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. Good morning, counsel.
MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, your Honor.
MR. SHAPIRO: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Neufeld, Mr. Scheck. Mr. Scheck, correct?
MR. SCHECK: Correct.
THE COURT: All right. The People are represented by Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Darden. The jury is not present. Counsel, is there anything we need to take up before we invite the jurors to rejoin us? My recollection is that we had discussed some issues regarding videotapes. Are we prepared to go forward?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, my understanding of the Court's orders last night is that we were to be provided copies of the videotapes that counsel wanted to show today so that we could review them over the evening. And Mr. Scheck did say he was going to get copies for me, but I didn't receive any. I was here until about 8:30 or 9:00 last night. So we are not ready.
MR. SCHECK: Well, your Honor, before we left we gave Mr. Goldberg an opportunity--I didn't know that he was expecting copies that evening, and in fact, due to certain difficulties, we have not been able to make a copy of the last tape that we received in the afternoon. I mean, if he wants--I don't know what to say. I mean, we have shown him the tapes. If the Court wants to look at them, basically--
THE COURT: Well, as I recall, as we ended the Court day I was advised that the Prosecution withdrew their objection.
MR. COCHRAN: That's correct. That was our understanding.
THE COURT: Mr. Cochran.
MR. COCHRAN: I'm sorry.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, the only part that we waived an objection to was the videotape of the in Court testimony of Mr. Fung.
THE COURT: Let me have the transcript of yesterday's proceeding.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: My recollection of what I heard is that we withdraw our objection to the videotapes, plural, is that what I thought I heard.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Referring to 22508 of the transcript: "Miss Clark: Your Honor, so that the Court is aware, we have withdrawn our objection to the showing--to showing the tape, the direct testimony of the witness, so that we should recommence with that," so that was a single tape. All right. The Court stands corrected. All right. Mr. Goldberg, what other clip of tape do you need to review prior to restarting with Mr. Fung?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, there were two clips of tapes.
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, would you help me on this.
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
THE COURT: The first clip showed Mr. Fung with paper bags and a catalogue case.
MR. SCHECK: The--I have all the tapes and I will show them to Mr. Goldberg. This is what we intend to show. There is a shot of Mr. Fung--
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
(Mr. Fung exits the courtroom.)
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.
MR. SCHECK: There is a shot of Mr. Fung and Miss Mazzola exiting Rockingham; Mr. Fung carrying a black bag, a bag valise, I think.
THE COURT: Catalogue case.
MR. SCHECK: Catalogue case.
THE COURT: Litigation case.
MR. SCHECK: And some brown paper bags, and Miss Mazzola has what may be a posse box or a clipboard and a bottle of water, it appears to me. And they go into the truck and there is sound that I think we showed the Court yesterday where Mr. Fung says something to the effect of--
THE COURT: All right. That is the first tape.
MR. SCHECK: That is the first tape.
THE COURT: With the testimony?
MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry. No, no, that doesn't have the testimony. That is just a clip. That is one view of it. I showed Mr. Goldberg last night a second tape that we got just as late in the afternoon that has additional footage of that where we see from another camera angle--from another camera angle Mr. Fung and Miss Mazzola then going--leaving from the truck and walking back into Rockingham, picking up two little yellow cards from the driveway and heading back in. And I think when you see both tapes you will see that there was a camera person there from channel 9 and a camera person there from inside edition and in this second shot the inside edition camera person actually gets a picture of channel 9 videotape person, so you can see where both shots are coming from. Then we have another set of tapes showing Mr. Fung and Miss Mazzola leaving Rockingham a second time. This time we see Mr. Fung and his hands and we see Miss Mazzola.
THE COURT: So we have not seen this videotape yet?
MR. SCHECK: We did. We saw the second one. We saw one clip of the second one, I believe.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHECK: And I have one clip of that that I have shown the Prosecution and then I have a second clip of that, umm, that is more complete in that there is a second shot of them walking further towards the truck. In addition, we showed him a complete videotape that includes, umm, footage in between that we received yesterday afternoon. If the Court wants, I can show you all the different clips in the order that I want to show them to the witnesses, because--and then we will just--
THE COURT: Have you displayed this to the Prosecution in the manner that you intend on displaying it to the jury?
MR. SCHECK: Well, I have displayed all the tapes. I'm not sure that I have displayed them in the order, but I could do that if he wants.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, your request at this point is for some additional time to review these videotapes?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: How much additional time do you think you need?
MR. GOLDBERG: I don't know how long exactly these videotapes are, the totality of the tapes that Mr. Scheck just mentioned. I would imagine it probably wouldn't take that long once I have a copy and I can go up to my office and take a look at them.
THE COURT: Well, we have the video equipment here. You can look at it here rather than hazard the elevators in the building.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that may be true, your Honor, but as the Court knows, many of these videotape clips that counsel has presented, present images that are very fleeting and the Defense is only concentrating on one or two frames that are very easily missed, so it is useful for our purposes, in order to be prepared to deal with these issues, to be able to carefully look at them and that is why we would request a copy.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Goldberg, I will tell you what, let's do this: Mr. Scheck has offered to display to you and to the Court those videotape portions that he intends on showing to the witness and to the jury. So let's see what he intends on showing and the order in which he intends on showing and then you tell me how much additional time you are going to need. All right. Mr. Harris, let's see the videotape.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: I take it this is all at Rockingham?
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, this is all at Rockingham?
MR. SCHECK: All at Rockingham.
THE COURT: All right.
(Brief pause.)
(At 9:30 A.M. A videotape was played.)
MR. SCHECK: There is sound on this one. We played the sound yesterday.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. DARDEN: May we hear the sound.
(The videotape was again played.)
MR. SCHECK: That is all that we have from that tape.
THE COURT: All right.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Should we mark--do you want these marked now, your Honor?
THE COURT: All right. This should be Defense 1101.
MR. SCHECK: The one we just showed.
(Deft's 1101 for id = videotape)
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, before we start this one, it is up to Mr. Goldberg, we have an option here, this tape is--shows a number of different events. We intend to show to the witness the first segment that is a more complete view of this one, but if the Prosecution wants to see, umm, what is in between from beginning to end, umm--
THE COURT: How long is the tape?
MR. SCHECK: I think it is about five minutes.
THE COURT: Play it. All right. We will mark this second tape 1102.
(Deft's 1102 for id = videotape)
(At 9:32 A.M. Defendant's exhibit 1102, a videotape, was played.)
MR. SCHECK: We weren't intending to play sound. It doesn't matter to us.
MR. DARDEN: Let's hear it.
MR. SCHECK: Do you want to hear it? Okay. Play the sound.
(The videotape continues playing.)
MR. SCHECK: You know, your Honor, you see the other cameraman, it is my belief that that is the cameraman that shot the first one.
(The videotape continues playing.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, at this point that was all I was intending to show.
THE COURT: All right. Let's see the remainder of the tape.
(The videotape continues playing.)
MR. SCHECK: We were intending to show that.
(At 9:36 A.M. The tape concludes playing.)
MR. SCHECK: That is all that is on this tape.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: This one we were marking, your Honor, 1102?
THE COURT: The second tape was 1102.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, I guess we will mark this 1103.
(Deft's 1103 for id = videotape)
(At 9:37 A.M., Defendant's exhibit 1103, a videotape, was played.)
MR. GOLDBERG: This is 1103 we are looking at?
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
(The videotape continues playing.)
MR. SCHECK: Okay. There is another segment of 1103 that I would like to show previously, but I would have to cue it up with Mr. Harris, if the Court would give us permission.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, this is the second section I want to show and call the Court's attention that it is a shot from another angle of Detective Vannatter getting out of his car, but now in this sequence you can see what he has in his hands whereas in the other sequence his hands were cut off from view.
(The videotape continues playing.)
MR. SCHECK: Okay.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, is there more to that tape?
MR. SCHECK: Yeah. You can see the rest of it, but it is just another short shot of the first one.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can we see that?
THE COURT: All right. Let's see it.
(The videotape continues playing.)
THE COURT: Why don't you roll it back just some. Mr. Harris, can you roll it back? All right.
(The videotape is again played.)
MR. SCHECK: So that tape was marked 1103. I think there is one more view that I have discovered. I don't know if I will show it or not, but I want to give the Prosecution all the tape I have viewing this, and if they have some more, the news media has some more, I would love to see it.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harris, are you going to cue that up for us?
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: This will be, I take it, 1104.
(Deft's 1104 for id = videotape)
(At 9:42 A.M., Defendant's exhibit 1104, a videotape, was played.)
MR. SCHECK: Yes, we would play this because--
THE COURT: All right. This is still 1103?
MR. SCHECK: This is 1104.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHECK: As you can see, it has a more complete shot of them leaving and this just goes on to show something else that--is there another sequence? I think they have seen this tape before from other sources.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. DARDEN: Can we just go back on that one about fifteen seconds?
THE COURT: Mr. Harris.
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Can we get a freeze frame on what is--
(The videotape is again played.)
MR. SCHECK: Okay. That is--the Prosecution is free to see this entire tape, but I think that these are the only relevant sections.
THE COURT: All right. 1104, the last tape.
MR. GOLDBERG: That was 1104 that we just saw, your Honor?
THE COURT: That's correct.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, your Honor. There are some things in the videotape that are of interest to us in reviewing them that will take some time to look at more closely, and I would like the opportunity to do that. I would like the opportunity to make copies of these tapes, if counsel does not have copies to provide us with.
THE COURT: How much time do you need?
MR. GOLDBERG: Umm--
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. SCHECK: If it will make it faster, I will give them our copies and go look at them as long as they want, maybe in chambers, videotape machine, anywhere. They are not going to go away.
MR. GOLDBERG: We would also like to have copies of our own, your Honor. We can make copies from the Defense copies here.
THE COURT: No, I understand. I understand that you would like to have your own copies, but the issue that I would like to resolve is the amount of time that you need to view this so that you can be prepared to redirect or whatever as far as Mr. Fung is concerned. I would like to proceed with the jury this morning.
MR. GOLDBERG: I know your Honor would like to do that. I can understand that.
THE COURT: So what I would prefer we do is that Mr. Harris remain to assist you with the video equipment, you sit here with Mr. Harmon or Mr. Clarke or Mr. Fairtlough or whoever it is, Miss Martinez, you look at it as many times as you need to here and let's get the show on the road.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I--it is really not a very comfortable environment for us to take a look at these things. It doesn't give us the opportunity--
THE COURT: I am not interested in comfort, Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: It doesn't give us the opportunity to confer, to discuss it, to take a good look at certain frames, because there are at least two or three frames, specific frames of interest here in these tapes. And your Honor, the argument that I made last night was that we feel that they have a discovery obligation when they reasonably intend to use these tapes to provide them to us. We are not saying that the Court should preclude it. We are not asking that the Court--
THE COURT: No. I'm giving you the opportunity to look at it, to view it as many times as you want. I want you to do it here. I don't want to waste time running up and down the elevators and making copies and everything else.
MR. GOLDBERG: May we have a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Sure.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Would the Court give us thirty minutes to be able to look at the tape--the tapes?
THE COURT: I will give you thirty minutes and I will give you thirty minutes in my chambers with my VCRs and my TV, however you want to do it. You can do it with this equipment here, high-resolution monitor here, or you can do it in my chambers, I don't care, but let's just do it. The tapes are here. Let's just do it.
MR. GOLDBERG: When will the Prosecution be able to get a copy of this tape, your Honor?
THE COURT: Probably as soon as it is available, as soon as we take a break for lunch, I assume. Most of the videotape duplicators that I am familiar with are on real time, rather than high-speed. All right. Mr. Fairtlough agrees. All right. We will stand in recess for half an hour.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, one request. I think it is clear, but plainly we are at a stage of impeachment, and so I would only ask that they be entitled to view it, but they not discuss it with the witness until he is cross-examined.
THE COURT: That was the order that we had earlier. All right. Thank you, counsel.
(Recess.)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. Mr. Goldberg, have you had the opportunity to review the various videotapes?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, your Honor, and I would thank the Court for giving us that opportunity. I apologize that it took an attorney's thirty minutes.
THE COURT: All right. Are we ready to proceed?
MR. GOLDBERG: We would like to argue about the admissibility of the tapes.
THE COURT: All right.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, may we approach for a moment?
THE COURT: For what purpose?
MR. SHAPIRO: Off the record just very briefly?
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, last evening, when I had an opportunity to look at the tapes briefly, we objected on the grounds of relevance. It appears to me that the tapes, in terms of the events that they portray, are not material in the sense of not going to any contested issue in this case. If you simply look at the events portrayed thereon, they are not inconsistent in any way with Mr. Fung's testimony. We made a similar argument, or I think that identical argument, in fact, last night. Mr. Fung testified that he took several items out to the truck. He said that the blood could have been packaged in a number of different ways, including in a brown paper bag or I think what he said was a posse box, and then he had a third way and he wasn't really sure.
So there is nothing in terms of the tape itself that is material that contradicts him. Upon very careful review of the tapes it is apparent to us that what the Defense wants to try to do is not to introduce the tapes for the materiality of the events that are portrayed, but rather for the time sequence, and that is where we have a tremendous difficulty with these tapes, your Honor, particularly on 1101 and 1103, which I would like the Court, if the Court would be willing to do so, to take another look at with several things in mind. As to 1101, what you will see on that tape is at first Mr. Fung comes out with the various bags, the brown paper bags and the large black type kit, and Miss Mazzola is handling the same item, type of item. The next item is that there is a cut, a distinct cut and break in that tape, and then Mr. Vannatter arrives in his vehicle. And then the third thing that happens is there is a showing of Andrea Mazzola and Mr. Fung, this is a third cut, coming out of the location, and Andrea Mazzola is handling what appears to be a garbage bag with some sort of an item or items in it. Perhaps we could look at that, your Honor, at this point.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, just to save some time, we only are offering the first part of it. If Mr. Goldberg is going to argue now that--we are not offering Mr. Vannatter getting out of his car. Frankly, we would readily concede that that is a cut, and in terms of the way I have reconstructed events and what I put to the witness, that is Mr. Vannatter is arriving after--in other words, that shot is out of order, if that is a problem, but I just want to note for the record that in terms of what we are offering from that tape, we are not offering--
THE COURT: Vannatter?
MR. SCHECK: Vannatter.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And the third item--what that tape showed is it shows Mr. Fung with all the bags, it shows Phil Vannatter arriving, but it does not show the sequence of Andrea Mazzola coming out afterwards. If the Court then compares that to tape no. 1103, 1103 shows Mr. Vannatter arriving first and then it shows Mr. Fung walking out with all of the items in the brown paper bag and the large boxes. And then the third item that that shows is the scene of Andrea Mazzola coming out with the plastic bag. Now, if counsel is not offering 1101 for any purpose other than to show Mr. Fung carrying out all the bags, then it does not have any relevance at all. It seemed to me that what they are trying to do is get a sequence or an order, and we have two different tapes, 1101 and 1103, that depict an entirely different sequence. And how are we supposed to know which order those occurred in?
I believe that is the gravamen of the reason that they are introducing these tapes, and if that is true, it is extremely misleading to the witness and to the jury for the Defense to be able to make assumptions as to when these events occurred and to present them in whatever order they feel benefits their side, particularly when we have two different tapes that are cut in a very different sequence. I would also point out, your Honor, that it seems to be entirely without foundation, if they are intending to ask Mr. Fung about the sequence in the tape no. 1103 showing Mr. Vannatter arriving, to ask him about something that he would not have seen, that there is no foundation that he saw.
So we are objecting, your Honor, on the grounds of relevance, materiality. We are also objecting under 352 that this is extremely misleading, that this is prejudicial, that the jury should not see something where the issue is the order of events when we do not know what the order is, cannot determine what the order is and we have two different tapes that have been cut in two different sequences. And it also has the danger of misleading this witness because he doesn't know and hasn't seen the tapes and doesn't know what order they were cut in.
THE COURT: How about 1102 and 1104?
(Brief pause.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, as to 1102, what 1102 shows is simply Andrea Mazzola coming out and Dennis Fung coming out at some point with the plastic bag. Again, an event which in and of itself has no materiality. I don't know whether the Defense is offering that for some sequencing purpose. If they are, then we have the same objection that we don't know what the sequence of these three events are. 1104 contains shots of Detective Lange holding what appears to be a search warrant in the area immediately before the entry to the Defendant's house where stains--in the approximate area where stains 7 and 8 were found on the brick portion of the entry area. And again, it is not material, there is no showing that Mr. Fung was there at that time or saw that. But it appears, your Honor, that what the Defense is trying to do is there are essentially three things that are going on when you boil these tapes down.
No. 1, at some point, whenever it is, Detective Vannatter arrives. At some point, whenever it is, Mr. Fung and Miss Mazzola come out with a variety of items, including the brown paper bags and the large black boxes. At some point, in whatever sequence it is, Andrea Mazzola comes out carrying a trash bag and Mr. Fung is accompanying her. But the issue is sequence and there is no way that we can tell from these four tapes what the sequence is. We would ask the Court to require the Defense to lay the same kind of foundation that the People have been previously required to lay when the issue is timing, when the issue is sequence, particularly whereas here the tapes are edited in two different fashions.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Mr. Scheck.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I think the Court has been--been as generous as one could be under these circumstances. The Prosecution has had a considerable period to look at every tape we have. They have had Detective Vannatter back there looking at it with them. I'm sure they have discussed it with everybody they can. I think that all these issues go to weight, not admissibility. I think that we should be allowed to show everything to this witness who was there to try to sort through what happened when, the sequence of events. He is there. I want to show him the tapes. I want him to give us the order, if he possibly can, and explore that with him. Umm, with respect to, umm, Detective Vannatter, I asked him some questions already about whether he recalled Detective Vannatter carrying a black duffel bag and a clipboard when he saw him. I think that we should be allowed to show him that tape of Detective Vannatter getting out of the car, show them all the sequences and let's try to do it through the witnesses. Let's try to get to the truth, because that is really what this is all about. Now, there is nothing more that we can do. We would like to get every tape we could, but between showing the videotapes of the events as they actually transpired, letting the witnesses see it, letting the witnesses tell us to the best of their recollection what happened when, we can try to reconstruct the truth of these events. That is all that we are proposing to do. On redirect examination, on the rest of their case, we can recall Detective Vannatter, they can recall Detective Lange, they can do whatever they want to try to straighten this out.
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, as to 1103, are you going to offer the portion with Vannatter's arrival at Rockingham?
MR. SCHECK: It had not been our intention to offer that particular segment. If they want it, they can, because what we showed the Court were two different pieces of footage of Vannatter arriving that are more complete.
THE COURT: Let me be clear on what it is what you are proposing to offer. On 1101 it is merely Fung and Mazzola walking to the truck, correct?
MR. SCHECK: I believe that's correct.
THE COURT: Without Vannatter's portion in there?
MR. SCHECK: Could I just see--they have the tapes. Could I just see the tapes, because they have my notations on them. I even gave them my work product.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: That's correct. What we intend to show are the two more complete shots of Vannatter. We are not going to show it on 1101, but on 1102--
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: 1103, we would show the witness the two shots of Vannatter arriving, one where you can't see what is in his hand, and the other one where you can, just for purposes of completeness so that everybody gets to see everything.
THE COURT: All right. How about 1102?
MR. SCHECK: 1102, umm--
THE COURT: This is Fung and Mazzola coming out to the truck.
MR. SCHECK: Right. What our proposal with 1102 was, umm--
THE COURT: Different angle.
MR. SCHECK: Yeah. My--this is the tape that has the complete shot, in my recollection, of Fung and Mazzola going back into Rockingham, so we were going to show that entire sequence, and we were going to show Detective Vannatter arriving, but this is the shot where you can't see the bag. And 1103 we were going to reshow the shot where you can see the bag as he is getting out of the car and what is in his hands.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHECK: So that is how we were going to deal with it in terms of those tapes.
THE COURT: How about 1104?
MR. SCHECK: 1104 I think is the--I think is the--we are going to show the section of Fung and Mazzola leaving Rockingham. This time Mr. Fung has no bags in his hands and Miss Mazzola has the trash bag. The value of this shot is that we see them starting at the front door and coming down the driveway and that was the part we were going to offer from 11--
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: 1104.
THE COURT: 1104 also has that gathering out front with Lange--excuse me. With Lange, yes, Detective Lange and Detective Vannatter. Are you offering that portion?
MR. SCHECK: Yeah. We--it wasn't our intention to--
THE COURT: Standing there with the tennis shoes.
MR. SCHECK: That is after a cut. We weren't intending to offer that.
THE COURT: So it is only Fung and Mazzola leaving from a different perspective.
MR. SCHECK: Only Fung and a Mazzola leaving, right, from a different perspective.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: There is another view, though, on--may I have the other tape?
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: And just to be clear, your Honor, on 1103 we are going to show the sequence where Fung and Mazzola are walking out of the driveway. Mr. Fung doesn't have anything in his hands except maybe a pen or something, and Miss Mazzola has that trash bag, but this time you get to see them walking further down the sidewalk towards their van.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Any other comment, Mr. Goldberg?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, your Honor. Well, it has become absolutely apparent from what counsel says that the sequence is exactly what he does want to use these tapes to do. And how can you take--
THE COURT: Let me ask you this: First of all, do you have an objection--what is your objection to the tape segments that depict only Mr. Fung and Miss Mazzola in their travels in and out of Rockingham on the 13th?
MR. GOLDBERG: The objection, your Honor, is that it is immaterial in the sense that in and of itself all you have is a picture of them coming out and if you are not making any suggestion to this jury whatsoever as to what order it came in, then it is immaterial. The only materiality of it and the only argument that counsel has made is that he wants to resolve order, the sequence, and how on earth can that be done with a tape that has been cut, where we have another tape that presents it in an entirely different sequence? The only issue that counsel is offering this tape on, your Honor, is something that we cannot resolve from the tape.
THE COURT: I'm just asking what is your specific objection.
MR. GOLDBERG: That is my specific objection, that it is not material, that it should be precluded under 352 and that there must be a foundation.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. GOLDBERG: If the Court--if we were trying to offer a piece of evidence on the issue of sequencing and timing and we did try to do this, and we did do this, we had to call the cameraman. The cameraman can testify perhaps the sequence that these events occurred in; Mr. Fung cannot from the videotapes. And if what they are trying to do simply is to resolve the issue of sequence, you can do that by questioning the witness; you don't need the videotapes. The videotapes do not shed any light, do not do anything except confuse and mislead the jury and the witness, and it is not legally permissible to do that under 352, under relevance, under foundation. You know, Mr. Scheck argues, well, you know, when he is addressing the Court legally, I want to do it. "I want to do it" is not an exception or is not a provision in the evidence code.
THE COURT: So you are saying that because of the cuts you can't tell which sequence takes--occurs first, the coming out with the trash bag and coming out with the catalogue cases?
MR. GOLDBERG: You can't tell which occurs first. These tapes in no way shed any light on that issue and will confuse that issue. That is our objection.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
MR. GOLDBERG: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.
MR. SCHECK: Well, you can tell and we will find out when we question the witness, he was there, and he can tell us, but you can tell which is first and which is second, we contend, and we are going to prove it and we have a right to prove it.
THE COURT: All right. How about the foundation since there is a cut?
MR. SCHECK: Well, no. I think when you say the cut, which cut are you referring to, your Honor?
THE COURT: Well, you have Fung and Mazzola going to the truck, placing items in the truck and then turning around and walking back down the parkway. There is a cut.
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Then you have them coming out again from the Rockingham address, Fung without anything and Mazzola with a plastic bag.
MR. SCHECK: Right.
THE COURT: Which came first?
MR. SCHECK: That is the issue. Maybe the witness can help us. It is up to the witness. How else are we going to find it out? They have been speaking to Detective Vannatter, they have been speaking to everybody else.
THE COURT: Gentlemen--Mr. Neufeld, do you want to be heard on this?
MR. NEUFELD: Definitely not.
MR. SCHECK: We think we can do it through the witness and we think that that is the whole point. We are not hiding anything here. We are showing them everything. One can reconstruct the camera angles from the two different cameras as best one can. They can talk to the witnesses, they can put on any other witness after this is over to try to reconstruct events. Basically we are not using any misleading cuts. We are giving--they have had every opportunity to look at it. We are giving every camera angle that we have available that anyone has available, to our knowledge, of these events.
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg, has this video been displayed to Mr. Fung?
MR. GOLDBERG: No.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, if it would assist you, I would ask once again that we approach very briefly and I can make an ex parte application and I think you will be satisfied.
THE COURT: No.
MR. SCHECK: I think we do have a right to do that.
THE COURT: I don't need you to do that at this point, Mr. Scheck. The question--the largest question I have is foundation, because if you are going to exhibit this to the jury.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Then there has got to be some authentication as to what came first, since obviously the sequence of these items is important to you.
MR. SCHECK: Well, I think that maybe Mr. Fung can tell us.
THE COURT: All right. Then I propose we do that out of the presence of the jury first and see if he can lay a foundation for it, otherwise you can bring in the cameraman.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: All right, your Honor. I give up. I really don't think that I should have to reveal this now. I really think that is wrong, but--
THE COURT: I am not asking you to do it. I'm saying if you want to lay the foundation with Fung or the cameraman out of the presence of the jury, you are welcome to do so. That is your option.
MR. SCHECK: Okay, okay. One second. One second, your Honor.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, my apologies to the Court. I think that--the course you suggest is a wise one.
THE COURT: Thank you. What is your choice?
MR. SCHECK: The choice is that we lay--
THE COURT: Mr. Fung out of the presence?
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
THE COURT: Let's have Mr. Fung.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Good morning again. Mr. Fung, would you take the witness stand again, please.
Dennis Fung, (402) called as a witness on behalf of the Defendant, pursuant to evidence code section 402, having been previously sworn, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: Mr. Fung, you are reminded you are still under oath, sir. We are going to show you a few videotapes. Mr. Scheck, Mr. Harris.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, perhaps while we are waiting, I could just make one request. I think probably he should only be shown the tapes as to the specific sequences, the three sequences we have discussed, and not in any particular order, so that he is not misled.
THE COURT: No. This is Mr. Scheck's offer on foundation. He can do it however he sees fit.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Fung, I would like to show you a segment from the videotape. Let me just make sure the segment is cued.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: This is a segment from 101.
THE COURT: All right. 101.
MR. COCHRAN: 1101.
(A segment of Defendant's exhibit 1101, a videotape, was played.)
MR. SCHECK: Stop a second, please.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Fung, I would like you to note carefully the cars that you see as in the tape. This tapes proceeds, okay?
MR. FUNG: Cars?
MR. SCHECK: The cars that are parked on the sidewalk. All right?
MR. FUNG: (No audible response.)
MR. SCHECK: First you saw a police car there, a black and white?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Let's proceed.
(The videotape resumes playing.)
MR. SCHECK: Let's stop.
MR. SCHECK: You see this second van there?
MR. FUNG: The one where the gentleman is--
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
MR. FUNG: --coming out of? Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Let's proceed.
(The videotape resumes playing.)
MR. SCHECK: Let's stop.
MR. SCHECK: Do you see this brown car there?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Let's proceed.
(The videotape resumes playing.)
MR. SCHECK: All right. Do you see that van there?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: That is not the white Ford Bronco, is it?
MR. FUNG: No, it is not.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Let's stop for a second.
MR. SCHECK: Now, from the--you do not--in walking down that path, you did not see Mr. Simpson's white Ford Bronco, did you?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Let's proceed.
(The videotape resumes playing.)
MR. SCHECK: Now listen carefully to the sound here, sir. Okay. Now, let's get rid of that last part. Did you hear yourself saying, "Okay, let's go back, make one last check" or words to that effect?
MR. FUNG: Something like that, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, I'm going to show you another videotape that depicts these events that I think is more complete, so I would like you to take a look at that.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: I want to just cue it up, your Honor, and make sure I've got it right.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Okay.
MS. CLARK: Which number is this?
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. HARRIS: 102.
MR. SCHECK: 102.
MR. COCHRAN: 1102.
MR. SCHECK: 1102.
(At 11:36 A.M. Defendant's exhibit 1102, a videotape, was played.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Stop.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you see again that black and white police car?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you see there is a space in front of it?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Let's move on.
(The videotape resumes playing.)
MR. SCHECK: Another car, the same car as before?
MR. FUNG: (No audible response.)
MR. SCHECK: Concentrate if you can, sir, that is with paper bags in--I guess it is your left hand?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And that is--what is that in your right hand?
MR. FUNG: It was--looked like a box.
MR. SCHECK: The evidence kit?
MR. FUNG: (No audible response.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, you recognize this to be, up through this point, the same clip as we saw before?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, you see the walking back?
MR. FUNG: (No audible response.)
MR. SCHECK: Okay.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Umm, why don't we actually continue with that tape at this point. Just back it up a second. Back it up to the very beginning of the segment.
(Brief pause.)
(The videotape resumes playing.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, after this, you will see that there is a cut in the tape?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, at this point I would object to asking the witness any questions about this incident. There is no foundation that he was there.
THE COURT: Overruled at this point. You can show him the tape.
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
(The videotape resumes playing.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, take note of that car, sir. Do you see it?
MR. FUNG: The gray car?
MR. SCHECK: Stop right here for a second.
MR. SCHECK: Do you see that car?
MR. FUNG: This gray car here, (Indicating)?
MR. SCHECK: That gray car.
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Let's continue.
(The videotape resumes playing.)
MR. SCHECK: All right. Okay.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Let me call your attention to a second--would you agree, sir, that that gray car that we just observed was not parked in that location in the first segment that we just reviewed of you and Miss Mazzola going to the truck and then walking back in?
MR. FUNG: There was a police car and then a van in the first segment.
MR. SCHECK: Right. There was a police car, a space. Do you recall that?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And then--but that gray car was not in that first segment, right?
MR. FUNG: The first segment that you showed me, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, I would like to show you another view of this.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Okay. This is 1103, your Honor.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would still object to showing this witness pictures of Vannatter without any foundation that he saw it.
THE COURT: Overruled.
(At 11:42 A.M. Defendant's exhibit 1103, a videotape, was played.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, let's stop for a second. Stop, stop, stop.
MR. SCHECK: Now, in that sequence, if you want, we can rewind it, you see Detective Vannatter, right, getting out of that gray car, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And in his hands he has a black duffel bag in one hand and what appears to be a clipboard in the other?
MR. FUNG: And maybe some other objects also, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Yes. And you see that as we go through the shot, please pay attention to the black and white car. Do you see that there?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now--stop it.
MR. SCHECK: Now, would you agree, sir, that that gray car that Detective Vannatter got out of is parked in front of that black and white police car?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And that is not--that gray car was not present in the first sequence I showed you of you and Miss Mazzola walking toward the van?
MR. FUNG: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And then coming back and going back inside of Rockingham, right?
MR. FUNG: Right.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, sir, I would like to show you another tape sequence.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Now showing you 1104. This is from 1104.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. GOLDBERG: The last tape that we saw was 110--
THE COURT: 3.
MR. GOLDBERG: 1103.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, I would like to show you this sequence. All right.
THE COURT: This is 1104?
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
(At 11:45, People's exhibit 1104, a videotape, was played.)
MR. SCHECK: This sequence is you and Miss Mazzola--stop right here. Do you recognize who that gentleman is in the Panama hat?
MR. FUNG: That is Mr. Wilson; he is a photographer.
MR. SCHECK: A photographer. Okay. And this is you and Miss Mazzola now leaving the Rockingham location again?
MR. FUNG: Yes, it is.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Oh, yes continue here. Continue here, I'm sorry.
(The videotape resumes playing.)
MR. SCHECK: All right. Stop.
MS. CLARK: Can we go back and see that again one more time, please?
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harris.
(The videotape resumes playing.)
MR. SCHECK: Stop.
MS. CLARK: No, no, no. All the way back please. Further, please.
THE COURT: To the entrance, Mr. Harris. Thank you.
(The videotape resumes playing.)
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Okay.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, you focused on yourself and Miss Mazzola leaving and then there is--and she has a trash bag in her hand, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it is vague as to which tape, your Honor.
MR. SCHECK: This cut right here.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: She has got a bag--a plastic bag, yes, a large plastic bag.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. All right. Now, I would like to show you--
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would make a motion to strike the witness' answer because it is still not clear as to which of the two cuts in that tape.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: In tape no. 1104.
THE COURT: Overruled.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: I'm now going to show you another sequence in this and it is 1103, your Honor.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, I'm going to show you another sequence--just go back a little bit.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Let's run it.
(The videotape resumes playing.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, you see--okay. Stop for a second. Now, that is you and Miss Mazzola again leaving Rockingham?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And I think you told us that is Mr. Wilson behind you?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Stop.
MR. SCHECK: You see the black and white car?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Let's move forward. Stop.
MR. SCHECK: You see the gray car?
MR. FUNG: Yes, I do.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, that would be Detective Vannatter's car that you saw in the previous shot?
MR. FUNG: I don't know if it is his car, but that is the one he was getting out of.
MR. SCHECK: Getting out of? All right. Let's proceed.
(The videotape resumes playing.)
MR. SCHECK: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Now, looking at those videotapes, you testified that you, at some point in the afternoon on June 13th, left Rockingham, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, the segments that we saw depicting you and Miss Mazzola leaving Rockingham, all right, you recall the ones where you are carrying the black box and the paper bags in your left hand?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you then put them in the truck?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And then you say to her, "Let's go back for a last check"?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And then we see you go back in, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And then we have a second set of shots that you saw two clips of you leaving Rockingham again, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And this time Miss Mazzola has that plastic bag in her hand?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you are not carrying any bags in your hand?
MR. FUNG: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And then you walk passed towards your truck again?
MR. FUNG: Right.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, in terms of sequence, sir, the first time that you walked out carrying the bags in your hand, all right, that was--that happened before the second time, didn't it?
MR. FUNG: It appears so, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: That just calls for speculation of this witness' interpretation of the videotape which is no better than anyone else's.
THE COURT: Overruled.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I think that lays a foundation and we would like to show it to the jury.
THE COURT: Well, no. I think Mr. Goldberg is entitled to a little cross-examination or redirect--actually cross-examination as to this issue of foundation.
MR. SCHECK: Well, then maybe I will--
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Then I have more questions I would like to ask right now.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHECK: And in that second tape you saw the gray car had pulled up, correct?
MR. FUNG: (No audible response.)
MR. SCHECK: You saw the gray car that you saw Detective Vannatter get out of?
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to which second tape.
MR. SCHECK: There were two tapes you saw of you leaving Rockingham you have now told us a second time, correct?
MR. FUNG: Could you repeat that one?
MR. SCHECK: Sure. You remember the tapes where you and Miss Mazzola are walking down the driveway and Mr. Wilson is behind you?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, that is--that happened second, correct?
MR. FUNG: That is the second tape you showed me.
MR. SCHECK: Yes. That is the second time--that is--in terms of leaving Rockingham, okay, I think you just told us that that happened after the first trip, correct?
MR. FUNG: That appears to be the second time.
MR. SCHECK: Yes. Now, you recall how much time past between the first and second trip?
MR. FUNG: No, I do not.
MR. SCHECK: Umm--
THE COURT: What is in the plastic bag?
MR. FUNG: To the best of my recollection the envelope containing the blood vial is in there.
MR. SCHECK: Is in the plastic bag that Miss Mazzola is carrying?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Can we bring the jury in?
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg, do you have any questions?
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I would like to replay 1104 to ask the witness some questions about the two segments that counsel played.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harris.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, how long would we be with the jury at this point?
THE COURT: I'm contemplating going to 6:00 tonight.
MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: I said I'm contemplating going until 6:00 tonight.
MR. SCHECK: I guess my question is how long will I have to explore this line with the witness, given it is five to 12:00.
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg just asked permission of the Court to ask some questions of Mr. Fung and I asked Mr. Harris to cue up 1104 because we would like to view that again, so I suspect we are going to break for lunch, come back at 1:30, but I think we are going to go until 6:00 today. Let's see 1104.
MR. GOLDBERG: Can we see that one more time, please?
THE COURT: Mr. Harris, can we see it from the doorway, please.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Fung, can you look very carefully in Miss Mazzola's hands to see whether she is carrying an object or a bag in her hands? Maybe we can back up and take another look at that.
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Let's back up again. I'm sorry, your Honor. Can we see that another time from the door?
THE COURT: Sure, sure. Who has got control? Mr. Fairtlough?
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: (Nods head up and down.)
THE COURT: Sorry, Mr. Harris.
MR. DARDEN: Back farther.
MS. CLARK: Back farther, please.
(The videotape resumes playing.)
MR. FUNG: There.
(The videotape resumes playing.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Can we back up and then freeze on the frame that shows what she has in her hands?
THE COURT: Sure. Right there. Right there.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Fung, do you have an independent recollection of what the item is in Miss Mazzola's hands? When I say "Independent" I'm talking about not from viewing this tape but from what you remember on the 13th?
MR. FUNG: No, I do not.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. Do you have any independent recollection as to whether this footage--maybe we can continue onto the next one. Is this the footage that we just saw, the first part of the footage on 1104, the continuous--a continuous series of events with the footage that you saw in the second half of 1104, to your independent recollection?
MR. FUNG: No. I can't say that it is continuous.
MR. GOLDBERG: You don't know from your independent recollection?
MR. FUNG: I don't know.
MR. GOLDBERG: Were you present when Mr. Vannatter arrived in his car, gray car?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall him arriving at the Rockingham scene, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: You did not see that?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: In the afternoon where was the first time that you saw Detective Vannatter?
MR. FUNG: I was inside the Rockingham residence.
MR. GOLDBERG: Do you have any independent--do you have any ability, other than what you saw on the videotape, to determine whether or not the gray car came and left before you walked out to the van with the brown paper bags or after?
MR. FUNG: This is the first time I noticed the gray car.
MR. GOLDBERG: But what I'm saying to you is do you have any capacity to testify from your independent recollection and your own observations on the 13th which of those two items happened first?
MR. FUNG: No.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. GOLDBERG: And based upon your own independent recollections then, can you tell us the sequence, not from what you saw on the videotape, but based upon your recollections, your observations on the 13th, can you tell us the sequence of the following three events: Detective Vannatter arriving, Andrea Mazzola and yourself leaving with Andrea Mazzola carrying an item that appears to be a trash bag, and you arriving with Andrea Mazzola at the crime scene truck with a number of brown paper bags?
MR. FUNG: I couldn't put those in order, no, through independent recollection.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: Is there anything about viewing the videotape that refreshes your recollection or allows you to put into sequence these events?
MR. FUNG: Not really, no.
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, do you have any further questions of Mr. Fung?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I--
THE COURT: I'm sorry, Mr. Goldberg, were you finished?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Mr. Fung, do you have an independent recollection of how many times in the afternoon you went out to the crime scene truck with brown paper bags?
MR. FUNG: No, I do not recollect how many times.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK
MR. SCHECK: Did you notice, in terms of those two sequences of you leaving Rockingham, okay--in the first sequence you go back with Miss Mazzola and you pick up some evidence cards from the ground, right?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And when you came out the second time those evidence cards were not on the ground?
MR. FUNG: I didn't notice.
MR. SCHECK: Do you want to look?
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, could we take a look at this?
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: I would like you to focus on this segment, you and Miss Mazzola coming out the driveway. Go ahead. Go ahead.
(The videotape resumes playing.)
MR. SCHECK: Stop.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you don't see those evidence cards on the ground the second time, right?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Let's move forward.
(The videotape resumes playing.)
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Stop.
MR. SCHECK: So wouldn't you agree, Mr. Fung, that that is the second--that that sequence of you leaving the second--is--happened after the first sequence when you went to the truck, deposited the valise and the bags and walked back in and picked up the evidence cards?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, your Honor, it is vague as to which sequence he is talking about now since we have seen so many.
MR. SCHECK: Do you understand what I asked you?
THE COURT: Overruled. We have the paper bag trip and we have the plastic bag trip.
MR. SCHECK: This plastic bag trip happened second, didn't it?
MR. FUNG: It appears to be, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. We will stand in recess. 1:30.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, are we going to be able to do this when we come back?
THE COURT: Over the lunch hour I want you to leave the tapes here. I'm going to look at them one more time.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, could we have an admonition?
THE COURT: Yes. Mr. Fung, don't discuss the matter with any of the attorneys, please.
MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, for Mr. Scheck's information and Mr. Neufeld's, Miss Mazzola is upstairs and she is not feeling well and she is under a doctor's care and we intend to send her home at this point.
THE COURT: I don't think we are going to finish today, all right? But counsel, we are going until 6:00. Make preparations to go to 6:00 today. All right. The Court is in recess.
(At 12:05 P.M. The noon recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. Of the same day.)
Los Angeles, California; Thursday, April 13, 1995 1:35 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: Good afternoon, counsel.
MR. COCHRAN: Good afternoon, your Honor.
THE COURT: On the record. I would like to--all parties are present again. I would like to advise counsel during the course of my review of the tape this afternoon, which is what delayed our getting started, this afternoon I was reviewing tapes again in my chambers; and in reviewing the KTLA tape, Stan Chambers' report from June the 13th, 1994 and hitting the pause button to stop it at the time that the parties were coming out of the door at Rockingham, I hit the record button instead and I erased inadvertently five seconds of that videotape. So I would like counsel to look at the videotape and see if they think those seconds are critical.
I've had my staff contact KTLA, see if they can provide us with another duplicate copy of that news broadcast. They indicated they're looking for it, that it should be available, and I'll have two of my staff members go get it as soon as they confirm that it's available. But, Mr. Scheck, if you want to look at it and see if that's--if that footage is sufficient for your uses.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I think that we--
THE COURT: Noting that the pause and the record buttons are next to each on this remote control. I'll mark it as a Court's exhibit. I must say I'm thoroughly embarrassed by this.
MR. SCHECK: Oh--well, I know I would do it. I'm that kind of klutz and we know you're not Rosemary Woods. So--I think we can certainly proceed with what we've got.
THE COURT: All right. You've reviewed it?
MR. SCHECK: Yeah. I think--did Mr. Goldberg take a look? You want to take a look?
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
MR. GOLDBERG: So the ruling was--
THE COURT: No, I haven't ruled yet. I'm just saying, is this sufficient for your uses here?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I didn't get a chance to see.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harris, you want to run it with the Court's deletion?
(At 1:40 P.M., a videotape was played.)
(At 1:41 P.M., the playing of the videotape concluded.)
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, there's a--the reason I think it's--the reason I think it's sufficient is that we have that other tape that picks up with them walking down the driveway and this one shows them coming out of the house, and I'm--for all purposes, I'm sure that's fine.
THE COURT: All right. I've just been advised that the--by the news director of KTLA that they have located the tape, they've dubbed a copy and I'm sending my staff to go get it in case we need a complete copy.
MR. SCHECK: Well, okay. I think that actually since I'm going to begin with another matter that I estimate will take about 10 minutes, 15 minutes--but I'm assuming that before we get to this line and before we hit the videotapes, it may just be perfect timing.
THE COURT: All right. The Court's ruling then as to the videotapes is as follows: I will allow the playing of the videotapes that depict Mr. Fung and Miss Mazzola on both trips, both the paper bag trip and the plastic bag trip. The Court finds a sufficient foundation has been laid for those. The Court sustains the objection to the Vannatter arrival segment on the basis of lack of foundation at this time.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor--
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, maybe--
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: Well, the Court will--
MR. COCHRAN: If the Court is--we have some additional information regarding foundation.
MR. NEUFELD: We just got at lunch.
THE COURT: You just got a--
MR. NEUFELD: We just got additional information as much as did the People, your Honor, from a--
THE COURT: You want to share that? Mr. Neufeld, does Mr. Scheck want to handle this or do you want to handle it?
MR. NEUFELD: Only because I spoke to the reporter myself. It's up to you. If I may just to save time. We were approached as was the Prosecution by a gentleman named John North who is a reporter from KABC.
MR. SCHECK: Excuse me, your Honor. Can Mr. Fung--
THE COURT: Mr. Fung, why don't you wait outside.
(Mr. Fung exits the courtroom.)
MR. NEUFELD: Somebody--he said he spoke to the Prosecution during the luncheon break.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel and the Deputy District Attorney.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Fung has withdrawn. Mr. Neufeld.
MR. NEUFELD: Yeah. And Mr. North has handed me with a computer printout. He said that they went back and they checked their original cassette that was shot by their camera person that day, that afternoon, and it even has a time--it's time coded. And it was time coded and the time code he said was set by the camera operator. And it shows the time that each of these incidents occurred and it also shows the sequence in which they occurred, and it completely corroborates the sequence that we wanted to show to the witness; namely that first he's coming out carrying the paper bags, then Vannatter arrives--I'm sorry. Then they go back in, then Vannatter arrives and then they come out the second time and Fung has nothing in his hands and Mazzola is carrying the plastic bag. He gave me this printout. He said they intend to air it on the television, this evening in fact.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. NEUFELD: Clearly if we had that person, that would provide any additional foundation.
THE COURT: Yes, it would.
MR. NEUFELD: Well--
MR. COCHRAN: He's downstairs, your Honor.
THE COURT: He probably is or on the 12th floor by now.
MR. COCHRAN: We can get him.
THE COURT: All right. But see, the problem is, we have the jury waiting. So let's proceed with what we have. You can lay the foundation. If you want to do that out of the presence of the jury, we'll do that.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, given the Court's ruling on the other two videotapes, we'll draw our objection on the Vannatter tapes.
THE COURT: All right. That settles that question. Proceed. Let's have the jury.
(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've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: First of all, let me apologize to you for the delay in getting started this Court day. I started the day with some special discussions with the lawyers. I think as we recessed yesterday, you were aware that I had to make some determinations out of your presence as to some of the videotapes that would be presented to you. And we spent some of the time this morning allowing the parties to view these videotapes, to confer amongst themselves and to make their arguments for and against the admission of these videotapes. Over the lunch hour, I took the decision under submission so I could have the opportunity to look at the videotapes myself one more time. And as I mentioned to you, there's something called Murphy's Law. During the course of looking at those videotapes and attempting to put one into a still frame, I hit the record button and I inadvertently erased part of one of the tapes as I was trying to slow-mo it. I see you're laughing. I'm sure it's happened to you too. Normally what you do is, you knock out that little tab in the back so you can't record over it. I didn't do that. And I'll never do that again, believe me. But that was part of--that's why we're late getting started this afternoon. I apologize to you sincerely.
I want you to know that when we're in a jury trial, the thing that bothers me the most is knowing that you're back there and you're waiting. And that's why when I knew we were going to have a long delay this morning, I had you taken back up to the larger lounge because I know it's more comfortable for you to be up there. And I sincerely apologize to you. I take full responsibility myself personally for this delay today. I want you to know that is not the fault of the parties. And hopefully we'll be able to get through a full Court session. I indicated to the lawyers that I wanted to go through till 6:00 o'clock today to make up for some of the lost time today. We will take breaks through the afternoon however, but I would like to get in at least four good hours today with the jury. But we've been at it since 9:00 o'clock this morning. All right. Thanks, folks. Mr. Fung, would you resume the witness stand.
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. Good afternoon again, Mr. Fung.
MR. FUNG: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: You are reminded, sir, you are still under oath. The record should reflect Mr. Fung is on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Scheck. Mr. Scheck, you may conclude with your cross-examination.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: You're welcome.
MR. SCHECK: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
MR. SCHECK: Or good afternoon. Thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. SCHECK
MR. SCHECK: Good afternoon, Mr. Fung.
MR. FUNG: Good afternoon.
MR. SCHECK: How are you, sir?
MR. FUNG: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Fung, I would like to begin by showing you what--the coin envelope that contains item no. 10. You recall the blue plastic that you saw at Rockingham?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: While Miss Robertson is retrieving that--
THE COURT: It's over here on the--Mrs. Robertson's bench.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Which Court exhibit is this, Mr. Scheck?
MR. SCHECK: This is Court exhibit--
THE CLERK: It's People's exhibit 164, item 10.
THE COURT: 164, item 10.
MR. SCHECK: 164. And--
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel and the Deputy District Attorney.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I would like to mark this photograph Defendant's next in order.
THE COURT: 1105? All right. Defense 1105.
(Deft's 1105 for id = photograph)
MR. SCHECK: May I approach the witness, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Well, actually first--now, the--looking at the monitor, Mr. Fung, that is item no. 10 as you saw it on the morning of June 13th?
MR. FUNG: The blue object to the top of the picture, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And I believe you told us, sir, that Detective Fuhrman retrieved that object?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you could not recall whether or not he used the glove method or the scoop method to collect item no. 10?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall which he used.
MR. SCHECK: Right. I would ask you, sir, to, with the Court's permission, open--this is the coin envelope that contained item no. 10 on June 13th, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. I would ask you, sir, to open this envelope.
THE COURT: Knife or scissors?
MR. SCHECK: At the top. Sorry?
THE COURT: I was asking Mr. Fung if he wanted a knife or scissors.
MR. FUNG: Scissors.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, he may want to use gloves too.
MR. SCHECK: Yes. And I think gloves would be appropriate.
THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, gloves.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Let's try not to block jurors 1 and 7. Juror no. 1, is there a problem with the monitor?
JUROR NO. 1492: The monitor is not on.
THE COURT: Is it on now? Tom, monitor, seats 1 and 2. Is the green light on?
JUROR NO. 1492: Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Fairtlough?
(Brief pause.)
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: It's back on.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Fung, you may proceed. Mr. Scheck.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Fung, if you could, would you please open the envelope from the top over here (Indicating) Where you see the last seal was broken, right up over the top there I think would be a good idea.
MR. FUNG: I'll cut along the bottom edge of the envelope.
MR. SCHECK: Yes. Now, could you please take out item no. 10. Could you please unfold it to its full size and hold that up.
MR. FUNG: (Witness complies.)
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, could you please turn it vertically at this point.
MR. FUNG: (Witness complies.)
MR. SCHECK: Could you please hold up the coin envelope.
MR. FUNG: (Witness complies.)
MR. SCHECK: All right. Could you put the coin envelope--
THE COURT: Superimpose--
MR. SCHECK: Superimpose it.
MR. FUNG: (Witness complies.)
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, Mr. Fung, wouldn't you agree--and then now turn it rectangularly, the coin envelope, the--item no. 10.
MR. FUNG: (Witness complies.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, when you saw item no. 10 on June 13th, it was not folded as it is now, was it?
MR. FUNG: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. So wouldn't you agree, sir, that without folding up item no. 10 with one's hands, it would be extremely difficult to get it into that coin envelope?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. SCHECK: You think you could do that without folding item no. 10. One could--the scoop method is where you take a card or a pen, right, and you put something into a bag such as that coin envelope?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Okay. And it's your recollection now, sir, that you don't remember whether or not Detective Fuhrman was wearing gloves and took item no. 10 and placed it in that coin envelope.
MR. FUNG: I don't recall which method he used.
MR. SCHECK: All right. But it could have been that he was wearing gloves, right?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: All right. We're finished with that. Maybe you could--
THE COURT: You want to--hold on. Let me just ask a question. 1492, were you able to see that?
JUROR NO. 1492: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Proceed.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor--if you could just repackage that, sir.
MS. CLARK: Excuse me, your Honor. Could we see it for a moment before he puts it back?
THE COURT: Sure. Counsel, if you want to approach and inspect it.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.
MR. SCHECK: You would agree, sir, that--at least that somebody would have to fold that blue object before putting it in that bag?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: When you saw it on June 13th as depicted in the photograph that's on the monitor, it wasn't folded, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: It was not folded.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Thank you. Your Honor, I'm finished with the exhibit and I'll remove it.
THE COURT: All right. If you'll take it and return it to Mrs. Robertson.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Fung, you can remove the gloves.
MR. SCHECK: Now, when we last broke yesterday, Mr. Fung, we were discussing Mr. Simpson's blood sample. You recall that?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And I had asked you whether or not you made a slip on direct examination when you were asked which item you received first, the sneakers from Detective Lange or the blood sample of Mr. Simpson.
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you said you did not remember making such a slip.
MR. FUNG: That's what I stated, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And the sneakers were given to you on June 14th in the morning?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: No question about that.
MR. FUNG: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And item no. 19 is a hair that you removed from the Rockingham glove.
MR. FUNG: Hair--yes.
MR. SCHECK: And that was done on the morning of June 14th?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. I would like to show you a videotape now, sir, of your direct examination and if--
MR. GOLDBERG: For the record, we withdraw our objection to that.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And I would like you to look at the videotape and ask you if this is you being asked some questions and you giving some answers to this jury.
(At 2:05 P.M., a videotape was played.)
(At 2:06 P.M., the playing of the videotape concluded.)
MR. SCHECK: Was that a slip, Mr. Fung, where you were accidentally revealing the truth, that you received the blood vial after you received the sneakers?
MR. GOLDBERG: It's argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Fung, you told us that Detective Vannatter gave you a gray envelope containing the blood sample that was already packaged on the afternoon of June 13th?
MR. FUNG: A gray envelope that was already packaged?
MR. SCHECK: Yes. The--when you received the blood vial on June--blood sample on June 13th, did you not tell us that it was already packaged in a gray envelope?
MR. FUNG: The blood vial was packaged in a gray envelope.
MR. SCHECK: It was already packaged when you received it from Detective Vannatter?
MR. GOLDBERG: The problem is the word "It."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Mr. Fung, when you testified at the grand jury on June 22nd, were you asked these questions and did you give these answers?
THE COURT: Counsel--
MR. SCHECK: I'm starting at page 397, line 28.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, the tape we just played of Mr. Fung on direct, ask be marked 1106.
THE COURT: All right. 1106, that last tape-recording.
(Deft's 1106 for id = videotape)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg.
MR. SCHECK: May I proceed?
THE COURT: I'm just waiting for Mr. Goldberg to confirm we're ready. Mr. Goldberg, have you read the trans--
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: All right. Proceed.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Fung, on June 22nd at the grand jury, were you asked these questions and did you give these answers? "Question: Did you also receive a blood sample that was removed from the Defendant, the possible Defendant, Mr. Simpson, from Detective Philip Vannatter? "Answer: Yes, I did. "Question: And what date was it that you received it from him? "Answer: I received that blood sample on June 13th, 1994. "Question: Did you package it in some manner when you received it from him? "Answer: Yes, I did. "Question: How? "Answer: I placed it in a gray whole blood envelope." Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers?
MR. FUNG: Yes, I did.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Fung, are you having some trouble keeping this story straight about getting the blood vial, blood sample from Detective Vannatter from Rockingham?
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. Counsel, that's not a proper question.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Fung, you testified on cross-examination yesterday, under cross-examination about receiving the blood sample. Do you recall that?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now--
MR. SCHECK: I'm at page 22457.
THE COURT: Do you have that?
MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry?
MS. CLARK: Do you have an extra one?
THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, would you have Miss Olson get me the transcript from yesterday?
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Mr. Goldberg, do you have your copy here?
MR. GOLDBERG: I don't.
THE COURT: Your Honor, I'll just--they can look over my shoulder.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Were you asked yesterday by--
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Goldberg, that's the Court's copy. All right. Mr. Goldberg, have you had the opportunity to review that?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, proceed.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. SCHECK: "Question: I take it at some point in time, you left the foyer area and returned to your crime scene truck? "Answer: Yes. "Question: All right. And were you carrying that gray envelope? "Answer: Either by itself in a posse box or in a paper bag. "Question: So it would be one of those three ways of carrying it; either by itself in your hand, in a paper bag or in a posse box? "Answer: Yes." Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers yesterday?
MR. FUNG: Yes, I did.
MR. SCHECK: Now, this morning, did you have an opportunity to look at some videotapes?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you did that in this courtroom outside the presence of the jury with the Judge and counsel present.
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: I would like to show you some of those videotapes now, sir.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Let me just--before we show you the videotapes, I just want to ask you a few questions. Since you last left us yesterday afternoon, have you had any conversations with the Prosecution about the events of June 13th and where you say that Detective Vannatter gave you Mr. Simpson's blood sample?
MR. FUNG: This morning, I discussed briefly some of the events with Mr. Goldberg.
MR. SCHECK: May we approach, your Honor?
THE COURT: With the Court reporter, please.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: We're over at the sidebar. Mr. Scheck.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, it was my understanding that the Prosecution was directed not to discuss this issue with the witness.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: No. My understanding was that I couldn't discuss the videotape with the witness. And I double-checked that with several of the attorneys before I said anything to this witness, and that was also their understanding of the Court's order and I never did discuss the videotape.
THE COURT: What did you discuss with him?
MR. GOLDBERG: I asked him approximately two questions; when was--where did the date with the time of 5:20 come from, whether that was from him or someone else; that's the blood vial. And I asked him where the time on the airline tickets came from, whether that was he or Miss Mazzola, and that was the extent of our conversation.
THE COURT: My recollection of my order was that you were not to discuss the videotapes.
MR. GOLDBERG: That was my recollection. And the first thing--one of the first things I said to Mr. Fung in the morning was, "I don't want you to talk about the videotapes with me. I'm not going to talk about them with you."
THE COURT: Why don't you explore this a little further with Mr. Fung.
MR. SCHECK: Okay.
(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)
THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Proceed.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Fung, could you tell us precisely what questions Mr. Goldberg asked you and what answers you gave him?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall the exact wording, but it was something along the lines of me recounting to him the events that led from picking up the--certain items, my--the last items I collected before going to the truck and leaving the Rockingham scene.
MR. SCHECK: How long did this conversation take?
MR. FUNG: Three or four minutes.
MR. SCHECK: One moment, your Honor.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Do you recall how many questions Mr. Goldberg asked you approximately?
MR. FUNG: Maybe one or two.
MR. SCHECK: Was there any discussion of the videotapes?
MR. FUNG: No. We--I only--we only discussed that we could not discuss the videotapes.
MR. SCHECK: But when you had this discussion with him, you had already seen some of these videotapes?
MR. FUNG: On this monitor here.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now--
MR. GOLDBERG: Indicating the monitor next to the witness stand.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Have you had any conversations before you came here to testify with anyone else other than--withdrawn. Did you speak about this matter with any other District Attorney?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. SCHECK: Did you speak about it with Detective Vannatter?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. SCHECK: Did you speak about it with Detective Lange?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. SCHECK: Speak about it with anybody from law enforcement?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. SCHECK: Did you speak about it with anybody from the crime lab?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. SCHECK: Did you speak about this issue with anyone since the moment that you left the witness stand yesterday to the time you've came back to answer some questions this morning?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Why don't we show this first videotape.
THE COURT: All right. What videotape do you propose to show, Mr. Scheck?
MR. SCHECK: 1101.
(At 2:24 P.M., a videotape was played.)
MR. SCHECK: All right. Stop. Rewind just a little bit. All right. Stop. Stop.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Mr. Fung, that is you, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes, it is.
MR. SCHECK: That is Andrea Mazzola we just saw?
MR. FUNG: Yeah. Behind me.
MR. SCHECK: Is that right?
MR. FUNG: Behind me, yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. To the right, you see a little yellow card on the ground?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: That's one of those markers that you put down to indicate where maybe items of evidence are.
MR. FUNG: Items that are--it's an item for photo id.
MR. SCHECK: Yes. And that was of an item that you did not collect?
MR. FUNG: That was--yes.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, approaching here, you see a police officer and you see a card; do you not?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Let's roll it. All right. Let's stop right here. Now, that's a black and white police car, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And you and Miss Mazzola have just passed it?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And this is the afternoon of June 13th?
MR. FUNG: Yes, it is.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And coming up, you see a space in front of that black and white police car?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Let's roll it. Now let's stop. Now, you just walked past the black and white police car and there was an extended space until you hit this next vehicle?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Let's roll it.
THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Scheck. Do you want the sound on this?
MR. SCHECK: Yes, we do as a matter of fact. Thank you very much, your Honor. I think we started off with the sound. Now, stop. Now, after that--let's rewind it for a second just to make sure we got everything exactly right. Stop. Okay. Roll it through.
MR. SCHECK: All right. That's the space we were talking about the cars. Here's another gray car, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Stop. Now, that's a brown car, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Let's move forward. Stop. Now, this is a white van, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: But that is not Mr. Simpson's Ford Bronco, is it?
MR. FUNG: No, it is not.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Simpson's Ford Bronco was not at this location as you were walking out in the afternoon of June 13th at Rockingham?
MR. FUNG: Not the time--
MR. SCHECK: Right.
MR. FUNG: --in this video.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. All right. Let's stop. Now, that's you, and you have in your right hand a black valise?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And in your left hand, you have a number of paper bags?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And Miss Mazzola, she has a clipboard?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Is that a posse box or a clipboard? Can you tell?
MR. FUNG: It's a posse box.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And she has another black--what is that; an evidence kit in her hand?
MR. FUNG: It's a--yes. Part of the evidence kit.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And this was the first videotape that we showed you this morning?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Let's roll it. That's you putting your valise in, putting the paper bags in, Miss Mazzola putting the posse box and the black valise in, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Shutting the door. Let's listen carefully. Okay. Let's just reverse for a second. All right. Stop. Kill this tape.
(At 2:27 P.M., the playing of the videotape concluded.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, that's you saying, "Let's make one last check"?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, the next videotape we showed you--recall seeing a subsequent videotape this morning which is a more extended shot of you walking out at that time to the car, to the van, putting the bags, the valise in and then walking back, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Harris, which exhibit is this?
MR. HARRIS: This is 1102.
THE COURT: 1102.
MR. SCHECK: And that's a photograph of one of those evidence markers, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Two of them?
(At 2:28 P.M., a videotape was played.)
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, this is you and Miss Mazzola coming out again. Stop. Stop, please. Now, that was again the black and white car, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And this is now, you're walking past the space where--in front of that black and white car?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Let's proceed. And there's that gray van and the next car is a brown one, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: You're carrying those bags in your left hand in the valise. Now we see some video people coming, correct? And that's you putting the paper bags and the valise in and Miss Mazzola putting the posse box and the evidence kit in, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And this is the point where you close the door and the audio of that last tape we heard you say, "Let's go back for one more check," correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And now we see you and Miss Mazzola going back for one more check, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now you're picking up those evidence tags, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: First two? Now you're picking up the third one. All right. Stop. Going back inside. Okay?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
(At 2:30 P.M., the playing of the videotape concluded.)
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, could we have--I'm informed that we have the complete tape?
THE COURT: Yes. We're just cueing it up.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: I believe it's cued up to the right spot.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: You might want to have Mr. Harris check that. And the protective gear is out of it.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Have you checked it? Does that appear to be the same clip?
MR. SCHECK: It appears to me, your Honor.
(At 2:31 P.M., a videotape was played.)
MR. SCHECK: All right. All right. Now, Mr. Fung, this is a clip of you and Miss Mazzola coming out of Rockingham, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And this took place after that first set of footage, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: So first--the first two tapes, we saw two different angles of you and Miss Mazzola leaving, you're carrying brown bags in one hand, black valise in the other, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And Miss Mazzola's carrying the posse box, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And another black case, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you put all of that in the evidence truck?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And the way that you just saw those two tapes are the way that you first saw them this afternoon, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And the way that you saw them is as you and I discussed it, I pointed out the location of cars as you walked down the street, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: You followed those very carefully just as we did with the jury?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, this is you leaving after your last check, correct?
MR. FUNG: This is me leaving the scene, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Yes. Okay. Let's roll it here. Okay. Let's stop. Now, the man behind you is a photographer named Mr. Wilson?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And he's from SID, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes, he is.
MR. SCHECK: And as you were walking out that door--if you want to see it again--you have nothing in your hands?
MR. FUNG: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: All right. You do not have a gray envelope in your hands?
MR. FUNG: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: You do not have a brown paper bag in your hands?
MR. FUNG: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: You do not have a posse box in your hand?
MR. FUNG: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: Now, Miss Mazzola in one of--in her left hand, she has what appears to be a black plastic bag?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Let's roll it. Okay. Let's--stop. Okay. Now, that videotape shows you walking out the front door, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: This is the second trip down?
MR. FUNG: Of the videotapes, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Can we rewind that a little bit? Just rewind, rewind, rewind. Let's see if--there's a cut here and I would like you to concentrate if you can see the cars just at the point of the cut. Okay. Let's see. Let's stop. You do see that--from this angle at least, we can see that white van, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And we see a space behind it, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right.
(At 2:34 P.M., the playing of the videotape concluded.)
MR. SCHECK: Let's play the next tape. We're going to cue it up. This is 1103. And while Mr. Harris is finding it, Mr. Fung, you recall that this tape is going to depict a more complete view of you and Miss Mazzola on the second trip walking down the driveway and then at Rockingham and then down Rockingham, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that calls for speculation.
MR. SCHECK: Let's just let him see it.
THE COURT: Sustained. All right. Which tape is this, Mr. Harris?
MR. SCHECK: We're back to 1103.
THE COURT: Thank you, sir.
(At 2:35 P.M., a videotape was played.)
MR. SCHECK: And--okay. Now, let's take a look at this, Mr. Fung. Okay. Now, before we start it, that's you and Miss Mazzola again on your second trip, correct?
MR. FUNG: On the second trip of the videotapes, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And that is a continuation of the video that we just saw where the two of you walk out the door?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And on the ground, you notice that there are no evidence tags, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And you have--you're not carrying a--any paper bags?
MR. FUNG: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: You're not carrying a posse box?
MR. FUNG: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: You're not carrying a gray envelope?
MR. FUNG: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: Let's roll it. Now, let's pay careful attention to the cars, sir. All right. Stop. Stop. That is the black and white car, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And let's move it. Stop. Now, that's a new car, isn't it?
MR. FUNG: A new car?
MR. SCHECK: Well, that car wasn't there the first time in the first sequence we saw, correct?
MR. FUNG: In the first video sequence, no.
MR. SCHECK: Right. That car wasn't there when you and Miss Mazzola walked down the driveway at Rockingham, walked down the street at Rockingham and put the brown paper bags, the valise into the back of the crime scene truck, correct?
MR. FUNG: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: That car wasn't there when Miss Mazzola put the posse box into the crime scene truck?
MR. FUNG: Didn't appear in the video, no.
MR. SCHECK: Wasn't there, right?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, it's vague as to whether he's talking about video or recollection.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question, please.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Fung, you know that that gray car is the gray car that Detective Vannatter used to drive to Rockingham on the afternoon of June 13th?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And that gray car wasn't there when you first--in that first set of video clips when you came out, correct?
MR. FUNG: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And you saw that this afternoon; did you not?
MR. FUNG: The video.
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: In this order.
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Let's run it. All right. Now, that's you and Miss Mazzola walking down the street. Stop. Now, as that ended, sir, you--can we just go back to the very, very end and stop it? Just let's stop it, Mr. Harris, at the point--at the very point--very end as they're walking by the truck. There. Okay. Now, you and Miss Mazzola are not putting anything into the back of the evidence truck at that point, are you?
MR. FUNG: Not at that point, no.
MR. SCHECK: You're walking towards the front of the car, correct?
MR. FUNG: I was walking towards the passenger door.
(At 2:37 P.M., the playing of the videotape concluded.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, when you saw these videotapes this morning, Mr. Fung, you saw the first clip, the first trip out from Rockingham where you were carrying the brown paper bags and the valise, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And on that first trip, the gray car that Detective Vannatter drove on June 13th to Rockingham wasn't there, was it?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence and it's vague as to which--
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. SCHECK: When you saw the tape this morning and we reviewed the cars on that first trip, you did not see the gray car that Detective Vannatter drove to Rockingham in that first trip video, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Still assumes a fact not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: I did not see the gray car on the first trip.
MR. SCHECK: Right. But you did see that the gray car was there on the second trip, correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, on the first trip, that's the time that you put the brown paper bags into the car--into the back of the crime scene truck, right?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: The first trip is when you put the black valise into the back of the crime scene truck?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: The first trip is when Miss Mazzola put the posse box into the back of the crime scene truck?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And when you saw these series of tapes, Mr. Fung, you realized that you had been caught in a lie, didn't you?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. SCHECK: Well, you had told this jury yesterday that you carried the blood vial--blood sample either in a brown paper bag in the posse box or in your hands, correct?
MR. FUNG: That's what I stated.
MR. SCHECK: But when you saw the videotape, these videotapes, you realized, sir, that that--Detective Vannatter's car wasn't there when you put the brown paper bags and the posse box was put in the rear of the crime scene vehicle, correct?
MR. FUNG: The--I--that didn't come to my attention at that time, no.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Fung, this afternoon when we looked at the videotapes, we did it in a similar fashion to the way we just did it in front of the jury, didn't we?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, that's vague. Motion to strike.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: That is, I went over the tapes with you and I called your attention to the cars.
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And I called your attention in--with respect to the second trip to the fact that Detective Vannatter's car was in the second sequence, but not the first, correct?
MR. FUNG: At a later time, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And when that was called to your attention, you realized that if Detective Vannatter was not at Rockingham at the time that you put the brown paper bags in the valise and Miss Mazzola put the posse box in the back of the evidence truck, that there was no way that at that point in time you could have been putting the blood sample into the car.
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative. And also, the videotapes don't depict everything.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. SCHECK: You realized when you saw the videotapes this afternoon, that you could no longer maintain the position that you had put the blood sample--
THE COURT: Try again.
MR. SCHECK: Sorry?
THE COURT: Try again. Maintain the position. Try again.
MR. SCHECK: --you could no longer say that the gray envelope was in a brown paper bag?
MR. FUNG: I had forgotten about the plastic bag until this morning.
MR. SCHECK: You could no longer say after you saw the videos that you were carrying the manila--the gray manila envelope within a brown paper bag, correct? You knew you couldn't say that after seeing these videotapes?
MR. FUNG: It refreshed my memory.
MR. SCHECK: Well, my question, sir, is after--
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, it's argumentative. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: After you saw the videotapes, you realized that you could not have been carrying the gray manila envelope in a brown paper bag because Detective Vannatter wasn't there yet when you were shown putting brown paper bags into the truck, correct?
MR. GOLDBERG: Assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: Did you realize that?
MR. FUNG: That was one of the conclusions I came to, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you realized that you could not have carried the manila envelope in the posse box because when the posse box was put into the crime scene truck, Detective Vannatter's car wasn't there, correct?
MR. FUNG: Again, I remembered that the--
MR. SCHECK: My question to you, sir, is simply, you knew that when you saw those videotapes that you could not have carried the gray manila envelope in the posse box and put it in the back of the crime scene truck? Yes or no?
MR. FUNG: That--I--I came to that conclusion by watching that, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And when you saw both videotape tapes, you came to the conclusion that you could not say that you had carried the gray manila envelope in your hands? Yes or no?
MR. FUNG: Because my--because my recollection was--
MR. SCHECK: Yes or no?
MR. FUNG: --refreshed.
THE COURT: Let him finish--let him finish the question. He's not--
MR. SCHECK: But your memory was refreshed?
THE COURT: He's not restricted, counsel.
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, could we show the--
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Fung, had you ever seen those clips, video clips--withdrawn.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Now going to show you the beginning of your trip back.
THE COURT: This is 1103? 1004.
(At 2:53 P.M., a videotape was played.)
MR. SCHECK: All right. Let's stop. Now, do you recall this morning about this point when you were being shown this tape, the Judge asked you a question?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And the Judge asked you what was in--
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is not proper impeachment. There's no foundation for it.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: What was in--
THE COURT: This isn't the point where I asked that question though, counsel.
MR. SCHECK: But it--I--your Honor, if you tell me the point, your memory I'm sure is better than mine. I don't want to get anything wrong. If you could tell us where at the point in the tape it is.
THE COURT: Keep going. No. No.
MR. SCHECK: Is it on the other tape?
THE COURT: No. Further in this one. Keep going. You can bring it up to real time, Mr. Harris. Right there.
MR. SCHECK: Right there? All right.
MR. SCHECK: Now, at this point in the time, Judge Ito asked you what was in the plastic bag being carried by Miss Mazzola?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you told him the gray manila envelope containing Mr. Simpson's blood sample?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: It was something to that effect.
MR. SCHECK: That's not a brown paper bag, is it?
MR. FUNG: No, it's not.
MR. SCHECK: It's not a posse box?
MR. FUNG: No, it's not.
MR. SCHECK: It's not--it's not you holding that gray manila envelope in your hands, is it?
MR. FUNG: I had forgotten about the plastic bag.
MR. SCHECK: After you realized that you couldn't say that the gray manila envelope was in a brown paper bag or in the posse box or you carried it in your own hands, the Judge asked you the question, you made up the fact that it was in that plastic bag, didn't you?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. No, you can't, Mr. Neufeld.
MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry, your Honor?
THE COURT: Proceed.
(At 2:54 P.M., the playing of the videotape concluded.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Again, yesterday--and I'm starting at page 22443--on cross-examination, were you asked these questions and did you give these answers? "Question: So to the best of your recollection, Detective Vannatter handed you a gray envelope and he just had it in his hand? "Answer: To the best of my recollection, yes. "And then--"Question: And then after you received that gray envelope, what did you do with it "Answer: I wrote on the envelope that I received it from him and I put the time, date and my initials. "Question: And what did you do with the envelope at that point "Answer: I looked inside to make sure that there was a vial in it and that it was in the condition that it was unopened, and I put it in the crime scene truck." Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers?
MR. FUNG: Yes, I did.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you knew before you ever came to testify in this case, sir, that the issue of whether or not you actually got the gray manila envelope from Officer Vannatter on June 13th would be a subject of contention at this trial?
MR. FUNG: I did not know that.
MR. SCHECK: In your meetings with the District Attorney, did you not discuss that you might be cross-examined on this issue?
MR. FUNG: That was a subject that came up.
MR. SCHECK: How many times?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall.
MR. SCHECK: You testified at a proceeding in August of 1994?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall that, which one it was.
MR. SCHECK: Do you recall a hearing where Mr. Neufeld asked you some questions in August of 1994?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And at that proceeding, Miss Mazzola also testified; did she not?
MR. FUNG: At a later time, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Well, next day?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall when she--
MR. SCHECK: Soon after you?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And I think you've indicated to us before, sir, that after that proceeding, you and Miss Mazzola had some conversations trying to reconstruct the events of June 13th?
MR. FUNG: At a later time, yes.
MR. SCHECK: So you were familiar in some measure as to what she testified to at that hearing?
MR. FUNG: We didn't go over testimony.
MR. SCHECK: Well, you discussed the details of events that were the subject matter of her testimony?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation unless he was there.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: Mainly we discussed--we tried to just find out who did the actual picking up of evidence.
MR. SCHECK: Mr.--well, wasn't Mr. Simpson's blood sample a piece of evidence?
MR. FUNG: Yes, it was.
MR. SCHECK: An important piece of evidence?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you knew it would be a very important piece of evidence in this case, didn't you?
MR. FUNG: It was an important piece of evidence.
MR. SCHECK: And were you aware that Miss Mazzola had taken the position at this hearing in August that she did not see you get--
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, this is not--
MR. SCHECK: --the blood vial, blood sample from Detective Vannatter on June 13th?
THE COURT: Sustained. Assumes facts not in evidence.
MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: Assumes facts that aren't in evidence, counsel.
MR. SCHECK: After your conversations with--withdrawn. During your conversations with Miss Mazzola after her testimony in August, did you learn that she did not remember seeing you get Mr. Sample's blood sample--
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor--
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Simpson's blood sample--
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Did you discuss with Miss Mazzola after the hearing in August whether or not she had seen you get Mr. Simpson's blood sample on June 13th?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall discussing that with her.
MR. SCHECK: No recollection of that?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. SCHECK: Did it come to your attention from anyone that Miss Mazzola did not recall you receiving Mr. Simpson's blood sample on June 13th?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor--
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: May we approach?
THE COURT: No.
MR. SCHECK: Were you told--
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, can the jury be admonished to disregard counsel's questions?
THE COURT: I've already told the jury--I've instructed the jury if I sustain an objection, they're to disregard the implication of any question. Proceed.
MR. SCHECK: Were you told by Michelle Kestler that--sometime after August 1994, that Andrea Mazzola--
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. GOLDBERG: I would object, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. Counsel, this whole line needs to be done in a different way and we're wasting time. If you're going to keep doing that, I'm going to stop you right here.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I don't mean to waste the Court's time. I'm merely--I think--
MR. COCHRAN: May we have one moment, your Honor?
MR. SCHECK: Trying to figure out what would be the right way--
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Did you ever sit down with Miss Mazzola after August and review the testimony that you gave and she gave during that hearing?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. SCHECK: Did you ever discuss the testimony that you gave and she gave at that hearing after August?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. SCHECK: You did have conversations with Miss Mazzola about your testimony at this trial.
MR. GOLDBERG: It's a little vague as to testimony at this trial.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: You did have conversations with Miss Mazzola prior to testifying at this trial and after August of 1994?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, also, it's been asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: I did have conversations with her?
MR. SCHECK: Yeah. Didn't you have conversations with Miss Mazzola after August of 1994 and before your testimony at this trial concerning the subject matter of your testimony at this trial?
MR. FUNG: Some of the subject matter, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And did you not in conversations with Miss Mazzola prior to this trial and after August discuss with her the subject matter of her testimony?
MR. GOLDBERG: It's still vague and overbroad.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: I don't understand the--what do you mean by her testimony?
MR. SCHECK: What she might testify to at this trial.
MR. FUNG: We went over the--tried to put together the events of the crime scene in regards to the collection of what we did and who did what.
MR. SCHECK: I am sorry. Are you finished?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And one of the things that you discussed with Miss Mazzola was the collection of Mr. Simpson's blood vial--blood sample?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall specifically talking about the blood vial because it just wasn't a subject that had to do with that blood collection as far as picking it up, picking up blood swatches and things like that.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Fung--
MR. FUNG: That's basically what we discussed.
MR. SCHECK: Never had a discussion with Andrea Mazzola about when Mr. Simpson's blood sample was collected?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall any specific conversations, no.
MR. SCHECK: On direct examination, you were asked some questions about a document where Andrea Mazzola had written that Mr. Simpson's blood sample was item no. 18 and the sneakers that Detective Lange gave you on June 14th were no. 17?
MR. FUNG: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And you were asked those questions on direct examination by Mr. Goldberg.
MR. FUNG: That conversation occurred before our testimony started.
MR. SCHECK: Which conversation?
MR. FUNG: Conversation about those documents.
MR. SCHECK: Conversation with Mr. Goldberg or with Miss Mazzola?
MR. FUNG: With Miss Mazzola.
MR. SCHECK: So you had a conversation with Miss Mazzola about those documents?
MR. FUNG: But this wasn't in the time frame that you were asking about.
MR. SCHECK: Oh. The conversation with Miss Mazzola about the fact that Mr. Simpson's blood sample was put down as no. 18 and the sneakers were put down as no. 17 happened before August?
MR. FUNG: It happened maybe the day after June 13th or possibly June 14th.
MR. SCHECK: And the conversation that you had maybe on June 13th or June 14th with Miss Mazzola about her recording--
MR. FUNG: June 14th or June 15th.
MR. SCHECK: June 14th or June 15th.
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Is that the only conversation you've ever had with Miss Mazzola about this issue?
MR. FUNG: That's the only one--
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, this issue is a little overbroad.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: That's the only one I can recall.
MR. SCHECK: You mean there might have been others, but you can't remember?
MR. FUNG: I don't remember, no.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Do you remember that you went over the evidence collection checklist with Miss Mazzola prior to testifying here?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you filled in some extra details on the evidence collection checklist?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And that checklist contained each of the items that you collected, you and Miss Mazzola?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you were discussing with her who collected it, me or you?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you went all the way down the list of all these items of evidence?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you're telling us that when it came to Mr. Simpson's blood sample, you and she had no discussion?
MR. FUNG: I'm not saying that. I'm saying I don't recall the discussion or if there was a discussion about it.
MR. SCHECK: So you're now telling us that there might have been a discussion with Miss Mazzola about the collection of Mr. Simpson's blood sample after August, but you can't recall it?
MR. GOLDBERG: That's argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained as phrased. Rephrase the question.
MR. SCHECK: Are you now saying, sir, that there might have been a conversation after August with Miss Mazzola about the collection of Mr. Simpson's blood sample?
MR. GOLDBERG: Still argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: I think I've stated that before.
MR. SCHECK: So it could have been a conversation about it after August, but you just don't remember?
MR. FUNG: I don't remember a conversation with--about that subject matter.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, when you got back to the lab on the afternoon of June 13th, you're telling us that you had with you this gray manila envelope that contained Mr. Simpson's blood sample?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Is there any record in the crime laboratory's computer tracking system that indicates where you put that blood sample on the evening of June 13th?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: The evidence tracking system does not take that type of prebooked evidence into account.
MR. SCHECK: If you were to put something in the refrigerator or freezer in the serology lab, doesn't somebody have to hit a bar code to open the door of the serology freezer?
MR. FUNG: I'm--
MR. GOLDBERG: It's vague and overbroad as to pre or post booking.
THE COURT: Pre or post?
MR. GOLDBERG: Booking.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. SCHECK: Any time someone opens the freezer in the serology laboratory, are they not supposed to hit some kind of bar code?
MR. FUNG: I'm not familiar with the serology policy of evidence moving.
MR. SCHECK: Well, is there a computer record at the evidence collection unit that indicates where this blood sample was on the evening of June 13th?
MR. FUNG: One would not exist.
MR. SCHECK: So there is no such record at the ECU, correct?
MR. FUNG: That's not a record that's kept or prebooked--
MR. SCHECK: Do you have a written record anywhere in any form indicating where you put Mr. Simpson's blood sample on the evening of June 13th?
MR. FUNG: Where I put it?
MR. SCHECK: Yeah.
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you told us on direct examination that you were trying to record items that you collected in chronological order.
MR. FUNG: I attempt to do that, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And on June 13th, Andrea Mazzola was taking notes about the items collected?
MR. FUNG: On June--
MR. SCHECK: 13.
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you told us that after you first left the Rockingham scene in the morning, you and Miss Mazzola sat down together and you did an inventory, correct?
MR. FUNG: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And you checked each item of evidence together?
MR. FUNG: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And I think you told us yesterday that after you left the Bundy scene, you did the same thing. You checked it in inventory checking the items together.
MR. FUNG: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And you told us yesterday that after you left the Rockingham scene, in the afternoon, you and Miss Mazzola conducted that same kind of inventory when you checked each item together?
MR. FUNG: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And in that inventory the afternoon of June 13th where you were checking the items together with Miss Mazzola, did you show her the gray envelope containing Mr. Simpson's blood sample?
MR. FUNG: We had not obtained that sample yet when we conducted the inventory, evidence inventory.
MR. SCHECK: So you're now saying that the evidence inventory--withdrawn. Did you conduct the evidence inventory in the crime scene truck as you told us before?
MR. FUNG: No, because the media was out there and we wanted to do it out of the eyes of the media. So we did it within the residence.
MR. SCHECK: So you couldn't have--you didn't--on the--when you left Rockingham in the morning, did you conduct the evidence inventory in the crime scene truck?
MR. FUNG: Rockingham in the morning?
MR. SCHECK: Yeah.
MR. FUNG: Yes, because the media wasn't there yet.
MR. SCHECK: And when you left Bundy in the afternoon, did you conduct the evidence inventory in the crime scene truck?
MR. FUNG: Not in the truck, no.
MR. SCHECK: Where did you do it?
MR. FUNG: It was--where we set up our crime scene kit.
MR. SCHECK: Well, where's that?
MR. FUNG: Someplace near the front of the residence. I don't--I don't recall exactly where we set up the crime scene kit. I think it was out near the sidewalk.
MR. SCHECK: Near the sidewalk in front of 875 Bundy?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: You did the evidence inventory on the sidewalk outside of 875 Bundy at around 3:00 in the afternoon?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: I don't recall exactly where it was, but it was around that area, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Well, if you did it in front of the sidewalk at 875 Bundy around 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon, weren't there people there with videotapes, cameras taking pictures?
MR. FUNG: There may have been, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Well, so you're now going--so it's--now you're saying, Mr. Fung, that before you left the house at Rockingham, you and Miss Mazzola sat down and went through each item and did the inventory. Is that what you're telling us?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And where did this all take place?
MR. FUNG: Within the residence.
MR. SCHECK: Where?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall exactly where it was. It was--I don't recall.
MR. SCHECK: Was it up in the master bedroom?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, he says he doesn't recall. No foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: I don't recall.
MR. SCHECK: Was it in that foyer area?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall.
MR. SCHECK: Are you not able to recall this, Mr. Fung, because as you sit there, you're wondering that if you put it in some particular room, there might be people that could be placed at that location who would then have to come in and corroborate it?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Now, in terms of timing, Mr. Fung, at around 5:00 o'clock, item 16 was collected.
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And it was after item 16 was picked up that you and Miss Mazzola did this inventory?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And item 16 was picked up in front of the--the front door of Mr. Simpson's residence?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And item 15 was picked up in that foyer area?
MR. FUNG: In a bathroom.
MR. SCHECK: And you can't recall whether after that item was picked up in that foyer area you and Miss Mazzola did this inventory?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall exactly where we did the inventory, but it was within that residence.
MR. SCHECK: So you're saying that the inventory was done and everything was placed into the truck during that first trip when you put the paper bags into the back of the crime scene truck?
MR. FUNG: Items 11 through 16 were placed in the back of the crime scene truck, yes.
MR. SCHECK: That's when we see you putting in the paper bag and Miss Mazzola is putting in the posse box?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: So now you're saying that Mr. Simpson's gray manila envelope with the blood sample in it was put into that black plastic trash bag that Miss Mazzola was carrying?
MR. FUNG: To the best of my recollection, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And did you place it in the trash bag in her sight, in her presence?
MR. FUNG: I don't think so. I don't recall.
MR. SCHECK: You just said, "I don't think so," and then you said, "I don't recall."
MR. FUNG: That's right.
MR. SCHECK: Now, do you have some concerns, Mr. Fung, that Miss Mazzola is not going to come into this courtroom--withdrawn. Do you have some concerns, Mr. Fung, about Miss Mazzola coming into this courtroom and saying that she recalls you placing this gray manila envelope with the blood sample in it into that plastic bag?
MR. FUNG: Do I have--
MR. SCHECK: Concerns.
MR. FUNG: --concerns about it?
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
MR. FUNG: Whether she'll say that or not?
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
MR. FUNG: At this point, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And your concern, sir, is based on the fact that you have knowledge that she has previously testified that she does not recall seeing Detective Vannatter hand you the gray manila envelope on June 13th?
MR. GOLDBERG: I object, your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained. Ask him a foundational question.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Fung, do you think it would refresh your recollection to see Miss Mazzola's testimony in August with respect to the collection of items at Rockingham on the afternoon of June 13th?
MR. GOLDBERG: There's no foundation for that, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: I don't see how it would.
MR. SCHECK: You don't think that looking at her testimony might refresh your recollection as to things she has said to you in conversations about whether you received the blood sample from Detective Vannatter?
MR. FUNG: I'm not sure if it would or not. I don't know.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, in your conversations with Miss Mazzola about the events of the afternoon of June 13th, did it come to your attention that she recalled leaving Rockingham earlier than you recalled it?
MR. FUNG: I don't remember discussing that with her.
MR. SCHECK: In your conversations with Miss Mazzola about the events of the afternoon of June 13th, did she ever indicate to you that she remembered leaving just a few minutes after five?
MR. GOLDBERG: Still no foundation. Assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, it's also hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I would like to approach the witness and show him some testimony.
THE COURT: You may. Show counsel what it is.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Before we do that, let me see counsel at the sidebar with the Court reporter.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: All right. We are over at the sidebar. Counsel, haven't we done enough with this witness? This guy has been on the stand on cross-examination now for five days. This is such a minor inconsequential point. You've established that there's a discrepancy regarding the collection of the blood sample and how it got to where. I think you've stirred up the waters very adequately here. I mean, what more do we need to do here?
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, if I can be permitted to say, we don't have much more. I can tell you that.
THE COURT: I've heard that--counsel, I've heard that eight times now.
MR. COCHRAN: I understand. But, your Honor, we respectfully disagree. This is a major matter as you are going to find out, as to whether or not they ever got that blood on that day. I mean--
THE COURT: I understand the point.
MR. COCHRAN: It's a major point. And you can understand from these questions what Mazzola is going to say. They can talk to her all they want. She's locked down. This is a major part of the case.
THE COURT: The fact she is locked down isn't going to change talking to this guy.
MR. COCHRAN: He admits having a conversation with her on that question. So I think--
MR. SCHECK: I'm going to move on right after eliciting this testimony.
MR. DARDEN: How many lawyers get to talk on this issue?
MR. COCHRAN: Maybe if the other side would abide by your rulings. As I was going to point out to you--
THE COURT: Please, Mr. Cochran, one lawyer at a time.
MR. SCHECK: I'm going to move on, but I think we should be allowed cross-examination.
THE COURT: Counsel, I understand it's cross-examination. But I don't know if you're watching the jury, but they've stopped paying attention.
MR. COCHRAN: We think they are going to pay attention--
MR. DARDEN: I think they have had enough smooth Defense tactics for the day.
MR. COCHRAN: I resent that. I resent that remark, smooth Defense tactics. What they've got--
THE COURT: Don't spit at me, Mr. Cochran.
MR. COCHRAN: We're being killed in these ridiculous.
MR. DARDEN: He is testifying to the best he can, and that's all he can do.
MR. COCHRAN: Be a lawyer. Stop acting like a child.
MR. DARDEN: Such he is with minutiae.
THE COURT: Mr. Darden.
MR. DARDEN: You are a child, Mr. Cochran.
THE COURT: Mr. Darden, when you talk when Mr. Cochran talks, the Court reporter doesn't get down any of our record here.
MR. DARDEN: It is difficult for any of us to get another word in when Mr. Cochran is talking.
THE COURT: I'm just encouraging counsel to move it along. Thank you.
(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)
THE COURT: Well, I guess we ought to take a break at this point. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, remember my admonitions to you; do not discuss the case, form any opinions about the case, allow anybody to have any contact with you, do not conduct any deliberations. We'll take a 15-minute break.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, can we just have one clarification?
THE COURT: No. Let me let the jurors go.
MR. GOLDBERG: All right.
THE COURT: Mr. Fung, you may step down.
(The following proceedings were held in open Court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. The jurors have withdrawn. Mr. Goldberg, you had a comment?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I'm assuming that the Court's order that we were not allowed to discuss the videotape with Mr. Fung is no longer in effect.
THE COURT: That's correct. He's seen the videotape, been cross-examined on it.
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, one thing. We checked the record, and it was more than that. You said they could not discuss the testimony. It wasn't as to the videotape. That was wrong. It was, you said not discuss this matter as I understand it.
THE COURT: Counsel, we are taking a break at this point. How about if we do that? How about if we take a break at this point?
MR. COCHRAN: That's fine.
THE COURT: I think--at this point, I think that's a no harm, no foul because I think you got what you wanted there.
MR. COCHRAN: We just wanted to point that out for the record.
THE COURT: Counsel, we'll stand in recess, and I'm going to admonish counsel on both sides that it may not be apparent to you, but my patience is at its end today.
MR. DARDEN: Mine too, your Honor.
MS. CLARK: And mine.
THE COURT: Thank you.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open Court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are present. Let's have the jurors.
(Brief pause.)
(The following proceedings were held in open Court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Dennis Fung is on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Scheck. Good afternoon again, Mr. Fung.
MR. FUNG: Good afternoon.
MR. SCHECK: May I finish my cross-examination?
THE COURT: You may.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Let me show you pages 762 and 763 of the proceedings in August. Ask you to read these pages and let's see if it refreshes your recollection.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: After having looked at these pages, does it refresh your recollection that in your conversations with Miss Mazzola--
THE COURT: Why don't you rephrase the question.
MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry.
THE COURT: You said refresh his recollection first about a conversation with Miss Mazzola.
MR. SCHECK: All right.
MR. SCHECK: Having looked at these pages, is your recollection in any way refreshed with respect to conversations you have had with Miss Mazzola?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall having conversations about those particular topics.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Are you saying, Mr. Fung, that in your conversations with Miss Mazzola, prior to coming in here to testify, she did not indicate to you that she was with you for the entire time?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I object.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Has Miss Mazzola ever told you--
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, may we approach?
THE COURT: It is hearsay. Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: I'm asking what Miss Mazzola said to him.
THE COURT: It is hearsay.
MR. SCHECK: Not for the truth of the matter asserted; for the fact that it was said to her.
THE COURT: Hearsay without further foundation. Proceed.
MR. SCHECK: You had conversations with Miss Mazzola prior to testifying here?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And in these conversations you discussed what items of evidence were picked up and when?
MR. FUNG: That was touched on, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And that is part of the way that you made those corrections or those additions, I should say, on the evidence collection sheets?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And in those conversations did Miss Mazzola indicate to you that she was with you from the entire time--
MR. GOLDBERG: Hearsay, your Honor.
THE COURT: Finish the question.
MR. SCHECK: That she was with you the entire time after you picked up the last item at Rockingham at about five o'clock until you departed for the next designation (sic)?
MR. GOLDBERG: Hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled at this point.
MR. FUNG: We never discussed that, no.
MR. SCHECK: In your conversations with Miss Mazzola prior to coming here and testifying, did she indicate to you that she believed that you and--that the two of you had left the Rockingham location a few minutes after 5:00?
MR. GOLDBERG: Hearsay, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm allowing these questions and answers for the limited purpose--assuming that the answer--that the implication of the answer--excuse me--the question--let me start again. I'm allowing this evidence for a limited purpose, that is, whether or not this statement was made to Mr. Fung, not whether or not that statement is in fact true. Mr. Scheck.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you. May I put the last question to the witness?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Fung, in your conversations with Miss Mazzola prior to your testimony, did she ever indicate to you that she recalled leaving Rockingham a few minutes after 5:00?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall having discussed that.
MR. SCHECK: Did you ever see any document where Miss Mazzola indicated to you--indicated that she thought the two of you had left Rockingham before 5:20?
MR. FUNG: If I can refer to my notes.
(Brief pause.)
MR. FUNG: I don't recall any document, no.
MR. SCHECK: In the notes you just looked at, Mr. Fung, those were the crime scene checklist for Rockingham?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And that is a document of four pages--well, the first four pages are numbered 1, 2, 3, 4?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And on the fourth page of that document there is a line that indicates "Time left scene"?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: We will get back to that in a minute. That is ordinarily where somebody writes down the time that they left the scene?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And Miss Mazzola was the one that was taking notes?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, Mr. Fung, you have told us that the gray manila envelope with Mr. Simpson's blood sample was placed by you into a trash bag?
MR. FUNG: A plastic trash bag.
MR. SCHECK: Is that correct?
MR. FUNG: That's what I remember.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Where did you get the trash bag?
MR. FUNG: I asked one of the detectives to find one for me--to find some type of bag that I could put the envelope in.
MR. SCHECK: And this was when you returned into Mr. Simpson's house?
MR. FUNG: This was after receiving the envelope.
MR. SCHECK: Well, when you went back inside to Mr. Simpson's house, after putting the brown paper bags in and the valise in the car, you didn't have a black plastic bag with you?
MR. FUNG: I had no idea that I would--
MR. SCHECK: Did you have a black plastic bag with you?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. SCHECK: Did Miss Mazzola have a black plastic bag with her?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. SCHECK: And so you are now saying you went back into the Rockingham location at that time?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative as phrased.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: You went, as depicted on the videotape, back into Rockingham for one last look?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: You picked up those yellow evidence cards?
MR. FUNG: On the way back in, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And then you got back inside to Rockingham?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And was it at that point that you asked some detective for a black plastic bag?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. SCHECK: You got inside to Rockingham and that is when you saw Detective Vannatter in the foyer?
MR. FUNG: At some point after I went in, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And was Detective Vannatter carrying a black duffel bag?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall if he was or not.
MR. SCHECK: And was Detective Vannatter carrying a clipboard?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall if he was or not.
MR. SCHECK: All you remember is that he had this gray manila envelope?
MR. FUNG: I do remember him giving it to me.
MR. SCHECK: And do you remember who was there when this gray manila envelope was handed off?
MR. FUNG: I don't remember everybody who was there.
MR. SCHECK: Well, since we last broke you now have had an opportunity to talk with the Prosecutors about the videotapes?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And have they discussed anything with you about who else was there?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. SCHECK: Have they discussed with you anything about what Miss Mazzola may be testifying to?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. SCHECK: Was Miss Mazzola there?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall her being there when I accepted the envelope from Miss--Mr.--or Detective Vannatter.
MR. SCHECK: So it is you and Detective Vannatter?
MR. FUNG: I know that.
MR. SCHECK: Who else as you sit here today you independently remember?
MR. GOLDBERG: That misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: I don't specifically remember anybody else, but I do know there were other people there.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And he gave you the gray manila envelope and then you looked in it?
THE COURT: Counsel, I think we have broached this subject yesterday, who was there.
MR. SCHECK: Right.
THE COURT: When it was transferred.
MR. SCHECK: Just foundational.
THE COURT: This is like the third time we are going through this.
MR. SCHECK: I understand.
MR. SCHECK: After you looked in the envelope, was it then that you asked somebody to get a plastic bag?
MR. FUNG: I asked somebody to--I asked if somebody could find a bag of some sort so that I could place the envelope inside.
MR. SCHECK: Who did you ask?
MR. FUNG: Nobody in particular. I just asked in general for somebody to find me something to put the--the envelope in.
MR. SCHECK: Do you remember who gave it to you?
MR. FUNG: It was one of the detectives.
MR. SCHECK: Where did they give it to you?
MR. FUNG: It was in the kitchen.
MR. SCHECK: Where was Miss Mazzola?
MR. FUNG: I don't know.
MR. SCHECK: Was she around?
MR. FUNG: I don't know.
MR. SCHECK: And then you were given this plastic bag and you put the gray manila envelope in the plastic bag?
MR. FUNG: That's--to the best of my recollection, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And when you did that, where was Miss Mazzola?
MR. FUNG: I don't know.
MR. SCHECK: And you walked out of the kitchen then?
MR. FUNG: I don't know what I did right after I put the envelope in the bag.
MR. SCHECK: After you put the envelope in the bag, did there come a point soon after where you saw Miss Mazzola?
MR. FUNG: Eventually I did see her, but I don't know when.
MR. SCHECK: How many minutes?
MR. FUNG: I don't know.
MR. SCHECK: More than two or three?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall how many minutes from the time I put the envelope in the bag to when I saw her next.
MR. SCHECK: Did you see her next inside the Rockingham residence?
MR. FUNG: I can only tell from the video. I don't recall exactly when I saw her next.
MR. SCHECK: Well, from the video we know you walked out the Rockingham residence with Miss Mazzola?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you at some point handed her this black plastic bag?
MR. FUNG: At some point from the video, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And when you handed her that black plastic bag, did you say to her, "Miss Mazzola, here is a black plastic bag and inside it is a gray manila envelope with Mr. Simpson's blood sample"? Did you tell her that.
MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation; personal knowledge.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: I didn't tell her that or I don't remember telling her that or I don't remember saying anything like that.
MR. SCHECK: Which?
MR. FUNG: I just don't remember.
MR. SCHECK: Well, did you tell her, in substance, "Here's"--withdrawn. At that time didn't you have some concerns about carrying a manila envelope with a blood vial in it?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: You certainly wouldn't want to have that blood vial broken?
MR. FUNG: No, I wouldn't.
MR. SCHECK: That is a piece of evidence that you want to carry with a great deal of care?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And if you are giving it to Miss Mazzola, you are going to want her to carry it with a great deal of care?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you are telling us, when you handed her the blood vial and the manila envelope that is inside the plastic bag, you didn't say to her, "Miss Mazzola, here's the blood vial, blood sample from Mr. Simpson that I was just given by Detective Vannatter. Carry it carefully"?
MR. FUNG: I don't remember saying that.
MR. SCHECK: You just, to the best of your recollection, handed her a plastic bag with Mr. Simpson's blood sample in it and never told her what was in it?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony that he recalled.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Did you tell her what was in that black plastic bag when you handed it to her?
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, it is argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled. Not as phrased.
MR. FUNG: I don't recall if I did or not. I don't remember.
THE COURT: All right. Let's move on.
MR. SCHECK: And then the two of you walked out of Rockingham?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you went into the crime scene truck?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And when you went into the crime scene--between the time that you left and the time you got to the crime scene truck, did you tell Miss Mazzola what was in that black plastic bag?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall talking to her at all.
MR. SCHECK: When you got inside the crime scene truck, umm, where did you go and where did she go?
MR. FUNG: She eventually went to the passenger seat and I went into the driver's seat.
MR. SCHECK: What did she do with the plastic bag that contained Mr. Simpson's blood sample?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall if she put it in--if I unlocked the back door for her and she put it in, or if we put it--or if she put it in the passenger compartment.
MR. SCHECK: Well, when she was putting it somewhere in the truck, did you tell her, "Miss Mazzola, what is in that plastic bag is Mr. Simpson's blood sample. Put it in a certain place, be careful with it"?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall saying that to her.
MR. SCHECK: Do you recall--withdrawn. Did you ever, when you got back into the crime scene truck, tell Miss Mazzola what was in the plastic bag?
MR. FUNG: (No audible response.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, it has been asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. FUNG: I don't recall--
THE COURT: Wait.
MR. GOLDBERG: Wait.
MR. SCHECK: You don't have to answer that question.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. SCHECK: At some point after you got back in the crime scene truck the two of you drove back to SID?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And at that time you took evidence out of the crime scene truck and you brought it into the evidence processing room?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And at that time did you and Miss Mazzola conduct an inventory of all the items that you collected?
MR. FUNG: I know I did.
MR. SCHECK: Was she there assisting?
MR. FUNG: She may have been.
MR. SCHECK: And during that inventory did you tell her "Inside that plastic baggies Mr. Simpson's blood vial in a manila envelope"?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall talking to her about the--this item of evidence.
MR. SCHECK: All right. When you got back to the evidence processing room, you and Miss Mazzola went through a process you've told us of taking blood swatches out of coin envelopes and putting them into test-tubes?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: At some point before you began that process did you indicate to Miss Mazzola that Mr. Simpson's blood sample was in a gray manila envelope and inside that plastic bag?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall talking to her about that sample on that day.
MR. SCHECK: At some point, when you got back to the evidence possessing room, did either of you take the gray manila envelope out of the black plastic bag?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. SCHECK: It was kept in the black plastic bag?
MR. FUNG: During--during that night, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Where did you put it?
MR. FUNG: I put all the evidence on a--one of the tables in the evidence processing room.
MR. SCHECK: You put Mr. Simpson's blood sample, which was in a gray manila envelope, inside the plastic bag on top of the table in the evidence processing room?
MR. FUNG: That's where I put all the evidence that day.
MR. SCHECK: And you left it there?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you didn't put it in any refrigerator?
MR. FUNG: No, I didn't.
MR. SCHECK: Did you tell anybody in the laboratory that you had come back with Mr. Simpson's blood vial in that gray manila envelope in that black plastic bag?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. SCHECK: Did you go to--was Greg Matheson in the laboratory when you returned?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall seeing him.
MR. SCHECK: Is there a stock room refrigerator outside the door of the evidence processing room?
MR. FUNG: Yes, there is.
MR. SCHECK: You didn't even take Mr. Simpson's blood sample and put it in the stock room refrigerator?
MR. FUNG: I wouldn't do that, no.
MR. SCHECK: And it is your testimony that you never, to the best of your recollection, told Miss Mazzola what was inside that black plastic bag?
MR. FUNG: Not on that day, no, to the best of my recollection. I don't recall talking to her about that item of evidence on that day.
MR. SCHECK: When you came back to the evidence processing room on the morning of June 14th did you see the black plastic bag containing Mr. Simpson's blood sample in it?
MR. FUNG: I don't specifically remember it, but the--the items of evidence were all accounted for.
MR. SCHECK: So when you evidence--entered the evidence processing room, that--the gray manila envelope was still inside the black plastic bag?
MR. FUNG: I did not observe or detect any of my evidence from the night before having been disturbed.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Well, when you entered the evidence processing room, was there anybody with you?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall.
MR. SCHECK: Was Miss Mazzola with you?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall.
MR. SCHECK: And I take it that you alone, with nobody around, removed the gray manila envelope from the black plastic bag?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall if anybody was with me or not. I don't remember.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Fung, none of this ever happened in terms of putting that gray manila envelope in that plastic bag; isn't that right?
MR. FUNG: That's incorrect.
MR. SCHECK: That is something that you made up when the Judge asked you the question this morning "What's in that black plastic bag?"?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. SCHECK: That is why you have now recounted that you never told Miss Mazzola once on the afternoon what was in that black plastic bag?
MR. FUNG: That is not what I said.
MR. SCHECK: That is why you are now telling us, when you went back into evidence processing room the next morning, no one else was there to see you remove this blood sample from the black plastic bag?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. SCHECK: You don't remember anybody being there when you removed the blood sample from the black plastic bag?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: I don't recall if anybody was there with me or not.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I would like to now mark--
MR. GOLDBERG: May I just have one moment?
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: When I say "Mark," by whatever means the Court would like, umm, I would like to show the original copies of the crime scene investigation checklist.
THE COURT: Original copies?
MR. SCHECK: Yes. The originals.
MR. GOLDBERG: He means the originals.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you. The documents that have been brought to us that purport to be originals of the crime scene investigation checklist for Rockingham.
THE COURT: The four pages? The four-page sheet?
MR. SCHECK: It is actually one, two, three, four pages that are numbered, a fifth page designated "Field notes" and on the back of the fifth page there is writing, a sixth page designated "Field notes" that is blank and on the back page of that is a diagram, a seventh page that is the evidence collection checklist, and on the back of that there is another diagram. What did I say? This is the seventh page, which is a second evidence collection checklist. That is eight altogether.
THE COURT: That is eight. Eight pages.
MR. SCHECK: Eight pages.
THE CLERK: 1107.
THE COURT: All right. Those pages will be 1107.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, I'm sorry, I thought we weren't going to introduce any of the originals so that we could maintain custody of our originals pursuant to a prior agreement.
THE COURT: If there is a reason to use the original, I will allow their use; however, there will be substitutions for the record later. Proceed.
(Deft's 1107 for id = 8-page document)
MR. SCHECK: Now, earlier, Mr. Fung, you were shown a copy of this page by the Prosecution and it was introduced into evidence under direct examination?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And this piece of paper contains handwriting of Andrea Mazzola?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Where she lists various items?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
THE COURT: When you say "This page," which page are we talking about?
MR. SCHECK: It is the page in back of the field notes.
THE COURT: First page of field notes.
MR. SCHECK: I will give you a number in terms of the actual page. It is the fifth page and it is the back of the fifth page, and I would like to put this on the elmo.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, on this document--
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, on this document, you can read along if it helps, with your copy, if you want, it refers to item 17, "One pair of tennis shoes, Reebok, received in serology by D. Fung from Detective Lange," correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Wait a minute.
MR. SCHECK: Up in the upper right-hand corner just where "D. Fung" is there is a date, "6/14/94"?
MR. FUNG: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And below that is written "Item 18, blood sample in tube from Simpson."
MR. FUNG: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And item 19 is "Hair from item no. 9."
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And that is item no. 9 is the Rockingham glove?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And the hair that is being referred to is a hair that you removed on the morning of June 14th?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And the sneakers are sneakers that you received in the morning on June 14th?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And it is your testimony that the blood sample from Mr. Simpson you did not receive after the sneakers on the morning of June 14th?
MR. FUNG: I received the sneakers on June 13th at 5:20.
MR. SCHECK: And on direct examination you mentioned that you saw this document when you came back to the laboratory on June 14th?
MR. FUNG: At some point, when I was writing my property report, I saw this document.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry, did you say--did you misspeak and say that you got the sneakers on the 13th?
MR. FUNG: I believe I--I--
MR. SCHECK: You got the sneakers on the 14th?
MR. FUNG: I got the sneakers on the 14th. I got the blood on the 13th.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, you might have seen this document then, not on June 14th, but June 15th?
MR. FUNG: (No audible response.)
MR. SCHECK: You said you saw it around the time you were writing up your property report.
MR. FUNG: Possibly.
MR. SCHECK: So you are not sure whether it is the 14th or the 15th that you saw this document?
MR. FUNG: It was when I was writing my property reports. I could check.
(Brief pause.)
MR. FUNG: It was on the 14th.
MR. SCHECK: So on the 14th you saw this document?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And when you looked at it you decided that you didn't like the order in which Miss Mazzola had put down the receipt of these items?
MR. FUNG: I--when I was writing my property report I wanted to save on paperwork, so I changed the order of the item numbers that she had written down.
MR. SCHECK: And then on--this is page 8 of the Rockingham report--in your evidence collection sheet, you told us that you went back and you changed what had been--what Miss Mazzola had written as 17 under "Sample item," correct?
MR. FUNG: (No audible response.)
MR. SCHECK: The top of that page is--there is a reference to the item received by you from Detective Lange, the sneakers?
MR. FUNG: Yes. The very top line?
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And Miss Mazzola had written "17" there?
MR. FUNG: At one point in time, yes, there was a "17" there.
MR. SCHECK: And you changed that to an "8"?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And then below that indicated "17" for the blood sample?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And on direct examination you said you did that on June 15th?
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony.
MR. SCHECK: When did you do it?
MR. FUNG: I--it was either the 14th or the 15th. I don't recall.
MR. SCHECK: And on the morning of June 14th you gave Collin Yamauchi Mr. Simpson's blood vial?
MR. FUNG: On the morning of the--
MR. SCHECK: The 14th?
MR. FUNG: The 14th?
MR. GOLDBERG: The record should reflect that the witness is refreshing his recollection with his book.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: May I approach the witness?
THE COURT: You may.
(Brief pause.)
MR. FUNG: To the best of my recollection that was when I--it was on the 14th that I released custody to him.
MR. SCHECK: And he poured off some blood and gave it back to you?
MR. GOLDBERG: No foundation for personal knowledge, also vague.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Did Mr. Yamauchi then return the blood vial to you on the morning of the 14th?
MR. FUNG: After I gave it to him, he did return it to me, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Did you actually see him taking blood out of the blood vial on the morning of the 14th?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall seeing him doing that.
MR. SCHECK: Now, on direct examination you were asked whether or not you recalled what item number you told Collin Yamauchi the blood vial was?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall that testimony.
MR. SCHECK: Well, do you recall that you were asked that question and you said you didn't remember which item number you told Collin Yamauchi the blood vial was on the morning of June 14th?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall what my testimony was at that point.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Do you recall whether or not you told Collin Yamauchi what item number you had designated the blood vial on June 14th?
MR. FUNG: I told--or--from records that I have come in contact with, I told him it was 18.
MR. SCHECK: When did you first learn that Mr. Yamauchi had recorded the blood vial as being item 18, not 17?
MR. FUNG: When did I first learn this?
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
MR. FUNG: After I had written my property reports I went to tell him that I had changed the item numbers and that is when I found out that he had written the report and put down the item number as 18.
MR. SCHECK: And was this a cause for concern, that Mr. Yamauchi had written down no. 18 for the blood vial and not no. 17?
MR. GOLDBERG: Vague as to "Concern."
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Was this a cause of concern for you, that Mr. Yamauchi had actually written down no. 18 as the blood vial, not 17?
MR. FUNG: As a matter of keeping things clean as far as having to write follow-up reports, yes, it was a concern to me.
MR. SCHECK: You said it was a matter of keeping things clean?
MR. FUNG: Paperwork wise, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Well, weren't you very concerned that if the record showed the blood vial being received after the sneakers, that that might reveal that the blood vial was actually received on the morning of June 14th?
MR. FUNG: Not on the afternoon of June 13th.
MR. SCHECK: That was not a concern?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. SCHECK: Never entered your mind?
MR. FUNG: I was more concerned about having to write up a follow-up report.
MR. SCHECK: So that thought never entered your mind?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. SCHECK: Never a concern that anybody might look at this mislabeling and think that the blood vial had not been transferred to you on the afternoon of the 13th, but actually had been turned over on the morning of the 14th?
MR. GOLDBERG: Objection as misleading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: No concern on your part that the fact that Mr. Yamauchi had labeled it 18, not 17, might lead someone to question whether or not you had actually received the blood vial on the afternoon of the 13th as opposed to the morning of the 14th?
MR. FUNG: That did not occur to me.
MR. SCHECK: At some time after June 15th did anybody ever question you about how the blood vial had been labeled 18 in Mr. Yamauchi's reports but you put it in your property report as 17?
MR. FUNG: In testimony, yes.
MR. SCHECK: It arose for the first time in testimony?
MR. FUNG: Being questioned about it, yes.
MR. SCHECK: No one in the laboratory ever came to you and asked you how something like this could happen, that Mr. Yamauchi had recorded the blood vial as 18, but in your property report you said it was 17?
MR. FUNG: I told Mr. Matheson about it. I told Collin that I had done it. The--
THE COURT: Collin is who?
MR. FUNG: Mr. Yamauchi, I'm sorry. I told Mr. Yamauchi that I had changed the item number, I had flipped them around, and that--that was the conversations that I had.
MR. SCHECK: And that conversation happened around when?
MR. FUNG: Shortly after I had written the property reports and was going to tell him that I had changed the item numbers.
MR. SCHECK: And that was in June?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Did anybody come to you in July and question you about the fact that the blood vial had been labeled 18 in Mr. Yamauchi's records but 17 in your property report?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. SCHECK: No conversation about that at all in July?
MR. FUNG: None that I can recall.
MR. SCHECK: No concern on your part in July about the fact that there had been this confusion, as you put it, between 17 and 18?
MR. FUNG: It was--
MR. GOLDBERG: Misstates the testimony, "Confusion."
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: It wasn't confusing to me.
MR. SCHECK: All right. No concern--did anybody in the month of July cause you to go back over your crime scene checklist records and make changes?
MR. FUNG: I may have gone in and added some information that I had remembered and added things that I recalled into the crime scene checklist.
MR. SCHECK: Oh, but nothing concerning this question of 17 and 18?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you know, Mr. Yamauchi--you know Mr. Yamauchi, right?
MR. FUNG: Yes, I do.
MR. SCHECK: Yes. Now, you know, Mr. Fung, that questions have been raised about whether or not all the blood in Mr. Simpson's blood sample can be accounted for.
MR. GOLDBERG: That assumes a fact not in evidence, questions have been raised.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Are you aware that the Defense has raised questions about whether or not all the blood in Mr. Simpson's blood sample can be accounted for.
MR. GOLDBERG: Irrelevant. It calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: I am aware of that.
MR. SCHECK: And before the Defense raised these questions at this trial did anyone in the laboratory ever ask you any questions about whether or not there had been any tampering with Mr. Simpson's blood vial?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall anybody asking me if it was tampered with, no.
MR. SCHECK: Well, were there any questions asked of you about that subject by Miss Kestler?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall her asking me that.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Matheson?
MR. FUNG: I don't recall him asking me that.
MR. SCHECK: Was there any ever--were you ever asked any questions by an investigator from the District Attorney's office about possible tampering with Mr. Simpson's blood vial?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, didn't you go back and look at these records in July to see--to see whether or not you had adequately covered your tracks about the fact that you really--
THE COURT: Let's rephrase that question, counsel.
MR. SCHECK: All right.
MR. SCHECK: Did you look back through these records, these crime scene checklist records, in July with the concern that there might be something there that would reveal that you really didn't receive Mr. Simpson's blood vial on the afternoon of June 13th but you really received it on the morning of the 14th?
MR. FUNG: That was not a concern to me because that is not what happened.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. I direct your attention to--there is an erasure, is there not, between item 17 and 18 on this document?
MR. FUNG: Yes, there is.
MR. SCHECK: And what had been there before was a circle and a "7-5-94" and underneath it your initials "D.F."?
MR. FUNG: That appears to be what I--what appears to be on the screen, yes.
THE COURT: Counsel, if you are showing him potential erasures on the elmo, why don't you show him the original document.
MR. SCHECK: All right.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Please take your time in examining that.
(Brief pause.)
MR. FUNG: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Now, in that erased portion you had written "7-5-94" within a circle and within that circle you put your initials "D.F."?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you put a line with an arrow on the top of it and an arrow on the bottom of it?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: To indicate that these items should be switched, 17 and 18, as written on that piece of paper?
MR. FUNG: I don't know why I wrote it, but yes, it is there.
MR. SCHECK: So you took a look at that piece of paper and you became concerned about the fact that the sneakers were 17 and the blood vial was 18, right?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And that was in July when you were going through these pages that you had that concern?
MR. FUNG: Apparently, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And then after writing that notation you decided to erase it?
MR. FUNG: I did erase it from what is here, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And in going through the pages of the crime scene checklist, you saw another document that created a problem for you, didn't you?
MR. FUNG: What are you referring to?
MR. SCHECK: I'm referring to page 4 of the crime scene checklist.
MR. FUNG: What about it?
MR. SCHECK: Page 4 of the crime scene checklist has a box indicating "Disposition of evidence"?
MR. FUNG: (No audible response.)
MR. SCHECK: I should say "Disposition of scene"?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: May I put this up on the elmo?
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Page 4 has a box indicating "Evidence booked to"?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: "Evidence booked by"?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: "Disposition of scene"?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And most importantly, sir, it has a box indicating "Time leaving scene"?
MR. FUNG: I don't know if that is the most important box, but there is a blank there.
MR. SCHECK: There is a box there that indicates time leaving scene, doesn't it?
MR. FUNG: Yes, there is a box there.
MR. SCHECK: And Miss Mazzola had been the one filling out these reports?
MR. FUNG: She was filling out the crime scene checklist that day.
MR. SCHECK: And Miss Mazzola was under the impression that you had left the Rockingham scene earlier than 5:20, wasn't she?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Do you know if Miss Mazzola was under the impression in June that the two of you had left Rockingham before 5:20?
MR. GOLDBERG: Calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: I don't know when she thought we left Rockingham.
MR. SCHECK: 5:20 is the time that you wrote on the gray envelope you received it from Detective Vannatter?
MR. FUNG: Yes, it is.
MR. SCHECK: If there were something filled in there that said 5:15 as to the time leaving scene, that would be inconsistent with what you wrote on the gray envelope you received from Detective Vannatter?
MR. GOLDBERG: Argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: If there was that time there, yes, it would.
MR. SCHECK: And that is why you destroyed the original page 4, Mr. Fung?
MR. FUNG: That is not true.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Fung, I'm going to show you each of the originals of this crime scene checklist. I want you to look at them and I want you to look at the upper left-hand corner of each of the pages and that would include--let me put it in order for you.
MR. GOLDBERG: May I approach as well, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Why don't you and Mr. Goldberg look at the left-hand corners of all those pages of the crime scene checklist very, very carefully.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: One of those pages doesn't have staple holes in it, Mr. Fung?
MR. FUNG: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: That is page 4, isn't it?
MR. FUNG: Yes, it is.
MR. SCHECK: That is because that page 4 is not the original page 4?
MR. FUNG: That is apparent to me now, yes.
MR. SCHECK: That is because you got rid of the original page 4; isn't that true, Mr. Fung?
MR. FUNG: That is not true.
MR. SCHECK: That is because it had the wrong time on it; isn't that true?
MR. FUNG: If it had wrong time--no, that is not true.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I would like to do two more things and I'm finished questioning this witness. What I would like to do is first have printed out on the elmo a copy of the document with the erasure and then I would ask that each of these documents be handed to the jury so they can examine them.
THE COURT: All right. Let's print out this document on the elmo.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: This is a printout of 1107-a and--I mean the printout will be 1107-a.
(Deft's 1107-a for id = photograph)
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Is that as fine a focus as you can get on that, Mr. Harris?
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Do would he have that printed out, Mr. Fairtlough?
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Not yet, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Is the image captured?
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Let's proceed. Mr. Scheck.
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
THE COURT: Would you hand those documents, please, to no. 1, please, and that is exhibit 1107.
(Brief pause.)
(The exhibit is passed amongst the jury.)
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, may we approach a minute with the Prosecutor while the jury is looking at that? Housekeeping matter.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)
THE COURT: All right. Let me see Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Scheck without the reporter, please.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, do you want to check the paperclips?
MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: Check the paperclips.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: I think something fell off. Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Let me just remind the members of our jury panel that at the conclusion of the trial all the evidence that is admitted by the Court as evidence will be available for you in the jury room during your deliberations and you can examine them as long as you like.
(Brief pause.)
(The exhibit continues to be passed amongst the jury.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, may we approach for a moment?
THE COURT: Without the Court reporter?
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)
THE COURT: All right. Deputy Russell, would you return that document to Mr. Scheck. All right. The record should reflect that each of the jurors has had the opportunity, including the alternates, has had the opportunity to review Defense exhibit 1107. Mr. Scheck.
MR. SCHECK: Yes, your Honor, I just would mark page 4 of this crime scene checklist 1107-B. I have no further questions.
THE COURT: All right.
(Deft's 1107-b for id = 1-page document)
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to take a 15-minute break at this time and allow counsel to reorganize their notes, and as I indicated to you, we are going to go until 6:00. The Court reporters need to catch their train, so I'm going to go until ten minutes to 6:00. All right. We will take a 15-minute recess.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open Court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. The jury is not present. Counsel, anything else we need to take up before we invite the jurors to join us?
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, there is the issue of the pheno test, your Honor, but I don't know if we will get to that point this evening.
THE COURT: We have got about 18 minutes left. I have to break at ten minutes to.
MR. GOLDBERG: I think we can take that up tomorrow morning.
THE COURT: How about at six o'clock?
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jury.
(The following proceedings were held in open Court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Be seated. Mr. Fung, have a seat, please. All right. Back on the record. The record should reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury. Mr. Scheck, have you concluded your cross-examination of Mr. Fung?
MR. SCHECK: Yes, I have, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Redirect examination. Mr. Goldberg.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GOLDBERG
MR. GOLDBERG: Good after--good evening, Mr. Fung.
MR. FUNG: Good evening.
MR. GOLDBERG: How you doing? Ladies and gentlemen. Mr. Fung, let me see if I have this. Were you involved together with Detective Lange, Detective Fuhrman, Detective Vannatter, Michele Kestler and her husband, whoever that might be, in a conspiracy against this Defendant?
MR. SCHECK: Objection, objection.
THE COURT: What is the objection? Grounds?
MR. SCHECK: I think it is argumentative, compound.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Were you involved in some kind of a conspiracy with Andrea Mazzola to cover up receiving some item with your bare hands?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Were you involved in any conspiracy with Detective Vannatter to allow him to keep a vial overnight so that you could do with it what he pleased?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Or with Detective Lange to allow him into the evidence processing room so that he could somehow maybe take the Defendant's shoes and in some way get any DNA that might be on them on the swatches and the controls?
MR. SCHECK: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Grounds.
MR. SCHECK: This is leading, compound, speculative.
THE COURT: Sustained on the leading ground.
MR. GOLDBERG: Were you involved in any conspiracy whatsoever with Mr. Lange to allow him into an evidence processing room?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. GOLDBERG: Or would anyone in this case, Mr. Fung?
MR. FUNG: Nobody.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, Mr. Fung, do you recall that on cross-examination an issue came up as to one of the pages from the crime scene identification checklist, the original of which was missing?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And do you happen to have a Xerox copy of that page now?
MR. FUNG: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: Not the original, but a Xerox?
THE COURT: And we are referring to 1107, correct?
MR. FUNG: I don't have one, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: And did you find the original of that document?
MR. FUNG: Yes, I did.
MR. GOLDBERG: How did you do that?
MR. FUNG: I opened up my notebook and examined that page and it was there.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, there are two notebooks that are sort of similar that you have seen. One is the notebook that I am holding in my hand; is that correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And then you have a notebook in front of you?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: For the record, your Honor, these are blue notebooks about an inch thick or so.
THE COURT: Appear to be.
MR. GOLDBERG: Is your notebook your own personal notes that you maintained?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. So you found the original of that document that was missing in your notebook.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I think we should be clear as to which document, which item number for the record.
THE COURT: Yes, it is a little obscure.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay.
MR. GOLDBERG: It was part of what has been marked the crime scene identification checklist, I believe that is Defense 1107 for identification?
THE COURT: Yes?
MR. FUNG: That was page 4 of the--
MR. GOLDBERG: No, not page 4, another page that talked about giving certain items to Mr. Yamauchi?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, now that is leading and I would like to know which document--I think the record should be clear as to which document he is talking about.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. GOLDBERG: I will introduce it, your Honor. Your Honor, this is a page entitled "Field notes" and it has in the upper left-hand corner the date of 6/14/94 and then lists certain items. Counsel is familiar with it.
THE COURT: All right. People's next in order.
MR. GOLDBERG: Yes.
THE CLERK: 181.
THE COURT: People's 181.
(Peo's 181 for id = 1-page document field notes)
MR. GOLDBERG: May I approach?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, showing you People's 181, do you recognize that?
MR. FUNG: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: And what is it?
MR. FUNG: This is a page that I used to record the transaction of items when I release them to Mr.--or criminalist Yamauchi.
MR. GOLDBERG: Okay. And is that the original?
MR. FUNG: Yes, it is.
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, generally speaking, the documents that you have in your notebook, are those originals or copies?
MR. FUNG: The ones I have in my notebook are generally copies.
MR. GOLDBERG: And showing you the notebook that I have in front of me, I think you have seen this before, but are these supposed to be the originals or copies?
MR. FUNG: These should be the originals.
MR. GOLDBERG: So in some manner the original of that document got into your notebook instead of the notebook that is supposed to contain the originals?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: During the recess, sir, did you have an opportunity to look in your notebook and find the original of page 4?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, at this time I would like to mark as People's next in order, that is exhibit 182.
THE COURT: 182.
(Peo's 182 for id = 1-page document)
MR. GOLDBERG: A document that has "Page 4" at the top and it has various writing, all typewritten, but it is not filled out.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Now, sir, you testified that you were a firearms examiner; is that correct?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And do you also do tool marks?
MR. FUNG: I have, yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: I would like to show you what has just been marked as People's next exhibit, page no. 4. Will you take a look at that, sir.
MR. FUNG: (Witness complies.) Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And will you take a look a the staple hole in the upper left-hand corner.
MR. FUNG: (Witness complies.) Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: I am now going to show you the document that was marked as Defense 1107 for identification. Do you recognize this?
MR. FUNG: Yes, I do.
MR. GOLDBERG: Sir, can you please visually compare the staple holes on page 4 to the staple holes on the succeeding page.
MR. FUNG: (Witness complies.)
MR. GOLDBERG: Have you done so?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: And can you form any conclusion about that comparison?
MR. FUNG: I can form a preliminary conclusion.
MR. GOLDBERG: Which is?
MR. FUNG: They appear to have--this appears to be the document that was missing from this set of originals.
MR. GOLDBERG: When you say "Preliminary," you won't form a final conclusion at this time; is that right?
MR. FUNG: Not at this time, no.
MR. GOLDBERG: And why is that, sir?
MR. FUNG: I feel the--I would have to go back to the lab and look at it under controlled--a controlled situation with a microscope and other tools.
MR. GOLDBERG: And that would be the standard practice for a forensic scientist?
MR. FUNG: Yes.
MR. GOLDBERG: Your Honor, at this time could we pass those documents, Defense 1107?
MR. SCHECK: No, your Honor, we must approach.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, may we approach?
THE COURT: With the Court reporter.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: We are over at the sidebar. Mr. Scheck, what is your objection?
MR. SCHECK: My objection, your Honor, is as this Court well knows, a set of documents in the blue notebook were turned over to the Defense that purported to be the originals of the crime scene checklist. These were documents that Mr. Goldberg produced for us first at the lab and then they were produced for your Honor, then they were produced for our document examiner. They all purport to be the originals. They were examined and we have been told all the way along the line that this was the original.
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
MR. SCHECK: Now they are producing another document that they are saying is an original.
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
MR. SCHECK: That is a discovery violation and if--and you know, frankly, I haven't looked at it, I don't know what it is, I don't know--and Miss Clark is--I don't think she should be doing that in front of the jury.
THE COURT: She is entitled to look at those documents.
(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)
THE COURT: Miss Clark, would you bring those documents over here, please.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
MR. SCHECK: I would sure like to look at them, but I think the problem is, your Honor, is that when they hand over a whole series of documents in one predicated scientific analysis in on cross-examination and everything else on those documents and they hold back documents, after repeated requests for the originals, I have no idea what this is, but I certainly don't want to commit--I will be put in the position of committing something in cross-examination to a certain position without these documents and that was unfair. Now my credibility is at issue with this jury, and the only reason that came about is because of the Prosecution's discovery violation itself. Certainly they were on more than adequate notice that we were very concerned with the originals and tampering with documents and this is very unfair.
MR. GOLDBERG: Well, this is what I think counsel refers to as an attempt to achieve a Perry Mason moment where he wants to spring something on the witness that they didn't disclose to us which he is entitled to do that in this instance. Did you want me to respond? You seem to be looking at the documents.
THE COURT: Go ahead. Finish.
MR. GOLDBERG: What they did when they wanted another document that wasn't original where we have given them a copy is they said produce the original, which was obviously a Xerox copy, and we looked for it and we had trouble looking for it eventually and we found it and produced it.
MR. SCHECK: No.
MR. GOLDBERG: This is also a Xerox copy of the no. 4 that they introduced into evidence. They could have done the same thing and said the one that you gave us can't be the original, said we looked at the staple holes and it is obviously not the original, it is obviously a Xerox copy, doesn't look anything like these documents and can you find them with me and I would have done the same thing I did with the other document, called Mr. Matheson, "Greg, hunt this down, find it." They never did that.
MR. SCHECK: But your Honor--
MR. GOLDBERG: They have been hoisted on their own pitard and they tried to do something for dramatic effect, it seemed to work for a few moments, but as a result of holding back they have produced a situation on their own.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, but Mr. Goldberg--
MR. GOLDBERG: They have made representations and predicating it on a line of cross-examination to the jury that isn't true. That is not my fault. Maybe it is not counsel's fault either. It is both sides--you know, it is the Defense playing a tactical game that they are entitled to play, but they lost.
MR. SCHECK: No, your Honor. Mr. Goldberg misstates one part of the record, and that is--that is, there was one document, the one that is undated, that the District Attorney's office told us was not an original and we are continually asking them to produce the original and they didn't produce the original until yesterday.
MR. GOLDBERG: No.
MR. SCHECK: So we were told all the documents at the crime scene checklist were the originals except for that one document. That is absolutely clear here and I'm sure your Honor recalls it.
MR. GOLDBERG: It is not.
MR. SCHECK: We will have to bring Mr. Yochelson down here and Mr. Hodgman. There is absolutely no question that the document that we have, page l-15, they represented to me was not an original, they knew it was not an original because it had a lab number on it, and it was not produced until yesterday, and they continually maintain that all of these were the originals. And we had a document examiner come in and we looked at it and we asked them a number of times.
THE COURT: I know.
MR. COCHRAN: That is true.
THE COURT: I released the document to you.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor knows that he made an offer of proof.
MR. COCHRAN: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Made an offer of proof on this very fact. I brought to your Honor's attention that I thought this document was not an original because of the staple holes and when I examined it it was not an original, so now suddenly he produces an original and I have been put in a position where it looks as though I'm trying to deceive something to the jury and that is not what happened. If that is indeed the original, it is something that the Prosecution brought about and it seems to me that that is a discovery violation and what we the victim of it and we need relief from that.
THE COURT: Such as?
MR. SCHECK: Well, no. 1, I don't think they should be allowed to put that back into evidence.
THE COURT: All right. Well, given the hour, we are going to take our break at this point and then we will take this up at 8:30 tomorrow morning.
MR. COCHRAN: Should we have them here, have a hearing on it?
THE COURT: No. We will take up the argument. I think I know what I need to know. I am familiar.
MR. COCHRAN: If you need any witnesses, I was going to say we can tell them today if you want to get them.
THE COURT: We will take it up at 8:30.
MR. GOLDBERG: We also have another videotape that we just received a few moments ago.
MS. CLARK: We would like to show it to the witness.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, counsel, it is ten minutes to 6:00 and I told the Court reporters we would break at 5:50.
MR. SCHECK: Can I see that video?
MS. CLARK: The same. They have already seen it. It is the same tape that they have shown, except it has the time on it and it is only three minutes.
MR. COCHRAN: We would like to see it.
MS. CLARK: We could let the witness authenticate.
THE COURT: They want to see it first.
(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I have to let the Court reporters go so they can catch their train and I told them I would let them go at ten minutes to 6:00. Because of our computerized Court reporting system, after they finish the day they then have to take the floppy disks and down load them to the main computer to produce the transcripts everyday and they then have to catch the train, so we are going to take our break right now. Mr. Fung, you can step down. You are ordered to be here tomorrow morning at 8:30. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to stand in recess until tomorrow morning until nine o'clock as far as the jury is concerned. Please remember all of admonitions. Do not discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations about the case, don't allow anybody to speak with you about the case. Have a pleasant evening. We will stand in recess until tomorrow morning at nine o'clock. We will stand in recess and counsel can remain to view exhibits before we break.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you.
THE COURT: Yes.
(At 5:50 P.M. An adjournment was taken until, Friday, April 14, 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 Thursday, April 13, 1995
Volume 125 pages 22599 through 22799, inclusive
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, 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 Robert D. Blasier, Esquire, Peter Neufeld, Esquire, William C. Thompson, Esquire
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I N D E X for volume 125 pages 22599 - 22799
day date session page vol.
Thursday April 13, 1995 A.M. 22599 125 P.M. 22662 125
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGEND: Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden d Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX of witnesses Defense (402)
Witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
Fung, Dennis 22637bs 22655gb 22659bs 125 Arthur
People's witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
Fung, Dennis 125 Arthur (Resumed) 22672bs 22783bg
ALPHABETICAL INDEX of witnesses witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
Fung, Dennis 22637bs 22655gb 22659bs 125 Arthur (402)
Fung, Dennis 125 Arthur (Resumed) 22672bs 22783bg
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBITS
Defense for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
1101 - videotape of 22607 125 criminalist at 360 north Rockingham
1102 - videotape of 22608 125 blood spots on driveway and police walking around 360 north Rockingham
1103 - videotape of 22609 125 Detective Vannatter at 360 north Rockingham
1104 - videotape of 22611 125 KTLA report of criminalist at 360 north Rockingham
1105 - photograph of 22673 125 item no. 10 on the ground at 360 north Rockingham
1106 - videotape of 22682 125 Dennis Fung testifying
1107 - 8-page document 22759 125 identified as the original crime scene checklist
1107-a - photograph of 22777 125 page 4 of the crime scene checklist (Computer printout)
1107-b - 1-page document 22781 125 identified as page 4 of the crime scene checklist
People's for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
181 - 1-page document 22787 125 identified as "Field notes" with the no. 169 in the upper left-hand corner
182 - 1-page document 22788 125 identified as the original page 4