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 it had.

MR. BLASIER: And it's only in response to it being raised as an issue in this case that you now have a practice of counting swatches?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Have you passed that on to the people that work for you? Is that now a policy, SID, for people to count swatches?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: There is actually two questions there. No, it is not a policy and yes, we have suggested that something people do.

MR. BLASIER: So it's just kind of, you can do it if you want to?

MR. MATHESON: At this point, the fact that we do not have a manual that establishes our field policies where all this is laid out, we are recommending certain procedures to people.

MR. BLASIER: But you had the ability to set a policy, don't you? You said that before.

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: I think we've covered this counsel.

MR. BLASIER: The actual property report itself has a column that asks for quantity of an item, doesn't it?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.

MR. BLASIER: And this is an official report required by the Los Angeles Police Department, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes. It's a generic property report.

MR. BLASIER: And it's your understanding that the police department requires that you fill in the quantity of items that are collected?

MR. GOLDBERG: It's vague, overbroad as to items.

THE COURT: I think we've covered this, counsel.

MR. BLASIER: Well, I don't think there's been testimony about the police department.

THE COURT: The form is there. It has the number of items. It wasn't filled out on many of these things. That's been established. Let's proceed.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you've been asked about the search of the Bronco on August 26th, 1994, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have I believe.

MR. BLASIER: And I believe exhibit 200 is the checklist; is that correct, Ms. Robertson?

THE CLERK: Yes, it is.

MR. BLASIER: I have a copy of it.

MR. GOLDBERG: I don't think it was 200.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, the vehicle search notes?

MR. BLASIER: Yes. I would like to place on the elmo the last page of this.

THE COURT: Certainly. Did we confirm the exhibit number?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Does this appear to be the item list for evidence items collected as a result of that search?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that virtually every blank on that form has been filled in?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And the time collected for each individual item has been filled in to the minute; has it not?

MR. MATHESON: Appears to be, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And the identification of the person collecting the item is filled in for every item, isn't it?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: In your view, is this the proper way that these forms should be filled out?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence, there's only one proper way.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: I don't feel it's necessary for all of the evidence items to have their time down to the minute. Like I testified before, I tend to bracket items from when the original one was picked up until the last one.

MR. BLASIER: I think you testified on direct as to this particular form that some of your people don't even understand what the--I believe it was the id photo column means. Remember that?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Am I misrecollecting that? There's one column on here that you indicated your people don't even know what it means, there's disagreement?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Why don't you rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: Do you remember testifying yesterday about part of this form that has been inconsistently interpreted as to what it means by your own people?

MR. MATHESON: Well, first off, I'm not sure it was part of this form. If you'll notice, this one is slightly different than the one--because we have a couple of different forms when it comes to evidence collection. I would want to check that one to make sure exactly which one it is. But there was a column that we talked about regarding any inconsistency as to how that was interpreted.

MR. BLASIER: Now, on this particular search, Michelle Kestler and a criminalist by the name of Maurocoubo I believe--you'll have to correct my pronunciation on that--Mostrocovo?

MR. MATHESON: Mastrocovo, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Mastrocovo. Worked on this particular search, correct?

MR. MATHESON: And I believe there was also Mr. Raquel was involved in that.

MR. BLASIER: And they have indicated individually--now, they were working as a team; were they not?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, they were.

MR. BLASIER: And on that form, they indicated which particular person collected which particular items, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, they did.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did I understand your direct testimony to be that if you have two people working as a team, it's less important for them to identify who actually picks up an item from the ground?

MR. MATHESON: I think I would want to see exactly what I said on that. I--

MR. BLASIER: Let me ask you that. If you have two people working as a team, do you think it's less important than if you had just one person processing a scene for them to keep track of who actually picks the item up off the ground?

MR. MATHESON: Well, obviously if only one person is involved in it from beginning to end, then all the notations would be the same. I wouldn't expect you to have to fill in each one. As far as both people, it's information that would be nice to know. Whether it's vital or not, I don't believe so.

MR. BLASIER: But it becomes more important where you have two people working as a team obviously than if you had one person working alone, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Well, it's more important because with one person, it's obvious who did it.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know of any police agency that has as a procedure--let me rephrase that. Do you know of any police agency that allows or that does not require people who physically collect an item to identify it and initial it with their initials?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: No, I do not.

MR. BLASIER: That's a standard police procedure, is it not; that the person who picks it up is the person who initials it? That establishes the chain of custody, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Initials it is vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Part of the procedures in criminalistics is to initial or identify an item that's collected.

MR. BLASIER: It is not satisfactory to have somebody else who might have been thinking about collecting the item initial it rather than the person who collects it, is it?

MR. MATHESON: If we're--it would be nice if the person that was involved in it did initial that item and did mark and be involved in it. But it is also a situation where--and we're talking about the collection process--where if two people are involved and two people see what's going on, that that information becomes less important.

MR. BLASIER: So it's your opinion that it's just nice to have that information, not essential that you have it?

MR. MATHESON: If two people are working together on it and they're there collecting them together, I don't believe that it's essential, but it would be nice to have that information there, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, if some question was raised down the line about possibly tampering with a particular item, wouldn't you want to know who picked it up off the ground?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative. No evidence to support it.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Isn't that an important piece of information for chain of custody?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: As to who collected it?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MATHESON: It's part of the process.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our recess for the morning session. Please remember my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, don't allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We'll stand in recess until 1 o'clock. Mr. Matheson, 1 o'clock.

(At 12:00 P.M., the noon recess was taken until 1:00 P.M. of the same day.)

Los Angeles, California; Wednesday, May 3, 1995 1:03 P.M.

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

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted; also appearing on behalf of Mr. Kardashian, Janet I. Levine and Alvin Michaelson, esquires.)

(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:)

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

(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)

THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, may I ask one quick question before we bring the jurors in?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: I'm a little unclear on our blood vial chart as to your ruling as to when I can bring it out. My understanding that I have to establish an amount before I can start taking blood off of it or do I have to establish every amount that was withdrawn?

THE COURT: You can ask--there was a challenge as to the accuracy of the items that were there. You can ask Mr. Matheson what he knows about it, what he took, and start establishing a foundation for it.

MR. BLASIER: I mean with the chart there, though?

THE COURT: No, no.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jurors.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: I might not have been clear, but the amounts that were written on there come off. I wasn't intending to leave those on.

THE COURT: I understand that, counsel.

(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 been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

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

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

THE COURT: All right. Gregory Matheson is again on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Blasier. Good afternoon, Mr. Matheson.

MR. MATHESON: Good afternoon.

THE COURT: You are reminded you are still under oath, sir. Mr. Blasier, you may continue.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor. Good evening--good afternoon.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. BLASIER

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, I want to ask you some questions about the socks, item no. 13. Now, would you agree that of the items collected at Rockingham this was obviously a very significant piece of evidence?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation, conclusion.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Yes, it was.

MR. BLASIER: And when did you first become aware that a pair of socks had been found at the foot of Mr. Simpson's bed?

MR. MATHESON: It was probably when--upon doing the inventory on June 29th.

MR. BLASIER: That is the first time you became aware of the socks?

MR. MATHESON: That is the first moment that sticks in my mind, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Didn't you have a meeting on the 14th where you discussed the evidence that had been obtained on the 13th with Mr. Fung and Miss Mazzola and others at the lab?

MR. MATHESON: We discussed some of the items, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And no one discussed the socks?

MR. MATHESON: Not to my knowledge. At that point I believe our focus was mainly on the items picked up at the Bundy scene and the glove from Rockingham.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you had--before the 29th you had a number of meetings, did you not, with Miss Clark, and other people at the lab, about the items that were collected on the 13th, did you not?

MR. MATHESON: I've had many meetings with the D.A.'s office in association with this case. Yes, I did.

MR. BLASIER: Before the 29th?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: I did meet with them at time and I'm sure we talked about evidence, but I don't specifically remember discussing regarding the socks.

MR. BLASIER: Do you want to refer to your chron notes in terms of--let me ask you this: You had a meeting with Detective Vannatter on the 15th to discuss what evidence should be examined and tested, did you not?

MR. MATHESON: Can I refer to my notes?

MR. BLASIER: Sure.

(Brief pause.)

MR. MATHESON: We did have a discussion regarding what additional items we wanted to start analyzing.

MR. BLASIER: And that was in the morning of the 15th, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, sometime in the A.M.

MR. BLASIER: And it is your recollection that the socks were never mentioned?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: I don't specifically remember whether they were mentioned. They were not one of the items chosen to continue work on.

MR. BLASIER: Did you at any time on your own make an effort to review what items had actually been collected at Rockingham on the 13th?

MR. MATHESON: From beginning to end all the items, no, I don't believe so.

MR. BLASIER: And you didn't have Fung's notes available to you, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Well, on the 13th I don't believe they were even back at the laboratory by the type I left.

MR. BLASIER: On the 14th?

MR. MATHESON: We did look at a number of items, mainly at blood swatches and that type of thing and the gloves.

MR. BLASIER: Where were the socks when you were looking at items? Do you have any idea?

MR. MATHESON: I would have to assume they were somewhere in the evidence processing room.

MR. BLASIER: And you are assuming that because there is no record that shows where they were, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Is there a record that shows where they were?

MR. MATHESON: As mentioned earlier, no, other than what they say they took into the room and what was eventually booked.

MR. BLASIER: Now, there were approximately 19 times or 21 items seized at Rockingham on the 13th. Who made the decision as to which items you guys would talk about on the 14th?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant, beyond the scope of direct and also--

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: --unintelligible.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: At--on that date--I mean, it is very possible that the socks came up. It is not sticking in my mind because we didn't choose to do anything with it at the time. We were dealing with things that we knew at that point had blood on them, such as the stains and the gloves.

MR. BLASIER: Did you know at that time that the search warrant that had been executed at Rockingham in the afternoon of the 13th, that the primary thing that was being searched for was bloody clothing?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence, no personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Overruled. Did you know that?

MR. BLASIER: Did you know that?

MR. MATHESON: I subsequently heard that. I didn't know that at the time.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you had a meeting with Marcia Clark in the afternoon on the 15th, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Referring again to my chronology notes. My notes reflect, "work in progress DDA. Marcia Clark confirm desire to submit evidence to RFLP without further conventional work." I--well, that's correct. That was in Commander White's office, yes, she was present.

MR. BLASIER: Who else was present?

MR. MATHESON: There was a large number of people in that room.

MR. BLASIER: And the purpose for that meeting was to discuss what evidence was collected and what you should do with it, correct?

MR. MATHESON: No, I don't believe we got into a lot of technical discussion at that point. I believe this involved some of the detectives and other people. I think we talked about the crime scene in general.

MR. BLASIER: Were there other meetings between the 15th and the 20th, the day of the Grand Jury hearing, about the evidence that had been seized in this case?

MR. MATHESON: May I refer again--look through my notes, my chronology, and see if it reminds me of anything.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. MATHESON: I don't have any notations of any additional meetings that were held regarding specific discussions of the evidence.

MR. BLASIER: Do you remember there being a lot of meetings around this time about this case?

MR. MATHESON: I recall talking on the phone quite a bit with people about the case and meeting with criminalists and the like.

MR. BLASIER: Now, on June 20th you were at the Grand Jury waiting to testify from 7:45 in the morning until 10:15 in the morning, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I was.

MR. BLASIER: And you were there with Dennis Fung and Detective Vannatter waiting, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Along with Mr. Yamauchi and Detective Lange, yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: The record should reflect that the witness looked at his notes before answering.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did you have any discussion about what the evidence was in the case?

MR. MATHESON: I don't particularly remember what we talked about.

MR. BLASIER: Did the subject of the socks come up then?

MR. MATHESON: I don't know.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: By the way, Andrea Mazzola was not at the Grand Jury hearing, was she?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Did you participate in any discussions regarding the role that Andrea Mazzola would play in the Grand Jury hearing?

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: On the 21st at 11:15 you had a meeting with Michele Kestler and Dennis Fung and Collin Yamauchi to discuss the evidence, did you not?

MR. MATHESON: According to my chronology, yes, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Did you discuss the socks at all?

MR. MATHESON: Just by--

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Just by looking at this, I don't remember.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when the property was--they started to book the property on the 16th. Did you follow that in any way to determine what items were being booked?

MR. MATHESON: I don't believe they started to book it on the 16th. That was the date when the items and the reports or the property report was delivered to our evidence control unit.

MR. BLASIER: That is the first date on the various computer systems used to track items, correct, and track packages?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: For any item?

MR. MATHESON: I believe so. I know that is true of the item that came out of the laboratory.

MR. BLASIER: Are you aware of the socks even being photographed at SID after they were collected before they were booked?

MR. MATHESON: No, I'm not.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Now, was it June 29th was the first time that you looked at the socks?

MR. MATHESON: That is the first time I remember seeing them, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you testified that blood is difficult to see on darker clothing such as the socks, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And you knew that at the time that you examined them, correct?

MR. MATHESON: I know that in general it is tougher to see on black surfaces, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And so when you examined those socks to see if there might be some evidence on them, did you look at them more carefully than if they had been white?

MR. MATHESON: Well, that wasn't the process that was going on there. I was not doing a scientific examination of those items at that point. We were trying to do an inventory of the swatches, the items that were there, and I made a general notation on that, log or inventory, as to what we would be doing in the future with it.

MR. BLASIER: Where was that done?

MR. MATHESON: That was done in Miss Kestler's office.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have a high-intensity light available to you to look at the socks there?

MR. MATHESON: No.

MR. BLASIER: How far away is one?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Let's see. We would have one in the laboratory, so it is, I don't know, probably 50, 75 feet away.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Why did you write down "blood search" on the notes of that meeting that day?

MR. MATHESON: Because that was an indication of something we were planning on doing to those items in the future.

MR. BLASIER: What did you write down "none obvious" for?

MR. MATHESON: It was an indication to me that we opened them up to take a look at them for the inventory and there was no blood obvious on it.

MR. BLASIER: So you did examine at least?

MR. MATHESON: Well, I looked at them, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did you take any pictures that day?

MR. MATHESON: No.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you testified that you took some cuttings from the socks on September 18th, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Referring again to my notes.

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, going back to the 29th when you filled out these notes about blood search, "none obvious," who else was present when that meeting took place?

MR. MATHESON: The inventory that we did at that time was myself, Miss Kestler and Collin Yamauchi.

MR. BLASIER: Was there any discussion at this meeting about the potential significance of these socks?

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

MR. BLASIER: Now, why did--you did indicate that somebody should do a blood search? Is that what that indication means?

MR. MATHESON: At some point that was our intent, yes.

MR. BLASIER: How had those socks been stored up until the 29th?

MR. MATHESON: I would have to see if I can find some notes. I believe they were stored in a box in the freezer, but I'm not sure of that.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have a record you can refer to?

MR. MATHESON: I'm trying to figure out where it would be.

(Brief pause.)

MR. MATHESON: Okay. With the information I have with me now, it is indicated that it was part of a very large box which also contained the swatches and a number of items that were all stored frozen.

MR. BLASIER: Now, are you aware that that evidence, that box of evidence, was examined by Susan Brockbank who is a criminalist in your office on the 21st of June?

MR. MATHESON: I am aware that she checked it out, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And did she ever come to you and say, "these socks are real important. We better look at them quickly," anything like that?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: She did not say that, no, not to my knowledge.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: When is the first time, to your knowledge, that anyone at SID took a picture of those socks after they were seized?

MR. MATHESON: I'm not sure. I don't know if they were photographed when Mr. Yamauchi first did a blood search on them or not.

MR. BLASIER: When did he first do a blood search on them?

MR. GOLDBERG: No personal knowledge.

MR. BLASIER: If you know?

MR. MATHESON: Off the top of my head I wouldn't know and I don't have those notes with me, I don't believe.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have a rough idea what month it was?

MR. MATHESON: Let's see. I did my--

MR. GOLDBERG: No personal knowledge, foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: It would have to have been before I did my examination on October--excuse me--on September 18th, so it would have been in either August or September.

MR. BLASIER: Should you take pictures of an item of evidence when you are going to alter it in some fashion, both before and after you do the alteration?

MR. MATHESON: That is a good practice, yes.

MR. BLASIER: When you took cuttings of those socks on the 18th, did you have any pictures taken before you altered them?

MR. MATHESON: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: Did you have any pictures taken after you altered them?

MR. MATHESON: Not at that time, no.

MR. BLASIER: The pictures that were used here, I believe yesterday for you to identify, when were they taken?

MR. MATHESON: They were taken at some later date at one of the laboratories that worked on these items.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, which item are you referring to?

MR. BLASIER: It was a picture of the socks.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: 214-A and B.

MR. BLASIER: 214-A.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: One of the policies that is in place in your lab is that items, when they come into the lab, are photographed so that you can preserve their appearance and their condition when you first get them; isn't that correct?

MR. MATHESON: No, it is not.

MR. BLASIER: Do you think that is a good practice?

MR. MATHESON: The items are photographed in the scene. It shows their appearance at the time they are collected, but we do not then photograph them again as soon as they come into the laboratory.

MR. BLASIER: Why not?

MR. MATHESON: Well, it is a combination of that it is not necessary and we deal with large quantities of evidence. It is a matter of practicality.

MR. BLASIER: Now, representatives of the Defense have been at the lab a number of times, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, they have.

MR. BLASIER: And every time someone from the Defense has been at the lab to look at an item it has been extensively photographed by your photographer, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Both before we look at it and after we look at it, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: When you conduct examinations of evidence yourself when we weren't there, do you photograph what you do?

MR. MATHESON: Not every item, no.

MR. BLASIER: How do you decide which ones to document by photographing and which ones not to?

MR. MATHESON: Historically as a rule very few items are photographed within the laboratory on a regular basis. At this point--well, it still is that many times the evidence items are not photographed.

MR. BLASIER: Can blood on clothing change over time in terms of your ability to extract information from it?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, particularly depending on its storage conditions.

MR. BLASIER: When you decided to do a blood search on the 29th did you give anybody any instructions that we should do this fairly quickly?

MR. MATHESON: No.

MR. BLASIER: Can you estimate the number of months it was from the time those socks were collected until someone looked at them carefully?

MR. MATHESON: It would have been two to three months, something like that.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: This meeting on the 29th where you evaluated the evidence for purposes of possible testing, your notes indicate that the various items that were examined were examined very carefully, including the measurements of each individual swatch, weren't they?

MR. MATHESON: Referring to my copy of those notes, we have measurements, yes, indicated under the "quantity" area on each of the swatches.

MR. BLASIER: Is it accurate that this was not just a brief meeting in passing, that this was a meeting that you took some time to carefully review these items?

MR. MATHESON: It took quite awhile to do the inventory, yes.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Are you aware of Andrea Mazzola's testimony in August to the effect that she wrote her initials on the coin envelopes of the blood drops that she collected?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

MR. MATHESON: No, that--

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. MATHESON: Excuse me.

MR. BLASIER: Would it be of concern to you as a supervisor of criminalists if you reviewed evidence items that to your knowledge had originally been signed by a criminalist and those items were not signed when you looked at them?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative and irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have any method that you use of examining items of evidence at a particular time to see whether it is the same evidence that was collected originally?

MR. MATHESON: We do not have an ongoing formal policy of checking the item that is being examined for, you know, say serology or trace or whatever, against an original property report or something.

MR. BLASIER: Would it be of concern to you if items that you examine, you expected to have initials on them by the person collecting them and they weren't there?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Are you saying that if I received a packing material that had no initials on it?

MR. BLASIER: That had initials from somebody other than the person you thought had collected it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is argumentative and it is not relevant.

THE COURT: Sustained as phrased.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: On the 29th when you were going through all these items did you notice anything unusual about the initials on these packing items?

MR. MATHESON: No, I did not.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Hypothetically, if a criminalist had put their initials on an envelope that contained an item of evidence that that criminalist collected and you later examined that envelope and there was no signature on it or someone else's signature on it, would that cause you concern?

MR. GOLDBERG: Improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, argumentative. Can we approach?

THE COURT: No. Sustained.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, I want to ask you some questions about the Bronco. The Bronco was impounded on the 13th, correct?

MR. MATHESON: I was not involved in any of that. I've heard that.

MR. BLASIER: Were you involved at all in any examinations done on the Bronco during the course of the time it was impounded?

MR. MATHESON: No, I was not.

MR. BLASIER: Did you make any effort to follow what the people that worked under you were doing with respect to examining the Bronco?

MR. MATHESON: To some extent, yes; not moment by moment.

MR. BLASIER: But you were reviewing with them the various searches that they did of the Bronco, correct?

MR. MATHESON: I would hear what items were collected, that type of thing, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did you review any of those notes as they were prepared?

MR. MATHESON: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: Is there some reason why you did not review those notes?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope.

MR. MATHESON: Well, as was previously mentioned, it is still consistent with the notes from both Bundy and Rockingham. I had not received them prior to their being copied and distributed.

MR. BLASIER: To your knowledge did anybody review them before they were copied and distributed?

MR. MATHESON: Not to my knowledge, no.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: When would these reports be copied and distributed? How long after a particular search took place, in general?

MR. MATHESON: Are we talking about in relation to this case or in other cases?

MR. BLASIER: This case. This case.

MR. MATHESON: Well, as a rule, given some of the conditions, that we were trying to get things turned over as soon as possible. I don't know. It would depend. I mean, sometimes we were not receiving some of this information until a significantly later time.

MR. BLASIER: At some point did you become aware of the possible significance of four small stains on the door or the door sill of the Bronco?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation for personal knowledge; calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: The first time I specifically remember hearing about those was in testimony on this case.

MR. BLASIER: So you are not aware at any time prior to that that there was any concern about whether those stains existed or not?

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: When you say the testimony in this case is where you became aware of that, was that Detective Fuhrman's testimony at the preliminary hearing?

MR. MATHESON: No, it was Mr. Fung's during the trial.

MR. BLASIER: You had no awareness of Mr. Fung being sent out by the District Attorney's office to look at that Bronco on July 6th?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Not as I recall, no.

MR. BLASIER: Were you still supervising him at that time?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Were you still in charge of managing the items in this case at that time?

MR. MATHESON: It was one of my tasks to be involved in tracking the items, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that it is proper procedure for a criminalist collecting an individual stain to collect the whole stain, if possible?

MR. MATHESON: If possible. If it is not--if it is a very, very large stain, there is no reason to, but if it is a small stain I would expect it to be collected.

MR. BLASIER: If it is a manageable size stain, they should collect all of it, correct?

MR. MATHESON: As much as possible, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And the reason for that is you can't tell from looking at a stain how good the mood or whatever it happens to be is going to be in terms of your being able to extract any information from it?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: So you try to get as much as you can, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And your people understand that?

MR. MATHESON: I believe so, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola searched the Bronco on the 14th, did you discuss, after they were done with that, anything about that search?

MR. MATHESON: I may have gotten a general overview of what was collected, but not in detail, no.

MR. BLASIER: Did Dennis Fung ever tell you after the 14th that he had left a lot of blood in the Bronco?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Did you become aware at any time--let me rephrase that. Did you have any awareness at all, after the 14th, that blood--let me rephrase. When did you first become aware that there was more blood in the Bronco after the 14th?

MR. MATHESON: That was when I saw the console when it was in the serology laboratory.

MR. BLASIER: So nobody had informed you of that fact prior to that time?

MR. MATHESON: It is possible that it was mentioned to me. I believe the search and the collection of the item from the Bronco was on August 26th. It is possible at that point that Miss Kestler mentioned to me there was blood present. I did not see any of these items, though, until they were back into the laboratory.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you indicated earlier that it is your practice or the lab's practice, for continuity, to have the same criminalist stay with a case throughout the case, if possible?

MR. MATHESON: If possible we try to.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when did Andrea Mazzola stop working on this case in terms of doing searches?

MR. MATHESON: I believe it was following the Bronco search in the shed, but I'm not quite sure.

MR. BLASIER: On the 14th?

MR. MATHESON: I believe so.

MR. BLASIER: Was she available after the 14th?

MR. MATHESON: She was working, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Was she available to do further searches on this case?

MR. MATHESON: I don't know. She works not in one of my units. I wouldn't know on any particular date and time if she was available.

MR. BLASIER: For continuity of the case isn't it your practice that she should have stayed on the case?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: In--all of this leaves us with the ability to make changes. In other words, in a normal case where we have a crime scene search and then maybe a follow-up scene of one type and that is it, we try and maintain this continuity. However, given the extent and the complexity of this case, at one point we decided to start involving other people besides the original two.

MR. BLASIER: And was she taken off because of her lack of experience?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Why did she not do any further searches in this case?

MR. MATHESON: Because she had duties in her own unit and she was done at that point with this particular situation. We were bringing other people in that potentially would be being involved with the analysis of the evidence farther down the road.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the search that was done on August 26th, that was done by Michele Kestler, the head of the lab, correct?

MR. MATHESON: She was one of the parties there, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And the media was invited to that search, correct?

MR. MATHESON: I believe there was a photographer.

MR. BLASIER: Dennis Fung wasn't invited to that search, was he?

MR. MATHESON: I don't know if he was invited or not.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: A photographer from life magazine was invited to that search, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: What level of security, to your knowledge, had been provided to--for the Bronco during the period of time from June 14th until August 24th?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation, personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Sustained. Reask the question.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have any personal knowledge about what security there was surrounding the Bronco between June 14th and August 24th or 26th when that search took place?

MR. MATHESON: No specific knowledge, no.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Now, is there a policy with respect to vehicles in terms of processing them quickly because they are mobile to a certain extent?

MR. MATHESON: I don't know if the reason to process them quickly has to do with any sort of mobility. It would be imperative or important to process any sort of scene quickly, of which a vehicle is one, to attempt to recover any biological evidence that my degrade.

MR. BLASIER: Now, vehicles are not stored in the evidence control unit, are they?

MR. MATHESON: No, they are not.

MR. BLASIER: They are stored at a tow yard, aren't they?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to time.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: There are two different ways that a vehicle can be brought into the possession of our department and stored. One of them is we have a facility where--which is under the control of the police department located behind Parker Center where we have temporary storage of vehicles and it is an area where they can be searched. At some point then they are transferred out to an official police garage or in some cases they go directly to the police garage.

MR. BLASIER: Directly to, I'm sorry?

MR. MATHESON: The police garage, an official tow yard.

MR. BLASIER: This Bronco was moved to a tow yard, was it not?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation of personal knowledge. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: When it was searched on the 26th, where was that?

MR. MATHESON: I don't know about on the 26th. I can make an assumption, but I don't know for a fact.

MR. BLASIER: Is it important to process a vehicle, as a general rule, before it is put in a place where there is ready access by civilians?

MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Well, it is important to perform--it is important to perform any search, if you can, before it has--has the potential of access by anybody that doesn't belong there.

MR. BLASIER: What steps did you take to see that the Bronco was thoroughly and carefully searched before it went to a tow yard, if any?

MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: My understanding was that a search of that vehicle had been performed, I believe it was on the 14th or the 15th of June, and at that point that we were done with it.

MR. BLASIER: So your impression was that everything of evidentiary value had been collected?

MR. MATHESON: I trusted the criminalist we had at the scene to make that decision, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And that is the way they should have done it, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Is that the proper way to do it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Is what the proper way to do it?

MR. BLASIER: When you go to search the vehicle to do it all at one time if you can, be thorough and get all the evidence that is there so you don't have to go back. Of course the best thing to do is get it all the first time.

MR. BLASIER: And it is not desirable to have to go back a second time to a vehicle or any place to collect evidence that you missed the first time, is it?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: If you can avoid it, sure, it would be nice to get everything the first time every time. Occasionally, though, we do have to do repeats.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would like to show the witness a form.

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

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, do you know what the term "special care" means with respect to a vehicle that has been seized?

MR. MATHESON: Not that specific term, no.

MR. BLASIER: Are you aware of any procedure that LAPD has in effect to provide special care to vehicles that have been seized?

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation for this witness' knowledge.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Well, I do know--excuse me. I do know that the garages that the police department uses to store vehicles have areas that are designated as print sheds or what are supposed to be more secure areas than just their lot, so that they are maintained until our arrival for searching.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Let me show you this form again and ask you if you are familiar with it. I wasn't sure I gave you a chance to look at it.

MR. GOLDBERG: I would object to showing the witness the form. It is nothing that he created.

THE COURT: Overruled. Do you recognize the form?

MR. MATHESON: I recognize it by its title as being a Los Angeles Police Department vehicle investigation form. I have never utilized one of these.

THE COURT: All right. Do you recognize the information? Are you familiar with the information that is on that form?

MR. MATHESON: Information regarding the form itself or what it is filled out?

THE COURT: The information that is contained on the form that has been filled in, are you familiar with that information?

MR. MATHESON: Well, I recognize notations regarding this case and the--

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with the procedure that the Los Angeles Police Department uses to release a vehicle that they are done with?

MR. MATHESON: No, I am not.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: I have a couple of pictures I would like to have marked.

THE COURT: All right. 1128 and 1129.

(Deft's 1128 for id = photograph)

(Deft's 1129 for id = photograph)

MR. BLASIER: Actually I have four, your Honor.

THE COURT: 1130 and 1131.

(Deft's 1130 for id = photograph)

(Deft's 1131 for id = photograph)

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

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry, what was that first number, your Honor?

THE COURT: 1128.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Were those marked a through--

THE COURT: 1128, 1129, 1130 and 1131.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: And generally what are these, Mr. Blasier?

MR. BLASIER: These are pictures of reference blood vials for both victims.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, let me show you first 1128 and ask you if you recognize the blood vial in that picture?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: And let me show you 1129 and see if you recognize that?

MR. MATHESON: I believe it is the same one.

MR. BLASIER: And what are those pictures of?

MR. MATHESON: Of item no. 60 which I believe is Mr. Goldman's reference blood.

MR. BLASIER: Let me show you 1130 and 1131. Do you recognize those and what are they?

MR. MATHESON: These are both photographs of two sides of item no. 59 which I believe is Miss Brown's reference samples.

MR. BLASIER: May I show these on the elmo, your Honor?

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Let me show first 1128 and 1129.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, do those two pictures appear to be accurate pictures of the reference blood vial for Ronald Goldman?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, they do.

MR. BLASIER: Now, reference blood from victims is taken by the Coroners, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: That is not a function of SID, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And after it is taken at the Coroner's office it is transported in some fashion to SID, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you will agree that there is blood on the outside of that vial, would you?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, there is.

MR. BLASIER: There is a substantial amount of blood on the outside, isn't there?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know how that blood got on the outside of that vial?

MR. MATHESON: Not specifically, no.

MR. BLASIER: When blood gets outside of a vial would you agree that it is more likely that it can contaminate things?

MR. MATHESON: Something comes in contact with it, sure.

MR. BLASIER: And like a hand would come in contact, you could have some transfer of a small amount of blood from the blood to the hand, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct. That is why I would wear gloves if I was to handle this item.

MR. BLASIER: A small amount of blood that you might not be able to see?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: But there would be enough blood to test and get a result on using DNA testing, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to under what conditions.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Are you aware of how much--well, let me withdraw that. Let's take a look at 1130 and 1131. 1130 and 1131, those are pictures of Nicole Brown Simpson's reference vial, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.

MR. BLASIER: And that would have been taken from the--originally taken from the Coroner's office, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that there is blood also on the outside of that vial?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know how the blood got on the outside of the vial?

MR. MATHESON: No, I have no personal knowledge of that.

MR. BLASIER: When you use these vials to perform tests on them, do you pour blood out or do you use something like a pipette to take blood out?

MR. MATHESON: You take it out with a pipetter.

MR. BLASIER: You don't take it out in a fashion that would cause it to spill on the outside of the container, do you?

MR. MATHESON: Try not to.

MR. BLASIER: And to your knowledge does the Coroner follow the same procedure if they need to take a withdrawal, they use pipetters as well?

MR. MATHESON: I don't know the procedures that they use.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: When are criminalists supposed to write reports of testing that they do with respect to when they do the test?

MR. MATHESON: The final report?

MR. BLASIER: Any report or notes?

MR. MATHESON: Well, the notes, some of them are going to be completed as the work is done. At some point after that, upon the completion of the analysis, the notes or the summary is going to be brought together to make the report.

MR. BLASIER: Is it acceptable procedure within your department for a criminalist to perform a test in July and not make any record of it until October?

MR. MATHESON: That would be unique.

MR. BLASIER: That would be bad, wouldn't it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, argumentative as to "bad."

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: That would be unacceptable, wouldn't it?

MR. MATHESON: I would want to know why that much time past.

MR. BLASIER: You are aware that that happened with respect to a test that Dennis Fung did on the Bronco on July 6th, are you not?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: It is also vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: I know that there was some information that was provided in a report at a later date. I don't specifically know which one you are talking about right now.

MR. BLASIER: What effort did you make to find out about it, like you said you would?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, assumes facts not in evidence, also beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Do you mean to find out why it had taken that long?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MATHESON: Well, if I received a report after that amount of time, I would just ask him why it took so long to get the information down on a report.

MR. BLASIER: What did you find out when you made that inquiry this time?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: If you made an inquiry?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it is an improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: It is not a hypothetical. Did you make such an inquiry with regard to this report?

MR. MATHESON: I am not specifically remembering which report we are talking about.

MR. BLASIER: Well, let me make it more specific. A pheno test on purported or alleged stains on the bottom of the Bronco door?

MR. MATHESON: Would it be possible for me to review that report?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, why don't we move on to something else and we will find that later.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

MR. BLASIER: Is it proper procedure, when you do a pheno test on something such as a car, to photograph it before you do the test?

MR. MATHESON: Sometimes we do and sometimes we don't. As an explanation for that is if I see a stain and I don't know whether or not it is blood, I normally will not photograph it first because if it is not blood, if it is not something of interest, then it won't be collected, and thus it is not evidence, there is no reason to have a photograph of it. If I--it is something that I know I'm going to be collecting, there is a very good chance I would have it photographed before performing the pheno test on it.

MR. BLASIER: What if it is something that you suspect you are going to be collecting and that is why you run a test on it to begin with?

MR. GOLDBERG: Improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: Shouldn't you take a picture first?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: If it is something that I suspect that I'm going to be collecting? Because we do a lot of spot tests out in the field. In--well, if I found a blood stain or a stain that I suspected of being blood, and many times you can tell just by looking that it is probably blood, again it depends on the situation. If it is a very small sample and then I was going to be consuming a large portion of it, first off, I wouldn't want to necessarily run a pheno, but if I felt it was necessary, it would be a good idea to document first. If it is a larger sample, larger item and by removing a small portion and running my test is not going to make any significant alteration to it, then no, I wouldn't necessarily do it; I might.

MR. BLASIER: Well, let me give you a more detailed hypothetical. Suppose a Prosecutor sends you out to look at something because a detective said there is blood there, go out, look at it and see if it is blood, come back and tell me. Would you document that by way of taking a photograph.

MR. GOLDBERG: Improper hypothetical, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Is it proper to do a pheno test on an item and take a picture after you do the test while the stain is still moist from the pheno test?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: I don't see any problem with it being moist from the test. As I mentioned before, I laid out the reasons or the times where I would have a photograph taken and that is if I ran--let's say I had a stain that I didn't know whether or not it was blood and I ran my pheno test on it and it turned out that it was blood and had it photographed. At that point I wouldn't worry whether or not it was damp from the testing.

MR. BLASIER: Well, adding that moisture changes the appearance of it, does it not?

MR. MATHESON: It depends on the size of the stain. If you are just testing a small corner, yes, it does, it makes a minor alteration.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, I have to interrupt at this point. Remember all my admonitions to you. If you will just step back in the jury room. Don't go too far.

(Recess.)

THE COURT: Back on the record. Let's have the jurors, please. And Mr. Blasier, I need to change Court reporters at the break.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

(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. Mr. Matheson, would you resume the witness stand, please. Mr. Blasier, you may continue with your cross-examination.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, I want to ask you some questions about contamination. Now, do you agree that if there are problems with the collection, packaging or handling or analysis of evidence that contamination can result?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "problems."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: If the items are handled in such a way that allows them to come in contact with things that they shouldn't, with other pieces of evidence or with things in the environment that they shouldn't, yes, they can create contamination.

MR. BLASIER: Now, contamination, that term is not--well, tell me what it means to you in the context of serological testing and DNA testing.

MR. MATHESON: It would deal with having something introduced into the sample that doesn't belong there, that it is not part of the sample as it was deposited.

MR. BLASIER: Now, no one has ever suggested to you, have they, that a clean blood sample from the particular person can change type because it gets dirt on it, for instance? Has that ever been suggested to you?

MR. MATHESON: That it can change types?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MATHESON: No.

MR. BLASIER: The concept of contamination involves one biological material getting in contact with another, correct?

MR. MATHESON: (No audible response.)

MR. BLASIER: One use of the term?

MR. MATHESON: That would be one--one use, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And the notion of contamination affecting test results deals with one biological sample from one source getting mixed or replaced by a biological material from another sample, correct?

MR. MATHESON: I don't believe it is just limited to being mixed or coming in contact with other biological materials. You can get contamination of non-biologicals, too.

MR. BLASIER: But a non-biological item is not going to change the blood type, for instance, of a blood sample, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct. Neither will a biological contaminant.

MR. BLASIER: Well, are you saying that there are no circumstances where one biological material getting in with another can change the type of that material?

MR. MATHESON: It will not change the type of the material, no.

MR. BLASIER: How about the test results when you test it?

MR. MATHESON: Depending on the degree of contamination, yes, it could change the results of the analysis.

MR. BLASIER: Now, is it important to have procedures in place to prevent contamination in the collection, packaging, handling and analysis of evidence?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.

MR. BLASIER: Do you feel that protections--additional protections are necessary when you are considering doing DNA testing such as PCR amplification?

MR. MATHESON: I believe the only additional controls or process that would be necessary is that the person be aware that--that it takes a very small amount of sample to give a PCR result.

MR. BLASIER: When you say a very small amount of sample, how much are you talking about?

MR. MATHESON: Well, I don't know, you know, as far as exact size or weight. I believe it is something you would have to be able to see when it comes to forensic analysis.

MR. BLASIER: Is it your understanding that only biological material that you can see can be typed using PCR?

MR. MATHESON: I'm saying when we are talking about blood samples, I am not aware of the fact that a blood sample that is invisible to the eye would be typeable by the procedures used in forensics.

MR. BLASIER: How long large a sample, in your experience, do you need to type using PCR?

MR. MATHESON: I have never performed tests or anything on--you know, to determine the quantity.

MR. BLASIER: During the years that you spent arranging and helping to set up your lab, you never learned anything about the quantities of DNA necessary for conducting tests?

MR. MATHESON: I oversaw the process. I wasn't actually in there actually hands-on working with them establishing the procedures. I have heard over the years figures given as far as how much DNA is necessary to get a result. Off the top of my head right now I don't know what those are.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know what a nanogram is?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: How much is a nanogram?

MR. MATHESON: I believe that is a billionth of a gram.

MR. BLASIER: And a gram is about 15 hundredths of a pound, approximately one 454th of a pound, correct?

MR. MATHESON: I don't specifically know the number, but that seems--that would be about right.

MR. BLASIER: So if you took a pound of something and cut it up into 454 pieces and then took one billionth of one of those pieces, that is a nanogram, correct?

MR. MATHESON: A very small amount, yes.

MR. BLASIER: What is your understanding in terms of the minimum amounts of DNA required to do typing?

MR. MATHESON: My understanding in general is that in the low nanogram level is typeable.

MR. BLASIER: One or two nanograms, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Of DNA, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And is it your understanding that you can see one or two nanograms of DNA in a blood sample?

MR. MATHESON: Not the DNA itself, no.

MR. BLASIER: But a sample which would contain only one or two nanograms you can see?

MR. MATHESON: I believe so, yes.

MR. BLASIER: How big is it?

MR. MATHESON: It is a very small spot.

MR. BLASIER: About the size--I'm sorry.

MR. MATHESON: I'm sorry, go ahead.

MR. BLASIER: About the size of a pin head?

MR. MATHESON: It depends on the pin, I suppose. A very small point or tip of it.

MR. BLASIER: Far smaller than you need to do any kind of conventional serological testing, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Definitely.

MR. BLASIER: And can you tell me, in your lab, what procedures--procedures with respect to collection, packaging, handling and analysis of evidence have changed since you started doing DNA testing?

MR. MATHESON: The only thing that has changed has been we have tried to maybe the people aware that it is a very sensitive test. The actual procedures themselves have not changed in that we still just use clean tools, we wipe them off with a dampened tissue or something like that, and avoid contact with other items.

MR. BLASIER: Have you done any studies on whether the procedures that you use to collect serological samples for conventional serology are adequate to guard against contamination when you are considering doing DNA testing?

MR. MATHESON: Did you say any studies?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MATHESON: No studies specifically for that.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would like to show one of the charts that we talked about before.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. BLASIER: I think it is in the other room.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: I'm not sure we have a number for that. Were they given numbers in the opening?

THE CLERK: 1132.

THE COURT: 1132.

MR. BLASIER: 1132.

(Deft's 1132 for id = chart)

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, can you see that chart from where you are sitting?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, that chart indicates twenty nanograms is approximately the size of a pin head. Is that your understanding or is it your understanding that two nanograms is the size of a pin head?

MR. MATHESON: Well, I'm not talking specifically about quantities and there you are referring to I'm assuming an amount of DNA. Two nanograms or even 20 nanograms of DNA would not be visible.

MR. BLASIER: Did you say earlier, though, that you thought two nanograms in a blood sample would be visible?

MR. MATHESON: As far as in a blood sample?

MR. BLASIER: Uh-huh.

MR. MATHESON: I believe that--my understanding is that using the forensic technique the amount of DNA found in a bloodstain or something that you would be able to see, it would be very, very small, but you should be able to see it.

MR. BLASIER: Now--

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, do you want to move that exhibit down toward the end of the box so the other jurors can appreciate the comparison?

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Why don't you give the jurors the opportunity to examine that.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Douglas.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: 1124, your Honor?

THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, 1122?

THE CLERK: 32.

THE COURT: 1132.

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, how much is a microliter of blood?

MR. MATHESON: A millionth of a liter.

MR. BLASIER: And do you know how many nanograms of DNA there are in a microliter or millionth of a liter?

MR. MATHESON: Not off the top of my head, no.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the technique that is used in your lab called PCR, I'm not going to ask you a lot of detailed questions about this, but basically involves taking a very small amount of DNA and multiplying it into a bigger amount? Is that an accurate rough description?

MR. MATHESON: A specific portion of that DNA, yes.

MR. BLASIER: By a "specific portion" you mean a particular section of the DNA chain?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And just like the enzyme system that you were talking about yesterday have genotypes, DNA has genotypes as well, correct?

MR. MATHESON: In the systems we are looking at, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And it is the same kind of structure in the sense that we inherent half of our DNA from our dad and half from our mom, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And it is the same kind of inheritance process that is going on that accounts for two different what are called alleles, one from each parent, correct?

MR. MATHESON: True.

MR. BLASIER: So, for instance, in the EAP system that we were talking about yesterday, when you describe somebody as being a BA, that tells you that they got the B allele from one parent and the a allele from another parent, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And in the PCR system, the genotypes work the same way in the sense that there are two numbers associated with any particular genotype, one which came from your father and one which came from your mother?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Now, in the EAP system that we were talking about yesterday, when you say that somebody is a B, what this really meant is that they got a B from both parents so in it is in essence a bb, correct?

MR. MATHESON: True.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the DNA in a person's saliva, for instance, is the same as the DNA in their blood? You are aware of that, are you not?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I am.

MR. BLASIER: Every cell in the body that that has a nucleus has DNA in it, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And it is all the same for one particular person?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And the tests that are run, PCR tests that you do in your lab, are incapable of telling the difference between DNA which comes from saliva as opposed to DNA which comes from blood?

MR. GOLDBERG: I think at this point it is going beyond the scope of direct.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Now, Mr. Goldberg asked you questions about DNA floating in the air and I believe you said you weren't aware of that happening, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: We were talking about clouds of DNA floating around, I think.

MR. BLASIER: Yeah.

MR. MATHESON: In general, yes, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: What happens when you sneeze in terms of DNA, do you know?

MR. MATHESON: Well, you are--if you don't cover your mouth open and you sneeze in the open air, some of what comes out is going to be saliva and other constituents and that is going to have cells in it which is going to have your DNA in it.

MR. BLASIER: If you are standing over something like a podium and dead skin cells fall off your skin, that has DNA in it as well, does it not?

MR. GOLDBERG: This is still beyond the scope of direct.

THE COURT: I think we are still on the issue of contamination?

MR. BLASIER: Correct.

MR. MATHESON: I don't know to what extent dead skin cells have DNA in it.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know what a wipe test is?

MR. MATHESON: I know it is used in a couple of different contexts.

MR. BLASIER: What is the context that you know with respect to DNA testing?

MR. MATHESON: What I've heard of on that is to wipe down the counters of a work area, then extract that wiping and amplify it and analyze it for DNA types.

MR. BLASIER: And wiping down a counter which may not have anything apparent to the eye on it might have DNA in it, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: This is beyond the scope of the direct.

THE COURT: We are getting there. We are real close here because this is specific PCR testing and this person was not presented as a PCR witness for the Prosecutor. I think you have established what the issue is here. Proceed.

MR. BLASIER: Can saliva from one person, if it gets in a bloodstain on the ground, result in the first person's DNA showing up in the bloodstain?

MR. MATHESON: If it is of sufficient quantity, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And if the bloodstain on the ground has deteriorated because of humidity or environmental conditions to the point where there is not a lot of DNA in it, and it is contaminated by saliva from perspiration, for instance, from somebody leaning over it, that person's DNA type would show up or could show up rather than the actual type in the blood, correct?

MR. MATHESON: If as you say the original bloodstain had deteriorated completely to the point where you could not get any results from that, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And that is called contamination, isn't it?

MR. MATHESON: That is a type of contamination, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And the type of tests that you do are incapable of telling the difference in my hypothetical between DNA that comes from perspiration of the person standing up as opposed to the blood of the person who deposited it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled. I will allow this one issue, but I think we need to move on. Is that true, Mr. Matheson?

MR. MATHESON: The DNA test cannot tell the difference, that's correct.

THE COURT: Let's proceed.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would like to show the other chart that we have.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: This is 1133.

THE COURT: All right. 1133.

(Deft's 1133 for id = chart)

MR. BLASIER: Now, Mr. Matheson, the amplification process that you go through when you do PCR tests involves taking a small amount of DNA and doubling it in what are called cycles, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And typically that is done 32 times, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That is the protocol in forensics, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And that chart depicts that starting out with the very small amount and doubling it thirty times leads to a very large amount, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Double it 32, yes, it is an extremely large number.

MR. BLASIER: May I show the other one, your Honor? Actually, can I show this to the jury.

(Brief pause.)

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, at this point I don't think there is any foundation laid for the chart.

THE COURT: Overruled.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Mark this chart 1134.

(Deft's 1134 for id = chart)

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, is it accurate that with PCR amplification there, we have been talking about in general terms, that if you have DNA from more than one source, the amplification process amplifies both sources?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: There is no way to separate one source from the other?

MR. GOLDBERG: This is beyond the scope of the direct.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: Correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And just like my example with saliva contaminating a bloodstain, you can have flakes of blood from one stain if it gets on a second stain that can will contaminate the second stain as well, correct?

MR. MATHESON: If it is in sufficient quantity, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And if it is in sufficient quantity to amplify, if the second stain is amplified, the components that came from the first stain gets amplified as well, correct?

MR. MATHESON: It gets amplified as well, but it depends on--there is a point at which in the dilution or if you have significantly more of one type of DNA than another, the one that exists in the larger quantities may be the only one that you see.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, with respect to your last answer, would you agree that the manner in which in terms of final quantities of DNA that you get with the amplification I described is really beyond your area of expertise?

MR. MATHESON: It is getting there, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you have testified, I believe, that you do not consider it necessary, when dealing with biological stains that might be subjected to DNA testing, to change gloves between each item that you handle; is that correct?

MR. MATHESON: Not just as a matter of rule to automatically change it between each item, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Do you remember--actually it is the same visit we were talking about before on August 26th to your lab by various representatives of the Defense.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: I am informed that is probably the wrong date.

MR. BLASIER: Do you remember the date when Mr. Ragle, Mr. Neufeld, Dr. Lee and several others came to the lab for a tour that you talked about before?

MR. MATHESON: Not off the top of my head, no.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Do you recall a meeting with just Mr. Ragle and Mr. Neufeld?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. And at that particular meeting they examined some items of evidence, did they not?

MR. MATHESON: There were a number of items that were examined in the serology lab, I believe.

MR. BLASIER: Approximately how many items were examined, roughly?

MR. MATHESON: I don't recall. For that I would like to take a look at if I have any notes on that date.

MR. BLASIER: Sure.

MR. MATHESON: Do we have any idea when that date was?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: I thought it was in August, maybe around the 19th.

MR. MATHESON: Oh.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Well, counsel, let's move on rather than have the witness search through his notes. Let's focus on what we need to develop.

MR. BLASIER: There were more than fifteen items examined, weren't there?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: You changed your gloves between every single item, didn't you?

MR. MATHESON: I don't remember. I might have.

MR. BLASIER: And you changed the paper on the table between every single item, didn't you?

MR. MATHESON: Like I said, I might have. I don't specifically remembering doing it.

MR. BLASIER: Is that the procedure that you use when representatives of the Defense are there?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: That was--if in fact I did that, and it is entirely possible that I did, yes, we were being hyper sensitive at that point to the handling of all these items.

MR. BLASIER: When you are doing handling of items in the privacy of your lab with no Defense people watching you, you don't follow that procedure, correct?

MR. MATHESON: I do not change my gloves after every time or change the paper every time unless there is some indication, such as the item coming in contact with the paper or there being a chance of transfer the evidence.

MR. BLASIER: So it is only if you become aware that you may have touched something that it becomes important to change gloves?

MR. MATHESON: There is a chance that you are going to cross contaminate, yes, at that point you would want to change gloves.

MR. BLASIER: Now, your laboratory has an extensive division order in the field manual that we have been talking about and I will refer you to page 125 if you still have that there.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: You have an extensive procedure that is followed with respect to handling possibly contaminated evidence in the lab, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: This is vague now as to what--how he is using "contamination."

THE COURT: Sustained. Hearsay at this point as well.

MR. BLASIER: Material that may contain infectious diseases?

MR. MATHESON: We do have a division order relating to that, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And the reason why you want to be careful about that is because you may ingest something of an infectious nature from some evidence that you might have collected, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: This isn't relevant and it is beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: All of the controls are in place to prevent the operator of coming in contact with the blood, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Because if you come into contact with it, it may come into your system and make you sick?

MR. MATHESON: The potential exists, yes.

MR. BLASIER: The same kind of transfer can happen with DNA from biological samples, can it not, with the exception that it doesn't make you sick?

MR. MATHESON: I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.

MR. BLASIER: The same kind of transfer in terms of getting something on your skin or on your glove or on your clothing can happen with respect to small particles of DNA or biological material that contains DNA as with infectious disease materials, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: It is still vague and unintelligible.

THE COURT: Overruled. Do you understand the question?

MR. MATHESON: I believe so.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. MATHESON: You can--if what you are saying is can these items still come in contact with your clothing or whatever and not make you sick, then yes.

MR. BLASIER: And if they come into contact with your clothing and your gloves, they can then come in contact with other items that you might touch, for instance, other evidence items?

MR. GOLDBERG: Unintelligible.

THE COURT: Overruled. Do you understand the question?

MR. MATHESON: I think so. If--the whole idea of wearing these things is if something happens to get on you, it doesn't come in direct contact with your skin. If you are wearing gloves, then what would have come in contact with your skin has now come in contact with your gloves, and then if you use those gloves to handle something else, the potential exists for transfer it, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when you are handling biological material that may be subject to DNA testing, you do not use the same precautions that you use when handling materials that you may suspect have the potential of having infectious diseases, do you?

MR. MATHESON: Well, we are still wearing gloves and we are not going with those gloves in areas where we shouldn't. If there is something on them, then we change them and put on clean ones.

MR. BLASIER: So you are saying you do follow the same procedures?

MR. MATHESON: I'm not sure exactly which same procedures you are talking about.

MR. BLASIER: After you handle biological material in the evidence processing room on that table that we saw in the picture, do you clean the table?

MR. MATHESON: It is brushed off, yes.

MR. BLASIER: With what?

MR. MATHESON: We have--actually beyond that, the items are wiped down with a solution of water and bleach.

MR. BLASIER: After every item?

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

MR. BLASIER: And the purpose for doing that is what?

MR. MATHESON: That if there is any residue left on that counter, when you are done with your work, you clean it off and it is not left there for somebody unsuspecting to come along and become contaminated by it.

MR. BLASIER: Now, is it your procedure that you can only do that when you can see something?

MR. MATHESON: No, it is not.

MR. BLASIER: When do you do that?

MR. MATHESON: When you are done working.

MR. BLASIER: So you do not do that between individual items of evidence, do you?

MR. MATHESON: No, we do not.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Do you recognize that you can get a contamination with your evidence materials from things that you can't see?

MR. MATHESON: I still feel that particularly if you are dealing with, say, a bloodstain swatch or something like that, that if the quantity of material that is going to get on it is so small that you cannot see it, then it is not likely to cause any contamination of that item.

MR. BLASIER: Have you studied the procedures used by any other laboratories that do DNA analysis with respect to the issue of cleaning tables after each item is examined?

MR. MATHESON: No, I have not.

MR. BLASIER: Have you examined any other laboratories that do DNA testing with respect to whether you should change gloves after handling each item?

MR. MATHESON: No, I have not.

MR. BLASIER: Have you studied any other laboratories that do DNA analysis with respect to how you should clean your tools between handling samples?

MR. MATHESON: No, I have not.

MR. BLASIER: Andrea Mazzola testified that she uses on occasion serrated tweezers. That is accurate?

MR. GOLDBERG: Now, that misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: I did hear that and I believe she said that both serrated and non-serrated were available.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. Serrated tweezers are tweezers that have little groves in the end of them so that it is easier to hold the swatch, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Serrated tweezers are not to be used when you are doing blood collection.

MR. BLASIER: Well, did you understand her testimony to be that she does?

MR. GOLDBERG: That misstates the testimony, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: What did you understand the distinction she made between when she uses serrated tweezers and when she doesn't?

MR. MATHESON: The way I heard it, because I was concerned, was that they were available in the kit, but I never heard her saying that she used serrated tweezers for blood collection. That would be inappropriate.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have anything in writing anywhere to tell your people that the serrated tweezers in the kit should not be used to collect biological evidence?

MR. MATHESON: Not that I know of, no.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether that has been communicated to the people that work for you in any fashion at all?

MR. MATHESON: I believe it has, yes.

MR. BLASIER: When?

MR. MATHESON: I can't specifically say. I--I pass it on to the people who I am teaching out in the field and it may be, though I'm not sure, part of training that they have received as far as biological evidence.

MR. BLASIER: Is it your understanding that wiping off a pair of tweezers with a chem wipe--which is I think the procedure you described, correct?

MR. MATHESON: With a dampened one, yes.

MR. BLASIER: --with a dampened chem wipe is sufficient to clean off potential biological material that may have been left over from earlier evidence?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: Have you done any studies to demonstrate whether that is an effective way to completely remove DNA from earlier samples?

MR. MATHESON: In a way we are constantly doing a study on that because it is the same process used for our controls.

MR. BLASIER: Did you run any particular studies designed to just find out whether that works the way you think it does?

MR. MATHESON: No.

MR. BLASIER: Are you aware of any scientific articles that say that that is all you need to do to clean your tools between handling items?

MR. MATHESON: No, I do not.

MR. BLASIER: Have you evaluated any other DNA laboratory anywhere with respect to that issue to find out what procedure is used to clean the tools that is used to handle the evidence?

MR. MATHESON: I have not specifically, no.

MR. BLASIER: Now, I think you testified on direct, you were asked some questions about what are hot topics and what are not hot topics. Do you remember that line of questioning?

MR. GOLDBERG: I think that misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Do you recollect anything like that?

MR. MATHESON: Hot topics and not hot topics? No.

MR. BLASIER: You were being asked some questions about collection of evidence in terms of whether particular topics were big topics in the forensic community or not?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, now I do.

MR. BLASIER: And is it your opinion or your understanding that the topic of the collection of evidence for purposes of DNA testing is not a controversial topic in the forensic community?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: I believe we were specifically talking about the part that references the actual swatching and picking up. There has not been an awful lot of discussion that I have heard regarding whether you should use water or alcohol or whatever to clean your tweezers. I mean, it is just not a big thing that has been discussed.

MR. BLASIER: Do you recall an occasion, I believe it was January 18, when I visited the lab with Mr. Scheck and a few other people?

MR. MATHESON: You were there a couple of times.

MR. BLASIER: Do you remember the time that we examined the evidence kits that you use?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: And that was done in the presence of Michele Kestler, was it not?

MR. MATHESON: I believe she was there, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And we looked at I believe there were two different evidence kits that were put on the table and everything was taken out to look at. Do you recall that?

MR. MATHESON: Well, they weren't two different kits. They kind of work together. It isn't like you would use one or the other one to take out to the scene. In a situation like that you would grab both of those kits.

MR. BLASIER: Do you remember how--and there were extensive pictures taken of all there, weren't there?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, there were.

MR. BLASIER: Do you remember how we found a scalpel that had been in a sealed container that actually was left open and put back in the kit?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Do you carry scalpels in your evidence kit?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Do you use scalpels in the collection of biological evidence?

MR. MATHESON: If you are going to use a scrape method rather than a--the swatch that we have described, yes, you do occasionally use a scalpel.

MR. BLASIER: And don't some of your people also use scalpels to cut swatches?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you use sterile scalpels?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And sterile scalpels come in sealed containers that when you want to use them you open it up and you use it and you throw it away, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: Would it be inappropriate to take one of those scalpels and put it back in an evidence kit after it has been used?

MR. GOLDBERG: Improper hypothetical, not relevant.

THE COURT: Sustained. (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Didn't we find a used scalpel in one of those evidence kits?

MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Do you recall you showing us the swabs that are used at crime scenes?

MR. MATHESON: I believe there were swabs in there. I don't specifically remember showing them.

MR. BLASIER: And the bags of swabs, they come sealed with a large number per bag, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And when you open those bags, you use everything you need to use and then you throw them away, don't you?

MR. MATHESON: On the bags normally we use them up, yes.

MR. BLASIER: When you don't use them up, do you put the unused swabs that have already been opened back in the evidence kit?

MR. MATHESON: They are still in their original packaging, yes, but they are returned to the kit.

MR. BLASIER: Do you remember when we were there, Michele Kestler started to put those back in the kit and you grabbed them and threw them away?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, may we approach?

THE COURT: No. Proceed.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, may I show the witness a document?

THE COURT: What is it?

MR. BLASIER: The "guidelines for collection and preservation of DNA evidence by the FBI."

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, let me show you a document, "guidelines of preservation and collection of DNA evidence by the FBI." are you familiar with that?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I have seen this.

MR. BLASIER: Do you follow that in your lab?

MR. MATHESON: I don't remember all the specifics in it or if we follow each and every instance that is in here.

MR. BLASIER: Now, this is a document, that is put out by the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the United States Department of Justice, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And they have a rather extensive DNA program, do they not?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, they do.

MR. BLASIER: And these are guidelines that they have put out for the purpose of giving guidance to crime laboratories like yourself on the proper way to collect and preserve evidence if you are going to do DNA testing, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes that there is only one proper way.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: It gives guidelines on appropriate ways to do it is my understanding.

MR. BLASIER: And do you accept the FBI as an authority on the proper way to collect evidence for preservation--I'm sorry, collect and preserve evidence for DNA testing?

MR. MATHESON: I believe that they are an organization that knows quite a bit about all that and I would take into account what they have to say.

MR. BLASIER: And you have reviewed that document before, have you not?

MR. MATHESON: I have read it. I don't remember specifics of it right now.

MR. BLASIER: Do you believe that you should videotape a crime scene to show the relative position of all pieces of evidence?

MR. GOLDBERG: Wait a minute. That is not what it says in this document and I would object to the Defense reading from it.

MR. BLASIER: Objection, speaking objection.

THE COURT: And loud commentary over here as well. Touche. Both sides will be sanctioned. All right. Proceed.

MR. BLASIER: I didn't hear the ruling on it.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. GOLDBERG: I object under 721.

THE COURT: Reask the question. He says he is familiar with it.

MR. BLASIER: Let me refer you to page 5. I don't want to misquote anything. Would you agree that the FBI guidelines state that: "crime scenes should be videotaped with the relative position of the items of evidence before they are touched or moved."

MR. GOLDBERG: I object under 721.

THE COURT: Sustained. You are still missing one piece of the foundation.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Have you considered the FBI's guidelines in formulating your own opinions on the proper way to collect and preserve evidence for DNA testing?

THE COURT: And specifically videotaping?

MR. MATHESON: No, I have not.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. BLASIER: Have you considered the FBI's guidelines, the provisions with respect to identifying evidence items that is collected--that are collected?

MR. MATHESON: What do you mean by "identifying"? As far as locating or--

MR. BLASIER: With the unique identification mark?

MR. MATHESON: I would have to make reference or be referenced to where it is at. Like I said, I have read it, but I have not committed to memory all the different aspects of it.

MR. BLASIER: Is it fair to say that your laboratory doesn't follow these?

MR. MATHESON: No, I don't believe it is.

MR. BLASIER: All right. Can you tell me--let's look at page 6. The provisions with respect to collecting reference blood samples, do you follow those guidelines.

THE COURT: It is not relevant. They didn't collect the reference blood sample; the Coroners did.

MR. BLASIER: With respect to Mr. Simpson.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. MATHESON: Well, we did not collect that.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether the Los Angeles Police Department follows the FBI guidelines with respect to that?

MR. MATHESON: No, I do not.

MR. BLASIER: When you get a reference sample from the police department how many tubes are there in it, generally?

MR. MATHESON: Either one or two.

MR. BLASIER: So there is no consistency with respect to the number of tubes?

MR. MATHESON: It is usually one, but occasionally there is more than one.

MR. BLASIER: Please refer to page 7.

MR. MATHESON: (Witness complies.)

MR. BLASIER: Do you follow item no. 4 at the bottom with respect to labeling specimens that are collected for analysis?

MR. GOLDBERG: Still no foundation under 721.

THE COURT: Sustained.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, did you participate in the preparation of the demo type with Andrea Mazzola swatching a stain?

MR. MATHESON: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: Were you consulted before that was done?

MR. MATHESON: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague.

MR. BLASIER: Did you have involvement at all prior to the time that was made, in terms of anything involving that demo tape?

MR. MATHESON: No, I was not.

MR. BLASIER: Did you even know about it?

MR. MATHESON: Not until after it was done.

MR. BLASIER: And that was done at the aegis of the District Attorney's office, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, no personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: You weren't asked to help plan it, were you?

MR. MATHESON: I was not.

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know why Andrea Mazzola was chosen to do that demo tape?

MR. GOLDBERG: No personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Do you know anything about that?

MR. MATHESON: No, I don't.

MR. BLASIER: Were you aware of when it was being made?

MR. MATHESON: No.

MR. BLASIER: Did you see it after it was made?

MR. MATHESON: Recently, yes.

MR. BLASIER: When was the first time you saw it?

MR. MATHESON: The first time I saw it was after it was shown in this courtroom. Actually I saw bits and pieces of it while it was being shown, but in its entirety after it was shown in the courtroom.

MR. BLASIER: Did you notice in that video that when she collected a control stain that the moisture from where she was collecting the control migrated into the bloodstain itself?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.

MR. BLASIER: Is that an acceptable technique to collect blood evidence, in your view?

MR. MATHESON: She wasn't collecting blood evidence at that point; she was collecting the control.

MR. BLASIER: Is that an acceptable technique to use when you are collecting a control for a sample that you are then going to collect?

MR. MATHESON: I don't see where it would affect your ultimate collection of that sample.

MR. BLASIER: So that is acceptable to you?

MR. MATHESON: It would be nice if they didn't come in contact, but I don't believe it is going to have any effect.

MR. BLASIER: It would just be nice if they didn't do it that way?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer the question.

MR. BLASIER: Is it right or wrong, Mr. Matheson?

MR. MATHESON: I don't believe it is wrong.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. Did you notice the number of times she rubbed her hand on the ground when you saw that the first time?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I did.

MR. BLASIER: Is that an examine technique, when you are collecting blood evidence, to rub your hand on the ground?

MR. MATHESON: Well, in that she wasn't then rubbing her hand on the evidence, I don't see where that makes a difference.

MR. BLASIER: So that is okay?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did you hear her testimony where she said she wasn't even aware that she had done that?

MR. MATHESON: No, I did not.

MR. GOLDBERG: That misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: Did you notice the number of times in that video that Miss Mazzola took her tweezers and turned them inward in the palm of her hand?

MR. MATHESON: I noticed that there were a few times, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Is that a good procedure?

MR. MATHESON: As long as they are not coming in contact with where the evidence is going to be handled I don't see that is a problem.

MR. BLASIER: So that is okay, too?

MR. MATHESON: Sure.

MR. BLASIER: Even if the person is not aware that they are doing those things, it is okay?

MR. MATHESON: Well, it is not okay if it is touching an area which is dirty and is not cleaned prior to being used again.

MR. BLASIER: If they are not aware that they are touching the ground, is it your belief that they are going to be aware if they happen to touch some evidence?

THE COURT: Sustained. Calls for speculation.

MR. BLASIER: Now, Mr. Matheson, I want to ask you some questions about the blanket. Do you have that in mind?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you believe that it is a proper procedure at a crime scene where you are collecting biological evidence to bring something from outside the crime scene, such as a blanket, and put it on the evidence?

MR. MATHESON: No, I do not.

MR. BLASIER: And the reason that is inappropriate is because you can inject trace evidence that wasn't in the crime scene into the crime scene by doing that, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's possible, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And a blanket, such as a thermal blanket, is an excellent collector of trace evidence; is it not?

MR. GOLDBERG: Improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Well, we are assuming facts that aren't in evidence.

MR. BLASIER: Would you say a blanket is a good collector of trace evidence?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague and calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: I would say that, yes, a blanket has a very good chance of picking up trace evidence.

MR. BLASIER: And if a blanket is thrown out over a scene it has a potential of depositing that trace evidence on the scene, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Improper hypothetical, assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: If the blanket is taken and thrown out or shaken out or something like that, that would allow what was on it to be spread out throughout the scene and that was to land on something, you have the possibility of contamination.

MR. BLASIER: How about if it was just put down on something, trace evidence could come off of it, couldn't it?

MR. MATHESON: If it was carefully laid down you have the potential of something falling off of it directly under it, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Should your criminalists be alert to foreign things, such as a blanket, being brought into a crime scene in terms of their processing of that scene?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, vague, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: I would think that that is something that you should be aware of, that it is occurring.

MR. BLASIER: So that is something they should check on, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Well, it is something that is present that they should be aware of, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether Dennis Fung ever made any inquiry or Andrea Mazzola ever made any inquiry as to where that blanket came from?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, no personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Sustained. Those people have already testified.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: Sustained. Let's move on.

MR. BLASIER: Would you expect a competent criminalist to make some kind of inquiry as to where a blanket in the middle of the crime scene came from?

MR. MATHESON: I think that that would be an appropriate question to ask.

MR. BLASIER: Would you expect a capable, competent criminalist seeing a blanket in the middle of a crime scene with blood on it to collect that?

MR. GOLDBERG: Incomplete hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: I can speak for myself at this point. If I arrived at a scene where a blanket was heavily covered with blood and was advised that that was over the victim, I would not necessarily collect it.

MR. BLASIER: To your knowledge is there any forensic reason or legitimate forensic or investigative reason for putting a blanket on a body at a crime scene?

MR. MATHESON: From a forensic standpoint?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MATHESON: There is no reason.

MR. BLASIER: Now, do we have the boards that were shown yesterday with 167 on it?

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, I need to change Court reporters at 3:00, so perhaps this would be a good time to look for that.

MR. BLASIER: All right.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take a brief recess for ten minutes and change Court reporters. Please remember all my admonitions to you. And have the jury step back in the jury room. And Mr. Matheson, you can take a ten-minute break.

(Recess.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record. Let's have the jurors, please.

MR. DARDEN: Judge, are we going to adjourn at 4 o'clock?

THE COURT: As far as the jury is concerned, yes, and then we'll launch into three or four motions at 4:10.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, may Mr. Goldberg and I approach just briefly?

THE COURT: Sure.

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

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

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Mr. Matheson, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. We've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. We have a fresh Court reporter. Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. BLASIER: Mr. Matheson, are you aware in this case that Dennis Fung conducted a pheno test on the three pedals of the Bronco with the same swab?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry. Was it Miss Mazzola?

MR. BLASIER: Andrea Mazzola. Sorry.

MR. MATHESON: I heard about it, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Is that an acceptable procedure from your standpoint?

MR. MATHESON: That is not how I'd do it, no.

MR. BLASIER: That's unacceptable, correct?

MR. MATHESON: That's correct.

MR. BLASIER: And the reason being, that you would not want to touch a second piece of evidence, potential piece of evidence with an item that you used to touch the first piece, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes a fact not in evidence, that it was evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: I try and limit the use of a swab to one particular item, that's correct so you're not carrying it then over to another one.

MR. BLASIER: Now, how is--how are the criminalists that work for you trained in the use of pheno testing? Is there any specific course on that?

MR. MATHESON: A specific course on that one item? No.

MR. BLASIER: That's fairly easy to do; is it not?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.

MR. BLASIER: And it's a fairly standard procedure to do?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Using the same--well, strike that. The criminalists have as many swabs as they need in their kits; do they not?

MR. MATHESON: I don't know about as many. They do have available to them in the kit a packet or two. There should be some in the truck and there's plenty back in the laboratory.

MR. BLASIER: Well, do you know whether or not Dennis Fung had and Andrea Mazzola had extra swabs when they did that to the pedals of the car?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Speculation. Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Have you talked to them about that in terms of correcting their procedure?

MR. MATHESON: No, I have not.

MR. BLASIER: Now I want to ask you--I want to talk about packaging and unpackaging materials for purposes of DNA testing or preparation for DNA testing. Now, there's been considerable testimony about the use of plastic bags to transport blood samples. Are you aware of that?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I am.

MR. BLASIER: Now, is it your understanding that it is appropriate to transport wet blood samples in plastic bags prior to booking?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, it is.

MR. BLASIER: What is the--what can happen to blood if it's transport--or if it's kept in plastic while it's moist?

MR. MATHESON: Well, the plastic doesn't allow any drying process to occur. So it stays moist, and as I mentioned before, a moist or damp environment leads towards degradation.

MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that the proper procedure is, after collection of a bloodstain by using swatches, you should try to dry it as fast as possible or as soon as possible?

MR. MATHESON: I believe it should be dried as soon as practically possible, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And the crime scene truck that your criminalists use has a refrigerator in it; does it not?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, it does.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you indicated on direct that that refrigerator is used for chemicals and is not used for evidence samples. Did I hear that right?

MR. MATHESON: As a rule, that's correct.

MR. BLASIER: The--is it available to use for evidence samples if the criminalist wants to use it?

MR. MATHESON: Yes. They're not denied. We don't say don't put evidence in there.

MR. BLASIER: Would storing evidence in plastic bags, wet bloodstains if they were put in that refrigerator, would that retard any degradation that might go on?

MR. MATHESON: Yes. If you can lower the temperature at all, it helps slow the degradation process. It doesn't stop it.

MR. BLASIER: Is there any standard period of time beyond which you should not keep wet bloodstains sealed or in plastic bags?

MR. MATHESON: I don't believe there's a fixed time frame. We suggest as soon as possible.

MR. BLASIER: And is seven hours acceptable?

MR. MATHESON: Depends on the circumstances. I don't believe that's excessive. I would like if it was possible to get them back in the lab and dried before that.

MR. BLASIER: How about seven hours in the back of a truck on a June day?

MR. MATHESON: Still I don't--if that's the condition in which they're working and that's how they had to be kept, I don't think that's unacceptable.

MR. BLASIER: Have you done any studies to determine how fast blood degrades under those conditions?

MR. MATHESON: No, I have not.

MR. BLASIER: Have you read any literature or are you familiar with any literature?

MR. MATHESON: Specifically damp and plastic bags, no.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: In your view, is it a bad practice to store wet bloodstains for up to seven hours in a van in the sun?

MR. GOLDBERG: Incomplete hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Like I said before, I don't think it's a bad practice. I would like it to be avoided if there's some practical way to do it. We want to get those dried as soon as possible, but as far as being a bad practice, no.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you testified on direct about taking some fabric samples from the carpet in the Bronco. Do you recall that?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I do.

MR. BLASIER: And the carpeting that you took that sample from had been cut out of the Bronco; had it not?

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

MR. BLASIER: Do you remember when you took that sample?

MR. MATHESON: I believe that was on September 1st.

MR. BLASIER: And where did you take that sample?

MR. MATHESON: The carpeting at that time was in the serology unit.

MR. BLASIER: How had it been moved from the Bronco to the serology unit?

MR. MATHESON: Well, at some point, it was cut out of the Bronco, transported back to the evidence processing room where it was wrapped in white paper and stored in a box along with a variety of other items. That box was at some point transported into the serology freezer and stayed there I believe until in January.

MR. BLASIER: Did you see that item as it was unpackaged before you took your sample?

MR. MATHESON: I believe so, yes.

MR. BLASIER: That carpet had been rolled up as part of the collection process; had it not?

MR. MATHESON: Umm, I believe it had been folded. I don't remember it being rolled.

MR. BLASIER: Do you think that's an appropriate procedure to preserve possible bloodstains on a carpet, to remove the carpet and then fold the carpet up?

MR. MATHESON: If the bloodstains were damp when that happened so it could come in contact with another part of the material in this transfer, some of the pattern, no, I don't think that would be appropriate.

MR. BLASIER: How about if it was dry so that it could flake off of the purported blood stain? You wouldn't want to do it then either, would you?

MR. MATHESON: Well, as far as the pattern is concerned, I don't think it would affect that. You would be using a little bit maybe with the flaking. That flaking process that you're talking about could then distribute blood to other parts of that same item.

MR. BLASIER: If there was other cellular material elsewhere on the carpet other than where the apparent bloodstain is, that material could be transferred to the stain by folding the carpet up; could it not?

MR. MATHESON: It could flake off and potentially come in contact with another stain, yes.

MR. BLASIER: That is a bad procedure to use to preserve that kind of piece of evidence, isn't it?

MR. MATHESON: It is not the best way. The evidence will still be there available to you. Probably the best way would be to sandwich it between two pieces of paper and then fold it if you had to.

MR. BLASIER: You wouldn't do it the way it was done, would you?

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

MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to talk about the drying process back at the evidence processing room. Is it your understanding that the wet swatches are taken from the plastic bags and placed into open test tubes?

MR. MATHESON: That was my understanding of how it was done in this case, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when--have you done that yourself with samples?

MR. MATHESON: No, that isn't how I dry them.

MR. BLASIER: How do you dry samples?

MR. MATHESON: After I get back from a crime scene, I have a coin envelope with the one or two plastic bags that are in it with the swatches. I take the plastic bags out, cut along one side, cut along the bottom so I can open it up and then I lay the plastic bag with the swatch on it on top of the coin envelope that it came in and allow it to dry that way.

MR. BLASIER: Do you feel that is a better procedure than the one that was used in this case?

MR. MATHESON: No. I think either one works fine.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when you take a--but have you tried it the way it was done in this case in some situations?

MR. MATHESON: No, I have not.

MR. BLASIER: When you take a wet swatch and try to put it in a test tube, would you agree that it is likely to stick to the sides near the top of the test tube?

MR. MATHESON: Well, if it's damp when it's put in there and it comes in contact with it, yes, it might stick a little bit.

MR. BLASIER: And doing that, it might also deposit some of the blood near the top of the test tube, correct?

MR. MATHESON: It's possible, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when it is allowed to dry overnight in that condition, the next morning, there is going to be dried blood in that test tube near the rim of the test tube, correct?

MR. MATHESON: There could be, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, when these items are stored--I'm sorry--when they're put in the cabinet to dry, they are all set in the same cardboard box one next to each other, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: No showing of personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Yes, they are.

MR. BLASIER: The items from Rockingham were put in open test tubes in the same cardboard box as the items from Bundy, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: No showing of personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Overruled. Do you know?

MR. BLASIER: Do you know?

MR. MATHESON: They're specifically put in the same box?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MATHESON: No, I do not know.

MR. BLASIER: When the swatches are removed in the morning, what's your understanding of the procedure that Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola used?

MR. MATHESON: I don't specifically remember how they got them from the test tube into a paper bindle, but at some point, they were transferred from the test tube, placed into the bindle, bindle folded and placed in a coin envelope and the test tube thrown away.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Would you as--if you were doing this procedure, take pipettes and scrape the swatches out of the tubes?

MR. MATHESON: Well, it seems like a valid way to do it.

MR. BLASIER: And if you took a pipette and scraped a tube that had dry blood around the rim, would you agree that you're taking the chance that some of that blood might flake off and get on other things like your hand, your clothing, the table?

MR. MATHESON: If you were not being careful and just took the pipette and ran it around the inside and scraped a lot of the area and then allowed it to flake off, I suppose you could make that happen.

MR. BLASIER: And do you think that if that were to happen, if blood were to flake off, you would always be aware of it?

MR. MATHESON: If you are being so sloppy as to handle it as roughly as scraping the areas as opposed to just reaching in and flaking out the one little swatch, I suppose you could miss that.

MR. BLASIER: And is that a good reason why, if you're going to use that method, you should change the paper on the table between each test tube?

MR. MATHESON: Well, if you're not just randomly in there scraping around, if you're being careful with your pipette tip to just catch the swatch and flake a little bit of it out, I still don't see where it's necessary to constantly change the paper.

MR. BLASIER: What about touching the rims of the test tubes with your gloves? Would you recommend that?

MR. GOLDBERG: Improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Oh, I think I'd tend to try and stay away from it. But if you're on the outside of the test tube and any sort of blood or residue is on the inside, you're not coming in contact with it. So it should not be a problem.

MR. BLASIER: Is it a good procedure to take an item of evidence from one crime scene and take it to another crime scene if it has or could have biological material on it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Incomplete hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: If that evidence is not brought in direct contact with the scene, if it's in packaging material or something like that, I don't see where that would be a problem.

MR. BLASIER: If Detective Lange had asked you to bring the Rockingham glove for him to look at over the bodies at Bundy, would you have done it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Is it a proper procedure in your view in this case to take the Rockingham glove from the crime scene truck, take it in, step over the bodies so the detective can look at it?

MR. MATHESON: If I was not standing directly over the bodies or directly over in the evidence that was being collected, I would not have a problem with opening the bag up so he could see inside.

MR. BLASIER: You don't have any problem with that?

MR. MATHESON: No. The evidence is down inside of a closed container. I'm not taking it out, not working with it over the evidence area. It would be preferable if I could get him out and away from the scene. But even taking it in under those conditions I don't believe would be a problem.

MR. BLASIER: Would you prefer that if the detective asked you to do that, that you'd say, "no. Let's do it here over here by the truck"?

MR. MATHESON: Oh, sure. It would be preferable to--to have him come out and step outside, but I still don't see where there would be a problem.

MR. BLASIER: Now, if your criminalists are asked to do something like that and they have a feeling that maybe this is not so smart, what should they do?

MR. MATHESON: If they have a problem with something that's being requested of them from the detective, they should advise the detective of that.

MR. BLASIER: They shouldn't just do what the detective tells them to do, should they?

MR. MATHESON: No.

MR. GOLDBERG: Improper argument.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: No, they shouldn't.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you testified about control swatches being taken at the same time that swatches are taken from a bloodstain. Do you recall that?

MR. MATHESON: Near the same time, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And the purpose of the control is to conduct the same kind of testing on the control as you do on the swatch in order to see whether you'd get some sort of positive result on the control which would indicate something might be wrong with the test, correct?

MR. MATHESON: It could indicate that there was potentially some problem with the sample, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And if you had a failure of controls, would you agree that you should disregard the test results or perhaps do them again?

MR. GOLDBERG: Sustained as to failure of control.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: You understand what it means to have a control fail?

MR. MATHESON: I'm not sure what you mean by "failure."

MR. BLASIER: You run tests on it and you get an indication that there's blood on it when you thought there was nothing on it.

MR. MATHESON: Well, then the control in a way is serving its purpose. It's showing you that there's something there and alerting you to the fact that there's a potential problem.

MR. BLASIER: Okay. In that situation, the control worked and you should disregard the test?

MR. MATHESON: As far as disregard, just throw it out and totally ignore it?

MR. BLASIER: Do it again.

MR. MATHESON: It's a potential, yes. You would want to maybe look at your results and what was obtained.

MR. BLASIER: Now, if you didn't take a control, what's your understanding as to the accepted scientific practice in the community of forensic scientists that do DNA testing about not using controls?

MR. GOLDBERG: It's vague as to which type of tests.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Not collecting controls with bloodstains.

MR. GOLDBERG: The question is unintelligible.

THE COURT: Overruled. Just regular bloodstains taking controls.

MR. MATHESON: Well, you should whenever possible take a control nearby a bloodstain that you collect.

MR. BLASIER: And if you don't take a control, should you report a test result? What's your understanding of the accepted practice or do you know?

MR. GOLDBERG: It's still vague as to what type of tests.

THE COURT: I take it we're talking about conventional serology?

MR. BLASIER: Well, let's talk about conventional serology and a DNA test.

THE COURT: No. One or the other.

MR. BLASIER: Conventional serology.

MR. MATHESON: In the case of conventional serology, I--I would still report the result. But you would have to understand that you don't have a substrate control to see it. It just--it gives you a little bit more information that maybe you have to be a little more careful about those results that are obtained from it because it is not always possible to get a control.

MR. BLASIER: How about a DNA test?

MR. GOLDBERG: It's vague as to which type of DNA test.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: PCR test.

MR. MATHESON: I would feel that the answer should be the same. That you are getting information from the sample, but you have to also be aware of the fact that you don't have a control as to that particular sample, because sometimes it just is not possible to get a control for every sample you do.

MR. BLASIER: Do you agree that if you take a control that doesn't show anything when you run the test on it, that doesn't necessarily mean there is not contamination?

MR. MATHESON: It is not a hundred percent indicator that there is absolutely no possibility of contamination.

MR. BLASIER: Do you ever examine the control swatches that the criminalists that work for you collect to determine whether they are clean or dirty?

MR. MATHESON: Examine other people's controls?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. MATHESON: Well, when I was doing casework on a regular basis, I was seeing control samples regularly.

MR. BLASIER: Do you as a supervisor?

MR. MATHESON: No, I do not.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have any kind of system to check on criminalists to make sure that they really are collecting controls as opposed to just putting a clean swatch in a bag?

MR. GOLDBERG: That's argumentative, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: No, we do not.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you indicated that in your DNA laboratory, there had been a problem with contamination at some point, correct?

MR. MATHESON: We had indication of contamination, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, the validation studies that you do involve taking known blood samples, testing them, seeing if the test comes out the way you expect it, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And you have run those validation studies in your PCR lab from the time you started doing casework through the doing of this case and after June, correct?

MR. MATHESON: I have not. The people that do that type of testing continue to run those, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And the contamination that you have testified to, when did that occur?

MR. MATHESON: I don't have a specific date on it.

MR. BLASIER: Approximate date?

MR. MATHESON: Well, it would have had to have been sometime from when we started doing PCR in October of `93 and I know it was before June of `94.

MR. BLASIER: How long did that contamination problem continue before it was detected?

MR. MATHESON: I don't know.

MR. BLASIER: Do you monitor that kind of information for the PCR lab that you're in charge of?

MR. MATHESON: I was advised that it occurred or was occurring at the time and then I was advised that it had been cleared up.

MR. BLASIER: Are there any reports or any documentation of that outbreak of contamination that describes how it was detected, what was done about it, how it happened?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the evidence as to how it--

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. BLASIER: The contamination in your lab that you told us about, is there any documentation showing the nature of the outbreak, how long it lasted, what caused it and what you did about it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Still misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. GOLDBERG: It's argumentative as to how--

THE COURT: Overruled. Do you understand the question, Mr. Matheson?

MR. MATHESON: Yeah. There was none generated at the time. It was verbally accounted to me.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with TWGDAM?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I am.

MR. BLASIER: What is that?

MR. MATHESON: It's an organization that has been meeting for a number of years that has reviewed and suggested guidelines for doing DNA testing.

THE COURT: All right. Do you want to spell that for the Court reporter?

MR. BLASIER: T-w-g-d-a-m.

MR. BLASIER: And that stands for technical working group on DNA analysis methods, correct?

MR. MATHESON: I believe so, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And that's an organization of representatives from various crime labs that do DNA testing and put together guidelines, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: And these are suggestions for the operation of a DNA lab, correct?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, they are.

MR. BLASIER: Does your lab follow those guidelines?

MR. MATHESON: I am advised by the people that do the work that the--these guidelines are followed as closely as possible, yes.

MR. BLASIER: What does as closely as possible mean?

MR. MATHESON: Well, we--

MR. GOLDBERG: At this point, no personal knowledge, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained. Foundation. It's also beyond the scope.

MR. BLASIER: Now, it's your understanding that these guidelines are suggested minimum qualifications or minimum things that need to be done in a DNA laboratory?

MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know what the guidelines are with respect to documenting contamination in a lab? Do you have any idea?

MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Specifically, no, I don't.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether your lab complies with that aspect of the guidelines with respect to documenting outbreaks of contamination?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: No, I do not.

MR. BLASIER: What's your understanding of the cause of the contamination in your lab when it occurred?

MR. MATHESON: I was verbally advised that it--we believe that it was traced back to a lot of the commercial kits that we had purchased and that when we received one of the new lots, the contamination was no longer present.

MR. BLASIER: Did you contact the man--or did your people, your representatives contact the manufacturer to determine whether or not they agreed it was a bad lot?

MR. MATHESON: My understanding, they did.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry?

MR. MATHESON: My understanding is that they did, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Is it your understanding that the manufacturer agreed that it was their problem and not yours?

MR. GOLDBERG: It calls for triple hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Not that they had said it was our problem, not yours. Just that they were unable to duplicate what we had seen

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: It was their position, was it not, that the lot was good, correct?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained. We're beyond--you're way beyond the scope now, counsel

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: When you are setting up the DNA laboratory, did you have occasion to review the TWGDAM guide lines?

MR. MATHESON: I have not reviewed them all, no.

MR. BLASIER: Have you reviewed any of them?

MR. MATHESON: I have seen the document, but I've relied on the people that were actually setting it up to review them.

MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with the procedures that TWGDAM sets for the--as a minimum for decontaminating a lab that has a contamination problem?

MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Other than this contamination that you've talked about--now, you can't tell us how long a period of time that took place?

MR. MATHESON: No, I can not.

MR. BLASIER: Did it go on for a month? Do you have any idea at all?

MR. MATHESON: I know it was not--that extended period of time, but no, I do not know specifically how long it was.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know if it was more than a week?

MR. MATHESON: I don't specifically know, no.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have any procedures set up whereby you are advised when there is contamination found in your lab?

MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered. Also beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: No, we do not.

MR. BLASIER: Have you ever become aware, other than what you've testified to, any problems with contamination in your PCR lab since it started?

MR. MATHESON: The definition of the word "problems," we have had instances of contamination. It's the nature of the business in that occasionally you see types that you don't expect. If your controls are working and it is detected, I don't see where that is a problem. It's an existence. It occurs.

MR. BLASIER: How often does it occur in your lab?

MR. MATHESON: I don't know.

MR. BLASIER: Do you keep those kind of records?

MR. GOLDBERG: Still beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained. Let's move on to something else. I think we've exhausted this.

MR. BLASIER: Now, Mr. Matheson, you were asked some questions about item no. 6. Do you recall those questions?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to number.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know what item 6 is?

MR. MATHESON: I believe it was a swatch.

MR. BLASIER: A bindle--the bindle with a hair in it?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I remember.

MR. BLASIER: All right. Now, when did you first become aware that there was a hair in the bindle?

MR. MATHESON: Off the top of my head, I don't remember. I--I would--I can try and look through my notes and see if I can come up with a date on that.

MR. BLASIER: Well, it was when the items came back from Albany, correct, when item 6 came back from Albany?

MR. MATHESON: I believe so, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did you check with your representative that was present to determine whether that hair was present at the time that bindle got to Albany?

MR. MATHESON: I believe we asked him, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Have you taken any steps to determine who the hair belongs to?

MR. MATHESON: No, we have not.

MR. BLASIER: Now, I think you indicated that the--that particular swatch was sent to DOJ after you got it. Was that for the purpose of determining whose hair it was?

MR. MATHESON: I believe the hair was removed after we located it and it was not part of what was sent.

MR. BLASIER: Has any effort been made to identify where it came from?

MR. MATHESON: I think the only thing that we had done is just a very quick attempt to determine whether or not we could determine race on the hair, but I'm not sure.

MR. BLASIER: Are you aware that one of the lenses in the prescription glasses found between the two bodies is missing?

MR. MATHESON: Yes, I am.

MR. GOLDBERG: No personal knowledge. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: When did you become aware of that?

MR. MATHESON: I don't remember the specific date.

MR. BLASIER: What effort have you made or are you aware of being made to try and find that?

MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: Has the job of finding that lens been assigned to you?

MR. MATHESON: The job of finding it? No.

MR. BLASIER: Yes. Is there somebody investigating it?

MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: During the course of Dennis Fung's testimony, did you have any conversations with him about habits that he had formed in his testimony?

MR. GOLDBERG: It's unintelligible.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Did you have any discussion with Dennis Fung about the habit he had of saying that he did something when somebody else did?

MR. MATHESON: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: Did you ever review any prior testimony that Dennis Fung had given in other cases with him to determine whether he has done that before?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: In your opinion, is it important that criminalists get to the crime scene as soon as possible?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Now, you were aware at what time on the morning of the 13th that there was a crime scene?

MR. GOLDBERG: Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: I with have to refer to my notes.

MR. BLASIER: Sure.

MR. MATHESON: Okay. I was made aware--excuse me--made aware of the fact that Mr. Fung was out on a crime scene at about 7:45, 7:50 on the morning of the 13th.

MR. BLASIER: Did you become aware at that time that that crime scene had been discovered seven hours before?

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

MR. BLASIER: At what point did you become aware of that?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence. Calls for hearsay, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: Oh, I don't remember.

MR. BLASIER: What's the procedure in effect within the Los Angeles Police Department for calling criminalists to a crime scene in terms of when they should be called?

MR. MATHESON: Well, whether or not a criminalist is called is left to the choice of the detective at the scene and it's up to them as to whether or not when they arrive, they call us right away. Sometimes they assess it. At some point, they may decide that they don't need a criminalist and then change their mind and call us later on. It's up to the detective.

MR. BLASIER: Is it your understanding that that's the reason why they didn't call you for seven hours; that they didn't know whether they would use you?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation, hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know why you were not called for seven hours?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay, speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Did you ever ask, "why didn't you call us when you found the crime scene"?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: Did that concern you at all, that you hadn't been called for seven hours to come to this crime scene?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: I would have liked that we were called earlier, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And did you take any action as a result of that concern?

MR. MATHESON: No, I did not.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did you find out early in the morning, 7 o'clock or approximately when you say you found out, that Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola had been sent to Rockingham as opposed to Bundy?

MR. MATHESON: At that time, I believe he just advised me that they were investigating a scene involving or a crime involving a double homicide. I didn't get a lot of specifics at that point as to the number of scenes and all that was involved.

MR. BLASIER: Did you make any effort to find out the nature of the scene or scenes?

MR. GOLDBERG: Not relevant. Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: He advised me of what I felt I needed at the time. That's that they had arrived out at this crime scene and that it involved two victims. I inquired if they needed assistance and was advised not at this time.

MR. BLASIER: Did he ever say anything to you to the effect, "gee, they sent us not where the bodies are, but to some other scene"?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Did he ever suggest to you that, "we need another team to get to where the bodies are"?

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Did you ever consider sending a second team to cover the Bundy crime scene?

MR. MATHESON: I asked him if he felt he needed assistance, and I was advised that he did not. So I did not suggest sending another team out.

MR. BLASIER: Where was he when you asked him that?

MR. MATHESON: I don't remember.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know what time he got to the Bundy crime scene?

MR. MATHESON: No, I don't.

MR. BLASIER: When did you become aware that the Coroner moved the bodies before they were able to process the Bundy scene?

MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: I don't believe it was that day. It would have been probably a day or two later.

MR. BLASIER: Now, I think you testified on direct that it's a mistake to let the Coroner move the bodies before you process the scene. Am I--

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained. Misstates the testimony.

MR. BLASIER: What's your feeling on the Coroner moving the bodies before your people were allowed to process the scene?

MR. MATHESON: From a Criminalist's standpoint, I would just as soon they left them there, allowed us to complete our work.

MR. BLASIER: Would you consider it very important that you be allowed to do your work before the bodies are dragged over the evidence?

MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: Before the bodies are moved.

MR. MATHESON: Yes. I would like it if they left them in place, and it is important that we be allowed to remove anything that is surrounding the bodies.

MR. BLASIER: Do your criminalists have the authority to tell the Coroner, "wait until we're done"?

MR. MATHESON: No, they do not.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have the authority to tell the Coroner, "wait until we're done"?

MR. MATHESON: Not to my knowledge, no. I can request it, but I don't believe I can tell them if they--and stop them if they felt so.

MR. BLASIER: Do you have the authority to process or collect any evidence that is on the body?

MR. MATHESON: My understanding is no, not directly. I have done it in the past requesting it from the Coroner's investigators that were there, but we have the scene. Their jurisdiction is the body.

MR. BLASIER: Now, do you know--when I use the term a "close in crime scene," do you know what I mean by that?

MR. MATHESON: I'm sorry. What?

MR. BLASIER: Close in crime scene?

MR. MATHESON: Not in the way you're using it, no.

MR. BLASIER: Let me define it for you. A crime scene where the bodies are very closely situated to the evidence. Do you have that in mind?

MR. MATHESON: Okay.

MR. BLASIER: In your opinion, is it an appropriate investigative technique when you have a close in crime scene like that, to move the bodies before the evidence is processed? Does that make any sense to you at all?

MR. GOLDBERG: It's compound.

THE COURT: It's the same question that we heard about five minutes ago.

MR. BLASIER: Who decides at a crime scene how it's going to be processed and in what order?

MR. MATHESON: Depends on what you mean as far as processing.

MR. BLASIER: Allowing the Coroners to take the bodies.

MR. MATHESON: Well, it's normally the detectives that call the Coroner's office. I know in normal circumstances, on crime scenes where I go to, I--more times than not, matter of fact, most of the times, the Coroner's office is not even called until we have a chance to go through. The detectives wait for us to give the go ahead, "okay, now we're done in this area and it's okay to call the Coroner's office".

MR. BLASIER: And that's the right way to do it, isn't it?

MR. MATHESON: From the standpoint of the scene and the evidence, yes.

MR. BLASIER: And when you teach the detectives in the homicide division, the courses that you've told us about, you tell them that's the right way to do it, don't you?

MR. MATHESON: Oh, I don't know if we specifically go into that, but I would if that was the subject raised, that we'd like to have as much time as possible to clear the evidence from around the bodies.

MR. BLASIER: Now, did you have the authority to send a second team to Bundy?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did you know by 7 o'clock in the morning that this was going to be a very significant case with respect to the amount of resources it was going to take?

MR. MATHESON: Well, at 7:45 is the first time I heard about it.

MR. BLASIER: 7:45.

MR. MATHESON: I did not know the extent of the scene as far as that goes. A double homicide is not an extremely rare occurrence in this city.

MR. BLASIER: Did you become aware rather quickly though that this was a case that was going to require substantial resources?

MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to rather quickly.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: At some point that day, on the 13th, did you become aware that this was a big case?

MR. MATHESON: I was made aware of the nature of the victims and that it had the potential of being a high-profile case, yes.

MR. BLASIER: Did you take any steps to see that additional resources were applied to this case other than asking Dennis Fung, "can you handle this yourself," or whatever words you used?

MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. MATHESON: The only thing I did at that point other than the fact that we did have an assistant director out at the scene and a captain out at the scene, I did inquire again midday of Mr. Fung if he needed assistance, and he advised me that none was needed at that time.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether the--the--this was Steve Johnson you're talking about?

MR. MATHESON: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether he took any steps to see that extra resources were devoted to this case--

MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.

MR. BLASIER: --on the 13th.

MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation, personal knowledge.

THE COURT: Overruled. The question was, was he aware of anything.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know?

MR. MATHESON: I don't believe he did assign any. He responded to the scene, spent some time there and then returned to the laboratory.

MR. BLASIER: Do you know whether he actually participated in collecting samples or did he just kind of stand around and watch?

MR. MATHESON: I believe he did not collect anything.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm wondering if this might be an appropriate time.

THE COURT: Perfect. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to recess as far as the jury is concerned for the afternoon. Please remember all of my admonitions to you; do not discuss the case among yourselves, form any opinions about the case, conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you. As far as the jury is concerned, we'll stand in recess until tomorrow, Thursday morning at 9:00 A.M. all right. We'll take a 10-minute recess to clear the courtroom, and we'll proceed to the motions.

(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 same matter. The Defendant is again present. And let's take up the Kardashian matter first since we have counsel for Mr. Kardashian in that matter. Good afternoon, counsel.

MS. LEVINE: Good afternoon, your Honor.

THE COURT: I need your appearance for the record.

MS. LEVINE: Janet Levine and Alvin Michaelson on behalf of Robert Kardashian.

THE COURT: Good afternoon, counsel. All right. I've read and considered the points and authorities filed by both sides in this matter. And, counsel, I'll hear any additional oral argument that you make.

MS. LEVINE: Thank you, your Honor. With respect to the points made in the papers we filed as well as in the response papers we filed, there are a few points I wish to elaborate on. First, I want it clear to the Court that this issue that's being raised here is one that Mr. Kardashian must raise as a lawyer. He is ethically obligated to refuse to testify, to avoid testifying in a case in which he represents a client. That ethical obligation rises from our adversary system of justice. That is that a lawyer cannot be in a case as a lawyer and as a witness at the same time. The canons of ethics that control Mr. Kardashian and control every lawyer in this Court state emphatically that a lawyer should avoid that position. And the reason that is is because a lawyer can not be part of a team that's advocating for a client and also have their own credibility, their integrity at issue in a case. It just doesn't work. A jury cannot decide a case when it's deciding the credibility of the advocate. And so this whole rule has developed in law that that must be avoided. Usually what happens is, a lawyer, if they see they're going to be a witness in a case, that they have testimony that they wish to offer on behalf of a client, withdraws. However, in a case where the opposing side wishes to call a lawyer, the burden falls on the opposing side to make a motion to disqualify the lawyer and to make that motion at the earliest stage.

THE COURT: In a timely matter.

MS. LEVINE: In a timely matter. In the white case, which was cited to this Court, it was a civil case, but the motion in that case was made prior to the summary judgment motion being made, long before a jury was even sworn or even contemplated, while the case was still in motions. And the Court in that case said a motion made at that time was untimely. Looking at the circumstances in this case, the government has not even made a motion yet. But in this case, the jury has long been sworn. They've seen Mr. Kardashian as part of the team of lawyers representing O.J. Simpson for a very long time. They've seen him conferring with O.J. Simpson. They've seen him at sidebar with the Court. They've seen him in that role. And it's not a matter that the Prosecution can say has come up as a surprise because they have this tape of Mr. Kardashian with the suitcase, which they showed to me early on. They've had that tape for a long time.

THE COURT: Counsel, when you say early on, what do you mean by early on? How do you define that?

MS. LEVINE: I believe that that tape was broadcast in June of 1994. I don't know that they had it in their possession, but I do know since I represented Mr. Kardashian amidst the Cowlings Grand Jury matter, which is not this Court's matter, that was before Judge Czuleger, I do know that Mr. Darden was aware--and that was in July and August I believe and September of this year--of Mr. Kardashian's actions at that time. And that was long before the jury in this case was sworn. And Mr. Darden at that time was acting as the Prosecutor in the Cowlings matter, not the Prosecutor in this matter. This issue of the suitcase wasn't ripe at that time. That didn't come up, but Mr. Darden was in a position to be aware of what happened and was aware of what happened. The reason that they need to make the motion early is so we can protect a couple of things. We can protect the integrity of the adversary system of justice, and also that we can protect the constitutional rights that lie with a Defendant in a criminal case; in this case, with Mr. Simpson. He has a sixth amendment right to have counsel, to have a continuity of counsel. He also has a right to confide in his counsel, attorney-client privilege issues, and to have his counsel work on his behalf. The proposed inquiry here is so broad and so far reaching and it's set forth in the papers that were filed by the Prosecutor as well as in the letter sent by the Prosecutor. They intend to ask Mr. Kardashian why questions, why did you do this, why did you do that, what tests did you conduct, issues that go to the heart of the lawyer-client relationship and issues that are not permissible for inquiry. My partner, Mr. Michaelson, has passed me a note that says the tape of the suitcase has been shown on TV since the beginning of this case. And I don't know what the Prosecutors have seen in this case. I'm not part of Mr. Simpson's team. I--Mr. Michaelson and I are here representing Mr. Kardashian. But it's clear that they were aware of facts as early as when the Grand Jury was taking place. The cases cited by the Prosecution do not support their calling Mr. Kardashian, putting him before the witness stand, having him sworn and testify to the jury. In fact, they support the opposite. The Meredith case, which is the seminal case in California, stands for the proposition that a lawyer cannot suppress evidence, but footnote 8 of that case, which was quoted in our moving papers, is quite clear. And it says, if a lawyer has information that the Prosecution needs to get, the way it comes in is not through the lawyer testifying, not through any implication that the information comes from a client, but through stipulation, through finding a narrow group of facts that can be stipulated to. And the reason that is is so the integrity of the lawyer isn't at issue. We don't want a jury to decide a case in our system of justice based on whether or not they like Mr. Kardashian.

THE COURT: Do you have a proposed stipulation?

MS. LEVINE: I would be more than willing to sit down with the Prosecution and figure out a stipulation that would work. I think that would need to be also with one of Mr. Simpson's attorneys. But that is what the case law provides. It provides for finding an alternative to putting the lawyer on the stand. And that's what we suggested as an alternative in our moving papers. We talked about footnote 8 in our moving papers, and it wasn't addressed at all by the Prosecution in their opposition. And that is what protects the adversary system of justice. If there are facts that the Prosecution wants out--and I'm not sure that's what they're seeking here--then let's stipulate to the facts and let's put them before the jury an agreed-upon stipulation and not put the integrity of this witness at issue. That's his ethical obligation to propose that.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Miss Lewis, are you handling this?

MS. LEWIS: Yes, I am. Thank you. Good afternoon, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Good afternoon.

MS. LEWIS: Your Honor, first, I want to make clear that we're not seeking to disqualify Mr. Kardashian from representing the Defendant as one of his several Defense attorneys in this case. I think his participation in the case as a Defense attorney, however, is different and distinguishable from the participation of all of the trial attorneys. There are, I've counted eight trial attorneys on the Defense team who have acted as advocates in front of the jury, in presenting evidence to the jury, at least one of whom will be arguing to the jury during closing argument. So we don't have a normal situation here where the attorney, the one trial attorney on a case would be testifying and then put in a position of arguing his own credibility in front of the jury. It's a distinguishable situation. Meredith is clear, your Honor, that the Prosecution is entitled to the information that we're seeking, and we're entitled to it because Mr. Kardashian chose on the 13th of June last year to remove a full Louis Vuitton suitcase from the Defendant's premises. Now, this footnote 8 which counsel refers to does not really apply in this situation. The--in the Meredith case. The concern expressed by the California Supreme Court in that footnote was that it not appear to the jury or to the fact finder that-- your Honor, there is a great deal of discussion going on over here. If you could ask the--

THE COURT: Keep it down to a dull roar. All right. Thank you. Proceed.

MS. LEWIS: Thank you. The concern in the Meredith case was--the situation in Meredith was that the Defendant in that case told his lawyer and told the investigator that he had evidence in some unknown location. And so the investigator went and got it from that location and then testified in front of the jury at trial. Implicit in that testimony, even though he was of course not asked that, was that the information as to where it came from because it was very incriminating to the Defendant, implicit in that is that the information as to where it came from must have come from the Defendant. So the concern expressed in that footnote is that there not be a necessary inference that the information as to the whereabouts of the evidence because it's incriminating came from the Defendant so as to protect his attorney-client privileged communication to the investigator. We don't have that situation here. All of the evidence is already in the record as far as the relevance and the foundation for the bags that are in issue here; particularly, the Louis Vuitton bag. The limousine driver testified that that was the type of bag that was taken to the airport. The skycap testified that Mr. Simpson checked that into the airport. There's been evidence now that it indeed came back from Chicago because of the airline--the luggage tickets which still remain on it. So there's all of the foundation, and we do now have a videotape of showing Mr. Kardashian leaving the Defendant's premises with this same full Louis Vuitton garment bag.

THE COURT: When you say, Miss Lewis, that you now have, how do you define "now"? When did this tape--when did this information become apparent to the People and when did the materiality or potential materiality of Mr. Kardashian's testimony become apparent to the People?

MS. LEWIS: The--as far as when we became aware that he took the tape, it's really difficult to say. We have seen--I don't know, and I don't think any of us can say for sure when we first saw the videotape. But when it became material was dependent on two things. First on the fact that it became empty at some point in time, and second and most importantly on when the Defense chose to put that bag before the jury. We had no intention of calling Mr. Kardashian as a witness or of introducing that bag prior and we still had no intention of introducing that bag, but certainly no intention of questioning with regard to it until the Defense in chambers brought forth the issue of these bags and elected at that time in a tactical decision to put that bag as well as the others in front of the jury. And when they did that--if that was something that they had been planning to do all along, they had an obligation. We're back to the discovery statutes again. Under 1054.3, it was real evidence they intended to introduce at trial, and they did not give us any indication of that intention. They supplied us with no notice of that either orally or in writing before that morning in chambers either by a photograph or by an offer of--to make it available to us for inspection or in any other manner. So if indeed they just decided that morning or the night before to introduce those bags in front of the jury, that's when it became material. And I'm assuming that only because I have no basis to represent that they violated the discovery laws. So presumably, that was the first time they intended to introduce that in evidence. So that's when it suddenly became important for the jury to know the true facts. And when they introduced it, it was empty. When we last saw it, it was full. Presumably, it had--but we don't know this, but presumably, it had clothing in it which Mr. Simpson took to Chicago with him. Had the Prosecution had that clothing and an opportunity to examine it perhaps for blood evidence, perhaps for other trace evidence, there could have been critical information to have been gleaned from that. We elected not to pursue that particular baggage at some point in the case and we would not have pursued it and would still not have pursued it I don't believe, though you never now how trial develops. But made us pursue it in particular was the Defense making an issue of it and bringing it before the witnesses who testified.

THE COURT: All right. So how do I get around the other legal problems though that are created by--I agree with you that Mr. Kardashian's participation has been minimal to date. However, he has been here in Court. He was introduced to the jury during the course of the first 200 sidebars that we had. He was seen by the jurors consulting with the Defendant at those times. So I mean he is present before the jury.

MS. LEWIS: Well, this is an opportunity for him to explain, your Honor, what his participation was because as the Court recalls the testimony of Judge Wong revealed, that when he went to Mr. Kardashian's residence is where he picked up the golf club and when he was at Mr. Simpson's home on Rockingham is where he recovered the Louis Vuitton bag from. And, you know, along those lines, your Honor, I just want to mention, when you and I and Mr. Carl Douglas of the Defense team were out there the Friday before the jury view, I--to my surprise, I noticed that there were a few such Louis Vuitton bags up there on the shelf. And we don't know whether this was one of them or not. And it certainly was full the last time we saw it. So I don't think there's a problem under the facts of this case, and I think the problem, the concern expressed by Meredith that it become--that it not be inferred that the information about where this evidence had been come from the mouth of the Defendant is satisfied here because of the testimony I mentioned a few moments ago, the limousine driver and the skycap and the--having testified to that appeared to be what he took to Chicago and with the tags that indeed show was checked into American Airlines on the--about the appropriate date. So that we have a foundation here. We don't need to ask Mr. Kardashian any question which would infringe upon his privileged communication with the Defendant, and we're not seeking to do that. And that is--that was the one concern expressed in Meredith. And in Meredith, indeed the Defense investigator testified before the jury, was asked on cross that he--whether he was an investigator for the Defense, and that he was allowed to testify to that.

THE COURT: Is there a possibility we could accept counsel's suggestion that perhaps there's a stipulation that would avoid Mr. Kardashian having to testify?

MS. LEWIS: Well, there's certainly a possibility. But I believe we have attempted--I'll check with Mr. Darden on this. I believe we have--in fact, let me check before I make the representation, your Honor.

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

MS. LEWIS: Mr. Darden makes the excellent recommendation, which should satisfy our concerns and the Court's concerns, that we have a 402 hearing outside the presence of the jury and find out what the information is and while Mr. Kardashian is testifying under oath as a witness. And that way, we would have the relevant information so that we would know how to formulate a stipulation. And I think that's something--that would also help us to determine indeed whether a stipulation can be used and one is appropriate in this case.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Miss Lewis. All right. Miss Levine, any brief response?

MS. LEVINE: If I might have a moment, your Honor.

THE COURT: Certainly.

(Brief pause.)

MS. LEWIS: Your Honor, while they're still debating, just a couple of other quick points. We were--I'm told. I wasn't present in chambers during the discussion, but I'm informed by both Miss Clark and Mr. Darden that indeed the Defense was informed that if they put these bags in issue, especially the Louis Vuitton garment bag, which had been full and was now empty, we would be indeed be calling--

THE COURT: No. I recollect that. That's part of the thought process at this point.

MS. LEWIS: Uh-huh. And Mr. Darden makes the additional point that back in August of 1994, he indicated that Mr. Kardashian had placed himself in a situation--

THE COURT: It's in your papers.

MS. LEWIS: Okay. One other point which is not in my papers-- and I'm sorry--that I wanted to-- I didn't talk about the white case, which counsel cites, because it's so clearly distinguishable. It was a civil case in which a summary judgment motion was brought. And unlike--

THE COURT: I read it.

MS. LEWIS: All right. Just briefly. Unlike what counsel represented, it was six months after the other side learned from the summary judgment motion, which was denied, that counsel was in fact the advocate that they chose to disqualify. So it was clearly untimely in that case and it was a civil case anyway, so it's clearly not pertinent here.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Levine, what do you think about Miss Lewis' suggestion that perhaps we have a hearing outside of the presence of the jury to determine the issues as to what happened to the contents of the garment bag and see if that would form a factual basis for a stipulation?

MS. LEVINE: I think it's excessive. I think it's not necessary. Mr. Kardashian is a lawyer. He's sworn to uphold the law. If he sits down, just like if anyone sits down under any circumstance discussing discovery or anything and makes a representation--we can try to reach a stipulation. If there's a problem, then we can bring it to the Court. It looks like--and I am obviously not the expert that everybody else in this courtroom is--that this issue is not going to come up in the next week, that the Prosecution is involved in some more scientific evidence. So there is--

THE COURT: That's a fair statement.

MS. LEVINE: --so that there is time for us to sit down and try to hammer out the perimeters of a stipulation. And then if it's necessary, we'll bring up the issue to the Court. But that's what I would prefer to do. I think it preserves Mr. Kardashian's ethical role in the most pristine manner. And if it comes up, then we can come up.

THE COURT: All right. What do you suggest as a reasonable timetable? My inclination is to order you to meet and confer with your client and representatives of the Prosecution no later than early next week.

MS. LEVINE: That's fine. I can't do it this week, your Honor, because I'm already committed to things.

THE COURT: That is why I said early next week.

MS. LEVINE: But I'm free from Monday, all day Tuesday, so either of those days with a representative of the Prosecution team. I think there will need to be someone from the Defense team in addition to Mr. Kardashian present as well to make sure that while we're protecting Mr. Kardashian's obligations, Mr. Simpson's rights are protected.

THE COURT: I would nominate Mr. Douglas since he's familiar with the breath of this case.

MR. COCHRAN: I'll second that nomination.

MR. DARDEN: Could it be someone other than Mr. Douglas, your Honor?

THE COURT: Sanctions, Mr. Douglas. I was talking about sanctions, and you were nominated. All right. Miss Lewis, when do you think you and/or Mr. Darden would be available to meet with counsel? Early next week sometime?

MS. LEWIS: Since Mr. Darden is in Court and needs to be in Court as much as possible throughout the trial as lead trial lawyer, Tuesday evening?

THE COURT: All right. How about Tuesday evening then at the break of the Court session?

MS. LEVINE: 5:00 P.M.?

THE COURT: How about 4:30 on Tuesday? Meet here in the courtroom. I'll give you the use of one of the empty jury rooms. You can meet and confer, see if you can work out something reasonable. And I'll be available to consult with counsel.

MS. LEVINE: That's fine, your Honor.

MS. LEWIS: I do want to point out, your Honor, we're not optimistic considering Mr. Kardashian's been Mr. Simpson's friend for 26 years.

THE COURT: Well, Miss Lewis, let's try to do it the easy way first.

MS. LEWIS: Okay.

THE COURT: He is an Officer of the Court. He can provide a declaration under penalty of perjury as a factual basis. We'll try it the easy way first. If not, then we'll have a hearing outside the presence of the jury.

MR. MICHAELSON: Judge, just one comment, if the Court please--

MS. LEWIS: Your Honor, I believe we have a one attorney rule.

THE COURT: We do.

MR. MICHAELSON: I haven't been watching all the TV so--

THE COURT: We have a one-attorney rule.

MS. LEVINE: Your Honor, I think before that time, we do need to have a representation of exactly what the Prosecution wants. There is--

THE COURT: I think that's included in their moving papers. They've included clearly their interest is the garment bag, how it came into your client's possession, where it went, what happened to the contents and how did it return to Rockingham. I mean pretty it's common-sense questions.

MS. LEVINE: And if there are any other tapes that they have of this--I've seen another tape that was provided to me that indicates that the bag was off the property and the police weren't letting it on. I don't know if there are other tapes like that that are available.

THE COURT: Well, I assume this will be during part of your meet and confer.

MS. LEVINE: That's perfect, your Honor.

THE COURT: But I would also suggest you and Miss Lewis confer regarding appropriate groundrules as far as disclosure, what it is--specifically what it is, Miss Lewis, you want, what you have available as far as the evidence, the videotape showing Mr. Kardashian with the item. All right.

MS. LEWIS: Your Honor, would it be possible to use the services of one of the Court's reporters for this?

THE COURT: No. I don't think the meeting needs to be reported.

MS. LEWIS: Your Honor, it's not without reason. I think Mr. Darden certainly had contact with the individuals--

THE COURT: No, we won't do that. My Court reporters are burdened enough as it is, believe me. All right. Thank you, counsel.

MS. LEWIS: Thank you, your Honor.

MS. LEVINE: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Let's go on to the Defendant's request for a hearing on prosecutorial misconduct.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, may I make a suggestion? It's my proposal--

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: It's my proposal that this proceeding be conducted in camera. And the reason that I propose that is that all we've ever asked for here is a factual basis, hearing on the factual basis for Mr. Harmon's statements about privileged communications with our experts, statement--assertions that he made. That's all we've ever asked. He made a response. To the extent that he may discuss privileged matters or we may have to discuss privileged matters in response or any of that is gone into, it seems to me that we should do that in camera. It shouldn't be broadcast, shouldn't be brought to anybody else's attention. Also, what concerns me is that we submitted to the Court two declarations from the principles that Mr. Harmon's--one with whom Mr. Harmon spoke, and the other is an individual who we believe is referenced in his response as the individual from the FBI which creates factual conflicts. So it's my respectful suggestion to the Court that if we do this in camera in chambers, a, it won't air all this possible privileged materials which will be delicate, and, B, maybe it will--

THE COURT: Isn't the issue not what was discussed, but the manner of the contact and the confidential nature of the relationship of the Defendant and certain of these experts?

MR. SCHECK: Yes. I think I can do my side of it without bringing these things up obviously and even just argue the legal point. I'm a bit concerned about what's going to be said on the other side. And the whole point of this was that assertions were made about secret testing, results of secret testing to the Court. That's all we ever asked for an inquiry into, the factual basis for that. That's the problem.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Scheck, I'll hear your legal argument.

MR. SCHECK: Well, my legal argument is a very simple one, your Honor, and I would essentially rest on the papers and the declarations. What we have here is a situation where the Defense, Mr. Harmon, made representations in Court as is indicated in our papers. And the Court is well aware from the record about who tested what on what occasions, what the results were, what the Court should be knowledgeable of in terms of the results in that he suggested we were misleading the Court in other applications based on what results might have been or were, and he made specific assertions as to who did what when. It's--his response doesn't make the matter any easier. It's our position that when samples are given to the Defense for whatever purposes and possibly testing, that it is to be privileged, in secret, that the Prosecution should not endeavor to find out what the results of those tests are. Mr. Harmon's own response indicates that he personally conducted conversations with Dr. Rieders of national medical services and asked him questions about EDTA testing and about--made statements to him to the effect that he knew that this lab hadn't performed those tests, and then in his papers, he says that Dr. Rieders made responses to him in, quote, unsolicited comments, unquote. Dr. Rieders contests that in a sworn declaration. Similarly, Mr. Harmon in his response indicates that there was a conversation between a Special Agent Roger Martz in February 1995 in Seattle with respect to EDTA testing with a representative of the national medical services, who we gather from our research can only be Mr. Carl Selavka, and that he indicated that in the--

THE COURT: Want to spell that for the reporter?

MR. SCHECK: S-E-L-A-V-K-A. --and that Mr. Selavka made statements about what was tested and that about the Defense making requests to do and what they decided to do or not to do and agent Martz--Mr. Selavka submitted a sworn affidavit where he denies that as well. Now, I mean, I think that there's some factual conflicts here that frankly I don't think we can resolve. My position with respect to the legal issue--and I really don't want to get into these factual con--I don't think we can have a hearing now. There's no declaration I understand from agent Martz for example and I think it's kind of tricky for Mr. Harmon to start making statements about what was said or not said in this kind of proceeding. But it seems to me that the legal principal is a simple one. When we're given samples to do testing and to evaluate with our experts, Mr. Harmon should not make efforts either through agents or personally to endeavor to find out exactly what we're doing. This sort of reminds me of a hearing one might have pursuant to United States versus Henry or the other series of cases I'm sure the Court's familiar with when sixth amendment rights are being impaired by the Prosecution sending in an agent to eavesdrop on conversations or an informant, for example, into a jail cell to talk to a Defendant, to conduct discussions about what the Defense is or what's going on. And in those kinds of situations, you know, the issues are, was there interrogation and where there questions about privileged issues. I find it troubling that in Mr. Harmon's response, what he's telling us is that he got information from our experts in, quote, unquote, unsolicited comments. Now, it seems to me that the--what ought to happen is a factual hearing with respect to what was said and what the interrogation was. I think that Mr. Harmon's remarks frankly should be limited to the legal issue of whether or not he has a right to conduct this kind of inquiry. I guess what disturbs us is that we don't think that he has a right to make efforts to determine from experts that he thinks we've retained and in fact have retained to consult with us to know what those tests are and what we're doing. Our experts were unusually solicitous in responding to inquiries from the Los Angeles Police Department about the literature with respect to EDTA testing because Dr. Rieders is probably the foremost authority in these kinds of matters and is often consulted by the FBI and others. So when Mr. Henkhaus from LAPD in January made an inquiry as he indicated in telephone conversation, asked for literature on the question, our experts sent him the literature, but wouldn't discuss his involvement with the Defense or what he's telling us or what he's doing as is what a person of his experience would do. And then when Mr. Harmon called him, he took the call, but refused to discuss anything about what he was saying to the Defense or what they were doing. And Mr. Harmon, I think by his own response, was asking all these questions and making all these statements about what he knew had happened at other laboratories. I think that it's wrong for Prosecutors to be doing this. That is wrong. They shouldn't be making these kinds of inquiries and conducting this kind of investigation into what they know are privileged Defense activities. That's the issue.

THE COURT: Assuming it's wrong, what sanction are you seeking?

MR. SCHECK: Well, frankly, the problem is, I don't know without a hearing the extent to which they have invaded the Defense camp. A lot of specifics were stated by Mr. Harmon as to what he knew in these proceedings. Given the conflict in the testimony here, that we have declarations from Defense experts saying that they didn't say the things that Mr. Harmon indicates they said--and I still don't know what the basis of his knowledge is. I know it can't be the little initialings on the envelopes. Otherwise, he didn't have a good faith basis to say what he said. So I think that further factual proceedings will be necessary to determine exactly to what degree we had an invasion of the Defense camp. I'm by no means satisfied we know those facts. I suggested to Mr. Harmon since I got these declarations late that we put this over because I think that other than the legal issue as to whether or not he has the right to ask these questions, we need to have a factual hearing on the extent to which there's an invasion. As to the precise remedy, again, I'm a little at a loss because we've yet to approach the time that the Prosecution begins to put on witnesses with respect to EDTA testing, which I assure the Court will be one of the most interesting pieces of testimony that we're going to see in this entire case.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: Sounds pretty bad, doesn't it, your Honor? Thank you for not making us go in camera. If you recall the day that this motion was filed, the entire Defense team held a press conference that afternoon. The whole rogues gallery was lined up behind Mr. Cochran, and they alleged we were following people around and intimidating Henry Lee. And so thank you for having this publicly so we can air the issue. Everything I know is in my response. I would like to file something. I've given this to Mr. Scheck because it relates to Dr. Rieders. One of the problems is, there's a real conflict between science and the law. Scientists have no allegiance to people that pay their bills. At least honest, decent ones do. No matter how much money any Defendant has, he doesn't own any scientist that he retains. And what I've given you is a letter faxed by Dr. Rieders to Leonard Hanukahs after Leonard's contact with Dr. Rieders in January discussing what they discussed and inviting further discussions on the issue. And if you look at the response I filed--and by the way, I don't know what happened to roger Martz' declaration. I've spoken to him a couple times today. I can represent what it will say. They knew we needed it by 4 o'clock today, and I'm not sure where it is. But agent Martz--and I'll submit it as soon as I have it--says, "I talked to Carl Selavka in February. He told me they didn't do any testing and I told Rockne Harmon soon after that." and I think what's interesting about that is, no one knew at that time that national medical services was involved. And so if Mr. Scheck wants to conduct some kind of hearing and make it be some kind of inquiry by agent Martz, agent Martz was the most surprised guy in the bar in Seattle when in this supposed setting, Carl Selavka said, "you know, we had that, and we didn't do any testing," or words to that effect. There have been no efforts through any agents to get to the bottom of these things. You know, it's not surprising that we should have again this kind of attack because the Defense knows what's about to happen. They had their fun in April and we're going to set things straight in May. They know that evidence I'll be presenting about, item 13, the individual identification of that stain, about the stains on the glove, they know what's going on with 117 and they surely know what the results of the EDTA tests are. And that's what they don't want to hear. And that's why they want to try to intimidate us and that's why they want to try to deter us. I have no problem with testifying. I'll be happy to testify. But I must insist that the people that filed those declarations testify. So let's take a look at them. Let's look at them at face value. There's a conflict. There's a real conflict here, and I think you can resolve this today, and I hope you do. If you don't, we'll be happy to set time aside and I'll be happy to testify.

THE COURT: Well, I would like to see at least the declaration that you're suggesting which was due this afternoon.

MR. HARMON: I wish I knew--I was the most disappointed person when I went up at 4 o'clock and it wasn't there. But let's just evaluate these two declarations factually and then legally and see what they say. Now, they've alleged some kind of invasion of the Defense camp as if it's some kind of boy scout escapade. Carl Selavka says he didn't tell roger Martz. What roger told me, he said, that they had the evidence and they didn't do the testing. And then Dr. Fred said, "he didn't tell me that they didn't do the testing," but he does admit that I told him that roger told me that they didn't do the testing. Now, what the heck could I have told him, what would my basis have been for roger telling me that if Carl hadn't told roger that? These facts--they simply don't make sense. But even though they don't make sense, let's look at them at face value. They both deny that I knew anything. They deny that I know what I clearly know and what I put in my motion for this. But I think the real proof, the real truth, the real question is, is it really just a coincidence. If you want to know whether Carl really told roger that, I think if you look at 47, 50 and you say, "gee, those look just like Carl's initials on those bindles there"--you know, we're all handwriting experts. We can look at these initials. And if you look at them, those are Carl's initials on there.

THE COURT: All right. You're referring to People's exhibit, Mr. Goldberg?

MR. GOLDBERG: This is People's 210.

THE COURT: People's 210, which has the transmittal and packaging envelopes with regards to items 47, 50 and 78.

MR. HARMON: The real sequence of events are, they thought they got those samples in the middle of the night and they were going to keep the fact from the world and especially this jury. You know, we had those discussions in chambers the other morning that weren't reported. They don't even want the jury to know that they've looked at anything. They didn't like hank's board about the Albany viewing.

THE COURT: Well, let's not get off into that.

MR. HARMON: But I think that's at the heart of the matter. They want to strut around here and cross-examine people for weeks at a time and not have them know that they've looked at the evidence themselves. I don't blame them for that, but the law simply doesn't afford that and you still have to rule on what's the appropriate scope of comment that we can make. Now that the jury's heard. It's out of the bag. They've had that evidence. So the fact of the matter is when all the big fuzz about the Albany trip came up and EDTA was the talk of the town, roger Martz and Carl were having a beer or having fun up in Seattle--remember we talked about people having fun in Seattle at the time. Carl mentioned that to roger at a time when we knew nothing about national medical services. I was unaware that the LAPD lab--or no, I shouldn't say that. I was aware that they had contacted him in January, and I was really surprised because of that collegial type contact. So the items come back. We see that that's confirmed, that there are initials and dates all over them. I call up Dr. Rieders to discuss the invitation that he extended to Leonard Hanukahs, the collegial invitation and the rest is history. So if you need testimony, I'll be happy to submit the declaration. I wish I had it today. I'm sorry. I thought we would have it. But, you know, once again, it's much to do about nothing. But if you want to take the time from the jury--we made a lot of progress. I would hate to see us lose the momentum that we have. I'd be more than happy to testify if that's what you think the right thing is at this point, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. I would like to see the declaration from Mr. Martz.

MR. HARMON: Sure.

THE COURT: All right. Brief response, Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: I think Mr. Harmon's argument admits too much and he did not address the most important point. Let us assume that everything that Mr. Selavka says is true; that there's a conversation between agent Martz and Mr. Selavka in Seattle and they discuss EDTA, and Mr. Selavka, as he indicates in his affidavit, declaration, seems to know a lot about it and even surprises agent Martz. He's been thinking about it, but does not reveal anything about what he did in terms of testing or didn't do. Then when the bindles come back and Mr. Harmon takes a look at the initials and then has conversations, he begins to think, well, maybe I can figure out what they did and who tested what. So maybe I'll have a conversation with Dr. Rieders, and I'll probe him and I'll say, "well, you know, I know based on the conversations that agent Martz had with one of your people in Seattle what you did and what you didn't do," and tries to elicit the information in that fashion and then actually makes an inquiry with respect to the technology that's available at that laboratory and tries to make some educated guests, then comes into Court and in a ploy, tries to assert his fact what he is trying to piece together from the various bits of evidence. That is a possible view looking at all the facts in this case. My point, which he does not answer and I ask the Court to consider, is that Prosecutors are not supposed to be doing that. You're not supposed to be calling up people and trying to conduct inquiries of them to determine what they've done and what they haven't done with respect to secret testing and throwing out hypothesis. So all the things that he points to as evidence to verify his view of the facts seem to me to do nothing more than call more attention to what could be, very well be an act of misconduct. There's no justification for calling up Dr. Rieders, conducting an interrogation trying to determine what he did or didn't do. Dr. Rieders said he did not make any unsolicited comments or say anything about what that lab did or didn't do.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harmon, you'll make sure I have that tomorrow?

MR. HARMON: I'll call tonight. Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Counsel, given the hour, I'm going to put over the discussion on the parity of sanctions motion until tomorrow morning--excuse me--tomorrow at 4:30: All right. 4:30. All right. We'll stand in recess.

(At 5:00 P.M., an adjournment was taken until, Thursday, May 4, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

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

The People of the State of California, )

Plaintiff, )

vs. ) no. Ba097211 )

Orenthal James Simpson, )

Defendant. )

Reporter's transcript of proceedings Wednesday, May 3, 1995

Volume 138 Pages 25502 through 25789, inclusive

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPEARANCES:

Janet M. Moxham, CSR #4588 Christine M. Olson, CSR #2378 official reporters

FOR THE PEOPLE: Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012

FOR THE DEFENDANT: Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire

ALSO PRESENT: Janet I. Levine, Esquire Alvin Michaelson, Esquire

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I N D E X

for volume 138 pages 25502 - 25789

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day date session page vol.

Wednesday May 3, 1995 A.M. 25502 138 P.M. 25626 138

Proceedings

Motion to exclude testimony 25755 138

Motion re prosecutorial misconduct 25774 138

Re Robert Kardashian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEGEND: Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden d Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

People's Witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.

Matheson, Gregory 138 (Resumed) 25524bb (Resumed) 25630bb

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

Witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.

Matheson, Gregory 138 (Resumed) 25524bb (Resumed) 25630bb

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXHIBITS

Defense for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

1127 - 15 printouts 25588 138 from slides designated A through O of the LAPD Scientific Investigation Division

1128 - Photograph of 25662 138 a glass vial containing a red substance, writing, the no. 60 on a white card and red substance on the label

1129 - Photograph of 25662 138 a glass vial containing a red substance, writing, the no. 60 on a white card and the date of 6/14/94

1130 - Photograph of 25662 138 a glass vial containing a red substance, writing, the no. 59 on a white card and the date of 6/14/94

1131 - Photograph of 25662 138 a glass vial containing a red substance, writing, the no. 59 on a white card

1132 - Chart entitled 25679 138 "small amounts of DNA from specks of blood"

1133 - Chart entitled 25687 138 "PCR amplification"

1134 - Chart entitled 25688 138 "PCR amplification"