REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
NOVEMBER 18, 1996

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS,

VS.

ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1996
9:25 A.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

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

THE COURT: Morning.

JURORS: Morning.

THE COURT: Sorry for the delay.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. LAMBERT: Plaintiff calls Mr. Collin Yamauchi.

COLLIN YAMAUCHI, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiffs, was duly sworn
and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause
now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: And if you would, please state and spell your name for the record.

THE WITNESS: My name is Collin Yamauchi, first name C-O-L-L-I-N, last name
Y-A-M-A-U-C-H-I.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:

Q. Morning, Mr. Yamauchi.

A. Morning.

Q. Would you please tell us what your occupation is.

A. I'm a criminalist; I work for the City of Los Angeles. I'm assigned to the
Los Angeles Police Department Scientific Investigation Division.

Q. Within the Scientific Investigation Division, what is your current area of
assignment?

A. My unit is special testing.

Q. And what do they do in special testing?

A. Mainly instrumental analysis. What I work with is gunshot residue analysis.

Q. Would you please describe for us your formal education.

A. I have a bachelor's degree in biology from California State University, Long
Beach.

And after graduating from there, I moved on to a company called ICN
Radiochemicals, where I received training in various DNA techniques. And I even
attend a class as -- a techniques workshop from a place called BRL. It's in
Frederic, Maryland.

After three and a half years as a quality control chemist at ICN
Radiochemicals, I then moved to the Police Department, where I started off
first four months introducing myself with the protocols, procedures, and
methods of the serology unit.

And through the serology unit, I attended classes at a place called the
California Criminalistics Institute. That's part of DOJ in Sacramento.

I've had classes in forensic serology, zone electrophoresis, and also
isoelectric focusing. These are techniques that are used in conventional
serology, which is something that's similar to PCR DNA.

That, I'm sure, you heard a lot about already.

I've also had a biology class dealing specifically with forensic applications
of molecular biology, and that was held at Orange County Sheriff's Crime
Laboratory in Santa Ana.

Finally, in forensic PCR, I've had a class on forensic PCR amplification at a
workshop held by Rose Molecular Systems, which at the time were the people
associated with Percanoma, who has a patent on the polymerase chain reaction,
or the PCR system.

Q. Thank you, sir.

What year did you graduate from college?

A. 19 -- 1986.

Q. Right after college is when you went to work, I think, for ICN?

A. ICN Radiochemicals, yeah.

Q. What year did you come to work for the SID, for the Scientific Investigation
Division?

A. 1960.

Q. Pardon me. What?

A. Excuse me. 1990.

Q. I thought you weren't quite that old.

1990?

A. I wasn't even born then.

Q. So you worked from 1990 to the present for the Scientific Investigation
Division?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

And how long -- when you first started, you said you were in the serology unit?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. And how long were you in that unit?

A. For approximately five years.

Q. And until -- And then you transferred to the special testing unit that
you're in now; is that right?

A. Yes, it's right.

Q. And as of une 12, 1994, what was your assignment at SID?

A. June 12 -- yeah, okay.

I was working in serology.

Q. Serology.

And would you describe generally what your duties were in the serology
department at that time.

A. I was working in the DNA section with PCR, but I also had training in
conventional serology which I did on occasion, also.

Q. So in the serology department at SID you did both conventional serology and
PCR DNA testing?

A. Yes.

Q. And you did work in both those areas?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Now, did you do any work in connection with the investigation in this case?

A. Yes.

Q. And when did -- what was your first involvement in connection with this
case?

A. It would be Monday, the 13th, when my supervisor, Greg Matheson, asked me if
I would be interested in working on the blood evidence.

Q. And did -- what were you going to be doing on the blood evidence in this
case?

A. I -- he didn't say specifically blood evidence; just in general working with
this case.

We weren't sure about what types of evidence it was going to entail at that
point.

Q. And when did you first do any actual work on the case?

A. That would be Tuesday, the -- let's see -- the 14th.

Q. 14th.

And what was the first work that you did on it -- this case?

A. I analyzed blood stains from -- would you like specifics?

Q. Please.

A. The numbers. Sure.

Referring to my notes, okay. Those would be item numbers 47, 48, 49, 50, and
52. And item numbers 41 and 42, item number 9, and also item number 17.

Q. And those were various items of evidence in the case that had been collected
by some other SID personnel?

A. Yes.

Q. And how was the decision made for you to work on those specific items as
your first task?

A. I discussed that with Dennis Fung.

Q. And Mr. Fung pointed out these items as items that needed to be tested?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you describe for us, just first generally, the steps that you took to
accomplish the testing of those evidence items.

A. As far as the samples?

Q. Why don't we start with whatever the first step was that you took.

What was the first thing that you did in terms of doing testing on all of those
items of evidence?

A. Well, the first item I received was -- let's -- it would be the blood vial
-- the O.J. Simpson blood vial. And that was the first item I set up because it
needed a certain time to dry in order for us to work it in our PCR process.

Q. So you took the -- this was a vial of blood, was it?

A. Yes.

Q. And what did you do with that vial of blood?

A. The vial of blood was processed in normal fashion, the way we always handle
exemplars of victims or suspects, et cetera.

And this blood was taken -- the tube held in one hand, covered the cap up with
chemwipes.

Chemwipes are sort of like a laboratory version of Kleenex. They're something
you have at the side to wipe and dab and clean, and they're specially designed
to be low in lint, and they're basically made for laboratory purposes.

I generally use three chemwipes. I'll put them on the top of the cap because,
when you open these blood vials up, it's kind of tricky, but you're going to
get a little bit of blood on the cap. It's almost always you get a little blood
around the cap edge. So with the chemwipes on top, that eliminates any chances
of any blood getting elsewhere and all over the place.

And you do these type of -- you take these type of procedures -- well, mainly
for my case, I'll just say it's mostly for my own physical health and safety,
because basically we don't know what these -- who these blood vials are from --
in general, in a general sense. And as everybody knows, there's a lot of
blood-borne pathogens and diseases you can get from blood.

So we try to wear gloves, of course, and keep the chemwipes on the top and
carefully open these vials up.

So I opened the vial up, put the cap down on the side, and then I would reach
over and grab my pipe header, which is an instrument -- a scientific instrument
used to transfer blood or other various solutions. I use that and I transfer
the blood over to what's known as a Fitzco card, which is a card that's used to
pool the blood in a dried state for further testing, transfer the blood onto
that card, and allow it to dry.

The type of pipe header was put in the receptacle and the cap was placed back
on the vial and put away. My chemwipes and my gloves was taken off in a sterile
fashion.

At that point, I recall I needed to throw them away in the proper receptacle.
Unfortunately, I was working in the evidence processing room, which is not
where I usually make exemplars, and there was no -- as far as my recollection
went, I recall holding them and trying to decide whether I should throw them in
there, in the evidence processing room, or back at serology.

Q. When you have something like gloves and these chemwipes, is there a special
kind of receptacle that they're put into after -- when you want to dispose of
them?

A. The gloves and chemwipes, yeah. Well, it's a large biohazard receptacle.

Q. It's a receptacle designed to put biological hazards in, as opposed to just
ordinary waste?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you mentioned the evidence processing room is that -- that's where you
did this particular Fitzco card that process you described?

A. Yes.

Q. And where about in the evidence processing room were you when you did the
Fitzco card?

A. I was working on a kind of a laboratory bench that would be on the far, side
away from where the evidence was, which were on tables in the middle of the
room.

Q. So the evidence item was on a table in the middle of the room while you were
doing the Fitzco card on it's work bench?

A. Yes.

Q. And about how far away from where you did the Fitzco card were the items of
evidence?

A. Approximately ten to fifteen feet.

Q. Can you describe for the jury the condition that the items of evidence, the
blood evidence that we're talking about here, was in while you did the Fitzco
card?

A. Oh, the evidence collected?

Q. Yes.

A. Okay.

Those were packaged in coin envelopes, inside paper bindles. The paper bindles
were inside of the coin envelopes.

Q. So the swatches that we've heard of before, that contained the evidence,
were inside closed paper bindles at the time?

A. Yes.

Q. And those paper bindles, were they inside of a coin envelope?

A. Yes.

Q. And was that also closed?

A. Well, flap shut or something. Not necessarily gum shut.

Q. But the flap was shut?

A. Yes.

Q. That was -- all of that evidence was ten to fifteen feet away from where you
did this Fitzco card?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, this process of preparing a Fitzco card or a swatch from a an evidence
vial, is that something you've done in the past before this occasion?

A. Yes.

Q. About how many times have you done it?

A. It's got to be hundreds.

Q. And when you do this, do you commonly follow the same process you've just
described to us here today?

A. Yes, I -- yes, I did.

Q. And when you did this process that you've described here today, the purpose
in putting the chemwipes over the top of the receptacle is to protect any of
the blood from getting on you or on any of the items of evidence; is that
right?

A. Yeah. First and foremost, personal protection, and then of course,
secondary, of course, we don't want to contaminate any evidence; and that's why
we wear gloves and take all those precautions.

Q. Now -- and in this case, after you've gone through the process and taken all
the steps you have, you then disposed of the gloves and the chemwipes?

A. Yes. I'm not sure where. I don't remember specifically that much of it.

Q. You're not sure which trash container you threw them in when you disposed of
them?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) The blood vial, when you first started the process it, was
it closed? I mean was the cap on it?

A. Yes.

Q. Yeah. And when you finished, did you put the cap back on?

A. Yes, of course,

Q. Now, in his opening statement, Mr. Baker stated that --

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to -- I'm going to object. This is
argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Mr. Yamauchi, when you were -- did you spill the blood at
all when you were doing this process?

A. No.

Q. Did the blood go flying out of the vial and go across the room and land on
the evidence envelopes that were ten or fifteen feet away?

A. No.

Q. Did the blood in any way at all contaminate those items of evidence during
this process?

A. No.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, after you finished doing the Fitzco card, what did you
next do?

A. Took a look at the glove.

Q. By "glove," maybe you should describe for the jury what glove it is you're
talking about.

A. I'm sorry; it's item number 9. It's a regular brown glove, with blood on it.

Q. And where did you do this process?

A. Again, in the evidence processing room.

Q. And approximately at what location in the evidence processing room?

A. It would be on the same workbench in front of where we have clean roll-out
paper.

Q. And did you use the roll-out paper?

A. Yes.

Q. What -- how did you use that?

A. Well, we lay out paper to serve as a barrier between the counter top and any
evidence item that we'll be working on.

Q. So you put the paper down in connection with the examination of the glove?

A. Yes.

Q. And were you wearing gloves when you did this?

A. Of course.

Q. So this is a clean set of gloves that you've put on after you did the Fitzco
card?

A. Of course.

Q. Would you describe what you did in connection with your examination of the
glove?

A. Initially, I had to search for signs of blood. It's not readily apparent
because the color of the glove is rather brown, but you can see that there's a
lot of discoloration on the glove.

We have a test that's a -- what we use is a preliminary screening test for the
presence of blood. Doesn't necessarily confirm that it's human blood or not,
gives us a good indication whether or not there's blood there.

I utilized some spot checks of this phenolthalein test in order to determine
areas that were phenol positive and possible for sampling.

Q. And how many different areas on the glove did you test with the
phenolthalein test?

A. Initially a couple.

Q. Did you then take any samples from the glove for further testing?

A. Yes.

Q. And how many did you take?

A. I wound up taking four samples.

Q. And can you just describe generally where on the glove those four samples
were taken from.

A. I took a sample, A, from right around this area (indicating to hand), a
sample B from right around this area, (indicating.)

The B sample, rather than making an incision and cutting out a piece of the
glove, I used a technique where we use swatches to transfer the stain to the
swatch, and then --

MR. BLASIER: May I object? Narrative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: And then C, on the inside cuff, on the inner lining, I cut out a
sample.

And then D, on the back side, right here in -- (indicating to hand).

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) So just for the purposes of the record, you've demonstrated
for us and the jury. Maybe you could state in words, you took some off the back
of the glove. And where were the other areas?

A. Right here and here, off of the back, and right here (indicating).

Q. When you say "here," the court reporter can't take down what that means. I'm
trying to get it a little better.

A. Excuse me.

Off of the back of the glove, beneath about where the middle finger is, and
also along the blade edge of the hand, closer towards the wrist, and on the
front side of the glove, on the thumb section around where the top joint is,
and also on the inner lining, down towards the wrist, the back inner lining of
the wrist section.

Q. Now, in the process of doing this glove evidence, item number 9, when you
started that process, you, yourself, were wearing gloves?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you change your gloves at all during that process?

A. I probably did change a few times.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Move to strike as nonresponsive, speculative.

THE COURT: Overruled. That was the response.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Could you tell us, sir, you mentioned that you worked for
ICN in your first job.

Did that job have any effect on the way in which you change your gloves when
you're doing scientific procedures?

A. Well, generally speaking, at ICN, I worked with radiochemicals. One of the
things about them, you can't see them. You can't see the radiation. So working
in that kind of environment, you change gloves on a more than routine basis;
you've got to constantly change gloves working with radiation.

And I probably have taken that particular part of my work on to working at SID,
because I tend to change my gloves a lot more than most of the people I work
with.

Q. And then, after doing this sampling on evidence item number 9, what was the
next thing that you did that day, sir?

A. Started sampling the cloth swatches.

Q. And those were the ones that you listed, the evidence items you listed for
us previously?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell us what steps you took to test, or rather sample, the cloth
swatches?

A. When I sample cloth swatches, I take them out of the coin envelope and I'll
place the bindle on top of about a stack of three -- what do you call it --
chemwipes.

And the reason is because I'll use that bindle as a cutting surface in order to
take my scalpel blade and cut the swatches.

And I've become rather dexterous with this. And I don't know how everybody else
does it, but most people that use scalpel blades do it in pretty much the same
fashion: You can cut the swatch if you hold the blade at maybe about a
45-degree angle or less and down on it, you can pick it up, and then,
manipulating the micro centrifuge tubes, which are scientific tubes we use to
hold our samples, you can hold that over there and then put the sample in.

This is probably the most sterile technique to use in this regard, because what
I use are sterile scalpel blades that are disposable. That way, after each item
I sample, I just toss the blade.

And then I'll move on to the next one, and I'll change the stack of chemwipes
that I have underneath each time, thereby insuring that no cross-contamination
can occur. And also, first and foremost, actually only work on one item of
evidence at a time; that's the key. That way, it eliminates chances of
cross-contaminating from one item to another.

Q. So during this process, you only work on one item of evidence at a time?

A. Yes.

Q. So you take out one coin envelope. And could you describe for us what you
would find in each of the coin envelopes.

A. The coin envelopes contain both evidence samples of the red stain, as well
as a substrate control. And what a substrate control is, it's something taken
beside the place where the stain is to show that there is no interfering
substances already in that particular area that could cause a result or
something anomalous.

And therefore, what I expect to find and what I generally do find, would be one
paper bindle containing a control swatch and one paper bindle containing the
swatch or swatches of the stain itself.

Q. And is that what you found in this case, with these evidence items?

A. Yes.

Q. And you processed each coin envelope one at a time; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you do both the evidence bindle and the bindle containing the control,
one at a time, as part of this process?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. And you did that for all of the various evidence items that you sampled that
day?

A. Yes.

Q. And as part of this, did you also examine what was in the bindles and make
notes in your work papers to describe what it is you found there?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And did you make notes as to which portion of the swatches you, yourself,
were then going to use to run your testing?

A. Yes. I make general approximation drawings to indicate even that.

Q. Okay.

And as you finish with each bindle, examining what's in it and taking a sample
for testing purposes, what do you then do with the bindle?

A. Oh, they're put back into the coin envelopes.

Q. And before you proceed to the next evidence item?

A. Yes.

Q. And these chemwipes that you said you put underneath each bindle, how often
do you change those?

A. With each bindle.

Q. So you put new chemwipes down for each bindle?

A. Yes.

Q. And the steps that you've described as to how you do this sampling process,
did you follow that same set of steps with all of the evidence items that you
processed on the 14th?

A. Yes.

Q. And you processed for each envelope both an evidence swatch and a control
swatch, as well?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, before we -- after you finished all of this, this evidence sampling,
what did you then do with the items of evidence that you had taken out from
sampling process?

A. Well, they were left on that same workbench.

Q. Did you then do any testing with them?

A. Oh, with the cuttings that I took?

Q. Yes.

A. They were run PCR analysis.

Q. And what particular test did you employ with those evidence items?

A. That would be specifically the DQ Alpha.

Q. And why did you choose to run the DQ Alpha test on these items of evidence?

A. Because it happens rather rapidly, gives you a lot of information.

Q. What, does it give you information -- more information than conventional
serology tests would give you?

A. Take, for example, the A, B and O system. Everybody's familiar with A, B,
and O. We have type A people, type B people and type O; also, type AB.

There are four different types there and they're broken down in the population,
except approximately half the population, maybe a little less, is type O.

So if I were to run that test, the ability of that test to distinguish between
two or three different people wouldn't be all that powerful, being as how
approximately half the people are type O.

So what we needed was a test that was a little more powerful. The DQ Alpha test
has six alleles or six different types. Like the A, B, O has A, B, O, the DQ
Alpha has 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2, 3 and 4. That can make a numerous amount of
combinations and give you a lot more information than you could possibly get
out of something in conventional typing like the ABO system.

THE COURT: Mr. Lambert, we've had two lectures from specialists in the field
already. We don't need --

MR. LAMBERT: I'll speed up.

THE COURT: -- from every person who testifies.

MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) You then proceeded to do the DQ Alpha test on these items
of evidence?

A. Yes.

Q. Let me show you --

MR. LAMBERT: And ask that it be marked as Exhibit 2189, which is the next in
order. Copy here to Mr. Blasier.

(The instrument herein referred to as analyzed evidence report associated with
DR number 940817431 of Collin Yamauchi was marked for identification as
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2189.)

Q. And I ask that you identify it for the jury, please.

A. This is my analyzed evidence report associated with DR number 940817431.

Q. That's the DR number for the case of People versus Mr. Simpson?

A. Yes.

Q. And what does the analyzed evidence report that you're looking at contain?

A. It contains a list of the evidence items I analyzed and the results.

Q. And before we get too much into that, let me ask if in addition to the items
that you tested on the 14th, did you, the next day, do any subsequent testing
of any evidence items?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Okay. Let's go back to the next day, then, and ask you what you did on that
day?

A. Started off in the morning receiving two blood samples from the coroner's
office via Detective Vannatter.

I then proceeded to make Fitzco cards in the same fashion I described earlier,
except I made them in the serology unit. And then I returned to the evidence
processing room and handed over the blood vials to Dennis Fung.

Q. So the first thing you did that morning was to receive from Detective
Vannatter some blood vials containing the victim's blood?

A. Yes.

Q. And you prepared Fitzco cards?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you use the same steps that you described already in preparing those
Fitzco cards?

A. Yes.

Q. But you mentioned this -- these Fitzco cards you prepared in the serology
lab; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Why did you do that?

A. Well, because I received them in the serology unit.

Q. Is that where you normally work?

A. And -- of course, that's where I normally work.

Q. So, those cards were done in a serology unit.

When you finish them, they have to dry I take it; is that right?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Where did you leave them to dry?

A. It would be on my workbench.

Q. In serology?

A. Yes.

Q. And after you did the Fitzco cards and left them on your workbench in
serology, what did you next do?

A. I went to the evidence processing unit and returned the blood vials to
Dennis Fung.

Q. Were the blood vials closed?

A. Of course, caps were on, yeah.

Q. And were they in envelopes, as well?

A. I don't have that in my notes. And to tell you the truth, I don't recall
specifically.

Q. Okay.

A. They could very well have been.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Move to strike as speculative.

THE COURT: The answer remains.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Then what did you do next?

A. Just had a discussion with Dennis Fung, where he explained a number of other
items that needed to be tested, and I then went about my same protocol and
procedure to sample those.

Q. And which items did you sample on this second day?

A. That would be item number 23, number 34, 33, 25, 31, 12, and 14.

Q. And did you follow the same sampling process with those items of evidence as
you already described from the prior day?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you again do the items of evidence one at a time?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you again have chemwipes under each bindle when you processed the items
of evidence?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you again use the procedure of using a sterile disposable scalpel that
you changed each time?

A. Yes.

Q. And after you finished doing the sampling of these items of evidence, did
you again run the DQ Alpha PCR test on those items of evidence?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And so you have two separate sets of evidence items that you ran PCR tests
on, one on one day and one on the next day; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And of -- are all of those results reflected in the analyzed evidence report
that you have in front of you?

A. Yes, they are.

Q. I'm not going to go through all of the results of all of the tests that you
did, Mr. Yamauchi, but I just wanted to go over these few that are reflected on
this board.

Evidence item number 48, which is one of the drops from the Bundy walkway, did
you test that evidence item?

(Counsel displays board entitled Results of DNA Analysis, Bundy Crime Scene.)

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And the results you got were what, sir?

A. DQ Alpha type 1.1, comma 1.2.

Q. And the reference vial for Mr. Simpson, did you get a DQ Alpha type on that,
as well?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What was the type on it?

A. 1.1, 1.2.

Q. So the DQ Alpha type you obtained for item 48 matched Mr. Simpson's DQ Alpha
type?

A. Yeah. They have the same DQ Alpha type.

Q. Right. And you can see from the chart here, the results you got are the same
that DOJ and Cellmark got of that same evidence item. Do you see that, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. And then for items 50 and 52, did you get the same results on those evidence
items?

A. Yes.

Q. And you can see from the chart that Cellmark and DOJ, they also tested those
and they also got the same results. Do you see that, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you.

MR. LAMBERT: The chart is Exhibit 291 for the record, Your Honor

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, Mr. Yamauchi, I'd like to turn to another subject.

Did you, in this case also do some work in connection with an examination of
the socks evidence, item number 13?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Did you, on August the 4th, do any anything in connection with those socks?

A. Yes. I searched them for blood.

Q. And prior to August the 4th, had you looked at those socks on any prior
occasion?

A. On June 29.

Q. And on June 29, was that at a meeting with Mr. Matheson and Michele Kestler?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Matheson already testified about that meeting, so we won't go into it
again.

But let me just ask: On that occasion, June 29, did you have occasion to look
at the socks?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you notice any blood on the socks on June 29?

A. No.

Q. Did you closely examine the socks on that occasion?

A. No.

Q. Then on August the 4th, you did a search for blood; is that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Can you describe for us -- well, first let me ask you this:

When you first took the socks out and looked at them on August the 4th, did
they look any different than they had on June 29?

A. August the 4th? I really didn't look at them all that well on the 29th, and
so, no, I wouldn't notice any difference.

Q. When you first took them out on August the 4th, did you notice any blood
that was apparent on the socks?

A. No.

Q. So you then did a closer examination for blood?

A. Well, yes. That phenolthalein test I described earlier was utilized. I
basically looked at the socks, looked closely for slight discolorations or
anything that might indicate a stain. It's a very dark surface, so it's hard to
see a stain on it.

And I then utilized that presumptive test that I described earlier and it was
positive, indicative of the presence of blood.

Q. So you did the phenolthalein test on more than one portion of the socks?

A. Yes.

Q. And were all the tests positive that you did?

A. I did two spots. They were both positives.

Q. Did you do anything else with the socks at that point?

A. No. At that point, I asked my supervisor, Mr. Matheson, what to do next.

And he just said, well, just package them back up and we'll decide later what
to do with that item of evidence.

Q. So that's all you did at that point with the socks, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you.

MR. LAMBERT: Your Honor, I move Exhibit 2189 into evidence.

THE COURT: Received.

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2189 was received in
evidence.)

MR. LAMBERT: No further questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Cross.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. Thank you, Your Honor.

Mr. Yamauchi, can you give me an estimate of the total amount of time that you
have spent working with or for the plaintiffs in this case?

A. Actually meeting with them maybe about five, ten hours something like that.

Q. And how much time -- we took your deposition. How much time was that?

A. I'm not really sure. Maybe an hour and a half.

Q. And how much preparation time did you do?

A. As far as reading, like going over my transcripts and stuff?

Q. Yes.

A. Got to be over 40 hours.

Q. Okay. Did you keep track of that time with any kind of particularity?

A. I've been writing it down.

Q. Do you know whether or not the plaintiffs have been billed for any of your
time?

A. I'm not sure. The City Attorney's Office is supposed to handle that for us.

Q. Have you submitted any kind of billings at all to the City Attorney?

A. No, I haven't.

Q. You know, the time that you spent with the plaintiffs, how much time have
you spent with Mr. Lambert?

A. Counting today, before this morning, probably a little over five hours.

Q. And did he go over the questions he was going to ask?

A. Well, he didn't go over, like, specifically what he's going to ask, but he
asked me questions.

Q. How much experience did you have with case work in the PCR process at the
time that you did the tests in this case?

A. I'm sorry; one more time.

Q. How much experience did you have in case work with PCR analysis at the time
that you did the tests in this case?

A. I believe about six months.

Q. And there were other analysts at LAPD that had more experience than you,
correct, in that topic?

A. Well, specifically in PCR, but in conventional and DNA serology, I was the
most experienced.

Q. In PCR, there were other people of much more experience than you?

A. I wouldn't say much, but there were people with more experience.

Q. I'm sorry. Were you done?

A. Yes. That's fine.

Q. Was there anybody there that was doing PCR that had less experience than
you?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Relevance.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Yamauchi, do you think it's important to have
procedures in place to avoid the manipulation of samples, to avoid transferring
material from one piece of evidence to another?

A. You talking about contamination?

Q. To avoid cross-contamination, yes.

A. Yes, it's very important.

Q. It's extremely important, is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And that applies to evidence samples before they get to you, as well as when
you get them; is that correct?

A. Of course.

Q. It applies in packaging and unpackaging materials, correct?

A. Packaging and unpackaging materials? I'm sorry; can you be more specific?

Q. Anytime that a sample is looked at by you -- for instance, you have to
unpack it from whatever container it's in, from the person who had it before?

A. I see what you're saying.

Yes, that's correct.

Q. It's very important each time you do that, that is, take it out of something
and put it back, that you avoid too much manipulation of the item to avoid
possible contamination, correct?

A. It's always a good rule of thumb, yes.

Q. Now, in this case, you were aware right from the beginning that this was a
very high profile case, were you not?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I didn't know it was going to be as high profile as it turned out
to be, but we've had -- we work in LA. We've got a lot of high profile cases.

Q. Like, is this one of them?

A. Sure turned out that way.

Q. You knew it at the time you did your testing?

A. At the time of my testing, like I said, I knew it was a high profile case.

I didn't know it was going to be as big as it turned out to be.

Q. Okay.

And you were told that it was a priority matter, were you not?

A. Priority? Well, I was told that the results and things like that, there was
reasons why they would need them rather quickly, yes.

Q. They told you they wanted them as soon as possible, correct?

A. I'm not sure if they used those words exactly.

Q. Remember testifying at the criminal trial that that's what they told you?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, Your Honor. If he has a reference, he should give it,
not ask him.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Well, if I said and agreed to that, then I must have done it. I
don't have a recollection of those specifics.

Q. All right. And they told you they wanted results that day, correct, on the
14th?

A. No, nobody ever told me that.

Q. Now, the manual for the DQ Alpha system suggests that you not do more than
15 samples at a time; isn't that correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. It's beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I believe it states more something on the line of approximately
15.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And how many items did you process at one time in one
series on the 14th?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. All those items are admitted, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I'll allow a limited examination.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Twenty-three items, wasn't it, Mr. Yamauchi?

A. I believe one batch was 23 items, yeah.

Q. And on the 15th, you did 19 items, correct?

A. Yes. That sounds -- that sounds correct.

Q. And for the 23 items you did on the 14th, that includes the preparation of
the samples, the extraction of the DNA, the amplification of the DQ Alpha, the
hybridization -- in other words, putting the solution on the testing strips,
preserving the testing strips, and photographing the testing strips, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, in your lab, you have to go to two different locations to do DQ Alpha
tests, do you not?

A. Yes, we do.

Q. And you have to start preparing the sample at Pipertech, which is where your
lab is located, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And then when you're ready to amplify a sample, that is to make multiple
copies of small amounts of DNA, you've got to go to Parker Center, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And that's -- you go in a car, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you have to carry these samples in the car?

A. Yes.

Q. And you conduct the amplification at a small room or small area in Parker
Center, correct?

A. Yes, it's a rather small room.

Q. And after you do that, the amplified DNA, that has a lot more DNA than when
you started, and you go back to Piper Tech, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you carry it back in a car, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's where you do the rest of the testing, correct?

A. Well, no. Actually, we do the hybridizations over there. The only reason we
take the DNA back, the DNA product back, is to do our product gels, which is
done in a separate room from where the sampling takes place.

Q. Okay.

But you bring back the amplified product from your amplification room and you
bring it back to the lab; isn't that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You do not have a procedure in place that prohibits taking amplified product
out of the amplification area back to your lab; isn't that correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant; beyond the scope; it's all admitted.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Unless I take the amplified product back to the lab, I can't
analyze it on the product gel.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Okay.

Now, you can't do -- you can do what is called a yield gel, can you not?

MR. LAMBERT: Same objection.

Q. -- before you do a test?

MR. LAMBERT: Excuse me. Same objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I'll sustain that.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did you ever do a yield gel or a blot test to determine how
much DNA you had and how much of it was human?

MR. LAMBERT: Same objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: May we be heard on this, Your Honor?

THE COURT: No.

I'll allow examination regarding contamination but not as to ultimate results.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Have you been taught that cross-contamination is much more
of a potential problem when you're dealing with smaller amounts of degraded
DNA?

A. Contamination's going to be a problem, regardless of whether you have a
large sample that contains a lot of DNA or a small sample in quantity of DNA.

Part of the problem is, though, you can't tell by looking at a blood swatch
whether you have one blood swatch or a thousand blood swatches, what quantities
or quality of DNA is in that swatch. So your point -- I'm not sure I really get
it.

Q. Okay.

Weren't you trained that where you have small quantities of degraded DNA, that
cross-contamination, a little bit of it, can cause you to get improper results
or incorrect results, because the small amount of contamination and the small
amount of starting sample all amplified together?

Haven't you been taught that?

A. Small amount -- small amount of sample and small amount of contamination all
amplified together.

Q. Um-hum.

If you start with a larger quantity of DNA in your evidence sample, then a
small amount of contamination is not going to be -- is not going to overwhelm
your original larger amount, correct?

A. Well, that's true, if you know the quantity and quality of the DNA you're
working with.

Q. And that's what the blot and the yield blot are for?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Same objection as before.

MR. BLASIER: It's relevant to cross-contamination.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Well, the only thing we could use would be a blot. A gel is not
effective with the type of extraction process that we utilize.

Q. A gel tells you the count of DNA, both human --

THE COURT: Excuse me. Okay.

From here on in, I will sustain the objection based upon the motion-in-limine
ruling I made previously with regards to different collections in the different
testing techniques.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: And of testing techniques.

You may examine as to what he did, not whether there was any contamination as
to what he did. We will not go into what other techniques there are available.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Yamauchi, before you were allowed to do case work, you
were required to do proficiency testing, correct, and validation studies in
your lab?

A. Yes.

Q. And you took a certain number of tests to determine whether you were capable
of accurately reading DQ Alpha results, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And one of those tests involved nine different samples. Do you recall that
test?

A. Specifically, I must have done a lot of tests involving nine or more
samples.

Q. Do you recall the test that involved nine different vaginal samples that had
combinations of vaginal fluids and semen?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant.

MR. BLASIER: The proficiency testing is relevant for the ability of him to get
results.

THE COURT: You stipulated to the results. The question is contamination. You
may examine as to his procedures re contamination.

Q. BY MR. BLASIER: Now, Mr. Yamauchi, how did you get Mr. Simpson's reference
blood on the 14th?

A. From Dennis Fung.

Q. He gave it to you personally, didn't he?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you started to take your notes about that reference sample, you put
down that it was item 18, didn't you?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Dennis Fung did not tell you that that was a mistake, it was really 17, did
he?

A. Well, he -- at that point, I don't think he had all those items in order.

Q. Mr. Yamauchi, he didn't tell that you it should be 17 rather than 18, did
he?

A. As far as I my recollection goes -- and this requires an explanation.

Q. Mr. Yamauchi, did he tell you or didn't he?

A. Mr. Blasier, can I explain?

Q. That's a yes-or-no answer.

A. I know. But I'd still like to explain.

Q. Well, Mr. Lambert will have plenty of time with you.

Yes or no?

A. I need to give an explanation.

THE COURT: No, you don't; you need to answer the question.

THE WITNESS: Okay; I'm sorry.

One more time, please.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Mr. Fung didn't tell you when he gave you that sample, that
it was really item 17, did he?

A. No.

Q. Now, that envelope was not sealed -- the envelope that had the vial was not
sealed, was it?

A. I don't recall.

I don't think it was.

Q. And isn't it accurate that the procedure for those blood vials requires that
that envelope be sealed at the time the blood is drawn?

A. I'm not sure.

MR. BLASIER: Here is Exhibit 1112.

(The instrument herein referred to as document entitled breath alcohol test
given, yes, no, results, was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit
No. 1112.)

(Counsel displays Exhibit 1112.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Yamauchi, do you recognize this as a copy of the
printing that appears on the front of the blood vial envelope?

A. I can't tell you that, since I'm not involved with that section of the
collection process.

I really don't think I've ever read that.

Q. So you don't know whether it's supposed to be sealed or not, correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. THE WITNESS: After they sample it, no, I don't know what the procedures are.

Q. Isn't sealing evidence items one of the requirements, to protect their
integrity?

A. Sealing is.

And as far as SID is concerned, we have to have our evidence sealed.

Q. Now --

A. Final packaging sealed before it's booked.

Q. But it's left open before booking?

A. Yeah.

Well, how can you collect it if it's sealed?

Q. It's supposed to be sealed from the time of collection until somebody does
something with it; isn't that correct?

A. No.

Q. So it's left open -- evidence items are left open from the time they're
collected until they're analyzed?

A. Until they're booked.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. Until they're booked.

Q. That's another procedure used in your lab?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, when you got Mr. Simpson's reference vial, your testimony is that you
took three chemwipes and put it over the cap of the vial?

A. Yes.

Q. Along with your gloves?

MR. LAMBERT: What do you mean?

Object to the question.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You were wearing gloves at the same time?

MR. LAMBERT: Oh.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You were wearing gloves at the same time?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you opened the vial, you got blood -- blood soaked through all
three chemwipes, on your glove; isn't that correct?

A. All three chemwipes, onto my glove?

Yes, I got a little bit of blood onto my glove.

Q. By the way, you didn't measure what the quantity of blood was in that blood
vial, did you?

A. Of course not.

Q. Now, after you -- or, you said you took the cap off and you set it down on
the table, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And that was the cap that had all the blood that got through the three
chemwipes, onto your glove, correct?

A. Same cap.

Q. And you said unfortunately, you were in the evidence processing room.

You're not supposed to process those kinds of samples in the evidence
processing room, are you?

A. There's no reason why it can't be done.

Q. Why did you say "unfortunately?"

A. Well, because it wasn't a familiar environment to me. If I were doing it
back in serology, I would know where all my disposal receptacles are.

Q. You have any idea how much blood got out of that vial when you took the cap
off and put the cap down on the table?

A. How much blood got out of the vial?

Q. Yes.

A. Well, I sampled, generally speaking, about a one ML.

Q. Do you know how much of it got out on the chemwipe, on your glove, and the
cap on the table?

A. You said on the table.

No blood got on the table, but soaking into the chemwipe and onto my glove, if
I had to approximate, I'd say it's probably 10 to 20 microliters.

Q. You have any idea what 20 nanograms of blood looks like?

A. 20 nanograms of blood?

Q. Yeah. Blood that has 20 nanograms of DNA.

A. Oh, okay. Sure.

Q. How much?

A. Well, you're talking about approximately three to five microliters.

Q. What did that look like?

A. Three to five microliters of blood, well, if you were to put it onto a piece
of paper or something like that, it would be a visible stain.

Q. How big?

A. Not very big.

Maybe -- you know, this is a generalization -- it's going to depend upon the
type of paper, of course, and other factors, but I would say approximately
three millimeters in diameter.

Q. Now, after the blood got out onto your glove and into the chemwipe, you took
your gloves off and did something with it, correct?

A. Okay. After I replaced the cap, I had my gloves with the chemwipes in my
hand, took my gloves off, and I realized I had to throw them out.

Once again, I had to decide whether to go to the back of this room, where they
had the proper disposal receptacle, or to take them back to serology.

Q. By the way, prior to the time you testified in the criminal trial, did you
have any recollection at all of changing your gloves after you opened that cap?

A. Specific recollection I had while I was up on the stand?

Q. My question was, before you testified in the criminal trial, do you -- did
you have any recollection of changing your gloves?

A. Not a specific recollection.

Q. And isn't it accurate that what happened at the criminal trial, after you
admitted that you had opened the cap and got blood on the chemwipes and on your
hands, that's when you remembered, I changed my gloves, too?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative.

MR. BLASIER: Isn't that correct?

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: When I got -- when I looked and saw that there was blood on my
glove.

MR. BLASIER: No.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) My question was, isn't it true that it was only after you
admitted that blood had gotten out of the vial onto the chemwipes onto the
glove, that you then remembered that you changed your gloves, also?

A. Yes, because --

Q. Thank you.

A. Okay.

Q. Now, after -- the first thing you did after you opened Mr. Simpson's
reference vial and started processing that, was process the Rockingham glove,
correct?

A. Yes.

MR. BLASIER: We have an exhibit we're getting, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) But while we're getting that, when you got the next day --
when you got the reference samples for both victims, those were personally
delivered to you by Detective Vannatter, correct?

A. Well, he had handed them over to me from his custody.

Q. That's a yes, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

And you didn't make any note of the quantity in those vials; of either of
those, did you?

A. No.

Q. You would have no way of knowing whether there was less blood in those vials
than had been put there by the coroner?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: This is Exhibit 1110.

(Counsel displays Exhibit 1110.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Board entitled Mr. Yamauchi's diagram of
glove found at Rockingham was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit
No. 1110.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Yamauchi, can you see that from where you are?

A. Yes.

Q. And you remember this exhibit from the criminal trial?

A. Looks familiar.

Q. And you actually drew a diagram in your notes about how many times you
handled or took things from the Rockingham glove, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And each one of these arrows represents your taking something away or
handling the Rockingham glove, correct?

A. Taking something or sampling.

Q. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And there are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, times that you checked in the wrist area with
phenolthalein testing or other samples, correct?

A. One, two -- I'll double-check my own notes.

Three times.

Q. You did two phenol tests, three phenol tests, a spot-check, a sample
cutting, did you not, in the wrist area of the glove?

A. That spot check and the phenol test, they are the same thing.

Q. Okay.

A. Yeah.

Q. You also handled the glove to put your initials on the inside of the wrist
notch, correct?

A. Yes, I put my initials --

Q. Thank you.

A. -- over there.

Q. Now, you have no specific recollection of changing your gloves between
samples, do you?

A. Specific recollection, no.

Q. Thank you.

A. But I would have changed my gloves.

Q. Because that would be good procedure, wouldn't it?

You don't have anything in your notes that tells you what you did in processing
these samples with respect to changing your gloves by any law enforcement
officer, do you?

A. Of course not. It's common procedure.

It's common sense, also.

Q. To not write in your notes the steps you go through?

A. No; to change your gloves.

Q. Oh.

MR. BLASIER: Can we have the Bronco results board?

THE COURT: Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case.
(Recess.)

MR. BLASIER: Would you permit me briefly -- may I approach briefly to make an
offer?

THE COURT: All right.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, this witness testified that he did the test in this
case the way he always does this test.

We stipulated to what the test results -- what numbers they were going to give.
We did not stipulate that they were accurate results, whether the tests were
done properly.

The very first sample of this -- first sample of the proficiency test got the
wrong answer. He reported that he got the right answer. But he got the wrong
answer.

That's relevant to the weight of all of his testimony, and I think it should be
admissible and I think we ought to be able to go into that.

MR. LAMBERT: How can it possibly be relevant if he did get the wrong test
results of a proficiency test he took a year later? They even admitted these
test results had the correct answer.

MR. BLASIER: No, we admitted that they were the results he got, not that they
were accurate or done properly.

MR. LAMBERT: They've admitted all the DQ Alpha results for all of the evidence
items.

THE COURT: It would appear to me that the testimony so far, we've had three
different examinations of the same, they all come out with the same results to
which you've stipulated with regards to what the result was.

Now, I think it's -- in order to -- it's a waste of time with regard to testing
out of the issue of whether he used a -- he was proficient at his testing.

You want to argue contamination, go ahead, examine him on -- all you want on
contamination, but as far as the proficiency aspect of it is concerned, on the
basis of the evidence that is received thus far, this is almost cumulative.

MR. BLASIER: I want the record to be clear that we did not agree that these
test results were accurate. We had qualifiers in there, some of which the court
--

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, three experts examined the same blood coming out with
the same result.

MR. BLASIER: We're going to get into results that are different now.

THE COURT: How are they different?

MR. BLASIER: He got an inconclusive on two samples where they've reported
results. In fact, one of them was on the board.

THE COURT: You go ahead and ask him about the inconclusive, you may do that and
you may argue the inconclusive.

MR. BLASIER: I can?

THE COURT: I'm not going to allow examination as to proficiency I think on the
basis of the evidence -- on the basis of the fact that you've stipulated to the
result. I'm not going to allow it.

Thank you.

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. Mr. Yamauchi, you testified as to Dr. Cotton that the DQ Alpha system only
has 6 alleles?

A. Yes.

Q. That's not correct, is it; it has 8 alleles, doesn't it?

A. Well, in the DQ Alpha system that we use, or that I use, it has 6.

Q. There is a 4.1 and a 4.2 in addition to the 4, is there not?

A. In the new kits.

Q. Those are different alleles in that system, are they not?

A. Of course they are.

Q. So when you call somebody a 4, you never did the testing to find out whether
they were a 4, a 4.1 or a 4.2, did you?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, irrelevant, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. No, I didn't.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) So all of the results that might be consistent with Mr.
Goldman with a 4 allele, you don't know whether this might actually be an
exclusion?

A. Well, for that matter, there could have been other systems and other tests
that we could have run to narrow it down further.

Q. You didn't though, did you?

A. No, I only ran --

Q. Thank you.

A. -- that one test.

Q. Now, with respect to the Bundy drops, none of the bindles that you looked at
had Andrea Mazzola's initials on them, did they?

A. I don't recall if they did or not.

Q. Thank you.

When you ran the reference samples for both victims and for Mr. Simpson --

MR. BLASIER: This is 1275.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Is it accurate on June 15 when you ran the victims DQ Alpha
results from Nicole Brown Simpson showed a possible 1.2 allele?

A. That was on her exemplar?

Q. Yes.

A. I don't recall that.

Q. You have your strips with you, your pictures?

A. I don't have pictures of the strips with me.

Q. Those were provided to the defense in the criminal trial, weren't they?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you.

And with respect to Mr. Goldman, isn't it true that you found an indication of
a 1.1 allele and a possible 1.2 allele on his reference sample?

A. Yes.

Q. Possible 1.2.

A. No --

Q. Those strips --

A. Let me look at my notes first.

According to my notes, I don't have any extraneous dots indicated. I'd have to
look at the strips again.

Q. All right. You don't have those with you, do you?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Those strips were provided to Dr. John Gerdes, who was a defense expert,
correct?

A. A lot of strips were provided to him, yes.

Q. Okay.

(Counsel displays board entitled "Results of DNA Analysis Bronco Automobile.")

MR. BLASIER: This --

MR. P. BAKER: 293.

MR. BLASIER: 293.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Yamauchi, on the 15th you processed, among other
samples, samples from the Bronco, correct?

(Exhibit 293 displayed)

A. Yes.

Q. And one of those samples that's on your results is 31, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you reported that as an inconclusive, didn't you?

A. Yes, that was reported inconclusive.

Q. Let's look at 2189, the second page.

If we zoom in on 31. They say inconclusive. That's what you reported out,
correct?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. You didn't report out 1.1, 1.2, weak 1.3, 4, did you?

A. As a result, no.

Q. Thank you.

Now, you also tested 33, which was a carpet fiber from an area in the floor
board of the Bronco, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you got no results, didn't you?

A. On 33?

Q. Yes.

A. No results, yes, that's correct.

Q. In fact of all the Bronco samples that you tested on the 15th, none of them
showed anything consistent with either victim, correct?

A. Well, I did obtain results that weren't conclusive.

Q. Inconclusive means you don't report the results out, doesn't it?

A. And the reasons for that.

Q. Okay.

Between the time that you reported inconclusive and we got to the criminal
trial, this had been changed to a 1.1, 1.2, weak 1.3, 4, hadn't it?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, changed where, vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Had it been changed?

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Yes.

A. As far as right here on this board versus the time that it was put up at the
criminal trial?

Q. No, no. This was -- what you reported or what the prosecutors had you report
in the criminal trial was your results for 31, is it not?

A. Those are the actual interpretations of the strip. Those are the results.

Q. Your interpretation?

A. Not conclusive.

Q. Your interpretation was inconclusive, wasn't it?

A. As far as my report went, yes, it was.

Q. And that was before anyone recognized the importance of there being no
victim's blood in the Bronco from the June 14 samples, correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, 293, which is listed on this board, along with 33 --
let me show you property report 12.

MR. P. BAKER: 1412.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) 1412. I put a tab there for you.

Do you recognize these as the property reports for this case?

(The instrument herein described as property reports amended to add page 58 was
marked for identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1412.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Is that for the whole case?

MR. BLASIER: (Nodded.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.

A. They're property reports, I'll take your word for it, sure.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) When was 293 collected that got results consistent with
Nicole Brown?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, calls for speculation, lack of foundation to this
witness.

MR. BLASIER: It's a business record.

THE COURT: The way the question is written (indicating to computer), I don't
understand the question.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) The business records that you have in front of you indicate
that 293 was collected on September 1, isn't that accurate?

MR. LAMBERT: Same objections, Your Honor. He's having him read from a record.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes, according to this record.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Thank you.

Now, I'll ask you some questions about June 29, your meeting with Michelle
Kestler, Greg Matheson and yourself.

Do you recall that?

A. Yes.

Q. And Michelle Kestler was the Acting Director of the lab at that time,
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And she's now the Director of the lab, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. She's a highly experienced criminalist, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You had the experience that you've testified to, correct, in terms of your
experience as a criminalist, you've had several years experience, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Matheson was highly experienced as well?

A. Yes.

Q. And the purpose of that meeting was to evaluate each piece of evidence for
its possible evidentiary value, wasn't it, for possible testing?

A. Yes.

Q. For possible blood testing?

A. Yes.

Q. And another purpose of that meeting was to determine if there was enough
evidence in the various blood samples to give some to the defense, correct?

A. No. I'm not sure if that was the purpose.

Q. Do you remember if the paperwork that was filled out, they had a column that
said "Split." You ever seen that?

A. Okay, that sounds familiar.

Q. That was one of the purposes for looking at all those evidence items, wasn't
it?

A. We could never make that determination fully by just looking at the items,
though.

The main purpose of that exercise was to act in sort of a form of a triage and
in type of MASH, where four doctors, eight casualties, only four of them can be
operated on at a time, so they have to send a doctor out in order to evaluate
which ones need high priority.

Well, that's exactly what we did in this situation. We had a large amount of
evidence and we didn't have enough of -- the facilities to analyze every single
bit of it simultaneously.

So we had to get together and they had to decide from a management standpoint
which evidence items took priority over others, and the only way we could do
this is by taking a quick look at them and trying to determine which ones
should be analyzed first and analyzed in what fashion.

Q. So I take it you didn't have enough time to look at all of them carefully,
is that what you're saying?

A. Again, that's not the point.

Q. Well, Mr. Yamauchi, that's what you just said, isn't it?

A. No, it's not.

Q. Oh.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, misstates his testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did you have enough time to look at all of this, Mr.
Yamauchi?

A. To get a look, yeah. Not to analyze them.

Q. Well, there wasn't any testing done on that day, was there?

A. Of course not.

Q. You were looking at them to decide what kind of testing we (sic) should do
on them?

A. Potential testing, that's correct.

Q. In order to decide that, you have to look at the item to see if it has any
blood on it or other biological material, correct?

A. Potentially, yes.

Q. And you did that with the socks, didn't you, as you did with everything
else?

A. Yes, we took a look at those socks.

Q. You didn't see any blood on them on June 29, did you?

A. Didn't see anything obvious on June 29, didn't see anything obvious on
August the 4.

I could bring those socks out right now, show everybody in this room those
socks, you wouldn't see anything obvious that looks like blood on them either.

But the fact remains that those socks have blood on them to this day.

Q. Mr. Yamauchi, you knew that the socks were a dark color on the 29th when you
looked at them, didn't you?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you knew it's hard to see blood on dark cloth, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. So you would have looked at those, if you were doing your job, more
carefully than something lighter, wouldn't you?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You would have looked at those more carefully?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, let's get to August 4.

Now, is it your testimony that when you got the socks on August 4 -- by the
way, who told you to look at them on August the 4?

A. I believe that must have been from a manager, like Greg or somebody.

Q. Do you have it in your notes?

A. I don't believe so but I'll check.

Q. You don't write those kind of things down, do you?

A. No.

Q. All right.

So when you got them on August 4, you're saying that you still couldn't see any
blood on them?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you did two phenol tests, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you just happen to hit the stain on the ankle, didn't you?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did you just happen to hit the stain on the ankle with the
phenol test?

MR. LAMBERT: Same objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You may rephrase it.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did the two stains -- the two areas that you checked, how
did you know where to check?

A. Again, I looked at them carefully and I -- the only thing I can perceive is
a very slight discoloration in certain areas. To be thorough, I did a
phenolphthalein test in those areas.

Q. You saw a big discoloration around the ankle, didn't you, that you thought
was blood?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. That's not what I said. I said --

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) I'm asking you isn't that what you saw, you saw a big
discoloration that you could see with the naked eye and you tested it like you
should?

A. It wasn't a big discoloration. It was barely perceptible.

Q. Barely perceptible. How big was it?

A. I don't know, I don't remember.

Q. Did you draw a diagram of it?

A. A cursory one.

Q. Can we look at this, please?

A. Certainly.

Q. Now, let's take it out here.

MR. BLASIER: Like to have this marked as next. We can make a copy so he can
have it as a written record.

THE CLERK: 2190.

(The instrument herein described as a Diagram from Mr. Yamauchi's notebook was
marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No. 2190.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That's what you saw in the ankle area of the sock, isn't
it?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. What did he mean by that's what you saw.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That's what you diagramed -- you saw on the sock on August
4?

A. What that diagram represents is the approximate area where I took the
phenolphthalein test.

Q. Not -- that doesn't represent the size of the stain you saw?

A. You can't see the stains on that sock. There's just slight discoloration,
they're barely perceptible.

Q. By the way, Mr. Yamauchi, do you know where the reference vials of the two
victims and Mr. Simpson were on August 4?

A. I don't know specifically.

MR. BLASIER: I have no further questions.

MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, Your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:

Q. Let me just cover a few of the subjects that Mr. Blasier covered during his
examination.

First let's go back to the DQ Alpha test. That test is done using a kit, isn't
it, Mr. Yamauchi?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And manufactured by whom?

I think you mentioned the name of them.

A. Perkin Elmore.

Q. And at the time that you did the DQ Alpha test in question here, did that
kit have the capability of isolating the 4.1 or 4.2 allele?

A. No, it did not.

Q. What was the capability of the kit at that time?

A. Just 6 alleles, that I mentioned previously.

Q. And just the 4 alleles at that location?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, we also had some testimony concerning your use of the word inconclusive
in your reports.

A. Yes.

Q. But let's take a look again at this one evidence item here, No. 31.

Now, you actually did a DQ Alpha test on evidence item 31?

A. Yes.

Q. And what -- what alleles did you see on the DQ Alpha strip for evidence item
31?

A. The alleles that are up there are properly represented.

Q. 1.1, 1.2, weak 4, very weak 1.3?

A. Right.

Q. And --

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I object. That misstates the chart. That says DOJ,
doesn't say SID.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Are those the alleles that you saw --

MR. BLASIER: I'd like a ruling.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) These are the alleles that you saw when you did the DQ
Alpha test?

A. Yes.

Q. In the report, you reported inconclusive for 31. Why is that?

A. Because based upon that amount of alleles, that indicates a mixture, and
rather than make a statement on it that we couldn't be sure of, we were
uncertain at this point and just stated it as inconclusive, didn't make any
conclusions or draw any conclusions on that particular stain.

Q. Thank you, sir.

MR. LAMBERT: Take this one down.

(Indicating to chart)

(Counsel displays exhibit entitled "Mr. Yamauchi's Diagram of Glove Found at
Rockingham.")

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Mr. Blasier asked you whether in doing your testing and
sampling of the glove whether you did several tests down here at the bottom of
the glove, sir, do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. You also tested these other areas on the glove, didn't you, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you.

Now, when you -- when you ran -- you mentioned during -- during your direct
testimony that in addition to each item of evidence, there was also a control
for each item of evidence when you ran your PCR test. Did those control
swatches also go through the PCR test?

A. Yes, they ran through the same process.

Q. And what results did you get on the control swatches?

A. There were no results on that.

Q. And what does that tell us about the control swatch?

A. The way that's acting is acting in the form of what's called a negative
control saying that the process up from the sampling point and when the
control's taken off of the substrate which I explained earlier, that process --
there's no contaminants being produced along the way. And because we don't --
excuse me. Because we don't obtain any results, that's an indication to us that
the test was run soundly.

Q. So, Mr. Yamauchi, if you actually had blood on your glove and you actually
had that blood on your glove when you handled one of those control swatches,
would that have then shown up when you did the PCR test of that control swatch?

A. If hypothetically I had blood on my gloves and I touched them to the swatch,
I would expect a possibility of that showing up.

Q. But for all of the controls that you tested, you got no hint of any DNA
being present; is that right?

A. The controls ran blank, yes.

Q. Now, Mr. Blasier asked you some questions about whether evidence items were
sealed or open, do you remember that, during the cross-examination?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, when LAPD books items of evidence, do they then seal the item of
evidence?

A. Yes, we seal our evidence items before we book them.

Q. Would you describe what you mean by sealing?

A. Well, what that in essence means is the final packaging -- let's say we
could have maybe ten items and -- to a certain box or something. Well, that box
before it's booked has to be taped shut and across the tape a seal has to be
placed to show that it was sealed by such and such individual on such and such
date, so on and so forth.

Q. And prior to the time that an evidence item is sealed, is it just left in
the open or is it in some kind of closed container?

A. The evidence items?

Q. Yeah. For example, the swatch, a blood swatch, is that just left out in the
open or is it in some kind of container before it's sealed?

A. Well, going through the processing, there's a drying process and then proper
handling after it's dry, you would put it in the bindles and the bindles go
into the coin envelopes, et cetera.

Q. So those aren't sealed but they're all in containers, those items of
evidence?

A. Of course they are, yes.

Q. And the blood vials that you talked about in this case, were they closed,
the ones that you dealt with when you got them?

A. Yes.

Q. They had caps on them?

A. Yes, they did.

Q. They weren't just open?

A. No.

Q. Finally, Mr. Blasier asked you some questions about item number 17 and how
-- and the fact that it was originally recorded as item number 18.

Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Now, did you later find that that was an error and that item
number 18 should have been listed as item number 17?

A. Yes, I did. During the time that I was receiving these items to sample,
Dennis had not yet run the tally and and done the clerical work to figure out
what item numbers were finally going to assigned to each item.

And I wrote my report out under the impression that that would be 18. After he
wrote his report, that item ended up being 17.

So a sheet was made to correct that miscommunication.

Q. Thank you.

MR. LAMBERT: No further questions.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. Mr. Yamauchi, did you just say that when Mr. Fung gave you the envelope, he
didn't know what item number it was going to be?

A. The blood envelope?

Q. Yeah.

A. With Mr. Simpson's blood?

Q. Yeah.

A. No, I don't think he would have known specifically what item it would end up
with.

Q. How did it get 18?

A. I'm not sure. I can't remember every little detail but that's what I was
under the impression of. Either he told me or Andrea Mazzola told me.

Q. There wasn't a 17 in red written on the envelope, was there?

A. No, there was no item number on that envelope.

Q. Thank you.

Now, did you also say that the coin envelopes that had the bindles with the
Bundy drops in them had been left unsealed?

A. Coin, Bundy blood, yes.

Q. You always seal items after you look at them so that -- and you write your
initials on the seal and there's special type tape that says seal so that you
can tell when somebody else -- when anybody opens up an envelope, don't you?

A. On the final packaging, yes. The individual items don't necessarily have to
be sealed.

Q. The coin envelopes, the packaging is always sealed so that you know how many
times people have gone in and out of it, isn't that true?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Now, item 31.

(Counsel displays Exhibit 31.)

Q. This chart, under SID -- that's you guys, right -- says 1.1, 1.2, weak 1.3,
4, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you report this result or did you report weak 4, very weak 1.3?

A. On my report was stated inconclusive.

Q. When did it become weak 1.3, 4?

A. That's what it always was on my data sheet. That's what's written down.

Q. When did it become this result for purposes of documentation?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, irrelevant, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I'm not sure. Because that result always was indicated on my data sheet.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) But your sheet that we showed here, that you brought in,
that was introduced as your final results, isn't it?

A. That's my report, yes, it is.

Q. And then at some point, when this big chart was prepared, the results were
put on it as it appears here, correct?

A. Yes, somebody -- some attorney decided to put up my results off of my data.

Q. Okay.

A. And I will confirm that that's what I got as far as my data is concerned.

Q. But you took the conservative approach when you did your test and when you
found it inconclusive, right?

A. When I wrote that down, my initial report, yes, I did.

Q. And some attorney said we don't want you to be quite that conservative,
right?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, you said that when you -- by the way, you don't have
your testing strip with you on this test?

A. No, I don't.

Q. That was turned over to the defense as well, was it not?

A. I certainly hope so.

Q. How intense was the 1.3 dot?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Compared to the C dot?

A. I imagine if I wrote weak it would have been less than the C dot.

Q. How about the 1.3?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, that's the one he just asked.

A. Didn't you just ask --

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) I'm sorry, I thought I just asked for 4.

A. The 4, I'm not sure, I'd imagine was less than the C dot also.

Q. Now, you're saying that where you get that result, where you get dots that
are less than the C dot, that indicates a mixture?

A. Well, it can depending on the intensity.

Q. Didn't you just indicate that that indicates a mixture?

A. Yes, previously I said that.

Q. What did the manual say it means?

A. What does the manual say it means?

Q. Yes.

A. What part are you referring to?

Q. Doesn't the manual say that it could be a mixture, it could be
contamination, it could be a DX gene, or it would be cross-hybridization?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, calls for hearsay, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled. Goes to this witness's knowledge.

A. No, I don't believe so.

Q. The manual didn't say that?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

How about the difference between the 1.3 and the 4, was there any difference in
intensity?

A. I have on my data sheet 1.3, very weak, weak 1.3, 4. So judging by what I
wrote on my data sheet, the 1.3 was probably a little weaker than the 4,
although this is a photocopy of my strip so I can't really tell.

Q. Okay. So there was -- But your records indicates there was a difference in
intensity between those two, correct?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. Lots of times when you get a 1.3, that's an indication of
cross-hybridization, correct?

A. That's a possibility.

Q. So some attorney at some point decided we're going for call the 1.3 and the
4 real alleles.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: No further questions.

MR. LAMBERT: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: You may step down.

MR. KELLY: Judge, could we briefly?

THE COURT: You may.

THE COURT REPORTER: With the reporter?

MR. KELLY: No, it's not necessary.

(A bench conference was held which was not reported.)

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, did you give her that exhibit, the one you want a copy
of?

MR. BLASIER: No, I didn't. I also want to introduce 1112 --

THE CLERK: Wait, wait. Okay.

MR. BLASIER: 1112, 1110, 2190, page 58 of 1412, and then from Mr. Matheson's
testimony, 2187, 308, 309, 2188, 1118, 1279, 1281, and 1275.

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants'
Exhibit No. 1112)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants'
Exhibit No. 1110)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants'
Exhibit No. 2190)

(The instrument herein described as page 58 was received in evidence as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 1412)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants'
Exhibit No. 2187)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants'
Exhibit No. 308)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants'
Exhibit No. 309)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants'
Exhibit No. 2188)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants'
Exhibit No. 1118)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants'
Exhibit No. 1279)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants'
Exhibit No. 1281)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants'
Exhibit No. 1275)

MR. LAMBERT: These are from Mr. Matheson's testimony?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. LAMBERT: I may need to look at my notes before so I can see what those
items of evidence are.

THE COURT: Let me know if there are any.

MR. LAMBERT: Can I bring in 291, which is the Bundy results board? We now have
all results on that.

MR. BAKER: We'd object, it's cumulative.

THE COURT: Okay. Overruled.

MR. KELLY: Next witness?

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. KELLY: John Edwards.

JOHN EDWARDS, called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiffs, was duly sworn
and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause
now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth so help you god~?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: And if you would please state and spell your name for the record.

THE WITNESS: John Philip Edwards, J-o-h-n P-h-i-l-i-p E-d-w-a-r-d-s.

MR. KELLY: Ready, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yeah.

DIRECT-EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY:

Q. Morning, Detective?

A. Morning.

Q. Are you currently employed?

A. Yes, I am. I work for the City of Los Angeles. I'm assigned to Van Nuys
homicide.

Q. Okay. And what is your rank with the LAPD right now?

A. I'm a Detective Supervisor.

Q. Okay. Now, drawing your attention to January 1, 1989, at approximately 4 AM
were you on duty that day?

A. Yes, I was. I was in uniform in a black and white police vehicle assigned as
a training officer to a newer officer that just came on the department.

Q. By the way, how many years have you been employed by the LAPD?

A. 26 years.

Q. Okay. Now, going back to January 1 of '89, did you have occasion to receive
a radio call at approximately 4 AM?

A. Yes, I did, to 360 North Rockingham.

Q. And what was the substance of that radio call?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled. Received only as to explain why the officer went to a
location.

A. Received a 911 call to that address, woman being beaten.

Q. Okay. And in that -- when that dispatch came in, did you proceed to a
particular location?

A. Yes, I did. I proceeded to 360 North Rockingham.

Q. And you eventually arrived there?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And within how long after reading the communication did you arrive at that
location?

A. Within approximately 10 minutes.

Q. Would you be able to describe, just in general terms, the climate that
particular early morning on New Year's Day, '89?

A. In the area of that address it's a hilly area. It was at night, it was dark,
it was cool, it was damp, and it had been like a misty, light rain earlier that
evening, so the ground was wet and the -- and the air was still thick with
mist.

Q. And approximately what time did you arrive at 360 North Rockingham?

A. Somewhere around 4 o'clock I believe.

Q. Okay. 4 AM?

A. Yes.

MR. KELLY: So I'll put up a diagram here.

(Counsel placed diagram entitled 360

North Rockingham Avenue Exhibit 116.)

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, Detective, what --

MR. KELLY: I'm sorry, that's 116, the exhibit number, Your Honor, referring.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Can you explain, first of all, in what manner you approached
that location in your marked vehicle?

A. Yes. I came off of Sunset and I drove up Rockingham, I was driving rapidly
and I missed the first gate, I didn't even see it, and I went around the corner
and I saw the second gate and I stopped there.

Q. Okay. Did you stop directly in front of the gate on Ashford?

A. Little bit in that green area off to the side, not quite in front of the
gate because it appeared to me the gate opened outward.

Q. And what, if anything, happened upon your arrival there at that location?

A. I got out of the car, walked over to the intercom box, it's a black pole
with a little box on the top with a button, and I pressed the button to get
someone's attention inside.

Q. Okay. Do you have a pointer there, by the way?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. I'm going to ask if you can step up by the board when you're giving these
answers.

(Witness complies, approaches board)

A. I came up Rockingham past this gate, parked my car approximately at this
location here, walked over and pressed the button on this intercom box.

Q. And what, if anything, happened next?

A. Next thing I saw -- well, next thing that happened was a woman came on the
intercom box, and I said I'm a police officer, I'm here responding to a 911
call, a woman has been beaten at this location, I need to talk to her, I need
to see her. And this woman responded, everything's fine here, the police are
not needed.

Q. By the way, were those gates to the entrance on Ashford open or closed?

A. They were closed.

Q. And after that woman communicateed that to you, what, if anything, did you
do next?

A. I stood there. I told her I wasn't going to leave until I spoke to the
person that was being beaten and saw them personally, I was not leaving. And
within a few seconds a female Caucasian, blond hair, wearing a white bra only
and a light colored jump -- pants or sweat pants or a pajama bottom, ran across
right by the bushes and right over directly to this control box -- ran across
the driveway from the bushes to the control box.

Q. And what, if anything, did this woman do upon her arrival at the control
box?

A. When she got to the control box she collapsed onto it. She literally
collapsed onto the control box and kept pushing on the button about four, five
times. Of course I couldn't see the button, but it appears she was pushing on
the button, and she yelled several times to me, he's going to kill me, he's
going to kill me.

Q. You were actually able to hear her say that at this time?

A. Yes.

Q. What, if anything, happened next after she was pushing the buzzer and saying
that?

A. Well, after she pushed the button several times she ran to the gate. The
gate hadn't opened yet. As she got to the gate it opened, and she came flying
through that open area of the gate, ran directly to me and collapsed onto me.

Q. When you say she collapsed onto you, did she physically grab hold of you?

A. Yes, she did.

Q. Okay.

A. Both arms.

Q. Both arms.

And could you describe to me exactly what she felt like in your arms at that
time?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) You were able to make physical contact with her with your own
arms, were you not?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. Were you able to make any observations yourself in terms of what you felt of
Nicole's body at this time? Can you describe her body, what you felt?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes. She was cold, wet, and shivering. And as I had my arms around her upper
torso and her back, I could feel her bones were shivering.

Q. And could you describe her overall demeanor at that time also, detective?

A. She was crying, she was hysterical, and appeared to be very frightened and
exhausted.

Q. And what, if anything, did she say to you at that time when she collapsed in
your arms?

A. Well, she repeated again he's going to kill me, he's going to kill me. I
asked her -- I said -- says, well who's going to kill you? And she responded
O.J. So I wasn't quite sure who she meant. I had a feeling from the initials,
so I asked her do you mean the football player, O.J. Simpson, and she says yes,
O.J. Simpson.

Q. Okay. What, if anything, did you do next?

A. I took my flashlight out and I illuminated her face and her torso to see if
she had any injuries. At the same time I told my partner to take off her jacket
and put it on Nicole because she was shivering, very cold. And I looked at her
face and I could see a bruised swelling on her right side of her forehead.

Q. Indicating above her right eye?

A. Yes, above her right eye and down a little bit and then -- a swollen right
eye, some sort of a mark or a scratch on her right cheek, about a 1-inch cut
above her left lip, just below her nose on the outside, there was an open cut,
you could see the blood, then a little bit of blood was coming down between her
teeth, in the cracks between her teeth. And she -- when I asked her about the
injuries, she held up her -- she flipped up her upper lip and I could see a cut
on the inside of her lip. Then I saw a bruise and her eye was start -- swollen
and blackend on the left eye, and I saw a human hand print on the left side of
her neck. I could actually see the three -- at least three finger outlines.

Q. Okay. And you were utilizing your flashlight at that time when you made
these observations?

A. Yes, I was standing right next to her using my flashlight.

Q. And what, if anything, did Nicole say to you at that time?

A. Well, I asked her what happened to her, and she said that --

MR. LEONARD: Objection, hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I asked her what happened to her and she said that O.J. had hit her, kicked
her, slapped her, and pulled her hair.

Q. After she told you those things, what, if anything, did you do next for
Nicole or with Nicole?

A. What I did was I had -- my partner and I walked her to the police car which
is just a short distance away, put her in the right rear seat of the police
vehicle, closed the door, and then my partner and I got in the front seat and
were looking back at her as she was crying. And we were -- we asked her if she
wanted to place O.J. Simpson under arrest for beating her. She said yes. My
partner then -- I told my partner, I said well, give her a crime report to
sign. Normally we fill out those crime reports, but at this time I felt I
needed to get her to sign a crime report. And my partner handed it to her, she
took it rapidly and very determinedly signed it sideways, across, and --
instead of on the line she signed it sideways, in big letters signed her name.

Q. By the way, while you were back in the car with your partner and Nicole,
were the gates to the Ashford Street entrance open or closed?

A. They closed again.

Q. Okay. Now, after Nicole had taken this action of signing off on the record,
you were back in the front seat, what, if anything, did you observe next?

A. Well, she was crying, and she made a statement to us. She said --

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object, hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. She said, you guys come out here, you talk to him and then you leave, you've
been out here eight times before, you never did anything, I want him arrested
and I want my kids back.

Q. Was she still crying at this time?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, did there come a time after she made these statements that you exited
your vehicle again?

A. Yes. Once she said that and had signed the crime report, and my partner was
starting to get the detail boxes of the crime report filled out, I walked back
towards the front of the gate and stood there looking in this direction. And
pretty soon --

Q. Was the gate still closed at this time again?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

I'm sorry, go ahead.

A. Then I turned to walk back towards the car and the gate opened, apparently,
because a female came out of this yard area through the gate and walked over to
my car rapidly, without me knowing it.

Q. Prior to the appearance of that woman, had you observed anything or anybody
on the other side of the gate?

A. No.

Q. Okay. What happened next?

A. Well, this female -- she was a short female, Hispanic. She walked over to
the right rear door of the police car, she opened the door, and by this time I
was walking towards her cause I saw her. She grabbed a hold of Nicole Simpson's
right arm and she started pummeling on her, and she says, Nicole, you don't
want to do this, come, come with me.

Q. Did you see Mr. Simpson at all prior to this woman showing up?

A. Yes. I think he came out before this -- I'm sorry, I got my sequence --
cause he came out twice. He came out prior to this woman -- this woman coming
out.

Q. You want to back up a little bit?

A. Yes, I'm sorry. I was standing here looking, and Mr. Simpson came out the
front door, walked directly towards me wearing a bathrobe, very determined,
walked straight towards me, rapidly.

Q. And was this right after you had exited the vehicle?

A. Yes.

Q. And left Nicole in speaking to her?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell me, when Mr. Simpson was walking towards you, were you able to
observe what he was wearing at this time?

A. Yes. I used my flashlight to illuminate him as he got fairly close to me and
I saw that he was wearing approximately a 3/4 length bathrobe, it was open, he
was wearing some sort of underwear, shorts, no shoes and no other garments.

Q. And what, if anything, happened next as he approached the gate?

A. Well, he walked rapidly towards me and I thought he was going to talk to me,
but what he did is he looked at the patrol car and he started yelling in the
direction of the patrol car, and it was very animated.

Q. Were you able to recall anything that he was yelling at that time?

A. Yes. He was yelling I don't want that woman in my house any more, I don't
want that woman in my house -- in my bed any more, I got two other women, I
don't want that woman in my bed any more.

Q. And did he get all the way up to the gate at that time?

A. Yes, he was about one to two feet from the gate when he did that.

Q. And was the gate still closed?

A. Yes.

Q. And how far were you from the gate on the other side?

A. I was about a foot from the other side of the gate.

Q. And did you have your flashlight on at that point still?

A. Up until the point that he got right up to me. I turned it off.

Q. Okay. Did you ever see Mr. Simpson prior to that night in any sort of
situation?

A. Just in football interviews, just on television.

Q. Okay. And would you be able to describe -- first of all, were you able to
see Mr. Simpson's face clearly that night when he approached you at the gate?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you describe as best you can his facial characteristics at this time
when he arrived at the gate?

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, objection, lack of relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. At the time that he started yelling his face was in a rage, he was very
exited. He was yelling and he had -- there's two veins on his head, one on each
side of his head, up before you got to the hairline, and they were pulsating
rapidly, you could see him very -- see them very visibly.

Q. What, if anything, did you say to Mr. Simpson at that time when he was up at
the gate?

A. I told him that his wife had been beaten, she said that he's the one that
did it, she wanted him arrested, and that I had seen visible injuries to her,
trauma, and I -- it was my duty to place him under arrest for spousal battery.

Q. Did he respond at this time to the statements you made to him?

A. Yes. He said that I didn't -- I didn't hit her, I just pushed her out of
bed. Then he made a statement -- says, you know, you guys be up here eight
times before and now you want to arrest me for this, and he emphasized this.
And he said, this is not a big deal, it's a family matter, why make a big deal
of it.

Q. And what, if anything, did you respond to that?

A. I told him I was obligated to place him under arrest and -- for spousal
battery, and I told him when my supervisor got here, got to the gate, then we
would have to place him under arrest. I told him go inside and change clothes.

Q. And did he go inside at that time?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. After Mr. Simpson went inside, what, if anything, happened next?

A. That's when the gate opened. I walked back towards the car, the gate opened,
and a female came out.

Q. If you could tell us once again, what happened when the female came out
through the gate?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. After she had left the car that Nicole was in, what, if anything, did this
woman do?

A. She walked -- I didn't pay attention to her. Somehow she got that gate open,
she went back inside, and the gate closed again.

Q. What, if anything, happened next after she went back inside the gate?

A. About three minutes later, O.J. Simpson came back out. He walked right back
to the -- only this time he went towards the corner of the gate, towards the
wall, and we talked over -- just a little bit over the wall.

Q. Was he still wearing the bathrobe at that time?

A. No. Now he was wearing a dark suit, jogging suit or running suit, either
blue or dark blue. I couldn't be sure about the color.

Q. Okay. And what happened then as he approached the corner of the gate there?

A. He told me -- he says, what makes you so special, why do you want to make a
big deal of this, you know. And again, I told him -- I says, you know, it's
spousal battery, I have injuries, trauma, your wife wants you arrested, you
have to be arrested for this. About that time a black-and-white patrol car came
driving up the street, it was my supervisor, and I turned my direction from Mr.
Simpson. I thought he understood what was about to occur, so I turned my
direction to my supervisor, walked over onto the roadway and talked to my
supervisor.

Q. In which direction was your supervisor's car facing?

A. He had pulled up and parked a little bit in front of my car, just --
blocking just the left front of it. And I walked over -- we both got out of the
car and we were talking.

Q. Was his car facing the same direction as yours?

A. Basically, yes.

Q. Okay. And what, if anything, happened when you went -- by the way, who was
your supervisor?

A. Sergeant Vinger, V-i-n-g-e-r.

Q. What, if anything, happened after you went to speak to Sergeant Vinger?

A. I was talking to the sergeant, I heard a car start up, I walked away, I
looked through the gate and I could see that a blue Bentley had -- the lights
were on, and it drove out of this driveway down Rockingham towards Sunset, went
out of the driveway at around 15 miles an hour, and when it got in this area
here, it was on up towards 35, 45 when it left down Rockingham.

MR. LEONARD: Can we just -- can the record indicate that the officer was
pointing just below the gate southbound on Rockingham when he indicated the
vehicle was going 45 miles an hour.

MR. PETROCELLI: That misstates his testimony.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) When the vehicle --

MR. PETROCELLI: 15 miles an hour.

Q (BY MR. KELLY) When the vehicle reached Rockingham initially, could you be
able to approximate what speed it was going as it entered onto Rockingham?

A. As it was going -- as it was coming out of the driveway towards Rockingham,
it was going about 15 miles an hour.

MR. LEONARD: Just so the record is clear, the witness has indicated right at
the entrance to the Rockingham gate on Rockingham is at the point at which the
vehicle accelerated to 45 miles an hour. May the record reflect that?

THE COURT: No.

MR. LEONARD: 35.

THE COURT: Reelicit the testimony.

MR. PETROCELLI: Also, objection, object to interfering with the examination.

THE COURT: Overruled. He has a right to have a complete record.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) You indicated that the vehicle was going approximately 15
miles an hour when it reached Rockingham Avenue; is that correct?

A. Right. This is a long driveway. It was up around 15 miles an hour as it
reached the gate.

Q. Okay. And after going through the gate onto Rockingham Avenue what did you
observe next?

A. I observed the vehicle going away from me on Rockingham towards Sunset, and
it appeared it was -- accelerated up to 35, 45 miles an hour.

Q. And that is the street as it headed down Rockingham Avenue?

A. Right.

Q. And how long a distance were you able to see that car accelerate as it left
the Rockingham entrance?

A. Very short distance because Rockingham curves, bushes -- It went out of
view.

Q. And what, if anything, did you do after you observed the Bentley leave?

A. The Sergeant and I got back in our cars, and I -- once he moved his car, he
will make a U-turn, go back down Rockingham towards Sunset in an attempt to
catch up with the Bentley, and I broadcast on Symplex -- that's a car-to-car
frequency, not over the city frequencies -- that we were in pursuit of a blue
Bentley, O.J. Simpson driving, and we started to -- started searching through
the area for the Bentley, and never did find it.

Q. By the way, when you took off after the Bentley was Nicole still in the car?

A. Yes, she was in the rear seat.

Q. What was her demeanor at that time as you were all off looking for the
Bentley?

A. She was crying, hysterical.

Q. And what happened next after you weren't able to locate the Bentley?

A. I took Sunset down to -- I think it was Bundy -- Bundy down to Wilshire. We
ended up around Wilshire and Bundy, and couldn't find the car anywhere.

So I asked her if she would like to go to the emergency hospital so we could
get her treated for her injuries. She said, no, she wanted to go home to her
kids. So then I asked her -- I said well, would you go to the photo lab for us
so we can get some good 35 millimeter photos of your injuries. It's downtown.
She says no, I want to go home to my kids.

So then I explained to her -- I said West L.A. Station is really not that far
from here, and we got to turn around and go back anyway, can we go over to the
station and I'll use a Polaroid camera and we'll take some quick pictures of
you, and I'll take you right back home to yor kids. She agreed to that.

So I got over to West L.A. Police Station on -- what street is that on? It's
off Sunset -- I mean it's off Santa Monica. It's on -- escapes me. Starts with
a B. Then I parked in front and went inside the front entrance of the police
station, the public entrance, to the front desk.

Q. Before going in there, when you were driving around with Nicole in the car,
do you recall whether the vehicle windows were open or closed?

A. Oh, it was cold and damp outside. She was shivering. We had the windows up.
I think the heater was on low.

Q. And you had had occasion to speak to Nicole up close when she had first fell
into your arms, had you not?

A. Yes.

Q. Is there any time that you notice the -- you noticed the odor of alcohol,
either in the car or in any of your conversations with her?

A. No. I didn't notice any odor of alcohol.

Q. Did she act intoxicated in any way?

A. No.

Q. Now, you indicated that you then arrived at the station to take some photos.
Did you in fact locate a camera, first of all, that night?

A. Yes. Fortunately, the desk officer was able to give me a Polaroid camera; I
believe it was a black Polaroid 600. And I took three photographs of Nicole at
that time; one was a full body length photograph, mainly of the right side to
depict the mud that was on the right side of these long pajama type pants, on
the right leg.

Then I took two photographs of her face; one depicting a little bit to the --
to the right side, and a little bit of the front and left.

And then the camera was out of film. I gave the camera back to the desk officer
and had my partner take her inside.

Q. Was there any other film available?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, calls for speculation.

MR. KELLY: I'll withdraw the question.

Can I see Exhibit No. 5, Steve.

(The instrument herein described as photograph of side of Nicole Brown
Simpson's face was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 5.)

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Behind you -- Detective, I'd ask you to step back and look up
on the board there, and I ask you if you recognize that photograph?

A. Yes. This is the -- looks like the second or third photograph I took. Here's
one of the photographs laying on the desk, this is the right-side photograph of
Nicole Simpson depicting the mud on the right pants leg, and my partner's
uniform jacket is on her. Underneath that jacket is just a white bra.

Q. Other than the jacket, does that fairly and accurately represent her
appearance when you first saw her when you arrived at Rockingham?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. And I notice she has bare feet. Was she shoeless when you arrived at
Rockingham?

A. This is exactly how she looked. She was barefoot, no shirt, no purse.

MR. KELLY: Exhibit No. 4, Steve.

MR. LEONARD: Which number was that, please?

MR. KELLY: That was 5.

MR. LEONARD: Okay.

(The instrument herein described as a photograph of Nicole Brown Simpson was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 4.)

Q. Do you recognize that photograph, Detective?

A. Yes. I had her pull her hair back to take a photograph of the front and
right side of her face, as best as I could. And this depicts some bruising on
the right forehead above the right eye. The right eye is swollen above it and
below. And there's a mark or a scratch on the -- on the right. You can see a --
is this the same photo? Then there's -- got big on me (indicating to TV screen
zooming in on photo) -- Then a scratch underneath her nose on the left side is
approximately a 1-inch open gash or scratch going into her lip. You can't see
the one below it, under -- I mean underneath the lip.

Q. Okay. Can you first point out the scratch under the nose you're referring
to?

A. Yes. This is the 1 -- approximately 1-inch or so scratch, open scratch.

Q. That where she lifted up her lip and you could see?

A. The corresponding cut underneath her lip.

Q. Above her right eye, are you able to better discern the injury on her
forehead at this point?

A. There's this swelling -- swollen area. It's easier to see with the naked
eye. This photo depicts it a little bit. This is a swollen area of redness, and
then that's some sort of a scratch pattern up here, and another scratch down
below, and this area is all swollen.

Q. Okay. By the way, did that picture fairly and accurately represent her
facial appearance at that time the photo was taken?

A. No. The picture is not of good quality. She was actually injured more than
that.

Q. And you also indicated earlier that you observed a neck injury or markings
when you first arrived at Rockingham. Are those -- is that apparent on this
picture here?

A. No. It doesn't show up on the photograph at all.

Q. Okay.

MR. KELLY: Can I see Exhibit No. 3, Steve.

(The instrument herein described as a photograph of Nicole Brown Simpson was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 3.)

A. This is a little bit more towards the front. I was trying to show the -- I
had her pull her hair up a little bit more off the left side to show the
swollen eye. There was a scratch here and her forehead was swollen here, and
the eye was swollen -- starting to blacken. And again, you can't -- you can see
that there's a cut right there over her lip. You can't see that handprint.

MR. KELLY: Your Honor, this would be a good time.

THE COURT: 1:30.

Ladies and gentlemen, don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any
opinion.

(At 11:56 A.M. a recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)

SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1996
1:39 P.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

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

THE COURT: All right. At this time, the Court had a previous set of evidentiary
motions that the Court took under submission, that the Court is now ready to
issue its ruling on.

The Court initially will address Plaintiff Goldman's motion to allow testimony
of Dr. Deitz and Dr. Dutton regarding motive and spousal homicide and
defendants' motion in limine thereon.

Plaintiff seeks to admit Dr. Dietz' testimony of his opinion of the general
motive of the person who killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman and the
killer's behavior at the crime scene, based upon an analysis of the crime scene
and the autopsies, and the motive that the defendant had for committing the
murders based on various factors, primarily including the history of the
relationship between defendant and Nicole Brown Simpson and defendant's past
behavior.

Plaintiff seeks to admit Dr. Dutton's testimony of his opinion that spousal
homicides have certain characteristics for the purpose of supporting
Plaintiff's contention that the evidence establishes the existence of these
characteristics concerning defendant and Nicole Brown Simpson (sic), and this
was a spousal homicide committed by defendant.

The testimony of both Dr. Dietz and Dr. Dutton is offered to establish a
profile of spousal homicide, into which Plaintiff endeavors to establish the
identity of the killer by showing that defendant fits the profile.

This implies that there is a science of spousal homicide which can establish
that every homicide of a spouse by a spouse contained certain characteristics,
that a spouse who had these characteristics would necessarily commit spousal
homicide, that there could not be spousal homicide without these
characteristics, that a spouse had these characteristics; i.e., a spousal
relationship, spousal abuse that was physical and/or verbal, estrangement,
jealousy, stalking, was necessarily the killer of a former spouse who died a
violent death.

This Court is not satisfied that opinion testimony of this nature rises to the
level of acceptability in the legal or scientific community.

As discussed in People versus Bowker, 203 Cal.App.3d, 385, it is one thing to
say that in child sexual abuse syndrome cases, a child often exhibits a certain
characteristic; but it is quite another to conclude that where a child meets
certain criteria, it can be predicted with reasonable certainty -- a reasonable
degree of certainty that the child has been abused.

The same analysis applies in the present case. Say that spousal homicide often
exhibits certain characteristics, it is quite another matter to say that this
particular homicide was a spousal homicide and/or that this defendant
perpetrated it.

Such testimonial opinion by experts inappropriately supplants the function of
jurors of evaluating the evidence by giving the experts' imprimatur and
scientific approval upon the Plaintiff's theory of the case.

Also as noted in Bowker, quote, "There may be more danger where the application
is left to the jury because the jurors' education and training may not have
sensitized them to the dangers of drawing predictive conclusions." Unquote.

Where the matter at issue is the identity of the killer of two people, and the
evidence relied upon by the proponents of the expert testimony is not beyond
common experience, to-wit, a relationship of former spouses, alleged abuse by
one spouse of the other, jealousy, stalking, the manner of killings, the jurors
are clearly capable of evaluating the evidence without the need of an expert to
guide their conclusions.

The motions in limine to preclude the testimony of Dr. Dietz and Dr. Dutton are
granted and they are excluded for the foregoing reasons.

The Court also feels that the same analysis as I discussed in Bowker applies in
the application of Evidence Code Section 352; that is, the prejudicial aspect
of allowing such testimony from experts is prejudicial and its probative value
does not overcome that prejudicial aspect of it.

The other issue that the Court now addresses is Plaintiff Goldman's motion to
allow --

Oops.

(Pause in proceedings.)

THE COURT: The other issue is Plaintiff Goldman's motion to preclude prior
testimony of Fuhrman tendered by Defendant under Evidence Code Section 1292 and
motion to preclude reference to Fuhrman's perjury conviction.

Plaintiff gave Defendant sufficient notice of his objection to the use of
Fuhrman's prior testimony under Evidence Code Section 1292 and the conviction
of perjury prior to opening statement. And the Court had reserved ruling on
this issue pending further briefing.

The fact that this issue was not raised prior to the deadline for motions in
limine, it is excused by this Court, finding it excusable, in view of the
unsettled status of Fuhrman's potential availability as a witness at the time
because of the then pending criminal proceedings and plea of nolo contendere
therein, and that the Defendant is not presently prejudiced because Defendant
had ample time to prepare, since October 21, 1996, when this present motion was
filed, it now being November 18.

Plaintiff contends that Fuhrman's prior testimony is not admissible under
Evidence Code Section 1292 because the People did not have the right to
cross-examine Fuhrman with an interest in motive similar to Plaintiff, that the
People called Fuhrman as their witness, conducted direct examination and did
not have the opportunity to cross-examine him, and defended, rather than
challenged, his testimony.

The precise language of Section 1292 of the Evidence Code states, quote:

Cross-Examination:

Section 1291 of the Evidence Code allows former testimony to be used against
the party that offered it in the prior proceeding, or that party's successor in
interest, or the admission of former testimony against a party who had the
opportunity to cross-examine with an interest in motive similar to that in the
prior proceeding.

The legislative history notes the distinct languages of both Sections 1291 and
1292, but the legislature, in Section 1292, made no provision for admission of
such prior testimony offered by the party in the prior proceeding, against
another party in a subsequent proceeding, except when it was subjected to,
quote, "cross-examination." Unquote.

The term "cross-examination" is a defined term in Evidence Code Section 761.

Section 761 defines it as, quote, "The examination of a witness by a party
other than the direct examiner." Close quote.

The legislature is presumed to know what it included in its own enactments,
particularly when it defines the terms it used in that same enactment.

Federal Rule of Evidence Section 804(b)(1) allows prior testimony where there
was opportunity to, quote, "develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect
examination," close quote specifically including the term "direct . . .
examination," which distinguishes its scope from that of Evidence Code Section
1292.

Plaintiff has no interest in offering Fuhrman as a witness. Plaintiff has
established the circumstances of the discovery and collection of the Rockingham
glove by testimony of percipient witnesses, independent of Fuhrman. Defendant
has no apparent need for Fuhrman's testimony, other than to show his alleged
bias against defendant, and his impeachment by his conviction of the felony of
perjury.

In other words, Defendant is not offering Fuhrman's testimony for any
evidentiary purpose other than to discredit him as a witness.

Plaintiff has not offered Fuhrman as a witness; thus, there is no basis for his
impeachment.

Plaintiff Goldman's motion to preclude the introduction of Fuhrman's prior
testimony in the criminal case and to further exclude reference to his perjury
conviction is granted on the foregoing grounds. MR. GELBLUM: Thank you, Your
Honor.

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

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

THE COURT: Okay. You may resume.

THE CLERK: You are still under oath.

Would you state your name again for the record.

THE WITNESS: John Philip Edwards.

JOHN PHILIP EDWARDS the witness on the stand at the time of the luncheon
recess, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further
as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. KELLY:

Q. Detective Edwards, when we broke for lunch, you just finished testifying as
to the three Polaroids you had taken of Nicole Brown Simpson at West L.A.
station; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, after you had taken those three photographs of Nicole, what, if
anything, did you do next?

A. I retained those photographs in my possession.

Then I walked back out to the patrol car with Nicole Simpson. My partner and I
drove her back to her home.

Q. Okay.

What, if anything, did you do when you got back to her house?

A. She operated the gate which allowed us inside. We dropped her off and then
returned en route back to the station to complete the crime report.

Q. When you dropped her off, did you happen to see that Bentley in the driveway
that you had observed earlier?

A. No, it was not in the driveway.

It was now daylight.

Q. And what, if anything, happened when you were en route back to the station?

A. About 15 minutes after we dropped her off, I got another message over my
M.D.T., mobile digital terminal, in the car.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) You received a communication in your car?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

As a result of that communication you received, what, if anything, did you do
next?

A. I returned back to the Rockingham address.

Q. And did you drive by the residence at that point?

A. Yes.

I looked for the Bentley and I didn't see it.

Q. Okay.

What, if anything, happened next?

A. I parked approximately three houses up from the address for 45 minutes, in
hopes of seeing the Bentley return.

Q. And did you see it return?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Did you take any further action after you did not see the Bentley return?

A. I radioed the station and asked them to call Nicole Simpson at her home, and
ask her if the defendant, O.J. Simpson, was at the house.

And they did, and they said that --

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, calls for hearsay. Objection at this point.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Just yes or no, Detective: Did you receive a response as to
whether Mr. Simpson was home or not?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And as a result of that response, did you remain in that location or did you
leave?

A. I left.

Q. Now -- and did you have occasion to go back to that location any other time
that day?

A. No.

Q. Or any future time after that day at all?

A. No.

Q. Did you have occasion to fill out a police report as a result of that
incident later that morning?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

And how was that filled out?

A. I directed my -- the officer I was training, Patricia Milewski,
M-I-L-E-W-S-K-I (sic) to complete the report because I was training her, and
then I read the report, I made some changes on it in my own handwriting. Then
we turned the report in.

Q. Was this done in the normal course of your duties that day?

A. Yes.

Q. And was this a business record of the LAPD, kept in the normal course of
business, also?

A. Yes.

And we booked the photographs as evidence, also.

MR. KELLY: Steve, can I see --

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) I'm going to ask you to take a look at this, Detective, and
see if you recognize that as the report you --

I believe is that 2191.

A. Yes, it is 2191 on this yellow piece of paper.

(The instrument herein referred to as three-page report with an attached
property report was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2191.)

A. This is the four-page -- a three-page report with an attached property
report that we completed.

MR. KELLY: Your Honor, at this time I'd like to move in Exhibits 3, 4, and 5,
which were the three photographs, and this also, Exhibit 2191.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I have an objection only to the last exhibit. I
believe that calls for hearsay, doesn't fall within any exception.

I'll remind the Court of its previous ruling with regard to Sergeant Berris' --
or Detective Berris' report from the Chicago Police Department.

THE COURT: Can I see counsel at side bench.

MR. LEONARD: With the reporter? Need the reporter?

THE COURT: Yeah.

(The following proceedings were heard at the bench, with the reporter.)

THE COURT: Okay. Didn't we have a hearing on this?

MR. PETROCELLI: Yes.

MR. KELLY: Yes, we did.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor permitted the production of the out-of-court
statements made in the police reports in one of the motions in limine.

THE COURT: What day was that?

MR. PETROCELLI: I think that was on the 16th, Your Honor. September 16 was that
big day we had all the hearings.

MR. KELLY: I think it was number 9 -- defense's motion in limine number 9 or
12.

MR. LEONARD: Every statement made in a police report is admissible.

MR. PETROCELLI: None of Nicole's out-of-court statements were admissible under
1240 of the Evidence Code as spontaneous statements; plus, the document itself
is a business record.

It's unlike the Berris police reports, where you don't have spontaneous
statements. That's the difference.

THE COURT: All right. The Court ruled that statements in the police report
qualify spontaneous declarations and are within the parameters of Section 1280
of the Evidence Code, and also under 1240. And the Court allowed the statements
of Nicole that were made to the police officers.

Now the objection is to the report itself, isn't it?

MR. LEONARD: Yes.

MR. PETROCELLI: It's a business record.

THE COURT: I'm sorry?

MR. PETROCELLI: It was a report, a business record. They established the
foundational elements and the statements of Nicole all qualify as spontaneous
statements under 1240. So I think that covers all the hearsay rulings.

MR. LEONARD: There's no foundation for that.

MR. PETROCELLI: For what?

MR. LEONARD: Every one of them is spontaneous.

MR. PETROCELLI: Every statement he elicited from Nicole is at a time of stress,
as indicated by his questions.

MR. KELLY: She was crying.

THE COURT: Okay. What in particular are you objecting to?

MR. LEONARD: Well, it's not necessarily -- are you -- is this the only one you
intend to get in?

MR. KELLY: We'll take one at a time.

MR. LEONARD: Okay.

Well, there's a statement in the --

MR. PETROCELLI: This one?

MR. LEONARD: No. I -- no. I can't point to anything in here other than I would
point out that this report was not written by this officer. He claims that he
had some authority over it and that he reviewed it. There's, I suppose, the
impeachment.

I wonder why these guys want this. For instance, this -- she reports that
Nicole came out and said that Simpson said to her, "I'll kill you."

Okay. That's not what this witness said. This witness said that Nicole ran out
and said, he's going to kill me. That's a major difference. There is a threat;
whereas, the other statement is her state of mind as to what was going to
happen to her. This is radically different.

And I think if they're going to try to put this in, they're obliged to bring a
witness in so we can cross-examine the witness.

What I mean, this particular officer who wrote this is not this guy; some other
officer wrote this, Milewski or whatever her name is. I think it's unfair.

MR. KELLY: Well, it goes --

THE COURT: Could you keep your voice down.

MR. KELLY: I'm sorry.

That goes into evidence. They had every opportunity to use this witness to
impeach him.

MR. LEONARD: I'm to impeach him with the oral statement -- I'm to impeach him
with a victim's state of mind. Lovely.

MR. KELLY: He indicated he had firsthand knowledge of everything, indicates it
in the report.

MR. LEONARD: He contradicted himself. I think that goes to reliability of the
report. He didn't say anything about a threat from Simpson. That was not
elicited, nor has he testified to that in any prior proceeding, and it's not in
any subsequent reports.

I think we're at a distinct disadvantage. I don't want to have to impeach the
guy with a worse statement. It's not fair.

THE COURT: Okay. I'll stand on the ruling I made on September 17. Overruled.

MR. LEONARD: It's coming in?

THE COURT: Yeah.

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

MR. KELLY: Your Honor, to confirm, 3, 4, 5, and 2191 have all been moved into
evidence at this time; is that correct?

THE CLERK: Yes.

THE COURT: Yes.

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 3 for identification
was received in evidence.)

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4 for identification
was received in evidence.)

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 5 for identification
was received in evidence.)

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2191 for
identification was received in evidence.)

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, Detective Edwards, did you ever see Mr. Simpson again
after you saw him that morning on New Year's Day, 1989?

A. Not personally.

Q. And did you ever see Nicole Brown Simpson after that morning of New Years
Day 1989 when you dropped her off?

A. No.

MR. KELLY: I have no further questions.

THE COURT: Cross-examine.

MR. KELLY: Judge, could we approach just briefly again on one matter?

THE COURT: On what?

MR. KELLY: It's related to something different than before.

THE COURT: All right.

(The following proceedings were heard at the bench, with the reporter.)

MR. KELLY: Your Honor, this has to do with cross-examination of this witness.
That's why I'm bringing this up right now. It wasn't related to what we were
discussing before.

In Mr. Baker's opening statement he made reference to this witness being named
in what's called a Christopher Commission report, which was a report compiled
by independent attorneys and others that cited 44 police officers for certain
alleged violations such as unusual use of force.

The way this report was filed was, this commission did a statistical analysis
using computers to determine which officers had the most complaints lodged
against them. They never interviewed the police officers; they never
interviewed any of the complainants; there's no document that's relied upon at
all by the Los Angeles Police Department, and none of the complaints against
this particular officer have ever been sustained.

None of the complaints alleged in there related to this particular incident of
New Year's Day, 1989.

I would ask that the defense be precluded from referring to the Christopher
Commission or its substance in the context of their cross-examination.

MR. BAKER: Well, Number one, the Christopher Commission report is relied upon
by the LAPD.

Number two, he was an officer that was -- he -- it was indicated was one of the
worse. And -- Of the 9,000 in LA.

Number three, there will be testimony about his threats of violence to O.J.
Simpson while he was at the gate, and his demeanor is consistent with -- at the
gate, although he certainly denies it now. He's the model of decorum now, that
in fact, he was abusive to Simpson. And it was witnessed by Michelle, the
housekeeper, and it's been testified to by O.J.

THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection as to reference to the Christopher
Commission.

You may inquire about any threats he made.

MR. PETROCELLI: To Mr. Simpson?

THE COURT: Yeah, to explain his absence from the scene.

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD:

Q. I'll try to stay behind the podium this time, Your Honor.

Detective Edwards, what did you do to prepare for your testimony today?

What items did you read?

Whom did you talk to?

What did you do?

A. Let's see.

Yesterday, I met with plaintiffs' counsel, Mr. Kelly, for about 45 minutes,
approximately three, four blocks from this court. And he just asked me a few
questions, and I reviewed my report.

And then I met again today with Mr. Kelly for about ten or fifteen minutes
prior to walking over here to the court.

Q. Did you look at your prior testimony from the criminal trial?

A. I browsed through that, yes.

Q. Browsed through it?

A. Yes, highlighted.

Q. How much time did you spend looking at it?

A. Approximately ten, fifteen minutes.

Q. Did you look at both the direct and the cross-examinations?

A. Briefly.

Q. Well, did you want to make sure that you gave testimony that was basically
consistent with your criminal trial testimony, or did you want to make sure of
that when you looked at the transcript of your prior testimony?

A. Yes, somewhat.

Q. Did you know anything -- after having sat up here and answered some
questions before lunch, did you think about at lunch whether there was anything
inconsistent that you had testified in your direct examination from what you
had stated in your criminal trial testimony?

Did you think about that?

MR. KELLY: Objection as to form.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you consider that, sir?

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: No.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You testified that you looked -- that you also reviewed
your report. And I assume you're referring to the basically contemporaneous
report that was prepared by your partner?

A. Not only that, my subsequent supplemental report.

Q. What Mr. Kelly was referring to is Exhibit 1291. That was a report that was
prepared what, the next day?

MR. PETROCELLI: It's 2191.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Excuse me, 2191.

That was prepared on what, the 1st of January 1989?

A. The day of the occurrence.

Q. Okay.

You mentioned that you had asked your partner -- and what was her name again?

A. Patricia Milewski.

Q. She's still a police officer?

A. Yes, she is. She is instructing at the police academy.

Q. Here in Los Angeles?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. You instructed her to prepare a report, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you wanted that report to be -- to completely and accurately represent
what had occurred just hours before, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And in fact, you reviewed it to make sure everything that was in there was
accurate and that there was a complete description of what had occurred; isn't
that right, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. That was important because this was going to memorialize what had occurred;
and you wanted to make sure, for instance, if you had to testify sometime in
the future, that it would be accurate and would be complete, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. All right. That's something that you do on a daily basis as a police
officer, right?

A. Yes.

Q. You realize how important accurate and complete reports are, don't you,
Officer?

A. Yes. That's why we --

MR. KELLY: Objection.

THE WITNESS: -- quite often make supplemental reports, to bring out details
that we may have forgotten in the original report. And we do that quite often.

Q. Okay.

But in any event, you took the time to review the report that your partner had
prepared; and, in fact, you said you made some additions, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

You described in some detail discussions that you had with both Nicole Brown
Simpson and O.J. Simpson, referring to other times that the police allegedly
had been out to Rockingham, correct?

Do you remember that in your direct testimony?

A. Yes.

Q. And in fact, if you recall, both Nicole Brown Simpson, and minutes later,
O.J. Simpson, used the same exact language, basically, didn't they?

Let me --

A. Close, but not quite.

Q. Let me refresh your recollection.

Didn't they both say, according to you, you guys have been out here eight times
before?

First Nicole said that; minutes later, O.J. Simpson said that. Do you remember
testifying to that?

A. Right. They both said that in a sentence, but the sentence was different.

Q. Focusing on the number, they both said the number eight, didn't they?

A. Yes.

Q. Not ten, not several, not many, but the number eight, right?

A. Exactly.

Q. Now, I want to you take a look at what's been marked as 2191.

Show me in that report where there's any indication of any discussion about
police being out there on prior occasions.

And this is a report that was prepared at your behest, reviewed by you the next
day, correct?

A. Yes. It doesn't have the original report. It's in the supplemental.

Q. Now, when you reviewed that report, did you remember that it wasn't in there
and suggest that it be in there?

Did you remember at the time when you reviewed the report the next day?

A. It wasn't the next day; it was the same day, January 1, 1989.

Q. And all events were fresh in your mind, correct?

A. That's right.

Q. Much fresher than they were when you did a supplemental report a month and a
half later, right?

Wouldn't you agree with that?

A. I remembered quite a few details later on that I should have put in the
report; that's true.

Q. The -- what was it that sparked your memory six weeks later, sir? Anything
in particular?

MR. KELLY: Objection. Argumentative. Object to the form, also.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: The City Attorney asked me to relay exactly what was said in
detail back and forth, so I wrote it down.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) But when you reviewed it the next day, sir --

A. It wasn't the next day; it was January 1, 1996.

MR. KELLY: '89, you mean?

THE WITNESS: Excuse me. Today is '96 it's 1989, January 1, the same day as the
incident.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) It wasn't in the report that was made by your partner, nor
did you ask your partner to include it in the report, correct?

A. Apparently not. It's not in the report.

Q. Now, you also testified, if I'm not mistaken -- correct me if I'm wrong --
that you -- that you did not smell alcohol on Nicole Brown Simpson's breath?

A. That's correct.

Q. Remember testifying to that?

A. Yes, that's what I said.

Q. Now, in your review of your prior criminal testimony, did you come across
the part of your cross-examination by Mr. Cochran, where you were asked a
series of questions about this very same subject, the smell of alcohol --

A. I --

Q. -- on Nicole Brown Simpson's breath?

Did you come across that?

A. I didn't review that part.

Q. Well, let's review it together.

MR. KELLY: Objection as to the form, Your Honor.

MR. LEONARD: Withdrawn.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Do you recall being asked -- this is at 12508 -- do you
recall being asked the following questions: "And you had occasion, did you not,

to get very close to Nicole Brown Simpson on

this night; is that correct? "A. Well, she grabbed me and hung

onto me, yes."

Do you remember that question and that answer?

A. Yes.

MR. LEONARD: "You got very close to her; is

that correct? "A. Yes."

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Do you remember that, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. (MR. LEONARD) Reading: "Did you have occasion to determine

whether or not she had been drinking that

particular night? "A. I didn't smell any

significant alcoholic beverage on her

breath. I don't believe I did."

Do you remember giving that answer to that question?

A. That's correct.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) (Reading.) "Q. I'm not asking about

significant alcoholic beverage. Did you

smell any alcoholic beverage on her breath? "A. Not enough that I would be

able to detect. I don't remember."

Do you remember giving that answer to that question?

A. Yes.

Q. Next question, I don't -- I don't understand that answer, not enough. What
does that mean?

(Reading.) "A. Well, I can't remember

smelling an alcoholic beverage on her

breath."

Do you remember giving that answer to that question, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. Next question:

"So the answer is, you don't know one

way or the other; is that correct? "A. I just can't remember

smelling alcoholic beverage on her breath. "Q. The answer is, you don't know

at this point, right? "A. Okay. I don't know."

Now, when you testified at the criminal trial, that was on January 31, 1995,
right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you testified at this trial, as we've just elicited, that you don't know
whether she had alcoholic beverage on her breath; isn't that right, sir?

MR. KELLY: Objection. Misstates his testimony; is also argumentative at this
point, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I didn't smell any alcohol on her breath.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Next question is", "Did I accurately read you those

questions?"

And your answer is:

"I don't know if you accurately read

them at all because I'm not seeing what

you're reading. But I didn't smell any

alcohol on her breath."

Would you like to look the at transcript, sir?

MR. LEONARD: May I approach?

THE COURT: You may.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) And go right down here, read over this page.

That's what I read.

MR. KELLY: Are those the same questions you read before, Mr. Leonard?

MR. LEONARD: Yes.

Would you like to look at it?

MR. KELLY: I glanced a little at it.

(Pause in proceedings.)

THE WITNESS: Okay.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did I read those questions and your answers accurately,
sir?

A. Yes, you did.

Q. Is there -- is your memory now refreshed as to what you said at the criminal
trial, sir?

A. Yes; I didn't smell any alcohol on her breath.

Q. Did you say in the end, when you were finished being asked questions by Mr.
Cochran, do you know -- did you say that, sir, with regard to the smell of
alcohol on Nicole Brown Simpson's breath?

A. Apparently I did; I didn't smell any alcohol on her breath.

Q. By the way, as you sit here today, can you say whether or not Mr. Simpson
was intoxicated that night or whether he had alcohol on his breath?

A. I wasn't close enough to him to smell him.

Q. Can you tell us whether he appeared to be intoxicated?

A. He didn't appear to be intoxicated.

Q. Okay.

Did you -- but again, you didn't get close enough to him to, for instance,
detect any alcohol on his breath?

A. We were about two feet a part.

Q. When you -- according to your testimony, when you were engaged with him,
apparently he was yelling; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. By the way, you were yelling back at him at times, weren't you, sir?

A. No, I don't believe I did.

Q. Never raised your voice at all?

A. I may have raised my voice, but I didn't yell at him.

Q. Did you in any way, sir, threaten him in any way?

A. Never.

Q. And when Mr. Simpson came out the second time -- you following me now? He
had some clothes on?

A. That's right.

Q. You were with your -- you were with the sergeant -- is it Vittner -- how do
you pronounce his last name?

A. That's Vinger.

Q. At some point after Mr. Simpson came out with his clothes on, was there --
it -- was a black and white summoned?

A. After he came out, initiated another conversation with me, then the sergeant
drove up.

MR. LEONARD: If we can have the chart.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) And the sergeant was there when Mr. Simpson got in the car
and left, correct?

A. Yes.

MR. P. BAKER: 1167.

(Counsel displays Exhibit 1167.)

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, I want you to --

MR. LEONARD: If the witness can approach the chart, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) If you can get down quickly, sir --

Well, I don't want you to fall down. If you could, just walk over to the chart.

Just show us again -- I think you demonstrated this on direct examination --
but show us again where you were when you first became aware that Mr. Simpson
was leaving the property.

A. I was over here, right about where the S is on the street. I was in the
roadway.

Q. Okay.

Where was the other black -- where was the black and white?

(Indicating to Ashford Street)

A. It had parked at an angle, just across the left front bumper of my vehicle.

Q. Blocking your vehicle, more or less?

A. Just a little bit.

Q. And the first thing that came to you was, you actually heard the car door
open and close; is that correct?

A. I think I heard an engine.

Q. You heard the engine going.

By the way, it was pretty quiet out there that night?

A. Right.

Those hills echo noise very well.

Q. You had no trouble hearing that car start up, correct?

A. That's true.

Q. And at that point, you went over to -- right up to the gate at Ashford, and
you looked through, correct?

A. No, I walked out. I was in the street. I just walked over --little bit over
here, where I could get a better view through the gate.

Q. You could see right through the Ashford gate; that was just a grate of some
kind, right?

A. Right.

Q. You could see all the way over and out through the Rockingham gate without
any difficulty, couldn't you?

A. No.

Q. Is that how you saw the -- that's how you saw Mr. Simpson exit, correct?

A. I saw him exit, but I couldn't -- I didn't have a clear field of vision;
there's trees in the way.

Q. Okay.

And so you say that Mr. Simpson was -- left the driveway at 15 miles an hour,
correct?

A. That's correct, long driveway.

Q. Fifteen miles an hour, right?

A. That's correct.

Q. At this time, you were over at the Ashford gate, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you saw -- saw the car go out. You saw it's taillights, right?

A. Right.

Q. And you say that you saw the car going down -- south on Rockingham, and it
was approaching speeds of 35 miles an hour; is that correct?

A. Right.

Q. Did you run all the way over to the intersection of Rockingham and Ashford
so that you could get a look at the car disappearing down Rockingham?

A. No. I just saw the taillights as it was leaving.

Q. Obviously, the only way you could see them was through the yard and across
-- and through the gate; isn't that correct?

A. Right. Here I could see the taillights from underneath the trees.

Q. You could see the taillights going down Rockingham, couldn't you?

A. Just seen him going down that direction.

Q. You had no trouble seeing that from where you were, right?

A. Just the rear of the car and the taillights.

Q. You had no trouble testifying to this jury that you could tell he was --
that the car was going 35 miles an hour, right?

A. Right. It looked like it was going 35 miles an hour.

Q. That was from your view of the receding taillights, all the way down
Rockingham. Correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. By the way, you could hear this vehicle accelerate, too?

You could hear that clearly, couldn't you?

A. I think you could hear -- it's not a real loud vehicle, but I think I heard
it, yes.

Q. Well, even if it was purring, you could hear it on that still night,
couldn't you, sir?

A. Right.

Q. No problem at all as it went down Rockingham into the distance, right?

A. Right. Right.

Q. Now, what did you do, saddle up, jump in your cars, and head off to try to
catch Mr. Simpson?

Is that what you did at that point?

A. Saddle up?

Q. Well, you jumped in your --

(Laughter.)

Q. -- you jumped in your vehicle, right?

A. This isn't the wild west.

What we did was, the sergeant got in his vehicle and maneuvered out of the way;
and I got in my vehicle, made a U-turn, and we went down Rockingham.

Q. In pursuit of Mr. Simpson, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. All right.

And no siren, no red lights, right?

A. Right.

Q. Now, you may take a seat again.

You testified that at that point, you gave up your pursuit, right, and you were
at the -- what, the coroner of Bundy and Wilshire at this point?

A. Right.

Q. And you decided that you were going to take Mrs. Simpson to -- or Nicole
Brown Simpson to get some photographs taken at -- you wanted to take her
downtown, right?

A. Yes. I asked her if she would go.

Q. And she wanted to go home and see the kids. So instead, you took her over to
West L.A. police station?

A. I asked her if she would do that, and she agreed.

Q. Okay.

And you knew that there was photographic equipment there that you could take
some -- take these photographs, right?

That's why you took her there?

A. Well, I was hoping there would be photographic equipment.

Q. And in fact, there was a Polaroid camera?

A. Yes.

Q. And your job at this point was to make sure that you would fairly and
accurately and as best you could, try to depict the injuries. That's what you
were most concerned with. In fact, that was the only reason you took her to the
police station, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you've used a Polaroid camera before, right?

A. Yes.

Q. That's not an unusual investigative tool, is it, sir?

A. No.

Q. And so you took -- are you the one -- are you the one who who took the
photographs?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, the beautiful thing about a Polaroid camera, or one of the nice things,
you take a picture and you get an immediate result; you don't like it, you can
take some more pictures, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

So you took these three photographs and you looked at them and you took no more
photographs that night, correct?

A. That's partially correct.

Q. How many more photographs did you take, sir?

A. I took three photographs.

Q. So you took three.

And you had an opportunity to look at those photographs, right?

They developed before your very eyes, didn't they?

A. No.

Q. They didn't?

A. The one photograph was developing before Nicole Simpson's very eyes, sitting
on the desktop of the station while I was taking the third picture.

Q. But let me put it to you this way: By the time you left with Nicole to take
her home, you had had an opportunity to review those photographs to see whether
or not you needed to take additional photographs, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you chose not to, correct?

A. Correct.

No.

Q. You chose not to take additional photographs?

Is that not sure?

MR. KELLY: I'd object. He's in the middle of answering the prior question when
Mr. Leonard interjected another one.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Answer the first question.

MR. LEONARD: It was the same question, Your Honor. I'll withdraw it.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. LEONARD: It makes it easier.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you, before you left the police station with Nicole
Brown Simpson to take her home, you took no more photographs of her, did you?

A. That is correct

Q. Now, when you were at -- strike that.

If you respond to a scene like this and you believe there are serious injuries
to a victim, do you not have the obligation to try to get the victim medical
care of some kind?

Either to take the victim, yourself, or to call an EMT, but to get the victim
some medical attention?

That's your obligation as a reporting officer -- or a responding officer, is it
not, sir?

MR. KELLY: Object to this as to form. It's also argumentative and speculative,
not relevant to this particular incident what he might generally do.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I'm obligated to do what the victim wants.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) No matter what the state of the medical condition of the
victim; is that your testimony, sir?

A. If the victim refuses medical treatment, I'm obligated to do what the victim
wants.

Q. And by the way, when you were at Bundy and Wilshire, you were within what,
five or ten minutes of a couple of different hospitals; isn't that right?

A. That's correct.

We didn't want to go to those hospitals.

Q. Instead, you went to the police station to take some photographs, correct?

A. I asked her if she wanted to go to the hospital.

She said no.

Q. Okay.

Instead, sir, you went to the police station to have some photographs taken; is
that right?

A. I asked her if she wanted to go to the hospital?

She refused.

I then asked her if she wanted to go to the police station to take pictures.

She agreed.

I did what the victim agreed to do.

Q. It was your suggestion to go to the police station; it wasn't Nicole Brown
Simpson's?

A. That's correct.

MR. LEONARD: Thank you. No further questions.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY:

Q. Detective, Mr. Leonard asked you if you took any photos after you took those
three at West LA station. You indicated that you did not; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Is there a particular reason you did not?

A. Yes. Nicole Simpson insisted that she wanted to go home immediately to her
kids, so I did what my victim wanted to do.

Q. And Mr. Leonard also asked you about a supplemental report that you had made
later on, and you indicated you did that at the request of the city's attorney;
is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And did you prepare that report yourself when the city's attorney asked for
it?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that done in the normal course of your duties?

A. Yes.

Q. And was that report a report that was kept by the LAPD as a business record,
kept in the normal course of business?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) That report you prepared, it was a follow-up report?

A. Yes, supplemental follow-up report to the primary incident.

Q. Is that a report that's kept in the normal course of your duties?

A. Yes.

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) I'm sorry.

Is that a report that's maintained in the regular course of business by the
police department?

A. Yes.

Q. I'm going to ask you to just --

MR. KELLY: This would be 2192, Your Honor?

THE CLERK: Yes.

(The instrument herein referred to as Five-page supplemental report written by
Detective Edwards was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.
2192.)

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) I ask you if you recognized that when I just showed it to
you.

A. This a five-page handwritten report in my handwriting, with my name on the
bottom. This is the one I prepared supplemental to the primary report.

Q. Okay.

By the way, in looking, is there any reference made to Nicole's statement
about, you've been out here eight times before?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Leading, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. KELLY: Okay.

Your honor, at this time I ask this be moved into evidence, 2192.

MR. LEONARD: Same Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Received.

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2192 for
identification was received in evidence.)

MR. KELLY: I have no further questions.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD:

Q. Just so we get the sequence clear here, that report that Mr. Kelly was just
talking about, that was written what, six weeks after the incident; is that
right?

A. It was a month and a half; possibly about six weeks.

Q. And you agreed earlier that your memory was much fresher about these events
the same day, correct, than it was six weeks later?

A. No. I think I remembered quite a lot. It was in that six-week period.

Q. On direct examination, you testified, if I'm not mistaken -- you said that
Nicole Brown Simpson came out and stated that she --

MR. KELLY: Objection. This is improper recross. It's going back to my direct.

MR. LEONARD: If we can approach, I can demonstrate the relevance at this point.
It's two questions. It has to do with this report.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You testified that Nicole Brown Simpson had told you when
she came out of -- when you saw her that morning, that she had been punched,
correct? That she had been beaten, right?

A. Yes.

Q. That she had been slapped, right?

A. Right.

Q. That she had been knocked down, right?

A. I don' think I used those words, "knocked down."

Q. That she had been --

A. I think it was kicked.

Q. And her hair had been pulled?

A. And her hair was pulled, yes.

Q. And that she had been thrown out of the house, right?

A. I don't remember seeing that word in there.

Q. Okay.

But you do remember -- and this is something that's very clear in your mind --
that she said that she had been -- her hair had been pulled, right?

A. Right.

Q. And that she had been knocked down, correct, in addition to being slapped
and kicked?

A I don't think I put the words "knocked down," if I'm not mistaken.

Q. No. I'm asking you what you testified to today, sir, not what was in any
report.

If you don't remember, you don't remember.

A. I remember, but I don't think she said she was knocked down.

Q. My question is what you testified today on the direct examination, sir.

If you don't remember, that's fine.

MR. KELLY: Objection as to the form of the question. It's argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You don't remember?

A. You know, the way you've gotten the question a little mixed up, I quite
don't understand what it is you want.

Q. I'll withdraw the question.

When you filled out this supplemental report, I think you indicated that you
wanted to include -- you wanted to include as much detail as possible, right?

A. The City Attorney asked me to include as much detail as possible.

Q. You wanted to include detail that you either forgot or left out from the
earlier report, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. All right.

Do you recall putting in the supplemental report that when she came out, you
asked her what happened, and she said that O.J. had slapped her and kicked her,
period?

Do you remember that do?

You want to look at the report?

A. That's initially what she told me.

Then she expanded on that in the car when we handed her the report.

Q. When you testified here today, sir, you said that when she first came out,
she described things beyond slapping and kicking, didn't you, when she first
came out, when you first saw her?

Do you remember testifying to that?

A. Yes, and then just --

Q. Do you want to change your testimony now?

A. No, I don't want to change my testimony; thank you.

Q. Which is it?

A. There were --they were almost the same time; they were seconds apart. And
that's exactly what she said.

Q. Is that included in your report, here, sir, the supplemental report?

A. What's included?

Q. That -- anything beyond slapping and kicking, is that in the supplemental
report?

A. That's in the primary report, the slapping, kicking, hair pulling, in the
primary reports.

Q. Is it in the supplemental report where you were going to give as much detail
as possible, sir?

A. No, because it was already mentioned in the primary report.

MR. LEONARD: Thank you.

MR. KELLY: I have no further questions.

THE COURT: You're excused.

Ten minutes, ladies and gentlemen.

(Recess)

(Jurors resume their respective seats)

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

Q. All right. Do you recall putting in the supplemental report that when she
came out, you asked her what happened and she said that O.J. had slapped her
and kicked her, period. Do you remember that? Do you want to look at the
report?

A. That's initially what she told me. Then she expanded on that in the car when
we handed her the report.

Q. When you testified here today, sir, you said that when she first came out
she described things beyond slapping and kicking, didn't you, when she first
came out, when you first saw her? Do you remember testifying to that?

A. Yes, and then just --

Q. Do you want to change your testimony now?

A. No I don't want to change my testimony, thank you.

Q. Which is it?

A. They were almost the same time, they were seconds apart, and that's exactly
what she said.

Q. Is that included in your report here, sir, the supplemental report?

A. What's included?

Q. That -- anything beyond slapping and kicking, is that in the supplemental
report?

A. That's in the primary report, the slapping, kicking, hair pulling, in the
primary report.

Q. Is it in the supplemental report where you were going to give as much detail
as possible, sir?

A. No, because it was already mentioned in the primary report.

Q. Thank you.

MR. KELLY: I have no further questions.

THE COURT: You're excused.

10 minutes, ladies and gentlemen.

(Recess)

(The jurors resumed their respective seats.)

THE COURT: Okay, you may call your next witness.

MR. KELLY: Your Honor, before we do, by stipulation, I'd like to move Exhibit
2193 into evidence.

THE CLERK: What was -- what is 2193.

MR. KELLY: Which is 10 pages of medical records of January 1, 1979 regarding
treatment of Nicole Brown Simpson at Saint John's Hospital.

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2193.)

MR. KELLY: Sharyn Gilbert.

SHARYN GILBERT, called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiffs, was duly sworn
and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause
now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: And if you would please state and spell your name for the record.

THE WITNESS: My name is Sharyn, S-h-a-r-y-n, last name Gilbert, G-i-l-b-e-r-t.

DIRECT-EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY:

Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Gilbert.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. Are you currently employed?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. And by whom?

A. City of Los Angeles, the police department.

Q. And in what capacity does the police department employ you?

A. I'm employed as a police service representative which is a 911 dispatcher.

Q. And for how many years have you been doing that?

A. Ten years.

Q. Okay. And basically what are your duties and responsibilities as a 911
dispatcher?

A. To take calls from 911 and non-emergency calls, to dispatch calls to police
officers and handle their service requests.

Q. And were you acting in this capacity for the police department on New Year's
Eve, 1988, going into the morning of New Year's Day, 1989?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And do you recall what your tour of duty was those days?

A. That night I was working as a primary dispatcher which -- taking calls on
911 only.

Q. Okay. And could you tell me where you were physically working in the
building at that point when you were working as a primary dispatcher?

A. I was working on console 54. Console -- our consoles have numbers, and
primary console 54.

Q. Okay. Would it be fair to say there are a number of consoles next to each
other --

A. Yes, there are.

Q. -- lined up in the office?

When you talk about a console, are there different pieces of equipment that go
along with the console when you're sitting at it?

A. Yes, it is. It's our Positron phone system which is to the left and that's
where our calls come in. It has a dial phone, dial pad. Then we have two
screens, a working screen and a status screen. And to my right is what we call
Positron, where we can automatically transfer to the fire department and the
highway patrol.

Q. Okay. Do you have a keyboard also?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And what is that used for?

A. That's to create incidents for calls that we have to dispatch on it.

Q. And that shows up on your screen as you create it?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. And this is dispatched if necessary also?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And you also have head phones that you use?

A. Yes, I have a personalized head set.

Q. Okay. And how are you plugged into your console?

A. There's plugs on either side of my console and my individual head set plugs
right in to that and I log on with my assigned operator number onto the phone
system.

Q. Okay. What happens when a 911 call comes into you at your console?

A. It automatically, the call, when I say "drops in," my line is always open to
receive the next available call, and when I get a call on the 911 console I get
an address and phone number on my status screen, which is the screen to my
left, and also on my phone pad to my left.

Q. Okay. And you indicated also that you use your keyboard to create incident
records?

A. Yes, I do, off of that information.

Q. And how do you create an incident report via the phone line, what is that
based upon?

A. It's based upon the address and phone number that -- that I automatically
receive and I can -- it's computerized. It will -- our cache system will
automatically pick it up and type it into my incident. All I have to do is type
an asterisk, phone number and address. The computer will automatically transfer
that information to my working screen to start an incident.

Q. Is that just based on your perceptions and what you hear coming in on that
911 call?

A. Yes, well, we have policy and procedure that we follow on how to handle
calls that we receive on 911.

Q. Okay. And I draw your attention to early morning January 1, 1989. Now, you
were working the, I think you indicated console 54, at that time?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall receiving a 911 call at approximately 3:58 a.m.?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And did your computer screen and console that you just described to us
indicate where that call came from?

A. Yes, it automatically lit up from 360 North Rockingham and the phone number
to that residence.

Q. Okay. And can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what, if
anything, you first heard when that call came in?

A. When the call first dropped in, I didn't hear anything. It was considered to
me an open line.

Q. Okay. And did you take any action at this point when it was just an open
line and you heard nothing?

A. Yes, I made it an "unknown trouble." The policy and procedure for the police
department, when somebody dials 911, you have to send on it. I made the
incident type 900, which is "unknown trouble."

Q. Okay. And when you received -- after it was initially unknown trouble, did
you continue listening to that line?

A. Yes, I left the line open, and during that -- that few seconds, it seemed
like just a few seconds to me, might be a minute to you, but it's just a few
seconds, I heard what I indicated or detected as a slap and I heard a woman
screaming.

Q. Okay. And when you say you heard what sounded like a slap, would you be able
to describe that to me?

A. It was like (indicating hitting hands.)

Q. Just like flesh on flesh?

A. Yes.

Q. And once you heard that woman screaming and flesh on flesh, what, if any,
further action did you take at that point?

MR. LEONARD: I object. That misstates what she said. I thought she heard flesh
on flesh and a woman screaming. I want to make sure the record is clear.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Okay. Could you repeat the sequence on which you heard things
on this 911 call.

MR. LEONARD: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) What, if any, action did you take next after hearing these
things you heard over the 911 call?

A. At that time I already had my incident created to dispatch on it and I had
selected the bureau radio channels, I had a radio panel also, I had already
selected the bureau radio panels to dispatch the "unknown trouble" when I heard
the hit and the female screaming. Then I went back immediately and changed my
incident type from 900, which is "unknown trouble," to a 930W, which is a
"screaming woman." And I also indicated in my comments -- I had to justify why
I changed the incident typing. The comments I put in there, female being beaten
at location, that it was heard over the phone, so the officer would know what
he was responding to.

Q. And is this something you actually typed and memorialized on your computer?

A. Yes, I did. It's indicated in my incident.

Q. Okay.

MR. KELLY: I'd ask this to be marked, I believe it's Exhibit 2.

(The instrument herein described as a 911 operator incident report dated
January 1, 1989 was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2.)

MR. KELLY: If we could put that up on the Elmo, please. It's also very fine
print there.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, looking at that, you indicated when you first had
unknown trouble, there was some sort of call priority assigned to that, was
there not?

A. Yes. That's -- to your right, where you see C/P, that stands for code and
priority.

MR. KELLY: Can you focus on that, upper right-hand corner.

(Elmo is focused in.)

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Is that the right section, right where we're in right now?

A. Yes, it would be to your right where you see RD813. That tells me the car
call is from West LA, and that's a reporting district, and then CP is code and
priority. That's -- and for this type of incident type, that's the proper code
and priority for that type of call, which requires immediate police response.

Q. Was that the priority assigned to it when you had the unknown trouble on the
line?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Initially?

A. Yes, unknown trouble is the same.

Q. Okay. And was that changed at all after you heard -- when you indicated that
you had heard --

A. No.

Q. Okay. Was there any additional transmitting done as a result of that?

A. From the unknown trouble?

Q. Yeah.

A. No, because I did not have a chance to dispatch it as an "unknown trouble"
because before I could dispatch it I heard the hit and I heard the female
screaming so I immediately went back and updated it and dispatched it according
to the "screaming woman."

If you see in the -- my example that I have here, if you can raise it up to
that, at the bottom incident where my comments say "female being beaten at the
location, could be heard over the phone," you'll see it says updated, and it
gives you another incident number, my serial number on over, so it shows I
updated incident 1387.

Q. Okay.

A. Which is the "screaming woman" to add the comments.

Q. Was that call tape recorded?

A. Yes, they all are.

Q. Okay. And they are done in the normal course --

A. Yes.

Q. -- of the LAPD business and the 911 calls?

Have you had occasion since then to listen to this particular call that you
monitored?

A. Yes, I did awhile ago.

Q. Okay. And in listening to it, did it fairly accurately represent what you
had heard that morning on the call on 911?

A. You couldn't hear the hit, but that's because my head set has an open mike
so that it's going to pick up the noise around me, but I have a unique ear plug
that the call is directly detected to me. So you wouldn't hear what I hear,
you're only hearing what my mike is picking up. That's the noise around me.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I'm going to object and move to strike as
nonresponsive to that question.

THE COURT: It may remain.

MR. KELLY: Can we put on No. 1 at this point? This is Exhibit 1.

(The instrument described herein as a 1/1/89 911 Tape was marked for
identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1.)

THE COURT REPORTER: (Reporter indicates to her hands)

THE COURT: (Nods negatively.)

(Tape is played but not reported.)

(Tape ends playing.)

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Ms. Gilbert, at the beginning of that tape, first of all, it
sounded like a female screaming. Sound like a voice you heard over your 911
line?

A. Yes.

MR. LEONARD: Objection, leading, tape speaks for itself.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. LEONARD: I move to strike his characterization.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Then there was a reference to male black with a description
of height, weight and talk of revolver. Was that all related to the call you
received?

A. No, it wasn't.

Q. Could you explain why that appears on that tape?

A. Because I had already selected frequency to broadcast my call. I had to wait
for my turn to get the air, so someone else was broadcasting something to
another division and you heard it.

Q. And then what happened after that other broadcast went out through the other
division?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Then I got my turn to get the air.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) And were you able to speak to anybody on the other end of
that line when you received that 911 call?

A. No, I wasn't.

MR. KELLY: I have no further questions.

THE COURT: Cross-examine.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD:

Q. There was also a statement, it sounds like, by another dispatcher, someone
got beat up over there. Did you hear that? That has nothing to do with this?

A. No, it does not.

Q. Okay. I wanted to make sure.

MR. LEONARD: I don't have any more questions. Thanks a lot, I appreciate it.

THE COURT: Thank you. You're excused.

MR. KELLY: Mark Day.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, may we approach? (A bench conference was held, with
reporter.)

MR. BAKER: We object to any evidence relative to the 1985/84 incidents as being
remote and not involving domestic violence and not likely to lead to any
probative evidence, and under 352 the prejudicial value outweighs any probative
value.

This is where Mr. Simpson allegedly hit the windshield with a baseball bat of a
car owned by him. There was no report made of it until 1989. The incident --
although Fuhrman testified in the criminal trial that the incident couldn't
have occurred in '85. And so this was 10 years before any incident and before
these murders took place and we think it's remote in time, number one, and time
consuming, prejudicial effect outweighs any probative value.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, this is within ten years of the murders themselves.
We believe it demonstrates his propensity and temperament to commit these acts.
It demonstrates his rage.

This is one incident. Probably a five-minute witness, Your Honor, in terms of
his testimony, so there's no --

MR. KELLY: One other point. Sorry to double team here. I understand your
blanket ruling about statements of Nicole Brown Simpson, but this witness --
there's no telling how long after the incident he shows up, and this is a
Westec officer at that time. This is simply the report from -- of Nicole, of
what she says happened that led to this.

MR. BAKER: This witness, he has no percipient knowledge of what actually
occurred, other than he says he saw a windshield broken which is true, but
that's it.

I mean, otherwise it's a report from Nicole sometime later that same day. You
know, he's going to say that she was crying, but crying doesn't make it an
exited utterance as far as I know.

MR. KELLY: He can testify as to her state of mind, not only that she was
crying, that she was upset, she seemed frightened, that it had just happened at
the time, it was even before the police officers arrived at the scene he
summoned as part of his private security for --

MR. BAKER: Keep you voice down.

MR. KELLY: Sorry. Part of the private security shows up there even before the
uniformed patrol officers, which -- he will testify to her demeanor, her
appearance, the statements she made, what his observations were, and that's it.

MR. PETROCELLI: Under People versus Zack, this is relevant to show the nature
of the relationship between the parties.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, they're showing one incident in 1984, and this is not to
show the relationship of the parties, and it's so remote in time that it should
be excluded, much less the fact that it isn't an excited utterance, I'll
submit.

THE COURT: Okay. Overruled.

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

MARK DAY, called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and
testified as follows:

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause
now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: Please state and spell both your first and your last names for the
record.

THE WITNESS: Mark Day, M-a-r-k D-a-y.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY:

Q. Sir, you're currently employed?

A. I'm currently employed with the Police Department as a sergeant assigned to
Newton Division.

Q. Okay. And how long have you been with the LAPD?

A. Nine years.

Q. And prior to joining the LAPD, was there a period between 1983 and 1985 you
were employed elsewhere?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. Who were you employed by?

A. Westec Security.

Q. And what is Westec Security?

A. It is a private residential security firm.

Q. Okay. What were your duties with Westec when you were with them?

A. I worked as a patrol or alarm response officer and as a sergeant for awhile.

Q. And during the course of your duties, did you become familiar with the
residence of 360 North Rockingham?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Okay. And did you have occasion to go there in response to a disturbance at
any point in 1984, '85?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Okay. And could you tell me, first of all, what happened when you responded
there at that time?

A. Upon my arrival I came on the property from the north gate and walked -- was
walking towards the front door and I was the first person on the scene, and I
was met by Nicole Simpson as she came running across the front yard.

(Counsel displayed exhibit entitled "360 North Rockingham Avenue.")

Q. Can you explain Nicole Simpson's appearance to me, and demeanor as she ran
across the front yard?

A. She was hysterical, she was crying, very upset.

Q. And what, if anything, did she say to you at that time?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. She -- specifically I can't give you a quote, but it was, you know, that she
was very upset and that he had lost his temper and that she was afraid.

Q. Who had lost their temper?

A. Well, she didn't state it, but I later found out it was Mr. Simpson.

Q. Okay. And what, if anything, did you observe after Nicole Brown Simpson ran
up to you and you had this discussion with her?

A. I had her step behind me -- I had another Westec officer that arrived on the
scene, and what I observed was there was a Mercedes, like a 350, 450SL, little
2-door coupe that was parked in the driveway, in front of the front door --
that there were several dents in the top hood of the car, the glass was
shattered, and then the front hood of the car had several dents in it as well.

Q. When you say the glass was shattered, what glass in the car was shattered?

A. This would be the front windshield.

Q. Was that the entire windshield?

A. It was mostly on the driver side.

Q. And what, if anything else, did you observe in the immediate vicinity of the
car?

A. On the ground I observed a baseball bat.

Q. And what, if anything, happened after that?

A. A moment or two later Mr. Simpson came out the front door and I contacted
him and he basically said -- he was very quiet, very -- I want to say demure,
and he said that he lost his temper.

Q. Okay. And how long did you remain at that scene after that?

A. Possibly five minutes, approximately, or so. LAPD officers arrived on the
scene. And basically I was just keeping the peace until they arrived, and then
I turned it over to the police officers.

Q. Now, going back, you indicated when you first came up the driveway that
someone you learned to be Nicole Brown Simpson approached you; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

MR. KELLY: Can you put up 2194.

Q. I'd ask you to take a look at that, the photograph on the Elmo, and ask you
if you recognize that person?

A. Yes, that's Mrs. Nicole Brown Simpson.

Q. Is that the person that met you when you first arrived at this time?

A. Yes, it was.

MR. KELLY: I have no further questions.

(The instrument herein described as a photograph of Nicole Brown Simpson was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2194.)

MR. LEONARD: Briefly.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD:

Q. Good afternoon.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. Sergeant --

A. Yes?

Q. You never filled out -- strike that.

You filled out a report for the Los Angeles Police Department about this
incident approximately 10 years later, correct, on November 8, 1994; is that
right?

A. Yes, I did fill out a report.

Q. You were interviewed by Detective Vannatter; is that correct?

A. Regarding what?

Q. This incident, the incident you just testified about.

A. Right. I spoke to Chris Darden about it.

Q. Do you recall being interviewed by Detective Vannatter?

A. Briefly.

Q. Do you recall sending a report to him?

A. Yes.

Q. And in the report, were you trying to give an accurate and full description
of what you observed 10 years earlier?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Did you leave out anything on purpose in that report that you can
think of now?

A. I gave the report basically just documenting that I was there at that time.

Q. So the purpose of the report to Vannatter was just to document that you were
there?

A. That I had been there.

Q. But you weren't going to provide any detail in the report; is that your
testimony?

A. Not a matter of not providing detail. I did provide some detail to the
incident.

Q. You were trying to give Detective Vannatter and the prosecutor before the
criminal case a full and complete picture of what you had observed 10 years
before, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And that was the purpose of the report to Vannatter, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay.

Tell us, how did you -- how did -- you volunteered your -- the information you
had at some point, correct, the information you had about this incident that
occurred 10 years --

A. Yes.

Q. -- ago?

And you volunteered that after you heard some scuttlebutt around the West Los
Angeles Police Department, correct?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you hear some information about Mark Fuhrman having been out at
Rockingham in 1985? Did you hear any information about that, sir?

A. In the preliminary hearing, sir, yes.

Q. Okay. And you also heard information around the police, you were working
narcotics at that time?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you heard some information to the effect that Mark Fuhrman wasn't
believed about that?

MR. KELLY: Objection, hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. LEONARD: Goes to his state of mind, his bias, and why he's here today.

MR. KELLY: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. You may inquire as to his bias.

MR. LEONARD: I'm trying to.

THE COURT: You're not going to do it by asking him about conversations he had
with someone else.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, it goes to his state of mind. With all due respect --

THE COURT: Not unless you're going to produce the somebody else.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you have a conversation with Mark Fuhrman about this
incident?

MR. KELLY: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, you testified hear today that when you responded to
the residence, that Nicole Simpson came running out to you and she was upset,
she was afraid, right, she said she was afraid; is that right?

A. Yes, she did.

Q. And so you didn't go to the front door -- she didn't meet you at the front
door, correct?

A. No, sir.

Q. Okay. And if that was in your report of November 8, 1994, that would be
incorrect, right, sir, that she met you at the front door?

A. In front of the front door?

Q. Yeah. She met you at the front door, that's incorrect?

A. No. She came out from the front door and met me just north of the front
door, it's in the yard just north of the front door.

Q. Okay. So if the report says I was met at the front door by Nicole, that's
not correct, is it, sir?

A. No, sir, it was not at the front door.

Q. Okay.

And also, if the report leaves out the fact that she came running over to you,
that also makes it an inaccurate report, correct, sir?

MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Did -- I'm sorry, sir, could you repeat it.

Q. If the report does not say that Nicole Brown Simpson came running over to
you as you testified here today, that makes this report inaccurate also,
correct?

A. I wouldn't say it made it inaccurate, I'd say it's not as specific.

Q. Should have been in the report, right? That was an important fact wasn't it?

MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Should that fact have been in the report?

MR. KELLY: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. The --

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Can you answer it yes or no?

MR. KELLY: Objection. I believe he was getting ready to answer the question. He
was interrupted by Mr. Leonard.

THE COURT: He may answer the question.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Can I get a yes or no. Should that have been in the report?

THE COURT: You may answer yes or no.

A. I don't know if that's where it belongs, sir, at that point.

Q. At that point, as of the 8 of -- of November of 1994, how long had you been
a police officer, sir?

A. 7 years.

Q. And did you learn about reports and how important they are in the Academy?

MR. KELLY: Objection, irrelevant.

MR. LEONARD: Did you, sir?

THE COURT: Overruled?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. Did you learn about reports when you were a Westec security officer and
sergeant?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you learn that it was important to document as fairly and as accurately
and as completely as you could the events that you observed in a particular
incident? Did you learn that, sir?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. So when you just said you don't know whether it should have been in
the report, you want to change that testimony now, sir?

A. The basis -- the basis for the report, sir, was to document the incident,
and it was not -- and if my specificity of the report was lacking, it was not
out of an intentional deletion of information that was important.

Q. Where have you ever stated on the record, on paper, that Nicole Simpson came
running out to you, sir? Tell me where before today sitting on the stand?

A. That possibly would have been on the report I wrote for Westec many years
ago.

Q. You're just guessing about that, aren't you?

A. I'm saying with that specificity because I wrote it immediately after the
incident, sir.

Q. You're guessing that, aren't you, sir?

A. No, I'm not.

Q. You said possibly?

A. You're saying have I written that before this time?

Q. You were interviewed by Senior Investigator Thompson from the District
Attorney's office about this incident on January 1, 1995, correct? Do you
remember that?

A. I don't recall, sir.

Q. Do you remember being interviewed by someone other than Vannatter?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. After the Vannatter interview?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. Do you recall whether in that interview, you told Senior Investigator
Thompson that Nicole Simpson came running out to you? Do you remember that,
sir?

A. I don't recall what I -- what was stated in that interview.

Q. Would you like to look at it?

A. I'd love to.

MR. LEONARD: May I approach?

THE COURT: You may.

(Witness reviews document.)

Q. And look at this one while you're at it.

A. Thank you

(Witness reviews documents)

(Pause)

Q. Have you had a chance to review those two reports?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. When was the last time you reviewed those reports?

A. The one that I wrote I reviewed probably in January of '95. I'm going to
guess. I don't know exactly, sir, when I was at Mr. Darden's office.

Q. And when you say the one that you wrote, are you referring to the Vannatter
report?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. That's the report you wrote for Vannatter?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you not bother to review those before you came and testified here today,
sir?

A. No, sir.

Q. Didn't think that was necessary, did you?

A. I didn't have them available, sir.

Q. You didn't?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ask the plaintiffs' attorneys for it?

A. Not specifically. I wasn't -- I didn't remember the Thompson report, sir.

Q. Okay. Do you agree with me that nowhere in either of those reports do you
indicate that Nicole Brown Simpson came running out to you?

MR. KELLY: Well, I'd object to any answer being elicited regarding someone
else's report, Your Honor. I don't mind him answering about his own reports,
but he has no control over what someone else might report.

MR. KELLY: I'll lay a foundation.

THE COURT: Okay.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) With regard to the Vannatter report, the report that you
prepared for Vannatter, there's nowhere indicated in that report that Nicole
Brown Simpson came running out to you; isn't that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. In fact, it says she met you at the door. Doesn't it say that, sir?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And with regard to the other report, that's a report of an interview that
you gave to a senior investigator for the District Attorney's office, isn't
that right, in January 1 of 1995 in preparation for your testimony at the
trial, your potential testimony at the trial, correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And you've seen that report before, right?

A. Once.

Q. And did you correct anything in that report, sir, when you saw it?

MR. KELLY: Objection as to someone else's report, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you review that report at some point, the report of
January 1, 1995?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you reviewed it to make sure that it was accurate, correct, because it
was -- it was purporting to -- to report what you said to the investigator,
correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you never corrected it once, did you, sir?

A. I spoke with Mr. Darden about the incident. That's the best I can say.

Q. Did you correct anything that was indicated in the report that was reported
by you to Senior Investigator Thompson, yes or no, sir?

A. No, sir.

Q. Okay. There's nothing in that report that indicates that Nicole Brown
Simpson came running out to you as you testified on direct examination,
correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Were you trying to embellish the story a little bit before this jury, sir?

A. No.

Q. Is that what you were trying to do?

A. No, sir.

Q. Didn't bother to look at reports before you came here and testified in front
of this jury?

MR. KELLY: Objection, asked a answered.

MR. LEONARD: Withdrawn.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You kind of like a pinch-hitter today; isn't that right?

MR. KELLY: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you testify at the criminal trial?

A. No, sir.

Q. Mark Fuhrman testified at the criminal trial with regard to this matter?

MR. PETROCELLI: You know, Your Honor --

THE COURT: Sustained. Jury to disregard.

MR. LEONARD: Nothing further.

MR. PETROCELLI: It's really out of --

MR. LEONARD: Withdrawn.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY:

Q. (MR. KELLY) Sergeant, today you indicated -- Mr. Leonard was asking you some
questions about reporting to anyone about Nicole coming out crying from the
front door?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you have a conversation with Chris Darden regarding that?

A. Yes, I did.

MR. KELLY: I have no further questions.

MR. LEONARD: I'm finished with this witness.

THE COURT: Thank you, you're excused.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

THE COURT: Next.

MR. KELLY: Your Honor, before the next witness, I'd like to move Exhibits 1 and
2 which were put up with the prior witness, Sharon Gilbert, and 2194 that was
put in through this witness.

THE COURT: Okay, received.

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 1)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2194)

MR. KELLY: Sergeant Rob Lerner. ROBERT LERNER, was called as a witness on
behalf of the Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause
now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: And if you please, state and spell your name for the record.

THE WITNESS: Yes. It's R-o-b-e-r-t L-e-r-n-e-r.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY:

Q. Good afternoon, Sergeant.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. You're obviously currently employed as a sergeant by the Police Department?

A. Yes, sir, that's correct.

Q. Okay. And how long have you been employed by the LAPD?

A. Little over 22 years.

Q. And I want to draw your attention to October 25, 1993. Were you on duty that
day?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And do you recall what your tour of duty was?

A. I was working a patrol assignment in West Los Angeles division on the mid
p.m. watch.

Q. And what are the hours of the mid p.m watch?

A. Starts at 6 in the evening, ends at 2:45 in the morning.

Q. Do you recall receiving a radio communication in your car at approximately
10 p.m.?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you recall what the substance of that call was?

A. It was a domestic violence dispute call. I believe the address was on Gretna
Green.

Q. Do you recall whether there was any call priority on that call?

A. It was coded as a code 2 high call meaning an urgent call just under a code
3 call which involves red lights and siren.

MR. KELLY: Your Honor, at this time I'd like to play a tape which would be
Exhibit 16. Admissibility has already been stipulated to.

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to that, Your Honor. There's no foundation
through this witness.

MR. PETROCELLI: It's stipulated to --

MR. BAKER: There's no foundation.

MR. PETROCELLI: -- as to admissibility and foundation.

MR. BAKER: Through this witness.

THE COURT: Show me the stipulation.

MR. KELLY: Can we play --

THE COURT: I want to see the stipulation, counsel.

MR. KELLY: Okay.

(Mr. Petrocelli and Mr. Baker approach bench.)

(A bench conference was held which was not reported.)

THE COURT: Witness, would you step outside.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

(Witness exits courtroom.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor.

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

MR. KELLY: Can we play it, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, at this time the parties have stipulated
to come into evidence, that's why we're listening to it without anybody
testifying as to how it was made, et cetera.

Does everybody understand that?

JURORS: Nod affirmative.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

(Tape is played)

(Tape concludes playing.)

THE COURT: Bring your witness in.

(Witness resumes witness stand)

THE CLERK: You are still under oath. Please state your name.

THE WITNESS: Robert Lerner.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Sergeant, going back to approximately 10 p.m. on October 25,
1993, did there come -- at about that time did you arrive at 325 Gretna Green
Way?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what, if anything, did you observe out front at that residence when you
arrived there at that time?

A. We observed a vehicle that was described in the comments reports as a white
Bronco.

Q. And where did you see that in relationship to the house itself?

A. The Bronco was parked in the street facing southbound. It was -- it was in
front of the house, about four to six feet from the curb.

Q. And did you make any other observations about the car at that time?

A. Yes.

Q. What was that?

A. The headlights were on, the ignition was off.

Q. Okay. Was there anybody in there at this time?

A. Nobody in the vehicle, no.

MR. KELLY: If I could see 2195.

(The instrument herein described as photo depicting 325 South Gretna Green with
two vehicles parked at curb side was marked for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2195)

Q. I'm going ask you to look at that residence and see if you recognize it?

A. Yes. That's the house at 325 South Gretna Green.

Q. Okay. And that's where you indicated the white Bronco was parked out front
away from the curb?

A. Yes. It was over here in the south part of the house, south side of the
residence.

Q. There's a driveway from that house, isn't there?

A. Yes.

MR. KELLY: Okay. You can take it off.

Q. Now, what, if anything, did you observe next after seeing the white Bronco
parked out front in the street?

A. We approached the front door of the residence and were met by the tenant.

Q. And who was the tenant?

A. Nicole Brown Simpson.

Q. Okay. And did you step into the house or did she come outside at this time?

A. She came out front.

Q. And could you describe her appearance and demeanor at the time you first saw
her?

A. Well, she was pretty upset, she was visibly shaking, and she was -- she had
been very frightened earlier.

MR. BAKER: Move to strike.

THE COURT: Stricken.

Q. Did she appeared frighten when you saw her?

A. She told me -- she said she was scared.

MR. BAKER: Move to strike as hearsay.

THE COURT: State of mind, overruled.

Q. (MR. KELLY) I'm sorry, she was --

A. She told me she was scared.

MR. KELLY: Can you flip on Exhibit 21, please.

(Exhibit 21 displayed.)

(The instrument herein described as a photograph of Nicole Brown Simpson was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 21)

Q. Do you recognize that photo?

A. Yes. That was the person to whom we responded, the call, Nicole Brown
Simpson.

Q. And you determined that she was the one who had made those phone calls?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And did you also determine whether the individual was -- the subject
of those phone calls was still there?

A. Yes. She told us he was still there.

Q. And what, if anything, did you do next after you met Nicole?

A. We tried to establish the location of the suspect.

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, can we take that off the screen? He's identified this.

THE COURT: You may.

(Exhibit 21 removed.)

A. We established the current location of the suspect, and if he was armed, if
there were any additional suspects, and entered the house.

Q. And what did you do upon entering the house?

A. We walked through the house where she directed us to the suspect's location,
where he was in the rear house.

Q. Did you make any observations regarding the interior of the house as you
went through it?

A. Yes. Upon exiting from the main house into the backyard area there was a
double French doors and I made an observation with regard to those doors.

Q. What was that observation?

A. The door was broken, there was a wood chip that was -- or wood splinter that
had been broken off from the door, and the door had been split all the way up
to the top of the door.

Q. And after looking at the rear French doors, where, if anywhere, did you go
next?

A. We responded to the rear guest house.

Q. Was that separate from the main house?

A. Yes.

Q. And how far was it from the main house back to the guest house?

A. Oh, 40 feet.

Q. And who, if anybody, was in the guest house when you arrived there?

A. Two people were present in the guest house; one was Mr. Simpson -- O.J.
Simpson, and the other was Kato Kaelin.

Q. And can you describe Mr. Simpson's demeanor when you observed him at that
time?

A. He was -- he was pretty much enraged. He was pacing back and forth talking
very loudly, speaking with his hands, motioning and pretty upset.

Q. And what, if any, action did you take at this time?

A. I tried to calm Mr. Simpson. I wanted to have a discussion with him and I
wanted to get his side of the story.

Q. Okay. Did you engage him in discussion at this time?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did there come a time that anybody else arrived back in the guest house?

A. Yes.

Q. And who was that?

A. That was my immediate supervisor, Sergeant Craig Lally.

Q. Okay. How long had you been out there when Sergeant Lally arrived?

A. Oh, 7 to 10 minutes.

Q. Okay. And was there any further discussion between yourself, Sergeant Lally
and Mr. Simpson at this time?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you recall approximately how long the conversations were that you had
with him?

A. Well, the first conversation took about 10 minutes or so. We were in
conversation with him on and off for about 30 minutes or so.

Q. When you say on and off, were you talking to anyone else in the interim?

A. Yes.

Q. Who was that?

A. Nicole Brown Simpson.

Q. Did there come a time that Mr. Simpson left the premises?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Let me ask you, did it ever come to your attention that a tape
recording had been made of these conversations between yourself, Sergeant
Lally, and Mr. Simpson?

A. Yes. It came to my attention about two days before I appeared in the
criminal trial -- before I testified in the criminal trial.

Q. And prior to then -- first of all, who -- did you find out who made that
recording?

A. I found out Sergeant Lally made that recording.

Q. When that recording was being made, did you have any idea it was being
recorded?

A. No, not a clue.

Q. Okay. If you had -- have you had occasion to listen to that tape in its
entirety?

A. Yes, I listened to it.

Q. When was the first time you listened to that tape?

A. Two days before the criminal trial.

Q. And do you recall approximately when that was in terms of --

A. February of '95.

Q. And have you had occasion to listen to it since that time also?

A. Yes.

Q. When was that?

A. Last week, Friday.

Q. And that was with me?

A. Yes.

Q. And would you be able to say that that tape fairly and accurately represents
the conversations that you, Sergeant Lally, and Mr. Simpson had that night?

A. Yes, it's accurate.

MR. KELLY: Okay, Your Honor, at this time I'd like to play Exhibit 757.

MR. BAKER: Objection.

THE COURT: How long is that?

MR. KELLY: It's 30 minutes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, you got 15 minutes left. I don't want to listen to half of it.

Objection overruled.

What's the number?

MR. KELLY: 757.

(The instrument herein described as a tape recording made on October 25, 1993
was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 757)

THE COURT: Is there anything else, anything more you want to ask of this
witness before we adjourn?

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) What, if anything, did you do after Mr. Simpson left the
premises, was there any further action you took yourself?

A. Yes.

Q. What was that?

A. I completed a crime report.

Q. And after you completed that crime report, what, if anything, else did you
do?

A. I believe just counsel Nicole Simpson, and we left the residence.

Q. And after that night, when you left that premises, did you ever see Nicole
Brown Simpson again?

A. No.

MR. KELLY: I have no further questions, Your Honor.

MR. BAKER: I've got a few, Your Honor.

THE COURT: We'll adjourn till tomorrow at 8:30.

Ladies and gentlemen, don't talk about the case, don't form or express any
opinion.

THE WITNESS: I guess I'm ordered back?

THE COURT: You're ordered back.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.

(At 4:16 P.M. an adjournment was taken until Tuesday, November 19, 1996 at 8:30
A.M.)