objection to 17. No objection to 19, 20, 21. All right. Mr. Goldberg, my understanding is that your objections to 1, 2 and 3 are because in the actual photograph of the electrophoretogram the bands, as far as item no. 42, actually faintly appear and they don't appear in the demonstration electrophoretogram. And I understand that that is your objection, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, any comment?

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I do have the original photographs. I will display the original photograph on the elmo at the same time.

THE COURT: Madam reporter, do you need him to use the microphone?

REPORTER OLSON: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Those objections as to 1, 2 and 3 will be overruled pending Court accepting the assurance that that is what will be done since that has the danger of misleading the jury. As to items 13, 14, 15, 16, the People's objection, as I understand it, Mr. Goldberg, is that the blocks do not line up and there is some problem with that in your mind; is that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: May I just have a moment, your Honor?

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. GOLDBERG: That is 13, 14, 15 and 16?

THE COURT: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: And Mr. Blasier, your indication is that you are going to question the witness and bring out the fact that that is due to the bowing of the plate?

MR. BLASIER: Absolutely, and we agree with their interpretation.

THE COURT: That they would line up?

MR. BLASIER: Except for the bowing.

THE COURT: All right. Subject to that representation then, the objections are overruled. No. 18, Mr. Goldberg, my understanding of your objection is that it is to the narrative, that when a BA degrades bands disappear from the top down, that you object to the narrative portion but not to the actual block diagram itself; is that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: That's correct, your Honor. And it is our position on many of these issues where there is a narrative, if I may be heard further--I don't know whether the Court wanted me to--

THE COURT: Well, why don't we use each individual--as each individual diagram or presentation is different.

MR. GOLDBERG: I'm sorry? I didn't understand what the Court just said.

THE COURT: Why don't we just discuss no. 18 at this point.

MR. GOLDBERG: That is what I was discussing, but as to the narrative, so I don't have to repeat myself when we get to other objections that I am making on the same grounds, the way that we presented our block diagrams and demonstrative exhibits is they don't have any commentary other than a neutral statement of what happened or what is depicted in the photograph. That cannot be argued by either side as being anything other than a neutral statement that does not favor one side or the other. Or in the case of our block diagram, we didn't have any commentary at all and we allowed the witness to simply use it for the purposes of illustrating and explaining his testimony. That is a proper usage of exhibits such as block diagrams that are being used for demonstrative and illustrative purposes, and we don't object to the Defense trying to use those exhibits for the purpose of illustrating what would otherwise be difficult testimony to understand, just as we did. But when they are putting an interpretative slant on it they like, and that is consistent with the arguments that eventually they want to make to the jury, that we strenuously object to. Neither party should be allowed to do that with respect to any diagram or exhibit that we create, and particularly where that narrative slant is inconsistent with the witness' testimony is going to be testifying. Now, if they were to call their own expert to the witness stand, I think we could still object on the first grounds, that they should not be able to have a narrative slant on the exhibit itself. But as to the second ground, at least they would have an expert that was going to lay a proper foundation for that comment, but they don't even have that here because Mr. Matheson does not agree with the commentary that is contained in some of these narrations.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: I can't believe--

THE COURT: Item 18.

MR. BLASIER: Their chart that has so many inconclusives they have argued over and over again are misleading and wrong, the Court ruled that this is a matter weight. This is not argumentative. This is from the scientific literature. The fact that Mr. Matheson may not be aware of it is the very point of the cross-examination. There is no slant at all. This is what the scientific literature says and it is appropriate and I can certainly ask that question.

THE COURT: What is the source of this?

MR. BLASIER: The scientific literature I submitted yesterday, primarily the Sensabaugh article.

THE COURT: All right. As to no. 22, the People's objection is likewise to the narrative; is that correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: As to 23 also the narrative?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: 24 also the narrative?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: And 25 also the narrative?

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

MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah. There were two narratives on that.

THE COURT: Right. Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Again, those are not argumentative statements; they are observations from the block diagrams. They are taken from the scientific literature. I don't think they are going to disagree, for instance, with 22 that that b1 is a degraded BA from that--that is by definition what the chart says. These are not argumentative. They are based on the scientific literature. Mr. Matheson is going to be free to say I don't agree or I disagree or there is other literature that he hasn't told us about and that is part of cross-examination.

MR. GOLDBERG: To respond to this, and I won't repeat the arguments that I already made, but just one additional observation. First of all, it is a selected view and a condensed view and oversimplification of some scientific literature that Mr. Matheson is going to distinguish, but even if it were a direct quote from a scientific literature, in other words, even if he said according to Mr. Wraxall and Emes in their article they said this and then directly quoted, that should not come in in chart form. They could cross-examine the expert on that under evidence code section 721, but for parties to start introducing chunks of articles, even direct quotes that we like and that they like, has never been allowed in our courts of law. And the Court will recall that there was one instance where the Prosecution marked a page out of Barry Fisher's book. I don't think that that page is ever going to be able to go before the jury. It was marked, although a quote from it was read into evidence, because we just don't submit articles and quotations to juries to go back with them into the jury room when they are deliberating on a case. So even if it were a direct quote, which it is not, I would still object to it.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. All right. As to item 18, the objection to the narrative is sustained. As to no. 22, it is overruled. As to 23, the objection to the narrative as argument is sustained.

MR. BLASIER: There is--

THE COURT: Likewise as to 24.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, there were--

THE COURT: And 25.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm sorry. On 24 this was the same narrative--I'm sorry--23 had the same narrative as 22 with the addition. Is it just the addition you want me to take out?

THE COURT: Yes. That is not to say it won't come in at some later point in time. All right. As to the next series of photographs, the Prosecution has no objection to no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. No. 6 the Prosecution objects to the narrative as being inaccurate.

MR. GOLDBERG: And also argumentative.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Well, Mr. Matheson confirmed, and I will go into with him, the first entry into the lab means that is the first place the evidence is taken. Obviously it goes through a door somewhere. I will be happy to go into that with him. The rest of it, it is not inaccurate. He can explain that.

THE COURT: All right. The objection will be sustained as being argumentative.

MR. BLASIER: To the whole thing?

THE COURT: Yes, yes.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry, your Honor.

THE COURT: No. 5, no objection. No. 8, the Prosecution objects on the basis of what, no. 8?

MR. GOLDBERG: That we felt that no. 8 was argument.

THE COURT: All right. That objection will be overruled. No. 9, no objection.

MR. GOLDBERG: No, we did object to 9, 10 and 12 on the ground that they use this phrase "sensitive case lockers" which we felt was not a designation that this witness was going to testify to.

THE COURT: All right. The objection will be overruled. No. 11.

MR. GOLDBERG: We objected to that.

THE COURT: As argumentative?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Again that what is we have been told by the head of the lab, that that area of the lab is for that. That is why we have it in there.

THE COURT: All right. The objection will be sustained as being argument. No. 12, no objection.

MR. GOLDBERG: No. 12 for the record, we lumped with no. 9 and 10 which the Court I think overruled.

THE COURT: All right. And there is no objection to 15, 16, 17, 18?

MR. GOLDBERG: No.

THE COURT: All right. 13 and 14.

MR. GOLDBERG: We objected to those on the grounds that it says "lowest level of security in the lab" which is just flat out wrong and also argumentative.

THE COURT: All right. No. 14.

MR. GOLDBERG: The same objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, as to 13 and 14.

MR. BLASIER: Of the three areas depicted in the chart, that is the lowest level of security in the lab. Mr. Matheson confirmed that. The same thing with 14. The information as far as I know is accurate.

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

MR. GOLDBERG: First of all, it doesn't say lowest of the two areas or three areas.

MR. BLASIER: I will go into that.

MR. GOLDBERG: It says lowest in the lab. It is wrong. It is argument.

THE COURT: The objection as to 13 and 14 as to the narrative is sustained as argument. All right. No. 1, swatches, series of charts

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. GOLDBERG: There are--we basically objected to the three charts--excuse me--four charts all on the same grounds. No. 1, that this witness--it goes beyond the scope of the direct. We did not ask him anything about this.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. GOLDBERG: They are free to call witnesses or recall Mr. Matheson if they can lay a foundation for this kind of testimony. No. 2, it is speculation because there are a variety of different ways of concluding how many--how many swatches could be created. And no. 3, it is argumentative. I mean, it is basically just presenting the argument that the Defense can and will make later on when they have an opportunity to address the jury at the end of this case.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier, the one that concerns me is no. 4, chart 4.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson confirmed that you can make a hundred swatches from a milliliter of blood. You can make a lot more.

THE COURT: All right. The objections as to 1, 2 and 3 are overruled. I will sustain the objection as to no. 4 for the reason that there is no standardized size of swatch. There is no standard as far as I've heard that indicates that there is a standardized amount that is considered to be a successful swatch, et cetera, et cetera, so the objection will be sustained.

MR. BLASIER: If he answers the question that he can make a hundred or more, can I use it?

THE COURT: Him or anybody else.

MR. BLASIER: Him or anybody else.

THE COURT: Him or anybody else, but the state of evidence right now is that there is no foundation for it.

MR. BLASIER: Does that go for all of the other things that were taken out if the witness says what was in the chart?

THE COURT: That is a different story, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I assume--

THE COURT: All right. No. The next matter, the chart regarding the blood vial. The objection at this point is the dispute over how much Mr. Peratis is going to say was collected in the blood vial, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, there are a couple of objections. There were actually four of them. One was that the amounts that were removed by Mr. Yamauchi constituting one milliliter was an approximate and in his motors it says an approximate, so it misstates, if they are trying to get it off business records, what is in the business records. No. 2, the amount that was removed--that says on the chart was removed by Mr. Matheson, .75 milliliters, was in fact removed by Mr. Yamauchi, and again he indicated approximately .75 milliliters, so it misstates. No. 3, it does not at all contain any reference to the testing that Mr. Matheson did on ABO and electrophoresis I think on the 29th of July where he did not record in the records how much he used, but testified to that on direct examination. No. 4, it does not correctly state the testimony of Mr. Peratis who has not even testified yet, but it does not conform to any offer of proof with respect to what he has said. It is argumentative and it also is beyond the scope of the direct, because although some of these issues we went into with Mr. Matheson and they could get into--

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. GOLDBERG: --and they could get into how much he used during his testing and so on.

THE COURT: How much he estimated. Okay.

MR. GOLDBERG: Right, right.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, I'm concerned about the fundamental accuracy.

MR. BLASIER: He can challenge that. This is from their records. These are withdrawals that are in their records. If we have got it wrong, he can point it out. This is our best information. This is the things they wrote down. And we will do the amount taken initially subject to connection. I can make a good faith statement to the Court that there has been under oath testimony that there was eight milliliters taken. They have been allowed to testify to test results with no foundation. I'm offering this to connect up later or as a hypothetical.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: But how do we get around the comment from Mr. Goldberg that these things are actually mislabeled as to who did what?

MR. BLASIER: I don't believe they are. We can go into that and that is a proper thing to go into on cross-examination. We don't believe they are mislabeled.

THE COURT: All right. I will allow the use of the chart after the appropriate questions have been asked to conform with what is there, otherwise I will--I'm sustaining temporarily the objection on the basis of factual accuracy. If you can link it up, if you can establish from Mr. Matheson's testimony the things that you have indicated, then I will allow its use, but you will need to lay a foundation for it before you can trot it out. All right. Let me know when you want to bring it out and we will see if you have the foundation. All right. As to the PCR charts, nanogram--

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, point of clarification. I can't use the chart at all until he testifies to all the amounts?

THE COURT: No, not all the amounts, but the amounts--you will need to have some more foundation before that is coming in, based upon the factual dispute that I've heard. That is the point. So let me know when you want to use it.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: All right. The PCR charts, nanogram PCR amplification 1 and 2. Any objection?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes. We would object on the ground that they are beyond the scope of the direct of this witness and also this witness cannot lay a foundation for all of the information contained in those charts. He knows--in other words, he knows the number of cycles, for example, 32 cycles, but he doesn't know the information as to how many fragments would be multiplied from the top of the chain to the bottom.

THE COURT: All right. Do you have any--any factual disagreement or dispute with what is there? Appears to be accurate?

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

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, the problem is--is that Mr. Matheson is not a DNA expert.

THE COURT: I understand that.

MR. GOLDBERG: As to the extent of--

THE COURT: I understand that and I understand that he has not testified to any DNA evidence. I understand the scope problem.

MR. GOLDBERG: But what I'm saying, your Honor, is that if Mr. Matheson couldn't provide me with those answers when he looked at the chart and I do not know of my own independent knowledge whether some of the items on the chart are in fact correct.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: It was my understanding he is in charge of this lab. He has testified about contamination problems. He has testified about procedures. I intend to ask him questions about--he has testified about contamination. I'm going to ask him about those kind of questions and they are directly relevant. The PCR process and how that can result in contamination is directly relevant to what he testified about.

THE COURT: All right. I am going to tentatively overrule the objection. I'm a little concerned about the scope problem. I agree with you that he has testified to contamination issues, however, but when we start getting into specifics of DNA and PCR process, we are in a different ballgame there. That is a guideline. All right. LAPD field manual, red binder item. Mr. Goldberg.

MR. BLASIER: I haven't had a chance to give that to them. It is the LAPD field manual. It has already been marked in another form. I simply have a copy that has the pages numbered. It is a little easier to find them.

MR. GOLDBERG: I wasn't aware of any issue regarding what the Defense wanted to do, whether they wanted to introduce this entire field manual.

MR. BLASIER: No.

THE COURT: I assume they are going to use it for the purposes of cross-examination.

MR. BLASIER: Correct.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, the problem with this field manual, your Honor, is that as the testimony has already indicated, it is a draft manual.

THE COURT: All right. It appears--

MR. GOLDBERG: It is not in effect.

THE COURT: It appears to the Court, however, that it is a series of articles, handouts, leaflets, et cetera, et cetera, that witnesses may be individually familiar with, but the foundation will have to be laid by the witness beforehand.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well--

THE COURT: Please don't interrupt me.

MR. GOLDBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. I'm sorry.

THE COURT: All right. A foundation will have to be laid before they can be used for cross-examination purposes. I think this is a courtesy that counsel is giving to both you and to the Court to give this to you in this form, it is my understanding, Mr. Blasier; is that correct?

MR. BLASIER: Right, that's correct.

THE COURT: All right. Let's proceed. Let's have the jury, please.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm going to be getting into that lab chart. I need some time to revise the presentation.

THE COURT: Which lab chart?

MR. BLASIER: The levels of security, the evidence processing room.

THE COURT: How much time do you need?

MR. BLASIER: (No audible response.)

THE COURT: Are we just talking about taking out the narrative portion of it?

MR. BLASIER: It is more than that, your Honor. I don't intend to display a big blank screen, and it is part of the presentation, so I have to rework the presentation.

THE COURT: Well, you can ask the questions and you do--how long will it take you to actually rework the presentation?

MR. BLASIER: Fifteen minutes.

THE COURT: That is reasonable.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, did the Court rule on item no. 18 as to the EAP? Series of documents?

THE COURT: I thought I indicated I sustained that on the basis of argument.

MR. GOLDBERG: I'm sorry, I didn't write that down in my notes.

THE COURT: All right. We will take a recess for fifteen.

(Recess.)

THE COURT: Back on the record. Counsel, are we ready to proceed?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jury, 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 we have now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: My apologies to you for the late start this morning. This morning I had to go over a number of items of evidence before they were presented to you, had to review them with the attorneys. We started that at eight o'clock sharp this morning, so we have been hard at it, but there are a number of issues that we had to go over. My apologies to you. Mr. Matheson, would you resume the witness stand, please.

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

THE COURT: Good morning again, Mr. Matheson.

MR. MATHESON: Good morning.

THE COURT: You are reminded, sir, you are still under oath. And he is undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Blasier. Mr. Blasier, you may continue.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. BLASIER

MR. BLASIER: Good morning, Mr. Matheson.

MR. MATHESON: Good morning.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Morning, folks.

THE JURY: Good morning.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, when did the LAPD SID division begin doing DNA testing?

MR. MATHESON: I believe our first case was completed in October of 1993.

MR. BLASIER: And prior to your first case being completed, was there a developmental phase that you were involved in?

MR. MATHESON: There was a developmental phase, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And how long did that go on for?

MR. MATHESON: In one extent or another for about four years, three years, something like that.

MR. BLASIER: What was your role in the development of that program?

MR. MATHESON: I was the supervisor of the unit and just generally oversaw it. I was not directly involved in any of the actual process or analysis.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when you say "the unit," you started putting this together four or five years before `93. What was going on during that period of time? Or did I misunderstand you?

MR. MATHESON: I think that is a little longer than I said, but we initially, back in I believe it would have been `89, started looking at the feasibility of doing RFLP type DNA analysis in our laboratory and we worked on that for a number of years, attempting to both acquire the equipment necessary and bring that on line.

MR. BLASIER: When you say "we," tell me what your role in that was.

MR. MATHESON: "we" meaning collectively as a unit. I was the supervisor of the unit and there were three criminalists that were assigned to the project from within the serology unit.

MR. BLASIER: So you were in charge of that project?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And that was studying RFLP technology?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And the lab did not go into that particular technology, correct?

MR. MATHESON: No, we have never done case work in that, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And what is the reason that you have not gone into that area?

MR. MATHESON: Well, the major reason focused around the facility. We had a situation where we were not comfortable using the radioactive isotopes and the sort of physical layout that we had. We were not given the budget to be able to make the modifications that we needed to bring that on line and decided that it was not an area that we would pursue any longer.

MR. BLASIER: Now, is your budget established by the police department?

MR. GOLDBERG: This is irrelevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Vaguely. Proceed. Go ahead and answer the question. Who sets your budget?

MR. MATHESON: The city of Los Angeles, the council and the mayor's office.

MR. BLASIER: When you have to try and get funding for a project that you want to do, who do you go to?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Well, ultimately the city council. It is an extremely long process that can take in excess of a year. As a matter of fact, we are about ready to start on a budget process for the `96-`97 fiscal year.

MR. BLASIER: Now--that is one of the reasons why you are not accredited, that it takes too long to do that with the city?

MR. MATHESON: Not that it takes too long; it is just it has never been approved.

MR. BLASIER: Now, at some point you abandoned RFLP technology and began studying PCR technology, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: When did that happen?

MR. MATHESON: Well, I don't know exactly. I think, as we are looking at DNA technology in general, I would say probably in 1990, 1991.

MR. BLASIER: And again, was that--you were in charge of that project?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And how many people were working with you on that project?

MR. MATHESON: I believe we had two people working on that. Initially--initially there was one and then it became two and eventually three.

MR. BLASIER: Two in addition to yourself?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, prior to the time that you started doing case work, describe just briefly what the developmental stage was in the PCR area.

MR. MATHESON: Well, initially it was determining what type of equipment we needed, going through the equipment lists, getting that through the budget process, acquiring the equipment. The criminalists that were involved needed to receive training. They went out and received that. Eventually, once the equipment was in-house, we proceeded to set it up and performed the tests within our laboratory to make sure that the PCR could be performed properly under our setting.

MR. BLASIER: Now--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: That phase is called the validation studies, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, the development of our system and eventually validation within our laboratory.

MR. BLASIER: Now, what is your role today with respect to your PCR lab?

MR. MATHESON: Well, it is one step further away; no longer being the supervisor of the unit. I now manage the serology unit, which is one of the sections that is involved in it, so basically there is very little direct involvement at this point.

MR. BLASIER: Now, do you consider yourself an expert in DNA technology?

MR. MATHESON: No, I do not.

MR. BLASIER: And during the time that you were developing the PCR program for the lab, the people that were working on that under you, did they have more experience than you or less?

MR. MATHESON: They had much more experience.

MR. BLASIER: And in the current state of your lab who is in charge, directly in charge of the PCR lab?

MR. MATHESON: I would like to point out that when I mentioned much more experienced, I mean experience in the area of PCR. Currently the supervisor of the unit is a gentleman by the name of Larry Blanton.

MR. BLASIER: Now, at the time you started doing case work in--did you say October of `93?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

THE COURT: I think we are going far afield at this point. We are establishing what he does at the lab. Since there is no testimony of PCR DNA testing by this witness, I think it is irrelevant at this point.

MR. BLASIER: Now, Mr. Matheson, I provided you with a binder this morning. Have you had a chance to look at that?

MR. MATHESON: I looked at the--opened it up, looked at the cover page and just flipped through it. That is the extent of review of this particular binder.

MR. BLASIER: Does that appear to be the field manual that we were talking about briefly yesterday?

MR. MATHESON: It appears to be a copy of our manual, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And that is the manual you provided to us, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did I understand you yesterday to say that the field unit itself, the unit that goes out to crime scenes and processes crime scenes doesn't have a manual; is that right?

MR. MATHESON: Not anyone other than the one that is in process, this draft one, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: But that is not in effect yet?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And that has been in process for how many years?

MR. MATHESON: I believe originally we started working on it in probably mid of 1992.

MR. BLASIER: So there is no formal document anywhere available to criminalists who might need guidance out in the field in terms of the correct procedures to use to collect evidence?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence, "might need guidance."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: There is no manual that they can go to and look up a section that specifies a certain action or something like that. We do have some references around, but there is no manual at this point, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Is it your opinion that not having a manual for your field unit is an acceptable practice, scientifically acceptable?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: I think it is preferable that we have a manual; however, I believe you can still do good work and provide training and have people do acceptable work out there without having one.

MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with other crime labs and how they operate?

MR. MATHESON: To some extent, yes.

MR. BLASIER: What other labs are you familiar with?

MR. MATHESON: Well, I interact with--

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "familiar."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: I interact with a lot of people in our profession in labs all over this state.

MR. BLASIER: Now, your lab, in terms of size of your lab compared to other labs in the state, just give me a rough approximation of where you fall.

MR. MATHESON: Well, we are definitely not the largest. I would say that we probably would fall, oh, maybe in the three-quarter point. There are a number of labs larger than us and many more that are smaller.

MR. BLASIER: Of the labs that are approximately your size and larger, do you know of any other lab besides yours that doesn't have a manual for field operations?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation for personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: If you know?

MR. MATHESON: I don't know whether they do or not.

MR. BLASIER: Is this a matter of some concern to you as a supervisor of the lab, that there be a manual in effect for everybody to look at?

MR. MATHESON: Well, eventually I think it would be great. I think it is a good idea that we have it laid down and in that form. That is why we are working on it.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when you say you are working on it, is this draft manual available to people who want to look at it who work for you?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is out. It is not kept hidden or secret or anything, but it has not been presented.

MR. BLASIER: Is it kept in the crime lab truck?

MR. MATHESON: I don't believe so, no.

MR. BLASIER: Do you recall is there a provision in here that says it is to be kept in the crime lab truck?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do. It is in the introduction.

MR. BLASIER: But that is not done yet?

MR. MATHESON: No, because it is not a normal document of our division yet.

MR. BLASIER: Now, is it accurate to say that many of the things in here, however, are accepted procedures that you want your people to follow?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, please look at page 12. You numbered the pages down in the lower right. Is it your current procedure that it is the job of the criminalist at the crime scene to direct the photographer in the photographer's job?

MR. MATHESON: It is the Criminalist's job to direct the photographer when it comes to the evidence, the overall documentation and the evidence that is being collected. They do have other tasks besides that, so we are not directing all their activities, but we do direct the things that are associated with what our interest is.

MR. BLASIER: So in the area of collecting evidence that the criminalist has direct responsibility for, they are also in charge of making sure the photographer does his or her job, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, that is part of their responsibility, is to get their items photographed.

MR. BLASIER: Now, one of the procedures you set forth in here is that ordinarily photograph numbers should correspond to evidence item numbers, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Yes, that is what it says. Normally the photographed item number will correspond to the subsequent booking item numbers.

MR. BLASIER: And is that a current procedure that you do have in operation?

MR. MATHESON: Yeah. We try and make them correspond. It doesn't always work out that way, but just to keep things less confusing, you attempt to do that.

MR. BLASIER: The reason for doing that is to keep or hopefully to avoid as many different numbering systems as possible for items that come into evidence, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: That can be a source of great confusion if you wind up with a photo number that corresponds to some other evidence item that is not in that photo?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Well, I don't know if it is great confusion. It does complicate the situation slightly, but there are always references referencing a photo item number to a property item number.

MR. BLASIER: And that comes from the forms that the criminalists have available to them at the scene?

MR. MATHESON: A combination of that, plus the property report that is eventually written, yes.

MR. BLASIER: So the crime scene checklist and other forms that are available to the criminalist at the scene, one of the purposes of that is to record all information necessary so that you can hook up the photos with the evidence that is collected?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, let me direct your attention to page 13 at the bottom of the page. Is it your current lab's procedure to have criminalists, when they conduct a search of a crime scene for purposes of evidence detection, use bright lights, ultraviolet lights or alternate light sources or laser lights?

MR. MATHESON: These tools are all available to the criminalist if they feel it is necessary.

MR. BLASIER: And those tools are available in the crime scene truck, are they not?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And those tools presumably are to be used when there is evidence of the type that lends itself to being looked at by these instruments, correct?

MR. MATHESON: If the criminalist feels it is necessary to use them, they are available, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what do you use bright light, ultraviolet light or laser light for, generally?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is not relevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: It is compound.

MR. BLASIER: What do you use laser light sources for?

MR. MATHESON: Well, the laser or alternate light source, out at a crime scene, mainly is used by the criminalist to look for body fluids, such as semen, saliva, that type of thing.

MR. BLASIER: And it is also there to look for things such as shoeprints, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Well, I--as far as shoeprints, I have never been involved with it used for that particular technique. I suppose that it could be. But the primary use of those items is the detection of certain body fluids.

MR. BLASIER: And you would agree that at the Bundy crime scene there was certainly evidence of substantial bodily fluids that had been spilled?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it is overbroad as to "bodily fluids."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: There was definitely quite a bit of blood there, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And now, it is accurate, is it not, that Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola never used any of this equipment on any crime scene they processed in this case? I'm sorry. Let me rephrase that. At Bundy crime scene.

MR. GOLDBERG: No personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Foundation.

MR. BLASIER: If you know?

MR. GOLDBERG: Still no personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Foundational. Do you know?

MR. MATHESON: I don't know all the tools they used, no.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you were in charge of reviewing their work, were you not?

MR. GOLDBERG: Overbroad and vague as to "reviewing."

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Were you in charge of reviewing the work that they did or didn't do at the Bundy crime scene?

MR. GOLDBERG: Still overbroad and vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: One of my duties as supervisor of the trace unit was ultimately to review the field notes, yes.

MR. BLASIER: When you say "ultimately," what do you mean?

MR. MATHESON: Well, the procedure that was in place in the laboratory at that time is that when a criminalist completed a crime scene and everything was booked, as far as the evidence goes and the notes are completed, they were placed in a location in the trace analysis unit where our criminalist 3 of the field unit, a gentleman by the name of Mr. Raquel would retrieve those, he would do an initial review of them and give them to me as a recommendation as to whether or not the notes should be filed or reviewed with the criminalist.

MR. BLASIER: And as part of that procedure it is part of your job to review those notes as well, isn't it?

MR. MATHESON: If I felt so, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And by reviewing those notes you would know what techniques were used at the crime scene to collect evidence or identify evidence, wouldn't you?

MR. MATHESON: I would know it at the time I read it if it was recorded, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you ever review reports for the purpose of assessing the performance of a criminalist in terms of whether they used the equipment available to them that might be appropriate for a particular crime scene?

MR. MATHESON: That is part of the review process. I ultimately like I said, I have allowed Mr. Raquel, because he is very well acquainted with field procedures, to do the initial part of that review and that is part of what he does, is to look to see if that information was noted. It is not a requirement that if a device such as a laser, or the alternate light source is used out there, that that is a notation that is made.

MR. BLASIER: And that is a subjective judgment made by the criminalist as to whether that particular criminalist thinks it might be useful or not?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, ultraviolet light is used to identify dust residue shoe impressions, is it not?

MR. MATHESON: Well, again, the major use of that particular item, it is great to have a variety of different light sources out in the field. Our may use for ultraviolet again is for the detection of particularly body fluids, not necessarily blood.

MR. BLASIER: And it is your understanding that the only light source used at the Bundy crime scene by Mr. Fung and Miss Mazzola was a flashlight?

MR. GOLDBERG: No personal knowledge, not relevant, beyond the scope.

MR. BLASIER: If you know?

THE COURT: If you know?

MR. MATHESON: Well, that is all I saw them use on the TV accounts and that type of thing.

MR. GOLDBERG: Motion to strike as nonresponsive.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: Now, also talking again about page 13 at the bottom, one of the techniques that is set forth there for criminalists to perform involves wheel base and tire tread measurements, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That is mentioned here, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And that would be something that they would do if there was evidence of tire tracks at a crime scene?

MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope, not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: That is indicated there as a technique that if they feel it is important to record, then yes, it is something that should be recorded.

MR. BLASIER: That was not done at the Bundy crime scene, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Not to my knowledge, no.

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: Now, let me ask you to turn to page 16. That is a short page. Why don't you look at that and tell me whether that is a current policy of your lab?

MR. MATHESON: (Witness complies.) it is not a strict current policy, no.

MR. BLASIER: Now, do you think that is a desirable policy?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: This, as many things in this manual, are guidelines and some flexibility is needed when dealing with--with evidence. I would hate to not perform an analysis on something just because we had not yet had the opportunity to give it a bar code.

MR. BLASIER: Now, what we are talking about, so to keep everybody out of the dark, is trying to get evidence booked as quickly as possible and by "booked" I mean logged into the computer system into your secure unit at the lab, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it is not relevant. Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Well, the references that we are reading from now deals with having unbooked laboratory--excuse me--unbooked evidence in the laboratory. It doesn't specifically mention anything about time frames or as soon as possible or anything like that.

MR. BLASIER: Well, it talks about evidence being booked at the ECU--which is where it gets bar coding, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Let me refer you to page 20. Is it your current lab's policy that criminalists in the field should not perform tests on extremely small samples where the test in the field might consume the entire sample to prevent further testing?

MR. MATHESON: That is what they are taught, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And is that a good procedure in your view?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, there was a field test performed on the spot on the Bronco by the door handle. Do you know which spot I'm talking about?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: At the Rockingham scene?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And that spot was also collected, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And it was collected after that presumptive test was performed on it, correct?

MR. MATHESON: It is my understanding, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And the presumptive test involved touching it with a swab--with a wetted swab and adding a chemical to the swab to see if there is a reaction, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Adding a couple of chemicals, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, is it accurate that when that spot was then collected there was insufficient amount of material to perform any further tests?

MR. GOLDBERG: To foundation, personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Overruled. Do you know?

MR. MATHESON: Not specifically, no.

THE COURT: Let's move on.

MR. BLASIER: Now, performing such tests can also disturb items of evidence, correct?

THE COURT: In the field or the laboratory?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague.

MR. BLASIER: In the field?

MR. MATHESON: Performing a presumptive blood test on it?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does. It removes a small portion of it.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you are aware that a presumptive test was performed on the glove found at Rockingham at the scene?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And that was at the direction of Detective Vannatter, I believe. Are you aware of that?

MR. MATHESON: I believe it was at the request of him, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And in order to do a test like that requires at least a minimal amount of manipulation of the item to do the test, correct?

MR. MATHESON: You have to, to some extent, deal with the item, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And when you manipulate items of evidence such as that, you take a chance of moving evidence around that might be on it or depositing evidence that wasn't on it before on it?

MR. MATHESON: Well, anytime you manipulate something, obviously you are going to be affecting it in some way. Just the mere fact of touching it or moving it changes its location. Depending on how it is done will minimize any sort of alteration that occurs to the evidence.

MR. BLASIER: So would you agree that it is desirable to do as little manipulation as possible at the scene of evidentiary items such as a glove?

MR. MATHESON: You always strive to keep the evidence in its original form as much as possible. You do, though, have to manipulate them. Just the mere process of collecting something, picking it up off the ground and placing it into a packaging type material deals with, you know, potentially altering something, but you have to do that. You can't analyze it in place without manipulating.

MR. BLASIER: Now, please turn to page 116.

MR. MATHESON: (Witness complies.)

MR. BLASIER: Under "training," that refers to criminalist 1's participating in field investigations in a trainee capacity. What does that mean?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is still hearsay under 721, not relevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Was Andrea Mazzola's capacity on June 13th as a trainee working under Mr. Fung?

MR. MATHESON: I'm still reading that.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

THE COURT: I sustained the objection, so that is irrelevant.

MR. MATHESON: Excuse me.

MR. BLASIER: She was still a probationary employee at the time, was she not?

MR. MATHESON: I don't believe so, no.

MR. BLASIER: On June 13th?

MR. MATHESON: I don't know her exact start date. Probation is only six months. I don't believe she was probationary at that time.

MR. BLASIER: I believe she testified it was a year. Are you sure about that?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I'm definitely sure. Probation is six months.

MR. BLASIER: And when did she start?

MR. MATHESON: I don't know her exact date. We could resolve that.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: I believe she indicated she started on January 24th of `94. Does that sound about right?

MR. MATHESON: That could be accurate. I would want to confirm that to be sure, but--

MR. BLASIER: So as of June 13th she would still be a probationary employee, just barely?

MR. MATHESON: Just barely, that's correct. About eleven days away from passing probation.

MR. BLASIER: And probationary employee, that is a civil service term, is it not?

MR. MATHESON: I believe so, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And a probationary employee can be let go or not pass probation for any reason?

MR. MATHESON: Well, I don't know about for any reason.

THE COURT: I think we are calling for a legal conclusion here. Let's not get into a point of law.

MR. BLASIER: Does a probationary employee serve at the pleasure of her supervisor?

MR. MATHESON: What do you mean by "at the pleasure"?

MR. BLASIER: They can be let go for no reason, they have no civil service protection?

THE COURT: Counsel, we are not going to get into that. Proceed.

MR. BLASIER: Looking at the bottom of that page--by the way, this is volume 7 we are referring to, the "quality assurance and control" portion of the manual, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And that is one page, correct?

MR. MATHESON: (No audible response.)

MR. BLASIER: Are we missing some of it?

MR. MATHESON: No. I don't have the original volume in front of me or notebook in front of me, but that is what is in this copy here.

MR. BLASIER: In your experience with other labs have you ever seen a quality assurance and control part of a manual that is only one-page long?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it misstates the evidence, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Have you ever seen manuals from other crime labs?

MR. MATHESON: I have seen portions of other manuals. I don't believe I have reviewed the whole manuals or all the manuals that exist in other laboratories.

MR. BLASIER: As one of your jobs as a supervisor does that involve looking at other labs that do things to see whether they do them better and so you could learn from them?

MR. MATHESON: I have reviewed how other labs do things, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And of the labs that you have reviewed, have you ever seen a quality assurance and control manual or portion of a manual that is one-page long?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is not relevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the bottom of this one page talks about: "prior to approving and signing reports a supervisor should inspect all case notes, photographs, et cetera." is that a current policy of your lab?

MR. GOLDBERG: Hearsay under 721.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Well, like I previously mentioned, we do have a procedure in place for reviewing notes prior to them being filed. As far as--I'm not sure what this refers to as far as signing reports. This was not prepared by myself, and I would reword some of this in a future version.

MR. BLASIER: To take out having to sign it?

THE COURT: This is--signing of reports is really not relevant to this person's testimony on direct examination, counsel.

MR. BLASIER: Your crime scene checklist has no provision anywhere on the form for a supervisor's signature, does it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: No, it does not.

MR. BLASIER: Now, please move to page 118.

MR. MATHESON: (Witness complies.)

MR. BLASIER: Now, this is the chapter or the volume regarding record keeping and reporting procedures, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And it is one-page long in a form, correct?

MR. MATHESON: As it appears here, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And is this the current policy of your lab or is this the extent of the current policy of your lab?

MR. MATHESON: Are we talking about everything that is on the page?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MATHESON: I will have to read it.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier. What is the subject matter of this portion?

MR. BLASIER: "record keeping and reporting procedures."

(Brief pause.)

MR. MATHESON: Not all of the items that are mentioned here are current policy within our laboratory.

MR. BLASIER: Let me ask specifically about the portion describing: "all evidence collected as a result of field investigation or laboratory evidence removal services shall be accurately described on an LAPD property report." is that current policy?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.

MR. BLASIER: And by "accurately described on a property report," does that include describing where an item came from?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct, part of the information is to be able to place it back in its original location.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the second page of this chapter is a witness critique form, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Is this a form that is currently in use?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.

MR. BLASIER: And the purpose of the form is to provide the form--the criminalist is required to provide the form to a Judge or Prosecutor, Defense attorney in a case where they have testified to get input as to how they did, right?

MR. MATHESON: They are recommended to take them with them, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do they do that?

MR. MATHESON: Many do, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Are they required to?

MR. MATHESON: It currently is in a position where we encourage them to do it, we would like them to do it on every case; however, there is not currently a process whereby if somebody didn't, they would receive some sort of disciplinary action.

MR. BLASIER: Is there any follow-up by the lab with the Court or counsel in a case to ensure that the form gets filled out?

MR. MATHESON: No, there is not.

MR. BLASIER: Is there any record kept of these forms for any particular criminalist?

MR. MATHESON: If they are returned to us, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether forms were returned to you concerning any testimony in this case from Dennis Fung?

MR. MATHESON: I would be very surprised if they were turned in on this case.

MR. BLASIER: How about Andrea Mazzola?

MR. MATHESON: No, we--not to my knowledge, we haven't received any.

MR. BLASIER: Have you provided those forms to us?

MR. MATHESON: Pardon me?

MR. BLASIER: Have you provided any of those forms to us to fill out?

MR. GOLDBERG: This is beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained. It is irrelevant.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Let me ask you to turn to page 144. And this section concerns forensic photography, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.

MR. BLASIER: And it indicates that: "acceptable crime scene photography should tell a story by itself absent of any written or oral narrative." is that current policy?

MR. MATHESON: That is what it says. I don't believe we have a policy to that effect, no.

MR. BLASIER: Is that a good policy, in your view?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: The provision that says: "the original condition of the crime scene, the sequence of its search and recovery possessing of any evidence within should be exhaustively photographed." is that a current policy?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained. It is beyond the scope.

MR. BLASIER: Policy indicates to take copious photographs. Is that a current policy?

MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Isn't one of the jobs of the criminalist to guide the photographer in performing their job?

THE COURT: Been asked and answered.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have any responsibility for determining whether the photographer does their job properly or not?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is vague as to in what capacity.

THE COURT: Overruled. He is one of the managers.

MR. MATHESON: Well, for one thing, we only have one photographer that works within the criminalistics laboratory. We are not direct supervisors or managers of our photographic section.

MR. BLASIER: Is there any written policy that applies to him in terms of how he should do his job?

THE COURT: Or her.

MR. BLASIER: Or her?

MR. MATHESON: Something that exists within the photographic unit or section?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MATHESON: I have not seen one, no.

MR. BLASIER: How about anywhere in the crime lab?

MR. MATHESON: I have not seen one that specifically delineates the proper job or procedures to be used by a photographer in the field.

MR. BLASIER: Could you look at page 145 that talks about procedure to use in photographing bloodstains. Is that a current procedure in your lab?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Did you ask if this is policy?

MR. BLASIER: Yes?

MR. MATHESON: Because the manual is not completed, we do not have a policy on this. The general information that is there is appropriate and accurate, but we do not have a policy.

MR. BLASIER: Now, one of the procedures that is described there involves taking pictures of bloodstains with scales going in both directions to give some scale to a photograph that is taken of a blood stain, correct?

MR. MATHESON: This is referencing blood stain patterns; not just any blood stain.

MR. BLASIER: How about bloodstains? Is it your understanding that the proper procedure is to photograph bloodstains with a scale so that you can have some reference point to determine the size of a stain?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to bloodstain or bloodstain pattern.

THE COURT: Overruled. The jury has already seen what we are talking about in this case. Proceed.

MR. MATHESON: It is good practice to have a scale in the scene whenever you are photographing evidence.

THE COURT: This is about the third witness who has testified to this. There are several photographs that don't have the scale. It is common sense argument. We all understand. It will be nice.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. BLASIER: Is that particular procedure that has been described the procedure that is supposed to be followed by your photographers?

MR. MATHESON: We recommend that scales be placed in the scenes when evidence is photographed, yes.

MR. BLASIER: When it is not followed do you take any corrective action?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Please go to page 151.

MR. MATHESON: (Witness complies.)

MR. BLASIER: This section deals with "crime scene investigation," correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.

MR. BLASIER: And there is a statement in there that says: "statistics show that less than two percent of all available evidence is possibly detected, collected, preserved, examined and introduced in Court," correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Do you agree with that statement?

MR. GOLDBERG: Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: That particular document talks about taking copious notes. Is that your current lab policy for criminalists, to take copious notes?

MR. GOLDBERG: Hearsay. It is not relevant.

THE COURT: Vague, copious. What is the documentation policy?

MR. MATHESON: As far as crime scenes go?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. MATHESON: We wish them to record all the information that is necessary to reconstruct or place the evidence items back at the scene.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have any set policy in terms of how extensive their notes should be?

MR. MATHESON: At the current time, no.

MR. BLASIER: Is there anything written in where that tells them how to fill out the form they have?

MR. MATHESON: I don't believe so, no.

MR. BLASIER: And there is no consistency among people in your lab about how they fill out their form, is there?

MR. MATHESON: I would say this is some consistency between people. We--they are trained. They go out, they see how other criminalists operate, and we also want people to have some independence as to how they do their job.

MR. BLASIER: There are people such as Dennis Fung who do not have consistency in their forms in terms of filling out the same blanks on the forms, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it is--

THE COURT: It is argumentative.

MR. BLASIER: Is it a good technique to fill out a form completely?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is overbroad.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: If it is an appropriate form and all the information on there is necessary, I would like it to be filled out, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And it is up to the individual criminalist to decide what information that is asked for on the form happens to be important?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence, "asked for on the form."

THE COURT: Overruled. We have all seen the forms.

MR. MATHESON: They are in the field going to make decisions, yes, they are going to make individual decisions as to what should be filled out and what shouldn't.

MR. BLASIER: And did you review the crime scene checklist from June 13th from Rockingham and Bundy to determine whether the forms were filled out completely?

MR. MATHESON: I had not seen them prior to them being photocopied and distributed.

MR. BLASIER: So were they reviewed by anybody, to your knowledge?

MR. MATHESON: They have been reviewed many times over the course of the last nine months. They were not reviewed prior to their distribution.

MR. BLASIER: Now, my question was, were those forms filled out completely from your standpoint?

MR. MATHESON: No, they were not.

MR. BLASIER: Were they filled out satisfactorily from your standpoint?

MR. MATHESON: Using the term "satisfactorily" to indicate that they have what I would consider the most important information, such as what evidence items were collected, how to relate them back to numbers and their locations, I would say is a rule that was done satisfactorily. There were parts that were missing.

MR. BLASIER: Now, one of the issues that has come up in this case is the identification of who collected particular stains. You are aware of that, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I am.

MR. BLASIER: And you are aware that the crime scene checklist, which presumably are the only notes that they prepare when they do their work--is that correct?

MR. MATHESON: Well, they also can use other blank paper or whatever, but that is available to them, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And that those forms were insufficient for Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola to go back and recreate who picked up what stain?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Did you participate in a session with Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola where they tried to reconstruct who did what?

MR. MATHESON: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: Are you aware that they had to have such a session?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GOLDBERG: To personal knowledge.

THE COURT: It has already been testified to, counsel.

MR. BLASIER: Were you involved in the process at all trying to assist them to reconstruct who collected what?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: How are those forms inadequate?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "those forms" and "inadequate."

THE COURT: Overruled. He has testified that some of the forms were not complete.

MR. MATHESON: What stands out in my mind is the last page which indicates the signature or a place for the person to sign it was not filled in or the date and time leaving the scene.

MR. BLASIER: Now, one of the sections on the form talks about whether the crime scene has been altered. You are aware of that?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I am.

MR. BLASIER: And there are several lines available on that form to be filled out, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, there is.

MR. BLASIER: It takes up a substantial portion of that particular form, does it not?

MR. MATHESON: Well, it takes up an area of about an inch and a half on an eight-and-a-half-by-eleven page, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what is the purpose of that part of the form?

MR. MATHESON: I believe, as I testified on direct, that my understanding of the purpose of that is to record any gross information you have regarding potential, you know, major changes that occurred at the scene prior to your arrival, such as an emergency unit that went in to attempt to resuscitate the victim. It is a place to record information that you acquire about alterations that occurred.

MR. BLASIER: Does it say anywhere in this form or any other form that it is limited to changes that are just of a gross nature?

MR. MATHESON: No. I was just testifying to my understanding of what that section means.

MR. BLASIER: Well, what are your people taught about what it means?

MR. MATHESON: (No audible response.)

MR. BLASIER: Or are they taught?

MR. MATHESON: I don't believe that we have gone--you know, done a teaching session where we go line through line through the form. They learn out in the field with other criminalists how to fill it out, and the people that I have taught in that is exactly what I mentioned just now, if you know of any physical alteration to the scene, to record that there.

MR. BLASIER: Now, gross alterations would include moving bodies before the scene is processed?

MR. MATHESON: I would say that is information that could be included in that.

MR. BLASIER: Now, that information wasn't included in the Bundy crime scene checklist, was it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: Was that information included in the Bundy crime scene checklist in that section that talks about an altered scene?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: No, it was not.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, what is the purpose of maintaining a chain of custody for an item of evidence?

MR. MATHESON: My understanding of the purpose of a chain of custody is so that when an item comes into Court you can establish that it is the same item that was collected at the crime scene.

MR. BLASIER: And that is important to establish that it hasn't been tampered with, correct?

MR. MATHESON: (No audible response.)

MR. BLASIER: Among other things?

MR. MATHESON: Among other things, it would--it would allow you to say that it was--was under control or you would know who had control of it the whole time.

MR. BLASIER: The better the chain of custody, the less the opportunity of tampering?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

MR. BLASIER: An undetected pampering?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Is the proper procedure for a detective to take property home overnight? Evidence, excuse me?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation as to this witness.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Would you recommend that the detective take a reference tube of blood home and put it in his refrigerator overnight?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: What is the procedure required by the Los Angeles Police Department for booking blood vials, of when that should be done?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to by whom.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: I don't know the exact wording of what the current manual says, but it is to be booked as soon as possible for refrigerator storage.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know of any provision that says you can keep it 24 hours?

MR. MATHESON: No, I do not.

MR. BLASIER: Is it important for a criminalist at a crime scene to try to reconstruct the state of the scene at the time of the crime?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "reconstruct."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Do you mean by reconstruct to try and determine in exactly what state it was at the time of the crime or--

MR. BLASIER: As close as possible.

MR. MATHESON: My understanding is that it is important that the criminalist be aware of how it is upon their arrival and document that and collect the evidence that is there. Reconstruction can occur after the fact if all the information as to how it was at the time, when they arrived and other information, is supplied.

MR. BLASIER: Is it your policy that a Criminalist's job does not include--let me rephrase that. Is it your position that criminalists don't have the responsibility for trying to establish whether a crime scene has been tampered with from the time of the crime until they get there?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "tampered with."

THE COURT: Why don't you rephrase that.

MR. BLASIER: Is it a Criminalist's job to find out if evidence has been moved around by the police before they were called to the scene?

MR. MATHESON: I think it is important for them to record it if they are aware of it, depending particularly on the complexity of a scene, their primary goal is in the documentation and collection of the evidence. If they become aware of the fact that something has been moved, it should be recorded. I would not expect them, particularly in a highly complex scene, to go around and interview everybody to find out if each item was in the same place as it was when it started.

MR. BLASIER: How about talking to the detectives in charge of the scene to see if anything has been changed, anything has been taken away?

MR. MATHESON: Well, I don't think that would be unreasonable.

MR. BLASIER: Is that part of their job?

MR. MATHESON: Part of their job is to get an overall view of what happened at the scene from the detective. It would not be unreasonable for the criminalist to ask if they were aware of something having been altered.

MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to ask you some questions about SID. Do we have that--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Actually, before I do that, yesterday I showed you a couple of textbooks on crime scene investigations, did I not?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, you did.

MR. BLASIER: One of those was "forensic science, an introduction to criminalistics" by Peter De Forest and R. E. Gaensslen and Henry Lee?

MR. MATHESON: Yes. It is Dr. Gaensslen.

MR. BLASIER: Dr. Gaensslen. And you are familiar with this text, are you not?

MR. MATHESON: I have seen it, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Have you read portions of it?

MR. MATHESON: Portions, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Has there been times when you relied on its contents?

MR. MATHESON: Well, I have referenced it, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you consider it an authority on crime scene investigations?

MR. MATHESON: Well, having not read it cover to cover or remember everything that it says, I can't say that everything in there is ultimate reference, but I'm sure there are many instances where it is accurate and correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you also are familiar with a book by Barry Fisher titled "techniques of crime scene investigation"?

MR. MATHESON: Same thing, I am aware of it.

MR. BLASIER: And have you reviewed on it occasion?

MR. MATHESON: I have looked things up and referenced in it.

MR. BLASIER: And do you consider it an authority on crime scene investigations?

MR. MATHESON: Well, the same as the other one, without having read it to cover to cover, but I'm sure there is quite a bit of information in it that is accurate.

MR. BLASIER: Let me ask you if you agree with the following: "nothing should ever be altered until"--

MR. GOLDBERG: May I have a page cite?

MR. BLASIER: 38.

MR. GOLDBERG: Gaensslen or De Forest.

MR. BLASIER: De Forest. Page 38 at the bottom.

MR. GOLDBERG: I don't think that there has been an adequate foundation at this point, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Well, let me show him the volume.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: And counsel, we are going to take a break at a quarter till the hour.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, what is the general topic of this chapter?

MR. BLASIER: "documentation of crime scene and evidence."

(Brief pause.)

MR. MATHESON: Okay.

MR. BLASIER: Have you reviewed that section?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have.

MR. BLASIER: Do you agree with its content?

MR. MATHESON: In general, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you agree with the statement that with respect to crime scene evidence--

MR. GOLDBERG: Counsel, still no foundation under 721 that it is considered and relied on.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Have you considered this text and relied upon it in forming your own opinion as to what is a good technique and what is not a good technique in crime scene investigation?

MR. MATHESON: Well, on the fact that I just read it just now and I previously have some opinions regarding good and reliable techniques, I didn't rely on this to come to that opinion.

MR. BLASIER: Do you agree with it, though?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

MR. BLASIER: Do you agree that nothing should be altered?

THE COURT: Counsel, an objection has been made.

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant and still no foundation under 721.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: As a general rule do you believe that at a crime scene nothing should be altered until the positions of items have been recorded in detail?

MR. MATHESON: I agree with that if that is possible, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And do you agree that every case should be thoroughly documented?

MR. MATHESON: Documented as well as possible, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you agree that thorough documentation is required for a successful reconstruction of a crime scene?

MR. MATHESON: I think it is important, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you believe that written notes are indispensable in any investigation?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is vague as to "indispensable."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Written notes are definitely a part of a successful investigation.

MR. BLASIER: Do you believe that notes should not--I'm sorry--should be made in ink?

MR. MATHESON: I have been of a custom myself many times to do it in pencil. It makes particularly doing sketches and things easier to correct when you are in the field. From a scientific standpoint, it doesn't matter or from a recording of the information it doesn't matter whether it is in ink or pencil. When we come to this point here as far as worrying about whether or not something might have been altered or changed by somebody, then ink would be better.

MR. BLASIER: And you understand that ASCLAD requires, before a lab can be accredited, that they do everything in ink?

MR. MATHESON: I would have to review that section.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I will object to any questions about what ASCLAD requires as not being relevant.

THE COURT: The answer--question and answer will stand.

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

MR. GOLDBERG: I don't know why counsel is showing this to the witness.

MR. BLASIER: Refresh his memory.

THE COURT: Do you want to ask the foundational questions.

MR. BLASIER: Would it refresh your memory to look at the ASCLAD manual for accreditation?

MR. GOLDBERG: And I would object that it is not relevant and it is also vague to refresh memory as to what.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: As far as the question you asked before regarding the in ink situation?

MR. BLASIER: Yes, regarding whether to be accredited by this organization you are required to use ink and not pencil?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is irrelevant, your Honor, what they require.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Yeah. Like I mentioned, I would have to review it to be able to see if that is what they say.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, I object to the witness' last comment, he testified that he would have to read it to refresh his recollection. Motion to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled. Why don't you read it do yourself?

MR. MATHESON: (Witness complies.)

MR. MATHESON: It does make reference here to--

THE COURT: No. Mr. Matheson, does that refresh your recollection as to the accreditation requirements set forth by ASCLAD?

MR. MATHESON: In that section, yes.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know of any noted authority or author in the field of crime scene investigations that takes the position that pencil is acceptable for crime scene notes?

MR. MATHESON: No, I do not.

MR. BLASIER: Take a break.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take a recess at this time for fifteen minutes. Please remember all my admonitions to you. And Mr. Matheson, you may step down. We will reconvene at eleven o'clock.

(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. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

(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. Mr. Matheson, would you resume the witness stand, please. The record should reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Gregory Matheson is again on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Blasier. And, Mr. Matheson, you are reminded again you are still under oath, sir. Mr. Blasier, you may continue.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, before the break, we were talking about the desirability of having criminalist notes in ink. Do you recall that?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And it's also desirable, is it not, to have their notes in a bound volume rather than a loose-leaf volume, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the evidence, it's also desirable, objection, prior question.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: Is it also considered desirable by most authorities in the field to have work notes, field notes in a bound volume rather than looseleaf?

MR. GOLDBERG: Same objection to the word "also."

THE COURT: Sustained. Is it desirable to your knowledge?

MR. MATHESON: I know that that is one technique. I don't believe that's a universal technique.

MR. BLASIER: Do you think it's a desirable technique?

MR. MATHESON: I don't believe it's necessary, no.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the reason for that technique is to avoid the possibility of pages being substituted without being detected, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That is one reason doing it in a bound notebook, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And if you keep looseleaf volumes, pages can be moved around and you'll never know the--or you may never know the difference unless you look at things like staple holes, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Do you agree that it's a desirable practice for criminalists to have all of their pages numbered consecutively?

MR. MATHESON: I'm not sure that's--that's necessary.

MR. BLASIER: You understand that that's recommended by a number of authors in the field?

MR. MATHESON: I know I've read it in one author in the text that you just showed me.

MR. BLASIER: And you don't require that in your lab, do you?

MR. MATHESON: No, we do not.

MR. BLASIER: Do you think it's desirable that when errors are made in reports, that they should be corrected by--not by eraser, but by lining out the error, initialing it and writing the correction?

MR. GOLDBERG: Overbroad as to reports as opposed to notes.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: I was going to say, in relation to reports, reports that are submitted, in that most of our reports are handwritten as opposed to computer generated, if a change is made to an analysis report, I would expect it to be just lined through and initialed. When it comes to field notes, I don't necessarily agree with that.

MR. BLASIER: You don't agree that as a safeguard, the same principal should be applied to field notes?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague and argumentative as to "safeguard."

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Are field notes just as important as reports in your view?

MR. MATHESON: They are important. They serve a different function.

MR. BLASIER: And is it just as important that field notes not have the appearance of being tampered with as reports?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: Is it just as important that the integrity of field notes be maintained as well as the integrity of reports?

MR. GOLDBERG: Overbroad and vague as to integrity.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: If you mean by integrity that every little mark on them that's put out in the field be exactly the same as always, I'm not sure I agree with that. Field notes are just that. They're observations that are made in the field while you're doing it or your sketches. Many times, I have, in the process of making a sketch, erased things to reline walls or something along that line.

MR. BLASIER: Do you feel that it is preferable that criminalists not throw away pages of their notes?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to preferable.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have a rule for your criminalists that they are not to destroy any of their original notes?

MR. MATHESON: We don't currently have a written policy for that.

MR. BLASIER: Is that policy even though it's not written?

MR. MATHESON: We advise people to retain originals, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Well, is it just something that they can do or cannot do or is it a policy, that you want them not to throw away their notes?

MR. GOLDBERG: It's vague as to policy.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Actually that is my question. When it comes to policy, it is something that we advise them, that we want them to retain all their original items. If we were to be made aware that it was thrown away, we would advise them that that's not the proper thing to do.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have the authority to set a policy for your lab?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: As a supervisor?

MR. MATHESON: Well, not as a supervisor. As a manager working with the lab director and the captain, we set policy, yes.

MR. BLASIER: You don't have to go through any other body to set policy for the people that work for you; is that correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you indicated that you're also familiar with the Barry Fisher text, correct?

MR. MATHESON: I have seen it, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And who is Barry Fisher?

MR. MATHESON: He's currently the lab director of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department criminalistics laboratory.

MR. BLASIER: And he's published this book, correct?

MR. MATHESON: My understanding, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And it's not unusual for people who do casework in labs to also do research and publish articles, is it?

MR. MATHESON: No, not at all.

MR. BLASIER: It's not unusual for them to also publish books?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And the reason that you don't publish any of your work is because you choose not to?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct. I have not published.

MR. BLASIER: You have no interest in getting involved in research or putting your work into print for publication?

MR. MATHESON: That's not my main interest, no.

MR. BLASIER: Now, let me show you a portion of this--

MR. BLASIER: Referring to page 42.

MR. GOLDBERG: Which volume?

MR. BLASIER: Fisher.

MR. GOLDBERG: Do you have a volume?

MR. BLASIER: Yeah.

MR. GOLDBERG: I'm sorry. Which page?

THE COURT: 42.

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

MR. BLASIER: Now, let me ask you to review on page 43 starting here (Indicating).

MR. GOLDBERG: So far, there's no foundation for him to do that.

THE COURT: He's asking him to review it. I assume they'll be some foundational questions under 721.

(The witness complies.)

THE COURT: What's the topic of this paragraph, Mr. Blasier?

MR. BLASIER: Essentially thoroughness of crime scene investigation.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. BLASIER: Have you reviewed that section before?

MR. MATHESON: I don't specifically remember if I read that before.

MR. BLASIER: Do you agree with what you read?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: In ideal conditions, yes. That is a goal to obtain.

MR. BLASIER: Now, do you agree that in ideal conditions as a goal to obtain--

THE COURT: Sustained. 721, counsel.

MR. BLASIER: I am sorry?

THE COURT: Foundation is missing. It's hearsay at this point.

MR. BLASIER: I'm asking him just a general question.

THE COURT: You're referring to the item though, counsel.

MR. BLASIER: Have you relied on this portion of this text before?

MR. MATHESON: No, I have not.

MR. BLASIER: Do you agree that it's extremely important to be overly thorough at a crime scene rather than less thorough in terms of not collecting items that might later have some value?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: It's very important that you not make judgments at a crime scene that limit what you might collect, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague. Overbroad.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: The desire is to collect too much rather than too little, correct?

MR. MATHESON: The desire is to correct just--collect just the right amount of things, but to error towards too much would be better than too little.

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that particularly in a complex crime scene, you're not going to be able to figure out everything that might be relevant just by looking at one crime scene?

MR. MATHESON: I would say that's true.

MR. BLASIER: And so as a general principal, are your criminalists trained to collect more rather than less; in other words, to collect things that maybe don't have any relevance as they just look at them, but just to be safe because they might become relevant in the future, collect it?

MR. MATHESON: They are taught to error towards collecting too much, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Is there any limitation on laboratory space such that they are limited in how much evidence they can collect at a crime scene?

MR. MATHESON: Not in any individual crime scene, no.

MR. BLASIER: So that shouldn't be a consideration that they use in deciding what to collect and what not to collect, should it?

MR. MATHESON: Well, at some point, you're going to have to make a decision. Obviously it would be nice to be able to collect, to use maybe as an absurd example, a home that was the scene of a crime. Theoretically, if you collected the whole house, then you have then preserved absolutely everything that's in it. That would be taking it to the extreme, and of course, we don't have space for that. But I do not want a criminalist going out there and saying, "well, I'm not going to pick up this seat cushion or remove this mattress because it's a large item to book."

MR. BLASIER: Blood stains don't take a whole lot of room to collect, do they?

MR. MATHESON: No, they don't.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the--presumably, the police will keep a crime scene open for as long as your people need to process it, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: So time limitations should not be a factor that hampers your criminalists' ability to collect evidence, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Not time as it comes to our access to the scene, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: As a hypothetical, if you had a crime scene such as the Bundy scene where there are two victims and a possibly bleeding perpetrator in a very small area, would you agree that given those facts, you would want to collect as much evidence as possible from the immediate area of the crime scene to try and sort out what happened?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague and overbroad.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Would--in a crime scene such as I've described, would it be your approach to that crime scene that since there's a lot of blood, "let's not collect any of it because we're probably not going to be able to sort out whose it is"?

MR. GOLDBERG: Still vague and overbroad.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: If I understood that right, you're saying not to collect any just because there's so much there?

MR. BLASIER: Or to collect less because there's so much there.

MR. MATHESON: Well, I would make some decision as to what I thought were the appropriate items to collect. I wouldn't just ignore it, no.

MR. BLASIER: Wouldn't you make every effort to find out, if you could, the source of any particular bloodstain?

MR. GOLDBERG: Overbroad as to any particular bloodstain.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: It's a process of looking at the whole scene. Obviously if I see an area that appears to be a continuation of a blood pool or running or something like that from the victim, I would want to collect one sample like I mentioned before and I would not then collect bits and pieces from all parts of it. However, if I saw a stain that was separate from the crime, immediate crime scene or something that appeared to be out of place, I would definitely want to collect that one.

MR. BLASIER: Now I would like to ask you some questions about security at SID.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, if we could use the LAPD scientific investigation slide to start.

THE COURT: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Now, Mr. Matheson, you can see the slide on the monitor?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I can.

MR. BLASIER: And that's a picture of a floor plan that appears in the lobby of your lab, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes. It's a floor plan there as part of the fire alarm system.

MR. BLASIER: And that's from--it's from that diagram that the Prosecution's diagram that they brought in here was made, correct? Is that your understanding?

MR. MATHESON: I don't know if it's specifically from that one, but it is similar to it, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, how do you want to mark these?

MR. BLASIER: This will--we are able to print this all out, and could we have a number for our complete exhibit?

THE CLERK: 1127.

THE COURT: I'm sorry?

THE CLERK: 1127.

THE COURT: All right. Let's make this 1127-A through whatever.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. The series.

(Deft's 1127-A through O for id = slides)

MR. BLASIER: This would be B there. I'm sorry. Yeah. This would be B. We have C?

MR. BLASIER: Now, in the area indicated on the diagram is the area of the evidence processing room. Actually it's up in the upper right-hand corner of that black box, correct?

MR. MATHESON: If you look at the diagram, the actual evidence processing--there's a heavy black box that actually encompasses the evidence processing room, our stock room and a couple of office areas. The actual evidence processing room is just the smaller square in the upper right-hand corner of that.

MR. BLASIER: Now, there's an indication of a door on the right side of the evidence processing room, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And that's a door that--actually it's almost like a garage door that rolls up?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct. It's like an industrial roll-up metal door.

MR. BLASIER: And that's the largest door in this building to the outside world; is it not?

MR. MATHESON: I don't believe it is in the building. It's one of two large doors from our facility that goes outside of the facility.

MR. BLASIER: Next slide. This is slide D--D. D? D.

MR. BLASIER: Now, indicated on this diagram is the highlighted area which is the evidence control unit, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Go to slide E.

MR. BLASIER: I'm going to remove the background from that and talk about the evidence processing room first. Now, is it accurate to say when evidence is in this particular room, it hasn't been booked yet?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And there's a bar coding system for boxes that contain exhibits within LAPD, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Well, there's a bar coding system for boxes and packages within our division, not within the whole department.

MR. BLASIER: And when items of evidence are in the evidence processing room, they're not--initially before they've been booked, they have not been entered into the computer system, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now I'm going to talk about the evidence control unit. Now, once evidence is moved to the evidence control unit is when it is entered into the LAPD computer system for tracking; is that correct?

MR. MATHESON: When it's booked in, it is, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And that's known as the sets, s-e-t, system? That's one system?

MR. MATHESON: The set--I'm sorry.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry. That's one system?

MR. MATHESON: Yes. The sets--what we refer to as sets system is the scientific investigation division's evidence tracking system.

MR. BLASIER: And that's a special system that you have set up or LAPD has set up to track items that are being or in the process of being examined or held by SID?

MR. MATHESON: Well, it doesn't track items. It tracks packages of items. It could be a single item if there's only one in there, or if it's a large box that has 20 or 30 items in it, it will track the box.

MR. BLASIER: Now, items that are in the evidence control unit, by the time they get there, they are also entered into a system called APIMS, correct, a-p-I-m-s?

MR. MATHESON: My understanding, at some point, they get entered into that system.

MR. BLASIER: And it is also correct, is it not, that the evidence control unit has a higher level of security than the evidence processing room?

MR. MATHESON: When you mean higher level of security, I'm assuming you mean a fewer number of people have access to it?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MATHESON: That is a fact, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And you're required to log in and out of that room individually, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Or you use your--or access card, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when I say individually, it's accurate, is it not, that getting in and out of the evidence control unit is more limited than it is getting into the evidence processing room?

MR. MATHESON: More limited in the number of people that can go in, yes.

MR. BLASIER: But you also can--you're not allowed in the evidence control room to walk in with somebody who has a badge to get in without also putting your id card in the computer system, correct?

MR. MATHESON: People are supposed to card in and out, yes, individually.

MR. BLASIER: Is it your understanding that as a practice, they don't?

MR. MATHESON: That's not my understanding, no. I would assume that it does happen sometimes.

MR. BLASIER: So that--

MR. GOLDBERG: Motion to strike the witness' last answer as speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: So the appropriate procedure is, if there were two people who were authorized to be in the evidence control unit, they'd both have to in essence log in and out of that room by putting their id card up on the wall by the door?

MR. MATHESON: They're supposed to show their card to the reader, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Whereas in the evidence processing room, one person can get into the room with the card and if there are three or four other people with that person, each one is not required to log in, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, there is an additional level of security within the evidence control unit; is there not?

MR. MATHESON: In the--if you're referring to there's additional locked areas, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And--

MR. BLASIER: If we can go to the next slide. And the next.

MR. BLASIER: Now, there is an area within the evidence control unit where certain cases are kept separately from other cases within the evidence control unit, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Well, my knowledge of those particular locker is that it's only been used in one particular case. Beyond that, I have no individual knowledge of it.

MR. BLASIER: It was used in this particular case, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And the only people that have access to the evidence control unit are authorized police officials or people that are in there with their permission, correct?

MR. MATHESON: I'm not sure what you mean by police officials. The people that have access to it, the employees that work in that area can get into it and they can allow other people that are authorized by them to enter the area.

MR. BLASIER: And the reason that cases or this case, the evidence from this case is kept in those lockers is to proceed an additional level of security so that police officers or others who have access to the evidence control unit cannot get to it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: As to all evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: It provides just one little bit more or one little--excuse me--greater level of security for the shelf storage items in this case that are placed in that locker.

MR. BLASIER: And it's to keep it secure from police officers, correct?

MR. MATHESON: It also is to keep it secure from anybody that doesn't have access to the key.

MR. BLASIER: Uh-huh. Now, the card that's used to get in and out of the lab, anybody who act--who possesses that card can get into the lab, correct? Let me narrow that down a little bit. At night let's say, is there a guard on duty at the lab?

MR. MATHESON: No, there is not.

MR. BLASIER: So if someone wanted to come into the lab at night and had the card, there is no method for any kind of identification of that person visually?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And there is no method for leaving a fingerprint or some other means of uniquely identifying a person other than just having this card, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: The--if a person has access to that door that time of day, the computer records the code number on that card, but it does nothing else beyond that as far as saying that--I mean, it doesn't know that that's the person that is carrying it.

MR. BLASIER: Right.

MR. MATHESON: It records the card information.

MR. BLASIER: Now, how many people have cards that provide access to the lab itself, the overall lab?

MR. MATHESON: I believe currently we have probably between, oh, 75 and 90 people I believe that have cards.

MR. BLASIER: And does that include--well, tell me who that includes just in general categories.

MR. MATHESON: Well, it includes criminalists, it includes our property officers, other support personnel that work within our laboratory, our student workers, our--excuse me--our clerical staff, the administration and our couriers.

MR. BLASIER: Now, it includes the management personnel of the lab, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And you have one?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Michele Kestler has one?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And are there any other--the Captain of the Police Department that's in charge of the lab has one I assume?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct. His office is inside of that facility.

MR. BLASIER: Do any other higher police officials have cards that allow access to the lab in general?

MR. MATHESON: At the current time, I don't believe so. One point, we had one issued to a commander, but the person currently in that position chose not to take one.

MR. BLASIER: Now, would it be accurate to say that of the three areas we've talked about, the lockers which I titled sensitive case lockers, the evidence control unit and the evidence processing room, the evidence processing room is the least secure facility of those three?

MR. MATHESON: If you mean by least secured, that more people have access to it, then yes, that's accurate.

MR. BLASIER: It's also the most accessible from the outside through that big door that opens up, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Well, it's as--it's as accessible as our stockroom is which also has one of those doors nearby.

MR. BLASIER: Now--and the stockroom area is right next to the evidence processing room, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And there is a refrigerator in that stockroom; is there not?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, there is a refrigerator freezer.

MR. BLASIER: And that refrigerator is available for criminalists to store biological evidence that might be kept in the evidence processing room, correct?

MR. MATHESON: It's available for them to use that, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Can we go to the next slide please?

THE COURT: And which item is this alphabetically?

MR. BLASIER: L.

THE COURT: Appears to be a photograph.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, this is a photograph of the evidence processing room; is it not?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.

MR. BLASIER: And there are things in the back there that look a little like ovens I guess. I--what are those?

MR. MATHESON: Those are hoods, what are called hoods. It's an area where air is drawn out of and inducted to the outside.

MR. BLASIER: And what's the purpose of those areas?

MR. GOLDBERG: It's not really relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Those are available for criminalists if they bring large bloody items or smelly items to hang in that area so that they can dry out and that the fumes and the hazards associated with that are taken to the outside rather than being allowed to circulate within the laboratory.

MR. BLASIER: Now, clothing, bloody clothing is required to be dried thoroughly before it is packaged, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And what can happen if it's not allowed to dry thoroughly and then it's packaged?

MR. MATHESON: Well, if it's packaged while it's still damp, you have the possibility for degradation of the biological evidence.

MR. BLASIER: Can also cause mold to grow, can't it?

MR. MATHESON: Well, sure. If you have dampness in there, that's one of the things that will occur.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the shirt that--I believe you were asked some questions about Mr. Goldman's shirt on direct. Do you recall that?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: And that was collected by the Coroner's office, was it not, originally?

MR. MATHESON: That's my understanding, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And when was the first time approximately that you examined that shirt. The best of your recollection?

MR. MATHESON: Probably sometime in July or August. I'm not sure.

MR. BLASIER: And is it accurate that the first time you opened up the package that contained that shirt, there was a very strong odor of mold?

MR. MATHESON: There was definitely an offensive odor, yes, smell.

MR. BLASIER: And that's an indication that it was not packaged properly, isn't it?

MR. MATHESON: It's an indication that it was damp, it was allowed to stay damp for a while.

MR. BLASIER: That it was not packaged properly, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That it was not stored properly, yeah.

MR. BLASIER: Next slide. Could we go back to the last one, please?

MR. BLASIER: The area at the end that we've been talking about or--I think you said they were hoods?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And it's actually--I believe it's almost a walk-in area, isn't it? You can climb in there and--

MR. MATHESON: Yeah. The sashes--the area actually goes all the way to the ground. The sashes allow you to--to lift them up and actually roll something into it if you like.

MR. BLASIER: What type of a hood is that? There are different types of hoods, aren't there?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: I'm not sure what you mean by what type of hood.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know what a laminar flow hood is?

MR. MATHESON: Roughly, yes.

MR. BLASIER: What's your understanding of what a laminar flow hood is?

MR. MATHESON: My understanding of a laminar flow is something that--where you have air pulled across the surface and then removed. We have laminar flow in the lab.

MR. BLASIER: In what room?

MR. MATHESON: In most of the laboratories.

MR. BLASIER: In the serology lab?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: And the doors on that hood close; do they not?

MR. MATHESON: You can close it off, yes, by pulling the sashes down.

MR. BLASIER: So you can put items that may be wet with blood in there, close the hood, turn on the ventilation system to allow them to dry, correctly--correct?

MR. MATHESON: Well, the hoods are there for hanging things up to dry, but you don't turn it on. They're constantly running.

MR. BLASIER: But the reason they're running and when you put items in there is to facilitate the drying process?

MR. MATHESON: To facilitate the drying process along with, like I mentioned, the removal of odors.

MR. BLASIER: And isn't one of the purposes also to prevent--to have the doors closed, to prevent any contamination of items that might be outside that hood with particles of blood or other biological material that might be on that clothing?

MR. GOLDBERG: This is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Was there anything put in the hood to your knowledge with regard to this case?

MR. MATHESON: Not to my knowledge, no.

THE COURT: Let's proceed.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Now, Mr. Matheson, you indicated in your notes that on the--I believe on the morning of June 14th, there were two other cases being processed in the evidence processing room at the same time the Simpson case evidence was being processed, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's in my notes?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MATHESON: I would want to refer to it.

MR. BLASIER: Why don't you take a look.

(The witness complies.)

MR. MATHESON: Yes. That is a reference on what is l-507 of a chronology that I made dated 6-14-94. I mentioned that two other cases with evidence present in evidence processing room.

MR. BLASIER: And is it fair to assume that those two other cases had biological evidence as well?

MR. MATHESON: I'm not sure that we can assume that, no.

MR. BLASIER: Now, why did you make that notation?

MR. MATHESON: Just to try and be as complete as possible.

MR. BLASIER: But you made the notation without writing down what kinds of cases that involved?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And so we have no way of reconstructing at this point in time what kind of other evidence from other cases, including potential biological materials, might have been in that room at the same time as the evidence in this case?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: No, that's not necessarily true.

MR. BLASIER: You could determine that?

MR. MATHESON: It's possible, yes.

MR. BLASIER: But you did not consider it important enough to put in your notes at the time you made that notation?

MR. MATHESON: No.

MR. BLASIER: Next slide, please. Now, this slide is--

THE COURT: Is this m?

MR. BLASIER: M.

MR. BLASIER: This is a picture of the evidence processing room from the other side, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And that roll-up door there is the one we've been talking about that is the door that goes to the outside?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, do you recall in August of last year, I believe it was the 26th or around that time, there was a visit to the lab by a number of Defense experts and attorneys?

MR. MATHESON: I'm not sure of the exact date, but yes, there was a visit where we gave a tour of the facility.

MR. BLASIER: And do you recall whether or not that roll-up door was open at the time that tour was done?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: No, I do not.

MR. BLASIER: Could we go to the next slide, please?

MR. BLASIER: Now, I'm going to blow up a little area backed by Mr. Scheck's head, which is the cabinet where the evidence in this case, the swatch evidence, was dried, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. This is n? All right. Mr. Blasier, you need to tell us for the record which one we're referring to.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. I'm trying to convert the numbers to letters, Judge, and I've having some trouble.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. BLASIER: N. Could we have o?

MR. BLASIER: Now, this is a better picture of that cabinet, correct?

MR. MATHESON: It's a picture of the doors open, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, that cabinet does not have any lock on it at all, does it?

MR. MATHESON: No, it does not.

MR. BLASIER: And when it's used for drying biological stains, does it have those other items in it as well that are in this picture?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And are there chemicals kept in that cabinet at the same time that biological evidence is in there drying?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, there is.

MR. BLASIER: What sorts of chemicals are in there?

MR. MATHESON: They are the chemicals that we use for our field testing, the phenolphtalein test that's been talked about. If there's anything else, I'm not sure what it is.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the evidence in this case that was collected at the Bundy scene and the Rockingham scene on the 13th was taken to the evidence processing room, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, it was.

MR. BLASIER: It was not taken for booking right away, was it?

MR. MATHESON: It was taken for booking right away. It was not booked right away.

MR. BLASIER: And it was kept in the evidence processing room for how many days before it was moved to some other location?

MR. GOLDBERG: No personal knowledge.

MR. BLASIER: If you know.

MR. MATHESON: I would want to refer to a property report or something to be sure.

MR. BLASIER: Go ahead.

MR. MATHESON: I don't have the property reports with me.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know which date the first item of evidence in this case was actually booked in the evidence control unit?

MR. MATHESON: It was either the--June 15th or June 16th.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, no personal knowledge. Motion to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: Do your notes show, your chron notes show when that happened?

MR. MATHESON: I have a notation in my chronology for June 16th, 1994 of approximately 1200, Fung books evidence.

MR. BLASIER: Now, is it your understanding of the proper procedure for booking items, that a delay of three days is acceptable or not acceptable?

MR. MATHESON: It is longer than I would like to see it happen.

MR. BLASIER: And one of the reasons it's longer than what you would like is because it's in that evidence control or evidence processing room which of the facilities we talked about is the least secure?

MR. MATHESON: No, that is not one of the reasons.

MR. BLASIER: That's not of any concern of yours at all?

MR. MATHESON: No, it isn't, not as far as security of the evidence goes.

MR. BLASIER: So there are no additional precautions other than what you've described in terms of the way you get in and out of there in that room designed to protect evidence in that room from tampering?

MR. MATHESON: No. Our business is evidence. There's always evidence in that room.

MR. BLASIER: And that evidence when it's in that room before it's been booked is not logged in in any computer record anywhere, is it?

MR. MATHESON: No, it is not.

MR. BLASIER: Is it logged in anywhere at any formal document?

MR. MATHESON: As it's in there, no. It's in there pending that logging process occurring, the production of a property report.

MR. BLASIER: So there is no repository of information that you could go to for instance on the 15th to find out what evidence relating to this case was in that room?

MR. MATHESON: Not specifically for the 15th. We would have to look at what was purported to be of taken in there on the first day and then what was booked at the time it was booked.

MR. BLASIER: Now, is it accurate that the evidence from the Rockingham scene, the Bundy scene from the 13th and the Bronco search from the 14th was all kept together in that room until the 16th?

MR. MATHESON: They were all kept in that room, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when something gets entered into the computer in the sets system, that's a tracking program as you described before, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And even with that program, individual items are not individually marked, are they?

MR. MATHESON: Not within that--not as far as the bar code goes, no. Tracks packages.

MR. BLASIER: So the only thing as far as the bar code is concerned that is tracked is a container which purportedly contains certain pieces of evidence?

MR. GOLDBERG: This has been asked and answered.

THE COURT: It has.

MR. BLASIER: Of this witness?

THE COURT: When we went through the slide.

MR. BLASIER: Is there any computerized system that tracks individual items of evidence?

MR. MATHESON: I believe the APIMS system does, but I don't have any direct involvement with that.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you described how to find items that are in the evidence control unit after they've been booked. You remember that?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: And those items that are in that room are stored--appears that they're stored at random, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Usually they are, yes.

MR. BLASIER: But all you need to know is the DR number and the item number to find something, correct?

MR. MATHESON: You have to have the DR number, the item number and you need to know how to access the computer, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And that information certainly is available to all police officers that have worked on the case, correct? That's not secret information?

MR. MATHESON: As far as the--

MR. GOLDBERG: Overly broad as to the information.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: As far as the DR number and the item number, that's correct. I would be very surprised if any of the officers associated with this case know how to operate our tracking computer.

MR. BLASIER: Now, were you listening to Dennis Fung's testimony when he was asked about why there was such a delay for booking these items from the 13th to the 16th?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative as to such a delay. Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Why there was a three-day delay that you have said is undesirable between those items being in the evidence processing room--

THE COURT: Rephrase the question. Did you hear Mr. Fung's testimony about the period of time between the time the evidence was taken into custody and then finally booked? Are you aware of his testimony regarding those items?

MR. MATHESON: I'm aware that he gave testimony on that. I don't know of his specific wording of it.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. BLASIER: Is it accurate that the reason those items were not booked until the 16th is because he hadn't done his reports?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, calls for speculation. No personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Do you know? Do you know why the time period?

MR. MATHESON: I have my opinion as to why it took that long.

MR. BLASIER: You were in charge of the items, weren't you?

MR. MATHESON: Not directly in charge of the items, no.

MR. BLASIER: You were in charge of the people that were working on the items, weren't you?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And as part of that responsibility, did you assume that that included tracking that evidence to make sure that it was handled properly?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to tracking.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Well, ultimately, yes. I'm going to keep track of how the things are done and whether the processes are occurring.

MR. BLASIER: Did you at any time intervene between the 13th and the 16th and tell whoever was working on the evidence, "hey, guys, we should get this booked and into the system right away"?

MR. MATHESON: Not that I remember. I'm not sure I was able to see Dennis that much. He was fairly busy.

MR. BLASIER: Now, at the Bundy scene on the 13th, there were only approximately 19 items seized, correct?

MR. MATHESON: I don't know the exact number.

MR. BLASIER: It wasn't a large number, was it?

MR. MATHESON: No, it wasn't extremely large.

MR. BLASIER: And at the Rockingham scene, there were an equally--about the same number, I think it was 21 collected on the 13th, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That sounds approximately accurate.

MR. BLASIER: It was not a large number of items?

MR. MATHESON: Not overly large, no.

MR. BLASIER: Now, does it take a long period of time for the person responsible to prepare the reports that describe those items--well, let me rephrase that. The form that's used to enter those items into property is not a terribly complicated form, is it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Are we talking about a property report form?

MR. BLASIER: Yeah.

MR. MATHESON: The form itself is not complicated, no.

MR. BLASIER: And would you agree that it's not terribly time-consuming to fill out one of those reports to catalog 19 items?

MR. MATHESON: I'm not sure what you mean by terribly time-consuming. It does take a while. Just writing the words on the paper doesn't take very long, but that's not the only part of the process.

MR. BLASIER: In your opinion, is not having enough time to write the reports an adequate excuse for not getting those items booked until the 16th?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for opinion, conclusion, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: In your opinion, is it acceptable as the manager of the lab that items not get to booking for the reason that the criminalist has not filled out the reports?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation, conjecture.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Well, just--just the function of not filling out the report in and of itself would not be acceptable. I would want to know why the report was not filled out.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: You are aware, are you not, that Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola at no time counted the number of swatches that they collected for each individual blood drop?

MR. MATHESON: That's my understanding, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And so that there is no way of telling how many swatches they picked up from the ground and took back to the evidence processing room?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: Is there any way to tell how many swatches were picked up on the 13th from the Bundy scene or the Rockingham scene and taken back to the lab?

MR. MATHESON: No, there is not.

MR. BLASIER: In your opinion, is that an acceptable procedure for collecting swatches; to not track how many you collect?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: That's acceptable?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Is that your practice?

MR. MATHESON: To not count the number?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MATHESON: Didn't used to be.

MR. BLASIER: It didn't used to be?

MR. MATHESON: No. I never used to count the number of swatches. It obviously became an issue in this case, and in the future and in an interest just to be able to answer that, I have tended to record them. But no, I don't think it's vital information.

MR. BLASIER: That's the only purpose you think is served by counting the number of swatches that are taken; is just in case a Defense attorney asks you a question?

MR. MATHESON: To me, as far as when you're collecting them, the number of swatches you use to pick up a particular stain is not of particular importance. It's described when the criminalist receives the item for analysis, say serology or something like that, and that has to do with how much evidence is available for testing at that point. But as far as just collecting it and recording I don't think that's a terribly important piece of information.

MR. BLASIER: And would you agree that because that information is not kept, that swatches could disappear or be taken and there would be no way of checking that?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you booked into evidence items from the Bronco as a result of the stains that you removed on September 1st that you testified about, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And you booked in approximately seven or eight different items?

MR. MATHESON: I'd have to look at my report. It was not a large number.

MR. BLASIER: Let me show you--

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

MR. BLASIER: Let me show you a property report for a number of items. Take a look at that yourself.

MR. MATHESON: Okay.

MR. BLASIER: And that's a property report--perhaps just a partial report listing the items that you collected on September 1st, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.

MR. BLASIER: And for every single item on that list, you specify the number of swatches that you collected, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Had that become an issue in this case as of September 1st when you did this?

MR. MATHESON: I believe