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

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is present before the court with his counsel, Mr. Douglas, Mr. Blasier, Mr. Neufeld, Mr. Scheck. The People are represented by Mr. Darden. The jury is not present. All right. Counsel, the record should reflect that yesterday afternoon the court met informally with counsel here in the courtroom. And the court conducted an informal evidentiary proceeding concerning the exhibits that have been offered by the Defense so that we could hopefully streamline our proceeding here this morning. All right. Are both sides ready to proceed with their evidence list? Mr. Darden?

MR. DARDEN: Not exactly.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: As the court is aware, I have some objections to certain specific items. Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Clarke--

THE COURT: What is "Not exactly"?

MR. DARDEN: Well, we need Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Clarke for many of the others.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DARDEN: I do have a few, a handful, which I am ready to discuss on the record.

THE COURT: Well, it could be more helpful to me if we could do these in order.

MR. DARDEN: I would agree.

THE COURT: Since I've got them all here and organized in numerical order.

MR. DARDEN: Can we send someone upstairs to arouse them and get them down here?

THE COURT: We are late getting started already as it is.

MR. DARDEN: I was here.

THE COURT: All right. And I noted this morning that the court had not been served with a copy of your writ. Is that an oversight?

MR. DARDEN: I think it is being filed right now.

THE COURT: All right. Well, Mr. Darden, which of these are you prepared to go forward on? How about the first page? Can we at least get started on the first page? All right. Let's start with the first page. Exhibits 1000 and 1001. My understanding, Mr. Douglas, is both of those are withdrawn by the Defense; is that correct?

MR. DOUGLAS: That's correct, your Honor.

(Deft's 1000&1001 = withdrawn)

THE COURT: All right. There is an objection to 1003 which is a photograph of the Defendant and his daughter at the reception. It is an 8-by-10 blow-up. Mr. Darden, my recollection is that you raised the objection to this.

MR. DARDEN: That's correct, your Honor.

THE COURT: What is your objection?

MR. DARDEN: Same as before, your Honor. This is a photograph in which the Defendant is posing with his daughter. This photograph lacks angles any degree of trustworthiness or reliability. He is posing for a photograph and so to suggest to the jury that this photograph is an accurate depiction of the Defendant's demeanor throughout the evening of June 12th, I would suggest is misleading. It be misleading to the jury, so there is a 352 objection to that photograph.

THE COURT: Mr. Douglas.

MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I thought that the Prosecution was making a foundational objection as their papers to me suggested. Clearly Denise Brown, Tia Gavin, Kato Kaelin, laid the proper foundation that that photograph fairly and accurately reflected a particular review at that time of what both were wearing. There was an added focus from that picture on Mr. Simpson's hand, confirming that there was no cut on his hand in that picture, through Mr. Kaelin. I think it is in fact admissible.

THE COURT: All right. I think there is an adequate foundation. Clearly it is a photograph of a photograph of a father with his daughter at a happy family occasion. I don't think anybody would take it as anything else. But it does have probative value as to the condition of Mr. Simpson's left hand and it does have some relevance as to what he was wearing that evening, so the objection will be overruled. All right. No. 1010.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, may I have permission to plug into the computer?

THE COURT: I'm sorry? You may. The record should reflect we have been joined by Mr. Goldberg. The next objection is 1010 which is Officer Riske's report.

MR. DARDEN: There is a hearsay objection to that.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Douglas.

MR. DOUGLAS: It was testified to at page 14195 of the transcript to impeach. I would also argued that it is a statement of a party offered against a party and for those grounds there is an exception to the hearsay rule.

MR. DARDEN: Contrary to public opinion the LAPD is not a party to this lawsuit and it was used only for impeachment purposes; a small part of it, not in its entirety. The--any portion of it that was used for impeachment was read into the record. It is in the record. Counsel can certainly argue that in front of the jury. It is hearsay.

MR. DOUGLAS: I would also, your Honor, that it has sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness, which is the catchall exception to the hearsay rule, such since it was in fact a report it could even arguably, although I don't think a proper foundation was made, but clearly there can be no argument that it is a business record. It was prepared at or near the time of the events by one that was charged with that duty for purposes of accurately reflecting what he saw at that time. And I think for all of these grounds, under the catchall exception at least, it would be admissible.

THE COURT: All right. I will overrule the objection to the extent that it was used, a particular passage in this was used. That portion that was actually used as a prior inconsistent statement to impeach Officer Riske will be allowed. The remainder, however, the objection is sustained. All right. 1011, objection to this photograph which is an outtake from a videotape, from the, as I recall, what was it, American Journal?

MR. DARDEN: Yes. Can I look at that photograph briefly?

THE COURT: Sure.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: And during the course of our discussions either counsel may ask to approach to look at the exhibit itself.

MR. DOUGLAS: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: We will withdraw our objection to that photograph.

(Deft's 1011 = withdrawn)

THE COURT: All right. No. 1016, page from the LAPD manual.

MR. DARDEN: Let me indicate this: I am now arguing exhibits that were admitted during witnesses that were examined by Miss Clark, so I need to take a look at that.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Let me direct your attention to section 2346. This was a cross-examination of Detective Phillips regarding his obligations to notify the Coroner, so the concentration should be on 2346, section 2346. It is about mid-page.

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

MR. DARDEN: The objection to this document is hearsay, lack of foundation. It is subject to many different interpretations, as I recall from the testimony from the three homicide detectives in this case. It would be misleading.

MR. DOUGLAS: I think, your Honor, on transcript page 15011 to 12 Detective Phillips laid an adequate foundation for the introduction of this document. I think it was also used to impeach. It was also used as a business record. I think that all of those--also, your Honor, since it is a portion of the police manual, it certainly carries sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness so as to justify other grounds as an exception to the hearsay rule. For those reasons I would move for its admission.

THE COURT: All right. It will be admitted; however, only section 238.46 will be admitted. The remainder will be redacted. All right. 1017.

MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, excuse me. Would the court do the redaction or the clerk or should I do the redaction?

THE COURT: Your exhibit.

MR. DOUGLAS: Very well.

THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson has enough to do.

MR. DOUGLAS: I agree.

THE COURT: All right. Section 10250 health and safety code.

MR. DOUGLAS: Same grounds. Page 15018 of the transcript.

MR. DARDEN: Same objection.

THE COURT: All right. The objection will be overruled; however, the court will highlight section 10250 with a yellow highlighter directing the juror's attention to the portion that is relevant and I will draw an "X" through those sections that are not relevant to their consideration and save you the redaction problems. All right. That objection is overruled. All right. Next item is special order 21, LAPD special order 21.

MR. DARDEN: Same objection.

MR. DOUGLAS: Same response, your Honor. On pages 15018 of the transcript an adequate foundation was laid. It was used to impeach. It certainly is relevant. I think it also qualifies for a business record and it carries sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness.

MR. DARDEN: I would disagree that it was used to impeach. I think the officers testified they were aware of the--their obligations.

THE COURT: All right. That objection will be overruled. All right. No. 1019 and 1019-A. This is the--my recollection this is the tape-recorded conversation between Detective Heath--excuse me--Richard Heath and Detective Phillips.

MR. DOUGLAS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: No, Mr. Willis, I'm sorry. Mr. Heath was the second phone call.

MR. DOUGLAS: I think the transcript involved both conversations as well. If the court will recall, it reflected Mr.--Detective Phillips' conversations with the Coroner on the first call and also his delayed second call. I think it very relevant. I think that Phillips was able to authenticate the actual conversation. It certainly goes to his state of mind. It certainly was used to impeach. I'm not sure of the court's practice in terms of which is the real evidence, if the document itself can go in or simply the tape. I will leave that to the court's discretion.

THE COURT: Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Consistent with case law, the transcript is not evidence. As for the tape-recording itself, it is hearsay. Detective Phillips was here to testify to having placed a phone call to the Coroner's office. I don't think it was used to impeach him at all. He told us what he said and what he did and why he did it and he told us the time, the time frame in which he did those things. This is hearsay, totally completely hearsay.

THE COURT: All right. My recollection is that it was used as a prior inconsistent statement, so the objection will be overruled. All right. No. 1020, statement of Detective Lange.

MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, is the court allowing 19-A?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. DARDEN: The transcript as well, your Honor?

THE COURT: The transcript and the tape but they have to be used together.

MR. DARDEN: The transcript isn't evidence.

THE COURT: The court has discretion to require the presence of a transcript of any tape-recording.

MR. DARDEN: There has been no attempt to make certain that the transcript is an accurate depiction or an accurate copy--

THE COURT: All right. But the court listened to the tape recording, had the transcript at the time it was played in court, and I make that finding now. All right. As to 1021.

MR. DARDEN: Can I look at the document? It is a 352 hearsay objection.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, that document was used to--through Mr. Lange to impeach Detective Phillips. As the court will recall, there was the discussion of whether or not Lange had been informed that Mr. Simpson and his wife had been involved in past marital discord, whether or not Phillips had been told by Fuhrman that Fuhrman was aware of that discord and had been at the Simpson home on a prior occasion. Phillips had denied that ever occurring. We then used Lange's statement to impeach him.

MR. DARDEN: And that was read into the record and the witness was confronted with it and that is in the record. The police report is, nevertheless, hearsay, your Honor.

MR. DOUGLAS: I would appreciate the court's ruling that that portion that was used should be allowed, but the remainder redacted.

MR. DARDEN: Are we going to have a blank page then at the bottom of the page?

THE COURT: I'm sorry?

MR. DARDEN: Are we going to have a page, an eight-and-a-half-by-ten-inch page and then at the bottom of it have one sentence in it and everything is redacted? I think that is more than a little bit unfair. In any event, the witness testified to this, Judge, in front of the jury. The police report is hearsay.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DOUGLAS: Given events, your Honor, that have transpired since the introduction of that document, Mr. Fuhrman's credibility is very important. Whether or not there has been some sort of code of silence is a real issue the Defense has raised. The fact that Mr. Fuhrman's partner chose not to recall or did not recall a very important aspect which we think leads to an argument that there was a rush to judgment, the fact that another detective placed that in his report, are all pieces of evidence that are central to the puzzle that we are attempting to create or to make to demonstrate the code of silence, the rush to judgment, the possibility that others would say things under oath, even less than truthful, to protect one of their own.

MR. DARDEN: And counsel is going to ask the jury to speculate a number of things and paint all police officers with the same brush. And this is hearsay and it is prejudicial, given the apparent intended use of the document.

MR. DOUGLAS: I would say all argument we are offering against the Prosecution is prejudicial. That is not the test. The test is whether it is unduly prejudicial in light of the probative value. It is very probative that an officer wrote a report conflicting with the statement of another officer. It is very central to the case, given things that have transpired since the introduction of this document.

THE COURT: All right. The--in the second full paragraph there is a notation that Detective Phillips had advised Vannatter and Lange that Mr. Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson had been embroiled in previous domestic violence situations, one of which resulted in Mr. Simpson's arrest. That was a statement that was inconsistent with the testimony here in court. Therefore, this second paragraph will be allowed; however, the hearsay objection to the remainder is sustained.

MR. DARDEN: Did the court just read a complete paragraph or just a partial of a paragraph?

THE COURT: I'm going to leave in the complete second paragraph. Second paragraph states as follows: "Upon arrival at the crime scene detectives were met by Detective III Ron Phillips, West L.A. Division homicide coordinator. Phillips stated that victim Brown was the ex-wife of O.J. Simpson, the well-known athlete/actor. Additionally. Phillips stated that Mr. Simpson and victim 1 had been embroiled in previous domestic violence situations, one of which"--"One of these resulting in the arrest of Mr. Simpson." That is the only relevant portion on this document with regards to that testimony. The remainder will be redacted. All right. 1023, notes of Mark Fuhrman.

MR. DARDEN: Hearsay.

MR. DOUGLAS: Reference was made at page 15123 and 24. I think they were used to impeach. I think it very--it could also qualify as a business exception. I believe Detective Fuhrman also adequately authenticated the accuracy of that report. I think it reflects his state of mind. I think it also carries sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness to justify its admissibility.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

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

THE COURT: I'm sorry, what is the--

MR. DARDEN: It is hearsay.

THE COURT: What is the hearsay objection to this--I mean exception?

MR. DOUGLAS: One, your Honor, it is being offered to reflect not necessarily the truth of the matter asserted, but that certain things were said. It is being offered, your Honor, to impeach. It is being offered to reflect the state of mind of the writer.

THE COURT: How does it reflect the state of mind?

MR. DOUGLAS: Because it talks about those things that he observed that he thought were important at the time that he was walking through the crime scene.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. DOUGLAS: It is also, your Honor, being offered to establish--and to establish his frame of mind in terms of what he knew and when he knew it, which we may then use to dispute some of the representations that were made at the time, that perhaps there had been a gunshot wound to one of the victims, that there was some uncertainty or whether there was certainty as to the nature of the actual crime. It is also going to be very important when we attempt to argue the significance of the picture that he is pointing to and what was in his mind at that time.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

THE COURT: All right. This one I'll take under submission.

MR. DOUGLAS: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: This one I will take under submission, 1023.

THE COURT: All right. 1027, which is--this is the freeze frame of Mr. Fung holding a paper bag coming out of the location where Mr. Goldman's body was located. Mr. Rokahr appears in the photograph, as does Miss Mazzola and the two Coroners. Mr. Darden, are you familiar with this one?

MR. DARDEN: Yes. There is a 352 foundational objection, your Honor.

MR. DOUGLAS: I think the foundation was adequately laid by both Phillips--I think Fung also was capable of laying the proper foundation. I think it is also self-authenticating.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, may I see that for a second?

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: That is part of another video that is already in evidence.

MR. DARDEN: Part of another video we will be objecting to, given the nature of the lens used to take that video, which as the court is aware, this telescopic lens tends to condense space and distorts space as well. It will be misleading to the jury. It will give the jury the impression that there are many, many individuals stomping over the crime scene in a very shall very, very small area, which is not--

MR. DOUGLAS: Oh, I think--

MR. DARDEN: --necessarily the truth. As the court may recall, when I looked at that video you couldn't tell if people were on the sidewalk or in the crime scene. It wasn't until we saw other videos that we could actually determine how far and how much distance there actually was from different individuals. It is misleading.

MR. DOUGLAS: I think the Prosecution went through great pains to call other witnesses to attempt to rebut any suggestion that there are a lot of people stomping through the scene. The picture speaks for itself. The arguments of counsel go more to weight than to admissibility. It is in fact self-authenticating. It is not unduly misleading. I think that both sides will be capable to draw whatever conclusions they deem appropriate from the pictures, but certainly given the other testimony of other witnesses, Mr. Darden's concerns are not well-taken.

MR. DARDEN: They have never called a witness to explain to this jury the problems with space and distance in this video and in this photograph, Judge, so there is no evidence before the jury that will help them determine what the actual distances are between different objects and different individuals.

MR. DOUGLAS: If I am not mistaken, they called the photographer themselves, your Honor, who took the video from which this was drawn to talk about where he was, how he did it, whatever the distortions may have been, so the jury is apprised of those issues.

THE COURT: All right. But the issue depicted is Mr. Fung coming out of the area of Mr. Goldman's body holding the paper bag and that is the area and that is what it depicts, so the objection will be overruled. All right. 1029, this is the two-page fingerprint report.

MR. DARDEN: Could I see that, please?

(Brief pause.)

MR. DOUGLAS: I believe that is in through Aguilar.

THE COURT: Later?

MR. DOUGLAS: Correct.

MR. DARDEN: Was it marked twice?

THE COURT: It may have been. My recollection is toward the end when we got to Mr. Aguilar we went through that again.

MR. DOUGLAS: Correct.

MR. DARDEN: I think we marked a couple of fingerprint related documents with Mr. Aguilar.

THE COURT: It may be also 1323.

MR. DARDEN: If it is in fact 1323, I would like to keep the fingerprint documents together in sequence.

THE COURT: All right. We'll take this one under submission. My inclination is to sustain the objection to this, since it appears also to be--to appear as Defense exhibit 1323 for which there was no objection.

MR. DOUGLAS: We will compare them first, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. So remind me to come back to that one. All right. 1030.

MR. DOUGLAS: I believe this is also another document, your Honor, that was authenticated by Mr. Aguilar. Can I just see that?

THE COURT: Let's do this. We have two sets of these fingerprint documents. Let's compare those and see which one is which, so we will take those up later. Mrs. Robertson, remind us to look back at the fingerprint documents. All right. 1031, Coroner document. Objection is foundation.

MS. CLARK: Hearsay.

THE COURT: Mr. Douglas.

MR. COCHRAN: Submit, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Objection sustained. All right. 1036, photograph. Where does this appear in the transcript?

MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, at page 15886 and 87.

THE COURT: What was the testimony relevant to this?

MR. DOUGLAS: It focused on the issue of contamination, whether in fact that appeared to be Mr. Goldman's body, whether in fact there appeared to be a glove on the body. It was very central at that time to issues that we were raising as to the integrity of the crime scene and to show the lax--or the apparent lax manner in which some of the crime scene and the victims and the bodies and the evidence were handled.

MS. CLARK: There was no testimony to establish whose gloves they were, how they got on there. This was a photograph that pertained to the point in time when Ratcliffe and Jacobo were taking care of the bodies and Mr. Goldman's body was on a sheet and there was a pair of plastic gloves on his body. Whether or not that actually proved any contamination or transferred from one body to another was never established, never linked up with any of the appropriate witnesses.

MR. DOUGLAS: Oh, I think the jury was able to glean from the evidence, your Honor, that that--even the Prosecution's theory is not that that--those gloves were left by the killer in the case. Those were gloves that were consistent with the kind of gloves that we have seen in court that were worn by the criminalists. They are there on the body after the body has been moved, if I'm not mistaken. The body is on the walkway. Therefore it is clear, or at least we must give some belief, that the jury can extrapolate that those gloves were placed there by some police official. The fact that no one knows how they were there or would want to own up to why they were there is not surprising.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, somebody will own up, if the Defense had decided to call the witness that would have been appropriate for that foundation. They never did. And they are asking the jury to speculate that something improper was done without ever having called the witness to establish that something improper was done.

THE COURT: Which photo did this come from?

MR. DOUGLAS: That is a photograph turned over to us by the Prosecution, your Honor.

THE COURT: It appears to be one of Mr. Rokahr's photographs and appears to have a frame stamp on it of 1:94.

MR. DOUGLAS: I mean, your Honor, I don't think that a foundation necessitates us proving whose plastic gloves are shown on Mr. Goldman's body when it is laying on the pavement. I think that the foundation that is necessary for the admissibility of that photograph is that this was a photograph on June 13th fairly and accurately reflecting the body as it was at some point in time.

THE COURT: All right. What was the page in the transcript?

MR. DOUGLAS: 15886 and 87.

THE COURT: All right. I will take a look at that.

MS. CLARK: What volume was that?

MR. DOUGLAS: I have page numbers; I don't have volumes.

THE COURT: Okay. Next one is report of Officer Vasquez, 1042.

MR. DOUGLAS: Submit it, your Honor.

THE COURT: I'm sorry.

MR. DOUGLAS: Submit it.

THE COURT: All right. Objection sustained. All right. 1043 is a videotape of the Bundy crime scene. Which videotape is this?

MS. CLARK: Is this the video done by some TV station?

THE COURT: That narrows it down.

MS. CLARK: No, actually it is narrow enough for me because I remember.

MR. DOUGLAS: If we can see 1043-A, B or C which are clips from a video.

THE COURT: Yeah. That will tell us which one it is.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, are you familiar with these?

MS. CLARK: Yes. Could I see them, your Honor?

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: And Mr. Douglas, and Mr. Goldberg, you were part of our conversation yesterday about these videotapes as well. How do we propose to redact these to the portions that were used?

MR. DOUGLAS: Mr. Harris is currently doing that as we speak, your Honor, since he has been present during the playing of all our videos. He is familiar with all that has been played. We will then show them to Mr. Goldberg at the conclusion. As the court--by the way, your Honor, this was the video where there was a preliminary objection because we didn't know who the photographer was, and this was a 402 hearing with Lange and there were strenuous objections at those times. We had the hearing. Lange laid the foundation. The court overruled the objection and it was then played for the jury, but attempts had been made much earlier in the trial for this snippet and then we were able at that point to lay another foundation.

MS. CLARK: The objection on this is not foundation. The objection is 352, your Honor. And the problem that was presented--and I think actually the court is in a better position to assess why it is 352 now than before after having seen all of the photographs and all of the tell from the people at the crime scene and the testimony of the photographer, videographer that the people called to put the American Journal photograph into perspective which is this: That this video was actually taken by someone across the street. All of the photographers, according to that testimony, were across the street. They were not allowed to be anywhere near the crime scene. As a result they had to use a zoom lens. In the use of the zoom you have a compression of space, making it appear that everybody is on top of each other, crawling all over each other. That is the problem with this video. It is very misleading and confusing, highly prejudicial to the accurate depiction of what was going on at the crime scene and the manner in which it was handled. The stills are actually much better because there isn't nearly as much misleading information. And I think that if the court were to admit the stills to show what--what they want to show is how there was--were mistakes made in the handling of the crime scene. For example, Rokahr looking in the mailbox, someone holding a coffee cup and Dennis Fung stepping out of the crime scene with a brown bag in his hand and not wearing any gloves. That indicates everything the Defense needs in terms of being able to communicate to the jury what mistakes were made in handling the crime scene. Fair enough. And the People would withdraw their objection to 1043-A, B and C, but I think that the video is unduly misleading and confusing because of the manner which it was shot, and I think that that would be unfair.

THE COURT: All right. Then the People withdraw their objection to 1043-A, B and C. What I will do is ask Mr. Harris to exhibit to me later today 1043, the portion that was shown.

MR. DOUGLAS: May I say one thing, your Honor, in response?

THE COURT: Certainly.

MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, these videos were all taken across the street; those that the Defense seeks to introduce, those that the People have already introduced. Two, there was, and I forgot his name now, the African American gentleman with the balding head who testified because he had been hired as a stringer to take photographs on this day and there was a major quality of evidence focusing on that very issue, in fact responding to Miss Clark's concerns that there was this element of distortion. Therefore, the argument that she has made, which parrots those made earlier, simply go to the weight to be given; not to the admissibility of the tape.

THE COURT: But Mr. Douglas, all I'm saying is, gee, before I finally decide, I would like to see it one more time.

MR. DOUGLAS: Very well, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, for your assistance, I have identified at page 17904 of the transcript when the discussion of this begins, at least for these segments the court read out, the counter numbers, because these were videotapes that had counter numbers, so I think they were--

THE COURT: All right. All right. The record will reflect that exhibits 1044-A--1044, 1044-A, 1045, 1046, 1046-A have been withdrawn by the Defense.

MR. DOUGLAS: Correct, your Honor. They all concern the testimony of Rosa Lopez.

(Deft's 1044,1044-A,1045,1046,1046-A = withdrawn)

THE COURT: All right. Also, 1048 has been withdrawn.

MR. DOUGLAS: Correct, your Honor. That was used only to refresh.

(Deft's 1048 = withdrawn)

THE COURT: All right. 1052, hearsay objection.

MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, that was discussed on transcript page 17998 through 18001 concerning an entire area of cross-examination of Detective Lange as to the importance of having a body examined soon. It was used to impeach. It is used--offered as an exception to the hearsay rule.

MS. CLARK: I need to see it again, your Honor, but it was my--oh, thank you.

THE COURT: I'm sorry, what was the page reference?

MR. DOUGLAS: 17998 through 18001.

THE COURT: Thank you.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: The People have no objection to the pages 29 through 38. The People object, however, to the last two pages or three pages offered concerning stomach contents for which Detective Lange could not have been impeached. It is inappropriate, improper impeachment of him. That is beyond his field of expertise. It has to do with assessment of time of death for stomach contents.

THE COURT: Mr. Douglas, that is probably--because that portion was not used with Detective Lange--

MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I don't want to argue its admission.

THE COURT: I'm sorry?

MR. DOUGLAS: I don't want to argue its admission if it wasn't used.

THE COURT: All right. As to the extent it was not used?

MR. DOUGLAS: To the extent it was used, that is fine.

THE COURT: All right. Then what we will do is sustain the objection to the portion that was not used.

MS. CLARK: Well, the People would urge the court to sustain the objection even if the portion was used for stomach contents because it would be improper impeachment because it is beyond the witness' field of expertise.

THE COURT: Mr. Douglas just acquiesced to that.

MS. CLARK: All right. I heard him only acquiesce to the part that was not used. I can't remember if it was used with Detective--

THE COURT: No. We have agreed that it is just the physical observations made by the investigating officer at the crime scene; has nothing to do with autopsy examination or anything like that.

MS. CLARK: Well, that--the part about autopsy examination and time of death begins on page 30 in which case it should be--the only thing that is really relevant to Detective Lange is the first page, 29.

MR. DOUGLAS: Can I see it then?

MS. CLARK: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I am willing to agree to the redaction of the bottom quarter of page 38 beginning at examination of stomach contents and page 40 and 41, which would be 39, rather, the bottom of 39 and through page 41, because I don't think that those were used. To the extent that other sections were used to impeach, I would stand on the court's wisdom after reading the transcripts.

MS. CLARK: How do you impeach a detective with the examination of bodies to determine time of death?

MR. DOUGLAS: I don't recall specifically what was done, so as I say, I'm not willing to concede that at this point.

THE COURT: All right. I will look at 17998. All right. But we do accept the concession to remove those last two pages?

MR. DOUGLAS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. 1053.

MR. DOUGLAS: I think that is self-authenticating, your Honor. There was a foundational objection, since she has been called as a witness. There can be no real sincere challenge to the accuracy of the photograph.

MS. CLARK: Right.

THE COURT: Submitted.

MS. CLARK: Submitted.

THE COURT: All right. The objection is withdrawn. Okay. 1055, my favorite objection, mag-lite. Miss Clark.

MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, 1054 was withdrawn?

THE COURT: Yes, I'm sorry, 1054 is withdrawn.

(Deft's 1054 = withdrawn)

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: I can't even remember. Was it--

THE COURT: Mag-lite.

MS. CLARK: Mag-lite. Oh, withdrawn.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, what was--could I see 1054?

THE COURT: 1054 was that one-page fax from Mr. Coleman.

MR. DOUGLAS: We withdraw.

MS. CLARK: Mr. Coleman?

THE COURT: It has been withdrawn. With regard to Fuhrman.

MS. CLARK: Oh, okay.

THE COURT: Ring a bell?

MS. CLARK: Yeah.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Darden indicated yesterday he did not know if there was an objection to 1062, 63, 64 and 65 and he wanted the ability to reinspect those items.

MS. CLARK: Right.

THE COURT: And two of the items are here right now.

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

MR. DARDEN: Can we search the bags, your Honor?

THE COURT: I'm sorry.

MS. CLARK: Is the golf bag up here?

THE COURT: I don't think we brought the golf bag up.

(Discussion held off the record between the court and the clerk.)

THE COURT: Miss Robertson said she did.

THE CLERK: It is in the closet.

MS. CLARK: That is fine.

THE COURT: How about at a recess we will do that?

MS. CLARK: Sure.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DOUGLAS: For the record, the golf bag has been inventoried by the court's clerk at least twice, if I'm not mistaken.

THE COURT: As well as by the bailiff.

MR. DOUGLAS: Correct.

THE COURT: All right. 1066 has been withdrawn?

MR. DOUGLAS: Correct, your Honor.

(Deft's 1066 = withdrawn)

THE COURT: All right. 1071, crime scene field unit protocol and procedures manual. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: I think this is Mr. Goldberg, your Honor.

THE COURT: I'm sorry.

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, good, morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Goldberg.

MR. GOLDBERG: This is the black binder that contains the draft manual of the Los Angeles Police Department. I don't think it was recognized by Dennis Fung or Andrea Mazzola, but Greg Matheson and Michele Kestler both testified that they did not recognize all the documents in there, they had not reviewed the entire manual; however, it was a draft manual. And I think both of them stated that there were certain things in the manual they disagreed with, so there is no authentication for it and there is no exception to the hearsay rule.

THE COURT: Well, there is authentication for what it is.

MR. SCHECK: Right.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, yeah, but I mean the documents within it. They can't actually go through it and say that they recognize all of the documents within it even.

MR. SCHECK: Matheson said that he put it together.

MR. GOLDBERG: No.

MR. SCHECK: Matheson testified that this was a manual that he was putting together for purposes of accreditation, and the testimony is pretty clear from the witnesses, some of them are handouts that some of them recognize; some weren't. Michele Kestler said she reviewed all of them. Some she agreed with; some she didn't necessarily agree with, but hadn't finished the process of finalizing them. I mean, it is what it is.

MR. GOLDBERG: Actually it was the supervisor of the trace unit, as counsel will recall, that was in the process of putting it together and he stopped when that supervisor either left or was transferred. There was some testimony to that effect. Mr. Matheson was never personally putting this together, if that is what counsel is suggesting. I don't know if he is. But at any rate, the point is to me this isn't even arguable. There is no exception to the hearsay rule under which something that is not in effect comes in and to which every page or every handout has not been authenticated.

MR. SCHECK: Well, the issue is what is it being used for? I think that the issue in the case is the running of the lab with either--without a manual or with a quasi-manual. Now, as we go through the list of these objections--

THE COURT: A quasi-manual?

MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: Never mind.

MR. SCHECK: Yes. We are not--the fact that they have such a manual--and at various different points as we go through these objections certain parts of this were used, and I think not objected to, certain parts of it--I don't--I think everything that was used is not objected to. I may be wrong. There are some others here.

MR. GOLDBERG: I thought there was only one--there is only one particular document or two particular documents that I can recall being used from that. One was the protocol on how to collect blood, which we objected to. It was marked several times as a number of different exhibits. And the other one was an ancient memo from Chief Gates that I believe Michele Kestler was asked about, and Mr. Darden objected to that or will object to that.

MR. SCHECK: There is also a section on forensic photography on how to take pictures that was shown to some of the witnesses, and Mr. Ragle testified about that, so it was used to that extent. It was used for impeachment at various different times. I'm not--I don't understand--if the objection is that that is not what it purports to be, then I just don't think it is well taken.

THE COURT: All right. The court will sustain the objection under 352 because it is a draft manual and of little probative value.

MR. SCHECK: If I understand, we can, of course, make references to the fact that they were shown this manual and they were impeached with it? You are not ruling out reference to the manual by any means as it appears in the transcript?

THE COURT: Not to their testimony, no.

MR. SCHECK: We can't pull the manual out and start showing the jury pages that weren't shown to the witnesses?

THE COURT: But if you are smart in your argument, you won't get down to quibbling about the manual, will you?

MR. SCHECK: Well, I think it is of some relevance that we have a crime lab that doesn't have a manual, your Honor.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, we are not making a motion to strike that testimony so there is no point in arguing about that.

MR. SCHECK: I never heard about a manual until I got here.

THE COURT: If you think quibbling about lines in a manual is going to persuade this jury one way or another--1083.

MR. GOLDBERG: Excuse me, your Honor?

THE COURT: I'm sorry, 1078 is the next objection. This is the videotape of glove on a blanket.

MR. GOLDBERG: Yeah. This was the famous blob that was on the blanket that we had extensive arguments about previously. I renew those arguments here. I don't care to restate them because I know that the court heard them at length previously. In addition to that, your Honor, as we have previously discussed yesterday, we were objecting to all of the videotapes conditionally upon redaction, and that would pertain to this as well, but I think we have basically agreed to that--the procedure for handling that objection.

THE COURT: All right. The objection then is overruled subject to the redaction of the portion that was used on that one. 1082, the objection is--any argument on that?

MR. GOLDBERG: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. The objection is overruled subject to redaction of--to the portion that was used. 1083.

MR. GOLDBERG: No, argument, your Honor, the same.

THE COURT: All right. The objection will be overruled subject to the redaction to the portion that was used. All right. 1084.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this was the evidence collection sheet that I referred to previously in the last argument that I made. This particular one was shown to Dennis Fung. As I said, it was marked a couple of times. And Mr. Fung testified--let me get the page citation--I don't have personal knowledge of this, but I was told that Mr. Douglas indicated that there was no foundation for this and they might be withdrawing this.

MR. SCHECK: I can clear this up if you want, your Honor. The 1084 is the three-page handout dealing with how to collect the bloodstain. It is also 1118 that was shown to Miss Mazzola and then it was even shown later to Michele Kestler. I will see if I can get that reference.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: And that would be 1319. Now, when Dennis Fung was shown this he of course couldn't remember seeing it before. When Miss Mazzola was shown this, and this is at page 24396 of the transcript, she acknowledged that this was what she was given at the SID mini academy, that she was familiar it is the handout on how to collect the bloodstain. I would note that this is the same three-page document that we were given by Fung and Mazzola at the split hearing on how to collect the bloodstains. I can't--I'm fairly astonished that they can come in here and object to this on lack of authentication. It is just an absurdity. And then on 1319, that is the same exhibit, which is at page 42003 of the transcript, Kestler acknowledges this.

MR. GOLDBERG: Which page did you say?

MR. SCHECK: I will check it for you. 42003 of the transcript. It comes up again, but I think it is admissible simply on the basis of Mazzola's testimony that, yes, she was familiar with this as the document that they handed out at the SID mini academy on how to collect the bloodstain. It was up on the elmo. It was--the jury has seen it. And I suppose that for the sake of clarity, we could cross-reference them.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, your Honor, these--these issues are really very simple. First of all, counsel is right, Mr. Fung did say that he hadn't seen this, so there is no authentication there. I'm not positive about Miss Mazzola because I hadn't recalled her having been asked about it, and Miss Kestler was only asked one question about this document and nothing as to whether it is a current policy, I mean, no authenticating type questions as to what it--what it constitutes specifically. And I'm also looking at 42003, but there is a very simple way of resolving these issues and that is that there is something called the hearsay rule and we don't allow hearsay into court unless it qualifies under some exception. We do have exceptions for materials of this kind when you are cross-examining an expert witness under 1071, as I recall. We've argued this numerous times in the past. If they have read, relied or considered this type of material, and then you don't get to introduce the underlying report, even then, even if the witness says, yes, I recognize this and I relied on it. You simply get to ask them questions about it, because the underlying report is still hearsay, it is simply coming in under this evidence code provision for the purposes of testing the--

The opinion and the underlying basis for the opinion of the witness, so you can cross-examine them on it, but you don't introduce the underlying document. So I don't see any hearsay rule exception to allow this in, any authentication for it under any one of those hearsay exceptions that they read, relied or considered it. At any rate, even if they were cross-examined on it, which they weren't, as to things in the pages which were inconsistent with what they did or whatever, which is not the case, but even if they had been cross-examined, the cross-examination would stand but the underlying document itself would not come in.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, at page 24396 of the transcript, question of Miss Mazzola: "This is in regard to 1118. I show you this, ask you to take a look at it. "Item no. 13, okay. "Question: Look at that. Do these pages represent a handout that you received at the SID mini academy? "Yes, they look familiar." And in that handout it goes on to discuss how they should collect the bloodstain. There was extensive cross-examination about how you were supposed to get the whole thing, particularly for purposes of RFLP analysis. This is the handout that they gave us on how they collect bloodstains which Mazzola authenticates and Kestler suggested and Fung forgot about. But there is no question as to what it is. It is not a hearsay problem here. This is their instructions on how to collect a bloodstain. It is relevant for many different points. A impeached them on the fact that they didn't follow the procedure, because if they followed their procedure, then they should have removed all the blood from the Bronco.

THE COURT: So if it is so simple, what is the evidence code exception for this document?

MR. SCHECK: No. I'm saying that it is--it is--well, it is offered for impeachment. It is also a business record of the SID laboratory with respect to how to collect the bloodstain that was given out to the criminalist as a record that she is supposed to follow. So in that respect it is not even hearsay, it is being offered--well, it is a business record. It is being offered as a set of instructions on how they are supposed to go about collecting bloodstains. It is offered for impeachment with respect to the--the techniques involved and in contrast to other techniques. It also comes in as a document that is reasonably relied upon by experts in the field. These are their experts. These are the procedures that Mazzola at least acknowledged she is supposed to follow in the collection of blood evidence, so it comes in under--as a basis for her expert opinion as to how you are supposed to collect bloodstains at a crime scene. So there is a number of different grounds to admit it and the--I'm very surprised that they could object on authentication grounds, given the testimony in the record. In fact, they turned this over to us at a split hearing in discovery as their method for how to collect the bloodstain.

THE COURT: All right. The objection is overruled. All right. 1095.

MR. GOLDBERG: This was just simply a list of things that is supposed to be in the truck.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: And no one ever authenticated having seen it and it doesn't have any relevance and it doesn't qualify under any hearsay exception. I'm not even sure of the theory under which it is being offered.

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: The only problem here is with respect to the actual testimony, Mr. Fung said that he couldn't specifically recall seeing this form before, but he had seen one like it with respect to what are supposed--what items are supposed to be in the crime scene truck. And this is the only document that they ever turned over to us as to the list things that are supposed to be in the crime scene truck.

THE COURT: All right. The objection is sustained.

MR. DOUGLAS: Which one was that, your Honor?

THE COURT: That was 1095. All right. 1101, 02, 03 and 04.

MR. GOLDBERG: Those were the same objections that I previously made to the videos, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Those objections will be overruled subject to the redaction of the portions that were actually displayed to the jury. All right. 1106 has been withdrawn.

(Deft's 1106 = withdrawn)

The court; all right. 1115.

MR. SCHECK: Is that The Gates?

THE COURT: No. Just a one-page--starts with a quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson.

(Brief pause.)

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, we will withdraw that.

THE COURT: All right. Withdrawn.

(Deft's 1115 = withdrawn)

THE COURT: 1116. That was 1115 that was withdrawn.

MR. GOLDBERG: 1116 is another one of the handouts to the field procedure--from the field procedures manual, as I recall. And we objected to that on hearsay, no authentication, and irrelevant grounds. I just wanted to check the transcript to--Mr. Neufeld can be heard and maybe I will just respond to him.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, this has to do with what they are supposed to do with photographs at the crime scene, and just like 1118, Miss Mazzola did testify that they did receive a handout on forensic photography. She couldn't be sure that this was exactly the same one, but she did remember the two-page handout on forensic photography, and it certainly could be the same one. And for all the same reasons that Mr. Scheck already articulated for item 1118, I think they apply here with equal force. There is no difference other than the fact that she is not quite as absolutely certain. Short of that, I think the same degree of authentication has been established and thus the foundation has been laid. One second.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: If their objection is authentication, okay, I'm limiting myself to authentication argument because obviously all the other arguments in terms of impeachment, a business record, all the arguments that Mr. Scheck already made, would apply with equal force here, so there is no reason to restate them, so I'm assuming that their objection is limited to authentication. But on this document, unlike--unlike 1115 where I--we withdrew it because we agreed there was not sufficient authentication by the witness, here again there is the authentication by Miss Mazzola.

MR. GOLDBERG: The alleged authentication that counsel refers to on page 24249 of the transcript starting at line 11 is by Mr. Neufeld. "Show you what has been marked as Defendant's 1116. Ask you to take a look at those two pages. Miss Mazzola, is 1116, Defense 1116, the handout that you received on forensic photography?" "Answer: I don't know if it is the exact handout that we received. "Question: Could be? "Answer: It is possible." I mean, that is the skimpiest authentication I think I have ever seen in a very long time--

MR. NEUFELD: The next two sentences though, your Honor, are--

MR. GOLDBERG: --that she--

MR. NEUFELD: You said: "It could be, could be."

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that she--

MR. NEUFELD: "However, well, you say you recall receiving a handout on forensic photography, did you not? "Answer: Yes." So that is the only handout.

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. My recollection is Mr. Goldberg was addressing that.

MR. GOLDBERG: So she received some handout and she--she says it is possible that it could be this one. That just doesn't even come anywhere arguably close to being authentication. But also, I would renew and restate the objections that I previously had. I mean, unless there is something inconsistent about this or they have been cross-examined about it, yeah, possibly that cross-examination is admissible under 1071 of the evidence code.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. GOLDBERG: But this should not be allowed.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, the only point is, is that we received a group of handouts from the Prosecution. This is the only handout on forensic photography. There isn't any other handout. If they were suggesting that there was another one, we could under perhaps the authentication might not be adequate. If there is only one and she says she did receive one, this could be it and that should be adequate.

THE COURT: All right. The objection will be sustained on two grounds: One, authentication, and two, Mazzola wasn't the photographer. If you had asked these questions of Mr. Rokahr, that would have been different. All right. Number 1117. This is the Prosecution videotape of the evidence collection demonstration.

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, your Honor. We simply objected to the sound on that and asked that that be redacted out pursuant to the court's previous rulings.

THE COURT: All right. Then the objection is overruled subject to the sound not being played during the course of the--if the jury wishes to see this video again. All right. 1118 we have already discussed. 1120. 1120 is the report of a statement by Andrea Mazzola.

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, your Honor. This was actually the subject of a previous court ruling where counsel wanted to cross-examine Miss Mazzola about an interview that she had with D.A. investigators where they were asking her about a treatment for a book or a screenplay that someone had written to the effect that evidence had been planted. I don't know whether the court recalls that, it came up during Miss Mazzola's testimony, and the court ruled that the court would not allow cross-examination of--on that subject matter. There was very limited cross-examination as to their being an interview and limited cross-examination, as I recall, as to whether or not she said something or other about the blood vial and then she was shown this document and said she had never seen it before to recognize it. And there is no authentication for it. There is no foundation for it. It is hearsay and it should also be excluded under the court's previous rulings on this issue.

MR. NEUFELD: We will submit it based on hearsay.

THE COURT: All right. Objection sustained. All right. 1121.

MR. GOLDBERG: That was 1118 that we just discussed, I'm sorry?

THE COURT: 1121.

MR. GOLDBERG: 1120.

THE COURT: What is the objection to 1121?

MR. GOLDBERG: I didn't think that we objected to 1121.

THE COURT: All right. Then the objection will be overruled. That is what I had from my notes from yesterday. All right. 1122 and 1123, Mr. Goldberg, if you recollect--

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: --these are elmo printouts.

MR. GOLDBERG: Correct. And Mr. Douglas agreed that the Prosecution could substitute original photographs for those.

MR. DOUGLAS: Correct, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. That will be the order. Madam reporter, we will take a break in about five minutes. All right. 1132, board. Mrs. Robertson, 1132.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor--

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.

MR. GOLDBERG: This is a board that Greg Matheson was shown and the discussion starts on page 25679 of the transcript. What it was intended to show is that two nanograms--excuse me--20 nanograms of DNA would be the size of a pin and that two nanograms would be invisible. Mr. Matheson never agreed with that proposition, although he was shown this diagram, and what he did say, that makes it a little bit more confusing, is that 20 nanograms of DNA contained in blood cells, in other words, that the DNA had not been extracted out, is visible, and I think he may have even said that two nanograms of DNA in blood cells is visible. And what this is trying to--to indicate is the visibility of 20 nanograms and two nanograms of DNA outside of red blood with the idea that it would be easily contaminated because you can't see it, but this is a proposition to which he did not agree.

THE COURT: What is your page cite?

MR. GOLDBERG: My page cite is that the discussion on this issue starts on 25679.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. GOLDBERG: And there is--there are particular discussion on 25680, lines 2 through 16 that I highlighted as to what 20 nanograms looks like, et cetera.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Well, Dr. Cotton was also asked about this chart and testified at 27112, it was used in a hypothetical, about the amounts of DNA as indicated on the chart hypothetically, if that had been injected or contaminated into the Bundy drops that had been degraded, that that would give a positive RFLP result. So I think it has been authenticated through Dr. Cotton.

THE COURT: All right. I will take that one under submission.

MR. GOLDBERG: And perhaps the court could read the--get the gist of the People's objection if the court read 25680, the citation I previously gave.

THE COURT: All right. Let's see 1133, PCR amplification board.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this board and the next one were used also with Greg Matheson and virtually they simply put the board up there and asked Mr. Matheson almost no questions about it whatsoever. They did ask Mr. Matheson that--whether PCR amplification involved 32 cycles, which he agreed to. But as to the--the number that you end up with, the four million 290,000, he never agreed to that number. All he said, it would be a large number, so there is no authentication for this exhibit.

THE COURT: Looks like four billion to me.

MR. GOLDBERG: Excuse me. Yes, right. Miss Deirdra was blocking off three of those zeros over there. But at any rate, the discussion for that, your Honor, commences on page 25685, and the most relevant portions is on 25687 where he is asked: "And typically that is done 32 times, correct? That is the protocol of forensics? "Yes. "Question: And that chart depicts statistics starting out with a very small amount and doubling it 30 times"--30 times, I guess that is a mistake--"Leads to a very large amount, correct? "Answer: Double it 32, yes. It is an extremely large number, but there is no statement as to the specific number."

MR. BLASIER: I'm not sure if this is a new objection. This was objected to at the time on page 25688 and that objection was overruled by the court. But more importantly, Gary Sims testified about this chart specifically, and I will refer the court to pages 28416 and 28425 where he talked about this chart and the next--well, this chart and authenticated that the concept that we were portraying there is accurate. And I'm not sure if they are suggesting that there is some sort of mathematical problem and we didn't bring that up, and I don't think there is.

THE COURT: All right. The objection is overruled. All right. No. 1140, three-page analyzed evidence report. This will be the last matter we take up before we take a break.

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

THE COURT: Certainly.

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: Could we see that one? I think--

THE COURT: Yes, this is Mr. Matheson's.

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, we will object to 1140, your Honor, which is the--

THE COURT: I know.

MR. GOLDBERG: What?

THE COURT: The objection is overruled.

MR. BLASIER: If I could see 1140, I think we can agree on that.

MR. GOLDBERG: I thought we were just discussing 1133.

THE COURT: We were discussing both of them.

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

THE COURT: Do you want to be heard on 1134?

MR. GOLDBERG: Maybe the court had already ruled on that. I don't know.

THE COURT: If you feel you need to say something specifically with regard--because it is the same mathematical process. That--

MR. GOLDBERG: I thought that 1134, as I recalled, shows a number of different--different overlying triangular--

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. GOLDBERG: --patterns and I don't know whether that was used with Gary Sims or not. Your Honor, but at any rate, on this particular one, this one was put up simultaneously to Greg Matheson's testimony, but they didn't ask him any questions about it. He wasn't asked what does this show or do you agree with it or--I mean, there was nothing in the way of authentication.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. GOLDBERG: It was just simultaneously shown with his testimony.

MR. BLASIER: He authenticated this at 25688 without objection from the Prosecution in terms of the concept that is being displayed here about when you amplify DNA different types are going to get amplified as well, and fairly simple. Talked about this extensively.

MR. GOLDBERG: You see the kind of loose language. He authenticated the concept here. The discussion of this starts on page 42049 and it was shown--I'm sorry, it starts on 25688, and it was put up there but there were no questions about it.

MR. BLASIER: No. He was asked questions about is it accurate that if you've got several different components of a mixture and the amplification is done, they all get amplified and you wind up with a lot of each one of them and this is just four times. That is on the last chart.

MR. GOLDBERG: I mean, I just think there should be some authentication for the correctness of these numbers, and to my knowledge no one has said these numbers are correct. I mean, maybe they are, I don't know. I have no idea, but I don't think there is anything in the record.

MR. BLASIER: Gary Sims--

THE COURT: Matter submitted?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. The objection is overruled. All right. 1140.

MR. GOLDBERG: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the court's ruling.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. BLASIER: 1140, I think the problem there was the second page was--the court redacted parts of that and--

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

MR. GOLDBERG: Well, this same document was marked by the Prosecution and may have been redacted in a different way, but for some reason counsel has cut out the results on 117, 118-A and 118-B.

MR. BLASIER: That was--

MR. GOLDBERG: I don't know why.

MR. BLASIER: That was because the court would not allow them to go into 117 after that--I can't remember the exact reason, but it was because they had not raised it in their direct, I believe, and then were trying to make an argument after they were done.

MR. GOLDBERG: As I recall what happened was Mr. Sims then testified based upon Mr. Matheson's report what the conventional serology results were on the rear gate stains for the purposes of showing that there was degradation.

THE COURT: So you have no objection to the complete report? Is that what you are saying?

MR. GOLDBERG: Umm--

THE COURT: Which is already a Prosecution exhibit?

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Then what we will do is withdraw--since the complete report is--do you know--can you give me the cross-reference number on that?

MR. GOLDBERG: I can't do it right now, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Then what I would propose then is that we withdraw the Defense exhibit, since it is a redacted copy, and substitute in its place the complete copy. Any objection to that.

MR. BLASIER: The only problem with that is I think the Prosecution's exhibit is missing that page. That is my recollection as to why I introduced this.

THE COURT: All right. Since we both agree that we need the complete report, we will get the complete report and we will substitute it in both locations. How about that?

MR. BLASIER: That is fine.

THE COURT: Okay. Let's take a 15-minute recess and we will resume with 1143.

(Recess.)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record. 1143.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this was the series of printouts that were to portray the EAP issue where the Prosecution said that yesterday we didn't have any objection, other than those we previously argued at the time, other than that the resolution on some of these is poor, the actual photographs are all in evidence anyway, and maybe if there is some sort of admonition of some way of letting the jurors know that they can take a look at the actual photographs from the EAP runs where the resolution is significantly different, material is different on the elmo.

MR. BLASIER: Well, these weren't put on the elmo; these were power point slides.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BLASIER: I have no objection of them being told that there are pictures of these if they wish to look at them. I would object to them being told the pictures are much better than the slide. The slides are there to illustrate where the relative bands are and they do that quite well.

THE COURT: All right. But what is available to them is pretty clear in my eyes.

MR. BLASIER: Yeah.

THE COURT: All right. So that objection will be overruled. All right. No. 1145.

MR. CLARKE: Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Clarke, how are you?

MR. CLARKE: Just fine, thank you. The court may recall there was a substantial argument over this exhibit and the court sustained objections on multiple grounds.

THE COURT: Many times.

MR. CLARKE: Yes. That is also exhibit 1205, by the way. It is indeed the same exhibit.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. NEUFELD: Submitted, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Objection sustained. 1154.

MR. CLARKE: The objection to that item, and that again was used with multiple witnesses, is hearsay and no foundation. This was a letter to CACLD to Cellmark and the court sustained those objections at the time as well.

THE COURT: Didn't Dr. Cotton, though, testify to this at some point?

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, actually--

THE COURT: Let me just get the basis for the objection.

MR. CLARKE: Hearsay, no foundation.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, look at the transcript. Initially they objected not to--on the foundation and hearsay grounds. The court ruled that my questions for the foundation were inadequate and then you called me over to the side bar and instructed me on how to complete the foundation and I came back and completed the foundation using the questions that you suggested, and Mr. Clarke again objected and you overruled it. And if you look at page beginning at--look likes it is 257--I'm sorry--27502, 2750--27501--in fact--in fact 27502 he again renews the objection after I laid the additional foundation that the court suggested, and that is when you overruled the objection and allowed me to show the exhibit.

THE COURT: All right. Is the matter submitted?

MR. CLARKE: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. The objection is overruled. 11--all right. 1158 is being withdrawn.

MR. CLARKE: For purposes of clarification, that is the same as 1191-B. If that is going to be offered by him the Defense, then we have no intention of moving in 1158, but I think we need to clarify that.

MR. SCHECK: DQ-Alpha types of Fung and Mazzola is that what we are talking about.

MR. CLARKE: Actually and polymarker as well.

MR. NEUFELD: It was done outside the presence of the jury, but we will move it in by stipulation if you want. That is no problem.

MR. CLARKE: 1191-A and B are coming in, then the withdrawal of 1158 is adequate.

THE COURT: Okay.

(Deft's 1158 = withdrawn)

MR. NEUFELD: I don't know about 1191 yet, but--

THE COURT: All right. 1170.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, how are you?

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon, how are you?

MR. HARMON: Fine, thank you.

THE COURT: Still got the beard?

MR. HARMON: Taking after other bearded gentlemen around here. Every objection was sustained to that which there was no testimony about that. Mr. Sims expressed no expertise in it. You agreed that was beyond the scope of the testimony, and so while they succeeded in getting it marked, that was the extent of it, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: This is what?

MR. HARMON: 1170, Cellmark's polymarker strips.

MR. SCHECK: Cellmark's polymarker on the steering wheel? Mr. Sims looked at it, said he was familiar with it, but said he would not venture an opinion on it. It, however, is the same--the underlying polymarker that was used for the results on the steering wheel that was introduced through Robin Cotton and this is the polymarker strip that they used, so I don't know.

THE COURT: Is it in evidence.

MR. SCHECK: How he is objecting on lack of authentication?

THE COURT: Is it in evidence someplace else under a different--

MR. SCHECK: Well, Mr. Clarke--

MR. HARMON: Can I answer that, your Honor?

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Clarke did not offer the strip itself. He offered the results on the results board based on their underlying data, so if they are saying there is no authentication for this, I don't see how they got half the evidence in in this case in the first place. I don't understand how he can sit up here and object to the polymarker strip that they gave us that is the basis of one of their results.

THE COURT: The problem is we've got an exhibit in the testimony but the exhibit indicates an inadequate foundation.

MR. SCHECK: That is not accurate. What it states is, is that he says he is familiar with this as the polymarker strip from the steering wheel. He then goes to say that he does not want to draw any judgments from it because he doesn't feel sufficiently expert with the polymarker. That is difference from it coming into evidence. He is objecting on lack of authentication to an exhibit he put in. This is frivolous.

MR. HARMON: To answer the question that you asked him that he never answered, the strips were not in evidence, they were never shown to anybody in front of this jury in this case, and I have never objected on the basis of no authentication. So I objected. And the transcript is clear, he never answered any question. You sustained objections that it was beyond the scope of his direct examination. So while it is great to mark things and while it is true that is in fact Cellmark's strip, we do have rules, they are called the California evidence code, which dictate what the jury can see and in what form they can see it in, and it is simply us asking you to apply the rules.

MR. SCHECK: That is not--Mr. Harmon is not stating accurately. The court can look itself at the transcript at page 28683. Mr. Sims said he was familiar with this strip. Then when he indicated that he didn't feel competent to make an opinion about the strip, objections were sustained to my going any further with it. Now, that is different as to whether he has conceded I showed him this, he said yes, that's the strip.

THE COURT: I will take a look at it.

MR. SCHECK: I'm not sure it is a big deal, but the point is as a legal basis it is admissible. As to striking any further testimony, he said that--in terms of his ability to read polymarker strips, well, that is another thing. That has already been done.

THE COURT: All right. 1183.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, with respect to 1183 and 1184--1183--and we can check this. I think this is the same thing you just dealt with on 1154 and 1155. These are the California association of crime lab director's report and the Cellmark letter in regard to the blind trials. 1184 I believe is the Thompson article about the CACLD study and we withdraw 1184.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: If I'm right about what those things are.

THE COURT: This is 1184, Dr. Thompson's article.

MR. SCHECK: So 1183 I think is in and 1184 we withdraw.

THE COURT: Yes.

(Deft's 1184 = withdrawn)

THE COURT: Other comment on that?

MR. HARMON: Yes. 1183 isn't in the exhibit that was shown to Dr. Cotton is in, and if you look at the testimony of Collin Yamauchi, he was asked if he had seen that and he said no, and so 1183, as it exists, should not be admitted in this case.

MR. SCHECK: I think what we ought to do, as we have done before, is cross-reference them so that the jury knows--the whole point of it is that he didn't know about it and we are talking about the same set of documents; that is, the report from the California association of crime lab directors and the Cellmark letter, our point concerning there are false positive errors.

THE COURT: All right. What we will do is cross-reference this. Okay. 1191-B which I think is a duplicate of 1158, if I'm not mistaken. This is the Fung and Mazzola D1S80--

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Clarke says he has looked at it, and subject to his representations and checking, we have no objections to 1191-A--well, 1191-A and B are supposed to be, if you put them together, the D1S80, DQ-Alpha and polymarker genotypes for Fung and Mazzola, right?

MR. HARMON: Well, and other personnel.

MR. SCHECK: So if that is what it is, that is fine with us.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Clarke, 1191-A, no objection?

MR. CLARKE: Could we see that quickly, your Honor?

(Brief pause.)

MR. CLARKE: Thank you.

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

MR. CLARKE: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Clarke, Mr. Harmon, what is your status on these--actually 1191 and 1192--excuse me--1191-A and B?

MR. HARMON: No objection.

THE COURT: All right. All right. The record should reflect that exhibit 1195 has been withdrawn. Exhibit 1197, 98, 99, 1200 and 1201 likewise have been withdrawn.

(Deft's 1195 = withdrawn)

(Deft's 1197 thru 1201 = withdrawn)

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Next matter that is contested is 1205, the letter. Submitted?

MR. DOUGLAS: Submitted, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. All right. 1207 has been withdrawn.

(Deft's 1207 id = withdrawn)

THE COURT: 1215 is the amplitype users guide.

MR. CLARKE: And the only objection is to the material other than was--what was used with the witness regarding the 1.2 mixtures.

THE COURT: Mr. Neufeld, Mr. Scheck?

MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: On 1215, the amplitype users guide, there is no objection to the paragraph that was used; however, there is an objection to the extraneous material.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. NEUFELD: This has to do with the mix; is that right?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: I think that is fine.

MR. NEUFELD: It is not a paragraph, though; it is actually a couple of pages that deal with it and certainly that it only deals with the mixture in the 1.2, then we will limit it.

THE COURT: I will overrule the objection subject to the redaction for that purpose.

MR. NEUFELD: Yes.

THE COURT: Refresh my recollection. Who handled Mr. Deedrick?

MS. CLARK: I did.

THE COURT: All right. 1220.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, I'm sorry, your Honor, do you also have our--do you also have our note that we withdrew certain exhibits from yesterday? Informally we withdrew certain exhibits about Bruce Weir. You have already so indicated?

THE COURT: Yeah, we went through that about three minutes ago.

MR. NEUFELD: Oh, all right. Thanks.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Miss Clark, as to 1220.

MS. CLARK: Right. The objection is that there is no relevance to it. That was a--a system of classification of hairs and fibers not used by Mr. Deedrick, nor was it shown that it was used by any witness or expert for the Defense. It is a system of classification of characteristics that assigns numerical value or--assigns a number to each of the various characteristics for the purpose of attempting to categorize, but there was no foundation laid to establish that it is an accepted procedure in the scientific community at all. In fact to the contrary, Mr. Deedrick rejected it.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Well, he did testify that he remembered reading and he disagreed with the numbering system, that is accurate, but he agreed that the list of characteristics that he described on there are the characteristics that he looked at. I would submit it on that.

THE COURT: All right. I will overrule the objection on that one.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, you skipped 1217. You overruled that objection on 1220?

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. CLARK: There was no foundation laid by the Defense, your Honor.

THE COURT: Counsel, he heard the argument. There was no objection lodged to 1217.

MS. CLARK: It is in my list, the letter to Mr. Cochran.

MR. BLASIER: When we went through this yesterday. This was not on the list.

MS. CLARK: It is in my August 7th letter.

MR. BLASIER: I agree was, but yesterday they didn't put it on their list. I am happy to deal with it.

THE COURT: All right. 1217.

MS. CLARK: That was irrelevant. That was a worksheet marked by Susan Brockbank, but did not involve any of the evidence that she testified to.

MR. BLASIER: It was an example of the worksheet that they used to clarify hairs. That is what it was intended for. I agree, there was not any hair that was used in this case. That was why I introduced it, as an example of how they classify hairs. There was no objection to it at the time. She authenticated this is the form we use.

THE COURT: All right. The objection is overruled. All right. 1221. 1221 indicates that it is one page. It appears to have two pages.

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

MR. BLASIER: I'm not sure why page 2 is there. It shouldn't be.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, it appears to be your notes.

MS. CLARK: I disagree. I think it should be there.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sure you do.

MS. CLARK: The People withdraw their objection if we can have page 2.

MR. BLASIER: Obviously the second page is--

MS. CLARK: Well, B and C you probably want.

MR. BLASIER: Well, yeah, we can cut off the bottom part.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: I will withdraw the objection.

THE COURT: All right. You will withdraw the objection subject to the cutting off of the bottom?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DOUGLAS: Talking about what number?

THE COURT: 1221. And I will staple the two parts together so they don't get lost. All right. 1222, FBI hair identified.

MS. CLARK: I need a page cite on that.

MR. BLASIER: 35181, 182, line 11.

MS. CLARK: Do you have a volume?

MR. BLASIER: No, I sure don't.

MS. CLARK: Can I have a minute, please?

THE COURT: Sure. Do you want to see this?

MS. CLARK: I know what it is--maybe I don't. Are you holding it?

MS. CLARK: Oh, this is not what I thought it was.

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

MS. CLARK: Withdrawn.

THE COURT: All right. 1226 has been withdrawn.

MR. DOUGLAS: We submitted an objection.

THE COURT: I'm sorry.

MR. DOUGLAS: We submitted an objection.

THE COURT: All right. That will be sustained. Okay. 1233, this is Mandel and Aaronson.

MS. CLARK: May I interject, your Honor? Defense 1227, Mr. Darden wanted to interpose an objection on that photograph.

MR. DARDEN: That is the photograph of the Defendant--

THE COURT: The night before.

MR. DARDEN: --the night before. We would object on the same grounds as earlier this morning with regard to 1003. The Defendant posing for a photograph in our opinion has no probative value. It is misleading to the jury.

MR. DOUGLAS: Submit it.

THE COURT: All right. The objection is overruled. All right. 1233. We might as well take up 1233 and 1234 at the same time.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I have a discrepancy here. I interposed an objection to 1233. That was described to me as an article on the selection of non-correlated thin layer chromatography, chromatographic solvents.

THE COURT: No, 1233 is the printout of Ellen Aaronson's route from apartment to the Mezzaluna restaurant and 1234 being the route back.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, then we've skipped a couple of objections I needed to have on the Deedrick exhibits because they were misnumbered in my version 1223 and 1224. I had objections to them. They were misnumbered in my--

THE COURT: Okay. Well, let me do this. Since I've got these out, 1233 and 1234, do you have any objections to these?

MS. CLARK: Those routes? No.

THE COURT: Aaronson and--

MS. CLARK: Right, no objection.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Let's go back then--you want to go back to 12--

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry, your Honor.

THE COURT: 1223 and 1224.

MS. CLARK: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: All right. 1223 is the--appears to be the Golding and Kokot, k-o-k-o-t, article.

MS. CLARK: Is the entitled "The selection of non-correlated thin layer chromatographic solvents"?

THE COURT: That is it.

MS. CLARK: There would be an objection to that, your Honor, as being hearsay, irrelevant. There was no foundation. It was an article shown to Mr. Deedrick that he did not, I believe, demonstrate familiarity with. There was no adoption of it, there was no reliance on it, nor was it even impeaching.

MR. BLASIER: Can I take a look at it, because that wasn't on my list?

(Brief pause.)

MR. BLASIER: We will withdraw that.

THE COURT: All right. Withdrawn.

(Deft's 1223 = withdrawn)

MS. CLARK: 1224.

THE COURT: 1224 is the--thank you.

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

MS. CLARK: With respect to--should I put it on the elmo so I can talk to you and we can see it at the same time?

THE COURT: I am familiar with it.

MS. CLARK: Okay. On the--

THE COURT: Why don't you use the microphone so the court reporter can get you, Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: I am waiting for Mr. Blasier so he can hear my objections.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: First of all, with respect to all of these slides, they are argumentative. They should not be admitted as evidence. If they wanted to use them as argument boards, I think that would be fine. Secondly, with respect to the gloves, the gloves board in particular--board or slide in particular is incorrect. It said that there is no hair consistent with O.J. Simpson on the Rockingham glove. That is incorrect. There was--there is a black limb hair that would be consistent with Mr. Simpson. That is consistent with Mr. Simpson, rather, in the testimony of Doug Deedrick.

THE COURT: All right. So the only factual inaccuracy, as far as the record is concerned, is one of the slides? The Rockingham glove slide?

MS. CLARK: Actually it is a "Both gloves" slide.

THE COURT: What is the other inaccuracy on the--

MS. CLARK: No, it is--it is all on one slide. The slide is entitled "Both gloves" and it is incorrect with respect to the assertion on the Rockingham glove.

THE COURT: Any other factual inaccuracies that you are alleging?

MS. CLARK: No.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: I think we went through this when this was shown. I believe the testimony was had they don't classify limb hairs and certainly this--you know, they can say it is Negroid, but that is all, and I don't believe that he testified that as with the other hairs with other characteristics that he is willing to make any kind of assessment on this one. But we went through this at the time this was shown and introduced.

MS. CLARK: No, he didn't--there is a distinction between how definitive he could be in his conclusion with respect to limb hairs versus head hairs because head hairs have more characteristics, but it is correct that the limb hair found inside the Rockingham glove is consistent with limb hairs of--with--with having come from Mr. Simpson, so this is a misleading assertion on this slide.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. BLASIER: I don't think he ever said that, and I know this was discussed by Mr. Bailey, because I think the issue came up at the time that we used that, and I believe there was even a bench conference about it where the court allowed it on the basis that they don't classify limb hairs even though they can tell the race. That is not the same as head hairs where they have a lot of other characteristics to look at. That is my recollection.

MS. CLARK: I don't remember what the bench conference was, your Honor. I just know that given the witness' testimony that the limb hair in the Rockingham glove could have come from Mr. Simpson, in view of that testimony it is misleading to say no hair consistent with him.

THE COURT: All right. Do we have any reference in the transcript where this is discussed?

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

MS. CLARK: We are going to have to dig it up, your Honor.

MR. BLASIER: We would like to look it up, too. I'm almost positive this has been covered. Pass on this one?

MS. CLARK: Let's pass on this one now.

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck says he has got it.

MR. BLASIER: Well, we've got the reference to the number, but I'm not sure that is what we are looking for. I can find it.

THE COURT: Okay.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. 1235.

MS. CLARK: What is the date of this statement, your Honor?

THE COURT: I'm sorry, the date of this statement?

MS. CLARK: Right. It says statement of Ellen Aaronson.

THE COURT: Yes, it is.

MS. CLARK: Is that--okay. July 8th.

THE COURT: This is a subsequent telephonic July 8th.

MS. CLARK: Interview with Detective Kilcoyne?

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And the People's objection to that would be hearsay.

MR. DOUGLAS: Thank you, your Honor. It is offered to rebut a claim of recent fabrication and it also has sufficient guarantee of trustworthiness. I believe, although I'm not certain, this was offered on redirect after there had been a spirited cross-examination about some of the times, the confusions about the hours on the Mezzaluna clock, whether or not she had recalled accurately what times she had left and the substance of a--a subsequent conversation with the detective when she sought to correct misinformation she had been given earlier. So I think for these reasons it is admissible.

MS. CLARK: Well, my list of exhibits that I have in front of me doesn't show it, but was her initial police report admitted in the statement she gave on June 15th?

THE COURT: I don't believe so.

MR. DOUGLAS: It wasn't offered.

MS. CLARK: Oh, yes, it was marked by the People. The point being, your Honor, that this would not admissible under that theory unless the People had marked and admitted her initial statement as a prior inconsistent statement.

THE COURT: No. I think that if you attack somebody's testimony at trial, then the offering party can bring in a prior consistent statement.

MS. CLARK: But it doesn't qualify as a prior consistent statement because it wasn't previous to the inconsistent statement.

MR. DOUGLAS: I think--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MS. CLARK: You know what I'm saying? I mean--

THE COURT: I know what you are saying.

MS. CLARK: It was--it sounded confusing to me, but she made a prior inconsistent statement on June 15th. That was her initial statement. She then changed it after the preliminary hearing on July the 8th. So that--and that was the statement that was consistent with her testimony at trial. It doesn't qualify. It is not prior in time to the inconsistent statement.

MR. DOUGLAS: It is consistent with what she said on direct. She was impeached on cross-examination and she offered her prior consistent statement to what she said on direct.

MS. CLARK: That doesn't satisfy 1235 or 770, your Honor. That doesn't meet the--that doesn't meet the requirements. It has got to be prior in time to the inconsistency.

THE COURT: All right. 1236 of the evidence code says: "Evidence of a statement previously made by a witness is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule if the statement is consistent with his or her testimony at the hearing and is offered in compliance with section 791." And Miss Clark, just so you can cross-reference your own words, the prior statement that was put in by the People as People's exhibit 495 is the June 15th statement of Miss Aaronson, so there are--so under 1236 and 791 I'm going to overrule your objections. Okay.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, can we go back to 1224? I found the page in the transcript where that was all discussed.

THE COURT: Give me the page number, please.

MR. BLASIER: 35340, same objections were made and they were overruled.

THE COURT: Okay. 1237.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, what were the--I missed it.

THE COURT: 35340 was the page cite on--

MS. CLARK: Okay.

THE COURT: We will come back to that.

MS. CLARK: All right.

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

THE COURT: All right. 1236.

MR. DOUGLAS: Was there an objection to 1236?

THE COURT: I show in my notes objections to 1236 and 1237.

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

MR. DOUGLAS: Can I see 1236, your Honor?

THE COURT: 1236 is the September 12th statement by Aaronson.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, again, September 12th, that statement doesn't qualify under 791. I mean, it is the same problem. The evidence of a statement made that is inconsistent that has been admitted, the prior consistent statement has to be--it has to have been made before the alleged inconsistent statement, which was on June the 15th, which obviously it was not. Secondly, before the motive to fabricate has arisen, and the People's position clearly is that this was a groupie who wanted to get herself injected in the trial and that motive existed at the time that she was--at the time that she recontacted Detective Kilcoyne and realized it was going to be a very high-profile case which was on July 8th and she began to restructure her testimony to make sure that it would be relevant. That is the motive. Now, September 12th certainly is not prior to that time, nor is it prior to the June 15th prior inconsistent statement. And the People submit that it does not qualify under 791.

MR. DOUGLAS: Submit it on the other comments, your Honor. I think the rulings are consistent.

THE COURT: The objection is overruled. 1237, phone bill. Miss Clark.

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

MS. CLARK: Hearsay and irrelevant.

MR. DOUGLAS: One, your Honor, certainly I think it is very relevant because it helps to explain why Miss Pilnak was certain that various acts occurred at different times. I think that it is in fact a bill from the phone company. We have been introducing these sorts of documents by stipulation in other forms. I don't think that there is any sincere challenge to the authenticity of the bill. I think it offers sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness for its admissibility. But she was--as you recall, she was very exact in recounting what events occurred at certain times, when she called her mother, when Miss Telander had left, and that bill corroborated the specificity with which she offered her testimony.

THE COURT: My recollection is that she testified that this was her phone bill.

MR. DOUGLAS: Correct.

THE COURT: All right. The objection will be overruled. All right. 1240.

MS. CLARK: Hearsay objection.

MR. DOUGLAS: That objection--well, that document, your Honor, was offered to demonstrate Mr. Heidstra's state of mind that when there was an occasion where he and other witnesses could recount and go through various observations from June the 13th, that this was in fact his state of mind, not to discuss with other potential witnesses. It reinforced our claim that he was not biased, that he was not polluted by the presence or potential testimony of others. Particularly with Mr. Heidstra that has become a very real challenge. I will simply remind the court that four of the eight names we were given as rebuttal witness were witnesses seeking to rebut Mr. Heidstra. His credibility, his bias, if any, are therefore raising or rising themselves in importance, at least to the People's version of the evidence, and this supports or attacks any suggestion that when we try to gather people together to go over certain steps and observations that there was no polluting.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, it is not relevant for that purpose. It is a letter from Mr. Bailey to Mr. Heidstra. I don't know how that impacts on--that illuminates us as to Mr. Heidstra's state of mind or his credibility at all.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. The objection is sustained. All right. 12--

MS. CLARK: We have to add 1241, your Honor. It was inadvertently left off of our list. It is a two-page statement of Mr. Heidstra.

MR. DARDEN: I thought I objected to that yesterday.

MR. DOUGLAS: It is on my list, your Honor, and I will offer the same comments and adopt those comments that I offered as respect to Miss Aaronson. Again, Mr. Heidstra's credibility will be viciously attacked, strongly attacked--I don't want to characterize it--and this is a prior consistent statement offered to rebut a claim of recent fabrication that he is fabricating at this hearing when he testified as he did.

MR. DARDEN: Well, I can assure the court that Mr. Heidstra's credibility will not be attacked viciously. In fact, we think Mr. Heidstra's testimony is very helpful to the Prosecution and in fact what we intend to do is buttress Mr. Heidstra's testimony. Still, however, it is--it is hearsay, it is an out-of-court statement. It was alluded to somewhat during the trial. That is what he said previously and he testified on the stand to what he has stated previously. The detectives have not been called into court to testify to the accuracy of the statement, to--it has not been authenticated by any official police official. It is hearsay and it is being offered for the truth of the matter stated.

MR. DOUGLAS: I'm a little curious as to the comment that there will be witnesses offered to corroborate his testimony, because that is not my understanding of the proper purpose for rebuttal. I think they were being offered to rebut his testimony, but we will take that up later in our next motion. But I certainly think that, your Honor, this is being offered to rebut a claim of recent fabrication that he might have had some motive or bias in favor of Mr.--

THE COURT: I understand that, but the objection that Mr. Darden made, though, is foundation because this was a statement taken by Detective Payne and Detective Parker, neither of which testified.

MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, I believe--and I don't have a specific recollection of where this exhibit was discussed--I believe Mr. Heidstra was asked about it, he then agreed that the statements that contained in that statement were accurate and that it accurately reflected what he had told them on that day.

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

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. DARDEN: I'm not sure that allowing this statement in would be consistent with the court's earlier ruling on the Aaronson statement.

MR. DOUGLAS: It was offered on page 36435 and there was no objection at that time.

THE COURT: 46435.

MR. DOUGLAS: 36.

THE COURT: 36. All right. I will take a look. All right. 1253--I'm sorry, 1250, video of--

MS. CLARK: 1253?

THE COURT: 1250, video of Mr. Simpson arriving at Rockingham.

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

THE COURT: Who was the videographer who testified to this?

MR. DOUGLAS: This is Mr. Thompson, your Honor, the tall gentleman who put the handcuffs on Mr. Simpson. He testified and authenticated the accuracy of what was depicted there.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Was that subject to redaction?

MR. DOUGLAS: All the videos have been subject to redaction to that extent that they were shown before the jury.

MR. DARDEN: I know there is a one-attorney rule, but there was an issue I think of the sound. There was sound in that video which was not aired for the jury, so--

MR. DOUGLAS: Then we can do what we did with the Mazzola demonstration video and have a little post-it put on there that it should be played without sound.

MR. DARDEN: As I understand it, the video contains only the--does it contain--

THE COURT: All right. Only the portion that was displayed for the jury and without sound as to both 1250 and 1251.

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

THE COURT: All right. 1252 has been withdrawn.

(Deft's 1252 = withdrawn)

THE COURT: 1253.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, as to the those--those videos at Rockingham, there was no videographer called.

THE COURT: I know. I asked if Mr. Thompson was the videographer and my recollection was refreshed by Mr. Douglas' comment that was Officer Thompson--

MS. CLARK: Right.

THE COURT: --who testified to the videotape.

MS. CLARK: Right.

THE COURT: Okay.

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

THE COURT: All right. 1253, vehicle impound form filled out by John Meraz.

MS. CLARK: The objection, your Honor, is hearsay and lack of foundation. He only filled out a small portion of that. The balance was filled out by other witnesses who were never questioned about it or able to authenticate it.

MR. DOUGLAS: I think, your Honor, is that this is in fact a business record. It certainly carries sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness. I don't think that the People are suggesting that it is inaccurate or that it is misleading, because it is a document that was used for the purposes of the testimony. Mr. Meraz did in fact identify those portions of the form in his penmanship and those portions which were not. Submit the matter on that.

MS. CLARK: The foundation was not laid for a business record at all, your Honor, and it was incapable of being played because they didn't have--they never called the appropriate witness to do so. And I would not vouch for much of the--for some of the writing on it because it was made by people at Viertel's, and based on what may have been misunderstanding between them and police officers, so, no, absolutely no, I don't concede at all that it is trustworthy or reliable, and there is no adequate foundation laid with the appropriate witness to have it admitted.

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. Which portion of this exhibit did Mr. Meraz fill out?

MR. DOUGLAS: I recall the top half and I believe there was something toward the bottom. If I could see the form to refresh my recollection.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, while Mr. Douglas is looking at it, if it will assist the court for the Heidstra--statements for Heidstra, I have looked at the strips and if you look at page--

THE COURT: Why are you referring to a Styrofoam cup, sir?

MR. SCHECK: That is where I wrote down the numbers. If it would assist the court, starting at page 36438 and then going to page 36446, the entire statement is read into the record during the course of questioning Mr. Heidstra and he adopts it and it is read in with quotation marks.

MR. DOUGLAS: Your Honor, this is also being offered to corroborate Mr. Meraz' state of mind.

THE COURT: Mr. Douglas, my question was what part of this document did Mr. Meraz fill out?

MR. SCHECK: I know.

MR. DOUGLAS: The top.

MS. CLARK: I would point out to the court there are many different handwritings on this document.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

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

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, maybe we could go back to the transcripts. My recollection is, is that his testimony was that this is a document that is filled out in the regular course of business through Viertel's and the police department, that when he received the document he had seen Detective Haro fill out a number of the entries here. He then signed in the middle line where it says "Garage employees" and I think he then put down the license plate number and reviewed the rest of this material. So we are offering it as a business record with a proper foundation there, and when we get to the transcript, we can--I know that he specifically testified as to which parts he filled out, but he adopted the rest of it.

MS. CLARK: He can't adopt the rest of it, your Honor. He can't vouch for someone else's writing on that form or the veracity or the trustworthiness of it. And they did not even attempt to lay an appropriate foundation it is admissibility.

MR. DOUGLAS: Page 38260, your Honor, and it would also be offered as an alternative to reflect Mr. Meraz' state of mind that there was no hold then preventing or requiring that the vehicle be placed in a particular area, a secure area, and that--

THE COURT: Aren't we really quibbling over something that is of little moment? The issue being he testified he didn't see blood and he didn't think it was being held in a secure area. I mean, that is really the import of his testimony.

MR. SCHECK: The other basis for admitting this that Mr. Douglas referred to has to do with the direct examination of Detective Mulldorfer at 38259 where she indicates that she conducted an investigation, interviewed the principle parties and determined that this was the form that was filled out. And even then went into detail as to who signed what and she authenticates this as an official business record of the garage and talks about the rules--and I put her on--the rule with respect to what parts of this are supposed to be filled out and for what purposes.

MS. CLARK: She couldn't--

MR. SCHECK: We think that Detective Phillips' testimony and the citation to the pages we told you would be sufficient foundation and she described at length what this impound form means.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, she--

THE COURT: Excuse me. Where is that?

MR. SCHECK: It starts on page 38259 and I think she certainly is a proper witness. It was her assignment--

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, may I be allowed to complete what--

THE COURT: Wait, wait.

MR. SCHECK: I think that the foundation was that she testified that she was assigned in the city attorney's office to investigate these garages.

THE COURT: I recollect who she is.

MR. SCHECK: That she was familiar with their rules and procedures and she also proffered a series of lists talking about rules and procedures.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: She authenticated this form and others and found Viertel's in violation, so I think her testimony lays a sufficient foundation.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, she is not the proper witness for that form. She is not the one who uses it. She is not the one who filled it out. You need to call somebody to lay a business record foundation to establish that they are familiar with the form, the manner which it is filled out and establish its trustworthiness and she can't do that. She may recognize the form, but she is not familiar with the manner in which it is filled in and who has to fill it in and the people who are under a duty to do so. And the problem with this particular document is there are a number of people who put in information on that form. At the very least, if the court is going to admit it, then the form should be redacted to include only that part that Meraz wrote on, if they want to use it for that purpose to corroborate his testimony, but the part that is filled in by others who are under different duties than Meraz should not be admitted because that cannot be vouched for with the testimony that we have.

THE COURT: All right. I will look at the transcript.

MR. SCHECK: If I may just--

THE COURT: All right. 1257.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MR. SCHECK: Just in passing, your Honor, just--just so the court is aware, the section that Miss Clark is concerned about is the box at the top that says "Give no special care" and I just want the court to know we will reopen our case to put this in.

THE COURT: Counsel, I have concluded the discussion. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. EDTA slide, 1257. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: That was all the slides, 1257-A--

THE COURT: Correct.

MS. CLARK: --through S? The objection, your Honor, is 352. It is misleading and confusing. If the court will recall, there were a number of charts that were shown to Dr. Rieders that--the ion wars. I remember.

THE COURT: The daughter wars.

MS. CLARK: Yeah, the daughter wars and I still haven't figured out why they have no sons, but they have--they compared--

THE COURT: I wondered that myself.

MS. CLARK: They compared different days on some of the charts, your Honor. There was also a confusing juxtaposition of different results obtained at different times, and the problem that we had with all of those slides was that it was misrepresentative of the actual results that were obtained. Now, given the fact that they did not do any testing to justify the manner in which they put these together, there is no reason why Agent Martz' testimony indicating the misleading nature of those slides and the juxtaposition of those results should be disregarded. The only real testimony you have concerning how the results should be viewed and in what way they should be compared with each other is Agent Martz because he was the one had operated the machine, he was the one who ran the test. Dr. Rieders did nothing but look at his charts and his graphs. And the problem is, as you recall, that Agent Martz testified that the machine--the column is very sensitive. It will run high one day and low another, and so you cannot compare results from one day to the results of another. In fact, you can't even compare results from the morning to the evening because the column is so sensitive. The results have--the tests have to be run at the same time or within minutes of each other to be valid for comparison in terms of concentration of the ions. And the problem with some--with these charts, as I recall, is that they did not do that. There were different days and different times put together in an effort to mislead and make it look as though there were discrepancies where there really weren't and there is to basis for doing that. In fact, it is very misleading and confusing to the jury.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Well, I think Miss Clark is talking about other slides. 1257 was the first set of slides that just illustrates what the process of chromatography is and each slide was gone through with Agent Martz and there were two charts from two different days that was explained to the jury. I'm not sure which--I think she is talking about some later charts, but this was all gone through with the jury. Agent Martz was allowed to explain anytime he disagreed with anything. And I don't see what the problem is.

MS. CLARK: Maybe he is right. Let me see.

THE COURT: I think it is a combination of both how the mechanism works and the specific results of testing in this case by Agent Martz. I think we have both of those here.

MS. CLARK: Right. Okay. I'm looking at A, B, C, D, E, F. I think so far so good. Bob is right.

MS. CLARK: Through L is okay. Withdrawn on that. A through L withdrawn, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: Here is the one, 1257-P. So far I've gotten through O and there is no objection. P is a problem, your Honor, and the reason it is a problem is that it assumes something that is not in evidence, that is, the location of where 206 was taken from, right? 206 and 207, no one knows exactly what area of the stain those came out of. It has never been--there was an assumption that one was taken out of a corner of the stain, corner of the cut-out area, and that 206 came out of another spot. In other words, it makes an assumption that 206 and 207 came from different areas of the stain.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: And we don't know that to be true at all, so it is very misleading. In fact, they might very well have been on top of each other, right next to each other, and that is important in terms of the concentration.

THE COURT: May I see?

MR. BLASIER: That is testimony about Q206, that that was approximately where it came from. There was actually a cut on the--Q207 I would agree with Miss Clark, that we don't know where it came from to the extent that it came from the lower corner, and that was explained by Agent Martz, that I don't know if it came from that corner, but it came from that large cut-off. So I think that is all that illustrates and I think that was stated on the record.

MS. CLARK: I think Bob is correct. The problem that we have, though, is as it is depicted there it is very misleading because the jury is not going to remember how Agent Martz explained it or didn't explain it. They are going to have a big picture back there or during argument that purports to place 207 where it has never been established it was, and it is--that is an important point. It is not nitpicking because where 207 came from in relation to 206 is important in terms of the concentration of blood.

MR. BLASIER: But it was all explained. I mean, that is--nothing misleading about it. They were told that we don't know exactly where it came from the cut-out. This is to illustrate that was part of the cut-out.

THE COURT: But this slide can be modified, correct?

MR. BLASIER: Sure.

MS. CLARK: If--if Mr. Blasier would take out 207, just take it out of the photograph, then I wouldn't have any objection.

THE COURT: All right. I think what we can do is label that 207 came from somewhere in the green area.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

MS. CLARK: Take that box out.

THE COURT: Take that box out.

MS. CLARK: Great.

MR. DOUGLAS: Which one is that, your Honor?

THE COURT: This is 1257-P. Aren't you keeping track of these things?

MR. DOUGLAS: I lost track, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, I'm going to take our recess at this point and we will stand in recess until two o'clock.

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, just a clarification just so we know this afternoon. We have another motion on this afternoon.

THE COURT: We have to finish this.

MR. NEUFELD: Not only finish this, but we also have to finish the scope of rebuttal and we have specific discovery problems regarding that as well that must be resolved today, because as you know, they want to commence their case on Monday and they--they had really the--

THE COURT: Counsel, you don't need to argue it now. I am aware of all these matters we have to take up, and we will start at two o'clock, but we will finish this. All right.

(At 12:01 P.M. the noon recess was taken until 2:00 P.M. of the same day.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1995 2:10 P.M.

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

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. Where were we? 1--1251-E'ish. And counsel who are here for the motion regarding access to tapes, et cetera, et cetera, I've got to finish this first. So if you want to take an hour and get a cup of coffee, be my guest. Yes. All right. Miss Clark, where were we? We had gone through P as I recollect.

MS. CLARK: That's right, your Honor. We got up to 1257-Q. And I asked for Xerox copies from Deirdre to look at over the lunch hour. Unfortunately, the Xerox copies don't tell me the date and the stuff that I need to know to identify the charts. So I thought it was a good idea at the time, but it didn't quite pan out. So if I could look at the originals again to see if I could get a little more detail unless Mr. Blasier could tell me offhand. Do you know?

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

MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. I think if we put it on the elmo or laser, I will be able to read it and I can--

THE COURT: We don't have--I've excused our elmo operator.

MS. CLARK: Oh.

THE COURT: I don't need to see it on the elmo.

MS. CLARK: No. I do, your Honor. I can't--because it's too small and being as I can't tell which charts they are, I can't read--

THE COURT: Here. Let me give you my magnifying glass. No. Mr. Ormond, I gave the rest of the day off. I didn't think we would be using the--

MS. CLARK: There's no reason to think that we would. Actually, Henry Lee gave me his. I should--

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

MS. CLARK: You know what? If I could get the chart from Deirdre that the People marked, that will--

THE COURT: Do you want to pass this whole series?

MS. CLARK: Yes. Come back.

THE COURT: All right. How about 1261, bar chart, EDTA?

MS. CLARK: Do you have that, your Honor? Withdrawn. Objection withdrawn.

THE COURT: All right. Objection is withdrawn to 1261. 1263, a letter from the D.A.'s office to Special Agent Roger Martz with lots of writing on it.

MS. CLARK: This is the one--

THE COURT: Do we have a clean copy of that?

MR. BLASIER: Yeah. We can substitute a clean copy.

MS. CLARK: People's objection is that it's hearsay and that it's irrelevant.

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

MS. CLARK: People's objection is that it's hearsay and it's irrelevant, your Honor. I think it was offered to show bias on the part of the witness. That letter would not go to the witness' state of mind. It would go to the writer's state of mind assuming that it showed any bias, which it doesn't. It asks for the receiver of the letter to detect the presence or absence of EDTA without indicating that a particular result should be obtained.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: Well, that same objection was made at 38627 of the transcript. It was overruled at that time. I don't know if there's anything new about it.

THE COURT: Well, I overruled its--I allowed its use for examination of that witness, but that witness was not the author of the letter.

MR. BLASIER: No. That's correct. But it demonstrates what he was told, this is what we want you to do and it's relevant to his state of mind. It's not offered for the truth of the matter stated certainly.

THE COURT: All right. The objection will be sustained. All right. 1267, the food iron absorption article.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, this was the--

THE COURT: 1267.

MS. CLARK: Right. This was the article that had been referred to by Dr. Reiders as--in his attempt to say that there had been a study that had been--a study that has been used to determine the average daily amount that--of EDTA that would be found, but he wound up having to concede that that in fact was not shown by the study at all. The study was for a different purpose and it was--what they did was they injected EDTA for the purpose of determining what would be left after certain periods of time, but that does nothing to indicate what trace amounts would be found if everyone's blood was tested for various types of EDTA. So it's very misleading. I believe the court initially had ruled that he could not bring that article out and could not be questioned about it, and then Dr. Reiders just kept talking about it basically. I mean, he wasn't even listening to my questions. So I think the court earlier ruled that it could not be used and we simply urge the court not to allow its admission. It is irrelevant, it is misleading and confusing as Agent Martz indicated as well when he had to go back and try to unravel it.

MR. BLASIER: Miss Clark's confused. She's talking about 1268. 1267 is the article about the average person's maximum daily intake of EDTA in a diet would be 50 milligrams and that would lead to a certain level in the blood. But as to both of those exhibits, Agent Martz testified--in fact, he was the one that was asked if that's the article he relied on when he gave that figure of 50 milligrams a day, and he said yes, it was. 1268, the article, the absorption article that she was talking about also was testified to extensively by both Dr. Reiders and Mr. Martz. They both relied on it. They relied on it for different purposes. But it was extensively discussed, identified by both of them and relied on by both of them. They disputed what it would have showed certainly, but it doesn't detract from the fact that they both relied on it.

THE COURT: Well, the fact that they both relied on it though, the fact that these are both scientific articles out of scientific journals, I mean, isn't there a danger here that we're--I mean, Dr. Reiders testified, Agent Martz testified and you have exhibits that say what their testimony was. I mean, why do we need these articles?

MR. BLASIER: Well--

THE COURT: I mean, do you seriously expect the jury to go back and read scientific journal articles?

MR. BLASIER: I don't know. I would hope not, but I mean they were referred to, they were read--parts of them were read into the record. If they have any confusion about which doctor, whether Dr. Reiders was right or Agent Martz was right and what those articles said, they might want to refer to them. The fact that they probably won't I don't think is a reason not to have them admitted.

MS. CLARK: Well, your Honor--

MR. BLASIER: And we might want to make reference to them too.

MS. CLARK: --with respect to--I'm sorry to interrupt, but with respect to 1267, that was--I just got my memory refreshed. That was the FDA listing of EDTA amounts in food, and the People withdraw their objection to that. I've just been shown the reference in transcript. But we maintain our--but Mr. Blasier is correct, 1268 is the one that we have the objection to because--and that is completely misleading. It was--Dr. Reiders attempted to use that article to buttress his position as to what--what, if any, amount should be found in people on a regular--a normal regular person on a daily basis and, in fact, it does not direct itself to that at all, which is why it's so misleading and confusing and not to mention very complicated.

THE COURT: All right. This is the article that deals with the injection of EDTA.

MS. CLARK: That's right. 1268 does. I'm sorry, your Honor. So--

THE COURT: All right. Not only are they confusing scientific articles. We're confused as to which one is which, correct?

MR. BLASIER: I'm not.

THE COURT: All right. Well, Miss Clark and I are confused as to which one is which. All right. I will sustain the objection as being irrelevant because this does deal with injected EDTA, not ingested EDTA. All right. Next, Cambridge Isotope Laboratory's two pages. This is the catalog that shows that EDTA compounds, what as research compounds for testing and comparison purposes, correct?

MR. BLASIER: No. That there was an internal standard readily available.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: The objection I had down was insufficient foundation and hearsay, and I can't remember what Dr. Reiders did to lay the foundation for it now. It escapes me.

MR. BLASIER: Dr. Reiders didn't testify about that at all. It was Agent Martz who was shown the catalog and testified that he recognized this as a catalog from Cambridge and looked at that page in the catalog and said, yes, that does look like the internal standard that could be used and described what the price was.

THE COURT: 250 bucks if I recollect.

MS. CLARK: Right.

MR. BLASIER: Something like that.

MS. CLARK: Right. Submit it.

THE COURT: All right. The objection will be overruled. All right. 1271-A through C, ion counts.

MS. CLARK: This is the one, isn't it, Bob?

MR. BLASIER: Yeah. Maybe I can shortcut this. The third slide was a demonstration slide that I did adjusting some of the quantities. It doesn't reflect actual test results. It reflects those multiplied by various numbers. I have no objection to that not being given to the jury, but I certainly think we're entitled to argue that. I mean, that's something we can present in argument. But since it didn't result in any specific results from any test, I have no objection withdrawing it with the understanding we can still make the argument of course and show it in argument.

THE COURT: Miss Clark.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Let me make sure, if I can look in the transcript very quickly for a and B, I may withdraw.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: Let me see.

MR. BLASIER: I believe those two are just straight chart that--marks of imprint.

MS. CLARK: Do you have--this is--these are the charts, your Honor, that have the different dates.

MR. BLASIER: And they were objected on that ground. I think we added the dates to them.

THE COURT: Do you need the magnifying glass again?

MS. CLARK: No, I don't. Thank you, your Honor. I probably should get glasses. These--as to A, your Honor, we have here the adjusted position of February 22nd and February 28th for the same--

THE COURT: Are they marked as such?

MS. CLARK: They are, and I'm not disputing that they aren't. But with respect to b--your Honor, could we pass these? I may withdraw the objection. I wanted to see what Agent Martz said about these two slides. And if we don't have to argue an objection, I'd like not to. I'll have--Miss Martinez will find the part.

THE COURT: Okay. Then we can move to my second favorite objection, socks.

MS. CLARK: It's just a brown sock. And the relevance would be--

THE COURT: Socks.

MS. CLARK: Socks. Yeah, they're not the same as the ones in evidence. So what's the relevance?

MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, the exclusive relevance of the sock was simply to coincide with the testimony of Herb MacDonell to enable him to explain what surface 1, surface 2 and surface 3. If it isn't obvious to this jury it isn't the same sock only offered for that purpose, it would be truly extraordinary.

THE COURT: I don't even think this needs to go into the jury since everybody knows what socks are.

MR. NEUFELD: Fine, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Withdrawn.

(Deft's 1279 for id = withdrawn)

THE COURT: Okay. We actually skip a whole page. 1317.

MS. CLARK: I'm sorry. So 1279, is it--

THE COURT: Withdrawn.

MS. CLARK: Withdrawn?

THE COURT: 1317.

MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, your Honor. I will be handling that. That was Michele Kestler who testified. This was an item of handwritten notes by Gregory Matheson which was shown to the witness for the purposes of refreshing her recollection. I just reread the transcript, relevant transcript sections, and, in fact, it did refresh her recollection that they had certain meetings shortly after the crime scene was processed on the 13th of June regarding case security. That's all it was used for. The document itself is not an official forum, it's not a business record. I don't know why it's being offered.

MR. NEUFELD: Is this considered listed as one of the objected items yesterday? We'll withdraw it.

THE COURT: All right. Withdrawn.

(Deft's 1317 for id = withdrawn)

THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, get that?

THE CLERK: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. 1318.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this was the memorandum from Chief Gates that I believe was 24 years old.

THE COURT: No. It's older than that. It's from assistant Chief Gates.

MR. GOLDBERG: Oh, it was? Okay. And I also just checked the transcript on that and there was--

MR. SCHECK: We'll withdraw it. We'll withdraw it.

MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: Withdrawn.

MR. SCHECK: Although it was a very interesting document.

THE COURT: Aren't they all?

(Deft's 1318 for id = withdrawn)

THE COURT: 1319.

MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I'll make the