People of California vs. O.J. Simpson/People of California vs. O.J. Simpson.iso/xscripts/apr04.txt

Text File | 1995-04-06 | 257KB | 6,120 lines

    LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 1995
                     9:10 A.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. 103            HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
            (APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

  (JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR NO. 4855, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
(CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR NO. 2378, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

            (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
             HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
             PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

      THE COURT:  BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER.
            THE DEFENDANT IS PRESENT WITH HIS COUNSEL.  THE
PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED.  THE JURY IS NOT PRESENT.
            WE HAVE A NUMBER OF MATTERS TO TAKE UP BEFORE
WE PROCEED WITH THE JURY THIS MORNING.
            FIRST THE SANCTIONS MOTION BROUGHT BY THE
DEFENSE CONCERNING THE LATE DISCLOSURE OF THE VIDEOTAPE
THAT WAS DISCLOSED TO THE DEFENSE ON MARCH THE 24TH.
            AND DEAN UELMEN, I UNDERSTAND YOU ARE GOING TO
ADDRESS THAT ISSUE.
      MR. UELMEN:  YES, YOUR HONOR.

       THE COURT:  COUNSEL, WHAT CONCERNS THE COURT HERE
ARE TWO THINGS:
            ONE, ANY CITATION TO THE RECORD WHERE TAPE
REQUESTS ARE SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED AND REPRESENTATIONS ARE
MADE BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE REGARDING THE
EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF THESE TAPES.
            AND I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR SOME COMMENT BY YOU AS
TO THE MATERIALITY OF THE TAPE AND WHETHER OR NOT --
WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS ANY PREJUDICE SUFFERED BY THE
DEFENDANT AS A RESULT OF THE LATE DISCLOSURE.
            I AM INTERESTED IN THOSE TWO ISSUES.
      MR. UELMEN:  YOUR HONOR, THERE ARE ACTUALLY THREE
ITEMS OF CONCERN TO THE DEFENSE WITH RESPECT TO OUR
REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS.
            AT THE CLOSE OF COURT YESTERDAY, IT WAS OFF THE
RECORD, BUT WE NOTED THE PROBLEM THAT AROSE WITH RESPECT TO
MR. GOLDBERG'S EXAMINATION OF
DENNIS FUNG, AND WE WERE ABLE TO LOCATE THE TRANSCRIPT
REFERENCE.
            ON OCTOBER 5TH --
      MS. LEWIS:  YOUR HONOR, I'M SORRY, BUT IF THERE IS
GOING TO BE SOMETHING INVOLVING MR. GOLDBERG'S QUESTIONING
OF THE WITNESS, MAY I HAVE A MOMENT TO GET MR. GOLDBERG
DOWN HERE OR WATCHING UPSTAIRS TO MAKE SURE NOTHING IS
MISREPRESENTED, SINCE I WASN'T HERE AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT
HE WAS TALKING ABOUT?

       THE COURT:  WELL, COUNSEL, I CAN'T WAIT TO CONDUCT
THESE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ATTORNEYS TO SHUFFLE BACK AND
FORTH.
      MS. LEWIS:  YOUR HONOR, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS ANY
NOTICE THAT MR. UELMEN WAS GOING TO ARGUE ANYTHING WITH
REGARD TO SANCTIONS.
      THE COURT:  WELL, WHEN WE LEFT YESTERDAY AFTERNOON IT
WAS BROUGHT UP THAT REFERENCE WAS MADE TO ITEMS THAT THE
COURT HAD SUPPRESSED AT THE 1538.5, SO CLEARLY THERE IS
GOING TO BE SOME SEVERE SANCTION.
      MS. LEWIS:  ALL RIGHT, YOUR HONOR.  I WILL -- I THINK
I ACTUALLY MAY BE MORE FAMILIAR THAN MR. GOLDBERG WITH THE
SUPPRESSION MOTIONS.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            BUT I AM INTERESTED IN TALKING ABOUT THE TAPE
SANCTIONS FIRST.
      MR. UELMEN:  ALL RIGHT.
            I CAN -- I CAN ADDRESS THAT ISSUE FIRST, YOUR
HONOR, AND THEN ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF THE SUPPRESSION AND
THE -- ALSO THE INVESTIGATION WITH RESPECT TO THE SHOES.
            THE VIDEOTAPE WAS FIRST REVEALED ON MARCH 21ST
OR 24TH, I'M SORRY, AND OF COURSE THERE WAS A TAPE THAT WAS
MADE ON JUNE 13TH.
            THERE WERE A NUMBER OF INFORMAL REQUESTS THAT
WERE NOT ON THE RECORD WITH RESPECT TO THE PRODUCTION OF
THIS PARTICULAR VIDEOTAPE, AND AT THE TIME OF THE LATE
PRODUCTION OF THE VIDEOTAPE-RECORDED  OF MR. SIMPSON
BIDDING FAREWELL TO THE BROWN FAMILY, CONCERNS WERE ALSO
AGAIN RAISED WITH RESPECT TO THE EXISTENCE OF ANY OTHER
VIDEOTAPES, AND A SPECIFIC REQUEST WAS MADE AT THAT TIME,
I BELIEVE ON THE RECORD, FOR ANY OTHER VIDEOTAPES IN THE
PEOPLE'S POSSESSION THAT HAD NOT BEEN TURNED OVER.
            I THINK YOU NEED TO PUT THIS IN THE CONTEXT,
YOUR HONOR, OF THE IMPORTANCE THAT VIDEOTAPE EVIDENCE HAS
ASSUMED IN THIS TRIAL.
            WE SAW A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF THAT WITH RESPECT
TO THE PRIOR INCIDENT INVOLVING THE VIDEOTAPE OF THE NIGHT
OF THE RECITAL AT THE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL WHERE WITNESSES
HAD TESTIFIED THAT MR. SIMPSON THAT EVENING WAS HOSTILE AND
UNCOMMUNICATIVE, AND THEN WE SAW A VIDEOTAPE FROM WHICH WE
COULD MAKE OUR OWN JUDGMENT AND WHICH HE APPEARED TO BE
VERY FRIENDLY IN BIDDING AN AFFECTIONATE FAREWELL TO HIS
FAMILY AND MEMBERS OF THE BROWN FAMILY.
            SO THIS EVIDENCE HAS CRUCIAL SIGNIFICANCE IN
TERMS OF ALLOWING THE JURY AND THE COURT TO MAKE THEIR OWN
JUDGMENTS WITHOUT HAVING DESCRIPTIONS OF EVENTS FILTERED
THROUGH THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES WHO MAY HAVE BIASES ONE
WAY OR THE OTHER.
            AND IN LIGHT OF THE RECORD OF THE PRIOR FAILURE
TO DISCLOSE A VIDEO, THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO
PRODUCE THIS PARTICULAR VIDEOTAPE UNTIL MARCH 24TH TAKES ON
A SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE, ESPECIALLY THE FACT THAT IT
APPEARED AT A POINT IN  TIME WHEN IT SOMEHOW SEEMED TO THE
PROSECUTION'S ADVANTAGE TO USE THE TAPE.
            SO THE EXPLANATION THAT THIS WAS INADVERTENTLY
MISLAID IS A SOMEWHAT SUSPICIOUS ONE IN VIEW OF THE FACT
THAT SUDDENLY IT IS RELOCATED AND BROUGHT INTO COURT AT THE
POINT IN TIME WHEN THEY FEEL THERE IS SOME EVIDENTIARY USE
THAT CAN BE MADE TO BOLSTER THEIR CASE.
            AND OF COURSE THE DEFENSE WAS DEPRIVED OF ANY
OPPORTUNITY TO USE THIS TAPE IN PRIOR ISSUES THAT WERE
BEING LITIGATED BEFORE THIS COURT.
            AND IN A NUMBER OF RESPECTS WE BELIEVE THAT
THAT IRRETRIEVABLY PREJUDICED THE DEFENSE.
            FIRST OF ALL, THIS TAPE WOULD HAVE BEEN OF
SUBSTANTIAL USE IN LITIGATING THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS
EVIDENCE BACK IN SEPTEMBER AND IT WOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN
QUITE USEFUL IN CROSS-EXAMINING THE DETECTIVES IN CHARGE OF
THIS INVESTIGATION, BECAUSE WE HAVE NOTED INCONSISTENCIES
BETWEEN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE DISCOVERY OF THE GLOVE, FOR
EXAMPLE, IN THE CLOSET OF MR. SIMPSON'S BEDROOM, AS
PORTRAYED IN THE TAPE WHERE A SINGLE GLOVE WAS REMOVED,
BROUGHT DOWNSTAIRS, PUT ON A TABLE AND APPEARS IN THE
VIDEOTAPE.
            THAT IS NOT THE WAY THAT INCIDENT WAS DESCRIBED
IN THE AFFIDAVIT FOR A SEARCH WARRANT WHICH WAS SUBSCRIBED
TO UNDER OATH BY DETECTIVE VANNATTER BACK ON JUNE 28TH.
            AT THAT POINT DETECTIVE VANNATTER
SAID -- AND THIS WAS THE PROBABLE CAUSE YOU WILL RECALL TO
GO BACK TO MR. SIMPSON'S HOME AND EXECUTE A SECOND SEARCH
WARRANT TWO WEEKS AFTER THE EXECUTION OF THE FIRST WARRANT.
            THE PROBABLE CAUSE INCLUDED THE ALLEGATION
THAT:
                "ADDITIONALLY, SINCE THE SERVICE OF THE
FIRST WARRANT, OTHER OFFICERS PRESENT DURING THAT SERVICE
HAVE TOLD YOUR AFFIANT THAT THEY SAW ANOTHER PAIR OF GLOVES
INSIDE SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE.  THESE OFFICERS HAD ALSO SEEN
THE GLOVE FOUND AT THE MURDER LOCATION AND HAVE TOLD YOUR
AFFIANT THAT THE GLOVES IN THE RESIDENCE APPEARED TO BE OF
THE SAME TYPE AS THE ONE FROM THE CRIME SCENE.
                "YOUR AFFIANT WISHES TO SEIZE THE GLOVES
LEFT IN THE SIMPSON RESIDENCE BECAUSE THEY WILL TEND TO
FURTHER ESTABLISH THAT THE BLOODY GLOVES RECOVERED BELONGED
TO SIMPSON IN THAT HE FAVORED THIS TYPE, STYLE AND SIZE OF
GLOVE.
      "THESE GLOVES WERE INADVERTENTLY LEFT BEHIND AT THE
SIMPSON RESIDENCE."
            NOW, WE BELIEVE THAT CROSS-EXAMINATION, BOTH OF
DETECTIVE VANNATTER AND THE DETECTIVES INVOLVED IN FINDING
THAT GLOVE, WOULD HAVE DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL
MISREPRESENTATIONS IN THE AFFIDAVIT FOR THIS SECOND WARRANT
IN THAT THE VIDEOTAPE REVEALS ONE GLOVE WHEREAS THE
AFFIDAVIT REFERS TO A PAIR OF  GLOVES.
            THE AFFIDAVIT SAYS THE GLOVES WERE
INADVERTENTLY LEFT BEHIND WHEN WE HAVE SINCE BEEN TOLD THAT
THE DETECTIVES ACTUALLY CONFERRED WITH THE DETECTIVES IN
CHARGE AND MADE A DECISION NOT TO SEIZE THE GLOVE.  IT WAS
NOT AN INADVERTENT LEAVING BEHIND.  THEY ACTUALLY DECIDED
BEFORE THEY LEFT THE PREMISES THAT THEY WOULD NOT TAKE THIS
GLOVE OR THESE GLOVES, IF THERE ARE TWO.
            SO HERE WE SEE SIGNIFICANT AREAS FOR
CROSS-EXAMINATION THAT THE DEFENSE WAS DEPRIVED OF AT THE
MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND IN THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE
DETECTIVES BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE THIS TAPE. WE DID NOT
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE WHAT THIS TAPE PORTRAYS.
            NOW, CLEARLY THERE IS A PARALLEL I THINK
BETWEEN THE FAILURE TO PRODUCE THIS TAPE AND THE FAILURE TO
PRODUCE THE TAPE INVOLVED IN THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ROSA
LOPEZ, BECAUSE IN BOTH CASES YOUR HONOR HAS BEEN PRESENTED
WITH A VERY SIMILAR EXPLANATION, THAT A DETECTIVE
INADVERTENTLY MISLAID THE TAPES AND THAT COUNSEL WERE NOT
AWARE THAT THE TAPES WERE IN EXISTENCE AND THAT IS
PRECISELY THE EXPLANATION WE ARE HEARING NOW FROM THE --
FROM THE PROSECUTION.
            DESPITE THAT EXPLANATION, IN THE CASE OF THE
ROSA LOPEZ TAPE, YOUR HONOR CONCLUDED THAT SEVERE SANCTIONS
WERE WARRANTED AND THOSE SANCTIONS INCLUDED  FINES IMPOSED
AGAINST BOTH LAWYERS, A REQUIREMENT OF IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE
ACTION TO CATALOGUE ALL OF THE STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES AND
INDICATE WHEN THEY WERE TURNED OVER TO COUNSEL, AND A
PROPOSAL TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT THE FAILURE TO PRODUCE
THIS TAPE COULD BE CONSIDERED IN ASSESSING THE CREDIBILITY
OF THE WITNESS.
            WE BELIEVE THAT IF THE COURT IS GOING TO BE
EVENHANDED IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF SANCTIONS, THAT
PRECISELY THE SAME SANCTIONS ARE WARRANTED HERE; THAT YOUR
HONOR SHOULD ORDER CORRECTIVE ACTION BE IMMEDIATELY TAKEN
TO REQUIRE THAT THE PROSECUTION IMMEDIATELY CATALOGUE ALL
VIDEOTAPES IN THEIR POSSESSION OR IN THE POSSESSION OF THE
POLICE WITH A DESCRIPTION OF THOSE TAPES AND AN ACCOUNT OF
WHEN THEY WERE TURNED OVER TO THE DEFENSE.
            SECONDLY, WE HAVE PROPOSED A JURY INSTRUCTION
THAT CLOSELY PARALLELS THE INSTRUCTION THAT YOUR HONOR
PROPOSED TO GIVE WITH RESPECT TO THE TESTIMONY OF ROSA
LOPEZ, INFORMING THE JURY THAT:

                "THE LAWS GOVERNING CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN
CALIFORNIA REQUIRE DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE IN ADVANCE, THAT
THE REASON THESE LAWS EXIST IS TO PROMOTE THE ASCERTAINMENT
OF TRUTH TO SAVE COURT TIME AND AVOID THE NECESSITY FOR
INTERRUPTIONS AND POSTPONEMENTS, THAT THE DELAY IN THE
PRODUCTION OF THIS TAPE FROM JUNE 13TH UNTIL MARCH 24TH WAS
A  VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND THE CAUSE OF DELAYS IN THIS
TRIAL DURING THE WEEK OF MARCH 27TH, AND THAT THE JURY MAY
CONSIDER THE EFFECT, IF ANY, OF THIS DELAY IN DISCLOSURE
UPON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES INVOLVED IN THE
GATHERING OF EVIDENCE ON JUNE 13TH."
            THAT WOULD CLOSELY PARALLEL WHAT THE COURT
ORDERED IN THE CASE OF THE ROSA LOPEZ TAPE.
            THE SECOND ISSUE THAT IS OF CONCERN TO THE
DEFENSE WITH RESPECT TO SANCTIONS INVOLVES THE VERY LATE
PRODUCTION, AGAIN ON MARCH 24TH, OF 238 PAGES OF
INVESTIGATIVE MATERIAL RELATING TO THE PROSECUTION'S
ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY LOCATIONS IN WHICH SHOES MATCHING THE
SHOEPRINT LEFT AT THE -- AT THE CRIME SCENE WERE SOLD.

            THIS INVESTIGATION TOOK PLACE IN AUGUST AND
SEPTEMBER OF LAST YEAR, AND APPARENTLY THE PROSECUTION
DELIBERATELY DECIDED THAT THEY WOULD NOT TURN OVER ANY OF
THIS INVESTIGATIVE MATERIAL UNTIL THEIR INVESTIGATION HAD
BEEN COMPLETED.
            SO ALL AT ONCE ON MARCH 24TH THE DEFENSE IS
HANDED 238 PAGES OF MATERIAL, MUCH OF WHICH IS IN A FOREIGN
LANGUAGE.  THERE ARE -- THERE IS CORRESPONDENCE IN THAT
FILE IN JAPANESE AND ITALIAN THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO
GET TRANSLATED.  WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CONDUCT SOME
FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION OURSELVES.
            AND WE BELIEVE ONCE AGAIN WE HAVE AN  EXAMPLE
OF THE PROSECUTION SIMPLY WITHHOLDING VITAL EVIDENCE UNTIL
IT IS TOO LATE FOR THE DEFENSE TO DO ANY INVESTIGATION OF
THEIR OWN.
            WE BELIEVE THAT AT A MINIMUM THE COURT SHOULD
DELAY THE PRESENTATION OF ANY EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE
IDENTIFICATION OF FOOTPRINTS UNTIL THE END OF THE TRIAL,
THAT THE COURT SHOULD REQUIRE IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE OF ANY
FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION.
            WE NEED TO KNOW JUST AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE
WHAT THE NET RESULTS OF ALL OF THIS WERE, WHETHER THEY ARE
GOING TO BE PRESENTING ANY EVIDENCE IDENTIFYING THE SOURCE
OF ANY -- ANY SHOES, AND WE NEED TO KNOW THAT RIGHT NOW SO
WE CAN BEGIN TO PREPARE TO CROSS-EXAMINE.

      THE COURT:  DON'T YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT?
      MR. UELMEN:  WE --
      THE COURT:  THE RESULTS OF THE FBI TESTING ON THE
SHOEPRINTS WERE TURNED OVER TO YOU WITHIN A DAY OF THE
COURT RECEIVING IT FROM THE FBI.
      MR. UELMEN:  WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE, YOUR
HONOR, IS THE EFFORT TO CONNECT THAT PARTICULAR SHOE
PATTERN WITH THE SALE OF SHOES AT PARTICULAR LOCATIONS.  I
MEAN, THIS REALLY RELATES TO THE EFFORT OF THE PROSECUTION
TO TRY TO TIE THAT SHOE TO MR. SIMPSON.
            WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT IN ANY
WAY CONNECTS SHOES OF THIS NATURE WITH  MR. SIMPSON, AND IF
THEY ARE GOING TO PUT ON ANY SUCH EVIDENCE, ENGAGE IN ANY
ATTEMPT OR INFERENCE TO SUGGEST THAT SHOES OF THIS TYPE
WERE PURCHASED BY MR. SIMPSON, WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THAT
AND WE NEED TO BE PREPARED TO MEET THAT EVIDENCE.
            AND AT THIS POINT WE HAVE SEEN NOTHING, WE HAVE
HEARD NOTHING, EXCEPT THIS 238 PAGES OF MATERIAL THAT WAS
TURNED OVER JUST ONE WEEK AGO.
            SO WE WOULD ASK AT A MINIMUM THAT THE
PRESENTATION OF THIS EVIDENCE BE DELAYED AND WE BE GIVEN
ANY FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION THAT CAME IN ITS WAKE.
            THE THIRD ITEM, YOUR HONOR, RELATES TO THE
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MR. FUNG AT THE CLOSE OF OUR
PROCEEDINGS YESTERDAY, AND AS I MENTIONED, WE HAVE LOCATED
IN THE TRANSCRIPT THE COURT'S RULING ON OCTOBER 5TH, 1995,
PAGES.
      THE COURT:  '94.
      MR. UELMEN:  PAGES 2395 TO 2396 OF THE TRANSCRIPT,
AND HERE I'M READING FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE COURT:
                "ALL RIGHT.  SEARCH WARRANT NO. 2, ITEMS 15
AND 16, THE TICKET RECEIPT AND BAGGAGE TAG, AND I THINK MR.
UELMEN WAS CORRECT, I THINK THE PROSECUTION HAS THE BURDEN
AS TO THESE TWO ELEMENTS.
                "MISS CLARK:  THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
WITH RESPECT TO ITEMS 15 AND 16, THE PROSECUTION WILL NOT
BE SEEKING TO ADMIT THEM.
       "THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  THEN WE WILL TAKE ITEMS 15
AND 16 AND NOTE THAT THEY WILL NOT BE OFFERED.  THE
REPRESENTATION IS THAT THEY WILL NOT BE OFFERED.  IN THE
EVENT THAT POSITION SHOULD CHANGE, THEN THE DEFENSE IS
ENTITLED TO A DE NOVO HEARING ON THE 1538 DURING TRIAL IF
THAT BECOMES NECESSARY."
            AND YESTERDAY, IN VIOLATION OF THAT AGREEMENT,
MR. GOLDBERG ELICITED FROM MR. FUNG TESTIMONY WITH RESPECT
TO THE SEIZURE OF BOTH OF THESE ITEMS, THE AIRLINE TICKET
RECEIPT AND THE BAGGAGE TAG.
            WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A VERY EGREGIOUS
VIOLATION OF COUNSEL'S DUTY TO DELIBERATELY ELICIT
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE THAT THE PROSECUTION AGREED WOULD
NOT BE OFFERED, IN FRUSTRATION OF THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS TO
SEEK SUPPRESSION OF THAT EVIDENCE.
            AND WE BELIEVE, ONCE AGAIN, THAT SEVERE
SANCTIONS ARE WARRANTED, INCLUDING THE GIVING OF AN
INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY, AND WE HAVE FASHIONED A PROPOSED
INSTRUCTION.  WE WOULD PROPOSE THAT THE COURT INSTRUCT THE
JURY AS FOLLOWS:
                "THE LAWS GOVERNING CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN
CALIFORNIA REQUIRE THE EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE THAT WAS
UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED BY THE POLICE. THESE LAWS EXIST TO
PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF ALL CITIZENS BY DETERRING UNLAWFUL
POLICE CONDUCT.  PRIOR TO THE TRIAL OF THIS CASE THE
PROSECUTION REPRESENTED  THAT SOME ITEMS OF EVIDENCE WOULD
NOT BE OFFERED IN THE TRIAL AND THE COURT WITHHELD A RULING
WHETHER THEY WERE LAWFULLY ACQUIRED.

      "DURING THE TESTIMONY OF MR. FUNG THE PROSECUTION
VIOLATED THEIR AGREEMENT AND YOU MAY CONSIDER THE EFFECT,
IF ANY, OF THIS VIOLATION UPON THE CREDIBILITY OF MR. FUNG
AND GIVE TO IT THE WEIGHT TO WHICH YOU FEEL IT IS
ENTITLED."
            YOUR HONOR WILL NOTE THAT THIS INSTRUCTION
CLOSELY PARALLELS THE INSTRUCTION
THAT THE COURT PROPOSES TO GIVE WITH RESPECT TO
ROSA LOPEZ.
            WE ALSO FEEL THAT A FINE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE
AS A SANCTION IN THIS CASE AS WELL.
            NOW, YOUR HONOR, IN THE MOVING PAPERS, WITH
RESPECT TO SANCTIONS, THE DEFENSE HAS MADE A PROPOSAL TO IN
EFFECT CALL OFF THIS ESCALATING WAR OF SANCTIONS WHICH IS
FREQUENTLY CHARACTERIZED BY HYPERBOLE AND OVERDRAMATIZATION
AND PERSONAL VITUPERATION AND SIMPLY PUT OVER TO THE END OF
THIS TRIAL, AFTER ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IS IN, ALL THE ISSUES
WITH RESPECT TO WHAT PUNITIVE SANCTIONS ARE WARRANTED IN
THIS CASE.
            WHILE THE COURT MUST OF COURSE IMMEDIATELY
ADDRESS QUESTIONS ABOUT NEEDS FOR DELAY IN THE PRESENTATION
OF EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE TOTAL
PRECLUSION OF EVIDENCE, WE ALSO  BELIEVE THAT PRECLUSION IS
NOT A REMEDY THAT IS GOING TO BE SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED WITH
RESPECT TO ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, THAT THE COURT WILL
MORE OFTEN BE DEALING WITH ISSUES INVOLVING FINES AND
RETALIATORY JURY INSTRUCTIONS.
            OF COURSE WE ARE HOPEFUL THAT THE COURT WILL
NEVER HAVE TO DEAL WITH ANY OF THESE ISSUES AGAIN, BUT THAT
-- THAT HOPE CERTAINLY HAS NOT BEEN WARRANTED UP UNTIL NOW.
            WE BELIEVE THERE WOULD BE THREE VERY GOOD
ADVANTAGES TO THE COURT IN PUTTING THESE ISSUES OVER.
            FIRST OF ALL, IT COULD EXPEDITE THE
PRESENTATION OF THE EVIDENCE TO THE JURY WHICH IS
SEQUESTERED AND AVOID THE INTERRUPTIONS AND DISTRACTIONS OF
ARGUMENTS ABOUT SANCTIONS THAT SEEM TO BE COMING UP WITH --
WITH RECURRING FREQUENCY, BUT MORE IMPORTANT, IT WOULD
ALLOW THE COURT TO ASSESS THE ISSUE OF PREJUDICE, THE ISSUE
OF WILLFULNESS, AND MOST IMPORTANT, THE ISSUE OF THE EXTENT
TO WHICH JURY INSTRUCTIONS OF THIS NATURE MIGHT UNDERMINE
THE RELIABILITY OF THE TRUTH FINDING PROCESS IN THE CONTEXT
OF THE ENTIRE TRIAL, IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT THE DEFENSE HAS
DONE, WHAT THE PROSECUTION HAS DONE, WHAT PATTERN OF
WILLFULNESS EMERGES AND WHAT DEGREE OF PREJUDICE EMERGES IN
THE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE TRIAL.
            I THINK IT IS INTERESTING THAT IN THE FEW
APPELLATE CASES CONSIDERING SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO
CALIFORNIA'S RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY LAW, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME
REVERSALS OF THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS, BUT THE APPELLATE
COURT HAS THE VIRTUE OR THE ADVANTAGE OF LOOKING AT THE
EFFECT OF THE SANCTIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE TRIAL
AND HOW THOSE SANCTIONS AFFECTED THE FACT-FINDING PROCESS
THAT WAS ULTIMATELY HANDED TO THE JURY.
            THERE IS NO REASON ON EARTH WHY A TRIAL COURT
SHOULD NOT HAVE THE SAME ADVANTAGE AND SHOULD NOT BE ABLE
TO LOOK AT THIS WHOLE QUESTION OF SANCTIONS IN THE CONTEXT
OF WHAT IMPACT IT HAD THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL BEFORE THE FINAL
INSTRUCTIONS ARE GIVEN TO THE JURY.
            AND IF YOUR HONOR FEELS THAT INSTRUCTIONS ARE
NECESSARY, THOSE INSTRUCTIONS CAN THEN BE INCORPORATED INTO
THE FINAL INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY.
            WE BELIEVE THAT THE THIRD ADVANTAGE THIS WOULD
GIVE THE COURT IS EVENHANDEDNESS, THAT YOUR HONOR WOULD BE
ABLE TO ASSESS THE RELATIVE CULPABILITY OF THE DEFENSE AND
THE PROSECUTION AT THE SAME TIME AND BALANCE THE SCALE OF
WHAT SANCTIONS ARE APPROPRIATE WITH RESPECT TO EACH SIDE.
            IN THAT RESPECT THEN WE WOULD REQUEST THAT YOUR
HONOR WITHDRAW THE ORDER THAT YOU ENTERED ON MARCH 1ST WITH
RESPECT TO SANCTIONS RELATING TO THE ROSA LOPEZ TAPE AND
SIMPLY PUT OVER THIS QUESTION OF SANCTIONS TO THE END OF
THE TRIAL AND ADDRESS ALL QUESTIONS OF PUNITIVE SANCTIONS
AND RETALIATORY  INSTRUCTIONS AT THAT TIME.
            BUT IF YOUR HONOR IS NOT SO DISPOSED AND FEELS
THAT EACH SANCTION ISSUE SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AS IT OCCURS,
WE WOULD ALTERNATIVELY REQUEST THE INSTRUCTIONS THAT WE
HAVE ASKED FOR WITH RESPECT TO THE JUNE 13TH VIDEOTAPE,
WITH RESPECT TO THE ELICITATION OF EVIDENCE THAT THE
PROSECUTION AGREED WOULD NOT BE OFFERED AND SHOULD IMPOSE
FINES AS SANCTIONS.
      THE COURT:  THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
            MISS LEWIS.
      MS. LEWIS:  YOUR HONOR, GOOD MORNING.
      THE COURT:  GOOD MORNING.
      MS. LEWIS:  YOUR HONOR, I BELIEVE THIS AREA OF
DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS AND SANCTIONS NEED A REALITY CHECK AND
THAT REALITY CHECK HAS TO BE BASED ON THE DISCOVERY LAWS,
BECAUSE AS THOSE DISCOVERY LAWS POINT OUT:
                "THE ONLY ORDERS REQUIRING DISCOVERY THAT
SHALL BE MADE IN CRIMINAL CASES ARE AS PROVIDED IN THIS
CHAPTER."
            NOW, THE PROVISION OF THE PENAL CODE 1054.1
REQUIRES THAT:
                "PROSECUTING ATTORNEY TO DISCLOSE TO THE
DEFENSE A VARIETY OF MATERIALS, BUT THE -- THE PREFACE TO
THE DISCLOSURE OF THESE MATERIALS IS THAT THEY MUST BE
DISCLOSED IF IT IS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE PROSECUTING
ATTORNEY OR IF THE PROSECUTING  ATTORNEY KNOWS IT TO BE IN
THE POSSESSION OF THE INVESTIGATING AGENCIES."
            THE DEFENSE HAS FAILED TO EVEN MAKE THAT
THRESHOLD SHOWING WHICH IS REQUIRED BEFORE ANY OF THESE
OTHER ISSUES, WHETHER IT IS MATERIAL, WHETHER IT IS BRADY
OR SO FORTH, EVEN BECOMES OF ISSUE.
            THEY HAVE FAILED TO MAKE THAT THRESHOLD
SHOWING.
            THESE -- IT IS UNCONTROVERTED THAT WE DID NOT
KNOW ABOUT THIS TAPE UNTIL MARCH 24TH.  IT IS
UNCONTROVERTED WE NOT HAVE THIS TAPE IN OUR POSSESSION.
      THE COURT:  MISS LEWIS, THE PROBLEM, THOUGH, IS
THROUGHOUT THIS LITIGATION IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP THAT THE
DEFENSE SAYS WE KNOW THERE IS ANOTHER VIDEOTAPE BECAUSE WE
HAVE INFORMATION FROM THE NEWS PHOTOGRAPHERS THAT THERE WAS
SOME POLICE PHOTOGRAPHER VIDEOTAPING.
            WHERE IS THE VIDEOTAPE?
      MS. LEWIS:  YOUR HONOR --
      THE COURT:  THE REPRESENTATION WAS MADE THAT IT
DIDN'T EXIST.  THAT IS THE FACTUAL BASIS.
      MS. LEWIS:  WELL, THE BASIS IS WE MADE INQUIRY.  I
WAS PERSONALLY PRESENT WHEN INQUIRY WAS MADE OF THE LEAD
DETECTIVES IN THE CASE AND THEY WERE UNAWARE OF ITS
EXISTENCE -- EXCUSE ME -- AND THEREFORE DID -- TOLD US THAT
NOTHING EXISTED, AND IT IS CLEAR WHY THEY WERE UNAWARE OF
IT EXISTENCE,  BECAUSE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE ELICITED
YESTERDAY SUPPORTS THAT THIS WAS A TAPE MADE SOLELY FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL LIABILITY PURPOSES.
            THE TAPE IS -- NOT ONLY DETECTIVE HARPER,
DETECTIVE LUPER, THE VIDEOGRAPHER AND MR. ADKINS, THE
SUPERVISOR, ALL TESTIFIED THAT THAT WAS THEIR UNDERSTANDING
OF THE PURPOSE OF THIS TAPE, BUT THE TAPE IS
SELF-AUTHENTICATING IN THAT REGARD.
            IT DOES NOT SHOW THE PATHWAY WHERE THE GLOVE
WAS RECOVERED FROM, IT DOES NOT SHOW THE BLOOD DROPS ON THE
DRIVEWAY.  IT FOCUSES EXTENSIVELY, I COUNTED ABOUT FOUR TO
FIVE MINUTES, ON ALL THE TROPHIES AND VALUABLES WITHIN THE
TROPHY ROOM.
            IT SHOWS THE FURNITURE WITHIN THE RESIDENCE AND
IT SHOWS THE CARS WITHIN THE GROUNDS OF THE RESIDENCE AND
IT SHOWS ALL OF THESE ITEMS OF VALUE AND IT EVEN SHOWS THE
ONLY DAMAGE OR APPARENT DAMAGE WHICH WAS THESE TWO BLOOD
DROPS ON THE LIGHT WOOD FLOOR, ALSO FOR CIVIL LIABILITY
PURPOSES.
      THE COURT:  BUT DOESN'T THAT CONTRADICT THE TESTIMONY
REGARDING WHEN THOSE BLOOD DROPS WERE COLLECTED?
      MS. LEWIS:  I DON'T KNOW WHY YOUR HONOR FEELS IT
DOES.
            THERE IS -- I DON'T SEE ANY CONTRADICTION IN
THAT, YOUR HONOR.  THERE IS NO ITEM NUMBERS SHOWN NEXT TO
THOSE BLOOD DROPS, SO PRESUMABLY THEY WERE COLLECTED PRIOR
TO THIS VIDEOTAPE BEING SHOT.
            I DON'T SEE A CONTRADICTION.
      THE COURT:  WELL, IF THEY ARE STILL THERE, HOW ARE
THEY COLLECTED?
      MS. LEWIS:  I IMAGINE IT IS BLOOD STAINS.  I DON'T
THINK IT CAN BE COMPLETELY REMOVED FROM THAT LIGHT-COLORED
WOOD FLOOR.
      THE COURT:  I ASSUME THOSE LIGHT-COLORED WOOD FLOORS
HAVE A SEALER ON THEM.
      MS. LEWIS:  WELL, I DON'T THINK WE CAN ASSUME THINGS
LIKE THAT, YOUR HONOR.
      THE COURT:  WELL, I STOOD ON THE FLOOR, COUNSEL.
      MS. LEWIS:  WELL, I DID AS WELL, AND FRANKLY, I DON'T
RECALL WHETHER IT SEEMED TO HAVE A SEAL OR NOT, BUT I THINK
THAT IS A BIG LEAP TO MAKE TO SAY THAT BECAUSE A TINY
PORTION OF THIS VIDEO SHOWS WHAT TURNS OUT TO BE CRIMINAL
EVIDENCE OR EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
IN THE CASE, THEREFORE THIS VIDEO BECOMES MATERIAL IN ANY
CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE OR IN ANY SENSE AT ALL IN TERMS OF
DEFENSE DISCOVERY.


        THE COURT:  WELL, THE PROBLEM I HAVE, THOUGH, MISS
LEWIS IS, IS THIS:
            THE REQUEST WAS MADE SEVERAL TIMES BY DEFENSE
COUNSEL THAT THEY KNEW OR HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THIS
TAPE EXISTED AND THEY ASKED SEVERAL TIMES FOR IT AND WE GOT
REPRESENTATIONS BACK SEVERAL TIMES IT DOESN'T EXIST.
      MS. LEWIS:  YOUR HONOR --
      THE COURT:  NOW, WE FIND IT EXISTS.
      MS. LEWIS:  IT WAS OUR BELIEF THAT IT DID NOT EXIST
AND IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE HOW THAT HAPPENED, SINCE IT WAS
MADE FOR THIS PURELY ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSE AND WAS PLACED
BY DETECTIVE LUPER, WHO HAS NOT BEEN PART OF THE DISCOVERY
PROCESS, IS NOT ONE OF THE LEAD DETECTIVES IN THE CASE, WAS
PLACED BY HIM IN A FILE CABINET BECAUSE -- AND HE ONLY
THOUGHT OF IT WHEN IT BECAME KNOWN TO HIM THAT HE WAS GOING
TO BE TESTIFYING IN THE CASE.
            SO THAT IS WHEN HE THOUGHT OF IT, THAT IS WHEN
IT OCCURRED TO HIM TO LOOK FOR AIDS THAT MIGHT BE USEFUL IN
REFRESHING HIS RECOLLECTION DURING HIS TESTIMONY.
            HE THOUGHT OF IT, HE BROUGHT IT TO THE
ATTENTION OF THE LEAD DETECTIVES.  THEY IMMEDIATELY TOLD
US, WE IMMEDIATELY HAD IT COPIED, AS SOON AS OUR LAB WAS
AVAILABLE.
            IT WAS A FRIDAY I BELIEVE THAT WE DISCOVERED IT
AND WE TURNED IT OVER THE FOLLOWING  MONDAY.
            IT MAY BE UNFORTUNATE THAT THIS TAPE WAS NOT
DEPICTED SOONER, BUT THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL POINT TO BE
MADE.  WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT DEFENSE PREJUDICE, EVEN ASSUMING
IT WAS DISCOVERABLE -- AND IT WAS NOT, YOUR HONOR, AND I
DON'T CARE IF THEY MADE SPECIFIC REQUESTS, IF WE HAD NOT
PLANNED -- NOW THAT WE KNOW ABOUT THIS TAPE, WE WOULD LIKE
TO USE PART OF IT.  WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE HAD IT MONTHS AGO
AND USED PART OF IT IN VARIOUS OTHER HEARINGS, BUT EVEN AT
THIS POINT IN TIME, IF WE DID NOT INTEND TO USE THAT TAPE
AT TRIAL, IT WOULD NOT BE DISCOVERABLE.
            I DON'T CARE IF THEY PERSONALLY REQUESTED IT OR
MADE A SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR IT.  THIS IS NOT BRADY
MATERIAL.  AND IN FACT UNDER BRADY THERE NEED NOT BE A
SPECIFIC REQUEST MADE, SO THAT WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
SANCTIONS, YOUR HONOR, AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IMPOSING
SANCTIONS ON THE PROSECUTION, THAT IS A SERIOUS ALLEGATION
AND A SERIOUS MATTER.
            AND IT WAS SERIOUS FOR THE DEFENSE AND IT IS
SERIOUS FOR US, BUT WE ARE IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT THAN THE
DEFENSE WAS IN THE ROSA LOPEZ MATTER.
            I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT IN A MOMENT.
            WE ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE HAD NO
OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE THIS DISCOVERY.  IF WE HAD KNOWN
ABOUT IT, WE WOULD HAVE.  OF COURSE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
USEFUL IN EXAMINING THE WITNESS, IT WOULD  HAVE BEEN USEFUL
DURING DIRECT EXAMINATION, NOT JUST CROSS-EXAMINATION BY
THE DEFENSE.
            WE WOULD HAVE LIKE TO HAVE HAD THIS VIDEO, BUT
WE DID NOT, AND THE FACT THAT WE DO HAVE DISCOVERED IT NOW
IS SIMPLY TO EVERYONE'S BENEFIT. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE
WAS ANY PREJUDICE INURED TO THE DEFENSE.  THEY FAILED TO
SHOW ANY PREJUDICE WHATSOEVER IN NOT HAVING IT.
            AND ALONG THOSE LINES, THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THE
DEFENSE HAS HAD IN THEIR POSSESSION FOR MONTHS ARE ACTUALLY
MUCH BETTER EVIDENCE, AS DETECTIVE LUPER, I BELIEVE IT WAS,
ALLUDED TO WHEN HE TESTIFIED YESTERDAY, BECAUSE THE
PHOTOGRAPHS SHOW THIS EVIDENCE WHEN IT WAS RECOVERED, AFTER
IT WAS RECOVERED.
            IT SHOWS ALL THESE BLOOD DROPS.  IT SHOWS
EVERYTHING IN BETTER DETAIL BECAUSE THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE
TAKEN INDEED FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION PURPOSES UNDER --
PERHAPS UNDER SUBDIVISION (C) OF PENAL CODE SECTION 1054.1.
THOSE ARE REAL EVIDENCE INTENDING AND SHOT FOR THE PURPOSE
OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION PURPOSES.
            SO THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE DISCOVERABLE, THEY
WERE TURNED OVER, THEY ARE CERTAINLY THE BEST RECORDATION,
MUCH BETTER THAN THIS VIDEO, OF ALL OF THE CRIME SCENE
EVIDENCE.
            AND THE LOCATIONS WHERE ITEMS WERE RECOVERED,
THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOW THE PATHWAY, THE  GLOVE AND SO FORTH.
THEY SHOW THE CRIMINAL ASPECTS OF THIS CASE.  THEY DON'T
SHOW ALL THE VALUABLE -- HEISMAN TROPHY AND ALL THE OTHER
VALUABLE TROPHIES THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD BECAUSE THOSE WERE
NOT PART OF THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION IN THIS CASE AND
THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THOSE STILL PHOTOGRAPHS TO DEPICT
THEM.
            THE ONLY THING THAT IS SHOWN ON THE VIDEOTAPE,
WHICH IS NOT SHOWN IN THESE CRIME SCENE PHOTOS THAT MIGHT
HAVE HAD SOME SIGNIFICANCE, WAS THE LINEN CLOSET WHICH WAS
FINGERPRINT DUSTED, BUT AS DETECTIVE LUPER TESTIFIED
YESTERDAY, NO FINGERPRINTS WERE RECOVERED.
            THERE WAS NOTHING OF EVIDENTIARY SIGNIFICANCE
ABOUT THE LINEN CLOSET AND I DON'T BELIEVE THE COURT HAS
HEARD ANY TESTIMONY, I DON'T RECALL IN THE MONTHS I HAVE
BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, ANY TESTIMONY HAVING TO DO WITH
THE LINEN CLOSET BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN NOTHING RELEVANT
ABOUT IT.
            SO THERE IS NOTHING ON THIS VIDEOTAPE THAT IS
NOT BETTER DEPICTED, MUCH BETTER DEPICTED WITHIN THE
PHOTOGRAPHS THE DEFENSE HAS HAD FOR MONTHS.
            NOW, YOUR HONOR, THE ROSA LOPEZ SITUATION IS
ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.  THE DEFENSE, UNDER PENAL CODE SECTION
1054.3 SUBDIVISION (A) REQUIRES THE LAW -- I SHOULD SAY
REQUIRES THE DEFENSE TO TURN OVER THE STATEMENTS OF
WITNESSES THEY INTEND TO CALL AT TRIAL,  RECORDED
STATEMENTS, RECORDED IN ANY MANNER.
            ROSA LOPEZ WAS ON THE DEFENSE SEPTEMBER 1ST,
1994, WITNESS LIST, SO THEIR INTENTION TO CALL HER AT TRIAL
WAS CLEAR AND PRESENT FOR MONTHS BEFORE THAT TAPE WAS
DISCOVERED.
            NOW, WE HAVE A -- THE DEFENSE WOULD LIKE TO
DRAW US INTO THIS -- THE SAME SITUATION AS THEY ARE IN, BUT
WE ARE NOT.
            THE DISCOVERY STATUTE, WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT IF
IT IS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OR IF
THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY KNOWS IT TO BE IN THE POSSESSION
OF THE INVESTIGATING AGENCIES, UNDER 1054.1, WHICH IS THE
STATUTE THAT COVERS OUR OBLIGATION, MAKES THAT CRITICAL
DISTINCTION BETWEEN US AND THE POLICE.
      THE COURT:  DO YOU THINK UNDER 1054.1 THAT A
REASONABLE INTERPRETATION CREATES AN OBLIGATION FOR THE
PROSECUTION TO MAKE REASONABLE INQUIRY AND DILIGENT SEARCH
FOR THESE ITEMS?
      MS. LEWIS:  WE DID, YOUR HONOR.  WE DID.  WE WANTED
--
      THE COURT:  I'M NOT ASKING YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU
DID.  DO YOU AGREE THAT A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF THAT
CODE SECTION REQUIRES INQUIRY TO BE MADE?
      MS. LEWIS:  YES, YES, I THINK THAT IS A REASONABLE
INTERPRETATION OF THAT CODE SECTION, BUT UNLIKE THAT
SECTION, THE DEFENSE -- THE SECTION  GOVERNING THE DEFENSE
OBLIGATIONS, DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS, MAKES NO DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS AND THE DEFENSE INVESTIGATORS
AND THAT IS CLEAR WHY.
            THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS A SEPARATE AGENCY, A
SEPARATE ENTITY.  IT IS NOT EVEN A COUNTY DEPARTMENT; IT IS
A CITY DEPARTMENT.  WE ARE IN TOTAL DIFFERENT FORMS OF
GOVERNMENT OR TOTALLY DIFFERENT BUREAUCRACIES.
            WE DON'T PAY THE POLICE, WE DON'T ORDER THE
POLICE AROUND.  THE POLICE AREN'T BEHOLDEN TO THE D.A.'S
WE DON'T PAY THEIR SALARIES.
            THEY HAVE SIMILAR GOALS IN TERMS OF SOME
SIMILAR PROSECUTION, SO OF COURSE WE WORK IN CONJUNCTION,
BUT IT IS A DIFFERENT SITUATION WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
DEFENSE SIDE OF THE TABLE.
            THEIR DEFENSE INVESTIGATORS ARE EMPLOYED
DIRECTLY BY THEM.  THEY DO TAKE ORDERS DIRECTLY FROM THEM,
AND IF MOST -- AND THAT DISTINCTION IS RECOGNIZED IN THE
DISCOVERY STATUTES BY THE FAILURE OF THE STATUTE GOVERNING
DEFENSE DISCOVERY TO MAKE ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS AND THEIR INVESTIGATORS.
            SO WHEN IT CAME TO THE ROSA LOPEZ TAPE, THE
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS WERE CHARGED WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THAT
TAPE THAT MR. PAVELIC HAD IN HIS POSSESSION.
            NOT SO WITH US AND THAT IS NOT SO BECAUSE OF
THE EXPRESS TERMS OF THE STATUTE.
            SO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT APPLES AND ORANGES.
            AND IN ADDITION OF COURSE THE DEFENSE -- WHEN
IT COMES TO THE CIVIL LIABILITY ASPECT OF THIS PARTICULAR
VIDEOTAPE, WE -- THE D.A.'S OFFICE WOULDN'T BE SUED IF THE
POLICE HAD SEEN TO HAVE DONE SOMETHING TO CAUSE DAMAGE TO
THOSE PREMISES.  THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT WOULD BE
SUED AND THEY HAVE BEEN SUED.
            AND THEY DO HAVE THE CHOICE NOW.  THE
DETECTIVES HAVE THE CHOICE OF RECORDING EITHER BY VIDEOTAPE
OR BY STILL PHOTOS LOCATIONS WHERE SEARCH WARRANTS ARE
EXECUTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE GOT A RECORD OF THAT
IN CASE OF A LATER SUIT.
            I'M SURE THE COURT IS AWARE THE DEPARTMENT IS
SUED ALL THE TIME, SO THEY HAVE DIFFERENT -- THEY HAVE
DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITIES AND PROBLEMS THAN DOES
THE D.A.'S OFFICE.
            I GUESS WE GET OUR OWN LAWSUITS IN SOME
RESPECTS, BUT CERTAINLY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EXECUTION OF
SEARCH WARRANTS.
            AND YOUR HONOR, THE DEFENSE KEEPS TALKING ABOUT
THIS RECITAL TAPE.  THERE WERE -- WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT
THE RECITAL TAPE ANY MORE.  THE COURT MADE INQUIRY ABOUT
THAT, THE JUNE 12TH RECITAL THAT THE DEFENDANT ATTENDED.
THE COURT MADE INQUIRY.

             WE DIDN'T KNOW WE HAD IT.  APPARENTLY -- I
DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY HOW THAT CAME ABOUT BECAUSE I WASN'T
PERSONALLY INVOLVED WITH THAT, BUT WHEN WE FOUND IT, WE
TURNED IT OVER.  IT CERTAINLY WAS NOT MATERIAL EVIDENCE,
AND THE COURT HAS TO CONSIDER THAT THIS, AS I SAID, EVEN --
      THE COURT:  MISS LEWIS, HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT IT IS
NOT MATERIAL EVIDENCE WHERE THE PROSECUTION'S THEORY IS
THAT THERE WAS THIS TENSION AND ANGER EXPRESSED BY THE
DEFENDANT ON THE DATE IN QUESTION AT THE DANCE RECITAL AND
THAT HE WAS GLOWERING AT PEOPLE AND WAS IN A STATE OF --
EMOTIONAL STATE OF MIND, AND YET WE SEE HIM GREETING THE
BROWN -- SAYING GOOD-BYE TO THE BROWN FAMILY AND SMILING
AND GREETING HIS CHILDREN?
            I MEAN, THAT IS DIRECTLY CONTRADICTORY TO -- TO
THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESS, SO HOW CAN YOU
SAY THAT THAT WASN'T MATERIAL?
      MS. LEWIS:  TO THE CONTRARY, YOUR HONOR.
            IT DIRECTLY SUPPORTS THE ENTIRE PROSECUTION
THEORY.  WHEN MR. SIMPSON WAS INSIDE THAT AUDITORIUM, WHEN
HE WASN'T IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN WHERE PEOPLE WOULD BE
LOOKING AT HIM, HE IS THINKING ABOUT OTHER THINGS, THAT IS
WHEN THE WITNESS TESTIFIED AS TO THOSE EXPRESSIONS.
            WHEN HE GOT OUTSIDE, HE WAS AWARE AND GREETING
PEOPLE AND WAS AWARE.  THAT BECAME HIS PUBLIC PERSONA, AND
AS MR. DARDEN TOLD THE JURY  DURING OPENING STATEMENT, THIS
MAN HAS TWO PERSONAS; HE HAS THE PUBLIC FACE AND HE HAS THE
PRIVATE FACE.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            LET'S MOVE ON TO THE FBI SHOEPRINT MATTERS.

            (BRIEF PAUSE.)

      MS. LEWIS:  THE DEFENSE, YOUR HONOR, HAS STILL FAILED
TO SHOW HOW THESE MATERIALS FALL UNDER THE DISCOVERY LAWS.
            AS I INDICATED TO THE COURT THE OTHER DAY WHEN
THIS WHOLE ISSUE FIRST CAME UP, THESE MATERIALS ARE
BASICALLY CORRESPONDENCE, THEY ARE MATERIALS SENT OUT BY
THE FBI TO MANUFACTURERS AN IN AN EFFORT TO INVESTIGATE
THIS WHOLE SHOE AREA.
      THE COURT:  DO YOU PLAN ON CALLING
BILL BODZIAK?
      MS. LEWIS:  YES.
      THE COURT:  AREN'T THESE HIS WORK MATERIALS AND HIS
REPORTS AND HIS EFFORTS OF INVESTIGATION.
      MS. LEWIS:  THESE ARE INVESTIGATIVE EFFORTS.  I WOULD
CALL THEM INVESTIGATIVE EFFORTS, AND THEY HAVE NOW BEEN
TURNED OVER, BUT YOU KNOW, THE INVESTIGATION IS ONGOING.
WE MAY NOT HAVE SEEN THE END OF THE SHOE EVIDENCE.  IT IS
ONGOING TODAY AS WE SPEAK.  THERE ARE -- THERE ARE PEOPLE
INVESTIGATING THIS AREA, AND YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO FILL
THE COURT IN ON THE  DETAILS, BUT --
      THE COURT:  WELL, THE PROBLEM I HAVE, THOUGH, IS THAT
THESE RECORDS GO BACK TO AUGUST OF 1994.
      MS. LEWIS:  THESE ARE NOT RECORDS.
      THE COURT:  LETTERS AND CORRESPONDENCE.
      MS. LEWIS:  YOUR HONOR, THESE ARE NOT RECORDS. LET'S
MAKE THAT CLEAR.  THESE ARE NOT THE REPORTS OF EXPERTS AND
THEY ARE NOT EVEN EXPERT'S NOTES.  IT IS CORRESPONDENCE AS
PART OF THE INVESTIGATION.
            I WOULD INVITE THE COURT TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE THIS MATERIAL CLEARLY DOES NOT
FALL UNDER THE DISCOVERY -- UNDER DISCOVERY LAWS.  WE HAVE
CHOSEN TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE, YOU KNOW, GIVE IT TO THE
DEFENSE, BUT EVEN THE COVER LETTER FROM THE FBI INDICATES
THAT THEY:
                "HAVE REVIEWED ALL THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS
DIRECTED TO THE FBI, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTICED, HAVE
COMPLIED WITH EACH OF THEM, EVEN THOUGH MANY ARE CLEARLY
OUTSIDE THE NORMAL SCOPE OF DISCOVERY."
            THAT IS THE LETTER FROM MR. SHAPIRO, THE
GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE FBI, SO HE IS SAYING WE ARE GOING
TO GIVE YOU EVERYTHING, EVEN THOUGH IT IS OUTSIDE THE
NORMAL COURSE OF DISCOVERY.
            AND AS MR. GOLDBERG ACTUALLY POINTED OUT THE
OTHER DAY, BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN SO GENEROUS IN THIS CASE,
AND I'M NOT SURE HE POINTED IT OUT, I WON'T LAY IT ON HIM,
BUT I WILL MAKE THE POINT,  BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN SO
GENEROUS IN THIS CASE AND GOING THROUGH HOOPS AND PROVIDING
THE DEFENSE WITH INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF DISCOVERY WAY BEYOND
WHAT WE ARE EVER REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW TO DO, NOW, THEY
ARE TURNING AROUND AND TRYING TO SLAP US IN THE FACE WITH
IT.
            WE HAVE GIVEN THEM TOO MUCH.  THE STUFF IS NOT
EVEN DISCOVERABLE.  IF WE HAD NOT GIVEN IT TO THE, THEY
WOULD NOT HAVE NOT KNOWN ABOUT IT.  HERE THEY HAVE IT WEEKS
IN ADVANCE TO ANY EVIDENCE COMING ON WITH REGARD TO THE
SHOES.  THEY HAVE IT WHEN WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO GIVE IT AND
WE GAVE IT TO THEM AS AN EXTRA COURTESY.
            LET'S GO BACK, YOUR HONOR, AS WE HAVE MADE THE
POINT IN PREVIOUS MOTIONS, WE DID PROVIDE I THINK IT IS
OVER 23,000, OR MAYBE MORE BY NOW, PAGES OF DISCOVERY,
HUNDREDS OF VIDEOTAPES, AUDIOTAPES, ET CETERA.
      THE COURT:  LET ME ASK YOU THIS, MISS LEWIS:
            I ONLY WAS PROVIDED WITH A FEW WHAT WERE DEEMED
BY THE DEFENSE TO BE REPRESENTATIVE PIECES OF THAT 238
PAGES OF MATERIAL REGARDING THE SHOES FROM THE FBI WHICH
SEEM TO INDICATE A SEARCH TO IDENTIFY THAT PARTICULAR SOLE
PATTERN IS MY RECOLLECTION OF WHAT I READ.
            HAVE YOU IDENTIFIED, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THAT
SHOE PATTERN?
      MS. LEWIS:  WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THE SHOE  PATTERN,
YES, AS -- AS BEING THAT OF A BRUNO MALI SHOE -- BRUNO
MAGLI.

            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
             ATTORNEYS.)

      MS. LEWIS:  INDEED, YOUR HONOR, THE DEFENSE WAS
PROVIDED WITH THE REPORTS AND THE FINAL DISCOVERY AND WHAT
IS DISCOVERABLE.
            THESE -- YOU KNOW, WHEN IT COMES TO EXPERTS,
NOT THE WHOLE WORLD IS DISCOVERABLE.  AS THE COURT KNOWS,
THE COURT DID A LENGTHY IN CAMERA.
            I AM ASSUMING THAT WE PROSECUTORS DID NOT GET
EVERY BIT OF INFORMATION.  I'M SURE THE COURT MADE A
CAREFUL EVALUATION IN DETERMINING WHAT WAS DISCOVERABLE AND
WHAT WAS NOT, AND IN THIS CASE IT WAS OBVIOUS TO US CLEARLY
THAT THIS IS MATERIAL WHICH IS NOT READILY DISCOVERABLE, IT
IS NOT PROVIDED, AND WE DID PROVIDE THE BOTTOM LINE REPORTS
WITH REGARD TO THOSE SHOEPRINTS.
      THE COURT:  WHAT I WAS GETTING AT IS -- IS -- MISS
LEWIS, IS WHAT MATERIALITY -- WHAT IS THE MATERIALITY OF
THE ITEMS THAT WERE TURNED OVER?  WHAT IS THERE?
      MS. LEWIS:  THERE IS NO MATERIALITY OF THE ITEMS THAT
WERE TURNED OVER.  I WOULD BE HAPPY TO LODGE -- THIS
HAPPENS TO BE OUR ONLY COPY, BUT WE CAN  MAKE A COPY OR I
COULD LODGE OUR ORIGINALS.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            WOULD YOU HAVE YOUR STAFF MAKE A PHOTOCOPY OF
THAT AND LODGE IT WITH THE COURT SO I CAN READ IT.
      MS. LEWIS:  I WILL BE HAPPY TO DO THAT AND WILL DO
THAT, YOUR HONOR.

            (BRIEF PAUSE.)

      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            WOULD YOU ADDRESS THE TESTIMONY OF MR. FUNG
REGARDING ITEMS THAT WERE WITHDRAWN BY THE PROSECUTION.
      MS. LEWIS:  I WILL, YOUR HONOR.  I HAD ONE FINAL
POINT I WANTED TO MAKE.
            I WANTED THE COURT TO BE AWARE THAT IT IS THE
FAVORITE LANGUAGE IN THE AGURS CASE WAS NOT OVERRULED BY
THE BAGLEY CASE AS THE DEFENSE, MR. THORNTON -- THOMPSON,
I'M SORRY -- MR. THOMPSON, THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY, MADE THE
REPRESENTATION THE OTHER DAY.
            BAGLEY, THE BAGLEY CASE REAFFIRMS AGURS AND
TALKS ABOUT WHEN SOMETHING IS CONSIDERED CONSTITUTIONALLY
MATERIAL, BUT EVEN IN THE BAGLEY CASE IT WAS UNDISPUTED
THAT THE MATERIAL WAS BRADY MATERIAL THAT WAS AT ISSUE IN
THIS CASE.
            THERE WERE CONTRACTS WITH THE PROSECUTION
WITNESSES AS FAR AS WHAT PAYMENT THEY WOULD RECEIVE
DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH INFORMATION THEY GAVE, SO THAT WAS
CLEARLY OBVIOUSLY BRADY MATERIAL, BUT THERE HAS TO BE A
SHOWING OF CONSTITUTIONAL MATERIALITY, YOUR HONOR, FOR
SOMETHING TO BE DISCOVERABLE UNDER BRADY, AND THERE IS
NOTHING EVEN COME CLOSE TO THAT IN THIS VIDEOTAPE.

            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
             ATTORNEYS.)

      MS. LEWIS:  AND I WILL REITERATE THE POINT THAT THE
STILL PHOTOGRAPHS SHOW BETTER EVERYTHING THAT THE VIDEO
SHOWS, SHOW BETTER BECAUSE IT SHOWS NOT ONLY DURING THE
EARLIER TIME --
      THE COURT:  COUNSEL, YOU HAVE MADE THAT POINT
ALREADY.
      MS. LEWIS:  I MISSED --
      THE COURT:  WHAT I'M INTERESTED IN --
      MS. LEWIS:  WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION, SINCE I
WASN'T PRESENT YESTERDAY AND I KNOW WHAT THE ISSUE IS, BUT
MR. GOLDMAN WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COURT WITH REGARD TO
MR. FUNG'S TESTIMONY.



            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
              BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
             ATTORNEYS.)

      MR. GOLDBERG:  GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
      THE COURT:  GOOD MORNING, MR. GOLDBERG.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  JUST TO CLARIFY THE RECORD, I THINK TO
MY RECOLLECTION IT WAS MR. SCHECK THAT MADE THE COMMENT
ABOUT AGURS BEING RECALLED.
            I NODDED AT THE INAPPROPRIATE TIME WHILE MISS
LEWIS WAS LOOKING TO ME FOR AFFIRMATION.  I THINK IT WAS HE
AND NOT MR. THOMPSON, SO I DID NOT WANT TO HAVE THE COURT
MISLED IN THAT REGARD, NOT THAT IT IS THAT PARTICULARLY
IMPORTANT.
            ON THE ISSUE OF THE TESTIMONY BY MR. FUNG, THIS
IS A SITUATION, YOUR HONOR, WHERE THE PROSECUTION,
IMMEDIATELY UPON REALIZING -- SPECIFICALLY ME -- UPON
REALIZING THAT THAT QUESTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASKED,
BECAUSE IT WAS ELICITING INFORMATION THAT HAD BEEN
SUPPRESSED, INSTANTLY AGREED WITH THE DEFENSE THAT IT
SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASKED, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN
ELICITED, AND MISS CLARK AGREED.
            SO THIS DID NOT REQUIRE ANY ARGUMENT, IT DID
NOT REQUIRE LOOKING AT THE TRANSCRIPT, AND I JUST DON'T
UNDERSTAND WHY DEAN UELMEN WOULD FEEL THAT IT IS NECESSARY
TO GO BACK AND ARGUE, FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, SOMETHING
THAT WE HAD IMMEDIATELY CONCEDED, UNLESS HE IS INTERESTED
IN SIMPLY THE  PUBLIC EXCORIATION OF THE PROSECUTION OR IN
THIS CASE OF ME.
            I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE NECESSITY OF THAT.
            I WOULD AGREE WITH THE DEAN THAT THERE HAS BEEN
AN ESCALATION IN TERMS OF REQUESTS FOR SANCTIONS, PERHAPS
BECAUSE THE DEFENSE, IN OUR VIEW, WAS LEGITIMATELY
SANCTIONED FOR SOME VERY SERIOUS DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS IN
INSTANCES WHERE THERE WAS AT LEAST CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE,
STRONG CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, I BELIEVE IN THE COURT'S
OPINION, THAT THERE WAS EITHER INTENTIONAL OR NEGLIGENT
MISREPRESENTATIONS THAT WERE MADE BEFORE THIS COURT
REGARDING ISSUES THAT WENT RIGHT TO THE CREDIBILITY OF
MATERIAL WITNESSES.
      THE COURT:  WELL, LET'S PUT THOSE OTHER ISSUES ASIDE
AS BEING APRICOTS AND ORANGES AT THIS POINT.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WELL, THAT --
      THE COURT:  MY INTEREST HERE IS GIVEN THE AGREEMENT
OF THE PROSECUTION TO WITHDRAW THOSE ITEMS, HOW DID THIS
HAPPEN?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WELL, YOUR HONOR, THE WAY THAT IT
HAPPENED IS VERY SIMPLE.  I WAS NOT HERE WHEN THAT
HAPPENED.  AS THE COURT KNOWS, I WAS A, RELATIVELY
SPEAKING, RECENT ADDITION TO THE PROSECUTION IN THIS CASE.

            THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT  WERE
LITIGATED AND I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THAT.  IT WAS NOT
COMMUNICATED TO ME.  IT WAS AN ERROR.  IT WAS A MISTAKE.
WE MADE A MISTAKE.
      THE COURT:  DOESN'T THE PROSECUTION HAVE SOME
OBLIGATION WITHIN THE TEAM MEMBERS TO COMMUNICATE WITH EACH
OTHER AND ORGANIZE THE PRESENTATION OF THIS CASE?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  OF COURSE, YOUR HONOR, AND WE HAVE
DONE THAT, BUT DOES THE COURT HONESTLY BELIEVE, I WOULD ASK
THIS QUESTION RHETORICALLY, THAT I AM GOING TO ASK MISS
CLARK WERE THE AIRLINE TICKETS SUPPRESSED?
            I MEAN, OF COURSE I HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATING
WITH HER ABOUT MY PRESENTATION OF THE CASE AND ALL THE
TACTICAL ISSUES AND HOW WE ARE GOING TO PRESENT IT.  I
THINK THAT YOUR HONOR RECOGNIZES THAT, BUT NO, I DID NOT
ASK HER WHETHER THE AIRLINE TICKETS WERE SUPPRESSED, AND IF
I SHOULD HAVE, AND I FAILED TO, THEN I MADE A MISTAKE, BUT
I DID NOT ASK THAT QUESTION.

            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
             ATTORNEYS.)

      MR. GOLDBERG:  I'M SORRY, THEY WERE NOT SUPPRESSED,
THEY WEREN'T LITIGATED, AS MISS LEWIS JUST POINTED OUT.
            WHAT I WOULD SAY ON THIS ISSUE, THAT MY SOLE
REASON FOR ASKING THAT QUESTION IS NOT BECAUSE I THOUGHT
THERE WAS ANYTHING RELATIVE OR MATERIAL, PER SE, ABOUT
THEM, BUT I SIMPLY WANTED TO GET THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS,
PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATED TO DETECTIVE VANNATTER GIVING
THE BLOOD VIAL TO MR. FUNG.
            I WANTED TO BE VERY CAREFUL IN TERMS OF OUR
PRESENTATION OF THAT PART OF THE EVIDENCE AND WHAT SEQUENCE
OF EVENTS OCCURRED AND WHAT PIECES OF EVIDENCE HE COLLECTED
JUST BEFORE HE LEFT AND RECEIVED THAT VIAL.
            THE AIRLINE TICKETS THEN, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME,
BASED UPON WHAT THE JURY HAS HEARD OF THIS, IF ANYTHING,
WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE TO THE
DEFENSE, THAT IT WOULD SEEM TO INDICATE THAT THE TRIP WAS
A PLANNED ONE, AS OPPOSED TO BEING UNPLANNED, SO IT
CERTAINLY DOESN'T HAVE ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE IN TERMS OF
THE CONTENTS OF THE EVIDENCE, AS OPPOSED TO THE TIMING
SEQUENCE AS FAR AS THE PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED.
            AND FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, THE ISSUE OF AN
INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY I RAISED, WHAT I WOULD POINT OUT TO
THIS COURT IS THAT IT IS A WELL-RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLE OF LAW
THAT UNLESS AN OBJECTION IS LODGED, THE OBJECTION -- THE
OBJECTION IS WAIVED AND THERE WAS NO OBJECTION BY COUNSEL.
            I DON'T KNOW.  THEY HAVEN'T EVEN  REPRESENTED
TO THE COURT IN GOOD FAITH THAT THEY DIDN'T INTEND TO
INTRODUCE THE EVIDENCE THEMSELVES, THE AIRLINE TICKETS.
            SO THEY DIDN'T OBJECT TO IT, THEY DIDN'T DO
ANYTHING UNTIL THEY DISCUSSED IT AT SIDE BAR WITH YOUR
HONOR AND WITH MISS CLARK AND MYSELF.
      THE COURT:  AT THE END OF THE DAY.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  AT THE END OF THE DAY, BUT THEY DIDN'T
OBJECT AT THE TIME, AT THE TIME WHEN AN OBJECTION COULD
HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED TO THE QUESTION AND AT A TIME WHEN ANY
EVIDENCE COULD HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED.
            SO LEGALLY SPEAKING, I THINK THAT WE WOULD BE
ENTITLED TO TAKE THE POSITION FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT THAT
THERE IS NOTHING MORE FOR THE COURT TO DO.
            THAT IS NOT THE POSITION I'M TAKING.
            IF THE COURT WANTS TO ADMONISH -- IF THE
DEFENSE WANTS THIS, THAT THAT QUESTION AND THAT ANSWER IS
STRUCK, WE WOULD BE -- WE WOULD CONCEDE THAT THAT IS AN
APPROPRIATE WAY OF HANDLING IT.
            LEGALLY IT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY, BUT WE WOULD
CONCEDE THAT THAT IS AN APPROPRIATE THING FOR THE COURT TO
DO, BUT TO GIVE AN INSTRUCTION OF THE KIND THAT MR. UELMEN
IS PROPOSING DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

            AND THE ONLY REASON THAT I COMPARED THIS
ALLEGED VIOLATION TO CERTAIN OF THE OTHER VIOLATIONS THAT
MR. UELMEN DISCUSSED IS BECAUSE HE DREW A COMPARISON AND HE
WAS ANALOGIZING TO THE INSTRUCTION THAT THE COURT WAS
PROPOSING TO GIVE FOR THE ROSA LOPEZ INCIDENT.
            AND THEY ARE NOT ANALOGOUS, BECAUSE WHAT
HAPPENED IN THE ROSA LOPEZ INCIDENT IS THAT THE PROSECUTION
WAS DEPRIVED OF -- UNTIL THE LAST
MINUTE -- MATERIALS THAT WERE VERY SIGNIFICANT IN TERMS OF
THE CROSS-EXAMINATION AND THE CREDIBILITY OF THAT WITNESS.
            THERE HAS BEEN NO ANALOGOUS VIOLATION BY THE
PROSECUTION WITH RESPECT TO THAT.
            WHAT HAS HAPPENED WITH MR. FUNG IS I ASKED HIM
A QUESTION THAT HE HAD ABSOLUTELY NO WAY OF KNOWING WAS
IMPROPER AND HE ANSWERED IT AS HE IS REQUIRED TO DO AS A
WITNESS.
            IT IN NO WAY REFLECTS UPON HIS CREDIBILITY.  IT
IN NO WAY REFLECTS OR DIMINISHES THE CAPACITY OF THE
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS TO CROSS-EXAMINE MR. FUNG EFFECTIVELY OR
DEPRIVES THEM OF MATERIALS TO MAKE THE CROSS-EXAMINATION
EFFECTIVE OR DEPRIVES THEM OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A
SUFFICIENT PERIOD OF TIME TO EXAMINE THOSE MATERIALS.
            SO YOU ARE NOT DEALING WITH ANY OF THE PROBLEMS
THAT YOU ARE IN THE CASE OF ROSA LOPEZ WHERE DISCOVERY WAS
HELD BACK ON SOME VERY IMPORTANT STATEMENTS THAT SHE MADE
THAT WE USED FOR THE  PURPOSES OF IMPEACHMENT.
            I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE COURT WANTS ME TO
ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF FINES.  I WILL IF THE COURT WANTS TO
HEAR ABOUT THAT.
      THE COURT:  WELL, IT IS SOMETHING THAT MIGHT HAPPEN,
SO THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO SAY SOMETHING.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  OKAY.
            AS TO THE ISSUE OF FINES, FIRST OF ALL, IN THE
CRIMINAL CONTEXT THERE IS NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THE
IMPOSITION OF FINES TO THE SAME EXTENT THAT THERE IS IN
CIVIL CONTEXT.
            IT HAS BEEN A WHILE SINCE I PRACTICED ANY CIVIL
LAW, BUT THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE DOES PROVIDE FOR THE
IMPOSITION OF FINES FOR A WIDE VARIETY OF THINGS, IN
ADDITION TO DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS.
            I BELIEVE THAT A COURT IN A CIVIL HEARING CAN
FINE COUNSEL FOR MAKING FRIVOLOUS MOTIONS. PERHAPS SOME
VIEWERS OF THIS CASE WISH THAT THE COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY
TO DO THAT HERE, BUT THERE IS CASE LAW TO INDICATE THAT THE
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTIONS DEALING WITH FINES COULD
NOT APPLY IN THE CONTEXT OF A CRIMINAL CASE.
            WHAT WE DO HAVE NOW, IN THE POST-PROPOSITION
115 CONTEXT, IS A SPECIFIC PROVISION IN 1054 FOR FINES FOR
DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS, BUT THAT IS IT, SO LEGALLY THERE IS
NO BASIS FOR FINES OUTSIDE OF THAT AREA, UNLESS THE COURT
WERE TO HOLD THE  PROSECUTION OR ME IN CONTEMPT AND THEN TO
FINE ME THAT WAY.
            BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THERE IS NO AUTHORITY FOR
THE IMPOSITION OF A FINE.
      THE COURT:  DON'T YOU THINK I HAVE AUTHORITY UNDER
CCP 177.5, THE COURT HAVING ORDERED THAT BEFORE ANY NEW
MENTION WAS MADE BY THE PROSECUTION THAT NOTICE WAS TO BE
GIVEN TO THE DEFENSE AND THAT THEY WERE THEN ENTITLED TO A
DE NOVO 1538.5?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  NO.  THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING, IS I
DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTIONS
APPLY IN A CRIMINAL CONTEXT WITH RESPECT TO FINES.
      THE COURT:  WELL, THE CASE LAW IS PRETTY CLEAR THAT
I HAVE AUTHORITY UNDER 177.5 TO IMPOSE FINES.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK THAT UP THEN,
YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE I THOUGHT I READ A CASE SEVERAL YEARS
BACK THAT SAID THAT THE COURT DID NOT, BUT I MAY BE
MISTAKEN ABOUT THAT, SO I DON'T WANT TO REPRESENT SOMETHING
BASED UPON MY RECOLLECTIONS OF THE CASE THAT I READ A VERY
LONG TIME AGO.
      THE COURT:  JUST SO YOU UNDERSTAND IT IS MY POSITION
THAT I HAVE THE ABILITY TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS UP TO 1500
BUCKS.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  OKAY.
      THE COURT:  AND I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

      MR. GOLDBERG:  OKAY.
            IF THE COURT WERE INCLINED TO DO SO, I WOULD
LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK AND FIND THAT CASE, BECAUSE
I DO HAVE IT IN MY COMPUTER. UNFORTUNATELY IT IS AT HOME
AND I DID NOT KNOW THAT COUNSEL WAS GOING TO BE ASKING FOR
FINES.
            BECAUSE WHEN WE HAD OUR LITTLE DISCUSSION IT
SEEMED LIKE MR. COCHRAN, AND I THINK MAYBE MR. SHAPIRO WAS
THERE, FELT THAT THIS WAS NOT A MAJOR DEAL AND THAT A LOT
MORE IS BEING MADE OF IT THAN WAS YESTERDAY EVENING.
            THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY ON THE ISSUE OF
FINES HAS TO DO MORE WITH A PRACTICE IN OUR LEGAL COMMUNITY
THAN WITH THE ACTUAL LAW, AND THAT IS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO
POINT OUT THAT THE PROSECUTION DID NOT REQUEST FINES OF THE
DEFENSE ATTORNEYS IN THIS CASE AS A RESULT OF THE DISCOVERY
VIOLATIONS AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF REASONS THAT WE DIDN'T
DO SO.
            AND I AM NOT IN ANY WAY CRITICIZING THE
IMPOSITION OF FINES BY THIS COURT, BUT IT IS OUR FEELING
THAT IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE IN THAT KIND OF A SITUATION FOR
AN ADVOCATE TO ASK FOR FINES AGAINST ANOTHER ADVOCATE, EVEN
FOR SOMETHING THAT AMOUNTS TO AN INTENTIONAL OR RECKLESS
MISREPRESENTATION, AND THAT WAS OUR REASON FOR NOT DOING
SO.
            I'M NOT IN ANY WAY COMMENTING UPON THE
IMPOSITION OF FINES BY YOUR HONOR.  WE ARE JUST SAYING WHAT
OUR POSITION WAS AND WHY WE DIDN'T ASK FOR IT.
            I BELIEVE, BASED UPON MY PRACTICE, THAT THERE
IS AN UNWRITTEN RULE THAT FINES ARE GENERALLY NOT IMPOSED
AND GENERALLY NOT REQUESTED BY CRIMINAL PRACTITIONERS IN
OUR LOCAL LEGAL COMMUNITY.
      THE COURT:  BUT IT IS A SANCTION THAT THE COURT HAS
AVAILABLE TO IT TO MAINTAIN ORDER IN THE COURT AND TO
MAINTAIN RESPECT FOR THE ORDERS THAT THE COURT MAKES, SO IT
IS A SANCTION THAT THE COURT USES; NOT NECESSARILY AT THE
REQUEST OF THE PARTIES.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WELL, I WAS JUST EXPLAINING TO YOUR
HONOR WHY WE DID NOT REQUEST IT AND I AM ALSO EXPLAINING
WHY WE ARE SOMEWHAT SURPRISED BY THE FACT THAT DEAN UELMEN
HAS REQUESTED THIS AND WHY -- AND SOMEWHAT SURPRISED BY THE
FACT THAT THE DEFENSE HAS REQUESTED IT IN GENERAL.
      THE COURT:  WELL, THEY DIDN'T LIKE THE FINES THAT
THEY GOT.  THAT IS THE BASIS FOR THAT.  I UNDERSTAND THAT.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  I AM JUST SAYING THAT WE DID NOT ASK
FOR THEM AND I WAS POINTING THAT OUT.
            YES, YOUR HONOR IS RIGHT, YOU DO HAVE THE
CAPACITY TO MAINTAIN ORDER, BUT WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST ON
THAT ISSUE IS HOW IS IT GOING TO MAINTAIN ORDER OF THIS
COURT BY IMPOSING A FINE?  HOW IS IT GOING TO DETER ANY
FUTURE VIOLATION OF SOMETHING THAT WE ARE ENTIRELY UNAWARE
OF AND THAT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD NOT HAVE MADE INQUIRY
INTO?
            YOU KNOW, YES, I DID DISCUSS MY ASPECT OF  THE
CASE WITH MISS CLARK, BUT AS I SAID, YOUR HONOR, I DID NOT
ASK SPECIFICALLY WHETHER THE AIRLINE TICKETS HAD BEEN
SUPPRESSED, AND IF THE COURT IS CONCERNED ABOUT DETERRING
FUTURE INCIDENCES OF THIS KIND, I DON'T SEE HOW THE COURT
CAN DETER THAT KIND OF UNINTENTIONAL MISTAKE.
            IT IS NOT THE FIRST MISTAKE THAT HAS BEEN MADE
IN THIS CASE.  IT WON'T BE THE LAST.  THERE ARE GOING TO BE
OTHER ISSUES THAT COME UP BY BOTH SIDES. I THINK WE KNOW
THAT AND THAT IS A FAIR STATEMENT BASED UPON WHAT HAS
HAPPENED HERETOFORE.
            SO I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO CONSIDER ALL THOSE
ISSUES, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, ON THE ISSUE OF AN
INSTRUCTION, BECAUSE THAT WOULD ADVERSELY IMPACT THE
INTERESTS OF OUR CLIENT, THE PEOPLE, AND ADVERSELY IMPACT
THE CREDIBILITY OF THIS WITNESS IF THE COURT WERE TO GIVE
ANY INSTRUCTION OF THE KIND THAT MR. UELMEN HAS PROPOSED.
            THAT IS SIMPLY ENTIRELY UNFOUNDED FROM A LEGAL
PERSPECTIVE, FROM A COMMON SENSE PERSPECTIVE. IT IN NO WAY
RELATES TO THIS WITNESS' CREDIBILITY. THAT INFORMATION THAT
WAS AGREED NOT TO BE ELICITED, WAS PUT BEFORE THE COURT,
AND WE WOULD ASK THE COURT SIMPLY TO TELL THE JURY THAT THE
QUESTION AND THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION ARE STRICKEN.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            DEAN UELMEN, TEN MINUTES.
      MR. UELMEN:  THANK YOU.
            LISTENING TO THE RESPONSE OF COUNSEL WAS
SOMEWHAT OF A DEJA VU EXPERIENCE.  WE WERE HEARING LOTS OF
ECHOES OF THE ARGUMENT THAT PRECEDED THE COURT'S IMPOSITION
OF SANCTIONS AGAINST THE DEFENSE, THE I-WASN'T-THERE
DEFENSE.
            I RECALL THAT MR. COCHRAN'S DECLARATION TO THE
COURT INDICATED THAT HE CAME INTO THE CASE LATER, THAT HE
DID NOT DIRECT THE ACTIVITY OF MR. PAVELIC AS HIS
EXPLANATION OF WHY HE WASN'T AWARE THAT THE TAPE EXISTED
WITH RESPECT TO ROSA LOPEZ, THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW IT EXISTED
BEFORE.
      THE COURT:  WELL, LET'S NOT RELITIGATE THAT ISSUE.
      MR. UELMEN:  ALL RIGHT.
            THERE WAS ONE THING THAT WASN'T ECHOED, YOUR
HONOR, AND THAT WAS ANY EXPRESSION OF CONTRITION, NO
APOLOGY.  IN FACT, DEFIANCE.  IN FACT, THE SUGGESTION BEING
MADE THAT WE HAVE BEEN OVERLY GENEROUS IN WHAT WE'VE TURNED
OVER TO THE DEFENSE.
            YOUR HONOR, THERE IS AN ATTITUDE PROBLEM HERE,
AND FRANKLY, THE RESPONSE OF THE PROSECUTION, I THINK
SHOULD CREATE GREATER ALARM FOR THE COURT.  IT CERTAINLY
CREATES GREATER ALARM FOR US THAN EXISTED PRIOR TO HEARING
WHAT THEY HAD TO SAY.
            I MEAN, THE SUGGESTION THAT WHATEVER THE POLICE
HAD IN THEIR FILE CABINETS, WE HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY TO
INQUIRE INTO EXCEPT TO ASK THEM IF THEY HAVE IT, THAT THIS
IS NOT BRADY MATERIAL, THAT  EVIDENCE OF THE SIGNIFICANCE
OF THE -- OF THE VIDEOTAPE OF MR. SIMPSON'S DEMEANOR ON THE
DAY THAT THE MURDER TOOK PLACE, THREE HOURS BEFORE THE
MURDER TOOK PLACE, THAT THAT IS NOT BRADY MATERIAL, THAT
THAT THIS TAPE SHOWN THE VERY DAY AFTER OF THE CONDITION OF
THE PREMISES AND SHOWING THE BLOOD SPOTS, AND YOU KNOW, THE
SUGGESTION THAT THIS WAS JUST ADMINISTRATIVE VIDEOTAPE,
JUST DOESN'T WASH.
            IF THERE WAS ANY CONCERN THAT THE PEOPLE OR THE
POLICE OR THE PROSECUTION MIGHT HAVE HAD THAT THERE WOULD
BE SOME LIABILITY FOR THE PREMISES, THE CONDITION IN WHICH
THEY LEFT MR. SIMPSON'S PREMISES, YOU WOULD THINK THAT WE
WOULD HAVE HAD A VIDEOTAPE SHOWING THE PLUMBING JOB IN
WHICH THEY ACTUALLY REMOVED THE DRAINPIPES FROM SOME OF THE
PLUMBING FROM THE SINK IN MR. SIMPSON'S BEDROOM.  THAT IS
NOT EVEN ON THE TAPE.
            WHAT IS ON THE TAPE IS A PORTRAYAL OF GLOVES,
A PORTRAYAL OF BLOOD SPOTS, ITEMS THAT ARE OF GREAT
EVIDENTIARY SIGNIFICANCE IN THIS CASE, AND I THINK WHAT WE
SEE IS AN AT ATTITUDE THAT JUST DOESN'T RECOGNIZE THAT
THERE IS AN OBLIGATION TO MAKE THIS KIND OF EVIDENCE
AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENSE.
            AND WE WOULD SERIOUSLY SUGGEST THAT PERHAPS
YOUR HONOR NEEDS TO ORDER THAT THE PROSECUTION HAVE A LOOK
AT WHAT IS IN THE FILE CABINETS.
            I MEAN, THE -- THE SUGGESTION THAT POLICE  CAN
JUST PUT THINGS -- PUT THING IN THE FILE CABINETS AND WE
DON'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT WHAT IS THERE, FRANKLY, WE ARE
WORRIED.  WE ARE MORE WORRIED NOW THAN WE WERE.
            IF THESE TWO ITEMS THAT HAVE SHOWN UP TARDILY
ARE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT ELSE MAY EXIST IN POLICE FILES, WE
THINK YOUR HONOR SHOULD ORDER THE PROSECUTION TO MAKE A
COMPLETE EXAMINATION OF ALL OF THE EVIDENTIARY ITEMS AND
REPORTS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THAT
YOUR HONOR, IF THERE IS ANY QUESTION AT ALL, SHOULD
YOURSELF EXAMINE THIS MATERIAL AND APPLY A TRUE STANDARD OF
WHAT BRADY REQUIRES.
            APPARENTLY THE PROSECUTION JUST DOESN'T HAVE
ANY CONCEPTION OF WHAT THEIR BRADY OBLIGATIONS ARE.
            NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIFIC ITEMS HERE,
THE VIDEOTAPE, FIRST OF ALL, YOUR HONOR, IS CORRECT, THAT
THE -- THE SPECIFIC INQUIRY WAS MADE AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF
THAT TAPE, SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS -- IS CONDUCT BORDERING
ON WILLFULNESS, CERTAINLY CONDUCT SHOWING RECKLESSNESS AND
CERTAINLY NO GREATER SHOWING OF WILLFULNESS THAN EXISTED
WITH RESPECT TO THE ROSA LOPEZ TAPE.
      THE COURT:  ARE YOU SEEKING THE SUPPRESSION OF THE
TAPE?

      MR. UELMEN:  NO, WE ARE NOT.  WE ARE NOT ASKING  FOR
PRECLUSION WITH RESPECT TO THIS TAPE.  WE BELIEVE THERE IS
EVIDENCE IN THIS TAPE THAT IS FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENSE THAT
WE MAY WANT TO USE.
            THE PREJUDICE WE ARE ASSERTING, THOUGH, IS THAT
WE GOT IT SO LATE THAT WE COULDN'T USE IT IN OUR MOTION TO
SUPPRESS, WE COULDN'T USE IT IN CROSS-EXAMINING THE
DETECTIVES IN CHARGE OF THE INVESTIGATION.
            AND COUNSEL DIDN'T EVEN ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF
THE INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN WHAT THIS TAPE SUGGESTS AND
WHAT THE SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT SUGGESTED.
            SO WE BELIEVE WE HAVE MADE AN AMPLE SHOWING OF
PREJUDICE WITH RESPECT TO THE FAILURE TO PRODUCE THIS TAPE
AT AN EARLIER POINT.
            WITH RESPECT TO THE INVESTIGATION OF THE SHOES,
THE EXPLANATION THAT AN INVESTIGATION IS ONGOING DOES
NOTHING.  IN FACT, IT SUGGESTS ONCE AGAIN THAT THE
PROSECUTION INTERPRETS THEIR OBLIGATION AS SIMPLY DOING
THEIR INVESTIGATION AND THEN WHEN THEY ARE DONE, TURNING
OVER THE RESULTS OF THEIR INVESTIGATION.
      THE COURT:  NO.  1054.7 PROVIDES THE MEANS TO SHIELD
CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS, IF IT IS NECESSARY TO DO SO, TO
COMPLETE AN INVESTIGATION.
            THAT ARGUMENT DOESN'T APPLY, SO DON'T WASTE
YOUR TIME WITH IT.
      MR. UELMEN:  THEY SHOULD HAVE COME TO YOU AND  SOUGHT
THAT.
      THE COURT:  DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME WITH THAT.
      MR. UELMEN:  ALL RIGHT.
            WITH RESPECT TO THE RELEVANCE OF THAT MATERIAL,
FOR US TO DO FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION, THERE IS A LENGTHY
CHAIN OF DISTRIBUTION THAT THE PROSECUTION IS ATTEMPTING TO
TRACK DOWN, SHOWING WHAT MANUFACTURERS WERE ALLOWED TO USE
THIS -- THIS PATTERN, WHAT -- WHICH OF THOSE MANUFACTURERS
EXPORTED TO THE UNITED STATES, WHERE IN THE UNITED STATES
SHOES THAT HAVE THIS PATTERN WERE ON SALE.
            THERE IS A LENGTHY CHAIN OF DISTRIBUTION THAT
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO RETRACE IF IN FACT THEY ARE GOING
TO OFFER EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST SOMEHOW THAT THESE SHOES WERE
AVAILABLE FOR SALE IN THE UNITED STATES IN A PLACE WHERE
THE DEFENDANT MIGHT HAVE -- MIGHT HAVE ACQUIRED THEM.
      THE COURT:  DID THESE 238 PAGES DEAL WITH THAT?
      MR. UELMEN:  THEY DO.  THEY DO INDEED.
            THERE ARE INQUIRIES TO SPECIFIC MANUFACTURERS,
TO SPECIFIC DISTRIBUTORS, IN AN ATTEMPT TO TRACK DOWN WHERE
THESE -- THESE SHOES WERE DISTRIBUTED AND SOLD.
            AND FINALLY, WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE ON THE
SUPPRESSION, I THINK IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT ANY
COUNSEL WHO COME INTO THE CASE IS GOING TO HAVE TO
FAMILIARIZE HIMSELF OR HERSELF WITH THE PRIOR  RULINGS OF
THE CASE.
            I MEAN, IF THE DEFENSE OR THE PROSECUTION CAN
JUST BRING IN A NEW LAWYER AND IGNORE PRIOR AGREEMENTS AND
RULINGS OF THE COURT AND THEN WHEN CALLED TO ACCOUNT, SAY,
WELL, I WASN'T HERE WHEN THAT HAPPENED, THERE IS NO WAY
THAT THIS COURT CAN CONDUCT A REASONABLE TRIAL.
            THE OBJECTION WAS MADE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE
CLOSE OF COURT YESTERDAY, AND AS I RECALL, THESE WERE THE
LAST QUESTIONS ADDRESSED TO MR. FUNG AT THE END OF HIS
TESTIMONY YESTERDAY, SO CERTAINLY I DON'T THINK WE CAN
SUGGEST THAT THE DEFENSE WAIVED THIS ISSUE BY NOT MAKING A
PROMPT OBJECTION.
            WE BELIEVE THAT SIMPLY STRIKING THE QUESTION
AND THE ANSWER DOES NOT COMMUNICATE THE DEGREE OF EGREGIOUS
MISCONDUCT BY COUNSEL INVOLVED IN ASKING AND ANSWERING
THESE QUESTIONS.
            NOW, MR. GOLDBERG SAYS, WELL, AN INSTRUCTION
DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.  TO TELL THE JURY THAT THEY SHOULD
CONSIDER THIS WITH RESPECT TO THE CREDIBILITY OF MR. FUNG
MAKES NO SENSE BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE
CREDIBILITY OF MR. FUNG.
            THAT OVERLOOKS THE NATURE OF THE JURY
INSTRUCTION AS A PUNITIVE MEASURE.  THE FAILURE TO PROMPTLY
DISCLOSE THE TAPE INVOLVING ROSA LOPEZ DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING
TO DO WITH HER CREDIBILITY EITHER.
      THE COURT:  YES, IT DOES.
      MR. UELMEN:  IT DOES NOT, YOUR HONOR.
      THE COURT:  YES, IT DOES.
      MR. UELMEN:  ALL RIGHT.
            I RESPECTFULLY SUGGEST THAT THE TAPE WAS
PRODUCED, THEY DID HAVE IT AND THEY WERE ALLOWED TO USE IT
FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION.
      THE COURT:  WHICH IS PRECISELY WHY IT GOES TO HER
CREDIBILITY.
      MR. UELMEN:  THE TAPE GOES TO HER CREDIBILITY.
      THE COURT:  ABSOLUTELY.
      MR. UELMEN:  RIGHT, BUT DOES THE DELAY OF THE DEFENSE
IN DISCLOSING THE TAPE GO TO HER CREDIBILITY?
      THE COURT:  AND THAT IS FOR THE JURY TO DECIDE.
      MR. UELMEN:  THAT IS FOR THE JURY TO DECIDE AS A
PUNITIVE MEASURE, TO PUNISH THE DEFENSE FOR NOT PRODUCING
THE TAPE, AND FOR -- BY THE SAME TOKEN, WE WOULD SAY IT IS
FOR THE JURY TO DECIDE WHAT CREDIBILITY THEY SHOULD GIVE
MR. FUNG'S TESTIMONY WHEN THE PROSECUTION DELIBERATELY
ELICITS EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY THAT THE PRETRIAL AGREEMENTS
PROVIDED WERE NOT TO BE ELICITED.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  COUNSEL, WIND IT UP, PLEASE.
      MR. UELMEN:  ALL RIGHT.
            WITH RESPECT TO THE FINES, AGAIN WE ARE SIMPLY
ASKING THAT THE COURT BE EVENHANDED AND ADDRESS THE
QUESTION OF SANCTIONS FROM THE SAME  PERSPECTIVE THAT YOU
ADDRESS THEM WITH RESPECT TO THE DEFENSE COUNSEL.
            IN FACT, WE HAVE SUGGESTED MUCH MORE MODEST
FINES BECAUSE WE DO NOT WANT TO DEPRIVE THE PROSECUTORS OF
THE MEANS TO COME TO COURT SUITABLY ATTIRED, BUT I CAN
CERTAINLY LOAN THEM --
      THE COURT:  THEY CAN BUY THEIR CLOTHES AT PENNEY'S
LIKE I DO.
      MR. UELMEN:  I CAN BUY THEM SOME SACK CLOTH.  I THINK
THEY WOULD LOOK GOOD IN IT, CERTAINLY BETTER THAN I WOULD
LOOK IN A DRESS.
            TO CONCLUDE, YOUR HONOR, I THINK, FRANKLY, THE
BEST WAY TO HANDLE THE WHOLE SITUATION IS SIMPLY WITHDRAW
THE ORDER OF MARCH 1ST AND PUT OVER TO THE END OF THE TRIAL
ALL ISSUES OF PUNITIVE SANCTIONS SO YOUR HONOR HAS THE
BENEFIT OF A FULL RECORD OF THE CONDUCT OF COUNSEL
THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL AT THE TIME YOU ADDRESS THESE ISSUES.
      THE COURT:  THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
      MS. LEWIS:  YOUR HONOR, JUST FOR THE RECORD, THERE
WAS NO PLUMBING TORN UP OR TAKEN OR DONE ANYTHING ELSE WITH
ON THE 13TH.
      MR. COCHRAN:  THAT IS WRONG.
      THE DEFENDANT:  THAT IS WRONG.


        THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            THE COURT WILL MAKE THE FOLLOWING ORDER
IMMEDIATELY.
            THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS ORDERED TO
PREPARE AND SUBMIT TO THE COURT BY THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS
APRIL 7TH AN INVENTORY OF ALL VIDEOTAPES THAT ARE IN
EXISTENCE, EITHER IN THE POSSESSION OF THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT OR ANY
OTHER AGENCY THAT IS INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION OF THIS
CASE.
            THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS ORDERED TO
PREPARE AND SUBMIT TO THE COURT BY THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS
FRIDAY AN INVENTORY OF ALL REPORTS, LETTERS AND OTHER ITEMS
REGARDING THE SHOES.
            THE COURT WILL TAKE UNDER SUBMISSION THE
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, MONETARY SANCTIONS, AS TO ALL THREE
OF THESE ITEMS.
            AND MR. UELMEN, WILL YOU SUBMIT TO THE COURT
THE DRAFT LANGUAGE OF YOUR INSTRUCTION REGARDING THE TICKET
AND BAGGAGE RECEIPT?
      MR. UELMEN:  (NODS HEAD UP AND DOWN.)
      MS. LEWIS:  YOUR HONOR, VIDEOTAPES?  COULD THE ORDER
BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC?  BECAUSE THERE IS NEWS
FOOTAGE I THINK -- MEDIA RELATIONS DEPARTMENT HAS TAPED
THIS CASE FOR DAYS AND DAYS AND DAYS.
      THE COURT:  INVENTORY OF ALL VIDEOTAPES, ALL, FRIDAY,
NOON.

             (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
             ATTORNEYS.)

      MS. LEWIS:  THE NEWS SHOWS WE HAVE TAPED FOR THE LAST
SEVERAL MONTHS?  I DON'T MEAN TO BE IMPERTINENT.
      THE COURT:  ALL VIDEOTAPES, EACH AND EVERY ONE.
            THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THE PROSECUTION HAS
POPPED UP LATE WITH A VIDEOTAPE.
      MS. LEWIS:  THIS ONE WAS NOT IN OUR POSSESSION.  I
HAVE ALREADY MADE THAT POINT.
      THE COURT:  BUT WE KNEW IT EXISTED AND INQUIRY WAS
MADE SEVERAL TIMES.
      MS. LEWIS:  WE DIDN'T -- AS I HAVE TOLD YOU, WE DID
NOT KNOW IT EXISTED.  DETECTIVE LUPER DID; BUT WE DIDN'T.
      THE COURT:  WELL, DETECTIVE LUPER IS PART OF THE
PROSECUTION TEAM, I TAKE IT.
      MS. LEWIS:  NOT UNDER THE PENAL CODE SECTION COVERING
OUR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS, YOUR HONOR.
      THE COURT:  I AGREE.  THE THINK THE PROSECUTION IS
VERY FORTUNATE THAT THAT STATUTE WAS WRITTEN BY
PROSECUTORS.
      MS. LEWIS;  AND PASSED BY THE VOTERS OF THIS STATE,
YOUR HONOR.  THAT WAS AN INITIATIVE THAT THE VOTERS
APPROVED OF.

       THE COURT:  I AGREE, AND THAT IS THE DISABILITY THAT
THE DEFENSE HAS, BECAUSE THE DEFENSE OBLIGATIONS ARE
SPELLED OUT MUCH MORE CLEARLY THAN THE PROSECUTOR'S
OBLIGATIONS ARE.
            IT IS AN INTERESTING STATUTE.
            ALL RIGHT.
            WE WILL TAKE A TEN-MINUTE COURT REPORTER RECESS
AND THEN WE NEED TO TAKE UP THE PRESUMPTIVE TEST ISSUE.
            I WOULD LIKE TO SEE COUNSEL IN CHAMBERS FOR THE
TEN-MINUTE RECESS.
            I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOUR POSITION IS ON THE
PRESUMPTIVE BLOOD TESTS.

            (RECESS.)

              (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS
             WERE HELD IN CAMERA:)

      THE COURT:  WE ARE IN CHAMBERS.
            MR. GOLDBERG, YOU HAD SOMETHING THAT YOU NEEDED
TO --
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YES.  THERE WAS SOMETHING I WANTED TO
DISCLOSE NOW IN LIGHT OF THE COURT'S ORDER OF DISCLOSING
ALL VIDEOTAPES, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY WERE.
            IT SEEMS THAT THE COURT IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING
EMPTY OUT THE CASE FILES, AND IN LIGHT OF THAT, I RECALL
THAT WHEN WE DID THE DEMONSTRATION OF ANDREA MAZZOLLA
COLLECTING BLOOD, ORIGINALLY I DECIDED THAT I WAS GOING TO
VIDEOTAPE EVERYTHING AND I HAVE VIDEOTAPES OF PART OF THE
DEMONSTRATION OR ALL OF THE DEMONSTRATION OF HER PART.
            AFTER THAT I DECIDED TO DISCONTINUE IT AND WE
JUST CONTINUED WITH STILL PHOTOGRAPHY.
            I FELT THAT IN LIGHT OF WHAT THE COURT HAD SAID
THAT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO MENTION THAT NOW.
            OBVIOUSLY OUR POSITION IS THAT IT DOESN'T FALL
WITHIN ANY PROVISION OF THE DISCOVERY STATUTE AND IT ISN'T
EXCULPATORY, BUT I FELT THAT IT SHOULD BE PUT ON THE RECORD
RIGHT NOW.
      THE COURT:  OKAY.  GOSH, YOU HAD ME SCARED THERE FOR
A MINUTE.
      MR. NEUFELD:  WE WOULD ASK THAT IT BE TURNED OVER
SURELY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION PRIVILEGES.
      MS. CLARK:  THIS IS WORK PRODUCT, YOUR HONOR.
      MR. NEUFELD:  NO, NO, NO.  THEY PREPARED A
DEMONSTRATION HERE AND THEY MADE CERTAIN PHOTOGRAPHS TO
INVENTORY AND SHOW THE WAY IT IS DONE.
            IF THAT VIDEOTAPE IS ALSO AN ATTEMPT TO SHOWN
THE WAY IT IS DONE AND IT IS INCONSISTENT IN ANY WAY WITH
EITHER THE TESTIMONY OF MR. FUNG OR MISS MAZZOLLA OR THE
PHOTOGRAPHS, WE ARE ENTITLED TO THAT BECAUSE THAT IS
IMPEACHMENT MATERIAL.
      THE COURT:  I DON'T KNOW.
      MS. CLARK:  OH, NO.
      MR. NEUFELD:  THEY ARE PUTTING FORWARD THIS
DEMONSTRATION AS TO THE WAY THINGS ARE DONE.  WHAT ARE THEY
GOING TO DO IN FACT IF IT LOOKS LIKE SHE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING
IN A STERILE FASHION ON THE VIDEOTAPE, AND SHE SCREWED UP
THIS AND SCREWED UP THAT AND THEY DECIDE TO USE THE
VIDEOTAPE, THAT HE WE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO USE THAT SO THEY
ON ONE OCCASION FOR STILL PHOTOGRAPH THEY GET IT RIGHT BUT
OTHER TIMES THEY DON'T?
      THE COURT:  WELL, THIS IS THE SAME PROCESS, MR.
GOLDBERG.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  I'M SORRY.
      THE COURT:  VIDEOTAPING THE SAME PHOTOGRAPHS THAT
TURNED UP THE EXHIBIT?

       MR. GOLDBERG:  IT WAS DONE SIMULTANEOUSLY.
            OH, THE EXHIBIT?
      THE COURT:  YEAH.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
      THE COURT:  IN OTHER WORDS, THE PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICT
THE SAME THING THAT THE VIDEOTAPE DOES, THEY ARE DONE
SIMULTANEOUSLY?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  RIGHT.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            WELL, I'M GOING TO REQUIRE ITS DISCLOSURE.
      MR. SCHECK:  YOUR HONOR, MAY I JUST ADD A LEGAL POINT
HERE, IF I MIGHT, AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN BAGLEY OVERRULING AGURS.
      THE COURT:  NO, NO, NO.  I'M NOT INTERESTED IN
HEARING IT NOW.  I'VE GOT A JURY THAT HAS BEEN SITTING.
YOU GUYS SEEM TO FORGET.
      MR. SCHECK:  I DON'T.
      MR. COCHRAN:  JUDGE, THAT IS ALL RIGHT.
            LET'S GO TO WORK.
      THE COURT:  NO, NO, BECAUSE NOW WE'VE GOT TO GO ARGUE
ABOUT PRESUMPTIVE BLOOD TESTS AND I THINK FROM NOW ON WE
ARE GOING TO START ALL THESE HEARINGS AT 4:30 FROM NOW ON.
      MR. COCHRAN:  THERE IS A PROBLEM AT 8:30 APPARENTLY.
      THE COURT:  I UNDERSTAND THERE --
      MR. COCHRAN:  WE WILL BE GLAD TO DO IT AT 8:30.
      THE COURT:  THAT IS WHY ALL FURTHER EXTRANEOUS
MOTIONS ARE GOING TO BE AT 4:30.
      MR. COCHRAN:  OR WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON OR FRIDAY
AFTERNOONS, IF YOU DECIDE.  YOU KNOW, WE ARE OFF EARLY
THOSE DAYS.
      THE COURT:  OKAY.
      MR. COCHRAN:  FOUR O'CLOCK ON WEDNESDAY.
      THE COURT:  WELL, FOR EXAMPLE, FOUR O'CLOCK TOMORROW
WE HAVE ALL THESE MOTIONS REGARDING THE CORONER'S REPORTS.
      MR. COCHRAN:  OKAY.  AND MAYBE WE WILL STOP PEOPLE
FROM FILING MOTIONS.  1:30 ON FRIDAY.
      THE COURT:  NO, NO.  THIS CASE WILL GENERATE MORE
UNUSUAL ODDBALL MOTIONS.
      MS. CLARK:  I DON'T KNOW.  I MEAN, YOU HAVE GOT MR.
COCHRAN AND I PRETTY WELL CALMED DOWN.
      MR. COCHRAN:  WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT
DE-ESCALATING AFTER THIS, HOPEFULLY.
      MS. CLARK:  HE WANTS TO FIRE THE LAST SALVO ACROSS
THE BOW.
      THE COURT:  WE ARE NOT THERE YET.
            ALL RIGHT.  LET'S GO OUT AND TALK ABOUT
PRESUMPTIVE BLOOD TESTS.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, THERE WAS SOME PRESUMPTIVE
BLOOD TESTS, A CITATION TO IMWINKELRIED, I WILL GET THE
SPELLING, I-M-W-I-N-K-E-L-R-I-E-D, AND MY ASSISTANT BROUGHT
IT DOWN.  IT IS ONLY TWO PAGES LONG, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO
PROVIDE THE COURT AND  COUNSEL WITH A COPY BECAUSE HE JUST
DISCUSSED THIS VERY BRIEFLY, FORENSIC BLOOD TESTING AND
DISCUSSES CALIFORNIA LAW.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  LET'S GO.
            THE PROBLEM IS WE ARE THERE, SO WE NEED TO
DECIDE THIS NOW.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  IT WILL TAKE THE COURT ABOUT TWO OR
THREE MINUTES TO READ IT.
      THE COURT:  OKAY.  LET'S GO.

            (AT 10:43 A.M. THE PROCEEDINGS
             IN CAMERA WERE CONCLUDED.)

              (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
             HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
             PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            BACK ON THE RECORD ON THE SIMPSON MATTER.
            DEFENDANT IS AGAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT
WITH COUNSEL, PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED.
            WE HAVE ONE MORE MATTER WE NEED TO RESOLVE
BEFORE WE INVITE THE JURY TO JOIN US.  THAT IS AS TO THE
PROSECUTION'S OFFER OF PRESUMPTIVE BLOOD TESTS.
            MR. GOLDBERG.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  OH, I SEE HE'S COMING RIGHT NOW.
      MS. LEWIS:  YOUR HONOR?
      THE COURT:  MISS LEWIS.
      MS. LEWIS:  OUR MEDIA RELATIONS DIRECTOR ASKED ME TO
HAVE THE COURT ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT TO ME IS OBVIOUS.  THAT IS
THE TAPE -- THAT THE INVENTORY OF THE TAPES THE COURT WANTS
WOULD BE FROM JUNE 12TH AND OF COURSE ONLY TAPES RELATING
IN SOME MANNER AT ALL TO THIS CASE.
      THE COURT:  THAT'S CORRECT.
      MS. LEWIS:  THANK YOU.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, I HAD AN ADDITIONAL
CITATION THAT I WANTED THE COURT TO LOOK TO, AND IT'S
PROFESSOR IMWINKELRIED TREATISE ON SCIENTIFIC  EVIDENCE,
AND SPECIFICALLY PAGE 532 WHICH DISCUSSES ADMISSIBILITY OF
PRELIMINARY BLOOD TESTING AND DISCUSSES THE PHENOLPHTALEIN
TESTS AND ALSO CITES COLEMAN WHICH I PREVIOUSLY CITED TO
THE COURT.
            AND I -- THE REASON THAT I'M BRINGING THIS TO
THE COURT'S ATTENTION IS BECAUSE I BELIEVE HIS
INTERPRETATION OF COLEMAN IS THE SAME AS THE INTERPRETATION
THAT I OFFERED TO THE COURT WHEN I FIRST CITED IT, AND I'LL
SUBMIT IT TO COUNSEL, A COPY TO COUNSEL.
            MAY I APPROACH?
      THE COURT:  YOU MAY.
            THANK YOU.
      MR. NEUFELD:  YOUR HONOR, MAY I MAKE ONE COMMENT
BEFORE YOU DECIDE THIS ONE?

            (BRIEF PAUSE.)

      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            WHO WISHES TO BE HEARD FIRST?
      MR. NEUFELD:  JUST VERY, VERY BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR.
      MS. LEWIS:  COULD I BEG THE COURT'S INDULGENCE TO
MAKE ONE MORE BRIEF COMMENT ON THE OTHER MATTER?
            THE DRAIN -- THE DRAIN AT THE DEFENDANT'S
RESIDENCE WAS -- THE TRAP WAS REMOVED ON THE 13TH AND THAT
WAS THE EXTENT OF THE PLUMBING, WHATEVER THAT WAS DONE.  I
JUST CLARIFIED THAT WITH MR. FUNG  HIMSELF.
      THE COURT:  I HEARD IT WAS MORE EXTENSIVE THAN THAT.
      MR. COCHRAN:  YES.
      MR. NEUFELD:  YOUR HONOR, NOT FOR PURPOSES OF
ARGUMENT.  JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT IS THE ISSUE HERE.
            AND THAT IS THAT THE PEOPLE WISH TO INTRODUCE
EVIDENCE OF THE -- A PRESUMPTIVE POSITIVE IN A
PHENOLPHTALEIN TEST.  SO WE'RE DEALING HERE RIGHT NOW WITH
THE PHENOLPHTALEIN TEST AND WE'RE DEALING WITH THEIR
REQUEST TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF THE POSITIVE RESULT.
            ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I POINTED OUT, YOUR
HONOR, IS THAT A NEGATIVE RESULT IS OF THE COMPLETELY
DIFFERENT NATURE.  IT IS A CONCLUSIVE TEST.  IT MEANS THAT
THERE COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE BLOOD THERE.  SO TO LUMP THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF NEGATIVE RESULTS WITH POSITIVE RESULTS FOR
THE PHENOLPHTALEIN TEST REALLY RAISES A COMPLETELY
DIFFERENT ISSUE.
      THE COURT:  WHAT NEGATIVE RESULTS DO WE HAVE?
      MR. NEUFELD:  THEY DID -- THEY DID PRESUMPTIVE
TESTING ON STAINS ALL OVER THE PLACE.  FOR INSTANCE, THEY
SAW REDDISH STAINS ALONG THE SOUTH WALL OF THE HOUSE, THE
POLICE DID.
      THE COURT:  WHAT NEGATIVE RESULTS DO WE HAVE?
      MR. NEUFELD:  THOSE ARE NEGATIVE.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.

       MR. NEUFELD:  THOSE ARE NEGATIVE.  THERE'S
ALLEGATIONS OF CERTAIN STAINS FOUND IN OTHER PLACES IN THE
HOUSE AS WELL, MR. SIMPSON'S HOUSE.  THEY TESTED THOSE.
THOSE WERE NEGATIVE.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            WHAT'S THE NATURE OF THE PLUMBING?  YOU
INDICATED THAT FALSE POSITIVES COME FROM COPPER PLUMBING.
WHAT'S THE NATURE OF THE PLUMBING AT THE SIMPSON RESIDENCE?
      MR. NEUFELD:  I DON'T KNOW.  I CAN'T ANSWER THAT
QUESTION RIGHT NOW.  I HAVE NOT EXAMINED THE PLUMBING.
            BUT THE MAIN PROBLEM FRANKLY WITH FALSE
POSITIVES FOR A PHENOLPHTALEIN TEST, YOUR HONOR, ISN'T EVEN
THE COPPER.  IT'S MICROORGANISMS AND BACTERIA.  AND THAT'S
WHY --
            I'VE CALLED OUT TO LEADING FORENSIC SCIENTISTS
AROUND THE COUNTRY, AND THEY DON'T EVEN USE THE
PHENOLPHTALEIN TEST FOR ANYTHING INVOLVING PLUMBING
FIXTURES.  THEY WOULD TAKE THE RESIDUE OR WHATEVER IT IS
THAT THEY WANT TO TEST BACK TO THE LABORATORY AND DO
CONFIRMATORY TESTING WHICH COULD ASSESS WHAT THE ITEM IS.
            THAT WASN'T EVEN DONE HERE.  UNLIKE THE OTHER
ITEMS THAT THEY WISH TO INTRODUCE, THERE WAS SOME
CORROBORATIVE OR CONFIRMATORY TESTING DONE.  BUT AS THE
BLAKE ARTICLE POINTS OUT, MICROORGANISMS AND BACTERIA WHICH
LIVE IN WET MOIST PLACES SUCH AS  DRAINS ARE RENDERED THE
USEFULNESS OF A PHENOL TEST UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE
ABSOLUTELY USELESS.
            SO THAT'S WHAT GIVES RISE TO THE 352 ISSUE AS
WELL, YOUR HONOR.  THAT'S WHY WE'RE NOT -- WE'RE NOT
OPPOSING, FOR INSTANCE, THE PHENOL RESULT AND THE
PHOTOGRAPH DEPICTING IT OF THE STAIN ON THE FLOOR OF THE
BATHROOM.
      THE COURT:  BECAUSE THAT STAIN WAS COLLECTED AND THEN
TESTED.
      MR. NEUFELD:  RIGHT.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            MR. GOLDBERG.

            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
             ATTORNEYS.)

      MR. GOLDBERG:  WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THE DEFENSE IS
SOMEWHAT TROUBLING.  WHAT THEY SAY IS, WELL, WE CAN PUT IN
EVIDENCE OF THE NEGATIVES BECAUSE AS THE COURT WILL RECALL
FROM MR. COCHRAN'S OPENING STATEMENT, HE MADE A BIG POINT
ABOUT BLOOD NOT BEING LOCATED IN CERTAIN PLACES.
            SO THEY WANT TO CREATE THIS INFERENCE
BUTTRESSED NOW BY SCIENTIFIC TESTIMONY THAT THEY'RE
GRACIOUSLY NOT OBJECTING TO AS TO NEGATIVES IN A VARIETY OF
PLACES WITHOUT ALSO SHOWING EVIDENCE OF POSITIVES IN OTHER
LOGICAL PLACES THAT ONE MIGHT  EXPECT TO FIND BLOOD IF A
DEFENDANT WHO HAD JUST COMMITTED MURDERS HAD COME BACK TO
HIS RESIDENCE, HAD GONE UPSTAIRS AND STRIPPED OFF HIS
CLOTHES AND TAKEN A SHOWER.
            THAT IS THE HEIGHT OF GIVING THE JURY A
COMPLETELY SKEWED AND ERRONEOUS VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE.  THIS
IS A LEGAL QUESTION FOR THE COURT TO DECIDE AND IT'S A VERY
SIMPLE LEGAL QUESTION.  AND THAT IS THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
PRESUMPTIVE TESTS.
            BUT BEFORE I ADDRESS THE LAW ONCE MORE ON THAT
ISSUE, WHICH WE BELIEVE IS CLEAR IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, I JUST ASK THE COURT TO VIEW IT ALSO FROM A
COMMON SENSE PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT A PERSON CAN
COME INTO COURT, A LAYPERSON AND TESTIFY THAT SOMETHING
APPEARED TO BE BLOOD OR EVEN WAS BLOOD, THAT THAT'S AN
APPROPRIATE LAY OPINION.  WE CAN ASK MR. FUNG, WHO HAS SOME
EXPERTISE, WHETHER SOMETHING APPEARED TO BE BLOOD, AND THAT
KIND OF AN OPINION IS FAR LESS RELIABLE OBVIOUSLY THAN A
FORENSIC TEST.
            WE ALSO KNOW IN OUR COURTS THAT A NARCOTICS
OFFICER CAN COME IN AND TESTIFY THAT IN HIS OPINION,
SOMETHING WAS IN FACT COCAINE FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROVING
THAT IT WAS COCAINE EVEN WHERE THERE HAS BEEN NO CHEMICAL
TESTING.  IN FACT, THERE WAS A CASE, PEOPLE VERSUS
SONLIGHTNER, THAT I WAS THINKING OF AS I WAS LISTENING TO
COUNSEL SPEAK WHERE COCAINE WAS FLUSHED DOWN THE TOILET
BEFORE THE  NARCOTICS OFFICER COULD SEIZE IT, AND HE
TESTIFIED THAT IN HIS OPINION, IT WAS COCAINE, AND THE
COURT HELD THAT THAT WAS FINE, SOMEWHAT ANALOGOUS TO THE
ISSUE WE'RE DOING HERE.
            SO WE DO ALLOW PEOPLE TO EXPRESS OPINIONS THAT
ARE NOT BASED UPON SCIENTIFIC TESTS OR EVIDENCE THAT ARE
FAR MORE SUBJECT TO DISPUTE THAN THE KIND OF SCIENTIFIC
EVIDENCE THAT WE WANT TO PUT IN.  YET THAT IS ALLOWED.  AND
THE AMBIGUITIES OF THOSE OPINIONS AND THE FALLIBILITY OF
THOSE OPINIONS IS AN ISSUE OF WEIGHT FOR THE FACT FINDER.
            WE DON'T HAVE TO BE OVERLY CONCERNED IN OUR
SYSTEM OF LAW OF TRYING TO SHIELD THE JURY FROM THIS KIND
OF INFORMATION WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO HEAR BOTH SIDES.
THEY'RE GOING TO HEAR WHAT KIND OF FALSE NEGATIVES YOU CAN
HAVE.  THEY'RE GOING TO HEAR UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS YOU CAN
GET AN ERRONEOUS RESULT AND THEY'RE GOING TO HEAR THE KIND
OF EXPERIENCE THAT DENNIS FUNG HAS HAD IN USING THESE TESTS
AND THE PROBLEMS WITH THE TESTS, WHICH HE IS QUALIFIED TO
SPEAK TO BECAUSE HE IS AWARE OF THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT
CREATE FALSE POSITIVES AND HE HAS LOOKED AT SOME OF THE
LITERATURE IN THIS REGARD.
            NOW TO ADDRESS THE CALIFORNIA LAW JUST VERY
BRIEFLY ON THE ISSUE OF FORENSIC BLOOD TESTING OR
PRESUMPTIVE BLOOD TESTING.


             WE DO BELIEVE THAT COLEMAN IS DISPOSITIVE.
AND ALL THEY ARE SAYING IS THAT YES, THESE DO COME IN, YES,
THERE IS A HISTORY OF THEM COMING IN, BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE
EVIDENCE AS TO WHAT TESTS YOU'RE USING.
            BECAUSE -- IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, IT WAS A
POLICE OFFICER, NOT A CRIMINALIST, AND ALL THEY SAID IS
THAT IT WAS A HEME STICK OR HEMO STICK AND NO ONE KNEW WHAT
THAT WAS OR THE SUPREME COURT COULDN'T MAKE ANY DECISION AS
TO WHAT THAT WAS.
            BUT WE KNOW VERY CLEARLY THAT PHENOLPHTALEIN IS
ONE OF THE OLDEST TESTS.  IT GOES BACK ALL THE WAY TO 1909.
IT'S THE MOST SPECIFIC TEST ACCORDING TO THE LITERATURE.
IT'S BASED UPON THE SAME PRINCIPAL AS THE REST OF THE
PRESUMPTIVE TESTS INCLUDING THE ONES THAT THE DEFENDANT'S
OWN EXPERTS USED.  AND VERY CLEARLY UNDER CALIFORNIA
PRECEDENT, IT SHOULD BE ADMITTED, AND ANY ISSUES AS TO THE
AMBIGUITY GO TO THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THAT'S A
JURY ISSUE FOR THEM TO RESOLVE.
      THE COURT:  BUT DON'T I HAVE A 352 PROBLEM; THAT IF
IT IS ONLY A PRESUMPTIVE TEST, IT HASN'T BEEN CONFIRMED AND
THAT IT CAN BE TRIGGERED BY COMMONLY OCCURRING SUBSTANCES
AS WELL.  AND GIVEN THAT THIS IS LIKELY TO TURN OUT TO BE
A CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CASE, I MEAN ISN'T THAT REALLY A
WASTE OF TIME?


       MR. GOLDBERG:  WELL, OBVIOUSLY WE ARE SPENDING MORE
TIME LITIGATING THE ADMISSIBILITY THAN THE EVIDENCE WILL
TAKE TO COME IN.  THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT COULD CREATE A
FALSE POSITIVE ARE VEGETABLE PEROXIDASE WHICH ARE FOUND IN
A NUMBER OF VEGETABLES, COMMON VEGETABLES INCLUDING APPLE.
      THE COURT:  NOT LIKELY TO BE IN A BATHROOM DRAIN.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  RIGHT.  EXACTLY, UNLESS HE WAS MAYBE
POURING APPLE JUICE DOWN THE DRAIN.  THERE ARE ALSO A
NUMBER OF OTHER CHEMICALS THAT ARE NOT COMMONLY HOUSEHOLD
CHEMICALS, AND THIS WILL BE THE SUBJECT OF MR. FUNG'S
TESTIMONY.
            BUT EVEN AS TO THE VEGETABLE PEROXIDASE, IT'S
VERY CLEAR THAT WHILE IT IS THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE TO GET
A FALSE POSITIVE, THAT A -- AN EXPERIENCED CRIMINALIST CAN
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A FALSE POSITIVE AND AN ACTUAL POSITIVE
BECAUSE WHAT EVIDENTLY HAPPENS IS, IT DOES TURN PINK, THE
SAME PINK COLOR THAT A TRUE POSITIVE WOULD, BUT IT'S MUCH
SLOWER.  AND THIS IS ALSO DOCUMENTED IN THE SCIENTIFIC
LITERATURE.
      THE COURT:  WHAT ABOUT COMMON HOUSEHOLD BLEACH THOUGH
WHICH ONE WOULD USE IN --
      MR. GOLDBERG:  I DON'T BELIEVE THAT -- AND I MAY BE
MISTAKEN ABOUT THIS, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT BLEACH WAS ONE
OF THE ITEMS THAT COULD RESULT IN A FALSE POSITIVE.
      THE COURT:  THE ARTICLE THAT YOU SUBMITTED TO ME
INDICATES THAT BLEACH IS ONE OF THE -- CHLORINE BLEACH IS
ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT CAN CREATE A FALSE POSITIVE, WHICH IS
NOT UNCOMMON IN BATHROOM FIXTURES.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YEAH.  ACCORDING TO PROFESSOR
IMWINKELRIED, HE DOES SAY THAT.  OF COURSE, THIS ISN'T A
SCIENTIFIC TEXT, BUT IT IS A LEGAL TEXT.
            AND AS I SAID, THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT DO
CAUSE FALSE POSITIVES.  BUT -- AND MAYBE PERHAPS WE COULD
CLARIFY THIS POINT WITH MR. FUNG BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF I
SPECIFICALLY ASKED HIM ABOUT BLEACH AS OPPOSED TO VEGETABLE
PEROXIDASE.  I DON'T RECALL HAVING DONE THAT.  BUT I DO
REMEMBER HIS EXPLANATIONS TO ME ABOUT THE VEGETABLE
PEROXIDASE AND I CAN'T REPRESENT TO THE COURT THAT HIS
EXPLANATION WOULD BE THE SAME WITH RESPECT TO BLEACH.
      THE COURT:  WELL, HOW DO WE COMPARE THE CASE LAW HERE
IN COLEMAN WITH THE CASE LAW DEALING WITH LUMINAL?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  CALIFORNIA CASE LAW DEALING WITH
LUMINAL?
      THE COURT:  YES.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WHICH CASE IS THE COURT REFERRING TO?
      THE COURT:  OUT OF CURIOSITY, WHY WERE NOT -- I CAN'T
FIND THE CASE AT THE MOMENT, BUT LET ME ASK YOU THIS.

             WHY WERE NO FOLLOW-UP TESTS DONE ON THESE
ITEMS?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO TEST TO FOLLOW
UP?  I MEAN IN ORDER TO COLLECT THE STAIN, THERE HAS TO BE
SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN SEE ACCORDING TO MY UNDERSTANDING,
AND THERE ARE CERTAIN INSTANCES WHERE THE ONLY EVIDENCE
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE IS THE PHENOLPHTALEIN TEST.
            ANOTHER INSTANCE WHERE WE HAVE THAT.  FOR
EXAMPLE, IS ON ITEM NO. 11, WHICH WAS THE WIRE.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            NOW, LET ME ASK YOU THIS.
            WOULDN'T THE BETTER PRACTICE HAVE BEEN TO TAKE
THE TRAP OUT OF THE PLUMBING FIXTURE?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  I THINK THAT HE -- THAT HE MAY HAVE
TAKEN THE TRAP OUT ACCORDING TO WHAT WE SAW, AND I DON'T --
I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD BE THE BETTER
PRACTICE.  I WOULD HAVE TO --
      THE COURT:  WAS THAT TESTED?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  EXCUSE ME?
      THE COURT:  WAS THAT TESTED?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  I DON'T THINK SO, OR THERE WAS -- LET
ME TAKE A LOOK.

            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
             ATTORNEYS.)

       MR. GOLDBERG:  THERE WAS -- I'M SORRY.  THERE WAS A
TEST ON THAT AND THE TRAP ITSELF WAS NEGATIVE.
            I MEAN SO THE ONLY -- THAT'S THE EVIDENCE THAT
WE HAVE.  I MEAN, WE LOOKED FOR EVIDENCE, AND THE ONLY
EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE WAS THE PHENOLPHTALEIN --
      THE COURT:  SO ISN'T IT POSSIBLE THAT IF BLOOD WAS
BEING WASHED DOWN THE SINK, THAT IT WOULD -- MORE OF IT
WOULD BE IN THE TRAP THAN ON THE RIM OF THE SINK?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  I'M NOT A PLUMBING EXPERT, YOUR HONOR,
SO I CAN'T ANSWER THAT ONE.  I WAS INFORMED BY SOMEONE WHO
APPARENTLY KNOWS MORE PLUMBING THAN I THAT YOU DON'T MAKE
DRAIN PIPES OUT OF COPPER.  I DON'T KNOW THAT TO BE TRUE,
BUT THAT'S WHAT SOMEONE TOLD ME.
            GETTING BACK TO THE LUMINAL QUESTION THAT THE
COURT ASKED, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE CALIFORNIA CASES THE
COURT HAS CITED.  I'M FAMILIAR WITH SOME OUT-OF-STATE CASES
THAT DEAL WITH THAT.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  BUT CAN I JUST MAKE ONE MORE POINT
ABOUT LUMINAL?
      THE COURT:  SURE.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  LUMINAL ISN'T THE SPECIFIC -- IS
NEARLY AS SPECIFIC AS PHENOLPHTALEIN, AND THERE IS
LITERATURE TO DOCUMENT THAT FACT.

             AND THE POINT THAT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE
YESTERDAY WHEN I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE TWO-STAGE PROCESS IS
THAT YOU DID NOT ALWAYS HAVE TWO STAGES ON THE
PHENOLPHTALEIN TEST.  WHEN IT WAS FIRST INVENTED IN 1909,
I BELIEVE THAT THEY JUST APPLIED THE PHENOLPHTALEIN
SOLUTION IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.  THEY NOW ADD THE HYDROGEN
PEROXIDE, AND EVIDENTLY THAT IS SUPPOSED TO DEAL WITH AND
NEGATE SOME OF THE PROBLEMS THAT YOU'D OTHERWISE HAVE WITH
THE VEGETABLE PEROXIDASE.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  AND THAT DISTINGUISHES IT FROM
LUMINAL.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
      MR. NEUFELD:  MAY I, FEW SECONDS, YOUR HONOR?
      THE COURT:  NO.  PROPONENT, PROPONENT, PROPONENT.
            ALL RIGHT.
            COUNSEL, AS TO THE -- I'M GOING TO DIRECT THE
PROSECUTION TO COVER UP THE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS ON THE EXHIBIT.
            ALL RIGHT.
            THE TWO ITEMS THAT WERE MISSING -- EXCUSE ME --
THAT WERE AGREED NOT TO BE INTRODUCED IS THE AIRLINE TICKET
AND WHAT, A BAGGAGE TAG?
      MR. SHAPIRO:  YES, YOUR HONOR.

       MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, MAY WE HAVE A FEW MOMENTS
JUST TO PATCH THAT EXHIBIT?  AS THE COURT KNOWS, I DIDN'T
WANT TO DEAL WITH THAT.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  THANK YOU.

            (BRIEF PAUSE.)

      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, PERHAPS I COULD INQUIRE
WHILE WE ARE WAITING WHETHER THE COURT IS GOING TO ALLOW
THE DEFENSE TO CONTINUE TO ARGUE THAT BLOOD WAS NOT FOUND
IN ANY LOCATIONS EXCEPT THOSE WHERE THERE'S BEEN SOME
SPECIFIC EVIDENCE OF IT SUCH AS ITEM NUMBER 14 AND ITEM
NUMBER 12 INSIDE THE HOUSE.
      THE COURT:  THEY WOULD DO THAT AT THE PERIL OF
OPENING THE DOOR TO ALL THESE OTHER THINGS.
      MR. SCHECK:  YOUR HONOR, YOU JUST SAID -- THE
QUESTION WAS, WE CANNOT ARGUE OR SUGGEST QUESTIONS THAT
THERE'S NO BLOOD IN THE PLACES WHERE THEY DID THE TESTS.
OTHER PLACES WHERE THERE'S PLAINLY NO BLOOD, WE CAN BRING
UP.
      THE COURT:  YOU CAN BRING THAT UP.
      MR. NEUFELD:  FINE.
      THE COURT:  BUT IF YOU CREATE A FALSE IMPRESSION --
      MR. NEUFELD:  WELL --
      THE COURT:  -- THAT THAT WAS NOT TESTED --
      MR. SCHECK:  OH, NO.
      THE COURT:  -- THEN YOU OPEN THE DOOR TO ALL MANNER
OF MISCHIEF.
      MR. SCHECK:  NO, NO, NO.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  SEE, YOUR HONOR, THE PROBLEM IS THAT
-- IS WHAT, THEY'RE INTENDING TO DO AND WHAT THEY'VE
ALREADY DONE IS TO CREATE A FALSE IMPRESSION, BECAUSE WHAT
THEY'RE GOING TO SAY IS THAT THE ONLY PLACES WHERE WE HAVE
EVIDENCE OF BLOOD ARE 14 AND 12.
      THE COURT:  IF THEY ARGUE THAT, THEN YOU GET TO
REOPEN YOUR CASE.  THEY WON'T ARGUE THAT.  WE DON'T CREATE
FALSE IMPRESSIONS.
      MR. NEUFELD:  RIGHT.  BUT CAN -- WE CAN ARGUE THAT,
FOR INSTANCE, THEY DID A PHENOL TEST SOME OTHER PLACE AND
IT WAS NEGATIVE.
      THE COURT:  CORRECT.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WELL, SO THE COURT IS ALLOWING THEM
THAT THE NEGATIVE CAN BE TESTED?
      THE COURT:  COUNSEL, YOUR OWN AUTHORITY SAYS THAT
PHENOL -- THE ABSENCE OF A POSITIVE PHENOL TEST IS
CONCLUSIVE THAT THERE'S NO BLOOD.  THAT'S THE AUTHORITY YOU
CITED TO THE COURT.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  I WAS INQUIRING, YOUR HONOR.
      THE COURT:  THIS IS NOT A QUID PRO QUO.
            LET'S PROCEED.

            (BRIEF PAUSE.)

       MS. CLARK:  YOUR HONOR, HAS MR. UELMEN PRESENTED ANY
JURY INSTRUCTIONS TO THE COURT CONCERNING ITEM 15?  WE HAVE
NOT SEEN IT.
      THE COURT:  HE READ IT TO THE COURT.
            PERFECT.
      MS. CLARK:  YOU KNOW SOMETHING?  I LOOK AT THIS
REQUEST, YOUR HONOR.  WHAT KIND OF HONOR DO WE HAVE ON THAT
SIDE?
      THE COURT:  COUNSEL, WE'VE ALREADY -- COUNSEL, WAIT,
WAIT, WAIT.
      MS. CLARK:  WHEN WE RECESSED YESTERDAY, THEY SAID
THEY DIDN'T CARE, THAT IT WAS NO BIG DEAL.
      THE COURT:  WAIT, WAIT.
      MS. CLARK:  THIS IS A LUGGAGE TICKET, YOUR HONOR,
THAT HELPS THEIR CASE.
      THE COURT:  WAIT, WAIT.
            MISS CLARK, I'VE ALREADY RULED ON THIS. WE'RE
NOT ARGUING THIS.
      MS. CLARK:  I WAS NOT ALLOWED TO ADDRESS THE PROPOSED
INSTRUCTION.  THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN IT.
      THE COURT:  WELL, EXCUSE ME, COUNSEL, BUT I THOUGHT
WE HAD COMPLETE ARGUMENT ON BOTH SIDES ON THIS ISSUE.  WE
HAVE, TRUST ME.
      MS. CLARK:  WE HAD ARGUMENT, BUT THIS PROPOSED
INSTRUCTION WAS JUST -- IS JUST NOW BEING SHOWN TO ME.  ARE
WE ALLOWED TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE OF WHETHER THE PROPOSED
INSTRUCTION IS CORRECT OR FAIR?
      THE COURT:  COUNSEL, YOU HAD MORE THAN AMPLE
OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS IT.
      MS. CLARK:  HOW'S -- HOW'S THAT, YOUR HONOR? THIS IS
THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN IT.  HOW COULD I ADDRESS SOMETHING
I'VE NEVER SEEN?
      THE COURT:  COUNSEL, DURING THE COURSE OF THE
ARGUMENT, DEAN UELMEN ASKED FOR THIS INSTRUCTION. THEN MISS
LEWIS WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.  HERE WE ARE.
      MS. CLARK:  AND MR. UELMEN THEN WROTE DOWN WHAT HE
PROPOSED THAT THE COURT ACTUALLY GIVE WITH RESPECT TO A
LUGGAGE TAG OF NO PREJUDICIAL VALUE AT ALL.  I MEAN, WE ARE
LOSING PERSPECTIVE HERE AND I'VE NEVER SEEN THE PROPOSED
INSTRUCTION HE JUST WROTE UNTIL THIS MOMENT.  WE HAVE NOT
HAD A CHANCE TO ADDRESS IT.
      THE COURT:  COUNSEL, YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO
ADDRESS IT.  WOULD YOU RETURN IT TO THE COURT, PLEASE.
            THANK YOU.
            LET'S HAVE THE JURY.



              (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
             HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE
             PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.  BE SEATED.
            GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
      THE JURY:  GOOD MORNING.
      THE COURT:  GLAD TO SEE SOME OF YOU ARE STILL
SMILING.
            MY APOLOGIES TO YOU FOR HAVING KEPT YOU IN THE
SMALL JURY ROOM FOR SUCH A LONG TIME, AND I WANT TO ADVISE
YOU THAT I'M GOING TO CHANGE OUR PROCEDURE IN DEALING WITH
SO MANY OF THESE PRETRIAL MATTERS THAT I HAVE TO TAKE UP
BEFORE WE INVITE YOU TO JOIN US.  I'M GOING TO SCHEDULE ALL
FURTHER HEARINGS ON THESE TYPE OF MATTERS AT 4:30 AT THE
CONCLUSION OF THE COURT DAY SO THAT WE'LL GET MORE TIME IN
FRONT OF YOU AS FAR AS THE JURY IS CONCERNED.
            YESTERDAY, SOMETHING OCCURRED AT THE CONCLUSION
OF THE COURT DAY THAT I NEED TO INSTRUCT YOU REGARDING.
            THE LAWS GOVERNING CRIMINAL PROCEDURE HERE IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA REQUIRE THE EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE
THAT WAS UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED BY THE POLICE.  THESE LAWS
EXIST TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF  ALL CITIZENS BY DETERRING
UNLAWFUL POLICE CONDUCT.
            PRIOR TO THE TRIAL OF THIS CASE, THE
PROSECUTION AGREED THAT SOME ITEMS OF EVIDENCE,
SPECIFICALLY THE AIRLINE TICKET AND BAGGAGE TAG, WOULD NOT
BE OFFERED INTO EVIDENCE AT TRIAL.  DURING THE TESTIMONY OF
MR. FUNG YESTERDAY, THIS AGREEMENT WAS VIOLATED.
            YOU SHALL THEREFORE DISREGARD THE TESTIMONY OF
MR. FUNG REGARDING THE AIRLINE TICKET AND BAGGAGE TAG.  YOU
MUST TREAT IT AS THOUGH YOU HAD NEVER HEARD IT.
            ALL RIGHT.
            LET'S HAVE MR. FUNG.

                     DENNIS FUNG,

THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE EVENING
ADJOURNMENT, RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS
FOLLOWS:
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            MR. FUNG, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND,
PLEASE.
            GOOD MORNING AGAIN, MR. FUNG.
      THE WITNESS:  GOOD MORNING.
      THE COURT:  MR. FUNG, YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL
UNDER OATH.
            MR. GOLDBERG, YOU MAY CONTINUE WITH YOUR DIRECT
EXAMINATION.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  THANK YOU.

                DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED)
BY MR. GOLDBERG:
      Q     GOOD MORNING.
            BEFORE WE GET INTO THE ISSUE OF THE EVIDENCE
PROCESSING ONCE YOU GOT BACK TO THE LAB, I WANTED TO
CLARIFY A FEW THINGS THAT OCCURRED EARLIER ON THE DAY OF
THE 13TH.
            CAN YOU TELL US, MR. FUNG, WHAT TIME IT WAS
THAT YOU LEFT ROCKINGHAM FOR BUNDY ON THE 13TH?
      A     I LEFT ROCKINGHAM FOR BUNDY AT APPROXIMATELY
10:00 O'CLOCK.
      Q     AND WHEN DID YOU ARRIVE AT BUNDY?
      A     I ARRIVED AT BUNDY AT 10:15 IN THE MORNING.
      Q     OKAY.
            NOW, WHEN YOU RETURNED TO ROCKINGHAM IN THE
AFTERNOON, DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO SEE STAIN NO. 8 AGAIN
THAT AFTERNOON, THE SAME ONE THAT YOU HAD SEEN EARLIER IN
THE MORNING?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND WAS THERE ANYTHING DIFFERENT ABOUT THE
STAIN WHEN YOU SAW IT IN THE AFTERNOON THAN WHEN YOU HAD
SEEN IT BEFORE?


       A     YES.  IN THE MORNING, THE STAIN WAS A REDDISH
COLOR, AND WHEN I RETURNED IN THE AFTERNOON, IT WAS A DARK
BROWN COLOR.
      Q     AND WHAT'S -- IS THERE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN
RED AND BROWN IN TERMS OF THE AGE OF THE STAIN IN YOUR
MIND?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN IT STARTS AGING A LITTLE
BIT?
      A     WHEN A STAIN AGES, IT STARTS TO DEGRADE.
      Q     OKAY.
            SO IT HAD TURNED BROWN BY THE TIME YOU HAD
RETURNED?
      A     YES.
      Q     NOW, REGARDING THE STAINS THAT WERE COLLECTED
AT ROCKINGHAM IN THE MORNING OF THE 13TH, WERE THERE ANY OF
THOSE STAINS WHICH YOU DID NOT PERSONALLY SEE BEING
COLLECTED?
      A     WANT ME TO REFER TO MY NOTES?
      Q     YES.
      A     I DID NOT PERSONALLY SEE STAINS 7 AND 8
COLLECTED.
      Q     HAD YOU SEEN THEM THOUGH PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT
THEY WERE COLLECTED DURING THE DOCUMENTATION PHASE?
      A     YES.


       Q     ALL RIGHT.
            AND AT BUNDY, WERE THERE ANY STAINS THERE THAT
YOU PERSONALLY DID NOT SEE COLLECTED?
      A     YES.
      Q     WHAT STAIN OR STAINS?
      A     BE STAIN -- ITEM NO. 52 WITH THE PHOTO ID
NUMBER 117.
      Q     WAS 52 THE STAIN THAT WAS AT THE END OF WHAT
YOU REFERRED TO AS BEING THE TRAIL?
      A     YES.
      Q     OKAY?
      MR. SCHECK:  YOUR HONOR, EXCUSE ME.  THE WITNESS
SEEMS TO BE REFRESHING HIS RECOLLECTION FROM NOTES.  CAN I
INSPECT WHICH NOTES?
      THE COURT:  YOU MAY.

            (DISCUSSION BETWEEN MR. SCHECK
            AND THE WITNESS.)

      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            COUNSEL, THE REQUEST WAS TO SEE WHAT HE'S
REFERRING TO.  NOT TO HAVE A PRIVATE CONFERENCE.
            PROCEED.
      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  SIR, WHAT DOCUMENT WERE YOU
REFERRING TO IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE ANSWERS WITH RESPECT
TO THE STAINS THAT YOU DID NOT PERSONALLY WITNESS BEING
COLLECTED?

       A     I REFERRED TO A CRIME SCENE CHECKLIST AND I
ALSO HAVE SOME OTHER NOTES THAT I HAVE CREATED FOR EASIER
TESTIMONY IN MY NOTEBOOK.
      Q     OKAY.
            AND WHEN YOU WERE TESTIFYING ABOUT STAIN 52 AT
BUNDY, I CAN'T RECALL WHETHER -- YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY
TESTIFIED TO THIS, BUT DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN DOCUMENTING
AND MEASURING WHERE THAT WAS?
      A     YES, I DID.
      Q     OKAY.
            WITH RESPECT TO THE STAINS THAT WERE COLLECTED
AT BUNDY ON JULY THE 3RD OF 1994, WHEN WERE THOSE BOOKED
INTO EVIDENCE AT LAPD?  DO YOU HAVE TO REFER TO SOMETHING
TO GIVE US THE DATE?
      A     REFERRING TO MY PROPERTY REPORT.
      Q     TELL US THE DATE OF THE PROPERTY REPORT YOU'RE
LOOKING AT IN ORDER TO GIVE US THIS INFORMATION.
      A     THE DATE OF THE PROPERTY REPORT IS JULY 5TH,
1994 AND THE ITEMS WERE BOOKED INTO THE EVIDENCE CONTROL
UNIT OF SID AT JULY 5TH, 1994.
      Q     OKAY.
            AND WHEN YOU BOOK SOMETHING INTO THE EVIDENCE
CONTROL UNIT, IS IT SEALED PRIOR TO THAT TIME?
      A     YES, IT IS.


       Q     AND REGARDING ITEM NO. 9, THE GLOVE THAT YOU
DISCUSSED YESTERDAY IN YOUR TESTIMONY, DID YOU SEE ANY
STAINS ON THE PAPER BAG INTO WHICH IT WAS PLACED?
      A     NO.
      Q     OKAY.
            DID YOU SEE ANY WET BLOOD IN THE AREA -- EXCUSE
ME.  DID YOU SEE ANY WET OR DRY BLOOD IN THE AREA WHERE
THAT GLOVE WAS FOUND?
      A     I DID NOT OBSERVE ANY.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE
TO PUT UP THE ROCKINGHAM DIAGRAM JUST BRIEFLY.
      THE COURT:  CERTAINLY.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  THAT WOULD BE PEOPLE'S 169.

       (PEO'S 169 FOR ID = DIAGRAM/ROCKINGHAM)

      THE COURT:  IT'S A GOOD THING THERE'S NO WIND IN THIS
PLACE.
      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  MR. FUNG, I AM DIRECTING YOUR
ATTENTION TO WHAT'S BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 169 AND IS
ENTITLED "ROCKINGHAM INTERIOR BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE."
            DID YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THIS
EXHIBIT PRIOR TO THE TIME IT WAS BROUGHT DOWN TO COURT?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            AND DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE CALL OUT
NUMBER THAT SAYS 14, WHAT DOES THAT SHOW?  WHAT AREA OF THE
RESIDENCE DOES THAT SHOW?
      A     THAT IS IN THE MASTER BATH -- BATHROOM.
      Q     SO THAT WOULD BE DEPICTING THE UPSTAIRS OF THE
HOUSE?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND WHAT DO THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT ARE ATTACHED
TO ITEM 14 SHOW?
      A     THE PHOTOGRAPH ON THE RIGHT DEPICTS CRIMINALIST
MAZZOLA DISPLAYING THE RESULTS OF A PHENOLPHTALEIN TEST AND
THE PHOTOGRAPH ON THE LEFT IS A CLOSE-UP AND YOU CAN SEE
THE STAIN HERE (INDICATING).
      Q     OKAY.
            YOU'RE POINTING TO AN AREA THAT'S JUST TO THE
RIGHT ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH ABOUT AN INCH AND A HALF OR SO
FROM THE CARD?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND IS THE OTHER PHOTOGRAPH TO THE LEFT SIMPLY
A PERSPECTIVE SHOT DEMONSTRATING THE SAME GENERAL THING?
      A     YES.
      Q     NOW, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE ITEM CALL
OUT NO. 13, WHAT GENERAL AREA IS BEING POINTED TO THERE
WITH THAT CALL OUT LINE?
      A     THAT IS THE MASTER BEDROOM.
      Q     WHAT ABOUT THE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS THAT ARE
ATTACHED TO THAT CALL OUT LINE?  WHAT DO THOSE SHOW?
      A     THOSE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS SHOW A PAIR OF DARK
COLORED SOCKS ON THE THROW RUG.
      Q     THOSE ARE THE SOCKS THAT YOU RECOVERED AND
LISTED AS ITEM 13?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND NOW TO FINALLY DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE
CALL OUT LINE THAT SAYS 12, WHAT GENERAL AREA OF THE HOUSE
IS THAT POINTING TO?
      A     THAT IS -- WELL, THOSE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS DEPICT
THE FOYER OF THE HOUSE, WHICH IS THE ENTRANCE, AND THERE
ARE THREE LARGE STAINS ON THE FLOOR.  THAT IS A -- A
CLOSE-UP OF THAT IS SHOWN IN THE RIGHT PICTURE.
      Q     OKAY.
            SO THE RIGHT PICTURE IS SIMPLY -- OR THE LEFT
PICTURE RATHER IS SIMPLY A PERSPECTIVE SHOT SHOWING THE
SAME GENERAL ITEM AS THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT?
      A     YES.
      Q     THANK YOU.
            NOW, WE HAD LEFT OFF YESTERDAY WITH YOU GOING
BACK TO THE LABORATORY, AND I BELIEVE YOU TESTIFIED THAT
YOU ARRIVED AT APPROXIMATELY 6:30; IS THAT CORRECT?
      A     YES.

       Q     ALL RIGHT.
            NOW, WHEN YOU WENT BACK TO THE LABORATORY, WERE
YOU STILL -- WERE YOU STILL WEARING THE SAME GLOVES THAT
YOU HAD -- THAT YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN WEARING AT THE TIME
THAT YOU LEFT ROCKINGHAM IN THE AFTERNOON?
      A     NO.
      Q     WHAT PROCESS DO YOU GO THROUGH IN THE
LABORATORY WHEN YOU'RE RETURNING TO THE LAB WITH BIOLOGICAL
EVIDENCE?
      A     WITH BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE, THERE'S A DRYING
PROCESS THAT THAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE IS SUBJECTED TO.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE
TO MARK AS PEOPLE'S 170 FOR IDENTIFICATION ANOTHER BOARD,
AND I BELIEVE IT'S ENTITLED "EVIDENCE DRYING
DEMONSTRATION."
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  PEOPLE'S 170.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YEAH.

          (PEO'S 170 FOR ID = POSTERBOARD)

      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  SIR, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION
TO THE BOARD THAT WE'VE LABELED 170 -- PERHAPS WE COULD SEE
THE FIRST PHOTOGRAPH ON THAT IN CELL 1.
            SIR, WHAT DOES THAT SHOW?

       A     THE PHOTOGRAPH, FIRST PHOTOGRAPH DEPICTS THE
DOOR TO THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM.
      Q     OKAY.
            AND IS THAT -- THAT'S AN INTERIOR DOOR?
      A     YES, IT IS.
      Q     AND EPR STANDS FOR EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM?
      A     YES.
      Q     IS THERE ANY OTHER DOOR THAT YOU CAN TAKE INTO
THAT PARTICULAR ROOM?
      A     YES, THERE IS.
      Q     WHICH DOOR IS THAT?
      A     THAT IS THE ROLLING DOOR THAT FACES TOWARDS THE
OUTSIDE OF THE FACILITY.
      Q     AND IN ORDER TO GET THE ROLLING DOOR UP, DO YOU
HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS DOOR?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND INDICATING THE DOOR THAT'S DEPICTED IN CELL
NO. 1?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            IF YOU LOOK AT THIS PICTURE IN CELL NO. 1 TO
THE RIGHT OF THE DOOR, THERE APPEARS TO BE SOME SORT OF A
PLASTIC OR GLASS LIKE OBJECT.  WHAT IS THAT?
      A     THAT IS A MARKER TO LET PEOPLE KNOW WHERE THE
MOST SENSITIVE PART OF THE SENSOR FOR THE KEY OF THIS ENTRY
IS.
      Q     SO IS THIS LIKE A CARD KEY TYPE ENTRY SYSTEM?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            WAS ANDREA MAZZOLA STILL WITH YOU DURING THE
DRYING PROCESS THAT OCCURRED ON THE 13TH?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            NOW, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPH IN
CELL 2.
            WHAT DOES THAT PHOTOGRAPH DEPICT, MR. FUNG?
      A     THE PHOTOGRAPH DEPICTS THE TRANSFERRING OF A
CLOTH SWATCH IN A PLASTIC BAGGIE TO A LABELED TEST TUBE.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE
TO MARK A TEST TUBE AS PEOPLE'S 163-G.
      THE COURT:  163-G.
      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  SIR, I'M SHOWING YOU WHAT
WE'VE JUST MARKED AS 163-G.  WHAT IS THAT ITEM?
      A     THIS IS A DISPOSABLE TEST TUBE.
      Q     AND I'M GOING TO TAKE AN ITEM THAT WE'VE
PREVIOUSLY MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 163-E FOR IDENTIFICATION.
IT'S ONE OF THE PLASTIC BAGS CONTAINED IN THAT COIN
ENVELOPE.
            YOU TESTIFIED THAT THIS WAS THE TYPE OF PLASTIC
BAGGIE THAT YOU USED WHEN YOU WERE AT THE CRIME SCENE?
      A     YES.
      Q     CAN YOU JUST SHOW US HOW IT IS THAT YOU'RE
MANIPULATING THE EVIDENCE AS IS DEPICTED IN CELL 2 BY USING
THE TEST TUBE AND THE PLASTIC BAGGIE?
      A     YES.
            WELL, FIRST, I WOULD HAVE GLOVES ON AS IS
DEPICTED IN THE PICTURE.  THE CLOTH SWATCH WOULD BE WITHIN
THE BAG.  I WOULD PLACE THE TEST TUBE IN THE PLASTIC BAG
AND MANIPULATE IT INTO THE TEST TUBE.
      Q     OKAY.
            SO YOUR HANDS NEVER COME INTO CONTACT WITH THE
SWATCH ITSELF?
      A     THAT'S CORRECT.
      Q     IS THAT THE PROCEDURE THAT YOU USED ON THE 13TH
IN TERMS OF DRAWING?
      A     YES, IT IS.
      Q     AND WHO DID ALL OF THOSE MANIPULATIONS? WAS
THAT YOU OR WAS THAT ANDREA MAZZOLA OR A COMBINATION?
      A     MISS MAZZOLA LABELED THE TEST TUBES AND I DID
THE ACTUAL MANIPULATION OF THE CLOTH SWATCHES INTO THE TEST
TUBES.
      Q     AND SO ALL THE MANIPULATIONS YOU DID?
      A     YES.
      Q     NOW, WHEN YOU SAY LABEL THE TEST TUBES, WHAT
KIND OF LABEL IS PUT ON THERE?
      A     THE SAME NUMBER THAT IS PLACED ON THE COIN
ENVELOPES ARE PLACED ONTO THE TEST TUBES.
      Q     HOW MANY COIN ENVELOPES DO YOU WORK ON AT A
TIME WHEN YOU'RE DOING THIS PROCEDURE?
      A     ONLY WORK ON ONE AT A TIME.
      Q     OKAY.
            AND WHAT HAPPENS TO THE CONTROL THAT'S IN --
THAT CORRESPONDS TO THE STAIN IN A PARTICULAR EVIDENCE --
NOT EVIDENCE, BUT COIN ENVELOPE?
      A     THE CONTROL IS TREATED IN THE SAME MANNER AND
PLACED IN ITS OWN TEST TUBE WITH THE NUMBER AND LETTER
SITTING NEXT TO IT DENOTING THAT IT IS THE CONTROL FOR THAT
ITEM OF EVIDENCE.
      Q     IS IT GENERALLY EASY TO RECOGNIZE THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONTROL AND THE STAIN EVEN WITHOUT
THE REFERENCE TO THIS LETTER C?
      A     YES.
      Q     WHY IS THAT?
      A     GENERALLY, THE CLOTH SWATCHES THAT ARE -- THAT
HAVE THE STAIN ON THEM ARE DARK, RED IN COLOR AND THE
CONTROLS ARE NOT RED.  THEY'RE EITHER WHITE OR VERY CLOSE
TO GRAY OR WHITE.
      Q     NOW, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE CELL THAT'S
NUMBER 3 ON THIS DIAGRAM, PEOPLE'S 170.
            MR. FUNG, WHAT IS PORTRAYED IN THIS CELL?
      A     ONCE BOTH THE CONTROL AND THE ITEM WITH THE
STAINS ON THEM OR THE CLOTH SWATCHES WITH THE STAINS ON
THEM ARE TRANSFERRED TO THE TEST TUBES, BOTH THE CONTROL
AND THE EVIDENCE IS PLACED BACK INTO THE ORIGINAL COIN
ENVELOPES WITH THE OPEN END FACED  OUTWARDS AND PLACED INTO
A BOX TOP.
      Q     I DON'T KNOW HOW GOOD THE RESOLUTION IS ON CELL
3, BUT IF YOU TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THAT, CAN YOU SEE HOW
MANY TEST TUBES ARE IN THE ENVELOPE THAT'S BEING PLACED
DOWN BY THE GLOVE HAND?
      A     YES.
      Q     HOW MANY IS THAT?
      A     THERE ARE TWO.
      Q     OKAY.
            SO ONE WOULD BE FOR THE CONTROL AND ONE WOULD
BE FOR THE STAIN?
      A     YES.
      Q     NOW, IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE -- ONE STAIN
CLOTH SWATCH IN A CASE WHERE YOU APPLY SEVERAL IN ORDER TO
COLLECT THE STAIN, WHERE DO ALL THOSE GO?
      A     ALL THOSE GO WITHIN ONE TEST TUBE.
      Q     SO YOU HAVE ONE TEST TUBE THAT HAS ALL OF THE
STAINED SWATCHES?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND ONE TEST TUBE THAT HAS THE CONTROL OR
CONTROLS?
      A     YES.
      Q     WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS BOX THAT THE ITEM
IS BEING PLACED INTO?
      A     THE -- THE BOX IS USED FOR STORAGE OF OR A
TRANSITORY STORAGE STAGE TO MOVE FROM THE TABLE TO THE
DRYING CABINET.
      Q     OKAY.
            NOW, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT CELL NO. 4 ON
PEOPLE'S 170.
            WHAT DOES THAT SHOW, MR. FUNG?
      A     THAT DEPICTS ME PLACING THE BOX WITH THE ITEMS
OF EVIDENCE INTO THE DRYING CABINET.
      Q     OKAY.
            AND ON THE 13TH, DID YOU USE THIS SAME
PROCEDURE THAT YOU JUST OUTLINED WITH US USING THIS
DEMONSTRATION EXHIBIT?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            THANK YOU.
            WE CAN TAKE THE BOARD DOWN.
            NOW, AFTER THESE ITEMS ARE PLACED IN THE
STORAGE CABINET FOR DRYING, WHAT DID YOU DO?
      A     THAT NIGHT, AFTER THE SAMPLES WERE PREPARED FOR
DRYING, I WENT BACK TO NORTHEAST STATION WHERE MY CAR WAS.
      Q     DID SOMEONE HAVE TO DRIVE YOU THERE?
      A     YES.
      Q     WHO WAS THAT?
      A     THAT WAS CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA.
      Q     DO YOU KNOW APPROXIMATELY HOW LONG THIS DRYING
PROCESS OCCURRED BEFORE MISS MAZZOLA DROVE YOU BACK TO
NORTHEAST STATION?
      A     NOT MORE THAN 10, 10 MINUTES.

       Q     NOW, SIR, ON JUNE THE 14TH OF 1994 AT
APPROXIMATELY 8:30 IN THE MORNING, DID YOU RECEIVE ANOTHER
PIECE OF EVIDENCE FROM SOMEONE?
      A     YES, I DID.
      Q     AND WHO WAS THAT?  IF YOU HAVE TO REFER TO
SOMETHING, TELL US WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT.
      A     I'M REFERRING TO MY PROPERTY REPORTS, AND THE
PROPERTY REPORT IS DATED JUNE 15TH, 1994.
      Q     OKAY.
            WHAT WAS IT THAT YOU RECEIVED AT 8:30 ON THE
14TH?
      A     I RECEIVED A PAIR OF WHITE ATHLETIC SHOES.
      Q     FROM WHOM WAS THAT?
      A     THAT WAS FROM DETECTIVE LANGE.
      Q     OKAY.
            NOW, THAT MORNING, DID YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH
ANY PROCEDURE WITH RESPECT TO THE SWATCHES AND CONTROLS
THAT HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE DRYING CABINET?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND WHAT PROCEDURE DID YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH?
      A     I HAD TO PREPARE THE SAMPLES OF THE CLOTH
SWATCHES THAT I HAD DRIED OVERNIGHT FOR FINAL BOOKING.


       MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME, I WOULD
LIKE TO MARK ANOTHER DEMONSTRATION BOARD.  IT WILL BE
PEOPLE'S 171 AND IT'S A BOARD ENTITLED "EVIDENCE PACKAGING
DEMONSTRATION."
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  PEOPLE'S 171

          (PEO'S 171 FOR ID = POSTERBOARD)

      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  NOW, SIR, WHEN YOU WENT
THROUGH THIS EVIDENCE PACKAGING PROCEDURE, DID YOU DO THIS
ALONE OR DID MISS MAZZOLA ALSO ASSIST YOU WITH THIS ON THE
13TH -- ON THE 14TH RATHER?
      A     MISS MAZZOLA MAY HAVE BEEN PRESENT, BUT I'M NOT
ABSOLUTELY SURE.
      Q     OKAY.
            AND DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION NOW TO THE BOARD
THAT'S BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 171, DOES THIS DEPICT MOST
OF THE MAJOR STEPS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN PACKAGING EVIDENCE
UP ONCE IT'S BEEN DRIED?
      A     YES, IT DOES.
      Q     OKAY.
            CAN WE LOOK AT CELL NO. 1 ON THIS PHOTOGRAPH?
            SIR, CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR US WHAT'S DEPICTED IN
CELL NO. 1?



       A     YES.
            USING A DISPOSABLE PIPETTE, I MANIPULATED THE
CLOTH SWATCHES SO THAT THEY WILL FALL FROM THE TEST TUBE
ONTO A CLEAN SHEET OF PAPER.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME, I HAVE
ANOTHER ITEM I WOULD LIKE TO MARK AS PEOPLE'S 163-F FOR
IDENTIFICATION, AND IT'S SOME WHAT APPEAR TO BE GLASS
PIPETTES.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            163-F.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  UNFORTUNATELY, THEY'RE BOTH TAPED
TOGETHER WITH THE EVIDENCE TAGS.  IS IT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO
BREAK THE TAG SO WE CAN --
      THE COURT:  YES.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  THANK YOU.
      THE COURT:  JUST AS LONG AS YOU DESCRIBE FOR THE
RECORD HOW MANY ARE THERE AND --
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WELL, THERE'S TWO OF THEM AND THEY'RE
TAPED TOGETHER WITH AN EVIDENCE TAG.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  WHY DON'T YOU LEAVE THE
EVIDENCE TAG ON THE SINGLE --
      MR. GOLDBERG:  I DID.
      THE COURT:  THANK YOU.
      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  SIR, I'M SHOWING YOU WHAT
WE'VE JUST MARKED AS 163-F FOR IDENTIFICATION. WHAT IS
THAT?
      A     THAT'S A DISPOSABLE GLASS PIPETTE.

       Q     OKAY.
            I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU BACK THE LITTLE TEST TUBE
THAT WE WERE WORKING WITH THAT'S 163-G FOR IDENTIFICATION.
AND CAN YOU JUST SHOW US AS IF THERE HAD BEEN A SWATCH IN
THERE WHAT MANIPULATION IS SHOWN HERE IN THE PHOTOGRAPH
THAT YOU'RE DOING?
      A     SOMETIMES WHEN THE SWATCH WITH THE STAIN ON IT
DRIES, IT DRIES TO THE SIDE OF THE TEST TUBE AND IT STICKS
THERE.  SO I'LL TAKE THE PIPETTE, WORK THE SWATCH FREE AND
THEN TURN IT OVER ONTO THE PAPER SO THE SWATCH WILL FALL
ONTO THE PIECE OF PAPER.
      Q     AND WHAT DO YOU CALL THE PIECE OF PAPER THAT
YOU'RE PUTTING THE SWATCHES ON AS DEPICTED IN CELL 1?
      A     ONCE I FOLD IT UP, IT'S CALLED A BINDLE.
      Q     SO DO YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO USE A GLASS PIPETTE IN
ORDER TO DO THIS MANIPULATION OR IS IT JUST NECESSARY SOME
OF THE TIME?
      A     JUST SOME OF THE TIME.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE THE GLASS PIPETTE,
HOW WOULD YOU DO IT?
      A     I WOULD TURN THE TEST TUBE UPSIDE DOWN ONTO THE
PAPER AND SOMETIMES IT JUST FALLS RIGHT OUT.
      Q     AND THEN YOU FOLD UP THE SPINDLE IN THE WAY
THAT YOU DESCRIBE?
      A     YES.

       Q     NOW, IF WE COULD SEE CELL 2 ON THIS EXHIBIT.
            MR. FUNG, WHAT IS DEPICTED ON CELL 2 OF THE
EXHIBIT?
      A     ON CELL 2, I AM SHOWING AWAY BOTH THE TEST TUBE
THAT CONTAINED THE CLOTH SWATCH AND THE PIPETTE THAT I USED
TO REMOVE OR MANIPULATE THE SWATCHES WITHIN THE TEST TUBE.
      Q     SO WHEN YOU'RE SAYING YOU THROW IT AWAY, DO YOU
USE ONE PIPETTE FOR EACH SAMPLE ON THOSE INSTANCES WHERE
YOU HAVE TO USE THE PIPETTE AND THEN THROW IT AWAY OR IS IT
THE SAME PIPETTE YOU USE THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE --
      A     IT'S A DIFFERENT PIPETTE FOR EACH SAMPLE AND
CONTROL.
      Q     AND ALL THOSE PIPETTES ARE JUST THROWN OUT?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND THE TEST TUBES?
      A     YES.
      Q     OKAY.
            NOW IF WE COULD SEE CELL 3.
            SIR, WHAT DOES CELL 3 DEPICT?
      A     CELL 3 DEPICTS ME FOLDING THE PAPER UP SO THAT
THE SWATCHES ARE SECURE WITHIN THAT PIECE OF PAPER.


       Q     SO WOULD THAT PIECE OF PAPER BE THE SAME ONE
THAT YOU HAD PLACED THE SWATCHES INTO ORIGINALLY AS
DEPICTED ON CELL 1?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND NOW IF WE COULD SEE CELL 4.
            SIR, WHAT DOES CELL 4 DEPICT?
      A     THAT DEPICTS TO ME LABELING THE PAPER BINDLE.
      Q     AND WHAT DO YOU LABEL IT WITH USUALLY?
      A     USUALLY I WILL PLACE MY INITIALS ON IT AND THE
ITEM NUMBER OR PHOTO ID NUMBER, WHICHEVER I HAVE AT THAT
TIME.
      Q     DO YOU DO SOMETHING TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE
STAIN AND CONTROL?
      A     YES, I DO.
      Q     SO IF THIS IS A SINGLE ITEM THAT WE'RE LOOKING
AT IN THIS DEMONSTRATION, DO YOU PUT -- YOU PUT THE STAINS
IN ONE BINDLE, AND THEN WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THE CONTROLS?
      A     WITH THE CONTROLS, I WILL REPEAT THE SAME
PROCEDURES STARTING FROM NUMBER 1 AND REPEAT THE SAME
PROCEDURES ONLY I WILL LABEL THE PAPER BINDLE WITH A C.
      Q     SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE GOING THROUGH ALL THE
STEPS WITH THE STAIN AND THEN YOU'RE GOING THROUGH ALL THE
STEPS AGAIN WITH THE CONTROL?
      A     YES.

       Q     ALL RIGHT.
            NOW, IF WE COULD SEE CELL 5.
            WHAT IS DEPICTED IN CELL 5?
      A     CELL 5 SHOWS ME PLACING BOTH THE BINDLES IN A
COIN ENVELOPE AND PLACING TAPE OVER THE FLAP SO THAT THE
ITEM IS SECURE.
      Q     AND IS -- WHAT COIN ENVELOPE IS THIS?  IS THIS
A NEW COIN ENVELOPE?
      A     GENERALLY IT'S THE SAME COIN ENVELOPE USED TO
PLACE -- USED -- USED FROM THE VERY START WHEN THE PLASTIC
BAGS WERE PLACED IN THE --
      Q     SO IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S THE SAME COIN ENVELOPE
THAT YOU USED AT THE SCENE AND THEN IN THE DRYING PROCESS
AND THEN AGAIN IN THE EVIDENCE PACKAGING PROCESS?
      MR. SCHECK:  OBJECTION.  LEADING.
      THE COURT:  OVERRULED.
      THE WITNESS:  YES.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  THANK YOU, MR. FUNG.  YOU MAY RESUME
THE STAND.
      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  AND IS WHAT WE JUST WENT
THROUGH THE DRYING PROCESS THAT WAS USED IN THIS CASE FOR
THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT WERE COLLECTED ON THE 13TH AND
THEN ALSO ON THE 3RD OF JULY?
      A     YES.



       Q     ALL RIGHT.
            NOW, LATER THAT MORNING, THE MORNING OF THE
14TH, DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH OTHER -- ANY OTHER
LABORATORY PERSONNEL REGARDING TESTS TO BE PERFORMED ON THE
EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAD COLLECTED AT ROCKINGHAM AND BUNDY?
      A     YES.
      Q     WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THAT CONVERSATION?
      A     CRIMINALIST YAMAUCHI AND CRIMINALIST GREG
MATHESON.
      Q     WHO IS GREG MATHESON?
      A     MR. MATHESON IS OR WAS AT THAT TIME THE
SUPERVISOR OF SEROLOGY.  HE IS NOW A CHIEF FORENSIC
CHEMIST.
      Q     AND WHAT ABOUT MR. YAMAUCHI?  WHAT WAS HIS
POSITION IN THE LABORATORY AT THE TIME?
      A     MR. YAMAUCHI IS A CRIMINALIST ASSIGNED TO THE
SEROLOGY UNIT.
      Q     DO YOU RECALL WHERE PHYSICALLY THIS
CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE IN THE LABORATORY OR DID IT TAKE
PLACE IN MORE THAN ONE PLACE?
      A     IT -- I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHERE IT TOOK PLACE.
      Q     OKAY.
            NOW, DURING THIS CONVERSATION, WAS A
DETERMINATION MADE AS TO WHAT ITEMS WERE GOING TO BE TESTED
ON THAT PARTICULAR DAY BY MR. YAMAUCHI?

       A     IT WAS A GROUP CONSENSUS AND WE ALL CAME TO
THE CONCLUSIONS AS TO WHAT ITEMS WOULD BE TESTED.
      Q     AND THE THREE OF YOU WERE THE ONLY PARTICIPANTS
IN THAT DISCUSSION?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            NOW, WHICH ITEMS IF ANY DID -- EXCUSE ME.  LET
ME ASK ANOTHER QUESTION FIRST.
            DID YOU SEE MR. YAMAUCHI SAMPLING SOME ITEMS OF
THE EVIDENCE THAT MORNING?
      A     I REMEMBER HIM SAMPLING EVIDENCE, BUT I DON'T
RECALL ON WHICH DAY IT WAS.
      Q     OKAY.
            AND DID YOU MAKE A NOTATION IN YOUR REPORT AS
TO WHAT ITEMS WERE HANDED OVER TO MR. YAMAUCHI ON THE 13TH
FOR THE PURPOSES -- EXCUSE ME -- ON THE 14TH FOR THE
PURPOSES OF TESTING?
      A     YES, I DID.
      Q     CAN YOU TELL US WHICH PAGE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE
TO REFER TO IN ORDER TO GIVE US THAT INFORMATION?
      A     THERE IS A PAGE -- IT DOESN'T HAVE A DATE OR
ANYTHING ON IT.  WELL, IT DOES HAVE ONE DATE ON IT, 6-14-94
AND THE TOP OF IT IS LABELED "FIELD NOTES."
      Q     OKAY.
            WHAT ITEMS DID YOU GIVE TO MR. YAMAUCHI; AND IF
YOU WILL, CAN YOU GIVE US THE ITEM NUMBERS AS  WELL AS THE
PHOTO NUMBERS?
      A     THE ITEMS I GAVE TO CRIMINALIST YAMAU -- OR THE
ITEMS THAT CRIMINALIST YAMAUCHI SAMPLED THAT DAY WERE ITEM
9, 41, WHICH WAS PHOTO ID NO. 106, ITEM 42, WHICH WAS PHOTO
ID NO. 107, ITEM 47, WHICH WAS PHOTO ID NO. 112, ITEM 48,
WHICH WAS PHOTO ID NO. 113, ITEM 49, PHOTO ID NO. 114, ITEM
50, PHOTO ID NO. 115, THAT'S 115, AND ITEM 52, WHICH WAS
PHOTO ID NO. 117.
      Q     NOW, DO YOU RECALL WHY IT WAS THAT YOU DECIDED
TO GIVE HIM ITEM 41 AND 42?  I THINK THOSE WERE THE
REFERENCE SAMPLES THAT YOU TESTIFIED TO YESTERDAY.
      A     THOSE WERE GIVEN TO HIM TO -- FOR THE TESTING
PROCEDURE BECAUSE WE HAD NOT YET OBTAINED REFERENCE SAMPLES
FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE.
      Q     YOU MEAN FROM THE VICTIMS?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            SO FOR WHAT PURPOSE THEN WOULD YOU BE GIVING
HIM, IF YOU CAN CLARIFY, 41 AND 42?
      A     41 AND 42 WERE GIVEN TO HIM SO THAT HE COULD
IDENTIFY WHAT TYPES THE VICTIMS WERE AND DETERMINE IF ANY
ADDITIONAL BLOODSTAINS FOUND AT THE CRIME SCENE WERE FROM
A THIRD PARTY OR MORE.
      Q     DID YOU SAY THAT WAS BECAUSE YOU DID NOT HAVE
THE SAMPLES FROM THE CORONER YET REPRESENTING RONALD
GOLDMAN AND NICOLE BROWN?
      A     NOT AT THAT TIME.
      Q     OKAY.
            NOW, I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE
YESTERDAY, BUT DID YOU SAY THAT THESE ITEMS WERE TAKEN AS
REFERENCE SAMPLES AT THE TIME THAT THEY WERE COLLECTED?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND WHY IS IT, IF YOU KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO GET
BLOOD EVENTUALLY FROM THE CORONER, WHY WOULD YOU BOTHER
TAKING A REFERENCE SAMPLE AT THE SCENE?
      A     THERE ARE TIMES WHEN THE REFERENCE SAMPLES
OBTAINED FROM THE CORONERS ARE SOMEWHAT DEGRADED AND MANY
TIMES THE BLOOD AT THE SCENE WHICH HAS BEEN ABLE TO DRY
QUICKLY IS A BETTER SAMPLE OR -- YES, A BETTER SAMPLE OF
THE VICTIM'S BLOOD TYPES.
      Q     WELL, WHAT DOES DRYING QUICKLY HAVE TO DO WITH
IT?
      A     WHEN A -- WHEN BLOOD OR FOR ANY MATTER
BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE IS IN A WET STATE, IT WILL DEGRADE
FASTER THAN WHEN IT IS DRY.
      Q     OKAY.
            AND WITH RESPECT TO ITEM 42, THE ITEM THAT WAS
COLLECTED AT THE BASE OF THE FIRST SET OF STAIRS, WHAT WAS
THE CONDITION OF THAT POOL OF BLOOD IN THE AREA WHERE IT
WAS COLLECTED FROM?
      A     THE POOL WAS SOMEWHAT TACKY.  IT WAS SOMEWHAT
WET STILL.  IT WAS NOT COMPLETELY DRY.

       Q     OKAY.
            AT THE TIME THAT IT WAS COLLECTED?
      A     YES.
      Q     NOW, AT APPROXIMATELY 10:30 OR SO IN THE
MORNING OF THE 14TH, DID YOU GO TO SOME OTHER LOCATION FOR
THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTING EVIDENCE?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND WHERE WAS THAT?
      A     THAT WAS AT THE LAPD PRINT SHED.
      Q     AND WHERE IS THE LAPD PRINT SHED LOCATED?
      A     THAT WOULD BE 151 NORTH SAN PEDRO STREET.
      Q     SO IT'S IN DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES?
      A     IT'S ACROSS THE STREET FROM PARKER CENTER.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            WHEN YOU WENT TO THAT LOCATION, DID YOU HAVE TO
GET INTO THE PRINT SHED OR WAS IT ALREADY OPENED?
      A     I UNLOCKED IT.
      Q     HOW DID YOU UNLOCK IT?
      A     I HAD A KEY.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            AND WHAT DID YOU SEE IN THE PRINT SHED WHEN YOU
UNLOCKED IT?
      A     THERE WAS A WHITE BRONCO IN THE PRINT SHED.
      Q     HAD YOU SEEN THAT WHITE BRONCO BEFORE?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND WHERE HAD YOU SEEN IT BEFORE?
      A     I HAD SEEN IT THE DAY BEFORE AT 360 NORTH
ROCKINGHAM.
      Q     WHAT WAS THE LICENSE PLATE OF THAT VEHICLE, MR.
FUNG?
      A     REFERRING TO MY VEHICLE SEARCH CHECKLIST, THAT
WOULD BE 3, C AS IN CHARLES, W AS IN WILLIAM, Z AS IN ZEBRA
788.
      Q     WHEN YOU GOT INTO THE PRINT SHED AND SAW THE
VEHICLE, DID YOU TRY TO GET IN SOMEHOW?
      A     I HAD TO -- OR A DETECTIVE FROM BURGLARY AUTO
DIVISION WAS REQUESTED TO HELP US UNLOCK THE DOOR.
      Q     DID YOU HAVE A KEY TO THE VEHICLE AT THAT TIME?
      A     NO.
      Q     THAT WAS LOCKED WHEN YOU FIRST SAW IT?
      A     YES.
      Q     WAS IT ALSO LOCKED AT THE SCENE WHEN YOU HAD
SEEN IT ON THE 13TH?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            HOW WAS IT THAT THIS DETECTIVE HELPED YOU GET
IN THE VEHICLE?
      A     HE HAD A DEVICE WHICH IS KNOWN AS A SLIM JIM
AND HE WAS ABLE TO UNLOCK THE CAR DOOR.


       Q     ALL RIGHT.
            NOW, WHEN YOU WERE AT THIS LOCATION, DID YOU GO
ALONE OR WAS ANOTHER CRIMINALIST WITH YOU?
      A     CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA WAS WITH ME.
      Q     DID YOU COLLECT SOME STAINS FROM THE BRONCO ON
THIS DATE, THE 14TH?
      A     YES, I DID.
      Q     AND WHEN YOU COLLECTED THOSE, DID YOU DO THAT
PERSONALLY OR DID MISS MAZZOLA ALSO COLLECT SOME STAINS?
      A     I COLLECTED THEM PERSONALLY.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE
TO MARK AS MY NEXT EXHIBIT A BOARD THAT SAYS "BRONCO BOARD"
I BELIEVE AS 172 FOR IDENTIFICATION.
      THE COURT:  172, BRONCO BOARD.

          (PEO'S 172 FOR ID = BRONCO BOARD)

      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  BEFORE WE GET INTO THE BOARD,
I JUST WANTED TO ASK YOU A COUPLE OTHER QUESTIONS.
            WHEN YOU GOT TO THE PRINT SHED, THIS WAS ON THE
14TH?
      A     JUNE 14TH, YES.
      Q     AND WAS THAT THE DAY THAT THE DETECTIVE OPENED
UP THE LOCKED BRONCO WITH THE SLIM JIM?
      A     YES.
      Q     OKAY.
            NOW, HAVE YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT
THE BOARD THAT WE JUST PUT UP, PEOPLE'S 172 FOR
IDENTIFICATION ENTITLED "BRONCO EVIDENCE"?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            AND DOES THIS DEPICT VARIOUS ITEMS OF EVIDENCE
THAT YOU COLLECTED ON THE 14TH?
      A     YES.
      Q     DOES IT ALSO DEPICT SOME ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT
WERE COLLECTED LATER ON BY SOMEONE OTHER THAN YOURSELF?
      A     YES, IT DOES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            PERHAPS WE'LL JUST GO AROUND CLOCKWISE STARTING
WITH THE PHOTO THAT CONTAINS ITEM 34. OKAY.  UNFORTUNATELY,
WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO PUT IT UP THERE.
            BUT DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION, SIR, TO ITEM 34
FOR IDENTIFICATION, I MEAN ITEM 34 WITH THE CARD, WHAT DOES
THAT DEPICT?
      A     THAT DEPICTS A STAIN WHICH WAS NEXT TO THE CAR,
SEE IT RIGHT HERE (INDICATING).
      Q     IS THAT ON THE INSIDE OF THE CAR?
      A     YES, IT IS.  IT'S ON THE DRIVER WALL.


       Q     ALL RIGHT.
            AND DOES THE CALL OUT LINE THAT HAS LINE 34 ON
IT DEPICT THE GENERAL LOCATION OF THAT STAIN?
      A     YES.
      Q     IT WOULD BE ON THE -- ON A PORTION THAT WE
CAN'T SEE ON THE SKETCH?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  I'M NOT SURE THAT ALL THE JURORS CAN
SEE THE BOARD, YOUR HONOR.  PERHAPS WE CAN JUST READJUST IT
A LITTLE BIT.
      THE COURT:  CERTAINLY.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, PERHAPS WE CAN MOVE THIS
IN A FASHION THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE CENTERED WITH THE
COURT'S PERMISSION.
      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  NOW, SIR, DIRECTING YOUR
ATTENTION TO THE CELL THAT HAS THE CALL OUT LINE NO. 23 ON
IT, WHAT IS PORTRAYED IN THAT CALL OUT LINE AND PHOTO?
      A     IN THE PHOTOGRAPH, THERE IS A RED STAIN IN THE
HANDLE WELL.
      Q     OKAY.
            AND DOES THE CALL OUT LINE DEPICT THE GENERAL
VICINITY OF THAT STAIN?
      A     YES.
      Q     NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THESE TWO STAINS, 34 AND
23, HOW DID YOU COLLECT THEM?  WHAT TECHNIQUE DID YOU USE?
      A     THOSE WERE COLLECTED USING THE SAME METHOD
PREVIOUSLY DEMONSTRATED.
      Q     THE CLOTH SWATCH TECHNIQUE?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            NOW, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO WHAT'S BEEN
MARKED HERE WITH THE PHOTOGRAPH 33 AND THE CALL OUT LINE,
WHAT DOES THAT SHOW?
      A     YOU WANT ME TO REFER TO MY NOTES?
            33 DEPICTS THE DRIVER FLOOR CARPET.
      Q     SO IT'S THE CARPET ITSELF?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND WHAT DID YOU DO TO COLLECT THAT?
      A     I CUT IT OUT OF THE VEHICLE.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            WERE THERE STAINS ON THAT THAT WERE APPARENT TO
YOU WHEN YOU LOOKED AT IT ON THE 14TH?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            NOW, MOVING TO THE CALL OUT LINE THAT'S NO. 24
AND THE CORRESPONDING PHOTOGRAPH, WHAT'S DEPICTED THERE?
      A     THIS DEPICTS A STAIN THAT WAS ON THE INSTRUMENT
PANEL AND ITS RELATIVE LOCATION IS DEPICTED BY THE CALL
OUT.
      Q     WHAT TECHNIQUE WAS USED TO COLLECT THAT STAIN?
      A     THE CLOTH SWATCH METHOD WAS USED.
      Q     AND 33, IS THAT ANOTHER PHOTOGRAPH THAT APPEARS
TO DEPICT THE AREA OF THE CARPET?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND NOW MOVING NEXT TO 33 WITH THE CALL OUT
LINE NO. 29, WHAT DOES THAT PHOTOGRAPH AND CALL OUT LINE
DEPICT?
      A     29 WAS A STAIN REMOVED FROM THE 7:00 O'CLOCK
POSITION OF THE STEERING WHEEL.
      Q     WHAT TECHNIQUE WAS USED?
      A     THE CLOTH SWATCH METHOD.
      Q     AND NOW DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE
PHOTOGRAPH DEPICTS BOTH 31 AND 30 IN THE CALL OUT LINES,
WHAT IS SHOWN THERE?
      A     THERE ARE TWO STAINS ON THE CENTER CONSOLE AND
THEY'RE DEPICTED AND SHOWN BY THE CALL OUT LINES.
      Q     NOW, DID YOU REMOVE THE CONSOLE ITSELF FROM THE
VEHICLE OR WAS THAT DONE BY SOMEONE ELSE?
      A     THAT WAS DONE BY SOMEBODY ELSE.
      Q     AND LOOKING AT THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT'S DEPICTED
AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CHART ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE THAT HAS
NUMBERS 304, 305 AND 206 IN IT, DID YOU PUT THOSE NUMBERS
THERE OR DID SOMEONE ELSE DO IT?
      A     SOMEBODY ELSE DID THAT.
      Q     DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE ITEM THAT'S PORTRAYED IN
THAT PHOTOGRAPH?
      A     THE CENTER CONSOLE?
      Q     YES.
      A     YES.
      Q     HOW DO YOU RECOGNIZE IT?
      A     THE SAME GENERAL STAINS ARE PRESENT.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            DOES THAT LOOK THE SAME AS IT DID ON THE 14TH
WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT IT'S BEEN REMOVED FROM THE VEHICLE?
      A     GENERALLY, YES.
      Q     AND ALSO, THE PHOTOGRAPH NEXT TO THAT DEPICTS
293, IS THAT ONE THAT YOU DID OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT
HAPPENED AT A LATER TIME?
      A     THAT HAPPENED AT A LATER TIME.
      Q     OKAY.
            AND FINALLY, THE PHOTOGRAPH NEXT TO IT SHOWING
THE CALL OUT LINE NO. 25.
      A     25 WAS A -- I'LL CHECK MY NOTES AGAIN.
            NO. 25 WAS FIBERS WITH RED STAINS ON THE
CARPET.
      Q     WHAT TECHNIQUE DID YOU USE TO COLLECT THOSE
STAINS?
      A     I CUT THE FIBERS THAT HAD THE STAINS ON THEM
FROM THE CARPET.
      Q     OKAY.
            AND DOES THE CALL OUT LINE THERE DEPICT
GENERALLY THE LOCATION IN THE CARPET, WHERE IT WAS FOUND?
      A     YES.

       MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, PERHAPS WE MIGHT BE ABLE
TO MOVE THIS.  I'M FINISHED WITH IT NOW, BUT JUST SO THE
JURORS CAN SEE SOMEHOW.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            MR. FAIRTLOUGH, YOU WANT TO SHOW 1492, THE
EXHIBIT?

            (BRIEF PAUSE.)

      THE COURT:  ALSO, MR. FAIRTLOUGH, WOULD YOU BRIEFLY
SHOW IT TO OUR AUDIENCE.
            ALL RIGHT.
            WE'LL TAKE OUR RECESS FOR THE LUNCH HOUR.
            LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PLEASE REMEMBER MY
ADMONITIONS TO YOU; DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST
YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T
ALLOW ANYBODY TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE CASE, DO NOT CONDUCT
ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO
YOU.
            SEE YOU BACK HERE AT 1:30.
            MR. FUNG, YOU MAY STEP DOWN.  YOU ARE ORDERED
TO RETURN AT 1:30.
            THANK YOU, SIR.
      THE WITNESS:  THANK YOU.
            (AT 12:05 P.M., THE NOON RECESS
             WAS TAKEN UNTIL 1:30 P.M. OF
             THE SAME DAY.)

      LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 1995
                     1:30 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.
            COUNSEL, ANYTHING WE NEED TO DISCUSS BEFORE WE
INVITE THE JURORS TO REJOIN US?
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  LET'S HAVE THE JURY, PLEASE.

            (BRIEF PAUSE.)

              (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
             HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE
             PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  THANK YOU, LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN.  PLEASE BE SEATED.
            MR. FUNG, WOULD YOU RESUME THE WITNESS STAND,
PLEASE.

                     DENNIS FUNG,

THE WITNESS ON THE STAND AT THE TIME OF THE NOON RECESS,
RESUMED THE STAND AND TESTIFIED FURTHER AS FOLLOWS:
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE HAVE BEEN REJOINED BY
ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL.
            GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
      THE JURY:  GOOD AFTERNOON.
      THE COURT:  ALMOST AN ON-TIME START.
            ALL RIGHT.
            MR. DENNIS FUNG IS STILL ON THE WITNESS STAND
UNDERGOING DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG.
            GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, MR. FUNG.
      THE WITNESS:  GOOD AFTERNOON.
      THE COURT:  YOU ARE REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER
OATH, SIR.

       MR. GOLDBERG, YOU MAY CONTINUE WITH YOUR DIRECT
EXAMINATION.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

             DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED)

BY MR. GOLDBERG:
      Q     SIR, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE SEARCH OF THE
BRONCO WHEN WE LEFT OFF.
            DID YOU RECOVER ANY PHYSICAL ITEMS OF EVIDENCE
IN THE BRONCO, OTHER THAN THE STAINS THAT YOU JUST REFERRED
TO, IN THE WAY OF CLOTHING?
      A     YES.
      Q     WHAT WAS THAT?
      A     I COLLECTED A CAP.
      Q     WHERE WAS THE CAP COLLECTED FROM?
      A     THE CAP WAS RECOVERED FROM THE DRIVER
FLOORBOARD.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE
THE WITNESS TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT PEOPLE'S 164 FOR
IDENTIFICATION.  IT WAS THE BOX.
            MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS?
      THE COURT:  YES, YOU MAY.
      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  SIR, SHOWING YOU 164 FOR
IDENTIFICATION, COULD YOU UNSEAL THIS AND DESCRIBE WHAT YOU
ARE DOING FOR THE RECORD.
      A     CUTTING ALONG THE BOTTOM EDGE OF THE BOX AND
THROUGH THE TAPE.
            WITHIN THE PACKAGE ARE SEVERAL BAGS.  THE FIRST
ONE I'M PULLING UP IS ITEM NO. 27.
      Q     OKAY.
            AND IS THAT THE BAG INTO WHICH YOU PLACED THE
CAP?
      A     YES, IT IS.
      Q     AND YOU ALSO PUT THE DR NUMBER IN OUR CASE ON
THERE?
      A     YES.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  ALL RIGHT.

            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
             ATTORNEYS.)

      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  SIR, PERHAPS YOU COULD UNSEAL
PEOPLE'S 16 -- PERHAPS WE CAN MARK THAT AS 164-C, YOUR
HONOR, JUST SO THE RECORD IS CLEAR.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  164-C WILL BE THE PAPER BAG
MARKED AS ITEM NO. 27.

      (PEO'S 164-C FOR ID = PAPER BAG W/ITEM 27)

        MR. GOLDBERG:  AND COULD WE MARK THE GLOVE 164-A
AND THE BLUE BAG 164-B?
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  MRS. ROBERTSON, DO YOU HAVE
THAT?
      THE CLERK:  YES.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  THANK YOU.

          (PEO'S 164-A FOR ID = GLOVE)

          (PEO'S 164-B FOR ID = BLUE BAG)

      THE WITNESS:  I AM CUTTING ALONG THE SEAL, UNFOLDING
THE BAG, AND WITHIN THE BAG IS A CAP.
      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  IS THAT WHAT YOU COLLECTED?
      A     YES.
      Q     OKAY.
            CAN YOU NOW REPLACE THE ITEM, DESCRIBING WHAT
YOU ARE DOING FOR THE RECORD.
      A     I'M PLACING THE CAP BACK IN THE BAG AND FOLDING
THE BAG UP AND PLACING THE CAP BACK INTO THE BOX.
      Q     NOW, AFTER YOU HAD COLLECTED THE VARIOUS ITEMS
OF EVIDENCE FROM THE BRONCO, WHERE DID YOU GO?
      A     AFTER COLLECTING THE ITEMS OF -- ITEMS FROM THE
BRONCO, I RETURNED TO THE CRIME LAB.
      Q     WITH THE ITEMS THAT YOU HAD COLLECTED?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND WAS THE BRONCO SECURE WHEN YOU LEFT?
      A     THE BRONCO WAS LEFT IN THE PRINT SHED AND THE
PRINT SHED WAS LOCKED.
      Q     OKAY.
            WHEN YOU WENT BACK TO THE CRIME LAB WITH THE
ITEMS, DID YOU GO ABOUT PROCESSING THEM IN TERMS OF THE
DRYING PROCESS THAT YOU PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED IN YOUR
TESTIMONY?
      A     YES.
      Q     NOW, ON THIS PARTICULAR OCCASION DO YOU
REMEMBER WHAT ROLE, IF ANY, ANDREA MAZZOLA PLAYED IN TERMS
OF THE DRYING PROCESS?
      A     SHE REMOVED SOME OF THE SAMPLES FROM THE
PLASTIC BAGS AND PLACED THEM IN THE TEST-TUBES TO DRY.
      Q     USING THE TECHNIQUE THAT YOU HAD DESCRIBED OR
DO YOU RECALL WHETHER SHE WAS USED A DIFFERENT TECHNIQUE?
      A     SHE USED THE SAME TECHNIQUE.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            AND WHAT WAS DONE WITH THE EVIDENCE AFTER IT
HAD BEEN PLACED INTO THE BAGS -- EXCUSE ME -- BEEN PLACED
IN THE TEST-TUBES TO DRY?
      A     AFTER BEING PLACED IN THE TEST-TUBES TO DRY,
THEY WERE PLACED IN THE DRYING CABINET WITHIN THE EVIDENCE
PROCESSING ROOM.


       Q     ALL RIGHT.
            NOW, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE AFTERNOON
OF JUNE THE 14TH, AFTER YOU CAME BACK AND DID THIS
PROCESSING WITH THE BRONCO EVIDENCE, DID YOU REMAIN AT
PIPER TECH?
      A     YES, I DID.
      Q     AND WHAT WERE YOU DOING THERE THAT AFTERNOON?
      A     I CONTINUED TO WRITE MY PROPERTY REPORTS FROM
THE PREVIOUS THREE SCENES THAT I HAD DONE.
      Q     NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE -- EXCUSE ME.
            WITH RESPECT TO THE VIAL OF BLOOD THAT YOU HAD
RECEIVED FROM DETECTIVE VANNATTER, WAS A PROPERTY NUMBER
ASSIGNED TO THAT VIAL OF BLOOD?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND WHO ASSIGNED THAT?  WAS THAT DONE BY YOU?
      A     YES, IT WAS.
      Q     OR BY --
      A     YES, IT WAS.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            AND CAN YOU DESCRIBE FOR US HOW THAT PROCESS
OCCURRED OF ASSIGNING THE NUMBER TO THE VIAL OF BLOOD?
      A     I HAD ITEMS OF EVIDENCE NUMBERED UP THROUGH 16.
I HAD RECEIVED THE VIAL OF BLOOD ON -- AT ROCKINGHAM, THE
AFTERNOON BEFORE, AND I DECIDED TO MAKE THAT ITEM NO. 17.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE
TO MARK AS PEOPLE'S NEXT IN ORDER 173, A XEROX COPY OF
LABORATORY NOTE L-115, AND IT HAS NO. 17, 18 -- EXCUSE ME
-- L-15 WAS THE LABORATORY NOTE AND IT HAS ITEMS 17, 18 AND
19 LISTED.
      MR. SCHECK:  YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE THE ORIGINAL OF
THAT, WHICH I BELIEVE IS IN COURT, MARKED AS WELL.  HE CAN
USE THE COPY, BUT I WOULD LIKE THE ORIGINAL MARKED AS A
SEPARATE ITEM.
      THE COURT:  WELL, HE IS ENTITLED TO RUN HIS OWN CASE.
IF HE WANTS TO USE A XEROX COPY, HE CAN USE A XEROX COPY
FOR THIS PURPOSE.
            IF YOU WANT TO USE THE ORIGINAL FOR THE
CROSS-EXAMINATION, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO DO SO.
            PROCEED.  IT WILL BE MARKED AS 173.

      (PEO'S 173 FOR ID = CC OF LAB NOTE L-15)

      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, MAY I PUT THIS UP ON THE
ELMO?
      THE COURT:  YES.
      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  SIR, WE ARE GOING TO SHOW YOU
WHAT HAS BEEN MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 173 FOR IDENTIFICATION.
            DO YOU RECOGNIZE THIS PAGE?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND WHO WROTE THAT OUT?
      A     THAT WAS WRITTEN BY CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA.
      Q     OKAY.
            AND DID SHE WRITE THAT OUT AT SOMEONE'S
DIRECTION OR DID SHE DO IT ON HER OWN?
      A     (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
      Q     DID YOU TELL HER TO OR DID SHE DO IT ON HER
OWN?
      A     I BELIEVE SHE --
      MR. SCHECK:  OBJECTION.
      THE COURT:  WHAT IS THE OBJECTION?
      MR. SCHECK:  I DON'T THINK HE HAS A PROPER FOUNDATION
YET WITH RESPECT TO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.
      THE COURT:  REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  DID YOU TELL HER TO?
      A     NO.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.  WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME YOU SAW
THIS DOCUMENT?
      A     I SAW IT WHILE I WAS WRITING MY PROPERTY
REPORT.
      Q     OKAY.
            AND WHAT DID YOU DO WHEN YOU SAW THIS DOCUMENT?
      A     I HAD HER TRANSCRIBE THE INFORMATION ON TO AN
EVIDENCE COLLECTION REPORT.
      Q     OKAY.
            THIS WAS JUST WRITTEN ON A BLANK SHEET OF
PAPER?
      A     YES.

       Q     AND DO YOU HAVE STANDARD FORMS THAT ARE USED
IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF THE CRIME LABORATORY'S BUSINESS
FOR THE PURPOSES OF WRITING OUT ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT WERE
OBTAINED DURING A CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            AND IS THE CRIME SCENE IDENTIFICATION CHECKLIST
THAT WE SAW YESTERDAY ONE OF THOSE FORMS?
      A     YES.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, I WOULD NOW LIKE TO MARK
AS PEOPLE'S 174 FOR IDENTIFICATION ANOTHER DOCUMENT.
            I'M GOING TO PUT A "174" IN THE UPPER LEFT-HAND
CORNER.  I CAN'T READ THE "L" NUMBER ON IT, BUT I'M SHOWING
IT TO COUNSEL.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  174.  THIS IS ANOTHER LAB
NOTE?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YEAH, AND IT HAS 18, 17 AND 19 ON IT.

           (PEO'S 174 FOR ID = LAB NOTE)

            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
             ATTORNEYS.)


       Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  OKAY.
            NOW, MR. FUNG, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO 174,
WHAT IS THIS DOCUMENT?
      A     THIS IS THE EVIDENCE COLLECTION REPORT THAT THE
INFORMATION WAS PUT ON OR TRANSCRIBED TO.
      Q     WHEN YOU SAY "THE INFORMATION," ARE YOU TALKING
ABOUT THE INFORMATION FROM THE LAST DOCUMENT WE SAW, 173?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND WHO PUT IT ON THIS FORM?
      A     THAT WAS A COMBINATION OF MYSELF AND
MISS MAZZOLA.
      Q     OKAY.
            AND ON THIS FORM WHAT WAS THE NUMBER THAT WAS
ASSIGNED INITIALLY TO THE BLOOD VIAL THAT HAD BEEN RECEIVED
FROM DETECTIVE VANNATTER?
      A     INITIALLY THE ITEM NUMBER WAS 18.
      Q     AND THAT WAS WHAT MISS MAZZOLA HAD PUT ON THE
OTHER FORM?
      A     YES.
      Q     NOW, WHAT WAS ITEM NO. 17?
      A     ITEM 17 WAS A PAIR OF TENNIS SHOES.
      Q     NOW, WHEN COLLIN YAMAUCHI COLLECTED HIS
EVIDENCE EARLIER IN THE MORNING OF THE 14TH, DO YOU RECALL
WHETHER HE WAS GIVEN A NUMBER AS TO THE -- THE REFERENCE
SAMPLE OF THE DEFENDANT'S BLOOD?
      A     I DON'T RECALL.
      MR. SCHECK:  OBJECTION, VAGUE, COMPOUND.
      THE COURT:  OVERRULED.
      THE WITNESS:  I DON'T RECALL.
      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  ALL RIGHT.
            NOW, AT SOME POINT DID YOU DECIDE TO REASSIGN
NUMBERS TO THESE -- TO THE TUBE?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND WHY DID YOU MAKE THAT DECISION?
      A     I WANTED TO KEEP THE ITEMS IN A CHRONOLOGICAL
ORDER AND REDUCE LESS PAPERWORK FOR MYSELF.
      Q     OKAY.
            NOW, WHY WOULD IT REDUCE LESS -- WHY WOULD IT
REDUCE THE PAPERWORK?
      A     WITH THE -- IF THE BLOOD HAD REMAINED ITEM NO.
18, I WOULD HAVE HAD TO CREATE THREE ADDITIONAL PROPERTY
REPORT FACE SHEETS.
      Q     OKAY.
            NOW, THE PAIR OF SNEAKERS ON THE PREVIOUS
DOCUMENT WE SAW WAS LABELED ITEM 17; IS THAT CORRECT?
      A     YES.
      Q     WHICH DID YOU RECEIVE -- AND THE BLOOD 18?
      A     YES.
      Q     WHICH DID YOU RECEIVE FIRST, THE BLOOD OR THE
PAIR OF SNEAKERS?
      A     I RECEIVED THE PAIR -- I RECEIVED THE BLOOD
VIAL FIRST.

       Q     ALL RIGHT.
            AND DO YOU TRY GENERALLY TO KEEP ITEMS IN
CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER?
      A     GENERALLY, YES.
      Q     IN ORDER TO DO THAT, DID YOU NEED TO REASSIGN
THOSE NUMBERS?
      A     YES.
      Q     NOW, I WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS OTHER
QUESTION THAT YOU SAID ABOUT REDUCING THE PAPERWORK.
            WHAT IS THE TYPE OF PAPERWORK THAT YOU WOULD BE
REDUCING?
      A     PROPERTY REPORT.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, MAY I MARK AS PEOPLE'S 175
FOR IDENTIFICATION A PROPERTY REPORT THAT HAS THE DATE OF
-- WELL, RATHER THAN IDENTIFYING IT BY A DATE, I WILL DO IT
BY NUMBER.
            IT IS NO. 12 THROUGH 17.
            AND I HAVE ANOTHER PROPERTY REPORT WHICH I
WOULD LIKE MARKED AS PEOPLE'S 176 THAT HAS NO. 18 AND 19 ON
IT.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  SO MARKED, 175 AND 176.

          (PEO'S 175 FOR ID = PROPERTY REPORT)
          (PEO'S 176 FOR ID = PROPERTY REPORT)



       Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  OKAY.
            SIR, LOOKING AT THIS DOCUMENT, DO YOU RECOGNIZE
THIS?
      A     YES, I DO.
      Q     AND WHO FILLED THAT OUT?
      A     I FILLED IT OUT.
      Q     AND IS NO. 17 WAY AT THE BOTTOM THE REFERENCE
TO THE VIAL OF BLOOD?
      A     YES.
      Q     OKAY.
            NOW, CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US WITH THIS EXHIBIT
WHY YOU WOULD HAVE HAD TO FILL OUT MORE PAPERWORK IF YOU
HAD KEPT THE BLOOD VIAL AS NO. 18 INSTEAD OF CHANGING IT TO
17?
      A     WHEN WRITING PROPERTY REPORTS WE ARE NOT
ALLOWED TO SKIP ITEM NUMBERS FROM -- FOR INSTANCE, GOING
FROM 16 TO 18.  YOU HAVE TO HAVE EVERYTHING IN SEQUENTIAL
ORDER, SO IF I WANTED TO MAKE THE BLOOD 18, I WOULD HAVE
HAD TO STOP AT ITEM NO. 16, CREATED A NEW PROPERTY REPORT
WITH 17 AND ONLY 17, ON THE NEXT PROPERTY REPORT CREATE
ANOTHER PROPERTY REPORT WITH ONLY 18 ON IT, AND THAT IS WHY
I MADE THE BLOOD NO. 17.
      MR. SCHECK:  EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR.
            COULD WE HAVE A SIDE BAR?
      MR. COCHRAN:  MAY WE APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?
      THE COURT:  WITH THE REPORTER.

              (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)

      MR. SCHECK:  YOUR HONOR, WHAT SEEMS APPARENT IS THAT
MR. GOLDBERG JUST SHOWED THE JURY THE PROPERTY REPORT WITH
THE AIRLINE TICKET ITEMS.  IT COULD HAVE BEEN REDACTED.
      MR. NEUFELD:  IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T NOTICE THAT, YOUR
HONOR, AND MR. SCHECK DIDN'T BRING IT TO ME PRIOR TO
PUTTING IT UP ON THE ELMO.

            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
             AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

      MR. GOLDBERG:  IT CAN'T REALLY BE READ.
      MR. SCHECK:  YOUR HONOR, I JUST -- WELL --

              (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
             HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

      THE COURT:  LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, WOULD
YOU PLEASE STEP BACK IN THE JURY ROOM.

            (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)

      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            I THINK WHAT I NEED TO DO IS GO OVER AND SEE
WHAT I CAN SEE ON THE ELMO DISPLAY TO SEE IF IT IS APPARENT
FROM WHAT IS THERE, BUT I'M NOT THRILLED ABOUT THIS.

            (BRIEF PAUSE.)


              (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
             HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            IT APPEARS THAT THIS EXHIBIT, I BELIEVE THIS IS
NO. 175, THIS IS A PROPERTY REPORT,
REFLECTS --
      MR. COCHRAN:  174.
      THE COURT:  -- TWO ITEMS, THE 15 AND 16, WHICH ARE
THE ITEMS THAT WE JUST HAD THE PROBLEMS ABOUT EARLIER THIS
MORNING, AND UNFORTUNATELY, THE EVIDENCE PRESENTATION
SYSTEM IS SUCH THAT I CAN, FROM THE JURY BOX, READ WHAT
ITEMS 15 AND 16 ARE.
            AND IF YOU RECALL, THAT IS WHAT CAUSED ME TO
READ THE SANCTION INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY AND NOW THE
PROSECUTION HAS CHOSEN TO SHOW THIS TO THE JURY AGAIN.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  I SEE THAT, YOUR HONOR, AND I DID NOT
TAKE IT UPON MYSELF TO REDACT IT.  I WASN'T THINKING ABOUT
THAT AT ALL.
            AND MR. SCHECK SAW THE DOCUMENT BEFORE WE PUT
IT UP AND HE DID NOT SAY ANYTHING TO ME.
      THE COURT:  WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT IS MR.
SCHECK'S OBLIGATION --
      MR. GOLDBERG:  IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF OBLIGATIONS;
IT IS A QUESTION OF THERE WAS NO OBJECTION AND THIS IS A
SITUATION -- WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO DO, WAIT FOR SOMETHING
TO BE PUT UP IN  FRONT OF THE JURY AND THEN HOLD BACK AND
THEN MAKE AN OBJECTION AND SUGGEST THAT SOME SORT OF
REMEDIAL ACTION NEEDS TO BE TAKEN WHEN MR. SCHECK SAW IT?
            AND I THINK THEN IF YOU ASKED HIM, WELL, WHY
DIDN'T YOU SAY ANYTHING AND HE WOULD SAY, I OVERLOOKED IT,
TOO, IN ALL PROBABILITY.
            I MEAN, WHAT I WAS CONCENTRATING ON WAS ITEM
NO. 17.  THE ONLY RELEVANCE OF THIS DOCUMENT IS ITEM NO.
17, AND THAT WAS ALL MY CONCENTRATION WAS ON WAS ITEM NO.
17 AND EXPLAINING THAT PART OF THIS WITNESS' TESTIMONY.
      THE COURT:  YOU ARE NOT MAKING THIS EASY, ARE YOU,
MR. GOLDBERG?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WELL, I REALLY DON'T THINK IT IS THAT
DIFFICULT, YOUR HONOR, IN ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE COURT.  I
MEAN, IT HAPPENED --
      THE COURT:  WELL, WAIT.  WE HAVE AGREEMENT THAT THIS
ITEM IS NOT GOING TO BE USED OR MENTIONED.  YOU VIOLATE
THAT AGREEMENT.
            I GRANT THE UNUSUAL REMEDY OF INSTRUCTING THE
JURY THAT THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE.  TWENTY MINUTES
AFTER THAT HAPPENS OR TWENTY MINUTES INTO THE SESSION THIS
AFTERNOON YOU PUT THIS UP ON THE ELMO.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WELL, EVERYTHING THE COURT HAS SAID IS
TRUE.  I MEAN, THE COURT'S RECITATION OF THE FACTS ARE
CORRECT.
      THE COURT:  WELL, THE FIRST EXPLANATION IS YOU HAD NO
IDEA THAT THAT HAD BEEN THE AGREEMENT AND THE  AGREEMENT
HAD BEEN IF THIS WAS GOING TO BE BROUGHT UP AGAIN THAT THE
DEFENSE WAS ENTITLED TO A DE NOVO 1538.5 MOTION.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  I REALIZE THAT.
      THE COURT:  AND NOW HERE IT IS AGAIN.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  BECAUSE, YOUR HONOR --
      THE COURT:  IN THE SAME DAY.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  I RECOGNIZE THAT.
            YOU KNOW, IT IS NOT CUSTOMARY, YOUR HONOR, FOR
ATTORNEYS TO TAKE IT UPON THEIR -- THEMSELVES TO REDACT
DOCUMENTS.  I REALIZE THAT WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE HERE
--
      THE COURT:  WELL, COUNSEL, HERE IS THE PROBLEM:
            THE COURT CANNOT SUPERVISE THE PREPARATION OF
EACH AND EVERY EXHIBIT, OTHERWISE WE WOULD BE SPENDING A
WHOLE LOT OF TIME JUST LOOKING AT EXHIBITS, AND I TRUST THE
PROFESSIONALISM AND INTEGRITY OF THE LAWYERS INVOLVED IN
FRONT OF ME TO AT LEAST CULL OUT THE THINGS THAT AREN'T
GOING TO BE CONTROVERSIAL.  THIS CLEARLY IS.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOU ARE RIGHT, AND I DID NOT TAKE A
SECOND LOOK AT THIS BEFORE I USED IT THIS AFTERNOON AFTER
THE COURT'S RULING.  I MEAN, I JUST DIDN'T THINK ABOUT IT.
      THE COURT:  IT WASN'T THE COURT'S RULING.  THAT WAS
OUR AGREEMENT MONTHS AGO.

       MR. GOLDBERG:  WELL, I MEANT THE RULING EARLIER THIS
MORNING, AND MR. SCHECK, WHO SAW IT, DID NOT SAY ANYTHING
TO ME.

            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
             ATTORNEYS.)

      THE COURT:  MR. SCHECK, ANY COMMENTS?

            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

      MR. SCHECK:  ONE SECOND, YOUR HONOR.

            (BRIEF PAUSE.)

            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

      MR. SCHECK:  YOUR HONOR, I THINK THE FACTS SPEAK FOR
THEMSELVES.  I'M SURE MR. GOLDBERG HAD PLANNED TO INTRODUCE
THIS DOCUMENT IN REGARD TO THE MATTER OF THE TRANSFER OF
THE BLOOD VIAL AND ITEM 17.
            I WALKED OVER, TOOK A QUICK GLANCE.  I DID NOT
THINK AT THAT MOMENT THAT -- ABOUT THE AIRLINE TICKET BEING
IN THAT PARTICULAR PLACE, THAT  IS TRUE, BUT HE IS TRYING
HIS CASE.  IT DIDN'T OCCUR TO ME UNTIL WE SAT DOWN AND TOOK
A LOOK AT THE MONITOR AND I SAID, OH, MY GOD, THERE IT IS,
SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY ABOUT THAT, OTHER THAN I DON'T
WANT TO TRY HIS CASE FOR HIM AND I SUPPOSE HE HAS TO LOOK
AT THE ITEMS AND REDACT THEM AS APPROPRIATE.
            THE REAL DILEMMA THAT I ACTUALLY HAVE AT THIS
MOMENT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE COURT WANTS TO ADDRESS IT,
IS THE ISSUE OF REMEDY, SO WHENEVER YOU WANT TO -- BUT THAT
IS THE ONLY COMMENT I CAN MAKE ON THIS.
      THE COURT:  WELL, WHAT REMEDY DO YOU SEEK?
      MR. COCHRAN:  YOUR HONOR, MAY WE HAVE A MOMENT?
      MR. SCHECK:  MAY WE HAVE A MOMENT TO DISCUSS THAT,
WITH THE COURT'S PERMISSION?

            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

      MR. SCHECK:  YOUR HONOR, IN TERMS OF THE REMEDY, AS
INDICATED BY THE INITIAL INSTRUCTION THAT DEAN UELMEN
PROFFERED TO THE COURT, UMM, OUR CONCERN IS REALLY WITH AT
THIS POINT THE PROSECUTION'S VIOLATING ITS AGREEMENTS.
            AT THIS STAGE WHAT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IS
THAT IT NOW BEGINS TO LOOK AS THOUGH WE ARE TRYING TO HIDE
THESE ITEMS WHEN THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT THEY  WOULDN'T BE
INTRODUCED, AND NOW IN REINSTRUCTING THEM, ALL OF A SUDDEN
THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS MAY TAKE ON GREATER WEIGHT IN THE
JURY'S MIND THAN IT REALLY OUGHT TO IN TERMS OF THE DEFENSE
TRYING TO HIDE SOMETHING FROM THEM WHEN THAT IS NOT REALLY
WHAT IS GOING ON HERE.
            WHAT IS GOING ON HERE IS THE PROSECUTION NOW
TWICE HAS VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENTS.
            IN FACT, I THINK IN THE FIRST INSTRUCTION THAT
DEAN UELMEN PROFFERED TO THE COURT WE DIDN'T EVEN
NECESSARILY ASK FOR A REMEDY, DISREGARD EVERYTHING YOU'VE
HEARD ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE THAT CONCERN THAT IT
IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE WE ARE TRYING TO HIDE SOMETHING FROM
THE JURY, BUT WE NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THIS DILEMMA IN
THE FIRST PLACE.
            SO THE REMEDY IS -- THE REMEDY IS WE WOULD LIKE
YOU TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS AGAIN
VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO PROVING THESE ITEMS
OF EVIDENCE AND VIOLATED THE COURT'S ORDER.
      THE COURT:  MR. GOLDBERG.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WELL, YOUR HONOR, IN THE -- THE
PROBLEM WITH THESE ARGUMENTS IS THAT THIS SEEMS LIKE AN
INCREDIBLE PLACEMENT OF FORM OVER SUBSTANCE.
            I MEAN, DON'T YOU START YOUR BEGINNING -- YOUR
ANALYSIS BY ASKING YOURSELF WHAT IS THE PREJUDICE HERE?
            AND YOUR HONOR MAY RECALL THAT ONE OF THE FIRST
QUESTIONS THAT I POSED, RHETORICAL QUESTIONS WHEN WE WERE
ARGUING THIS EARLIER, TO THE DEFENSE WAS CAN THEY
LEGITIMATELY CLAIM IN GOOD FAITH THAT THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THEM OR THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT
THEY MIGHT NOT EVEN HAVE INTENDED TO INTRODUCE ANYWAY?
            I MEAN, BASED ON WHAT THE JURY HAS HEARD --
      THE COURT:  WELL, MR. GOLDBERG, WERE I IN YOUR SHOES
I WOULD BE THINKING ABOUT ADOPTING AN ATTITUDE THAT THE
COURT WOULD BE RECEPTIVE TO HEARING.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  I'M JUST TRYING --
      THE COURT:  AND RATHER THAN CAST THE PROBLEM AND THE
BURDEN UPON THE OTHER SIDE, OPPOSING COUNSEL, I WOULD BE
CONTEMPLATING HOW BEST TO SALVAGE MY CREDIBILITY BEFORE THE
COURT AND I WOULD BE THINKING ABOUT THAT I COULDN'T SAY MEA
CULPA TOO MANY TIMES IN THIS SITUATION WERE I IN YOUR
SHOES.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, I DID.  I SAID IT THE
FIRST TIME, I WILL SAY IT AGAIN, AND I SAID IT DURING MY
ARGUMENT.
            IT WASN'T THE FIRST TIME A MISTAKE WAS MADE BY
THE PROSECUTION, BY ME, BY DEFENSE COUNSEL; IT WON'T BE THE
LAST TIME.  I JUST DIDN'T KNOW HOW SOON IT WAS GOING TO
OCCUR.
      THE COURT:  WELL, THE FACT THAT IT OCCURRED AGAIN SO
QUICKLY IS PERHAPS NOT SURPRISING, BUT WHAT  IS INCREDIBLE
IN THE TRUE SENSE OF THE WORD, INCREDIBLE, IS THAT IT WOULD
HAPPEN ON THE SAME SUBJECT MATTER.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WELL, WHAT I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO DO
-- I CAN MAKE A REPRESENTATION AS TO WHAT HAPPENED.  I CAN
SAY THIS IS A MISTAKE.  I CAN SAY IT SHOULDN'T HAVE
HAPPENED.  I CAN SAY I AM SORRY.
            I CAN ALSO REPRESENT TO THE COURT THAT THIS IS
NOT DONE INTENTIONALLY.  I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE COURT
BELIEVES THAT OR NOT, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOUR HONOR HAS
TO DECIDE.
            I KNOW I HAVEN'T PRACTICED IN FRONT OF THE
COURT BEFORE, BUT I HOPE THAT BASED UPON MY REPRESENTATIONS
AND THE WAY THAT I'VE TRIED TO HANDLE THE LEGAL ISSUES,
PERHAPS YOUR HONOR IS IN A POSITION TO DECIDE THAT.
            BUT ASIDE FROM THAT ISSUE, I WOULD ASK THE
COURT ALSO TO THINK ABOUT THIS JUST FROM A CIRCUMSTANTIAL
-- IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT EVIDENCE AND LEGAL ANALYSIS
FOR A MOMENT -- THINK ABOUT IT FROM A CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE STANDPOINT WHICH IS MAYBE PERHAPS THE ONLY
EVIDENCE THAT YOUR HONOR FEELS THAT YOU CAN RELY ON IF YOU
DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT MY WORD.
      THE COURT:  WELL, MR. GOLDBERG, I JUST HAVE TO SAY
THAT IF I WERE YOU, I WOULD ASK THE COURT'S PERMISSION TO
PUT UP A REDACTED COPY OF THIS EXHIBIT AND I WOULD ASK
PERMISSION TO DIRECTLY SAY TO THE  JURY, I'M SORRY, I DID
IT AGAIN, AND MOVE ON.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WELL, OKAY.  I THINK THAT THE COURT
DOESN'T WANT TO HEAR ANY MORE ARGUMENT ABOUT IT.
            IF THAT IS THE WAY THE COURT FEELS IT SHOULD BE
RESOLVED, I WOULD AGREE TO THAT, BUT JUST SO THAT WE DON'T
HAVE ANY PROBLEMS --
      THE COURT:  SOMEHOW I GET THE FEELING IT IS NOT
HEARTFELT.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHAT I CAN DO, YOUR
HONOR.  IT IS HEARTFELT.  I MEAN, I THINK THAT THE COURT
CAN IMAGINE --
      THE COURT:  WELL, MR. GOLDBERG, TRUST ME, I DON'T
MEAN TO EMBARRASS YOU BY THIS, BUT YOU'VE GOT TO ADMIT IT
IS INCREDIBLE THAT THIS COULD HAPPEN ON THE SAME SUBJECT
TWICE ON THE SAME DAY.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  I DO.  I ADMIT IT IS INCREDIBLE.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  AND I WOULD STILL ASK YOUR HONOR TO
THINK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT -- YOUR HONOR HAS QUESTIONED I
THINK MY INTEGRITY -- WHAT POSSIBLE ADVANTAGE --
      THE COURT:  I DIDN'T SAY THAT.  I SAID THAT I WOULD
TRY TO SALVAGE IT WERE I YOU AND I WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT
IT.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  AND I AM.  I MEAN, WHAT ELSE CAN I DO?
I MEAN -- I MEAN, I WISH THE COURT WOULD THINK ABOUT IT.
I'M CERTAINLY SORRY IT HAPPENED.
            I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY.
      THE COURT:  CAN I GET ONE OF OUR LAW CLERKS OUT HERE,
PLEASE.

            (BRIEF PAUSE.)

      THE COURT:  CAN I HAVE THAT, PLEASE?
      MR. FAIRTLOUGH:  MAY I APPROACH, YOUR HONOR?

            (BRIEF PAUSE.)

      THE COURT:  IS THIS A PHOTOCOPY?
      MR. FAIRTLOUGH:  I BELIEVE SO, YOUR HONOR.

            (BRIEF PAUSE.)

            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

      MR. SCHECK:  YOUR HONOR --
      THE COURT:  I'M LISTENING.
      MR. SCHECK:  YOUR HONOR, WE'VE TALKED IT OVER, AND
OUR PROBLEM AT THIS POINT IS THE CONCERN I EXPRESSED BEFORE
ABOUT REDACTING IT OUT.
      THE COURT:  UH-HUH.
      MR. SCHECK:  IS THAT IT IS -- WE FEEL --


       THE COURT:  I CAN TELL THEM IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE
CASE.
            GIVE ME FIVE COPIES.  MAKE SURE --

            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

      THE COURT:  MR. GOLDBERG, BEFORE WE GO TOO MUCH
FURTHER, PLEASE ACCEPT MY APOLOGIES TO YOU IF I SEEM
IRRITATED, BUT THIS DAY HAS NOT GONE WELL.
            IT STARTED OFF WITH MANY DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS
OVER MANY CONTENTIOUS ITEMS, AND IT HAS BEEN A BAD DAY
TODAY.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  I AGREE WITH THAT, YOUR HONOR.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            SO DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY, BUT YOU ARE NOT
MAKING MY JOB ANY EASIER TODAY.
            ALL RIGHT.  MR. SCHECK, YOU WERE SAYING YOU
DON'T WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?
      MR. SCHECK:  YES, YOUR HONOR.
            I THINK IF COULD I MAKE THE SUGGESTION THAT THE
COURT SHOULD ADMONISH THE JURY IN ANY WAY YOU SEE FIT WITH
RESPECT TO THE VIOLATIONS OF THE AGREEMENT, BUT AT THIS
POINT IT SEEMS THAT WE DON'T WANT TO BRING ANY MORE
ATTENTION TO THAT AND MAKE IT SEEM AS THOUGH THERE IS SOME
UNDUE SIGNIFICANCE TO IT.
            I THINK IF THE JURY MAY THINK, IF THEY ARE
TWICE INSTRUCTED TO DISREGARD, THEY MAY THINK THAT THE
DEFENSE MAYBE AT THIS POINT --
      THE COURT:  GIVE THEM THE REDACTED COPY AND LEAVE IT
AT THAT.
      MR. SCHECK:  NO, WE DON'T WANT THE REDACTED COPY,
YOUR HONOR, BUT WE WANT THE ADMONISHMENT THAT IT SHOULDN'T
HAVE BEEN SHOWN AND AT THIS POINT IT IS OF --
      THE COURT:  WELL, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO USE A REDACTED
COPY, THEN WHAT?

            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

      MR. COCHRAN:  MAY WE HAVE JUST A SECOND TO CAUCUS?

            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

      MR. SCHECK:  AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION, WHAT WE WOULD
REQUEST OF THE COURT IS, YES, A REDACTED COPY AND AN
INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY THAT THE PROSECUTION HAS BROKEN ITS
AGREEMENT AGAIN AND A FURTHER INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY THAT
THE ITEMS THERE ARE IRRELEVANT.

       THE COURT:  LET ME SHOW YOU THE REDACTED COPY AND
SEE IF YOU THINK THIS IS TOO OBVIOUS.

            (BRIEF PAUSE.)

      THE COURT:  I GUESS WE OUGHT TO WHITE IT OUT INSTEAD
OF BLACK IT OUT.
      MR. COCHRAN:  FROM HERE I COULD TELL THAT, YOUR
HONOR.
      THE COURT:  WELL, YOU KNOW, WITH WORD PROCESSORS WE
DON'T HAVE WHITE OUT ANY MORE.
            ALL RIGHT.
            MR. GOLDBERG, I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT YOU
PROCEED AT THIS POINT WITHOUT THIS EXHIBIT.
            MR. FUNG CAN TESTIFY WITH REGARDS TO HIS MEMORY
WITH REGARDS TO THESE ITEMS, REFER TO HIS OWN REPORTS, AND
IF WE USE THIS ITEM AGAIN, NO. 175, IT WILL HAVE WHITE OUT
INSTEAD OF BLACK OUT, BECAUSE THAT IS JUST TOO OBVIOUS.
            ALL RIGHT.  LET'S HAVE THE JURORS.

            (BRIEF PAUSE.)

      THE COURT:  THE BUSY BEES TELL ME THEY HAVE A WHITED
OUT COPY ON THE WAY.

              (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
             HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE
             PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

      THE COURT:  THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE
BE SEATED.
            LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE BEEN
REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL AGAIN.
            LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE REASON FOR OUR BRIEF
RECESS IS THAT THE EXHIBIT THAT WAS ON THE EVIDENCE DISPLAY
SYSTEM, PEOPLE'S NO. 175, MADE REFERENCE TO TWO ITEMS THAT
THE COURT HAS PREVIOUSLY DEEMED TO BE IRRELEVANT AND THAT
THE PARTIES HAD AGREED NOT TO PRESENT TO YOU.
            AND THAT EXHIBIT WAS SHOWN TO YOU BY MISTAKE
AND YOU WILL NOT BE SHOWN THAT EXHIBIT UNTIL IT HAS BEEN
CORRECTED TO DELETE MENTION OF THOSE TWO ITEMS.
            I KNOW THAT YOU ARE VERY DILIGENT JURORS AND I
SAW YOU LOOKING UP AND READING THE ITEMS.  YOU ARE TO
DISREGARD THE MENTION AS TO ITEMS 15 AND 16, IF YOU WROTE
IT DOWN, READ IT OR RECOLLECT IT.
            YOU ARE TO DISREGARD MENTION OF THOSE TWO
ITEMS.
            PROCEED.
            AND I MIGHT ADD, YOU ARE NOT TO SPECULATE AS TO
WHAT THOSE ITEMS WERE.

       Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  OKAY.
            SO AT ANY RATE, MR. FUNG, DID YOU MAKE A
DECISION THEN TO ASSIGN ITEM NO. 17 TO THE BLOOD VIAL?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND DID YOU THEN MAKE A DECISION TO ASSIGN NO.
18 TO A DIFFERENT ITEM?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND WHAT ITEM WAS THAT?
      A     THAT WAS THE PAIR OF TENNIS SHOES I HAD
RECEIVED FROM DETECTIVE LANGE.
      Q     NOW, ON THIS DATE, JUNE THE 14TH, APPROXIMATELY
HOW LATE WOULD YOU SAY THAT YOU WORKED THERE AT THE
SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION?
      A     APPROXIMATELY 7:30.
      Q     OKAY.
            AND WERE YOU FILLING OUT YOUR PAPERWORK THE
WHOLE TIME OR WHAT WERE YOU DOING?
      A     I WAS FILLING OUT PAPERWORK.  I MAY HAVE TAKEN
A COUPLE BREAKS HERE AND THERE.
      Q     WHERE WERE YOU FILLING OUT THE PAPERWORK?  DO
YOU KNOW WHAT ROOM?
      A     I WAS DOING THAT IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING
ROOM.
      Q     THAT IS THE SAME ROOM THAT THE DRYING PROCESS
OCCURS IN?
      A     YES.

       Q     NOW, DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE DATE OF
JUNE THE 15TH OF 1994 --
      A     YES.
      Q     -- DID YOU GO TO THE SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS
DIVISION?
      A     YES, I DID.
      Q     AND IS THAT ALSO AT PIPER TECH?
      A     YES.
      Q     DID YOU RECEIVE SOME MORE EVIDENCE FROM ANOTHER
CRIMINALIST IN THE MORNING OF THAT DATE?
      A     YES, I DID.
      Q     WHAT DID YOU RECEIVE?
      A     I RECEIVED THE VICTIM'S REFERENCE BLOOD SAMPLE
OR BLOOD VIALS.
      Q     YOU MEAN FROM THE CORONER -- THAT PRESUMABLY
CAME FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE?
      A     YES.
      Q     WHO GAVE THOSE TO YOU?
      A     THOSE WERE GIVEN TO ME BY CRIMINALIST YAMAUCHI.
      Q     ON THIS DATE ABOUT MR. YAMAUCHI SAMPLED SOME
MORE ITEMS AT AROUND TEN O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING?
      MR. SCHECK:  OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
      THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.  FOUNDATION.
      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  OKAY.  SIR, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE
DID MR. YAMAUCHI SAMPLE SOME ITEMS?
      A     YES.
      Q     WHERE DID THAT TAKE PLACE?
      A     THAT OCCURRED IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM.
      Q     DID YOU MAKE SOME NOTES REGARDING WHAT MR.
YAMAUCHI SAMPLED ON THIS DATE?
      A     YES.
      Q     DO YOU RECALL WHETHER YOU HAD A CONVERSATION
WITH HIM AS TO WHAT ITEMS SHOULD BE SAMPLED AND TESTED OR
HOW DID THAT WORK?
      A     TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION WE DID DISCUSS
WHAT ITEMS WERE MOST RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE AT THAT TIME.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            AND DID YOU -- CAN YOU TELL US, USING THE ITEM
NUMBERS, WHICH ITEM NUMBERS MR. YAMAUCHI SAMPLED FROM ON
THIS OCCASION?
      A     MR. YAMAUCHI SAMPLED ITEMS 23, 34, 25, 31, 33,
12 AND 14.
      MR. SCHECK:  EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR.  CAN I LOOK AT
WHAT HE HAS?

            (BRIEF PAUSE.)

      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  AFTER THOSE ITEMS WERE
SAMPLED, WHAT WERE YOU DOING FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE DAY?
      A     ON --
      Q     ON THE 15TH?

       A     ON THE 15TH I PROCESSED THE BRONCO EVIDENCE
AND CONTINUED TO FINISH PROPERTY REPORTS.
      Q     OKAY.
            DID YOU RETURN TO WORK ON THE 16TH?
      A     YES, I DID.
      Q     AND WHAT WERE YOU WORKING ON ON THE 16TH?
      A     ON THE 16TH I PREPARED ALL THE EVIDENCE AND
COLLECTED IT FOR FINAL BOOKING AND ENTERED THE EVIDENCE
INTO SID PROPERTY.
      Q     WHEN YOU ENTERED IT INTO SID PROPERTY, WAS IT
IN A SEALED CONDITION?
      A     YES, IT WAS.
      Q     AND BY ALL THE EVIDENCE YOU MEAN FROM
ROCKINGHAM, THE BRONCO AND BUNDY?
      A     YES.
      MR. SCHECK:  YOUR HONOR, THAT WOULD -- OBJECT TO THAT
AS VAGUE AT THIS POINT.
      THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  I DIDN'T.
      THE COURT:  REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WHICH QUESTION?  THE LAST ONE?
      THE COURT:  YES.
      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  OKAY.  DID THAT INCLUDE THE
EVIDENCE FROM BUNDY?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND ROCKINGHAM?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND THE BRONCO?
      A     YES.
      MR. SCHECK:  YOUR HONOR, I STILL OBJECT BECAUSE THAT
IS VAGUE AS WELL.
      THE COURT:  OVERRULED.  OBVIOUSLY ON THE 15TH. THE
JURY CAN FIGURE THAT OUT.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  MAY I JUST HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR
HONOR, TO LOOK AT MY NOTES?
      THE COURT:  YES.

            (BRIEF PAUSE.)

      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  SIR, I'M NOT SURE WHETHER I
COVERED THIS, BUT AS TO ITEM NO. 18, THE TENNIS SHOES, WHEN
WERE THOSE RECOVERED?
      A     THE TENNIS SHOES WERE RECOVERED ON JUNE 14TH
EARLY IN THE MORNING.
      Q     AND WHO DID YOU RECOVER THEM FROM?
      A     ACCORDING TO MY NOTE, DETECTIVE LANGE.
      Q     DO YOU RECALL WHERE THAT WAS?
      A     THAT WAS IN THE SEROLOGY UNIT IN THE CRIME LAB.
      Q     WAS ANYONE ELSE PRESENT OTHER THAN YOU AND MR.
LANGE?
      A     YES.
      Q     WHO?
      A     CRIMINALIST MATHESON AND CRIMINALIST YAMAUCHI.

       Q     MR. MATHESON, IS HE WHO YOU REFERRED TO
PREVIOUSLY AS PRESENTLY THE CHIEF FORENSIC CHEMIST?
      A     YES.
      Q     OKAY.
            AND WAS THERE ALSO AN EVIDENCE NUMBER, ITEM NO.
19, THAT YOU RECOVERED?
      A     YES.
      Q     WHEN WAS THAT RECOVERED?
      A     THAT WAS RECOVERED ON JUNE THE 14TH.
      Q     WHERE DID YOU RECOVER IT FROM?
      A     I REMOVED ITEM 19, WHICH IS HAIRS AND FIBERS,
FROM THE GLOVE IN ITEM NO. 9.
      Q     DID YOU PACKAGE THEM UP IN SOME WAY?
      A     YES, I DID.
      Q     AND IN WHERE?
      A     I PLACED THEM IN A -- TO THE BEST OF MY
RECOLLECTION, A PAPER BINDLE, AND PUT THEM IN A COIN
ENVELOPE AND ASSIGNED THEM ITEM NO. 19 IN THEIR OWN
ENVELOPE.

            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
             ATTORNEYS.)

      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE
TO MARK ANOTHER EXHIBIT.  IT WOULD BE PEOPLE'S 177 FOR
IDENTIFICATION.
      THE COURT:  177.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  AND IT IS ACTUALLY A SERIES OF FIVE
BOARDS CALLED "LAPD EVIDENCE DISPOSITION SUMMARY."

            (BRIEF PAUSE.)

      MR. GOLDBERG:  PERHAPS WE COULD WAIT FOR JUST ONE
MOMENT BEFORE I PUT THEM UP TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT --

            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
             AND DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

      MR. GOLDBERG:  OKAY.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  MAYBE WE COULD PUT UP THE ONE WITH
NUMBER "6" AT THE TOP FIRST.

            (BRIEF PAUSE.)

            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  MR. FUNG, PERHAPS YOU COULD
STEP DOWN FOR A MOMENT AND TAKE A LOOK AT THIS.
            WE HAVE PUT UP A BOARD THAT HAS BEEN -- YOUR
HONOR, MAYBE WE SHOULD MARK THIS, WITH THE COURT'S
PERMISSION, 177-A.
      THE COURT:  177-A?  THE WHOLE BOARD?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YES.
      THE COURT:  OKAY.

          (PEO'S 177-A FOR ID = POSTERBOARD)

      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  MR. FUNG, HAVE YOU SEEN THIS
BOARD BEFORE?
      A     YES, I HAVE.
      Q     AND DID YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CAREFULLY
EXAMINE THIS BOARD AND A SERIES OF OTHER BOARDS JUST LIKE
THIS ONE?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            NOW, DID YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THE
PHOTOGRAPHS IN THE VARIOUS CELLS NEXT TO THE NAMES FUNG AND
MAZZOLA?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND IN SEVERAL INSTANCES ON THE OTHER BOARD
WERE THERE CELLS THAT JUST HAD YOUR NAME IN IT?
      A     YES.
      Q     DID YOU ALSO LOOK AT THE CELLS ON ALL THE OTHER
BOARDS?
      A     YES, I DID.
      Q     NOW, WAS THE RESOLUTION IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS GOOD
ENOUGH SO THAT YOU COULD SEE WHAT WAS DEPICTED IN THE
PHOTOGRAPH?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            WITH RESPECT TO LET'S JUST START WITH 6, I
DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THEM, BUT WITH
RESPECT TO 6, WHAT IS SHOWN IN PHOTOGRAPH -- IN THE CELL
"LAPD -- COLLECTED LAPD" AND "6," NEXT TO "FUNG AND
MAZZOLA"?
      A     UP IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND CORNER IS THE DR
NUMBER.  HERE IS THE ITEM NUMBER, (INDICATING), AND HERE IS
MY INITIALS.
      Q     WHAT IS NO. 6, THE ITEM DEPICTED IN THE
PHOTOGRAPHS?
      A     I'M GOING TO REFER TO MY NOTES.
      Q     WELL, I MEAN IS IT A COIN ENVELOPE?
      A     YES, IT IS.
      Q     OKAY.
            AND IS THAT THE KIND OF COIN ENVELOPE THAT --
THAT IS THE COIN ENVELOPE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN USED AT ONE
OF THE SCENES?
      A     YES.
      Q     DO YOU HAVE TO REFER TO YOUR NOTES TO TELL YOU
WHICH SCENE IT WAS?
      A     THAT SCENE -- NO, I DO NOT NEED TO.
      Q     OKAY.  WHICH IS THAT?
      A     THAT IS FROM THE ROCKINGHAM SCENE.
      Q     OKAY.  DO YOU NEED TO REFER TO YOUR NOTES TO
TELL US WHERE AT THE ROCKINGHAM SCENE THIS WAS COLLECTED
FROM?
      A     YES.
      Q     OKAY.  CAN YOU TELL US?
      A     YES.

            (BRIEF PAUSE.)

      THE WITNESS:  THAT WAS -- ITEM NO. 6 WAS RECOVERED
FROM THE DRIVEWAY CLOSE TO THE ROCKINGHAM ENTRANCE.
      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  SO IF YOU CAN RECALL BACK TO
WHEN WE WERE SHOWING THE FIRST ROCKINGHAM BOARD THAT WE
DISCUSSED YESTERDAY, THERE WAS AN ITEM NO. 6?
      A     YES.
      Q     DO YOU RECALL THAT?
      A     (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
      Q     WOULD THIS BE THE ENVELOPE INTO WHICH YOU
PLACED THAT ITEM NUMBER, ITEM NO. 6?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            NOW, WAS THE DATE THAT YOU DID IT JUNE THE 13TH
OF '94?
      A     THE DATE I COLLECTED IT?
      Q     YES.
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            NOW, WHEN YOU WENT THROUGH THIS BOARD PREVIOUS
TO YOUR TESTIMONY, DID YOU CHECK THE DATES AND THE
PHOTOGRAPH NUMBER USING YOUR CRIME SCENE  IDENTIFICATION
LIST, JUST AS DID YOU A FEW MOMENTS AGO WITH NO. 6?
      A     THAT AND MY PROPERTY REPORTS, YES.
      Q     OKAY.
            AND WAS THIS AN ACCURATE SUMMARY OF THAT
INFORMATION?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND THE CRIME SCENE IDENTIFICATION -- THE CRIME
SCENE IDENTIFICATION CHECKLIST, IS THAT A DOCUMENT THAT IS
MADE IN THE ORDINARY COARSE OF THE CRIME LABORATORY'S
BUSINESS WHEN YOU ARE COLLECTING STAINS FROM A SCENE?
      A     YES.
      Q     RATHER, EVIDENCE?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND THE PROPERTY REPORTS, ARE THOSE ALSO
STANDARD BUSINESS RECORDS THAT ARE USED AT LOS ANGELES
POLICE DEPARTMENT?
      A     YES.
      Q     NOW, WHEN YOU WENT DOWN THIS PARTICULAR BOARD,
DID YOU SEE THE PACKAGING INTO WHICH YOU PLACED THE ITEMS
THAT WERE COLLECTED ACCURATELY PORTRAYED IN THE PICTURES?
      A     YES.
      Q     NEXT TO YOUR NAME OR YOUR NAME AND
MISS MAZZOLA'S NAME?
      A     YES.

       Q     AND DID THE PICTURES ACCURATELY PORTRAY THAT
PACKAGING?
      A     YES.
      Q     HOW DO YOU RECOGNIZE THE PACKAGING IN EACH
INSTANCE?
      A     IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS THERE IS EITHER MY INITIALS
OR CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA'S INITIALS OR SOME OTHER IDENTIFYING
CHARACTERISTICS, SUCH AS A CORONER'S CASE NUMBER, THAT
WOULD BE UNIQUE TO THAT ITEM.
      Q     DO YOU ALSO LOOK FOR THE DR NUMBERS?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            DID YOU DO THE SAME THING FOR ALL THE OTHER
BOARDS IN THIS SERIES?
      A     YES.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO PUT UP THE
OTHER BOARDS, BUT I JUST NEED TO GET THE WITNESS TO
AUTHENTICATE THEM, SO I'M NOT SURE WHETHER WE NEED TO
PHYSICALLY DRAG THEM OVER HERE OR NOT.
            WAS THE COURT PLANNING ON TAKING ITS RECESS
FAIRLY SHORTLY?
      THE COURT:  THREE O'CLOCK.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  OKAY.  ALL RIGHT.

            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
             ATTORNEYS.)
       THE COURT:  IF YOU JUST NEED A MOMENT TO RECYCLE
YOUR EXHIBITS, GO AHEAD.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  OKAY.

            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
             ATTORNEYS.)

      MR. GOLDBERG:  AS PEOPLE'S 177-B I HAVE A SIMILAR
BOARD AND THIS HAS ITEMS 25 THROUGH 44.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  177-B.

          (PEO'S 177-B FOR ID = POSTERBOARD)

      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  SIR, DO YOU ALSO RECOGNIZE
THIS EXHIBIT?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND THIS WAS ONE OF THE OTHER BOARDS THAT YOU
TOOK A LOOK AT?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND DID YOU GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS THAT WE
JUST DISCUSSED IN CONNECTION WITH 177-A OF VERIFYING THE
PHOTOGRAPHS, THE DATES, CORRESPONDING TO EACH ONE OF THE
CELLS?
      A     YES.
      Q     THAT YOU COLLECTED?
      A     (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)

       Q     AND WAS THE INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THIS
BOARD TRUE AND CORRECT?
      MR. SCHECK:  OBJECTION TO THAT QUESTION, ONLY TO HIS
INITIALS.
      THE COURT:  YES.  REPHRASE IT.
            THE INFORMATION IS ACCURATE AS TO HIS
PARTICIPATION, YES.
            REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  OKAY.  LET ME ASK IT MORE
SPECIFICALLY.
            DID THE PHOTOGRAPH ACCURATELY DEPICT THE
PACKAGING OF THE ITEMS, THE VARIOUS ITEMS THAT YOU
COLLECTED OR THAT ANDREA MAZZOLA COLLECTED IN YOUR
PRESENCE?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND DID THE DATES ACCURATELY REFLECT WHEN THOSE
ITEMS WERE COLLECTED?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.  NOW, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT 177-C.

          (PEO'S 177-C FOR ID = POSTERBOARD)

      MR. GOLDBERG:  AND THIS HAS 45 THROUGH 87 -- I'M
SORRY, 57.
      Q     IS THIS ANOTHER BOARD THAT YOU LOOKED AT, MR.
FUNG?
      A     YES, IT IS.
      Q     AND DID YOU GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCEDURE THAT
YOU DESCRIBED WITH RESPECT TO 177-A OF VERIFYING THIS
BOARD?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND DID THE PHOTOGRAPHS IN THE CELLS UNDER
"COLLECTED LAPD" NEXT TO YOUR NAME AND/OR ANDREA MAZZOLA'S
NAME, ACCURATELY REFLECT THE PACKAGING INTO WHICH THE ITEMS
WERE PLACED THAT EITHER YOU COLLECTED OR WERE COLLECTED IN
YOUR PRESENCE?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND WERE THE DATES ALSO ACCURATE?
      A     YES.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  NOW, 177-D.

          (PEO'S 177-D FOR ID = POSTERBOARD)

      MR. GOLDBERG:  THIS CONTAINS ITEMS 59 THROUGH 82.
      Q     NOW, LOOKING AT THIS PARTICULAR BOARD, WHEN YOU
GO DOWN TO "LAPD COLLECTED" COLUMN, EVERY NAME HERE IS
SOMEONE ELSE; IS THAT CORRECT?
      A     YES.
      Q     SO YOU DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE COLLECTION OF
THESE ITEMS?
      A     YES, THAT'S CORRECT.


       MR. GOLDBERG:  NOW, LET'S SEE 177-E.

          (PEO'S 177-E FOR ID = POSTERBOARD)

            (BRIEF PAUSE.)

      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  SIR, DID YOU GO THROUGH THIS
SAME PROCEDURE WITH THIS BOARD THAT YOU WENT THROUGH WITH
177-A?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND ON THIS BOARD THERE ARE ONLY THREE ITEMS
THAT YOU COLLECTED?
      A     YES.
      Q     THOSE ARE WHICH ITEM NUMBERS?
      A     115, 116 AND 117.
      Q     AND DID YOU LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS TO
DETERMINE WHETHER THEY ACCURATELY REFLECT THE PACKAGING
THAT YOU PLACED THOSE RESPECTIVE ITEMS IN?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND DOES THE DATE ACCURATELY REFLECT WHEN YOU
DID THAT?
      A     YES.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  OKAY.  THANK YOU.
            FOR THE RECORD, YOUR HONOR, THIS WAS 84 THROUGH
305.

            (BRIEF PAUSE.)

       Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  MR. FUNG, DID YOU HAVE
OCCASION TO GO OUT TO THE LOCATION AT BUNDY SINCE JULY THE
3RD?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND WHEN WAS THAT THAT YOU WENT OUT?
      A     I HAVE GONE OUT THERE THREE ADDITIONAL TIMES.
      Q     DID YOU GO OUT THERE IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR?
      A     YES, I DID.
      Q     FOR WHAT PURPOSE?
      A     I WENT OUT THERE TO TAKE ADDITIONAL
MEASUREMENTS WITH SPECIAL AGENT BODZIAK.
      MR. SCHECK:  EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR.
            MAY I APPROACH TO LOOK AT THE EXHIBITS?
      THE COURT:  YES.

            (BRIEF PAUSE.)

      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  WAS HE WITH THE FBI?
      A     YES.
      Q     DO YOU KNOW WHICH DIVISION?
      A     HE IS WITH -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NAME OF HIS
EXACT DIVISION IS.
      Q     BUT IS IT A SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TYPE DIVISION?
      A     YES.

       Q     ALL RIGHT.
            NOW, WHAT MATERIALS DID YOU BRING WITH YOU OUT
TO THE SCENE, IF ANY?
      A     WE HAD SOME PHOTOGRAPHS AND MEASURING DEVICES.
      Q     OKAY.
            DID YOU PROVIDE -- DID YOU HAVE PHOTOGRAPHS
THERE THAT DEPICTED THE SHOEPRINTS AS THEY EXISTED ON JUNE
THE 13TH?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            AND DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO GO OUT AGAIN ON
MARCH 25?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND WHY WERE YOU GOING OUT THEN?
      A     I WAS OUT THERE TO TAKE MORE MEASUREMENTS WITH
D.A. PERSONNEL.

            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT
             ATTORNEYS.)

      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  DO YOU RECALL WHO FROM THE
D.A.'S OFFICE WAS WITH YOU?
      A     MISS MARTINEZ.
      Q     THE YOUNG LADY BEHIND ME?
      A     YES.

       MR. SCHECK:  YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH FOR A
MINUTE WITH THE COURT REPORTER?

              (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)

      THE COURT:  WE ARE OVER AT THE SIDE BAR.
            MR. SCHECK?
      MR. SCHECK:  I'M SORRY, I HATE TO DO THIS, BUT I
DON'T THINK WE HAVE SEEN THESE NOTES AND THESE
MEASUREMENTS.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOU HAVE SEEN THESE.
      MR. SCHECK:  THE ONE THAT I SAW --
      MR. GOLDBERG:  THIS ONE, THESE TWO --
      MR. SCHECK:  HE WAS REFERRING TO SOMETHING ELSE.  I
THINK HE HAD SOMETHING ELSE IN HIS BOOK.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  THIS, THIS, (INDICATING).
      MR. SCHECK:  TALKING ABOUT THE LATEST ONES FROM MARCH
21.  THESE ARE HIS ORIGINALS.  THESE ARE ORIGINALS.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  THESE ARE MARCH.
      MR. SCHECK:  BUT THERE IS ANOTHER NOTE IN MARCH THAT
HE HAS UP IN FRONT OF HIM THAT HE IS READING FROM THAT ARE
NOT THESE.
      MR. NEUFELD:  WHY DON'T WE GET --
      MR. SCHECK:  YOU ASKED HIM A QUESTION.  I WENT OVER
AND LOOKED AT THE NOTES AND THE MEASUREMENTS AND I HAVEN'T
SEEN THEM AT ALL.
      THE COURT:  MR. GOLDBERG, WHY DON'T YOU ASK MR.
YAMAUCHI TO STEP OVER HERE TO THE SIDE BAR.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  MR. FUNG.
             (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD.)

            (MR. FUNG APPROACHES THE SIDE BAR.)

      MR. SCHECK:  HE WAS READING FROM THAT IN ANSWERING
HIS QUESTIONS.
      THE WITNESS:  I WROTE THOSE DOWN.
      THE COURT:  3/25 IS WHAT HE IS LOOKING AT HERE.
            IS THIS WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO?
      THE WITNESS:  I WROTE THESE DOWN TO REMIND ME OF WHEN
I WENT OUT TO THE CRIME SCENE.
      MR. SCHECK:  I UNDERSTAND, BUT THESE ARE THE
MEASUREMENTS, THAT IS THE POINT?
      THE WITNESS:  UP THERE ON TO --
      MR. SCHECK:  YEAH.
      THE WITNESS:  THAT IS A SYNOPSIS OF THIS,
(INDICATING).
      MR. SCHECK:  OF WHICH?
      THE WITNESS:  OF ALL THIS, (INDICATING).
      THE COURT:  FOR THE RECORD, WE ARE LOOKING AT A
DIVIDER PAGE IN MR. FUNG'S NOTEBOOK.  IT APPEARS TO BE A
NUMBER OF LINES WHICH THE COURT FINDS TO BE RELATIVELY
INNOCUOUS.
      MR. SCHECK:  YOUR HONOR, IF I MAY JUST STATE THE
RELEVANCY SO YOU DON'T THINK THAT I'M BEING OVERLY PICKY?

             I THINK THAT FROM THE FACE OF IT, THESE
REPRESENT MEASUREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO WHERE THE VARIOUS
DIFFERENT ITEMS ARE AT BUNDY AND REMEASUREMENTS THAT ARE
MADE AT ANOTHER TIME.  THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            MR. FUNG, ARE THESE ROUGH NOTES?
      THE WITNESS:  YES, THEY ARE.
      THE COURT:  ARE THEY MEMORIALIZED IN A FORM?
      THE WITNESS:  NO.
      THE COURT:  OR A DIAGRAM?
      THE WITNESS:  THEY ARE AN AID TO ME FOR TESTIMONY AS
FAR AS IF THEY WERE TO ASK ME DIFFERENT MEASUREMENTS AND
THINGS LIKE THAT, RATHER THAN GOING THROUGH MY NOTES AND --
      THE COURT:  THAT IS SOMETHING YOU PREPARED FOR
TESTIMONY?
      THE WITNESS:  YES.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WELL, ACTUALLY, I THINK THIS IS
COVERED BY THE EVIDENCE CODE WHICH SAYS THAT IF A WITNESS
CREATES SOMETHING TO USE FOR HIS TESTIMONY TO REFRESH HIS
RECOLLECTION, THEY GET IT.  IF HE USES IT TO REFRESH HIS
RECOLLECTION.
            I CAN'T REMEMBER THE CODE SECTION.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  WHEN WE TAKE A BREAK, WE WILL
GIVE YOU A PHOTOCOPY.

       MR. GOLDBERG:  BUT SO FAR HE HASN'T USED IT, YOUR
HONOR.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
      MR. SCHECK:  HE JUST USED IT.
      MR. NEUFELD:  HE JUST USED IT.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOU ARE GETTING IT?
      THE COURT:  YOU WILL GET IT.

              (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
             HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  THANK YOU, COUNSEL.
            PROCEED.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE
TO MARK A -- WHAT APPEARS TO BE A SET OF NOTES AS PEOPLE'S
178 FOR IDENTIFICATION.
      THE COURT:  AND YOU HAVE LOOKED AT THEM CAREFULLY?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WHAT?
      MS. CLARK:  YES.
      THE COURT:  GOOD.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  I THINK WE ARE FINISHED WITH THE ELMO
TODAY ANYWAY, YOUR HONOR.
      THE COURT:  GOOD.

          (PEO'S 178 FOR ID = SET OF NOTES)

      MR. GOLDBERG:  COUNSEL HAS ALREADY SEEN THEM, BUT I
AM JUST GOING TO AUTHENTICATE WITH THE WITNESS.
            MAY HE APPROACH?
      THE COURT:  YOU MAY.
      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  SIR, SHOWING YOU PEOPLE'S 178
FOR IDENTIFICATION, DO YOU RECOGNIZE THAT?
      A     YES, I DO.
      Q     AND WHAT ARE THOSE?
      A     THESE ARE MEASUREMENTS TAKEN OF SHOEPRINTS AT
THE BUNDY SCENE.
      Q     IS THAT A COMPILATION OF VARIOUS NOTES THAT YOU
TOOK ON THE THREE DATES THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED?
      A     YES.
      Q     NOW, MR. FUNG, WITH RESPECT TO INVESTIGATING A
CRIME SCENE, WHICH WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT YESTERDAY, IS
THERE ANY SINGLE RIGHT WAY OR RIGHT FORMULA FOR GOING ABOUT
INVESTIGATING A CRIME SCENE?
      A     THERE ARE GENERAL GUIDELINES THAT PEOPLE
FOLLOW; HOWEVER, THERE IS NO SINGLE RIGHT WAY IN ANY
CIRCUMSTANCE.
      Q     IS THE WAY THAT YOU GO ABOUT INVESTIGATING A
CRIME SCENE SUBJECT TO DIFFERENT OPINIONS OF DIFFERENT
FORENSIC EXPERTS, CRIMINALISTS?
      A     YES.
      Q     OKAY.
            COULD TWO FORENSIC EXPERTS HAVE DIFFERENT IDEAS
ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT TO DO AT A CRIME SCENE?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND SIR, IS THERE A RECOGNIZED PRINCIPLE IN
CRIMINALISTICS THAT IN EVERY CRIME SCENE THAT HAS EVER BEEN
PROCESSED IT IS ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO USE HINDSIGHT TO
CRITICIZE THE WORK AT A LATER DATE?
      MR. SCHECK:  OBJECTION, LEADING.
      THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.
      Q     BY MR. GOLDBERG:  SIR, IS THERE ANY RECOGNIZED
METHOD WITHIN THE CRIMINALISTICS FIELD REGARDING WHETHER OR
NOT IT IS POSSIBLE TO PROCESS A CRIME SCENE IN A WAY THAT
NO ONE COULD EVER CRITICIZE?
      MR. SCHECK:  OBJECTION.
      THE COURT:  GROUND?
      MR. SCHECK:  IT IS LEADING.  IT CALLS FOR
SPECULATION.
      THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.  IT IS LEADING.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  THAT IS OKAY, YOUR HONOR.
            I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.
            THANK YOU.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  MR. SCHECK.
      MR. SCHECK:  THANK YOU.
      MR. SCHECK:  GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF
THE JURY.
      THE JURY:  GOOD AFTERNOON.

                  CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. SCHECK:
      Q     GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. FUNG.  HOW ARE YOU, SIR?
      A     GOOD AFTERNOON.
      Q     MR. FUNG, I THOUGHT WE WOULD START WITH
DISCUSSING THE ROLE OF THE CRIMINALIST.
            WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT IS THE ROLE OF THE
CRIMINALIST TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF EVIDENCE?
      A     THAT IS ONE OF THE ROLES, YES.
      Q     AND THAT WOULD MEAN THAT IT IS YOUR JOB TO MAKE
SURE THAT EVIDENCE IS NOT CONTAMINATED?
      A     IN SOME RESPECTS, YES.
      Q     IT IS NOT COMPROMISED OR ALTERED?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  I OBJECT TO THE WORD "COMPRISED" AS
VAGUE.
      THE COURT:  VAGUE.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  IT IS NOT ALTERED BY THE PEOPLE
GATHERING IT?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WELL, I OBJECT TO THAT BECAUSE AGAIN
IT IS VAGUE.
      THE COURT:  OVERRULED.
      THE WITNESS:  IN ALL CASES?
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  YES.  WHEN YOU GET TO A CRIME
SCENE, YOU SEE EVIDENCE, YOU DON'T WANT IT TO BE
COMPROMISED IN THE GATHERING IN TERMS OF THE WAY  YOU
ORIGINALLY FOUND IT.  YOU WANT IT TO BE IN THE SAME
CONDITION AS MUCH AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN AS YOU ORIGINALLY
FOUND IT?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  COMPOUND.
      THE COURT:  OVERRULED.
            YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
      THE WITNESS:  NOT IN ALL CASES.  THERE MAY BE SOME
CASES WHERE IT MIGHT BE RAINING OUT AND YOU WOULD WANT TO
MOVE THE EVIDENCE TO PRESERVE IT.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  RIGHT.  TO PRESERVE IT IN THE
ORIGINAL CONDITION THAT YOU FOUND IT, RIGHT?
      A     (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WELL, IT IS VAGUE.
      THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  WELL, YOU SAID THAT SOMETIMES
IT MIGHT BE RAINING OUT SO YOU WANT TO PROTECT THE EVIDENCE
SO THAT YOU CAN GATHER IT IN AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO
ORIGINAL CONDITION?  ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU JUST SAID?
      A     NOT EXACTLY.  YOU WOULD WANT TO PRESERVE IT TO
MAINTAIN ITS INTEGRITY AND SO THAT IT WOULD RETAIN ITS
VALUE TO AN ANALYSIS.
      Q     OKAY.
            AND IT IS YOUR JOB TO MAKE SURE AS MUCH AS
POSSIBLE THAT EVIDENCE IS NOT CORRUPTED?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WELL, I OBJECT TO THE WORD
"CORRUPTED."
      THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  WELL, THAT EVIDENCE IS NOT
TAMPERED WITH?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT IS THE ROLE OF THE
CRIMINALIST TO BE CAREFUL?
      A     YES.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WELL, I OBJECT TO THAT.  IT IS
OVERBROAD.
      THE COURT:  OVERRULED.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  AND THAT YOU SHOULD NOT BE IN
A HURRY WHEN EXAMINING EVIDENCE AT A CRIME SCENE?
      A     GENERALLY, YES.
      Q     AND YOU WOULD AGREE THAT RECOGNITION OF NEW
CLUES BEYOND WHAT THE DETECTIVES SHOW YOU IS IMPORTANT?
      A     IT CAN BE, YES.
      Q     AND YOU WOULD AGREE THAT SOMETIMES EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT EVIDENCE IS NOT OBVIOUS AS SOON AS YOU ARRIVE AT
THE CRIME SCENE?
      A     YES.
      Q     CRIMINALISTS WANT TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS OF
CAREFUL RECONSTRUCTION UPON ARRIVAL AT THE SCENE?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  I OBJECT TO THE PHRASE
"RECONSTRUCTION" AS VAGUE.
      THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  HAVE YOU HEARD THE TERM "CRIME
SCENE RECONSTRUCTION"?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND THAT HAS A FORMAL MEANING, DOES IT NOT?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND WHAT DO YOU KNOW IT TO MEAN?
      A     A RECONSTRUCTION IS USING THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
AT THE CRIME SCENE TO COME UP WITH A SCENARIO AS TO WHAT
HAPPENED AT THAT CRIME SCENE.
      Q     AND SO WHEN YOU GET TO A CRIME SCENE, AS MUCH
AS POSSIBLE, A CRIMINALIST WOULD WANT TO LOOK AT ALL THE
EVIDENCE AND BEGIN THE PROCESS OF RECONSTRUCTION IN AN
EFFORT TO FIND RELEVANT CLUES?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WELL, I OBJECT THAT IT IS COMPOUND.
      THE COURT:  OVERRULED.
            DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION?
      THE WITNESS:  YES.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            YOU MAY ANSWER.
      THE WITNESS:  NOT IN ALL CASES.

            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT IS A
PRINCIPLE OF CRIME SCENE CONTAMINATION TO FIRST PROTECT THE
SCENE?
      A     CRIME SCENE CONTAMINATION?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WAIT.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  EXCUSE ME, CRIME SCENE
INVESTIGATION, TO FIRST PROTECT THE SCENE?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            YOU DON'T WANT TO TRAMPLE OR OBLITERATE
EVIDENCE?
      A     IF IT CAN BE AVOIDED.
      Q     YOU COULDN'T WANT TO CONTAMINATE THE SCENE?
      A     YES.
      Q     YOU WOULD WANT TO CONDUCT A QUICK SEARCH FOR
PERISHABLE EVIDENCE?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND THEN YOU WOULD WANT TO RETREAT AND APPROACH
THE SCENE SLOWLY AND METHODICALLY?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND YOU RECOGNIZE I AM READING FROM --
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WAIT A MINUTE, YOUR HONOR.  I OBJECT
TO THAT.
      THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  FAIR ENOUGH?
      A     YES.
      Q     WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT IS IMPORTANT FOR A
CRIMINALIST NOT TO MAKE ASSUMPTIONS IN APPROACHING A SCENE?
      A     YES.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WELL --
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  IT IS IMPORTANT NOT TO TAKE
SHORTCUTS?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  OBJECTION, VAGUE AS TO THE WORD
"SHORTCUTS."
      THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.
            REPHRASE THE QUESTION.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT NOT TO
RUSH TO JUDGMENT?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  OBJECT.  THAT IS ARGUMENTATIVE.
      THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT IS
IMPORTANT FOR A CRIMINALIST TO BE ACCURATE?
      A     YES.
      Q     ACCURATE AND COMPLETE IN MAKING NOTES?
      A     IN MAKING RELEVANT NOTES, YES.
      Q     ACCURATE ABOUT THE NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT YOU
COLLECT?
      A     YES.
      Q     ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE ITEMS YOU COLLECT?
      A     WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "NATURE"?
      Q     DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURE OF THE ITEMS YOU
COLLECT?
      A     YES.
      Q     WHO COLLECTED THEM?
      A     IN THE NOTES?
      Q     YES.
      A     NOT IN ALL CASES, NO.
      Q     WELL, YOU WERE REFERRING BEFORE TO YOUR CRIME
SCENE CHECKLIST, CORRECT?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND IN YOUR CRIME SCENE CHECKLIST THERE ARE
BOXES, ARE THERE NOT?
      A     YES, THERE ARE.
      Q     AND AS YOU GO ACROSS THE PAGE IN THE CRIME
SCENE CHECKLIST, THE BOXES REFER TO ITEMS COLLECTED AND
THEN NEXT TO THAT IS "BY," CORRECT?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND THAT IS A BOX WHERE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO
FILL OUT WHO COLLECTED THE ITEM?
      A     THE CRIME SCENE --
      Q     IS THAT TRUE?
      A     NO.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WAIT A MINUTE.  I WOULD ASK HIM TO A
ALLOW --
      THE COURT:  HE JUST SAID NO.  HE HAS FINISHED HIS
ANSWER.
            PROCEED.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  AS A CRIMINALIST DO YOU WANT TO
BE ACCURATE ABOUT WHERE THE ITEM IS COLLECTED?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND YOU WANT TO BE ACCURATE ABOUT HOW THE ITEM
IS COLLECTED?
      A     (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE.)
      Q     WHAT METHOD IS USED?
      A     IN THE NOTES?
      Q     IN THE NOTES OR IN TERMS OF YOUR OWN
RECOLLECTIONS?  YOU WANT TO BE ACCURATE AS TO HOW ITEMS ARE
COLLECTED?
      A     AS LONG AS THEY ARE COLLECTED IN THE STANDARD
PROCEDURE, I DON'T SEE THE NEED FOR TAKING NOTES.
      Q     WELL, AREN'T THERE DIFFERENT WAYS TO COLLECT
VARIOUS ITEMS OF EVIDENCE?
      A     YES, THERE ARE.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            AND DON'T YOU THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO MAKE
NOTES ABOUT EXACTLY WHICH ONE WAS USED ON WHAT OCCASION?
      A     IF IT WAS RELEVANT.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            AND ISN'T IT IMPORTANT, AS YOU ARE PROCESSING
A CRIME SCENE, TO KEEP ACCURATE NOTES ABOUT THE ORDER OF
COLLECTION?
      A     I DON'T SEE WHERE THE ORDER OF COLLECTION WOULD
NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE DOCUMENTED, AS LONG AS YOU HAD A
TIME FRAME FROM WHICH YOU COULD SAY WHEN THEY WERE.
      Q     WELL, ON YOUR CRIME SCENE CHECKLIST, RIGHT NEXT
TO THE BOX THAT INDICATES "BY" THERE IS ANOTHER BOX THAT
INDICATES "TIME"; IS THERE NOT?
      A     YES, THERE IS.

       Q     AND THE PURPOSE OF THE BOX THAT INDICATES
"TIME" IS TO HAVE THE CRIMINALIST WRITE DOWN WHEN AN ITEM
WAS COLLECTED?
      A     IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, YES.
      Q     AND WHEN YOU HAVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT ITEMS, IN
ORDER TO MINIMIZE CONFUSION, ISN'T IT A GOOD IDEA TO WRITE
DOWN THE TIME OF COLLECTION?
      A     NOT NECESSARILY.
      Q     AND IN YOUR JUDGMENT, WHEN YOU HAVE A LOT OF
DIFFERENT ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE PROCESSING, IT IS
NOT A GOOD IDEA TO MEMORIALIZE THE ORDER OF COLLECTION?
      A     NOT UNLESS IT WAS GOING TO BE RELEVANT AT SOME
LATER TIME.
      Q     NOW, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT IS IMPORTANT FOR
A CRIMINALIST TO CREATE AN ACCURATE CHAIN OF CUSTODY?
      A     YES.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WELL, THAT IS --
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  AND COULD YOU TELL US, PLEASE,
WHAT YOU MEAN BY A "CHAIN OF CUSTODY"?  WHAT IS YOUR
UNDERSTANDING OF IT?
      A     THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY IS A RECORD OF WHEN
EVIDENCE LEAVES ONE PERSON'S CUSTODY AND IS GIVEN TO
ANOTHER PERSON'S CUSTODY.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            AND THE REASON THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP
ACCURATE RECORDS ABOUT THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY  IS -- ONE OF
THE REASONS IS TO PREVENT SAMPLES FROM GETTING MIXED UP?
      A     WELL, THAT IS NOT MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHY CHAIN
OF CUSTODY IS NECESSARY.
      Q     YOU DON'T THINK THAT AN ACCURATE SET OF RECORDS
ABOUT WHERE AN ITEM WENT, WHO RECEIVED IT NEXT, IS OF
ASSISTANCE IN PREVENTING MIX-UPS?
      A     THAT MAY BE A SECONDARY --
      Q     THAT IS A REASON?
      A     THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS.
      Q     OKAY.
            ANOTHER REASON TO HAVE AN ACCURATE CHAIN OF
CUSTODY IS TO GUARD AGAINST CROSS-CONTAMINATION OF SAMPLES?
      A     THAT IS NOT MY UNDERSTANDING OF CHAIN OF
CUSTODY.
      Q     YOU DON'T THINK CHAIN OF CUSTODY HAS ANYTHING
TO DO WITH CROSS-CONTAMINATION OF SAMPLES?
      A     THAT IS NOT MY UNDERSTANDING OF CHAIN OF
CUSTODY.
      MR. SCHECK:  ALL RIGHT.
      THE COURT:  IS THIS A GOOD POINT?
      MR. SCHECK:  ONE MORE QUESTION.
      THE COURT:  ONE MORE.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  AND WOULD YOU AGREE THAT ONE OF
THE IMPORTANT REASONS TO HAVE AN ACCURATE CHAIN OF CUSTODY
IS TO PREVENT ANYONE FROM TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE?
      A     THAT IS -- THAT IS A REASON, YES.
      MR. SCHECK:  THANK YOU.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR
AFTERNOON BREAK.
            THIS WILL BE A 15-RECESS.
            REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU.
            DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, FORM
ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T ALLOW ANYBODY TO
COMMUNICATE WITH YOU, DO NOT CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS.
            SEE YOU BACK IN FIFTEEN MINUTES.
            MR. FUNG, FIFTEEN MINUTES.

            (RECESS.)


              (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
             HELD IN OPEN COURT, OUT OF THE
             PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            BACK ON THE RECORD IN THE SIMPSON MATTER.
            LET'S HAVE THE JURY OUT, PLEASE.


              (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
             HELD IN OPEN COURT, IN THE
             PRESENCE OF THE JURY:)

      THE COURT:  THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. BE
SEATED.
            ALL RIGHT.
            LET THE RECORD REFLECT WE'VE BEEN REJOINED BY
ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL. MR. FUNG IS PRESENTLY ON
THE WITNESS STAND UNDERGOING CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR.
SCHECK.
            GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, MR. FUNG.  YOU ARE
REMINDED YOU ARE STILL UNDER OATH, SIR.
            AND, MR. SCHECK, YOU MAY CONTINUE WITH YOUR
CROSS-EXAMINATION.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  MR. FUNG, YOU MENTIONED JUST
BEFORE WE BROKE THAT WHEN YOU'RE FILLING OUT YOUR ITEM
DESCRIPTION FORM, YOU ONLY WILL FILL IN THE TIME OF
COLLECTION WHEN YOU THINK IT'S RELEVANT.  IS THAT WHAT YOU
SAID?
      A     YES.
      Q     NOW, IS THERE ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR THAT WOULD
MAKE YOU REALIZE AT THE MOMENT THAT YOU'RE COLLECTING THE
ITEM THAT LATER ON DOWN THE LINE, THE TIME OF THE
COLLECTION WAS GOING TO BE RELEVANT?



       A     IT IS MY GENERAL PRACTICE, MY PERSONAL GENERAL
PRACTICE TO WRITE DOWN THE TIME WHEN IT IS OUTSIDE THE TIME
FRAME OF MY ACTUAL COLLECTION.  IF I, FOR INSTANCE, WENT TO
A CRIME SCENE AT 8:00 O'CLOCK AND LEFT AT 12:00, IF THERE
WAS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH SOMEHOW WAS GIVEN TO ME BY A
DETECTIVE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I WOULD THEN WRITE DOWN
THE TIME FRAME.
      Q     WELL, WHY DON'T WE LOOK AT ONE OF THESE FORMS.
      MR. SCHECK:  YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE TO MARK THE
ORIGINAL.  WELL, LET ME ESTABLISH THIS.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  THE NOTES THAT YOU MAKE, THE
ORIGINAL NOTES THAT YOU MAKE ON YOUR FIELD CHECKLISTS, WHAT
HAPPENS TO THEM?
      A     IN THIS CASE OR IN GENERAL?
      Q     IN GENERAL.
      A     IN GENERAL, THEY'RE FILED AWAY IN A FILE
CABINET THAT STORES THESE DOCUMENTS.
      Q     UH-HUH.
            THERE'S A RULE AT THE SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION
DIVISION THAT WHEN YOU MAKE OUT ORIGINAL NOTES, THE
ORIGINAL NOTES ARE TO BE STORED IN A PARTICULAR PLACE AND
PRESERVED?
      A     I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A RULE, BUT THAT'S WHAT
HAPPENS.


       Q     WELL, IN THE FIELD PROCEDURES MANUAL, YOU'RE
NOT FAMILIAR WITH ANY REGULATION THAT SAYS THAT ALL
ORIGINAL NOTES ARE TO BE PRESERVED AT THE LABORATORIES SO
OTHERS CAN LOOK AT THEM AND GET ACCESS?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  I OBJECT BECAUSE IT ASSUMES A FACT NOT
IN EVIDENCE.
      THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.  FOUNDATION. FOUNDATION.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH A FIELD
PROCEDURES MANUAL?
      A     I AM -- I KNOW THAT ONE HAS BEEN WRITTEN.  I --
BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN PUT IN EFFECT.
      Q     WELL, ISN'T THERE A FIELD PROCEDURES MANUAL
THAT IS IN THE TRUCK THAT YOU GO TO CRIME SCENES WITH?
      A     I'M NOT AWARE OF A PROCEDURES MANUAL IN THE
TRUCK, NO.

            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  ARE YOU SAYING, SIR, THAT --
ARE YOU AWARE OF THE EXISTENCE OF A DOCUMENT OF 11 VOLUMES
ENTITLED "THE CRIME SCENE FIELD UNIT PROTOCOL AND
PROCEDURES MANUAL"?
      A     I HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN THAT COPY, NO.
      Q     YOU'VE NEVER SEEN SUCH A DOCUMENT?
      A     NO.
      Q     AND YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT
SUCH A DOCUMENT, SUCH A MANUAL IS ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO BE
KEPT IN YOUR CRIMINALISTIC TRUCK FOR REFERENCE?
      A     THAT'S CORRECT.
      Q     WELL, MOVING BACK TO YOUR EVIDENCE COLLECTION
SHEETS, THERE IS AN ORIGINAL SET OF DOCUMENTS; IS THAT
CORRECT?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            AND YOU HAVE SEEN -- YOU'VE REVIEWED THE
ORIGINAL SET OF DOCUMENTS IN THIS CASE; HAVE YOU NOT?
      A     YES, I HAVE.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            NOW, THERE'S AN ORIGINAL PAGE THAT REFERS TO
THE ITEMS THAT YOU COLLECTED AT BUNDY?
      A     COULD YOU --
      MR. SCHECK:  YOUR HONOR, I WOULD LIKE THIS TO BE
MARKED DEFENSE NEXT IN ORDER.  1069.
      THE COURT:  1069.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH ABOUT
THAT?
      THE COURT:  ABOUT MARKING AN EXHIBIT?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WELL, THE ORIGINAL.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  WITH THE COURT REPORTER.

              (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HELD AT THE BENCH:)

      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            WE'RE OVER AT THE SIDEBAR.
            MR. GOLDBERG.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, THESE ARE THE ORIGINALS OF
THE NOTES THAT COUNSEL HAD SUBMITTED TO A QUESTIONED
DOCUMENT EXAMINER AND THIS WAS FOR SOME SORT OF ANALYSIS ON
-- I THINK MAYBE IT WAS A TRACE ANALYSIS.  I DON'T KNOW
EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS AND WHAT THE PURPOSE OF DOING IT WAS.
BUT IF IN FACT THEY ARE GOING TO OFFER THAT INTO EVIDENCE,
THEN THE PROSECUTION MIGHT NEED TO ACTUALLY LOOK AT THESE
ITEMS AND DO THE SAME KIND OF ANALYSIS.
            SO AT THIS POINT, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO
INTRODUCE THE ORIGINAL AS OPPOSED TO A XEROX COPY.
      MR. SCHECK:  WELL, I THINK THAT JUST AS WE'VE DONE
ALREADY, IF THE PROSECUTION WANTS TO ANALYZE THAT, THEY CAN
GET AN ORDER FROM THE COURT, THE DOCUMENT CAN BE TAKEN FROM
THE COURT AND GIVEN TO THEIR DOCUMENT EXAMINER.  MR.
GOLDMAN WENT OVER THESE DOCUMENTS IN GREAT DETAIL WHEN I
DID OR WHAT WAS EXAMINED WHEN IT WAS EXAMINED.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WELL, WE'VE ALSO BEEN TOLD BY THE
SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION EVIDENCE PEOPLE THEY WANT TO KEEP
A COMPLETE SET OF THEIR DOCUMENTS.  IF WE START TAKING IT
APART AND INTRODUCING TWO PAGES  THERE AND THREE PAGES
THERE, THEN OUR ONLY SET OF THE ORIGINALS IS GONE.
      THE COURT:  WHY DO WE NEED TO USE THE ORIGINAL FOR
THIS PURPOSE?
      MR. SCHECK:  WELL, THIS PARTICULAR PURPOSE -- MY ONLY
PURPOSE IN SHOWING THIS DOCUMENT AT THIS TIME TO THE
WITNESS IS THAT -- IS TO IMPEACH HIM WITH THE FACT THAT THE
ORIGINAL DOES NOT HAVE ANY NOTATIONS AS TO WHO COLLECTED
THE EVIDENCE AND HE HAS NOW RECONSTRUCTED ANOTHER SET OF
NOTES FROM SOME -- IN SOME FASHION THAT I'M GOING TO
EXPLORE.
      THE COURT:  I'LL ALLOW YOU TO USE THE ORIGINAL FOR
THIS PURPOSE, BUT WHAT WILL GO INTO EVIDENCE WILL BE A
PHOTOCOPY OF THAT.
      MR. SCHECK:  CAN I MAKE THIS REQUEST OF THE COURT
THEN?  I WOULD -- I HAVE NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER WITH THE
ENTIRE VOLUME OF ORIGINAL EXHIBITS BEING HELD BY THE COURT
SO THAT NOBODY CAN GET TO IT IF THAT'S THEIR PROBLEM OR
FEAR, AND IF THEY WANT TO DO ANY SUBSEQUENT DOCUMENT
EXAMINING, TESTING, THEY CAN.
      THE COURT:  NO.  BUT I THINK THE PUBLIC ENTITY IS
ENTITLED TO KEEP THEIR ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IF A PHOTOCOPY
WILL SUFFICE FOR THIS PURPOSE.  FOR THE PURPOSE YOU TOLD
ME, A PHOTOCOPY WILL SUFFICE.
            ALL RIGHT.  LET'S GO.

              (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
             HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            WHAT WAS THE NEXT IN ORDER?
      THE CLERK:  1069.
      THE COURT:  1069.

          (DEFT'S 1069 FOR ID = 2-PAGE DOCUMENT)

      MR. SCHECK:  YOUR HONOR, MAY I PUT PAGE 1 OF THE
TWO-PAGE DOCUMENT, 1069, ON THE ELMO?
      THE COURT:  YES.
      MR. SCHECK:  MAYBE WE COULD JUST -- MAYBE IT WILL BE
CLEARER IF WE GO CLOSE ON JUST THE TOP OF THE PAGE.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  OKAY.
            NOW, MR. FUNG, THIS REPRESEN -- THIS DOCUMENT
THAT WE HAVE UP ON THE ELMO IS THE ORIGINAL OF THE EVIDENCE
COLLECTION REPORT THAT YOU FILLED OUT FOR THE ITEMS SEIZED
AT BUNDY; IS THAT CORRECT?
      A     IT'S A PORTION OF IT, YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            AND CALLING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE -- JUST EVEN
THE FIRST ITEM THAT REFERS TO THE SET OF KEYS; IS THAT
CORRECT?
      A     YES.

       Q     ALL RIGHT.
            NOW, NEXT TO THAT, THERE'S A BOX THAT WE WERE
REFERRING TO WITH THE WORD "BY" IN IT, CORRECT?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            AND THAT WAS NOT FILLED OUT CONTEMPORANEOUSLY,
WAS IT?
      A     THAT'S CORRECT.
      Q     WASN'T FILLED OUT AT THE TIME THAT IT WAS
COLLECTED?
      A     THAT'S RIGHT.
      Q     AND AS YOU GO DOWN THE PAGE AND YOU TALK ABOUT
THE NEXT ITEM, THE PAGER, THAT WASN'T FILLED OUT EITHER,
WAS IT?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND AS YOU GO DOWN THE PAGE, THERE WAS NO
NOTATION WHATSOEVER AS TO WHO COLLECTED WHICH ITEM?
      A     THAT'S CORRECT.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            NOW --
      MR. SCHECK:  I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THIS DOCUMENT
MARKED AS DEFENDANT'S NEXT IN ORDER.  THAT WOULD BE 1070.
            LET'S PUT THIS UP ON THE ELMO.

      (DEFT'S 1070 FOR ID = COPY OF 2-PAGE DOC.)


       Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  NOW, ON THIS -- THIS -- THIS
ITEM IS A COPY OF THE EVIDENCE COLLECTION SHEET FROM BUNDY
THAT YOU FILLED OUT WITH SOME ADDITIONS BEFORE YOU CAME TO
COURT?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND WHAT YOU DID IS, YOU RECONSTRUCTED WHO
COLLECTED WHAT?
      A     YOU MEAN RECONSTRUCTED --
      Q     YOU FILLED IN THE BOX THAT HAS "BY"?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND WHEN DID YOU DO THAT?
      A     THAT WAS SOMETIME AFTER THE CRIME SCENE HAD
BEEN DONE.
      Q     HOW MANY MONTHS?
      A     MAYBE TWO OR THREE.
      Q     AND DID YOU DO THIS -- WAS THIS YOUR DECISION?
      A     IT HAD BECOME AN ISSUE AND WE DECIDED TO FILL
THAT IN AS BEST WE COULD.
      Q     WHO'S THE "WE"?
      A     CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA AND MYSELF.
      Q     SO YOU AND CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA ABOUT TWO MONTHS
LATER --
      A     ROUGHLY.
      Q     -- HAD TO TRY TO RECONSTRUCT WHO COLLECTED
WHAT?
      A     WE DID THAT, YES.

       Q     IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN BY SOMETHING BECOMING
RELEVANT?
      A     IT HAD BECOME AN ISSUE.
      Q     SIR, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT THE IDEA OF A FORM LIKE
THIS IS THAT AS YOU CAREFULLY GO THROUGH THE CRIME SCENE,
YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO FILL IN WHO COLLECTED EACH ITEM AS YOU
DO IT SO THAT IT WILL BE AN ACCURATE RECORD?
      A     THE FORM IS A GENERAL FORM, AND AS THINGS
BECOME RELEVANT, THEY CAN BE FILLED IN.  IT GIVES YOU A
SPACE TO FILL IN INFORMATION.
      Q     WELL, WOULDN'T YOU FEEL MORE CONFIDENT ABOUT
THE ACCURACY OF YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHO COLLECTED WHICH
ITEM IF YOU AND CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA HAD FILLED THIS IN AT
THE TIME YOU DID THE COLLECTION?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  OBJECTION.  IRRELEVANT AS TO HIS
CONFIDENCE.
      THE COURT:  OVERRULED.
            YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
      THE WITNESS:  IN MY MIND, CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA AND I
WERE WORKING AS A TEAM AND IT WAS NOT RELEVANT WHO DID WHAT
SPECIFICALLY.  WE WERE WORKING SO CLOSE TOGETHER, IT DIDN'T
MATTER.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  MY QUESTION, SIR, IS, WOULDN'T
YOU HAVE GREATER CONFIDENCE IN YOUR RECOLLECTION OF WHO
COLLECTED WHICH ITEM IF THE FORM HAD BEEN FILLED OUT AT THE
TIME OF COLLECTION?
      A     YES.
      Q     NOW, YOU TESTIFIED ON DIRECT EXAMINATION THAT
AS TO ONE OF THESE ITEMS AT BUNDY, NUMBER -- WELL, 52, THAT
YOU WERE NOT PRESENT WHEN THAT WAS COLLECTED.
      A     THAT'S CORRECT.
      Q     AND YOU TESTIFIED, DID YOU NOT, IN AUGUST OF
THIS YEAR AT A PROCEEDING.  DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?
      A     OH, YES.
      Q     AND WERE YOU ASKED THESE QUESTIONS AND DID YOU
GIVE THESE ANSWERS?
      MR. SCHECK:  I'M NOW AT PAGE 531, MR. GOLDBERG.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  MAY I HAVE A MOMENT TO GET THAT?
      THE COURT:  I THINK YOU MISSPOKE YOURSELF, AUGUST OF
THIS YEAR.  AUGUST OF LAST YEAR.
      MR. SCHECK:  DID I SAY AUGUST OF THIS YEAR? IT'S
GETTING DIFFICULT, JUDGE.  IT WAS AUGUST OF LAST YEAR.
      THE COURT:  LET'S NOT MAKE IT TRUE.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  SORRY, COUNSEL.
      MR. SCHECK:  STARTING AT PAGE 531.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WHICH HEARING?  THE GRIFFEN HEARING?



       MR. SCHECK:  YEAH.
                "QUESTION:  MR. FUNG, YOU WERE THE
CRIMINALIST WHO COLLECTED THE ALLEGED DROPS OF BLOOD FOUND
AT THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE; IS THAT CORRECT?
      "ANSWER:  I WAS ONE OF TWO CRIMINALISTS WHO WAS THERE
COLLECTING EVIDENCE, YES.
      "QUESTION:  OKAY.
            AND DID YOU PERSONALLY COLLECT THE STAINS THAT
HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE ITEM NOS. 47, 48, 49, 50 AND 52?
      "ANSWER:  I WAS PRESENT DURING THE COLLECTION OF THEM
AND ASSISTED IN -- ASSISTED IN THOSE -- THE COLLECTION OF
THOSE STAINS, YES."
            WERE YOU ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS, DID YOU GIVE
THOSE ANSWERS?
      A     YES, I DID.
      Q     AND IN THAT ANSWER, YOU INCLUDED ITEM NO. 52?
      A     YES, I DID.
      Q     AND THEN AT PAGE 536 OF THAT SAME PROCEEDING,
YOU WERE ASKED THESE QUESTIONS AND GAVE THESE ANSWERS:



                "QUESTION:  MR. FUNG, YOU MENTIONED THAT
YOU WERE COLLECTING THE BLOOD SPECIMENS WITH A COLLEAGUE
NAMED MISS MAZZOLA?
       "ANSWER:  YES.
      "QUESTION:  AND WITH RESPECT TO THE ENUMERATED
SPECIMENS, NO. 47 THROUGH 52, I BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT SHE
DID THE COLLECTION AND YOU OBSERVED HER, AND IF NEED BE,
ASSISTED HER?
      "ANSWER:  TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES."
            WERE YOU ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS, DID YOU GIVE
THOSE ANSWERS?
      A     YES, I DID.
      Q     AND IN THE SAME PROCEEDING AGAIN AT PAGE 538:
                "QUESTION:  FOR EACH AND EVERY SPECIMEN
THAT I JUST GAVE YOU AS KEY NUMBERS THERE, DID YOU
PERSONALLY OBSERVE HER COLLECT THEM THERE OR WERE THERE
THREE TIMES WHERE YOU WERE OFF COLLECTING OR WERE THERE
TIMES THAT YOU WERE OFF COLLECTING SOME SPECIMENS AND SHE
WAS COLLECTING THINGS AT SOME DISTANCE FROM YOU?
      "ANSWER:  THERE WERE TIMES THAT -- WHEN I WASN'T
WATCHING HER ALL THE TIME, NO.
      "QUESTION:  AND SO SHE WOULD BE COLLECTING SOME OF
THESE BLOOD -- WITHDRAW.
      "AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY, DO YOU HAVE A VIVID MEMORY AS
TO WHICH OF THE 60 OR SO ITEMS THAT YOU COLLECTED AT BUNDY
SHE COLLECTED IN YOUR PRESENCE AS OPPOSED TO THOSE WHICH
WERE COLLECTED OUTSIDE YOUR PRESENCE?
      "ANSWER:  I DO REMEMBER THAT THE BLOODSTAINS  LEADING
FROM WHERE THE VICTIMS WERE ALONG THE ESCAPE ROUTE AS IT
HAS BEEN REFERRED TO IN THE PAST AS, I WAS THERE WITH HER
PERSONALLY SUPERVISING HER.
      "QUESTION:  FOR EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE?
      "ANSWER:  I BELIEVE SO, YES."
WERE YOU ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS, DID YOU GIVE THOSE ANSWERS?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR, TO
LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT BEFORE HE ANSWERS?

            (BRIEF PAUSE.)
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, I WOULD JUST ASK THAT HE
READ DOWN THROUGH LINE 10 OF THE TRANSCRIPT SO THAT MAY BE
COMPLETE ON PAGE 539, COUNSEL.
      MR. SCHECK:  WELL, I WILL.  I DON'T THINK IT'S
NECESSARY, BUT I WILL FOR HIS BENEFIT.
                "QUESTION:  WERE THERE OTHER BLOODSTAINS,
HOWEVER, THAT SHE COLLECTED AT THAT SCENE WHICH YOU
PERSONALLY DID NOT SUPERVISE?
      "ANSWER:  YES.
      "QUESTION:  AND AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY, DO YOU KNOW
WHICH ONES THOSE WERE?
      "ANSWER:  NOT SPECIFICALLY, NO."
            OKAY?
      A     YES.
      Q     SO IN OTHER WORDS, AT THIS HEARING, YOU TOOK
GREAT PAINS TO INDICATE THAT YOU SAW EVERY ONE OF THOSE
BLOOD DROPS AT BUNDY, 47, 48, 49, 50 AND 52,  THAT YOU
PERSONALLY OBSERVED MISS MAZZOLA SWATCH ALL OF THOSE,
RIGHT?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WAIT A MINUTE.  MISSTATES THE
TESTIMONY ABOUT SWATCH.
      THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  DID YOU TAKE GREAT PAINS TO
TESTIFY THAT YOU OBSERVED MISS MAZZOLA COLLECT ALL THOSE
BLOOD DROPS INCLUDING 52?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            AND YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY HERE IS THAT YOU DID
NOT SEE HER COLLECT 52?
      A     THE COLLECTION PROCESS INVOLVES MANY STEPS.  IT
INCLUDES THE DOCUMENTATION ALSO AND THE IDENTIFICATION.
AND IN THAT RESPECT, I DID -- I WAS PRESENT DURING THOSE
PHASES OF THE COLLECTION PROCESS.
      Q     YOU WERE ASKED -- YOU WERE ASKED ON DIRECT
EXAMINATION DID YOU SEE HER COLLECT 52.  YOU SAID NO,
RIGHT?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            IN THIS PRIOR PROCEEDING, THREE TIMES YOU WERE
ASKED WHETHER YOU SAW HER COLLECT 52 AND THREE TIMES YOU
SAID YOU SAW IT?
      A     WOULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION?
      Q     THREE TIMES YOU WERE ASKED IF YOU SAW MISS
MAZZOLA COLLECT SAMPLE 52 --
      MR. GOLDBERG:  I OBJECT.  THAT MISSTATES THE
EVIDENCE.
      THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  WERE YOU ASKED AT THAT SPLIT
HEARING ON THREE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS IF YOU OBSERVED HER
AND WHETHER SHE DID THE COLLECTION OF ITEM 52?

      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, I WOULD OBJECT. THAT
MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.
      THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.
            WHY DON'T YOU BREAK IT UP TO EACH INDIVIDUAL
OCCASION.
      MR. SCHECK:  ALL RIGHT.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  WERE YOU ASKED ON THREE
DIFFERENT OCCASIONS JUST THE SAME QUESTIONS I JUST READ TO
YOU BEFORE WHETHER OR NOT YOU OBSERVED MISS MAZZOLA COLLECT
THE BLOOD DROPS 47 THROUGH 52? YOU WERE ASKED THAT?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  OBJECTION.  THAT STILL MISSTATES THE
EVIDENCE.
      THE COURT:  OVERRULED.
      THE WITNESS:  IF I COULD SEE THE TRANSCRIPT, BECAUSE
I DON'T MEMORIZE EVERYTHING.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  PLEASE.  I TABBED THE PAGES.
TAKE A LOOK AT IT.  TAKE YOUR TIME.

            (BRIEF PAUSE.)

      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  DO YOU WANT TO REFER TO THIS
NOW?
      A     YEAH.
      Q     WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY AFTER REFRESHING YOUR
RECOLLECTION FROM THIS TESTIMONY THAT YOU PREVIOUSLY
TESTIFIED THAT YOU OBSERVED MISS MAZZOLA COLLECT ITEM 52?
      A     WELL, THAT'S TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION AT
THAT TIME, YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            AND AT THAT TIME, YOU WERE TESTIFYING THAT YOU
SAW HER COLLECT EACH OF THOSE FIVE BLOOD DROPS AT BUNDY, 47
THROUGH 52?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            AND NOW, YOU HAVE TALKED IT OVER WITH MISS
MAZZOLA; IS THAT RIGHT?
      A     YES.
      Q     TALKED IT OVER WITH ANYBODY ELSE?
      A     SOME EXTENT WITH MR. GOLDBERG.
      Q     AND AFTER THOSE DISCUSSIONS, YOU'VE NOW DECIDED
THAT YOU DIDN'T OBSERVE HER DO THAT COLLECTION ON ITEM 52?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, I'LL OBJECT TO THIS.
VAGUE AS TO THE WORD "COLLECT."
      THE COURT:  OVERRULED.
      THE WITNESS:  IN THE ACTUAL MANIPULATION OF THE
SWATCH AND BLOODSTAIN, THAT'S CORRECT.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  LET'S GET BACK FOR A SECOND TO
THE ROLE OF THE CRIMINALIST.
            NOW, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT IS THE ROLE OF A
CRIMINALIST TO BE AN INDEPENDENT, UNBIASED FORENSIC
SCIENTIST?
      A     YES.

      Q     AND YOU SHOULD NOT HARBOR A BIAS AS TO THE
RESULT OF AN INVESTIGATION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER?
      A     THAT'S CORRECT.
      Q     AND ACTUALLY, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH A GENTLEMAN
NAMED BARRY FISHER?
      A     YES, I AM.
      Q     AND WHO IS HE?
      A     HE IS THE LAB DIRECTOR OF THE LOS ANGELES
SHERIFF'S CRIMINALISTICS LABORATORY.
      Q     AND ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH HIS BOOK ON
TECHNIQUES AND CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATIONS?
      A     I HAVE SEEN IT AND REFERRED TO IT ON CERTAIN
OCCASIONS.
      Q     HAVE YOU CONSIDERED IT IN FORMING YOUR OPINIONS
ABOUT THE ROLE OF THE CRIMINALIST IN CRIME SCENE
INVESTIGATIONS?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, I'LL OBJECT.  IT'S VAGUE
AS TO THE EDITION NUMBER.
      THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  5TH EDITION.
      A     I HAVE NOT SEEN THE 5TH EDITION, NO.
      Q     WELL, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT CRIMINALISTS OWE A
DUTY TO THE TRUTH?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND THAT THE SOLE OBLIGATION OF A FORENSIC
PRACTITIONER IS TO SERVE THE AIMS OF JUSTICE?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT A FORENSIC
SCIENTIST CONDUCT THE INVESTIGATION IN A THOROUGH COMPETENT
FASHION AND SUBMIT FINDINGS AND REPORTS AND THROUGH
TESTIMONY IN A FACTUAL AND UNBIASED MANNER?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IN YOUR ROLE AS A
CRIMINALIST, IF YOU SAW DETECTIVES USING UNSOUND PROCEDURES
AT A CRIME SCENE IN GATHERING EVIDENCE, YOU WOULD OBJECT?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  VAGUE AS TO THE TERM "UNSOUND."
      THE COURT:  OVERRULED.
      THE WITNESS:  COULD YOU BE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC?
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  IF YOU SAW DETECTIVES USING
PROCEDURES WHICH YOU FELT WOULD IMPAIR THE INTEGRITY OF
EVIDENCE AS THEY WERE COLLECTING IT, WOULD YOU OBJECT?
      A     YES.
      Q     IF YOU SAW MEMBERS OF THE CORONER'S OFFICE
TAKING STEPS IN THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE AT  A CRIME
SCENE WHICH YOU THOUGHT WOULD IMPAIR THE INTEGRITY OF THE
EVIDENCE, WOULD YOU OBJECT?
      A     I WOULD TELL THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE SCENE
WHAT MY -- I WOULD GIVE HIM MY OPINION, YES.
      Q     AND IN TESTIFYING AS TO THE FACTS OF ANY
PARTICULAR CASE, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT YOU SHOULD NOT JUST
GO ALONG WITH THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE ASKED, FOR EXAMPLE, BY
A PROSECUTOR IN TERMS OF THE FACTS; YOU SHOULD
INDEPENDENTLY RECOLLECT THEM FROM YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE WHEN
YOU TESTIFY?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  OBJECTION.  ARGUMENTATIVE, YOUR HONOR.
      THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  WELL, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT'S
IMPORTANT THAT A CRIMINALIST NOT LEAVE OUT IMPORTANT FACTS
FROM A RECITATION OF WHAT OCCURRED BECAUSE YOU THOUGHT IT
WOULD HARM THE PROSECUTION'S CASE?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            AND IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR A CRIMINALIST
TO IGNORE MISCONDUCT BY ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WELL, THAT'S IRRELEVANT.
      THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  NOW, YOU TESTIFIED YESTERDAY --
YOU WERE ASKED BY MR. GOLDMAN, "IS ANDREA MAZZOLA A
TRAINEE," AND YOU ANSWERED, "NO, SHE  IS A CRIMINALIST."
            DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?
      A     YES.
      Q     NOW, WHEN YOU TESTIFIED PREVIOUSLY IN AUGUST OF
THIS YEAR, DIDN'T YOU TELL US THAT ANDREA MAZZOLA ON JUNE
13TH WAS STILL IN TRAINING?
      A     I DON'T REMEMBER MY EXACT WORDS.

      Q     DID YOU TELL US THAT SHE WAS A STUDENT AND YOU
WERE HER TEACHER?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WAIT A MINUTE, YOUR HONOR.  I'LL ASK
FOR A PAGE AND TRANSCRIPT.
      THE COURT:  YES.
      MR. SCHECK:  ALL RIGHT.  JUST TO MAKE SURE MR.
GOLDMAN -- WE'LL START WITH 536 AND WE'LL GO INTO 537.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  WERE YOU ASKED THESE SERIES OF
QUESTIONS AND DID YOU GIVE THESE ANSWERS?
                "QUESTION:"
      MR. GOLDBERG:  MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT?
      THE COURT:  CERTAINLY.
      MR. SCHECK:  STARTING ON LINE 14.
            READY?
      THE COURT:  HE'LL TELL US WHEN HE'S READY.
      MR. SCHECK:  I'M SORRY?
      THE COURT:  HE'LL TELL US WHEN HE'S READY.
      MR. SCHECK:  ALL RIGHT.  I'M SORRY.

             (BRIEF PAUSE.)

      MR. GOLDBERG:  OKAY.
      THE COURT:  PROCEED.




      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:
                "QUESTION:  WITH RESPECT TO THE ENUMERATED
SPECIMENS, NO. 47 THROUGH 52, I BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT SHE,"
MISS MAZZOLA, "DID THE COLLECTION AND YOU OBSERVED HER, AND
IF NEED BE, ASSISTED HER?
      "ANSWER:  TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES.
      "QUESTION:  OKAY.  NOW, IS THAT THE NORMAL PROCEDURE
BY THE WAY IN CASES, WHERE ONE CRIMINALIST DOES OR ANOTHER
CRIMINAL ACTS AS OBSERVER?
      "ANSWER:  NO.
      "QUESTION:  WHY WAS THAT DONE HERE, SIR?
      "ANSWER:  IT WAS JUST THE LUCK OF THE DRAW IN THIS
CASE.  MISS MAZZOLA WAS THE ON-CALL CRIMINALIST, THE
HOMICIDE ON-CALL CRIMINALIST, AND I WAS ALSO ASSIGNED TO BE
HER TRAINING OFFICER THAT WEEKEND.
      "QUESTION:  NOW, YOU SAID YOU WERE HER TRAINING
OFFICER THAT WEEKEND.  IS THAT BECAUSE MISS MAZZOLA IS
PRETTY NEW TO ALL OF THIS?
      "ANSWER:  SHE'S STILL A CRIMINALIST I.  YES.
      "QUESTION:  SO DURING THE PERIOD THAT SHE WENT  OUT
THERE TO COLLECT THE SPECIMENS ON JUNE 13TH, SHE WAS STILL
IN TRAINING?
      "ANSWER:  YES.
      "QUESTION:  AND YOU WERE THERE IN A SENSE AS A
SUPERVISOR OR TEACHER; IS THAT RIGHT?
      "ANSWER:  YES."
            WERE YOU ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS, DID YOU GIVE
THOSE ANSWERS?
      A     YES, I DID.
      Q     NOW, MR. FUNG, MISS MAZZOLA ON JUNE 13TH WAS
DOING COLLECTIONS AT HER THIRD CRIME SCENE?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  I'LL OBJECT, NO FOUNDATION.
      THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY CRIME
SCENES ANDREA MAZZOLA HAD COLLECTED EVIDENCE AT BEFORE SHE
COLLECTED EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?
      A     I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT NUMBER, BUT IT WAS
AROUND FIVE.  FOUR OR FIVE.
      Q     FOUR OR FIVE?
      A     BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION.


      Q     IN PREPARING FOR YOUR TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE,
DID YOU REVIEW THE TRANSCRIPTS OF YOUR TESTIMONY AND MISS
MAZZOLA'S TESTIMONY AT THAT HEARING IN AUGUST?
      A     I ONLY WENT OVER MINE.
      Q     DID YOU DISCUSS WITH MISS MAZZOLA YOUR
UPCOMING TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE?
      A     ONLY THINGS REGARDING THE CRIME SCENES. NOT
TESTIMONY ITSELF.
      Q     DID YOU DIS -- DID YOU DISCUSS THIS ISSUE OF
HER BEING A TRAINEE WITH ANYONE AT THE SCIENTIFIC
INVESTIGATION UNIT?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.
      THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  HAVE YOU HAD ANY DISCUSSION OF
THE ISSUE OF MISS MAZZOLA BEING A TRAINEE AS IT RELATES TO
THIS CASE?
      A     YES.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  IRRELEVANT.
      THE COURT:  OVERRULED.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  NOW, YOU TESTIFIED IN THE GRAND
JURY IN THIS CASE; DID YOU NOT, SIR?
      A     YES, I DID.
      Q     AND BEFORE YOU TESTIFIED IN THE GRAND JURY, DID
YOU HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH ANYBODY ABOUT THE FACT THAT
ANDREA MAZZOLA, A PERSON WHO HAD DONE, AS FAR AS YOU KNEW,
ONLY FIVE CRIME SCENES YOU THINK -- IS THAT RIGHT?
      A     AROUND THERE, YES.
      Q     COULD BE LESS?
      A     YES.
      Q     -- HAD COLLECTED THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE
BEFORE YOU TESTIFIED IN THE GRAND JURY?
      A     I DON'T RECALL DISCUSSING THAT WITH  ANYONE.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            WELL, LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED IN THIS
CASE, IS IT TRUE MISS MAZZOLA WAS THE ONE WHO SWATCHED ITEM
47?  THAT'S THE FIRST BLOOD DROP AT BUNDY, RIGHT?
      A     YES.
      Q     SHE DID 48?
      A     YES.
      Q     49?
      A     YES.
      Q     50?
      A     YES.
      Q     52?
      A     YES.
      Q     THAT'S THE ONE YOU'RE NOT TELLING US YOU WERE
EVEN THERE TO DO THE SWATCHING?
      A     I DON'T RECALL BEING THERE, NO.
      Q     AND THOSE WERE CRITICAL ITEMS IN THIS CASE?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  OBJECTION.  ARGUMENTATIVE.
      THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  ISN'T IT TRUE THAT WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF 55 AND 56, WHICH WERE BLOOD FROM THE OUTLINE
OF FOOTPRINTS, THAT MISS MAZZOLA WAS THE ONE WHO SWATCHED
EVERY BLOODSTAIN AT BUNDY?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.
      MR. SCHECK:  I'M ASKING HIM.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  FOOTPRINT.
      THE COURT:  OVERRULED.
      THE WITNESS:  THAT'S NOT ENTIRELY TRUE, NO.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  YOU SWATCHED 55?
      A     55 WAS -- YES, I DID.
      Q     YOU SWATCHED 56?
      A     YES, I DID.
      Q     YOU DIDN'T SWATCH ANY OTHER STAIN AT BUNDY, DID
YOU?
      A     YES, I DID.
      Q     WHICH ONE DID YOU SWATCH?
      A     I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY WHICH ONES I ASSISTED
HER WITH, BUT THERE WERE PORTIONS OF STAINS WHERE I
ACTUALLY TOOK THE TWEEZERS AND DID THE MANIPULATION MYSELF.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            IS -- OTHER THAN 55 AND 56, MISS MAZZOLA WOULD
-- PARTICIPATED -- ACTUALLY SWATCHED EVERY OTHER STAIN AT
BUNDY?
      A     TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES.
      Q     ROCKINGHAM, SHE SWATCHED THE RED STAIN ON THE
HANDLE OF THE BRONCO?
      A     UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION, YES.
      Q     SHE SWATCHED STAIN 4?
      A     YES.
      Q     5?
      A     YES.
      Q     6?
      A     YES.
      Q     7?
      A     YES.
      Q     8?
      A     YES.
      Q     SHE DID ALL OF THEM?
      A     YES.
      Q     NOW, THE BUNDY GLOVE, GLOVE FOUND AT BUNDY --
      A     YES.
      Q     -- ANDREA MAZZOLA WAS THE ONE THAT PICKED THAT
UP, PUT IT IN THE BROWN PAPER BAG?
      A     THE GLOVE AT BUNDY?
      Q     YES.
      A     YES.
      Q     THE WATCH CAP AT BUNDY, ANDREA MAZZOLA WAS THE
PERSON WHO PICKED THAT UP AND PUT IT IN THE BAG?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND INCIDENTALLY, BEFORE YOU TESTIFIED IN THIS
CASE, YOU REVIEWED VIDEOTAPES, DIDN'T YOU?
      A     FOR THIS CASE?
      Q     YES.
      A     YES.
      Q     THERE WERE A WHOLE TWO SETS OF VIDEOTAPES YOU
REVIEWED WITH THE PROSECUTION?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND THESE WERE VIDEOTAPES FROM THE MEDIA  OF
YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA, AND PART OF IT WAS YOU AND MISS
MAZZOLA AT THE BUNDY SCENE?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            NOW --

            (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD
             BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  INCIDENTALLY, DID YOU SEE ANY
OTHER VIDEOTAPES BESIDES THE COMPILATION OF TWO CASSETTES
THAT WERE PROVIDED BY THE DEFENSE TO THE COURT?
      A     VIDEOTAPES CONCERNING?
      Q     OF ANYTHING.  CONCERNING THIS CASE, ANY
COLLECTIONS DURING THIS CASE?
      A     I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY OTHER COMPILATIONS, NO.
      Q     ANY OTHER VIDEOTAPES AT ALL?
      A     ON TELEVISION.
      Q     NOTHING THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU BY ANYBODY
AT THE LABORATORY?
      A     I CAN'T REMEMBER ANY.
      Q     HAVE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS SHOWN YOU ANY OTHER
VIDEOTAPES IN CONNECTION WITH THIS CASE?
      A     YES.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WELL, IT'S VAGUE --
      THE COURT:  HIS ANSWER IS YES.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  AND WHAT WERE THOSE?
      A     IT WAS A TAPE MADE BY A COMPANY CALLED DECISION
QUEST.
      Q     AND WHAT WAS THAT TAPE OF?
      A     THAT WAS A TAPE OF THE BUNDY LOCATION.
      Q     AND WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN THAT WAS MADE?
      A     NO.
      Q     WELL, LET'S TALK ABOUT YOUR TESTIMONY AT THE
GRAND JURY.
      MR. SCHECK:  MR. GOLDBERG, I'M NOW AT THE TESTIMONY
OF JUNE 27TH, 1994 AT PAGE 379, LINE 8.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  DO YOU RECALL BEING ASKED
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BLOOD DROPS AT BUNDY AND WHO SWATCHED
THEM?
      A     AT BUNDY, YES.
      Q     WERE YOU ASKED THESE QUESTIONS AND DID YOU GIVE
THESE ANSWERS?
                "QUESTION:  WERE THERE BLOOD DROPS NEXT TO
THOSE SHOEPRINTS?
      "ANSWER:  YES, THERE WERE.


      "QUESTION:  DID YOU ATTEMPT TO RETRIEVE AND PRESERVE
THE BLOOD DRAWN THAT -- THAT'S BLOOD DROPS
      "ANSWER:  YES, I DID.
      "QUESTION:  WHAT DID YOU DO?
      "ANSWER:  I TRANSFERRED THE BLOOD DROPS ONTO CLOTH
SQUARES OR CLOTH SWATCHES.  WHAT I DID WAS WET  THE CLOTH
SWATCHES WITH DISTILLED WATER AND THEN APPLIED THEM TO THE
STAIN, THE RED STAINS WHICH WERE LATER DETERMINED TO BE
BLOOD, AND THEY WERE TRANSFERRED ON -- IN THAT METHOD."
            WERE YOU ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS, DID YOU GIVE
THOSE ANSWERS?
      A     YES, I DID.
      Q     AND THAT WASN'T ACCURATE TESTIMONY, WAS IT?
      A     IT WAS ACCURATE IN THE SENSE THAT I DID PERFORM
SOME OF THOSE FUNCTIONS ON -- BUT I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY
WHICH ONES I DID THEM ON.
      Q     MR. FUNG, DIDN'T YOU JUST TELL US THAT ANDREA
MAZZOLA WAS THE ONE THAT SWATCHED THE BLOOD DROPS, 47, 48,
49, 50 AND 52?
      A     SHE WAS THERE AND DID PARTAKE IN THOSE, YES.

      Q     SHE WAS THE ONE THAT DID THE SWATCHING, PUT THE
DISTILLED WATER ON THE SWATCH, RIGHT?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  I DON'T THINK THE WITNESS FINISHED HIS
ANSWER.
      THE COURT:  HAD YOU FINISHED THE ANSWER?
      THE WITNESS:  WELL, I NEED TO EXPLAIN MORE.
            DURING THE COLLECTION OF THAT TRAIL, I ALSO
PARTICIPATED IN THE DIRECT COLLECTION OF THE BLOODSTAINS,
MEANING I TOOK HOLD OF THE TWEEZERS AND SWATCHED SOME OF
THOSE STAINS.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  DID YOU TELL THE GRAND JURY
THAT ANDREA MAZZOLA, A PERSON WHO WAS IN TRAINING, SWATCHED
THOSE BLOOD DROPS, 47, 48, 49, 50 AND 52?  DID YOU TELL
THEM THAT?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  I WOULD ASK FOR THE TRANSCRIPT AND
PAGE.
      THE COURT:  NO.  THE QUESTION IS, DID HE TELL THE
GRAND JURY THAT; YES OR NO.
      THE WITNESS:  I DON'T RECALL THAT I DID TELL THEM
THAT.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  YOU MEAN YOU DIDN'T TELL THEM
THAT, RIGHT?
      THE COURT:  THAT'S ARGUMENTATIVE.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT TELL THE
GRAND JURY THAT ANDREA MAZZOLA PARTICIPATED IN SWATCHING
THOSE BLOOD DROPS AT BUNDY?
      A     NO.

      Q     THE ANSWER IS NO, YOU DIDN'T TELL THEM, RIGHT?
      A     THAT'S CORRECT.
      Q     OKAY.
            LET'S TALK ABOUT THE BLOOD DROPS AT ROCKINGHAM
-- THE BLOOD DROPS AT ROCKINGHAM AND THE STAIN ON THE
BRONCO, OKAY?
      MR. SCHECK:  MR. GOLDBERG, I'M AT GRAND JURY
TESTIMONY AT PAGE 390 STARTING AT LINE 6.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  "QUESTION:  HOW DID YOU
RECOVER THEM?
      "ANSWER:  I RECOVERED THEM IN THE SAME MANNER
DESCRIBED BEFORE WHERE I WOULD WET A CLOTH SWATCH OR
SEVERAL CLOTH SWATCHES IF NEEDED, APPLY IT TO THE RED STAIN
AND THEN LET THE RED STAIN TRANSFER ONTO THE CLOTH SWATCH."
            WERE YOU ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS, DID YOU GIVE
THOSE ANSWERS?
      A     YES.
      Q     SO YOU DIDN'T TELL THE GRAND JURY THAT ANDREA
MAZZOLA WAS ACTUALLY THE ONE THAT SWATCHED THAT RED STAIN
OFF THE HANDLE OF THE BRONCO, RIGHT?
      A     AT THE TIME --
      Q     DID YOU TELL THEM THAT?
      A     NO.
      Q     YOU SAID YOU DID IT?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND YOU SAID THE SAME THING ABOUT STAIN 4?
      A     YES.
      Q     5?
      A     YES.
      Q     6?
      A     I DON'T RECALL, BUT YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            IN OTHER WORDS, YOU TESTIFIED THAT YOU DID ALL
THE SWATCHING AT ROCKINGHAM WHEN IN FACT IT WAS ANDREA
MAZZOLA, RIGHT?
      A     NO.  I TESTIFIED THAT I DID THE COLLECTION.
      Q     NO.  DID YOU NOT TESTIFY THAT YOU RECOVERED
THEM IN THE SAME MANNER YOU DESCRIBED BEFORE WHERE YOU
WOULD WET A CLOTH SWATCH OR SEVERAL CLOTH SWATCHES IF
NEEDED, APPLY IT TO THE RED STAIN AND THEN LET THE STAIN
TRANSFER ONTO THE CLOTH SWATCH, RIGHT?  YOU SAID THAT?
      A     YES.
      Q     YOU WERE TELLING THE GRAND JURY THAT YOU DID
IT?
      A     YES.
      Q     NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE BUNDY GLOVE, ANDREA
MAZZOLA WAS THE ONE THAT PICKED UP THAT BUNDY GLOVE?
      A     YES.
      MR. SCHECK:  MR. HARRIS, COULD WE --
            YOUR HONOR, AT THIS POINT, WE WOULD LIKE TO
PLAY A VIDEOTAPE.  I'LL LAY THE FOUNDATION FOR IT.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  YOU'VE SEEN A VIDEOTAPE, HAVE
YOU NOT, MR. FUNG, OF ANDREA MAZZOLA PICKING UP THE GLOVE
AT BUNDY AND THE WATCH CAP?
      A     YES.
      Q     YOU SAW THAT BEFORE YOU TESTIFIED HERE?
      A     YES.
      Q     WHEN YOU TESTIFIED AT THE GRAND JURY, YOU WERE
TESTIFYING ON JUNE 22ND?
      A     YES.
      Q     THAT WAS JUST NINE DAYS AFTER THIS HAPPENED?
      A     YES.
      MR. SCHECK:  COULD WE SHOW THE TAPE?
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  WELL, WHILE HE'S SEARCHING FOR
THE TAPE, LET ME MOVE ON AND LET'S DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY
ABOUT THE BUNDY GLOVE AT THE GRAND JURY.
      MR. GOLDBERG:  PERHAPS I COULD -- I NEED TO KNOW
EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO PLAY.
      MR. SCHECK:  PLEASE --
      MR. GOLDBERG:  SO I NEED TO SEE IT BEFORE.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            MISS FITZPATRICK, CAN WE JUST SEE IT ON
COUNSEL'S MONITOR?
            IS THERE AUDIO ON THIS, MR. HARRIS?
      MR. HARRIS:  NO, SIR, THERE IS NOT.
      MR. SCHECK:  WE NEED TO TURN THESE MONITORS BACK.

            (AT 4:10 P.M., A VIDEOTAPE
             WAS PLAYED.)

            (AT 4:11 P.M., THE PLAYING
             OF THE VIDEOTAPE CONCLUDED.)

      THE COURT:  MR. GOLDBERG?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  OKAY.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.

            (AT 4:12, A VIDEOTAPE WAS
             PLAYED.)

      MR. SCHECK:  WOULD YOU STOP THAT FOR A SECOND,
PLEASE?
            NOW -- HOWARD, CAN WE STOP THAT?  NO, WE CAN'T
STOP IT.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  WHAT WE'VE SEEN SO FAR, THAT'S
ANDREA MAZZOLA; IS IT NOT?
      A     YES, IT IS.
      Q     AND SHE IS PICKING UP FIRST THE BUNDY GLOVE; IS
THAT CORRECT?
            WANT TO SEE THAT AGAIN FROM THE BEGINNING?
      A     YES.
      Q     OKAY.
            LET'S START FROM THE BEGINNING.
      MR. SCHECK:  I AM SORRY.  IS THAT THE BEGINNING,
HOWARD?
      MR. HARRIS:  YEAH.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  SORRY.
            THAT'S THE HAT; IS THAT CORRECT?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND SHE'S PUTTING IT IN A BAG; IS THAT CORRECT?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            THAT'S A CAR PASSING IN FRONT.
            NOW, DO YOU RECALL, MR. FUNG, IF YOU WERE
ANYWHERE AROUND OBSERVING THIS, DOING THIS?
      A     I DON'T SPECIFICALLY RECALL IT, NO.
      Q     THAT'S HER PICKING UP THE BAG, FOLDING IT,
PUTTING THE EVIDENCE TAG BY A TREE I GUESS; IS THAT
CORRECT?
      A     I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS BY A TREE.
      Q     BY THE EDGE OF THE STEPS?
      A     APPEARS SO.
      Q     AND NOW SHE'S PICKING UP THE GLOVE?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            AND BETWEEN PICKING UP THE KNIT HAT AND PICKING
UP THE GLOVE, SHE DID NOT CHANGE HER GLOVES?
      A     DO I KNOW IF SHE DID OR NOT?
      Q     WELL, DID YOU SEE THAT IN YOUR OBSERVATIONS?
THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME YOU'VE OBSERVED THIS TAPE, IS
IT?
      A     NO.
      Q     YOU'VE LOOKED AT IT A FEW TIMES, HAVEN'T YOU?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR --
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  LET'S GET RID OF THIS, OKAY?

            (AT 4:15 P.M., THE PLAYING
              OF THE VIDEOTAPE WAS CONCLUDED.)

      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  NOW, WHEN YOU TESTIFIED IN
FRONT OF THE GRAND JURY NINE DAYS AFTER THAT OCCURRED, WERE
YOU ASKED THESE QUESTIONS AND DID YOU GIVE THESE ANSWERS?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  AGAIN, I NEED IT.
      MR. SCHECK:  PAGE 377 TO 378 STARTING AT LINE 8.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  "QUESTION:  WAS ONE OF THESE
ITEMS A BROWN MAN'S LEATHER GLOVE?
      "ANSWER:  YES, IT WAS.
      "QUESTION:  DIRECTING YOUR ATTENTION TO THE SET OF
PHOTOGRAPHS, PEOPLE'S 26."
            AND YOU RECALL THAT, WHEN YOU TESTIFIED IN THE
GRAND JURY, WAS PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BUNDY GLOVE, CORRECT?
      A     I DON'T RECALL, BUT --
      Q     YOU RECALL BEING SHOWN THAT IN THE GRAND JURY,
PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BUNDY GLOVE?
      A     I RECALL PHOTOGRAPHS, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT
NUMBER IT WAS.
      Q     YOU DON'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS 26, BUT YOU RECALL
DURING YOUR TESTIMONY THAT MISS CLARK POINTED TO PICTURES
OF THE BUNDY GLOVE?
      A     YES.
      Q     OKAY.
                "QUESTION:  CAN YOU TELL US IF YOU  SEE THE
GLOVE YOU JUST REFERRED TO?
      "ANSWER:  IF I MAY TAKE A CLOSER LOOK.
      "QUESTION:  YES.
      "ANSWER:  THE GLOVE I'VE REFERRED TO IS SHOWN THERE
IN PHOTOGRAPH A.  THE PERSON, HE IS POINTING TO IT THERE.
IT'S ALSO IN PHOTOGRAPH B AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LEFT-HAND
CORNER, THE OTHER IN PHOTOGRAPH C NEXT TO THE PHOTO ID.


      "QUESTION:  IN PHOTOGRAPHS A, B AND C DO, THEY
ACTUALLY DEPICT THE GLOVE AND THE LOCATION AND CONDITION
YOU FOUND IT?
      "ANSWER:  YES.
      "QUESTION:  WHAT DID YOU DO WITH RESPECT TO THAT
GLOVE?
      "ANSWER:  INITIALLY, I MEASURED TO SEE -- TO LOCATE
WHERE IT WAS FOUND, DOCUMENTED THAT LOCATION AND THEN
PLACED IT IN A PAPER BAG FOR LATER PROCESSING."
            WERE YOU ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS, DID YOU GIVE
THOSE ANSWERS?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND THIS TESTIMONY WASN'T ACCURATE, WAS IT?
      A     THAT I PERSONALLY DID ALL THAT STUFF? NO.
      Q     RIGHT.
            YOU DID NOT TELL THE GRAND JURY THAT ANDREA
MAZZOLA WAS THE ONE THAT PICKED UP THE HAT AND PICKED UP
THE GLOVE, RIGHT?
      A     THAT'S CORRECT.
      Q     NOW, YOU DID NOT TELL THE GRAND JURY WHEN YOU
WERE DESCRIBING COLLECTING THAT EVIDENCE ABOUT THE
EXISTENCE OF ANDREA MAZZOLA AT ALL, DID YOU?

      MR. GOLDBERG:  WELL, IT'S IRRELEVANT UNLESS HE WAS
ASKED WHO ELSE WAS THERE.
      THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  WELL, YOU WERE ASKED A WHOLE
SERIES OF QUESTIONS IN THE GRAND JURY ABOUT HOW EVIDENCE
WAS COLLECTED?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND YOU WERE ASKED SPECIFICALLY ABOUT ITEMS
THAT YOU CONSIDERED AT THAT TIME IMPORTANT TO THIS CASE?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WELL --
      THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.  IT'S IRRELEVANT WHAT HE
THOUGHT WAS IMPORTANT AT THAT TIME.  I THINK YOU'VE ALREADY
ESTABLISHED WHAT THE TESTIMONY WAS, COUNSEL.
      MR. SCHECK:  OKAY.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  AND THAT TESTIMONY YOU GAVE TO
THE GRAND JURY WAS UNDER OATH?
      A     YES.
      Q     NOW, DID YOU DECIDE ON YOUR OWN NOT TO MENTION
TO THE GRAND JURY THAT ANDREA MAZZOLA WAS  INVOLVED IN
COLLECTING THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?
      A     I DON'T THINK IT WAS A COGNIZANT DECISION ONE
WAY OR THE OTHER.  I JUST GAVE THE ANSWERS AS THEY WERE
ASKED TO ME.
      Q     AND LEFT HER OUT?
      A     YES.


      Q     AND YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH ANYONE
AT THE LABORATORY, SID, BEFORE YOU TESTIFIED OR DID YOU
HAVE ANY DISCUSSION WITH ANYBODY AT THE LABORATORY BEFORE
YOU TESTIFIED?
      A     CONCERNING WHAT?
      Q     CONCERNING YOUR TESTIMONY.
      A     BEFORE THE GRAND JURY?
      Q     YES?
      A     I DON'T RECALL.
      Q     DID YOU TALK --  WHO IS MICHELLE KESTLER?
      A     SHE'S THE CHIEF FORENSIC CRIMINALIST. SHE'S LAB
DIRECTOR OF OUR LABORATORY.
      Q     DID YOU DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY WITH MICHELLE
KESTLER BEFORE YOU WENT TO THE GRAND JURY?
      A     I DON'T RECALL DISCUSSING IT WITH HER.
      Q     DID YOU DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY WITH GREG
MATHESON?
      A     I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
      Q     HE AT THAT TIME WAS THE HEAD OF SEROLOGY?
      A     YES.
      Q     DID YOU DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY IN THE GRAND
JURY WITH MISS CLARK?
      A     I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
      Q     BEFORE YOU TESTIFIED IN THE GRAND JURY, YOU DID
NOT DISCUSS YOUR TESTIMONY WITH MISS CLARK?

      A     I DON'T RECALL DISCUSSING IT WITH HER, NO.
      Q     SO I TAKE IT THEN THAT THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION
BETWEEN -- WITHDRAWN.
            DID YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH ANYONE ELSE IN
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE BEFORE YOU TESTIFIED IN THE
GRAND JURY?
      A     I DON'T RECALL DISCUSSING THE CASE WITH
ANYBODY, NO.
      Q     SO THERE WERE NO DISCUSSIONS WHATSOEVER BEFORE
YOU TESTIFIED IN THE GRAND JURY IN THIS CASE ABOUT YOUR
TESTIMONY WITH ANYONE FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?
      A     I DON'T RECALL ANY.
      Q     SO IN OTHER WORDS, THE FAILURE TO MENTION THAT
ANDREA MAZZOLA WAS INVOLVED IN THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE
IN THIS CASE WAS SOMETHING THAT YOU DECIDED TO DO ON YOUR
OWN?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, I'M GOING TO OBJECT
BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE HE WAS ASKED.
      THE COURT:  OVERRULED.
      THE WITNESS:  IT WASN'T A CONSCIOUS DECISION.  THAT'S
JUST THE WAY I ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  DID YOU ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS
IN THAT WAY, LEAVING ANDREA MAZZOLA OUT, BECAUSE YOU WERE
WORRIED ABOUT THE FACT THAT A TRAINEE HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN
COLLECTING IMPORTANT ITEMS OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?
      A     NO.

      Q     NOT JUST INVOLVED, BUT SHE HAD A MAJOR ROLE,
DIDN'T SHE?
      A     YES, SHE DID.
      Q     NOT ONLY DID SHE COLLECT THE BLOODSTAINS THAT
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AND THE GLOVE AND THE HAT, BUT SHE ALSO
DID CRIME SCENE DIAGRAMS?
      A     YES.
      Q     OF ROCKINGHAM?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND BUNDY?
      A     YES.
      Q     NOW, YOU SUBSEQUENTLY TESTIFIED AT A
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN THIS CASE; DID YOU NOT?
      A     YES, I DID.
      Q     AND AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING, WERE YOU ASKED
THESE QUESTIONS AND DID YOU GIVE THESE ANSWERS?
            AND OUT OF COMPLETENESS, I'M STARTING HIS
TESTIMONY OF JULY 7TH ON PAGE 39, LINE 17.
            TELL ME WHEN YOU'RE READY, MR. GOLDBERG.

            (BRIEF PAUSE.)

      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.  MR. SCHECK.
      MR. SCHECK:  CAN I --
      THE COURT:  PROCEED.


      MR. SCHECK:  "QUESTION:  HOW DO YOU COLLECT
BLOODSTAINS FROM A CRIME SCENE?
            "ANSWER:  GENERALLY STAINS ARE TRANSFERRED ONTO
A SWATCH BY FIRST WETTING THE SWATCH WITH DISTILLED WATER,
APPLYING IT TO THE STAIN SO THE BLOOD IS ABSORBED ONTO THE
SWATCH, AND AT THAT TIME, IT'S PLACED INTO A PLASTIC BAG
AND THEN PUT INTO A COIN ENVELOPE WHERE IT IS LABELED WITH
THE CORRESPONDING PHOTO ID NUMBER.
      "QUESTION:  IS IT ALSO YOUR JOB, SIR, TO PACKAGE ALL
OF THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU COLLECT AND LABEL IT WITH WHAT IS
KNOWN AS A DR NUMBER?
      "ANSWER:  YES, IT IS.
      "QUESTION:  AND DID YOU DO SO IN THIS CASE?
      "ANSWER:  YES, I DID.
      "QUESTION:  NOW I'M GOING TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO
ITEMS 1 THROUGH 8.  THOSE ARE THE BUNDY -- THE STAINS AT
ROCKINGHAM, CORRECT?


       "ANSWER:  1 THROUGH 8, SOME OF THEM WERE STAINS.
YES.
      "QUESTION:  DID YOU PREPARE A REPORT DESIGNATING WHAT
ITEMS NO. 1 THROUGH 8 ARE IN THIS CASE?
      "ANSWER:  YES, I DID.
      "QUESTION:  DID YOU COLLECT THEM, SIR?
      "ANSWER:  I DID, ALONG WITH MY ASSISTANT, CRIMINALIST
MAZZOLA.
      "QUESTION:  IS THAT ANOTHER CRIMINALIST WITH THE LOS
ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT?
      "ANSWER:  YES.
      "QUESTION:  DO YOU USUALLY SEND TWO CRIMINALISTS TO
A CRIME SCENE?
                "ANSWER:  NOT ALWAYS, NO.
      "QUESTION:  WHAT WAS THIS CRIMINALIST DOING WITH YOU
ON THAT PARTICULAR DAY?
      "ANSWER:  SHE WAS THERE TO LEARN HOW TO PROCESS CRIME
SCENES.
      "QUESTION:  YOU WERE SHOWING HER HOW IT IS DONE?
      "ANSWER:  YES."
            WERE YOU ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS AND DID YOU GIVE
THOSE ANSWERS?
      A     YES.
      Q     NOW, WHEN YOU SAID THAT ANDREA MAZZOLA WAS
THERE TO LEARN HOW TO PROCESS CRIME SCENES AND YOU WERE
SHOWING HER HOW IT WAS DONE, YOU WERE  INTENDING TO CONVEY,
WERE YOU NOT, THAT YOU DID MOST OF THE WORK AND SHE WAS
OBSERVING YOU?
      A     I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS MY INTENTION WITH THAT
STATEMENT.
      Q     WELL, THIS WAS A PRELIMINARY HEARING THAT WAS
YOU KNEW ON NATIONAL TELEVISION?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND DID YOU HAVE ANY RELUCTANCE IN TESTIFYING
THAT IT WAS ANDREA MAZZOLA THAT SWATCHED PRIMARILY ALL THE
ITEMS?  YOU SAID YOU SWATCHED ONE OR TWO TIMES, THE BUNDY
BLOOD DROPS; IS THAT RIGHT?
      A     MAY HAVE BEEN MORE THAN THAT.
      Q     SHE DID PRIMARILY ALL THE BUNDY BLOOD DROPS,
RIGHT?
      A     SHE DID A GOOD PORTION OF THEM, YES.
      Q     AND SHE DID THE ROCKINGHAM BLOOD STAINS
EXCLUSIVELY?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  WELL, IT'S VAGUE AS TO WHETHER HE
MEANS SWATCH OR WHAT.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  SHE SWATCHED THE ROCKINGHAM
BLOODSTAINS EXCLUSIVELY?
      THE COURT:  OVERRULED.
      THE WITNESS:  I WOULDN'T SAY EXCLUSIVELY.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  WELL, YOU DIDN'T SWATCH THE
BLOOD STAINS AT ROCKINGHAM, DID YOU?
      A     THERE MAY HAVE BEEN TIMES WHERE I DID TAKE AND
SHOW HER TECHNIQUES THAT I USED.
      Q     DO YOU REMEMBER THAT NOW AS YOU SIT HERE?
      A     I MAY HAVE.
      Q     WELL, DID YOU OR DIDN'T YOU?
      A     TO THE BEST REC -- I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY
WHICH ONES, BUT I DO RECALL HAVING MANIPULATED OR NOT
MANIPULATED, BUT TAKEN THE TWEEZERS AND USED THEM AT
ROCKINGHAM.
      Q     YOU DO?
      A     YES.  BUT SHE DID THE MOST.
      Q     SHE DID MOST OF IT, RIGHT?
      A     SHE DID MOST OF IT, YES.
      Q     BUT WHEN YOU WERE TESTIFYING AT THE PRELIMINARY
HEARING, YOU WERE SAYING THAT YOU WERE SHOWING HER HOW IT
WAS DONE, AND WEREN'T YOU TRYING TO CONVEY THE IMPRESSION
THAT YOU DID IT AND SHE WAS JUST THERE AS AN OBSERVER?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  I OBJECT.  THIS MISSTATES HIS
TESTIMONY.
      THE COURT:  SUSTAINED.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  YOU WERE ASKED AT THE
PRELIMINARY HEARING IN THESE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS THAT I
READ TO YOU:
      "DO YOU USUALLY SEND TWO CRIMINALISTS TO A CRIME
SCENE,"
AND YOUR ANSWER WAS,
                "NOT ALWAYS, NO."
            DO YOU RECALL THAT?
      A     YES.
      Q     NOW, ISN'T IT -- WOULDN'T IT BE -- IS IT  THE
POLICY OF THE LAPD SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION UNIT TO SEND AT
LEAST TWO CRIMINALISTS TO A DOUBLE HOMICIDE SUCH AS THIS
CASE?
      A     IT WOULDN'T -- AT THAT TIME?
      Q     YEAH.
      A     AT THAT TIME, THERE WAS NO HARD AND FAST RULE
TO SEND TWO CRIMINALISTS TO A DOUBLE, NO.
      Q     IT'S YOUR TESTIMONY THAT ON JUNE 13TH, AS FAR
AS YOU WERE CONCERNED, IT WOULD NOT BE THE POLICY OF THE
SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS UNIT OF THE LAPD TO SEND TWO
CRIMINALISTS TO A DOUBLE HOMICIDE?
      A     THAT'S NOT THE POLICY AT THAT TIME, NO.
      Q     I AM SORRY.
            WELL, YOU'RE AWARE --
            I JUST HAVE A FEW MINUTES BEFORE THE BREAK.
            YOU'RE AWARE THAT THERE IS A POLICY ABOUT
NOTIFYING SUPERVISORS IN CERTAIN CASES?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            AND IS THIS IN THAT MANUAL DO YOU KNOW, THE
MANUAL THAT YOU ARE NOT SO SURE YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH?
      A     I HAVE NOT REVIEWED THAT MANUAL THAT YOU'RE
REFERRING TO.
      Q     WELL, HOW DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS POLICY?
      A     THIS IS A POLICY THAT IS -- WAS GIVEN TO THE
CRIMINALISTS VERBALLY.
      Q     OKAY.
            SO YOU GOT THIS VERBALLY.  YOU NEVER SAW A
PIECE OF PAPER ABOUT THIS POLICY?
      A     WELL, WHAT POLICY ARE YOU REFERRING TO?
      Q     WELL, DO YOU KNOW OF A POLICY THAT SAYS THAT
SUPERVISORS MUST BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY WHEN A CASE,
NUMBER ONE, INVOLVES AN INDIVIDUAL OR A GROUP OF NOTORIETY?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND THAT THE SECOND FACTOR IN THIS POLICY IS
THAT THERE MIGHT BE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PRESS AT THE
SCENE?
      MR. GOLDBERG:  YOUR HONOR, THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING
IS IRRELEVANT.
      THE COURT:  OVERRULED.
      THE WITNESS:  THAT IS ONE OF THE FAC -- FACTORS IN
DETERMINING WHETHER TO CALL A SUPERVISOR, YES.
      Q     BY MR. SCHECK:  RIGHT.
            AND THE REASON THE PRESS IS IMPORTANT, WOULD
YOU NOT AGREE, THAT WHEN THE PRESS GETS TO A SCENE, THAT
MAKES IT DIFFICULT SOMETIMES FOR A CRIMINALIST TO COLLECT
EVIDENCE?
      A     NOT GENERALLY, NO.
      Q     WHEN THE PRESS ARRIVES AT A SCENE, SOMETIMES
THAT DRAWS A CROWD?
      A     YES.
      Q     IT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO KEEP PEOPLE AWAY FROM
THE CRIME SCENE, GETTING INTO IT?
      A     IT'S A POSSIBILITY.
      Q     AND THE POLICY ABOUT IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION OF
SUPERVISORS INCLUDES ANY CASE THAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED
UNUSUAL?
      A     YES.
      Q     AND INVOLVES TWO OR MORE THAN TWO MURDERS,
CORRECT.  MORE THAN TWO VICTIMS?
      A     YES.
      Q     ALL RIGHT.
            SO OUT OF THE FOUR FACTORS, WOULDN'T YOU AGREE
THAT THIS CASE CERTAINLY FIT INTO AT LEAST THREE?
      A     OF NOTIFYING A SUPERVISOR?
      Q     YES.
      A     YES.
      Q     AND THE REASON YOU -- CASES ARE PICKED OUT TO
NOTIFY SUPERVISORS IS THAT THESE ARE THE KINDS OF CASES
THAT WOULD INVOLVE ADDITIONAL SUPPORT AND EXTRA ATTENTION?
      A     POSSIBLY.
      Q     AND YOU KNEW RIGHT AWAY THAT THIS WAS THAT KIND
OF CASE, RIGHT?
      A     I KNEW THIS WAS GOING TO BE A HIGH-PROFILE
CASE.

      Q     AND WHEN YOU SERVED IN THE GRAND JURY, YOU KNEW
THAT THIS KIND OF CASE FROM THE MOMENT YOU GOT IT ON JUNE
13TH WOULD BE THAT KIND OF CASE?
      A     HIGH-PROFILE CASE?
      Q     WELL, HIGH PROFILE, ONE THAT WOULD INVOLVE
PRESS, ONE THAT WAS UNUSUAL?
      A     I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S UNUSUAL, BUT IT IS HIGH
PROFILE.
      Q     ONE THAT WOULD INVOLVE IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION
OF SUPERVISORS?
      A     YES.
      Q     ONE THAT WOULD LIKELY CALL FOR AT LEAST TWO
CRIMINALISTS?
      A     I DON'T -- I CAN'T DETERMINE WHAT A SUPERVISOR
WOULD SAY IN THAT INSTANT.
      MR. SCHECK:  WELL, I THINK THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE
PLACE TO STOP.
      THE COURT:  ALL RIGHT.
            ALL RIGHT.  LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING
TO TAKE OUR RECESS AS FAR AS THE JURY IS CONCERNED NOW
UNTIL TOMORROW MORNING.
            PLEASE REMEMBER ALL OF MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU;
DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, DON'T FORM ANY
OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DON'T FIGHT OVER THE T.V.; DON'T
ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE
CASE; DON'T CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS
BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU.
            BE KIND TO EACH OTHER.  ALL RIGHT?
            I'LL SEE YOU BACK TOMORROW MORNING, 9:00
O'CLOCK.
            ALL RIGHT.  MR. FUNG, YOU MAY STEP DOWN. YOU
ARE ORDERED TO RETURN 9:00 O'CLOCK.
            AND WE'LL TAKE A BRIEF RECESS.  I WOULD LIKE TO
CHAT WITH THE LAWYERS.

            (AT 4:35 P.M., AN ADJOURNMENT
             WAS TAKEN UNTIL, WEDNESDAY,
             APRIL 5, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)

          SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
           FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT NO. 103           HON. LANCE A. ITO, JUDGE



THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
                                       )
                            PLAINTIFF, )
                                       )
                                       )             VS.
                     ) NO. BA097211
                                       )
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON,                )
                                       )
                                       )
                            DEFENDANT. )


        REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

               TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 1995
                    VOLUME 120

        PAGES 21587 THROUGH 21821, INCLUSIVE







APPEARANCES:          (SEE PAGE 2)











                    JANET M. MOXHAM, CSR #4588
                    CHRISTINE M. OLSON, CSR #2378
           OFFICIAL REPORTERS

  APPEARANCES:


FOR THE PEOPLE:     GIL GARCETTI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
                    BY:  MARCIA R. CLARK, WILLIAM W.
                    HODGMAN, CHRISTOPHER A. DARDEN,
                    CHERI A. LEWIS, ROCKNE P. HARMON,
                    GEORGE W. CLARKE, SCOTT M. GORDON
                    LYDIA C. BODIN, HANK M. GOLDBERG,
                    ALAN YOCHELSON AND DARRELL S.
                    MAVIS, BRIAN R. KELBERG, AND
                    KENNETH E. LYNCH, DEPUTIES
                    18-000 CRIMINAL COURTS BUILDING
                    210 WEST TEMPLE STREET
                    LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012

FOR THE DEFENDANT:  ROBERT L. SHAPIRO, ESQUIRE
                    SARA L. CAPLAN, ESQUIRE
                    2121 AVENUE OF THE STARS
                    19TH FLOOR
                    LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067

                    JOHNNIE L. COCHRAN, JR., ESQUIRE
                    BY:  CARL E. DOUGLAS, ESQUIRE
                    SHAWN SNIDER CHAPMAN, ESQUIRE
                    4929 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
                    SUITE 1010
                    LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90010

                    GERALD F. UELMEN, ESQUIRE
                    ROBERT KARDASHIAN, ESQUIRE
                    ALAN DERSHOWITZ, ESQUIRE
                    F. LEE BAILEY, ESQUIRE
                    BARRY SCHECK, ESQUIRE
                    PETER NEUFELD, ESQUIRE
                    ROBERT D. BLASIER, ESQUIRE
                    WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, ESQUIRE


                      I N D E X



INDEX FOR VOLUME 120              PAGES 21587 - 21821

-----------------------------------------------------


DAY              DATE           SESSION   PAGE   VOL.


TUESDAY     APRIL 4, 1995         A.M.   21587   120
                                  P.M.   21701   120
-----------------------------------------------------

                     PROCEEDINGS


MOTION FOR SANTIONS (RESUMED)            21587   120

  LEGEND:

MS. CLARK - MC
MR. HODGMAN - H
MR. DARDEN  D
MS. LEWIS - L
MS. KAHN - K
MR. GOLDBERG - GB
MR. GORDON - G
MR. SHAPIRO - S
MR. COCHRAN - C
MR. DOUGLAS - CD
MR. BAILEY - B
MS. CHAPMAN - SC
MR. UELMEN - U
MR. SCHECK - BS
MR. NEUFELD - N
-----------------------------------------------------

          CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

PEOPLE'S
WITNESSES       DIRECT  CROSS  REDIRECT  RECROSS  VOL.


FUNG, DENNIS                                      120
  ARTHUR
  (RESUMED)    21667GB
  (RESUMED)    21703GB 21757BS

 -----------------------------------------------------

          ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES


WITNESSES       DIRECT  CROSS  REDIRECT  RECROSS  VOL.


FUNG, DENNIS                                      120
  ARTHUR
  (RESUMED)    21667GB
  (RESUMED)    21703GB 21757BS


                        EXHIBITS


PEOPLE'S                      FOR              IN EXHIBIT
               IDENTIFICATION      EVIDENCE
                          PAGE   VOL.       PAGE  VOL.


169 - POSTERBOARD        21671   120
      ENTITLED "ROCKINGHAM INTERIOR BIOLOGICAL
      EVIDENCE"

170 - POSTERBOARD        21674   120
      ENTITLED "EVIDENCE DRYING DEMONSTRATION"
      WITH 4 PHOTOGRAPHS

171 - POSTERBOARD        21682   120
      ENTITLED "EVIDENCE PACKAGING DEMONSTRATION"
      WITH 5 PHOTOGRAPHS

172 - POSTERBOARD        21694   120
      ENTITLED "BROCO EVIDENCE" WITH 10 PHOTOGRAPHS

164-C - BROWN PAPER BAG  21704   120
      CONTAINING A CAP

164-A - BROWN PAPER BAG  21705   120
      CONTAINING A GLOVE

164-B - BROWN PAPER BAG  21705   120
      CONTAINING A BLUE BAG

173 - 1-PAGE DOCUMENT    21708   120
      LAB NOTE REFERRING TO ITEMS 17, 18 AND 19

174 - 1-PAGE DOCUMENT    21710   120
      LAB NOTE REFERRING TO ITEMS 17, 18 AND 19

175 - DOCUMENT           21713   120
      PHOTOCOPY OF PROPERTY REPORT FOR ITEMS 12,
      13, 14, 15 AND 16 DATED JUNE 14, 1994

176 - DOCUMENT           21713   120
      PHOTOCOPY OF PROPERTY REPORT FOR ITEMS 18
      AND 19 DATED JUNE 15, 1994

177 - COLLECTION OF      21738   120
      POSTERBOARDS ENTITLED "LAPD EVIDENCE
      DISPOSITION" IDENTIFIED AS THROUGH E

177-A - POSTERBOARD      21738   120
      REFERRING TO ITEMS 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14,
      17, O.J. SIMPSON BLOOD EXEMPLAR 19, 20 AND 24

                        EXHIBITS
                     (CONTINUED)


PEOPLE'S                      FOR              IN EXHIBIT
               IDENTIFICATION      EVIDENCE
                          PAGE   VOL.       PAGE  VOL.


177-B - POSTERBOARD      21743   120
      REFERRING TO ITEMS 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34,

177-C - POSTERBOARD      21744   120
      REFERRING TO ITEMS 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52,
      54, 55, 56 AND 57

177-D - POSTERBOARD      21745   120
      REFERRING TO ITEMS 59, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON
      BLOOD EXEMPLAR, 60, RONALD GOLDMAN BLOOD
      EXEMPLAR, 72, 78 SHOES, 78 SWATACHES, 79, 81,
      81-A THRU H AND 82

177-E - POSTERBOARD      21746   120
      REFERRING TO ITEMS 84, 85, 86, 115, 116, 117,
      293, 303, 304 AND 305

178 - 7 PAGES OF NOTES   21754   120
      REFERRING TO ITEMS 59, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON
      BLOOD EXEMPLAR, 60, RONALD GOLDMAN BLOOD
    FOR              IN EXHIBIT
IDENTIFICATION      EVIDENCE
                          PAGE   VOL.       PAGE  VOL.


1069 - 2-PAGE DOCUMENT    21775   120
      RELATING TO EVIDENCE COLLECTION (ORIGINAL)

1070 - 2-PAGE DOCUMENT    21776   120
      RELATING TO EVIDENCE COLLECTION (PHOTOCOPY)



??