|
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS, VS. ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the THE COURT: Morning. JURORS: Morning. THE COURT: Sorry for the delay. MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor. MR. LAMBERT: Plaintiff calls Mr. Collin Yamauchi. COLLIN YAMAUCHI, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiffs, was duly sworn THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause THE WITNESS: I do. THE CLERK: And if you would, please state and spell your name for the record. THE WITNESS: My name is Collin Yamauchi, first name C-O-L-L-I-N, last name DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: Q. Morning, Mr. Yamauchi. A. Morning. Q. Would you please tell us what your occupation is. A. I'm a criminalist; I work for the City of Los Angeles. I'm assigned to the Q. Within the Scientific Investigation Division, what is your current area of A. My unit is special testing. Q. And what do they do in special testing? A. Mainly instrumental analysis. What I work with is gunshot residue analysis. Q. Would you please describe for us your formal education. A. I have a bachelor's degree in biology from California State University, Long And after graduating from there, I moved on to a company called ICN After three and a half years as a quality control chemist at ICN And through the serology unit, I attended classes at a place called the I've had classes in forensic serology, zone electrophoresis, and also That, I'm sure, you heard a lot about already. I've also had a biology class dealing specifically with forensic applications Finally, in forensic PCR, I've had a class on forensic PCR amplification at a Q. Thank you, sir. What year did you graduate from college? A. 19 -- 1986. Q. Right after college is when you went to work, I think, for ICN? A. ICN Radiochemicals, yeah. Q. What year did you come to work for the SID, for the Scientific Investigation A. 1960. Q. Pardon me. What? A. Excuse me. 1990. Q. I thought you weren't quite that old. 1990? A. I wasn't even born then. Q. So you worked from 1990 to the present for the Scientific Investigation A. Yes. Q. Okay. And how long -- when you first started, you said you were in the serology unit? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. And how long were you in that unit? A. For approximately five years. Q. And until -- And then you transferred to the special testing unit that A. Yes, it's right. Q. And as of une 12, 1994, what was your assignment at SID? A. June 12 -- yeah, okay. I was working in serology. Q. Serology. And would you describe generally what your duties were in the serology A. I was working in the DNA section with PCR, but I also had training in Q. So in the serology department at SID you did both conventional serology and A. Yes. Q. And you did work in both those areas? A. Yes, I did. Q. Now, did you do any work in connection with the investigation in this case? A. Yes. Q. And when did -- what was your first involvement in connection with this A. It would be Monday, the 13th, when my supervisor, Greg Matheson, asked me if Q. And did -- what were you going to be doing on the blood evidence in this A. I -- he didn't say specifically blood evidence; just in general working with We weren't sure about what types of evidence it was going to entail at that Q. And when did you first do any actual work on the case? A. That would be Tuesday, the -- let's see -- the 14th. Q. 14th. And what was the first work that you did on it -- this case? A. I analyzed blood stains from -- would you like specifics? Q. Please. A. The numbers. Sure. Referring to my notes, okay. Those would be item numbers 47, 48, 49, 50, and Q. And those were various items of evidence in the case that had been collected A. Yes. Q. And how was the decision made for you to work on those specific items as A. I discussed that with Dennis Fung. Q. And Mr. Fung pointed out these items as items that needed to be tested? A. Yes. Q. Would you describe for us, just first generally, the steps that you took to A. As far as the samples? Q. Why don't we start with whatever the first step was that you took. What was the first thing that you did in terms of doing testing on all of those A. Well, the first item I received was -- let's -- it would be the blood vial Q. So you took the -- this was a vial of blood, was it? A. Yes. Q. And what did you do with that vial of blood? A. The vial of blood was processed in normal fashion, the way we always handle And this blood was taken -- the tube held in one hand, covered the cap up with Chemwipes are sort of like a laboratory version of Kleenex. They're something I generally use three chemwipes. I'll put them on the top of the cap because, And you do these type of -- you take these type of procedures -- well, mainly So we try to wear gloves, of course, and keep the chemwipes on the top and So I opened the vial up, put the cap down on the side, and then I would reach The type of pipe header was put in the receptacle and the cap was placed back At that point, I recall I needed to throw them away in the proper receptacle. Q. When you have something like gloves and these chemwipes, is there a special A. The gloves and chemwipes, yeah. Well, it's a large biohazard receptacle. Q. It's a receptacle designed to put biological hazards in, as opposed to just A. Yes. Q. Now, you mentioned the evidence processing room is that -- that's where you A. Yes. Q. And where about in the evidence processing room were you when you did the A. I was working on a kind of a laboratory bench that would be on the far, side Q. So the evidence item was on a table in the middle of the room while you were A. Yes. Q. And about how far away from where you did the Fitzco card were the items of A. Approximately ten to fifteen feet. Q. Can you describe for the jury the condition that the items of evidence, the A. Oh, the evidence collected? Q. Yes. A. Okay. Those were packaged in coin envelopes, inside paper bindles. The paper bindles Q. So the swatches that we've heard of before, that contained the evidence, A. Yes. Q. And those paper bindles, were they inside of a coin envelope? A. Yes. Q. And was that also closed? A. Well, flap shut or something. Not necessarily gum shut. Q. But the flap was shut? A. Yes. Q. That was -- all of that evidence was ten to fifteen feet away from where you A. Yes. Q. Now, this process of preparing a Fitzco card or a swatch from a an evidence A. Yes. Q. About how many times have you done it? A. It's got to be hundreds. Q. And when you do this, do you commonly follow the same process you've just A. Yes, I -- yes, I did. Q. And when you did this process that you've described here today, the purpose A. Yeah. First and foremost, personal protection, and then of course, Q. Now -- and in this case, after you've gone through the process and taken all A. Yes. I'm not sure where. I don't remember specifically that much of it. Q. You're not sure which trash container you threw them in when you disposed of MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Yes. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) The blood vial, when you first started the process it, was A. Yes. Q. Yeah. And when you finished, did you put the cap back on? A. Yes, of course, Q. Now, in his opening statement, Mr. Baker stated that -- MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to -- I'm going to object. This is THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Mr. Yamauchi, when you were -- did you spill the blood at A. No. Q. Did the blood go flying out of the vial and go across the room and land on A. No. Q. Did the blood in any way at all contaminate those items of evidence during A. No. MR. BLASIER: Objection. Calls for speculation. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, after you finished doing the Fitzco card, what did you A. Took a look at the glove. Q. By "glove," maybe you should describe for the jury what glove it is you're A. I'm sorry; it's item number 9. It's a regular brown glove, with blood on it. Q. And where did you do this process? A. Again, in the evidence processing room. Q. And approximately at what location in the evidence processing room? A. It would be on the same workbench in front of where we have clean roll-out Q. And did you use the roll-out paper? A. Yes. Q. What -- how did you use that? A. Well, we lay out paper to serve as a barrier between the counter top and any Q. So you put the paper down in connection with the examination of the glove? A. Yes. Q. And were you wearing gloves when you did this? A. Of course. Q. So this is a clean set of gloves that you've put on after you did the Fitzco A. Of course. Q. Would you describe what you did in connection with your examination of the A. Initially, I had to search for signs of blood. It's not readily apparent We have a test that's a -- what we use is a preliminary screening test for the I utilized some spot checks of this phenolthalein test in order to determine Q. And how many different areas on the glove did you test with the A. Initially a couple. Q. Did you then take any samples from the glove for further testing? A. Yes. Q. And how many did you take? A. I wound up taking four samples. Q. And can you just describe generally where on the glove those four samples A. I took a sample, A, from right around this area (indicating to hand), a The B sample, rather than making an incision and cutting out a piece of the MR. BLASIER: May I object? Narrative. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: And then C, on the inside cuff, on the inner lining, I cut out a And then D, on the back side, right here in -- (indicating to hand). Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) So just for the purposes of the record, you've demonstrated A. Right here and here, off of the back, and right here (indicating). Q. When you say "here," the court reporter can't take down what that means. I'm A. Excuse me. Off of the back of the glove, beneath about where the middle finger is, and Q. Now, in the process of doing this glove evidence, item number 9, when you A. Yes. Q. Did you change your gloves at all during that process? A. I probably did change a few times. MR. BLASIER: Objection. Move to strike as nonresponsive, speculative. THE COURT: Overruled. That was the response. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Could you tell us, sir, you mentioned that you worked for Did that job have any effect on the way in which you change your gloves when A. Well, generally speaking, at ICN, I worked with radiochemicals. One of the And I probably have taken that particular part of my work on to working at SID, Q. And then, after doing this sampling on evidence item number 9, what was the A. Started sampling the cloth swatches. Q. And those were the ones that you listed, the evidence items you listed for A. Yes. Q. Can you tell us what steps you took to test, or rather sample, the cloth A. When I sample cloth swatches, I take them out of the coin envelope and I'll And the reason is because I'll use that bindle as a cutting surface in order to And I've become rather dexterous with this. And I don't know how everybody else This is probably the most sterile technique to use in this regard, because what And then I'll move on to the next one, and I'll change the stack of chemwipes Q. So during this process, you only work on one item of evidence at a time? A. Yes. Q. So you take out one coin envelope. And could you describe for us what you A. The coin envelopes contain both evidence samples of the red stain, as well And therefore, what I expect to find and what I generally do find, would be one Q. And is that what you found in this case, with these evidence items? A. Yes. Q. And you processed each coin envelope one at a time; is that right? A. That's correct. Q. And you do both the evidence bindle and the bindle containing the control, A. Yes, that's correct. Q. And you did that for all of the various evidence items that you sampled that A. Yes. Q. And as part of this, did you also examine what was in the bindles and make A. Yes, I did. Q. And did you make notes as to which portion of the swatches you, yourself, A. Yes. I make general approximation drawings to indicate even that. Q. Okay. And as you finish with each bindle, examining what's in it and taking a sample A. Oh, they're put back into the coin envelopes. Q. And before you proceed to the next evidence item? A. Yes. Q. And these chemwipes that you said you put underneath each bindle, how often A. With each bindle. Q. So you put new chemwipes down for each bindle? A. Yes. Q. And the steps that you've described as to how you do this sampling process, A. Yes. Q. And you processed for each envelope both an evidence swatch and a control A. Yes. Q. Now, before we -- after you finished all of this, this evidence sampling, A. Well, they were left on that same workbench. Q. Did you then do any testing with them? A. Oh, with the cuttings that I took? Q. Yes. A. They were run PCR analysis. Q. And what particular test did you employ with those evidence items? A. That would be specifically the DQ Alpha. Q. And why did you choose to run the DQ Alpha test on these items of evidence? A. Because it happens rather rapidly, gives you a lot of information. Q. What, does it give you information -- more information than conventional A. Take, for example, the A, B and O system. Everybody's familiar with A, B, There are four different types there and they're broken down in the population, So if I were to run that test, the ability of that test to distinguish between So what we needed was a test that was a little more powerful. The DQ Alpha test THE COURT: Mr. Lambert, we've had two lectures from specialists in the field MR. LAMBERT: I'll speed up. THE COURT: -- from every person who testifies. MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) You then proceeded to do the DQ Alpha test on these items A. Yes. Q. Let me show you -- MR. LAMBERT: And ask that it be marked as Exhibit 2189, which is the next in (The instrument herein referred to as analyzed evidence report associated with Q. And I ask that you identify it for the jury, please. A. This is my analyzed evidence report associated with DR number 940817431. Q. That's the DR number for the case of People versus Mr. Simpson? A. Yes. Q. And what does the analyzed evidence report that you're looking at contain? A. It contains a list of the evidence items I analyzed and the results. Q. And before we get too much into that, let me ask if in addition to the items A. Yes, I did. Q. Okay. Let's go back to the next day, then, and ask you what you did on that A. Started off in the morning receiving two blood samples from the coroner's I then proceeded to make Fitzco cards in the same fashion I described earlier, Q. So the first thing you did that morning was to receive from Detective A. Yes. Q. And you prepared Fitzco cards? A. Yes. Q. And did you use the same steps that you described already in preparing those A. Yes. Q. But you mentioned this -- these Fitzco cards you prepared in the serology A. Yes. Q. Why did you do that? A. Well, because I received them in the serology unit. Q. Is that where you normally work? A. And -- of course, that's where I normally work. Q. So, those cards were done in a serology unit. When you finish them, they have to dry I take it; is that right? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. Where did you leave them to dry? A. It would be on my workbench. Q. In serology? A. Yes. Q. And after you did the Fitzco cards and left them on your workbench in A. I went to the evidence processing unit and returned the blood vials to Q. Were the blood vials closed? A. Of course, caps were on, yeah. Q. And were they in envelopes, as well? A. I don't have that in my notes. And to tell you the truth, I don't recall Q. Okay. A. They could very well have been. MR. BLASIER: Objection. Move to strike as speculative. THE COURT: The answer remains. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Then what did you do next? A. Just had a discussion with Dennis Fung, where he explained a number of other Q. And which items did you sample on this second day? A. That would be item number 23, number 34, 33, 25, 31, 12, and 14. Q. And did you follow the same sampling process with those items of evidence as A. Yes. Q. Did you again do the items of evidence one at a time? A. Yes. Q. Did you again have chemwipes under each bindle when you processed the items A. Yes. Q. Did you again use the procedure of using a sterile disposable scalpel that A. Yes. Q. And after you finished doing the sampling of these items of evidence, did A. Yes, I did. Q. And so you have two separate sets of evidence items that you ran PCR tests A. Yes. Q. And of -- are all of those results reflected in the analyzed evidence report A. Yes, they are. Q. I'm not going to go through all of the results of all of the tests that you Evidence item number 48, which is one of the drops from the Bundy walkway, did (Counsel displays board entitled Results of DNA Analysis, Bundy Crime Scene.) A. Yes, I did. Q. And the results you got were what, sir? A. DQ Alpha type 1.1, comma 1.2. Q. And the reference vial for Mr. Simpson, did you get a DQ Alpha type on that, A. Yes, I did. Q. What was the type on it? A. 1.1, 1.2. Q. So the DQ Alpha type you obtained for item 48 matched Mr. Simpson's DQ Alpha A. Yeah. They have the same DQ Alpha type. Q. Right. And you can see from the chart here, the results you got are the same A. Yes. Q. And then for items 50 and 52, did you get the same results on those evidence A. Yes. Q. And you can see from the chart that Cellmark and DOJ, they also tested those A. Yes. Q. Thank you. MR. LAMBERT: The chart is Exhibit 291 for the record, Your Honor Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, Mr. Yamauchi, I'd like to turn to another subject. Did you, in this case also do some work in connection with an examination of A. Yes. Q. Okay. Did you, on August the 4th, do any anything in connection with those socks? A. Yes. I searched them for blood. Q. And prior to August the 4th, had you looked at those socks on any prior A. On June 29. Q. And on June 29, was that at a meeting with Mr. Matheson and Michele Kestler? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Matheson already testified about that meeting, so we won't go into it But let me just ask: On that occasion, June 29, did you have occasion to look A. Yes. Q. Did you notice any blood on the socks on June 29? A. No. Q. Did you closely examine the socks on that occasion? A. No. Q. Then on August the 4th, you did a search for blood; is that right? A. Yes, that's right. Q. Can you describe for us -- well, first let me ask you this: When you first took the socks out and looked at them on August the 4th, did A. August the 4th? I really didn't look at them all that well on the 29th, and Q. When you first took them out on August the 4th, did you notice any blood A. No. Q. So you then did a closer examination for blood? A. Well, yes. That phenolthalein test I described earlier was utilized. I And I then utilized that presumptive test that I described earlier and it was Q. So you did the phenolthalein test on more than one portion of the socks? A. Yes. Q. And were all the tests positive that you did? A. I did two spots. They were both positives. Q. Did you do anything else with the socks at that point? A. No. At that point, I asked my supervisor, Mr. Matheson, what to do next. And he just said, well, just package them back up and we'll decide later what Q. So that's all you did at that point with the socks, sir? A. Yes. Q. Thank you. MR. LAMBERT: Your Honor, I move Exhibit 2189 into evidence. THE COURT: Received. (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2189 was received in MR. LAMBERT: No further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: Cross. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER: Q. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Yamauchi, can you give me an estimate of the total amount of time that you A. Actually meeting with them maybe about five, ten hours something like that. Q. And how much time -- we took your deposition. How much time was that? A. I'm not really sure. Maybe an hour and a half. Q. And how much preparation time did you do? A. As far as reading, like going over my transcripts and stuff? Q. Yes. A. Got to be over 40 hours. Q. Okay. Did you keep track of that time with any kind of particularity? A. I've been writing it down. Q. Do you know whether or not the plaintiffs have been billed for any of your A. I'm not sure. The City Attorney's Office is supposed to handle that for us. Q. Have you submitted any kind of billings at all to the City Attorney? A. No, I haven't. Q. You know, the time that you spent with the plaintiffs, how much time have A. Counting today, before this morning, probably a little over five hours. Q. And did he go over the questions he was going to ask? A. Well, he didn't go over, like, specifically what he's going to ask, but he Q. How much experience did you have with case work in the PCR process at the A. I'm sorry; one more time. Q. How much experience did you have in case work with PCR analysis at the time A. I believe about six months. Q. And there were other analysts at LAPD that had more experience than you, A. Well, specifically in PCR, but in conventional and DNA serology, I was the Q. In PCR, there were other people of much more experience than you? A. I wouldn't say much, but there were people with more experience. Q. I'm sorry. Were you done? A. Yes. That's fine. Q. Was there anybody there that was doing PCR that had less experience than MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Relevance. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Yamauchi, do you think it's important to have A. You talking about contamination? Q. To avoid cross-contamination, yes. A. Yes, it's very important. Q. It's extremely important, is it not? A. Yes. Q. And that applies to evidence samples before they get to you, as well as when A. Of course. Q. It applies in packaging and unpackaging materials, correct? A. Packaging and unpackaging materials? I'm sorry; can you be more specific? Q. Anytime that a sample is looked at by you -- for instance, you have to A. I see what you're saying. Yes, that's correct. Q. It's very important each time you do that, that is, take it out of something A. It's always a good rule of thumb, yes. Q. Now, in this case, you were aware right from the beginning that this was a MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I didn't know it was going to be as high profile as it turned out Q. Like, is this one of them? A. Sure turned out that way. Q. You knew it at the time you did your testing? A. At the time of my testing, like I said, I knew it was a high profile case. I didn't know it was going to be as big as it turned out to be. Q. Okay. And you were told that it was a priority matter, were you not? A. Priority? Well, I was told that the results and things like that, there was Q. They told you they wanted them as soon as possible, correct? A. I'm not sure if they used those words exactly. Q. Remember testifying at the criminal trial that that's what they told you? MR. LAMBERT: Objection, Your Honor. If he has a reference, he should give it, THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Well, if I said and agreed to that, then I must have done it. I Q. All right. And they told you they wanted results that day, correct, on the A. No, nobody ever told me that. Q. Now, the manual for the DQ Alpha system suggests that you not do more than MR. LAMBERT: Objection. It's beyond the scope. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I believe it states more something on the line of approximately Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And how many items did you process at one time in one MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. All those items are admitted, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'll allow a limited examination. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Twenty-three items, wasn't it, Mr. Yamauchi? A. I believe one batch was 23 items, yeah. Q. And on the 15th, you did 19 items, correct? A. Yes. That sounds -- that sounds correct. Q. And for the 23 items you did on the 14th, that includes the preparation of A. Yes. Q. Now, in your lab, you have to go to two different locations to do DQ Alpha A. Yes, we do. Q. And you have to start preparing the sample at Pipertech, which is where your A. That's correct. Q. And then when you're ready to amplify a sample, that is to make multiple A. That's correct. Q. And that's -- you go in a car, right? A. Yes. Q. And you have to carry these samples in the car? A. Yes. Q. And you conduct the amplification at a small room or small area in Parker A. Yes, it's a rather small room. Q. And after you do that, the amplified DNA, that has a lot more DNA than when A. Yes. Q. And you carry it back in a car, correct? A. Yes. Q. And that's where you do the rest of the testing, correct? A. Well, no. Actually, we do the hybridizations over there. The only reason we Q. Okay. But you bring back the amplified product from your amplification room and you A. Yes. Q. You do not have a procedure in place that prohibits taking amplified product MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant; beyond the scope; it's all admitted. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Unless I take the amplified product back to the lab, I can't Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Okay. Now, you can't do -- you can do what is called a yield gel, can you not? MR. LAMBERT: Same objection. Q. -- before you do a test? MR. LAMBERT: Excuse me. Same objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: I'll sustain that. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did you ever do a yield gel or a blot test to determine how MR. LAMBERT: Same objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BAKER: May we be heard on this, Your Honor? THE COURT: No. I'll allow examination regarding contamination but not as to ultimate results. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Have you been taught that cross-contamination is much more A. Contamination's going to be a problem, regardless of whether you have a Part of the problem is, though, you can't tell by looking at a blood swatch Q. Okay. Weren't you trained that where you have small quantities of degraded DNA, that Haven't you been taught that? A. Small amount -- small amount of sample and small amount of contamination all Q. Um-hum. If you start with a larger quantity of DNA in your evidence sample, then a A. Well, that's true, if you know the quantity and quality of the DNA you're Q. And that's what the blot and the yield blot are for? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Same objection as before. MR. BLASIER: It's relevant to cross-contamination. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Well, the only thing we could use would be a blot. A gel is not Q. A gel tells you the count of DNA, both human -- THE COURT: Excuse me. Okay. From here on in, I will sustain the objection based upon the motion-in-limine MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry. THE COURT: And of testing techniques. You may examine as to what he did, not whether there was any contamination as Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Yamauchi, before you were allowed to do case work, you A. Yes. Q. And you took a certain number of tests to determine whether you were capable A. Yes. Q. And one of those tests involved nine different samples. Do you recall that A. Specifically, I must have done a lot of tests involving nine or more Q. Do you recall the test that involved nine different vaginal samples that had MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. MR. BLASIER: The proficiency testing is relevant for the ability of him to get THE COURT: You stipulated to the results. The question is contamination. You Q. BY MR. BLASIER: Now, Mr. Yamauchi, how did you get Mr. Simpson's reference A. From Dennis Fung. Q. He gave it to you personally, didn't he? A. Yes. Q. And when you started to take your notes about that reference sample, you put A. Yes, I did. Q. Dennis Fung did not tell you that that was a mistake, it was really 17, did A. Well, he -- at that point, I don't think he had all those items in order. Q. Mr. Yamauchi, he didn't tell that you it should be 17 rather than 18, did A. As far as I my recollection goes -- and this requires an explanation. Q. Mr. Yamauchi, did he tell you or didn't he? A. Mr. Blasier, can I explain? Q. That's a yes-or-no answer. A. I know. But I'd still like to explain. Q. Well, Mr. Lambert will have plenty of time with you. Yes or no? A. I need to give an explanation. THE COURT: No, you don't; you need to answer the question. THE WITNESS: Okay; I'm sorry. One more time, please. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Mr. Fung didn't tell you when he gave you that sample, that A. No. Q. Now, that envelope was not sealed -- the envelope that had the vial was not A. I don't recall. I don't think it was. Q. And isn't it accurate that the procedure for those blood vials requires that A. I'm not sure. MR. BLASIER: Here is Exhibit 1112. (The instrument herein referred to as document entitled breath alcohol test (Counsel displays Exhibit 1112.) Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Yamauchi, do you recognize this as a copy of the A. I can't tell you that, since I'm not involved with that section of the I really don't think I've ever read that. Q. So you don't know whether it's supposed to be sealed or not, correct? MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Foundation. THE COURT: Overruled. A. THE WITNESS: After they sample it, no, I don't know what the procedures are. Q. Isn't sealing evidence items one of the requirements, to protect their A. Sealing is. And as far as SID is concerned, we have to have our evidence sealed. Q. Now -- A. Final packaging sealed before it's booked. Q. But it's left open before booking? A. Yeah. Well, how can you collect it if it's sealed? Q. It's supposed to be sealed from the time of collection until somebody does A. No. Q. So it's left open -- evidence items are left open from the time they're A. Until they're booked. Q. I'm sorry? A. Until they're booked. Q. That's another procedure used in your lab? A. Yes. Q. Now, when you got Mr. Simpson's reference vial, your testimony is that you A. Yes. Q. Along with your gloves? MR. LAMBERT: What do you mean? Object to the question. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You were wearing gloves at the same time? MR. LAMBERT: Oh. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You were wearing gloves at the same time? A. Yes. Q. And when you opened the vial, you got blood -- blood soaked through all A. All three chemwipes, onto my glove? Yes, I got a little bit of blood onto my glove. Q. By the way, you didn't measure what the quantity of blood was in that blood A. Of course not. Q. Now, after you -- or, you said you took the cap off and you set it down on A. That's correct. Q. And that was the cap that had all the blood that got through the three A. Same cap. Q. And you said unfortunately, you were in the evidence processing room. You're not supposed to process those kinds of samples in the evidence A. There's no reason why it can't be done. Q. Why did you say "unfortunately?" A. Well, because it wasn't a familiar environment to me. If I were doing it Q. You have any idea how much blood got out of that vial when you took the cap A. How much blood got out of the vial? Q. Yes. A. Well, I sampled, generally speaking, about a one ML. Q. Do you know how much of it got out on the chemwipe, on your glove, and the A. You said on the table. No blood got on the table, but soaking into the chemwipe and onto my glove, if Q. You have any idea what 20 nanograms of blood looks like? A. 20 nanograms of blood? Q. Yeah. Blood that has 20 nanograms of DNA. A. Oh, okay. Sure. Q. How much? A. Well, you're talking about approximately three to five microliters. Q. What did that look like? A. Three to five microliters of blood, well, if you were to put it onto a piece Q. How big? A. Not very big. Maybe -- you know, this is a generalization -- it's going to depend upon the Q. Now, after the blood got out onto your glove and into the chemwipe, you took A. Okay. After I replaced the cap, I had my gloves with the chemwipes in my Once again, I had to decide whether to go to the back of this room, where they Q. By the way, prior to the time you testified in the criminal trial, did you A. Specific recollection I had while I was up on the stand? Q. My question was, before you testified in the criminal trial, do you -- did A. Not a specific recollection. Q. And isn't it accurate that what happened at the criminal trial, after you MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative. MR. BLASIER: Isn't that correct? THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: When I got -- when I looked and saw that there was blood on my MR. BLASIER: No. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) My question was, isn't it true that it was only after you A. Yes, because -- Q. Thank you. A. Okay. Q. Now, after -- the first thing you did after you opened Mr. Simpson's A. Yes. MR. BLASIER: We have an exhibit we're getting, Your Honor. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) But while we're getting that, when you got the next day -- A. Well, he had handed them over to me from his custody. Q. That's a yes, right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And you didn't make any note of the quantity in those vials; of either of A. No. Q. You would have no way of knowing whether there was less blood in those vials MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Misstates the evidence. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BLASIER: This is Exhibit 1110. (Counsel displays Exhibit 1110.) (The instrument herein referred to as Board entitled Mr. Yamauchi's diagram of Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Yamauchi, can you see that from where you are? A. Yes. Q. And you remember this exhibit from the criminal trial? A. Looks familiar. Q. And you actually drew a diagram in your notes about how many times you A. Yes. Q. And each one of these arrows represents your taking something away or A. Taking something or sampling. Q. Correct? A. Yes. Q. And there are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, times that you checked in the wrist area with A. One, two -- I'll double-check my own notes. Three times. Q. You did two phenol tests, three phenol tests, a spot-check, a sample A. That spot check and the phenol test, they are the same thing. Q. Okay. A. Yeah. Q. You also handled the glove to put your initials on the inside of the wrist A. Yes, I put my initials -- Q. Thank you. A. -- over there. Q. Now, you have no specific recollection of changing your gloves between A. Specific recollection, no. Q. Thank you. A. But I would have changed my gloves. Q. Because that would be good procedure, wouldn't it? You don't have anything in your notes that tells you what you did in processing A. Of course not. It's common procedure. It's common sense, also. Q. To not write in your notes the steps you go through? A. No; to change your gloves. Q. Oh. MR. BLASIER: Can we have the Bronco results board? THE COURT: Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about the case. MR. BLASIER: Would you permit me briefly -- may I approach briefly to make an THE COURT: All right. MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, this witness testified that he did the test in this We stipulated to what the test results -- what numbers they were going to give. The very first sample of this -- first sample of the proficiency test got the That's relevant to the weight of all of his testimony, and I think it should be MR. LAMBERT: How can it possibly be relevant if he did get the wrong test MR. BLASIER: No, we admitted that they were the results he got, not that they MR. LAMBERT: They've admitted all the DQ Alpha results for all of the evidence THE COURT: It would appear to me that the testimony so far, we've had three Now, I think it's -- in order to -- it's a waste of time with regard to testing You want to argue contamination, go ahead, examine him on -- all you want on MR. BLASIER: I want the record to be clear that we did not agree that these THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, three experts examined the same blood coming out with MR. BLASIER: We're going to get into results that are different now. THE COURT: How are they different? MR. BLASIER: He got an inconclusive on two samples where they've reported THE COURT: You go ahead and ask him about the inconclusive, you may do that and MR. BLASIER: I can? THE COURT: I'm not going to allow examination as to proficiency I think on the Thank you. (The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER: Q. Mr. Yamauchi, you testified as to Dr. Cotton that the DQ Alpha system only A. Yes. Q. That's not correct, is it; it has 8 alleles, doesn't it? A. Well, in the DQ Alpha system that we use, or that I use, it has 6. Q. There is a 4.1 and a 4.2 in addition to the 4, is there not? A. In the new kits. Q. Those are different alleles in that system, are they not? A. Of course they are. Q. So when you call somebody a 4, you never did the testing to find out whether MR. LAMBERT: Objection, irrelevant, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. A. No, I didn't. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) So all of the results that might be consistent with Mr. A. Well, for that matter, there could have been other systems and other tests Q. You didn't though, did you? A. No, I only ran -- Q. Thank you. A. -- that one test. Q. Now, with respect to the Bundy drops, none of the bindles that you looked at A. I don't recall if they did or not. Q. Thank you. When you ran the reference samples for both victims and for Mr. Simpson -- MR. BLASIER: This is 1275. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Is it accurate on June 15 when you ran the victims DQ Alpha A. That was on her exemplar? Q. Yes. A. I don't recall that. Q. You have your strips with you, your pictures? A. I don't have pictures of the strips with me. Q. Those were provided to the defense in the criminal trial, weren't they? A. Yes. Q. Thank you. And with respect to Mr. Goldman, isn't it true that you found an indication of A. Yes. Q. Possible 1.2. A. No -- Q. Those strips -- A. Let me look at my notes first. According to my notes, I don't have any extraneous dots indicated. I'd have to Q. All right. You don't have those with you, do you? A. No, I don't. Q. Those strips were provided to Dr. John Gerdes, who was a defense expert, A. A lot of strips were provided to him, yes. Q. Okay. (Counsel displays board entitled "Results of DNA Analysis Bronco Automobile.") MR. BLASIER: This -- MR. P. BAKER: 293. MR. BLASIER: 293. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Yamauchi, on the 15th you processed, among other (Exhibit 293 displayed) A. Yes. Q. And one of those samples that's on your results is 31, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you reported that as an inconclusive, didn't you? A. Yes, that was reported inconclusive. Q. Let's look at 2189, the second page. If we zoom in on 31. They say inconclusive. That's what you reported out, A. Yes, that's correct. Q. You didn't report out 1.1, 1.2, weak 1.3, 4, did you? A. As a result, no. Q. Thank you. Now, you also tested 33, which was a carpet fiber from an area in the floor A. Yes. Q. And you got no results, didn't you? A. On 33? Q. Yes. A. No results, yes, that's correct. Q. In fact of all the Bronco samples that you tested on the 15th, none of them A. Well, I did obtain results that weren't conclusive. Q. Inconclusive means you don't report the results out, doesn't it? A. And the reasons for that. Q. Okay. Between the time that you reported inconclusive and we got to the criminal MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, changed where, vague. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Had it been changed? Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Yes. A. As far as right here on this board versus the time that it was put up at the Q. No, no. This was -- what you reported or what the prosecutors had you report A. Those are the actual interpretations of the strip. Those are the results. Q. Your interpretation? A. Not conclusive. Q. Your interpretation was inconclusive, wasn't it? A. As far as my report went, yes, it was. Q. And that was before anyone recognized the importance of there being no MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, calls for speculation. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, 293, which is listed on this board, along with 33 -- MR. P. BAKER: 1412. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) 1412. I put a tab there for you. Do you recognize these as the property reports for this case? (The instrument herein described as property reports amended to add page 58 was MR. PETROCELLI: Is that for the whole case? MR. BLASIER: (Nodded.) MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you. A. They're property reports, I'll take your word for it, sure. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) When was 293 collected that got results consistent with MR. LAMBERT: Objection, calls for speculation, lack of foundation to this MR. BLASIER: It's a business record. THE COURT: The way the question is written (indicating to computer), I don't Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) The business records that you have in front of you indicate MR. LAMBERT: Same objections, Your Honor. He's having him read from a record. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Yes, according to this record. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Thank you. Now, I'll ask you some questions about June 29, your meeting with Michelle Do you recall that? A. Yes. Q. And Michelle Kestler was the Acting Director of the lab at that time, A. Yes. Q. And she's now the Director of the lab, correct? A. Yes. Q. She's a highly experienced criminalist, correct? A. Yes. Q. You had the experience that you've testified to, correct, in terms of your A. Yes. Q. Mr. Matheson was highly experienced as well? A. Yes. Q. And the purpose of that meeting was to evaluate each piece of evidence for A. Yes. Q. For possible blood testing? A. Yes. Q. And another purpose of that meeting was to determine if there was enough A. No. I'm not sure if that was the purpose. Q. Do you remember if the paperwork that was filled out, they had a column that A. Okay, that sounds familiar. Q. That was one of the purposes for looking at all those evidence items, wasn't A. We could never make that determination fully by just looking at the items, The main purpose of that exercise was to act in sort of a form of a triage and Well, that's exactly what we did in this situation. We had a large amount of So we had to get together and they had to decide from a management standpoint Q. So I take it you didn't have enough time to look at all of them carefully, A. Again, that's not the point. Q. Well, Mr. Yamauchi, that's what you just said, isn't it? A. No, it's not. Q. Oh. MR. LAMBERT: Objection, misstates his testimony. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did you have enough time to look at all of this, Mr. A. To get a look, yeah. Not to analyze them. Q. Well, there wasn't any testing done on that day, was there? A. Of course not. Q. You were looking at them to decide what kind of testing we (sic) should do A. Potential testing, that's correct. Q. In order to decide that, you have to look at the item to see if it has any A. Potentially, yes. Q. And you did that with the socks, didn't you, as you did with everything A. Yes, we took a look at those socks. Q. You didn't see any blood on them on June 29, did you? A. Didn't see anything obvious on June 29, didn't see anything obvious on I could bring those socks out right now, show everybody in this room those But the fact remains that those socks have blood on them to this day. Q. Mr. Yamauchi, you knew that the socks were a dark color on the 29th when you A. Yes, I did. Q. And you knew it's hard to see blood on dark cloth, correct? A. That's correct. Q. So you would have looked at those, if you were doing your job, more MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You would have looked at those more carefully? MR. LAMBERT: Objection, same objection. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, let's get to August 4. Now, is it your testimony that when you got the socks on August 4 -- by the A. I believe that must have been from a manager, like Greg or somebody. Q. Do you have it in your notes? A. I don't believe so but I'll check. Q. You don't write those kind of things down, do you? A. No. Q. All right. So when you got them on August 4, you're saying that you still couldn't see any A. That's correct. Q. And you did two phenol tests, correct? A. Yes. Q. And you just happen to hit the stain on the ankle, didn't you? MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, misstates the testimony. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did you just happen to hit the stain on the ankle with the MR. LAMBERT: Same objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: You may rephrase it. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did the two stains -- the two areas that you checked, how A. Again, I looked at them carefully and I -- the only thing I can perceive is Q. You saw a big discoloration around the ankle, didn't you, that you thought MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. A. That's not what I said. I said -- Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) I'm asking you isn't that what you saw, you saw a big A. It wasn't a big discoloration. It was barely perceptible. Q. Barely perceptible. How big was it? A. I don't know, I don't remember. Q. Did you draw a diagram of it? A. A cursory one. Q. Can we look at this, please? A. Certainly. Q. Now, let's take it out here. MR. BLASIER: Like to have this marked as next. We can make a copy so he can THE CLERK: 2190. (The instrument herein described as a Diagram from Mr. Yamauchi's notebook was Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That's what you saw in the ankle area of the sock, isn't MR. LAMBERT: Objection. What did he mean by that's what you saw. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That's what you diagramed -- you saw on the sock on August A. What that diagram represents is the approximate area where I took the Q. Not -- that doesn't represent the size of the stain you saw? A. You can't see the stains on that sock. There's just slight discoloration, Q. By the way, Mr. Yamauchi, do you know where the reference vials of the two A. I don't know specifically. MR. BLASIER: I have no further questions. MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, Your Honor. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT: Q. Let me just cover a few of the subjects that Mr. Blasier covered during his First let's go back to the DQ Alpha test. That test is done using a kit, isn't A. Yes, it is. Q. And manufactured by whom? I think you mentioned the name of them. A. Perkin Elmore. Q. And at the time that you did the DQ Alpha test in question here, did that A. No, it did not. Q. What was the capability of the kit at that time? A. Just 6 alleles, that I mentioned previously. Q. And just the 4 alleles at that location? A. That's correct. Q. Now, we also had some testimony concerning your use of the word inconclusive A. Yes. Q. But let's take a look again at this one evidence item here, No. 31. Now, you actually did a DQ Alpha test on evidence item 31? A. Yes. Q. And what -- what alleles did you see on the DQ Alpha strip for evidence item A. The alleles that are up there are properly represented. Q. 1.1, 1.2, weak 4, very weak 1.3? A. Right. Q. And -- MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I object. That misstates the chart. That says DOJ, Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Are those the alleles that you saw -- MR. BLASIER: I'd like a ruling. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) These are the alleles that you saw when you did the DQ A. Yes. Q. In the report, you reported inconclusive for 31. Why is that? A. Because based upon that amount of alleles, that indicates a mixture, and Q. Thank you, sir. MR. LAMBERT: Take this one down. (Indicating to chart) (Counsel displays exhibit entitled "Mr. Yamauchi's Diagram of Glove Found at Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Mr. Blasier asked you whether in doing your testing and A. Yes. Q. You also tested these other areas on the glove, didn't you, sir? A. Yes. Q. Thank you. Now, when you -- when you ran -- you mentioned during -- during your direct A. Yes, they ran through the same process. Q. And what results did you get on the control swatches? A. There were no results on that. Q. And what does that tell us about the control swatch? A. The way that's acting is acting in the form of what's called a negative Q. So, Mr. Yamauchi, if you actually had blood on your glove and you actually A. If hypothetically I had blood on my gloves and I touched them to the swatch, Q. But for all of the controls that you tested, you got no hint of any DNA A. The controls ran blank, yes. Q. Now, Mr. Blasier asked you some questions about whether evidence items were A. Yes. Q. Now, when LAPD books items of evidence, do they then seal the item of A. Yes, we seal our evidence items before we book them. Q. Would you describe what you mean by sealing? A. Well, what that in essence means is the final packaging -- let's say we Q. And prior to the time that an evidence item is sealed, is it just left in A. The evidence items? Q. Yeah. For example, the swatch, a blood swatch, is that just left out in the A. Well, going through the processing, there's a drying process and then proper Q. So those aren't sealed but they're all in containers, those items of A. Of course they are, yes. Q. And the blood vials that you talked about in this case, were they closed, A. Yes. Q. They had caps on them? A. Yes, they did. Q. They weren't just open? A. No. Q. Finally, Mr. Blasier asked you some questions about item number 17 and how Do you remember that? A. Yes. Q. All right. Now, did you later find that that was an error and that item A. Yes, I did. During the time that I was receiving these items to sample, And I wrote my report out under the impression that that would be 18. After he So a sheet was made to correct that miscommunication. Q. Thank you. MR. LAMBERT: No further questions. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER: Q. Mr. Yamauchi, did you just say that when Mr. Fung gave you the envelope, he A. The blood envelope? Q. Yeah. A. With Mr. Simpson's blood? Q. Yeah. A. No, I don't think he would have known specifically what item it would end up Q. How did it get 18? A. I'm not sure. I can't remember every little detail but that's what I was Q. There wasn't a 17 in red written on the envelope, was there? A. No, there was no item number on that envelope. Q. Thank you. Now, did you also say that the coin envelopes that had the bindles with the A. Coin, Bundy blood, yes. Q. You always seal items after you look at them so that -- and you write your A. On the final packaging, yes. The individual items don't necessarily have to Q. The coin envelopes, the packaging is always sealed so that you know how many A. Yes, it is. Q. Now, item 31. (Counsel displays Exhibit 31.) Q. This chart, under SID -- that's you guys, right -- says 1.1, 1.2, weak 1.3, A. Yes. Q. Did you report this result or did you report weak 4, very weak 1.3? A. On my report was stated inconclusive. Q. When did it become weak 1.3, 4? A. That's what it always was on my data sheet. That's what's written down. Q. When did it become this result for purposes of documentation? MR. LAMBERT: Objection, irrelevant, argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I'm not sure. Because that result always was indicated on my data sheet. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) But your sheet that we showed here, that you brought in, A. That's my report, yes, it is. Q. And then at some point, when this big chart was prepared, the results were A. Yes, somebody -- some attorney decided to put up my results off of my data. Q. Okay. A. And I will confirm that that's what I got as far as my data is concerned. Q. But you took the conservative approach when you did your test and when you A. When I wrote that down, my initial report, yes, I did. Q. And some attorney said we don't want you to be quite that conservative, MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, you said that when you -- by the way, you don't have A. No, I don't. Q. That was turned over to the defense as well, was it not? A. I certainly hope so. Q. How intense was the 1.3 dot? A. I don't recall. Q. Compared to the C dot? A. I imagine if I wrote weak it would have been less than the C dot. Q. How about the 1.3? MR. LAMBERT: Objection, that's the one he just asked. A. Didn't you just ask -- Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) I'm sorry, I thought I just asked for 4. A. The 4, I'm not sure, I'd imagine was less than the C dot also. Q. Now, you're saying that where you get that result, where you get dots that A. Well, it can depending on the intensity. Q. Didn't you just indicate that that indicates a mixture? A. Yes, previously I said that. Q. What did the manual say it means? A. What does the manual say it means? Q. Yes. A. What part are you referring to? Q. Doesn't the manual say that it could be a mixture, it could be MR. LAMBERT: Objection, calls for hearsay, irrelevant. THE COURT: Overruled. Goes to this witness's knowledge. A. No, I don't believe so. Q. The manual didn't say that? A. No. Q. Okay. How about the difference between the 1.3 and the 4, was there any difference in A. I have on my data sheet 1.3, very weak, weak 1.3, 4. So judging by what I Q. Okay. So there was -- But your records indicates there was a difference in A. Yes, it does. Q. Lots of times when you get a 1.3, that's an indication of A. That's a possibility. Q. So some attorney at some point decided we're going for call the 1.3 and the MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. BLASIER: No further questions. MR. LAMBERT: I have nothing further. THE COURT: You may step down. MR. KELLY: Judge, could we briefly? THE COURT: You may. THE COURT REPORTER: With the reporter? MR. KELLY: No, it's not necessary. (A bench conference was held which was not reported.) THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, did you give her that exhibit, the one you want a copy MR. BLASIER: No, I didn't. I also want to introduce 1112 -- THE CLERK: Wait, wait. Okay. MR. BLASIER: 1112, 1110, 2190, page 58 of 1412, and then from Mr. Matheson's (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' (The instrument herein described as page 58 was received in evidence as (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Defendants' MR. LAMBERT: These are from Mr. Matheson's testimony? MR. BLASIER: Yes. MR. LAMBERT: I may need to look at my notes before so I can see what those THE COURT: Let me know if there are any. MR. LAMBERT: Can I bring in 291, which is the Bundy results board? We now have MR. BAKER: We'd object, it's cumulative. THE COURT: Okay. Overruled. MR. KELLY: Next witness? THE COURT: Yeah. MR. KELLY: John Edwards. JOHN EDWARDS, called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiffs, was duly sworn THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause THE WITNESS: I do. THE CLERK: And if you would please state and spell your name for the record. THE WITNESS: John Philip Edwards, J-o-h-n P-h-i-l-i-p E-d-w-a-r-d-s. MR. KELLY: Ready, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yeah. DIRECT-EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY: Q. Morning, Detective? A. Morning. Q. Are you currently employed? A. Yes, I am. I work for the City of Los Angeles. I'm assigned to Van Nuys Q. Okay. And what is your rank with the LAPD right now? A. I'm a Detective Supervisor. Q. Okay. Now, drawing your attention to January 1, 1989, at approximately 4 AM A. Yes, I was. I was in uniform in a black and white police vehicle assigned as Q. By the way, how many years have you been employed by the LAPD? A. 26 years. Q. Okay. Now, going back to January 1 of '89, did you have occasion to receive A. Yes, I did, to 360 North Rockingham. Q. And what was the substance of that radio call? MR. LEONARD: Objection, calls for hearsay. THE COURT: Overruled. Received only as to explain why the officer went to a A. Received a 911 call to that address, woman being beaten. Q. Okay. And in that -- when that dispatch came in, did you proceed to a A. Yes, I did. I proceeded to 360 North Rockingham. Q. And you eventually arrived there? A. Yes, I did. Q. And within how long after reading the communication did you arrive at that A. Within approximately 10 minutes. Q. Would you be able to describe, just in general terms, the climate that A. In the area of that address it's a hilly area. It was at night, it was dark, Q. And approximately what time did you arrive at 360 North Rockingham? A. Somewhere around 4 o'clock I believe. Q. Okay. 4 AM? A. Yes. MR. KELLY: So I'll put up a diagram here. (Counsel placed diagram entitled 360 North Rockingham Avenue Exhibit 116.) Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, Detective, what -- MR. KELLY: I'm sorry, that's 116, the exhibit number, Your Honor, referring. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Can you explain, first of all, in what manner you approached A. Yes. I came off of Sunset and I drove up Rockingham, I was driving rapidly Q. Okay. Did you stop directly in front of the gate on Ashford? A. Little bit in that green area off to the side, not quite in front of the Q. And what, if anything, happened upon your arrival there at that location? A. I got out of the car, walked over to the intercom box, it's a black pole Q. Okay. Do you have a pointer there, by the way? A. Yes, I do. Q. I'm going to ask if you can step up by the board when you're giving these (Witness complies, approaches board) A. I came up Rockingham past this gate, parked my car approximately at this Q. And what, if anything, happened next? A. Next thing I saw -- well, next thing that happened was a woman came on the Q. By the way, were those gates to the entrance on Ashford open or closed? A. They were closed. Q. And after that woman communicateed that to you, what, if anything, did you A. I stood there. I told her I wasn't going to leave until I spoke to the Q. And what, if anything, did this woman do upon her arrival at the control A. When she got to the control box she collapsed onto it. She literally Q. You were actually able to hear her say that at this time? A. Yes. Q. What, if anything, happened next after she was pushing the buzzer and saying A. Well, after she pushed the button several times she ran to the gate. The Q. When you say she collapsed onto you, did she physically grab hold of you? A. Yes, she did. Q. Okay. A. Both arms. Q. Both arms. And could you describe to me exactly what she felt like in your arms at that MR. LEONARD: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) You were able to make physical contact with her with your own A. Yes, I was. Q. Were you able to make any observations yourself in terms of what you felt of MR. LEONARD: Objection, vague. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Yes. She was cold, wet, and shivering. And as I had my arms around her upper Q. And could you describe her overall demeanor at that time also, detective? A. She was crying, she was hysterical, and appeared to be very frightened and Q. And what, if anything, did she say to you at that time when she collapsed in A. Well, she repeated again he's going to kill me, he's going to kill me. I Q. Okay. What, if anything, did you do next? A. I took my flashlight out and I illuminated her face and her torso to see if Q. Indicating above her right eye? A. Yes, above her right eye and down a little bit and then -- a swollen right Q. Okay. And you were utilizing your flashlight at that time when you made A. Yes, I was standing right next to her using my flashlight. Q. And what, if anything, did Nicole say to you at that time? A. Well, I asked her what happened to her, and she said that -- MR. LEONARD: Objection, hearsay. THE COURT: Overruled. A. I asked her what happened to her and she said that O.J. had hit her, kicked Q. After she told you those things, what, if anything, did you do next for A. What I did was I had -- my partner and I walked her to the police car which Q. By the way, while you were back in the car with your partner and Nicole, A. They closed again. Q. Okay. Now, after Nicole had taken this action of signing off on the record, A. Well, she was crying, and she made a statement to us. She said -- MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object, hearsay. THE COURT: Overruled. A. She said, you guys come out here, you talk to him and then you leave, you've Q. Was she still crying at this time? A. Yes. Q. Now, did there come a time after she made these statements that you exited A. Yes. Once she said that and had signed the crime report, and my partner was Q. Was the gate still closed at this time again? A. Yes. Q. Okay. I'm sorry, go ahead. A. Then I turned to walk back towards the car and the gate opened, apparently, Q. Prior to the appearance of that woman, had you observed anything or anybody A. No. Q. Okay. What happened next? A. Well, this female -- she was a short female, Hispanic. She walked over to Q. Did you see Mr. Simpson at all prior to this woman showing up? A. Yes. I think he came out before this -- I'm sorry, I got my sequence -- Q. You want to back up a little bit? A. Yes, I'm sorry. I was standing here looking, and Mr. Simpson came out the Q. And was this right after you had exited the vehicle? A. Yes. Q. And left Nicole in speaking to her? A. Yes. Q. Can you tell me, when Mr. Simpson was walking towards you, were you able to A. Yes. I used my flashlight to illuminate him as he got fairly close to me and Q. And what, if anything, happened next as he approached the gate? A. Well, he walked rapidly towards me and I thought he was going to talk to me, Q. Were you able to recall anything that he was yelling at that time? A. Yes. He was yelling I don't want that woman in my house any more, I don't Q. And did he get all the way up to the gate at that time? A. Yes, he was about one to two feet from the gate when he did that. Q. And was the gate still closed? A. Yes. Q. And how far were you from the gate on the other side? A. I was about a foot from the other side of the gate. Q. And did you have your flashlight on at that point still? A. Up until the point that he got right up to me. I turned it off. Q. Okay. Did you ever see Mr. Simpson prior to that night in any sort of A. Just in football interviews, just on television. Q. Okay. And would you be able to describe -- first of all, were you able to A. Yes. Q. Could you describe as best you can his facial characteristics at this time MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, objection, lack of relevance. THE COURT: Overruled. A. At the time that he started yelling his face was in a rage, he was very Q. What, if anything, did you say to Mr. Simpson at that time when he was up at A. I told him that his wife had been beaten, she said that he's the one that Q. Did he respond at this time to the statements you made to him? A. Yes. He said that I didn't -- I didn't hit her, I just pushed her out of Q. And what, if anything, did you respond to that? A. I told him I was obligated to place him under arrest and -- for spousal Q. And did he go inside at that time? A. Yes, he did. Q. After Mr. Simpson went inside, what, if anything, happened next? A. That's when the gate opened. I walked back towards the car, the gate opened, Q. If you could tell us once again, what happened when the female came out MR. LEONARD: Objection, asked and answered. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. After she had left the car that Nicole was in, what, if anything, did this A. She walked -- I didn't pay attention to her. Somehow she got that gate open, Q. What, if anything, happened next after she went back inside the gate? A. About three minutes later, O.J. Simpson came back out. He walked right back Q. Was he still wearing the bathrobe at that time? A. No. Now he was wearing a dark suit, jogging suit or running suit, either Q. Okay. And what happened then as he approached the corner of the gate there? A. He told me -- he says, what makes you so special, why do you want to make a Q. In which direction was your supervisor's car facing? A. He had pulled up and parked a little bit in front of my car, just -- Q. Was his car facing the same direction as yours? A. Basically, yes. Q. Okay. And what, if anything, happened when you went -- by the way, who was A. Sergeant Vinger, V-i-n-g-e-r. Q. What, if anything, happened after you went to speak to Sergeant Vinger? A. I was talking to the sergeant, I heard a car start up, I walked away, I MR. LEONARD: Can we just -- can the record indicate that the officer was MR. PETROCELLI: That misstates his testimony. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) When the vehicle -- MR. PETROCELLI: 15 miles an hour. Q (BY MR. KELLY) When the vehicle reached Rockingham initially, could you be A. As it was going -- as it was coming out of the driveway towards Rockingham, MR. LEONARD: Just so the record is clear, the witness has indicated right at THE COURT: No. MR. LEONARD: 35. THE COURT: Reelicit the testimony. MR. PETROCELLI: Also, objection, object to interfering with the examination. THE COURT: Overruled. He has a right to have a complete record. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) You indicated that the vehicle was going approximately 15 A. Right. This is a long driveway. It was up around 15 miles an hour as it Q. Okay. And after going through the gate onto Rockingham Avenue what did you A. I observed the vehicle going away from me on Rockingham towards Sunset, and Q. And that is the street as it headed down Rockingham Avenue? A. Right. Q. And how long a distance were you able to see that car accelerate as it left A. Very short distance because Rockingham curves, bushes -- It went out of Q. And what, if anything, did you do after you observed the Bentley leave? A. The Sergeant and I got back in our cars, and I -- once he moved his car, he Q. By the way, when you took off after the Bentley was Nicole still in the car? A. Yes, she was in the rear seat. Q. What was her demeanor at that time as you were all off looking for the A. She was crying, hysterical. Q. And what happened next after you weren't able to locate the Bentley? A. I took Sunset down to -- I think it was Bundy -- Bundy down to Wilshire. We So I asked her if she would like to go to the emergency hospital so we could So then I explained to her -- I said West L.A. Station is really not that far So I got over to West L.A. Police Station on -- what street is that on? It's Q. Before going in there, when you were driving around with Nicole in the car, A. Oh, it was cold and damp outside. She was shivering. We had the windows up. Q. And you had had occasion to speak to Nicole up close when she had first fell A. Yes. Q. Is there any time that you notice the -- you noticed the odor of alcohol, A. No. I didn't notice any odor of alcohol. Q. Did she act intoxicated in any way? A. No. Q. Now, you indicated that you then arrived at the station to take some photos. A. Yes. Fortunately, the desk officer was able to give me a Polaroid camera; I Then I took two photographs of her face; one depicting a little bit to the -- And then the camera was out of film. I gave the camera back to the desk officer Q. Was there any other film available? MR. LEONARD: Objection, calls for speculation. MR. KELLY: I'll withdraw the question. Can I see Exhibit No. 5, Steve. (The instrument herein described as photograph of side of Nicole Brown Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Behind you -- Detective, I'd ask you to step back and look up A. Yes. This is the -- looks like the second or third photograph I took. Here's Q. Other than the jacket, does that fairly and accurately represent her A. Yes, it was. Q. And I notice she has bare feet. Was she shoeless when you arrived at A. This is exactly how she looked. She was barefoot, no shirt, no purse. MR. KELLY: Exhibit No. 4, Steve. MR. LEONARD: Which number was that, please? MR. KELLY: That was 5. MR. LEONARD: Okay. (The instrument herein described as a photograph of Nicole Brown Simpson was Q. Do you recognize that photograph, Detective? A. Yes. I had her pull her hair back to take a photograph of the front and Q. Okay. Can you first point out the scratch under the nose you're referring A. Yes. This is the 1 -- approximately 1-inch or so scratch, open scratch. Q. That where she lifted up her lip and you could see? A. The corresponding cut underneath her lip. Q. Above her right eye, are you able to better discern the injury on her A. There's this swelling -- swollen area. It's easier to see with the naked Q. Okay. By the way, did that picture fairly and accurately represent her A. No. The picture is not of good quality. She was actually injured more than Q. And you also indicated earlier that you observed a neck injury or markings A. No. It doesn't show up on the photograph at all. Q. Okay. MR. KELLY: Can I see Exhibit No. 3, Steve. (The instrument herein described as a photograph of Nicole Brown Simpson was A. This is a little bit more towards the front. I was trying to show the -- I MR. KELLY: Your Honor, this would be a good time. THE COURT: 1:30. Ladies and gentlemen, don't talk about the case. Don't form or express any (At 11:56 A.M. a recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ (REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER) (The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the presence of the THE COURT: All right. At this time, the Court had a previous set of evidentiary The Court initially will address Plaintiff Goldman's motion to allow testimony Plaintiff seeks to admit Dr. Dietz' testimony of his opinion of the general Plaintiff seeks to admit Dr. Dutton's testimony of his opinion that spousal The testimony of both Dr. Dietz and Dr. Dutton is offered to establish a This implies that there is a science of spousal homicide which can establish This Court is not satisfied that opinion testimony of this nature rises to the As discussed in People versus Bowker, 203 Cal.App.3d, 385, it is one thing to The same analysis applies in the present case. Say that spousal homicide often Such testimonial opinion by experts inappropriately supplants the function of Also as noted in Bowker, quote, "There may be more danger where the application Where the matter at issue is the identity of the killer of two people, and the The motions in limine to preclude the testimony of Dr. Dietz and Dr. Dutton are The Court also feels that the same analysis as I discussed in Bowker applies in The other issue that the Court now addresses is Plaintiff Goldman's motion to Oops. (Pause in proceedings.) THE COURT: The other issue is Plaintiff Goldman's motion to preclude prior Plaintiff gave Defendant sufficient notice of his objection to the use of The fact that this issue was not raised prior to the deadline for motions in Plaintiff contends that Fuhrman's prior testimony is not admissible under The precise language of Section 1292 of the Evidence Code states, quote: Cross-Examination: Section 1291 of the Evidence Code allows former testimony to be used against The legislative history notes the distinct languages of both Sections 1291 and The term "cross-examination" is a defined term in Evidence Code Section 761. Section 761 defines it as, quote, "The examination of a witness by a party The legislature is presumed to know what it included in its own enactments, Federal Rule of Evidence Section 804(b)(1) allows prior testimony where there Plaintiff has no interest in offering Fuhrman as a witness. Plaintiff has In other words, Defendant is not offering Fuhrman's testimony for any Plaintiff has not offered Fuhrman as a witness; thus, there is no basis for his Plaintiff Goldman's motion to preclude the introduction of Fuhrman's prior (Jurors resume their respective seats.) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the THE COURT: Okay. You may resume. THE CLERK: You are still under oath. Would you state your name again for the record. THE WITNESS: John Philip Edwards. JOHN PHILIP EDWARDS the witness on the stand at the time of the luncheon DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. KELLY: Q. Detective Edwards, when we broke for lunch, you just finished testifying as A. That's correct. Q. Now, after you had taken those three photographs of Nicole, what, if A. I retained those photographs in my possession. Then I walked back out to the patrol car with Nicole Simpson. My partner and I Q. Okay. What, if anything, did you do when you got back to her house? A. She operated the gate which allowed us inside. We dropped her off and then Q. When you dropped her off, did you happen to see that Bentley in the driveway A. No, it was not in the driveway. It was now daylight. Q. And what, if anything, happened when you were en route back to the station? A. About 15 minutes after we dropped her off, I got another message over my MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, calls for hearsay. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) You received a communication in your car? A. Yes. Q. Okay. As a result of that communication you received, what, if anything, did you do A. I returned back to the Rockingham address. Q. And did you drive by the residence at that point? A. Yes. I looked for the Bentley and I didn't see it. Q. Okay. What, if anything, happened next? A. I parked approximately three houses up from the address for 45 minutes, in Q. And did you see it return? A. No, I didn't. Q. Did you take any further action after you did not see the Bentley return? A. I radioed the station and asked them to call Nicole Simpson at her home, and And they did, and they said that -- MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, calls for hearsay. Objection at this point. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Just yes or no, Detective: Did you receive a response as to A. Yes, I did. Q. And as a result of that response, did you remain in that location or did you A. I left. Q. Now -- and did you have occasion to go back to that location any other time A. No. Q. Or any future time after that day at all? A. No. Q. Did you have occasion to fill out a police report as a result of that A. Yes. Q. Okay. And how was that filled out? A. I directed my -- the officer I was training, Patricia Milewski, Q. Was this done in the normal course of your duties that day? A. Yes. Q. And was this a business record of the LAPD, kept in the normal course of A. Yes. And we booked the photographs as evidence, also. MR. KELLY: Steve, can I see -- Q. (BY MR. KELLY) I'm going to ask you to take a look at this, Detective, and I believe is that 2191. A. Yes, it is 2191 on this yellow piece of paper. (The instrument herein referred to as three-page report with an attached A. This is the four-page -- a three-page report with an attached property MR. KELLY: Your Honor, at this time I'd like to move in Exhibits 3, 4, and 5, MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I have an objection only to the last exhibit. I I'll remind the Court of its previous ruling with regard to Sergeant Berris' -- THE COURT: Can I see counsel at side bench. MR. LEONARD: With the reporter? Need the reporter? THE COURT: Yeah. (The following proceedings were heard at the bench, with the reporter.) THE COURT: Okay. Didn't we have a hearing on this? MR. PETROCELLI: Yes. MR. KELLY: Yes, we did. MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor permitted the production of the out-of-court THE COURT: What day was that? MR. PETROCELLI: I think that was on the 16th, Your Honor. September 16 was that MR. KELLY: I think it was number 9 -- defense's motion in limine number 9 or MR. LEONARD: Every statement made in a police report is admissible. MR. PETROCELLI: None of Nicole's out-of-court statements were admissible under It's unlike the Berris police reports, where you don't have spontaneous THE COURT: All right. The Court ruled that statements in the police report Now the objection is to the report itself, isn't it? MR. LEONARD: Yes. MR. PETROCELLI: It's a business record. THE COURT: I'm sorry? MR. PETROCELLI: It was a report, a business record. They established the MR. LEONARD: There's no foundation for that. MR. PETROCELLI: For what? MR. LEONARD: Every one of them is spontaneous. MR. PETROCELLI: Every statement he elicited from Nicole is at a time of stress, MR. KELLY: She was crying. THE COURT: Okay. What in particular are you objecting to? MR. LEONARD: Well, it's not necessarily -- are you -- is this the only one you MR. KELLY: We'll take one at a time. MR. LEONARD: Okay. Well, there's a statement in the -- MR. PETROCELLI: This one? MR. LEONARD: No. I -- no. I can't point to anything in here other than I would I wonder why these guys want this. For instance, this -- she reports that Okay. That's not what this witness said. This witness said that Nicole ran out And I think if they're going to try to put this in, they're obliged to bring a What I mean, this particular officer who wrote this is not this guy; some other MR. KELLY: Well, it goes -- THE COURT: Could you keep your voice down. MR. KELLY: I'm sorry. That goes into evidence. They had every opportunity to use this witness to MR. LEONARD: I'm to impeach him with the oral statement -- I'm to impeach him MR. KELLY: He indicated he had firsthand knowledge of everything, indicates it MR. LEONARD: He contradicted himself. I think that goes to reliability of the I think we're at a distinct disadvantage. I don't want to have to impeach the THE COURT: Okay. I'll stand on the ruling I made on September 17. Overruled. MR. LEONARD: It's coming in? THE COURT: Yeah. (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the MR. KELLY: Your Honor, to confirm, 3, 4, 5, and 2191 have all been moved into THE CLERK: Yes. THE COURT: Yes. (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 3 for identification (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4 for identification (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 5 for identification (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2191 for Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, Detective Edwards, did you ever see Mr. Simpson again A. Not personally. Q. And did you ever see Nicole Brown Simpson after that morning of New Years A. No. MR. KELLY: I have no further questions. THE COURT: Cross-examine. MR. KELLY: Judge, could we approach just briefly again on one matter? THE COURT: On what? MR. KELLY: It's related to something different than before. THE COURT: All right. (The following proceedings were heard at the bench, with the reporter.) MR. KELLY: Your Honor, this has to do with cross-examination of this witness. In Mr. Baker's opening statement he made reference to this witness being named The way this report was filed was, this commission did a statistical analysis None of the complaints alleged in there related to this particular incident of I would ask that the defense be precluded from referring to the Christopher MR. BAKER: Well, Number one, the Christopher Commission report is relied upon Number two, he was an officer that was -- he -- it was indicated was one of the Number three, there will be testimony about his threats of violence to O.J. THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection as to reference to the Christopher You may inquire about any threats he made. MR. PETROCELLI: To Mr. Simpson? THE COURT: Yeah, to explain his absence from the scene. (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD: Q. I'll try to stay behind the podium this time, Your Honor. Detective Edwards, what did you do to prepare for your testimony today? What items did you read? Whom did you talk to? What did you do? A. Let's see. Yesterday, I met with plaintiffs' counsel, Mr. Kelly, for about 45 minutes, And then I met again today with Mr. Kelly for about ten or fifteen minutes Q. Did you look at your prior testimony from the criminal trial? A. I browsed through that, yes. Q. Browsed through it? A. Yes, highlighted. Q. How much time did you spend looking at it? A. Approximately ten, fifteen minutes. Q. Did you look at both the direct and the cross-examinations? A. Briefly. Q. Well, did you want to make sure that you gave testimony that was basically A. Yes, somewhat. Q. Did you know anything -- after having sat up here and answered some Did you think about that? MR. KELLY: Objection as to form. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you consider that, sir? THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: No. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You testified that you looked -- that you also reviewed A. Not only that, my subsequent supplemental report. Q. What Mr. Kelly was referring to is Exhibit 1291. That was a report that was MR. PETROCELLI: It's 2191. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Excuse me, 2191. That was prepared on what, the 1st of January 1989? A. The day of the occurrence. Q. Okay. You mentioned that you had asked your partner -- and what was her name again? A. Patricia Milewski. Q. She's still a police officer? A. Yes, she is. She is instructing at the police academy. Q. Here in Los Angeles? A. Yes. Q. Okay. You instructed her to prepare a report, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you wanted that report to be -- to completely and accurately represent A. Yes. Q. And in fact, you reviewed it to make sure everything that was in there was A. Yes. Q. That was important because this was going to memorialize what had occurred; A. That's correct. Q. All right. That's something that you do on a daily basis as a police A. Yes. Q. You realize how important accurate and complete reports are, don't you, A. Yes. That's why we -- MR. KELLY: Objection. THE WITNESS: -- quite often make supplemental reports, to bring out details Q. Okay. But in any event, you took the time to review the report that your partner had A. Yes. Q. Okay. You described in some detail discussions that you had with both Nicole Brown Do you remember that in your direct testimony? A. Yes. Q. And in fact, if you recall, both Nicole Brown Simpson, and minutes later, Let me -- A. Close, but not quite. Q. Let me refresh your recollection. Didn't they both say, according to you, you guys have been out here eight times First Nicole said that; minutes later, O.J. Simpson said that. Do you remember A. Right. They both said that in a sentence, but the sentence was different. Q. Focusing on the number, they both said the number eight, didn't they? A. Yes. Q. Not ten, not several, not many, but the number eight, right? A. Exactly. Q. Now, I want to you take a look at what's been marked as 2191. Show me in that report where there's any indication of any discussion about And this is a report that was prepared at your behest, reviewed by you the next A. Yes. It doesn't have the original report. It's in the supplemental. Q. Now, when you reviewed that report, did you remember that it wasn't in there Did you remember at the time when you reviewed the report the next day? A. It wasn't the next day; it was the same day, January 1, 1989. Q. And all events were fresh in your mind, correct? A. That's right. Q. Much fresher than they were when you did a supplemental report a month and a Wouldn't you agree with that? A. I remembered quite a few details later on that I should have put in the Q. The -- what was it that sparked your memory six weeks later, sir? Anything MR. KELLY: Objection. Argumentative. Object to the form, also. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: The City Attorney asked me to relay exactly what was said in Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) But when you reviewed it the next day, sir -- A. It wasn't the next day; it was January 1, 1996. MR. KELLY: '89, you mean? THE WITNESS: Excuse me. Today is '96 it's 1989, January 1, the same day as the Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) It wasn't in the report that was made by your partner, nor A. Apparently not. It's not in the report. Q. Now, you also testified, if I'm not mistaken -- correct me if I'm wrong -- A. That's correct. Q. Remember testifying to that? A. Yes, that's what I said. Q. Now, in your review of your prior criminal testimony, did you come across A. I -- Q. -- on Nicole Brown Simpson's breath? Did you come across that? A. I didn't review that part. Q. Well, let's review it together. MR. KELLY: Objection as to the form, Your Honor. MR. LEONARD: Withdrawn. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Do you recall being asked -- this is at 12508 -- do you to get very close to Nicole Brown Simpson on this night; is that correct? "A. Well, she grabbed me and hung onto me, yes." Do you remember that question and that answer? A. Yes. MR. LEONARD: "You got very close to her; is that correct? "A. Yes." Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Do you remember that, sir? A. Yes. Q. (MR. LEONARD) Reading: "Did you have occasion to determine whether or not she had been drinking that particular night? "A. I didn't smell any significant alcoholic beverage on her breath. I don't believe I did." Do you remember giving that answer to that question? A. That's correct. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) (Reading.) "Q. I'm not asking about significant alcoholic beverage. Did you smell any alcoholic beverage on her breath? "A. Not enough that I would be able to detect. I don't remember." Do you remember giving that answer to that question? A. Yes. Q. Next question, I don't -- I don't understand that answer, not enough. What (Reading.) "A. Well, I can't remember smelling an alcoholic beverage on her breath." Do you remember giving that answer to that question, sir? A. Yes. Q. Next question: "So the answer is, you don't know one way or the other; is that correct? "A. I just can't remember smelling alcoholic beverage on her breath. "Q. The answer is, you don't know at this point, right? "A. Okay. I don't know." Now, when you testified at the criminal trial, that was on January 31, 1995, A. Yes. Q. And you testified at this trial, as we've just elicited, that you don't know MR. KELLY: Objection. Misstates his testimony; is also argumentative at this THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I didn't smell any alcohol on her breath. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Next question is", "Did I accurately read you those questions?" And your answer is: "I don't know if you accurately read them at all because I'm not seeing what you're reading. But I didn't smell any alcohol on her breath." Would you like to look the at transcript, sir? MR. LEONARD: May I approach? THE COURT: You may. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) And go right down here, read over this page. That's what I read. MR. KELLY: Are those the same questions you read before, Mr. Leonard? MR. LEONARD: Yes. Would you like to look at it? MR. KELLY: I glanced a little at it. (Pause in proceedings.) THE WITNESS: Okay. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did I read those questions and your answers accurately, A. Yes, you did. Q. Is there -- is your memory now refreshed as to what you said at the criminal A. Yes; I didn't smell any alcohol on her breath. Q. Did you say in the end, when you were finished being asked questions by Mr. A. Apparently I did; I didn't smell any alcohol on her breath. Q. By the way, as you sit here today, can you say whether or not Mr. Simpson A. I wasn't close enough to him to smell him. Q. Can you tell us whether he appeared to be intoxicated? A. He didn't appear to be intoxicated. Q. Okay. Did you -- but again, you didn't get close enough to him to, for instance, A. We were about two feet a part. Q. When you -- according to your testimony, when you were engaged with him, A. That's correct. Q. By the way, you were yelling back at him at times, weren't you, sir? A. No, I don't believe I did. Q. Never raised your voice at all? A. I may have raised my voice, but I didn't yell at him. Q. Did you in any way, sir, threaten him in any way? A. Never. Q. And when Mr. Simpson came out the second time -- you following me now? He A. That's right. Q. You were with your -- you were with the sergeant -- is it Vittner -- how do A. That's Vinger. Q. At some point after Mr. Simpson came out with his clothes on, was there -- A. After he came out, initiated another conversation with me, then the sergeant MR. LEONARD: If we can have the chart. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) And the sergeant was there when Mr. Simpson got in the car A. Yes. MR. P. BAKER: 1167. (Counsel displays Exhibit 1167.) Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, I want you to -- MR. LEONARD: If the witness can approach the chart, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) If you can get down quickly, sir -- Well, I don't want you to fall down. If you could, just walk over to the chart. Just show us again -- I think you demonstrated this on direct examination -- A. I was over here, right about where the S is on the street. I was in the Q. Okay. Where was the other black -- where was the black and white? (Indicating to Ashford Street) A. It had parked at an angle, just across the left front bumper of my vehicle. Q. Blocking your vehicle, more or less? A. Just a little bit. Q. And the first thing that came to you was, you actually heard the car door A. I think I heard an engine. Q. You heard the engine going. By the way, it was pretty quiet out there that night? A. Right. Those hills echo noise very well. Q. You had no trouble hearing that car start up, correct? A. That's true. Q. And at that point, you went over to -- right up to the gate at Ashford, and A. No, I walked out. I was in the street. I just walked over --little bit over Q. You could see right through the Ashford gate; that was just a grate of some A. Right. Q. You could see all the way over and out through the Rockingham gate without A. No. Q. Is that how you saw the -- that's how you saw Mr. Simpson exit, correct? A. I saw him exit, but I couldn't -- I didn't have a clear field of vision; Q. Okay. And so you say that Mr. Simpson was -- left the driveway at 15 miles an hour, A. That's correct, long driveway. Q. Fifteen miles an hour, right? A. That's correct. Q. At this time, you were over at the Ashford gate, correct? A. Correct. Q. And you saw -- saw the car go out. You saw it's taillights, right? A. Right. Q. And you say that you saw the car going down -- south on Rockingham, and it A. Right. Q. Did you run all the way over to the intersection of Rockingham and Ashford A. No. I just saw the taillights as it was leaving. Q. Obviously, the only way you could see them was through the yard and across A. Right. Here I could see the taillights from underneath the trees. Q. You could see the taillights going down Rockingham, couldn't you? A. Just seen him going down that direction. Q. You had no trouble seeing that from where you were, right? A. Just the rear of the car and the taillights. Q. You had no trouble testifying to this jury that you could tell he was -- A. Right. It looked like it was going 35 miles an hour. Q. That was from your view of the receding taillights, all the way down A. That's correct. Q. By the way, you could hear this vehicle accelerate, too? You could hear that clearly, couldn't you? A. I think you could hear -- it's not a real loud vehicle, but I think I heard Q. Well, even if it was purring, you could hear it on that still night, A. Right. Q. No problem at all as it went down Rockingham into the distance, right? A. Right. Right. Q. Now, what did you do, saddle up, jump in your cars, and head off to try to Is that what you did at that point? A. Saddle up? Q. Well, you jumped in your -- (Laughter.) Q. -- you jumped in your vehicle, right? A. This isn't the wild west. What we did was, the sergeant got in his vehicle and maneuvered out of the way; Q. In pursuit of Mr. Simpson, correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. All right. And no siren, no red lights, right? A. Right. Q. Now, you may take a seat again. You testified that at that point, you gave up your pursuit, right, and you were A. Right. Q. And you decided that you were going to take Mrs. Simpson to -- or Nicole A. Yes. I asked her if she would go. Q. And she wanted to go home and see the kids. So instead, you took her over to A. I asked her if she would do that, and she agreed. Q. Okay. And you knew that there was photographic equipment there that you could take That's why you took her there? A. Well, I was hoping there would be photographic equipment. Q. And in fact, there was a Polaroid camera? A. Yes. Q. And your job at this point was to make sure that you would fairly and A. Yes. Q. And you've used a Polaroid camera before, right? A. Yes. Q. That's not an unusual investigative tool, is it, sir? A. No. Q. And so you took -- are you the one -- are you the one who who took the A. Yes. Q. Now, the beautiful thing about a Polaroid camera, or one of the nice things, A. Yes. Q. Okay. So you took these three photographs and you looked at them and you took no more A. That's partially correct. Q. How many more photographs did you take, sir? A. I took three photographs. Q. So you took three. And you had an opportunity to look at those photographs, right? They developed before your very eyes, didn't they? A. No. Q. They didn't? A. The one photograph was developing before Nicole Simpson's very eyes, sitting Q. But let me put it to you this way: By the time you left with Nicole to take A. That's correct. Q. And you chose not to, correct? A. Correct. No. Q. You chose not to take additional photographs? Is that not sure? MR. KELLY: I'd object. He's in the middle of answering the prior question when THE COURT: Sustained. Answer the first question. MR. LEONARD: It was the same question, Your Honor. I'll withdraw it. THE COURT: Okay. MR. LEONARD: It makes it easier. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you, before you left the police station with Nicole A. That is correct Q. Now, when you were at -- strike that. If you respond to a scene like this and you believe there are serious injuries Either to take the victim, yourself, or to call an EMT, but to get the victim That's your obligation as a reporting officer -- or a responding officer, is it MR. KELLY: Object to this as to form. It's also argumentative and speculative, THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I'm obligated to do what the victim wants. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) No matter what the state of the medical condition of the A. If the victim refuses medical treatment, I'm obligated to do what the victim Q. And by the way, when you were at Bundy and Wilshire, you were within what, A. That's correct. We didn't want to go to those hospitals. Q. Instead, you went to the police station to take some photographs, correct? A. I asked her if she wanted to go to the hospital. She said no. Q. Okay. Instead, sir, you went to the police station to have some photographs taken; is A. I asked her if she wanted to go to the hospital? She refused. I then asked her if she wanted to go to the police station to take pictures. She agreed. I did what the victim agreed to do. Q. It was your suggestion to go to the police station; it wasn't Nicole Brown A. That's correct. MR. LEONARD: Thank you. No further questions. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY: Q. Detective, Mr. Leonard asked you if you took any photos after you took those A. That's correct. Q. Is there a particular reason you did not? A. Yes. Nicole Simpson insisted that she wanted to go home immediately to her Q. And Mr. Leonard also asked you about a supplemental report that you had made A. That is correct. Q. And did you prepare that report yourself when the city's attorney asked for A. Yes. Q. Is that done in the normal course of your duties? A. Yes. Q. And was that report a report that was kept by the LAPD as a business record, MR. LEONARD: Objection. Leading. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) That report you prepared, it was a follow-up report? A. Yes, supplemental follow-up report to the primary incident. Q. Is that a report that's kept in the normal course of your duties? A. Yes. MR. LEONARD: Objection. Leading. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) I'm sorry. Is that a report that's maintained in the regular course of business by the A. Yes. Q. I'm going to ask you to just -- MR. KELLY: This would be 2192, Your Honor? THE CLERK: Yes. (The instrument herein referred to as Five-page supplemental report written by Q. (BY MR. KELLY) I ask you if you recognized that when I just showed it to A. This a five-page handwritten report in my handwriting, with my name on the Q. Okay. By the way, in looking, is there any reference made to Nicole's statement MR. LEONARD: Objection. Leading, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. KELLY: Okay. Your honor, at this time I ask this be moved into evidence, 2192. MR. LEONARD: Same Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Received. (The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2192 for MR. KELLY: I have no further questions. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD: Q. Just so we get the sequence clear here, that report that Mr. Kelly was just A. It was a month and a half; possibly about six weeks. Q. And you agreed earlier that your memory was much fresher about these events A. No. I think I remembered quite a lot. It was in that six-week period. Q. On direct examination, you testified, if I'm not mistaken -- you said that MR. KELLY: Objection. This is improper recross. It's going back to my direct. MR. LEONARD: If we can approach, I can demonstrate the relevance at this point. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You testified that Nicole Brown Simpson had told you when A. Yes. Q. That she had been slapped, right? A. Right. Q. That she had been knocked down, right? A. I don' think I used those words, "knocked down." Q. That she had been -- A. I think it was kicked. Q. And her hair had been pulled? A. And her hair was pulled, yes. Q. And that she had been thrown out of the house, right? A. I don't remember seeing that word in there. Q. Okay. But you do remember -- and this is something that's very clear in your mind -- A. Right. Q. And that she had been knocked down, correct, in addition to being slapped A I don't think I put the words "knocked down," if I'm not mistaken. Q. No. I'm asking you what you testified to today, sir, not what was in any If you don't remember, you don't remember. A. I remember, but I don't think she said she was knocked down. Q. My question is what you testified today on the direct examination, sir. If you don't remember, that's fine. MR. KELLY: Objection as to the form of the question. It's argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You don't remember? A. You know, the way you've gotten the question a little mixed up, I quite Q. I'll withdraw the question. When you filled out this supplemental report, I think you indicated that you A. The City Attorney asked me to include as much detail as possible. Q. You wanted to include detail that you either forgot or left out from the A. That's correct. Q. All right. Do you recall putting in the supplemental report that when she came out, you Do you remember that do? You want to look at the report? A. That's initially what she told me. Then she expanded on that in the car when we handed her the report. Q. When you testified here today, sir, you said that when she first came out, Do you remember testifying to that? A. Yes, and then just -- Q. Do you want to change your testimony now? A. No, I don't want to change my testimony; thank you. Q. Which is it? A. There were --they were almost the same time; they were seconds apart. And Q. Is that included in your report, here, sir, the supplemental report? A. What's included? Q. That -- anything beyond slapping and kicking, is that in the supplemental A. That's in the primary report, the slapping, kicking, hair pulling, in the Q. Is it in the supplemental report where you were going to give as much detail A. No, because it was already mentioned in the primary report. MR. LEONARD: Thank you. MR. KELLY: I have no further questions. THE COURT: You're excused. Ten minutes, ladies and gentlemen. (Recess) (Jurors resume their respective seats) (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the Q. All right. Do you recall putting in the supplemental report that when she A. That's initially what she told me. Then she expanded on that in the car when Q. When you testified here today, sir, you said that when she first came out A. Yes, and then just -- Q. Do you want to change your testimony now? A. No I don't want to change my testimony, thank you. Q. Which is it? A. They were almost the same time, they were seconds apart, and that's exactly Q. Is that included in your report here, sir, the supplemental report? A. What's included? Q. That -- anything beyond slapping and kicking, is that in the supplemental A. That's in the primary report, the slapping, kicking, hair pulling, in the Q. Is it in the supplemental report where you were going to give as much detail A. No, because it was already mentioned in the primary report. Q. Thank you. MR. KELLY: I have no further questions. THE COURT: You're excused. 10 minutes, ladies and gentlemen. (Recess) (The jurors resumed their respective seats.) THE COURT: Okay, you may call your next witness. MR. KELLY: Your Honor, before we do, by stipulation, I'd like to move Exhibit THE CLERK: What was -- what is 2193. MR. KELLY: Which is 10 pages of medical records of January 1, 1979 regarding (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' MR. KELLY: Sharyn Gilbert. SHARYN GILBERT, called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiffs, was duly sworn THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause THE WITNESS: I do. THE CLERK: And if you would please state and spell your name for the record. THE WITNESS: My name is Sharyn, S-h-a-r-y-n, last name Gilbert, G-i-l-b-e-r-t. DIRECT-EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY: Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Gilbert. A. Good afternoon. Q. Are you currently employed? A. Yes, I am. Q. And by whom? A. City of Los Angeles, the police department. Q. And in what capacity does the police department employ you? A. I'm employed as a police service representative which is a 911 dispatcher. Q. And for how many years have you been doing that? A. Ten years. Q. Okay. And basically what are your duties and responsibilities as a 911 A. To take calls from 911 and non-emergency calls, to dispatch calls to police Q. And were you acting in this capacity for the police department on New Year's A. Yes, I was. Q. And do you recall what your tour of duty was those days? A. That night I was working as a primary dispatcher which -- taking calls on Q. Okay. And could you tell me where you were physically working in the A. I was working on console 54. Console -- our consoles have numbers, and Q. Okay. Would it be fair to say there are a number of consoles next to each A. Yes, there are. Q. -- lined up in the office? When you talk about a console, are there different pieces of equipment that go A. Yes, it is. It's our Positron phone system which is to the left and that's Q. Okay. Do you have a keyboard also? A. Yes, I do. Q. And what is that used for? A. That's to create incidents for calls that we have to dispatch on it. Q. And that shows up on your screen as you create it? A. Yes, it does. Q. And this is dispatched if necessary also? A. Yes, it is. Q. And you also have head phones that you use? A. Yes, I have a personalized head set. Q. Okay. And how are you plugged into your console? A. There's plugs on either side of my console and my individual head set plugs Q. Okay. What happens when a 911 call comes into you at your console? A. It automatically, the call, when I say "drops in," my line is always open to Q. Okay. And you indicated also that you use your keyboard to create incident A. Yes, I do, off of that information. Q. And how do you create an incident report via the phone line, what is that A. It's based upon the address and phone number that -- that I automatically Q. Is that just based on your perceptions and what you hear coming in on that A. Yes, well, we have policy and procedure that we follow on how to handle Q. Okay. And I draw your attention to early morning January 1, 1989. Now, you A. Yes. Q. Do you recall receiving a 911 call at approximately 3:58 a.m.? A. Yes, I did. Q. And did your computer screen and console that you just described to us A. Yes, it automatically lit up from 360 North Rockingham and the phone number Q. Okay. And can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what, if A. When the call first dropped in, I didn't hear anything. It was considered to Q. Okay. And did you take any action at this point when it was just an open A. Yes, I made it an "unknown trouble." The policy and procedure for the police Q. Okay. And when you received -- after it was initially unknown trouble, did A. Yes, I left the line open, and during that -- that few seconds, it seemed Q. Okay. And when you say you heard what sounded like a slap, would you be able A. It was like (indicating hitting hands.) Q. Just like flesh on flesh? A. Yes. Q. And once you heard that woman screaming and flesh on flesh, what, if any, MR. LEONARD: I object. That misstates what she said. I thought she heard flesh THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Okay. Could you repeat the sequence on which you heard things MR. LEONARD: Asked and answered. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) What, if any, action did you take next after hearing these A. At that time I already had my incident created to dispatch on it and I had Q. And is this something you actually typed and memorialized on your computer? A. Yes, I did. It's indicated in my incident. Q. Okay. MR. KELLY: I'd ask this to be marked, I believe it's Exhibit 2. (The instrument herein described as a 911 operator incident report dated MR. KELLY: If we could put that up on the Elmo, please. It's also very fine Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, looking at that, you indicated when you first had A. Yes. That's -- to your right, where you see C/P, that stands for code and MR. KELLY: Can you focus on that, upper right-hand corner. (Elmo is focused in.) Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Is that the right section, right where we're in right now? A. Yes, it would be to your right where you see RD813. That tells me the car Q. Was that the priority assigned to it when you had the unknown trouble on the A. Yes, it was. Q. Initially? A. Yes, unknown trouble is the same. Q. Okay. And was that changed at all after you heard -- when you indicated that A. No. Q. Okay. Was there any additional transmitting done as a result of that? A. From the unknown trouble? Q. Yeah. A. No, because I did not have a chance to dispatch it as an "unknown trouble" If you see in the -- my example that I have here, if you can raise it up to Q. Okay. A. Which is the "screaming woman" to add the comments. Q. Was that call tape recorded? A. Yes, they all are. Q. Okay. And they are done in the normal course -- A. Yes. Q. -- of the LAPD business and the 911 calls? Have you had occasion since then to listen to this particular call that you A. Yes, I did awhile ago. Q. Okay. And in listening to it, did it fairly accurately represent what you A. You couldn't hear the hit, but that's because my head set has an open mike MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I'm going to object and move to strike as THE COURT: It may remain. MR. KELLY: Can we put on No. 1 at this point? This is Exhibit 1. (The instrument described herein as a 1/1/89 911 Tape was marked for THE COURT REPORTER: (Reporter indicates to her hands) THE COURT: (Nods negatively.) (Tape is played but not reported.) (Tape ends playing.) Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Ms. Gilbert, at the beginning of that tape, first of all, it A. Yes. MR. LEONARD: Objection, leading, tape speaks for itself. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. LEONARD: I move to strike his characterization. THE COURT: Overruled. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Then there was a reference to male black with a description A. No, it wasn't. Q. Could you explain why that appears on that tape? A. Because I had already selected frequency to broadcast my call. I had to wait Q. And then what happened after that other broadcast went out through the other MR. LEONARD: Objection, vague. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Then I got my turn to get the air. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) And were you able to speak to anybody on the other end of A. No, I wasn't. MR. KELLY: I have no further questions. THE COURT: Cross-examine. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD: Q. There was also a statement, it sounds like, by another dispatcher, someone A. No, it does not. Q. Okay. I wanted to make sure. MR. LEONARD: I don't have any more questions. Thanks a lot, I appreciate it. THE COURT: Thank you. You're excused. MR. KELLY: Mark Day. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, may we approach? (A bench conference was held, with MR. BAKER: We object to any evidence relative to the 1985/84 incidents as being This is where Mr. Simpson allegedly hit the windshield with a baseball bat of a MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, this is within ten years of the murders themselves. This is one incident. Probably a five-minute witness, Your Honor, in terms of MR. KELLY: One other point. Sorry to double team here. I understand your MR. BAKER: This witness, he has no percipient knowledge of what actually I mean, otherwise it's a report from Nicole sometime later that same day. You MR. KELLY: He can testify as to her state of mind, not only that she was MR. BAKER: Keep you voice down. MR. KELLY: Sorry. Part of the private security shows up there even before the MR. PETROCELLI: Under People versus Zack, this is relevant to show the nature MR. BAKER: Your Honor, they're showing one incident in 1984, and this is not to THE COURT: Okay. Overruled. (The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the MARK DAY, called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause THE WITNESS: I do. THE CLERK: Please state and spell both your first and your last names for the THE WITNESS: Mark Day, M-a-r-k D-a-y. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY: Q. Sir, you're currently employed? A. I'm currently employed with the Police Department as a sergeant assigned to Q. Okay. And how long have you been with the LAPD? A. Nine years. Q. And prior to joining the LAPD, was there a period between 1983 and 1985 you A. Yes, I was. Q. Who were you employed by? A. Westec Security. Q. And what is Westec Security? A. It is a private residential security firm. Q. Okay. What were your duties with Westec when you were with them? A. I worked as a patrol or alarm response officer and as a sergeant for awhile. Q. And during the course of your duties, did you become familiar with the A. Yes, I did. Q. Okay. And did you have occasion to go there in response to a disturbance at A. Yes, I did. Q. Okay. And could you tell me, first of all, what happened when you responded A. Upon my arrival I came on the property from the north gate and walked -- was (Counsel displayed exhibit entitled "360 North Rockingham Avenue.") Q. Can you explain Nicole Simpson's appearance to me, and demeanor as she ran A. She was hysterical, she was crying, very upset. Q. And what, if anything, did she say to you at that time? MR. LEONARD: Objection, hearsay. THE COURT: Overruled. A. She -- specifically I can't give you a quote, but it was, you know, that she Q. Who had lost their temper? A. Well, she didn't state it, but I later found out it was Mr. Simpson. Q. Okay. And what, if anything, did you observe after Nicole Brown Simpson ran A. I had her step behind me -- I had another Westec officer that arrived on the Q. When you say the glass was shattered, what glass in the car was shattered? A. This would be the front windshield. Q. Was that the entire windshield? A. It was mostly on the driver side. Q. And what, if anything else, did you observe in the immediate vicinity of the A. On the ground I observed a baseball bat. Q. And what, if anything, happened after that? A. A moment or two later Mr. Simpson came out the front door and I contacted Q. Okay. And how long did you remain at that scene after that? A. Possibly five minutes, approximately, or so. LAPD officers arrived on the Q. Now, going back, you indicated when you first came up the driveway that A. That's correct. MR. KELLY: Can you put up 2194. Q. I'd ask you to take a look at that, the photograph on the Elmo, and ask you A. Yes, that's Mrs. Nicole Brown Simpson. Q. Is that the person that met you when you first arrived at this time? A. Yes, it was. MR. KELLY: I have no further questions. (The instrument herein described as a photograph of Nicole Brown Simpson was MR. LEONARD: Briefly. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD: Q. Good afternoon. A. Good afternoon. Q. Sergeant -- A. Yes? Q. You never filled out -- strike that. You filled out a report for the Los Angeles Police Department about this A. Yes, I did fill out a report. Q. You were interviewed by Detective Vannatter; is that correct? A. Regarding what? Q. This incident, the incident you just testified about. A. Right. I spoke to Chris Darden about it. Q. Do you recall being interviewed by Detective Vannatter? A. Briefly. Q. Do you recall sending a report to him? A. Yes. Q. And in the report, were you trying to give an accurate and full description A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. Did you leave out anything on purpose in that report that you can A. I gave the report basically just documenting that I was there at that time. Q. So the purpose of the report to Vannatter was just to document that you were A. That I had been there. Q. But you weren't going to provide any detail in the report; is that your A. Not a matter of not providing detail. I did provide some detail to the Q. You were trying to give Detective Vannatter and the prosecutor before the A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. And that was the purpose of the report to Vannatter, correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. Tell us, how did you -- how did -- you volunteered your -- the information you A. Yes. Q. -- ago? And you volunteered that after you heard some scuttlebutt around the West Los A. No, sir. Q. Did you hear some information about Mark Fuhrman having been out at A. In the preliminary hearing, sir, yes. Q. Okay. And you also heard information around the police, you were working A. Yes, sir. Q. And you heard some information to the effect that Mark Fuhrman wasn't MR. KELLY: Objection, hearsay. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. LEONARD: Goes to his state of mind, his bias, and why he's here today. MR. KELLY: Same objection. THE COURT: Sustained. You may inquire as to his bias. MR. LEONARD: I'm trying to. THE COURT: You're not going to do it by asking him about conversations he had MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, it goes to his state of mind. With all due respect -- THE COURT: Not unless you're going to produce the somebody else. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you have a conversation with Mark Fuhrman about this MR. KELLY: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Now, you testified hear today that when you responded to A. Yes, she did. Q. And so you didn't go to the front door -- she didn't meet you at the front A. No, sir. Q. Okay. And if that was in your report of November 8, 1994, that would be A. In front of the front door? Q. Yeah. She met you at the front door, that's incorrect? A. No. She came out from the front door and met me just north of the front Q. Okay. So if the report says I was met at the front door by Nicole, that's A. No, sir, it was not at the front door. Q. Okay. And also, if the report leaves out the fact that she came running over to you, MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative. THE COURT: Overruled. A. Did -- I'm sorry, sir, could you repeat it. Q. If the report does not say that Nicole Brown Simpson came running over to A. I wouldn't say it made it inaccurate, I'd say it's not as specific. Q. Should have been in the report, right? That was an important fact wasn't it? MR. KELLY: Objection, argumentative. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Should that fact have been in the report? MR. KELLY: Same objection. THE COURT: Overruled. A. The -- Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Can you answer it yes or no? MR. KELLY: Objection. I believe he was getting ready to answer the question. He THE COURT: He may answer the question. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Can I get a yes or no. Should that have been in the report? THE COURT: You may answer yes or no. A. I don't know if that's where it belongs, sir, at that point. Q. At that point, as of the 8 of -- of November of 1994, how long had you been A. 7 years. Q. And did you learn about reports and how important they are in the Academy? MR. KELLY: Objection, irrelevant. MR. LEONARD: Did you, sir? THE COURT: Overruled? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Did you learn about reports when you were a Westec security officer and A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you learn that it was important to document as fairly and as accurately A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. So when you just said you don't know whether it should have been in A. The basis -- the basis for the report, sir, was to document the incident, Q. Where have you ever stated on the record, on paper, that Nicole Simpson came A. That possibly would have been on the report I wrote for Westec many years Q. You're just guessing about that, aren't you? A. I'm saying with that specificity because I wrote it immediately after the Q. You're guessing that, aren't you, sir? A. No, I'm not. Q. You said possibly? A. You're saying have I written that before this time? Q. You were interviewed by Senior Investigator Thompson from the District A. I don't recall, sir. Q. Do you remember being interviewed by someone other than Vannatter? A. Yes, sir. Q. After the Vannatter interview? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. Do you recall whether in that interview, you told Senior Investigator A. I don't recall what I -- what was stated in that interview. Q. Would you like to look at it? A. I'd love to. MR. LEONARD: May I approach? THE COURT: You may. (Witness reviews document.) Q. And look at this one while you're at it. A. Thank you (Witness reviews documents) (Pause) Q. Have you had a chance to review those two reports? A. Yes, sir. Q. When was the last time you reviewed those reports? A. The one that I wrote I reviewed probably in January of '95. I'm going to Q. And when you say the one that you wrote, are you referring to the Vannatter A. Yes, sir. Q. That's the report you wrote for Vannatter? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you not bother to review those before you came and testified here today, A. No, sir. Q. Didn't think that was necessary, did you? A. I didn't have them available, sir. Q. You didn't? A. No, sir. Q. Did you ask the plaintiffs' attorneys for it? A. Not specifically. I wasn't -- I didn't remember the Thompson report, sir. Q. Okay. Do you agree with me that nowhere in either of those reports do you MR. KELLY: Well, I'd object to any answer being elicited regarding someone MR. KELLY: I'll lay a foundation. THE COURT: Okay. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) With regard to the Vannatter report, the report that you A. That's correct. Q. In fact, it says she met you at the door. Doesn't it say that, sir? A. Yes, sir. Q. And with regard to the other report, that's a report of an interview that A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. And you've seen that report before, right? A. Once. Q. And did you correct anything in that report, sir, when you saw it? MR. KELLY: Objection as to someone else's report, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you review that report at some point, the report of A. Yes, sir. Q. And you reviewed it to make sure that it was accurate, correct, because it A. Yes, sir. Q. And you never corrected it once, did you, sir? A. I spoke with Mr. Darden about the incident. That's the best I can say. Q. Did you correct anything that was indicated in the report that was reported A. No, sir. Q. Okay. There's nothing in that report that indicates that Nicole Brown A. That's correct. Q. Were you trying to embellish the story a little bit before this jury, sir? A. No. Q. Is that what you were trying to do? A. No, sir. Q. Didn't bother to look at reports before you came here and testified in front MR. KELLY: Objection, asked a answered. MR. LEONARD: Withdrawn. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You kind of like a pinch-hitter today; isn't that right? MR. KELLY: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you testify at the criminal trial? A. No, sir. Q. Mark Fuhrman testified at the criminal trial with regard to this matter? MR. PETROCELLI: You know, Your Honor -- THE COURT: Sustained. Jury to disregard. MR. LEONARD: Nothing further. MR. PETROCELLI: It's really out of -- MR. LEONARD: Withdrawn. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY: Q. (MR. KELLY) Sergeant, today you indicated -- Mr. Leonard was asking you some A. Yes. Q. Did you have a conversation with Chris Darden regarding that? A. Yes, I did. MR. KELLY: I have no further questions. MR. LEONARD: I'm finished with this witness. THE COURT: Thank you, you're excused. THE WITNESS: Thank you. THE COURT: Next. MR. KELLY: Your Honor, before the next witness, I'd like to move Exhibits 1 and THE COURT: Okay, received. (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' (The instrument herein described was received in evidence as Plaintiffs' MR. KELLY: Sergeant Rob Lerner. ROBERT LERNER, was called as a witness on THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause THE WITNESS: I do. THE CLERK: And if you please, state and spell your name for the record. THE WITNESS: Yes. It's R-o-b-e-r-t L-e-r-n-e-r. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY: Q. Good afternoon, Sergeant. A. Good afternoon. Q. You're obviously currently employed as a sergeant by the Police Department? A. Yes, sir, that's correct. Q. Okay. And how long have you been employed by the LAPD? A. Little over 22 years. Q. And I want to draw your attention to October 25, 1993. Were you on duty that A. Yes, I was. Q. And do you recall what your tour of duty was? A. I was working a patrol assignment in West Los Angeles division on the mid Q. And what are the hours of the mid p.m watch? A. Starts at 6 in the evening, ends at 2:45 in the morning. Q. Do you recall receiving a radio communication in your car at approximately A. Yes. Q. And do you recall what the substance of that call was? A. It was a domestic violence dispute call. I believe the address was on Gretna Q. Do you recall whether there was any call priority on that call? A. It was coded as a code 2 high call meaning an urgent call just under a code MR. KELLY: Your Honor, at this time I'd like to play a tape which would be MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to that, Your Honor. There's no foundation MR. PETROCELLI: It's stipulated to -- MR. BAKER: There's no foundation. MR. PETROCELLI: -- as to admissibility and foundation. MR. BAKER: Through this witness. THE COURT: Show me the stipulation. MR. KELLY: Can we play -- THE COURT: I want to see the stipulation, counsel. MR. KELLY: Okay. (Mr. Petrocelli and Mr. Baker approach bench.) (A bench conference was held which was not reported.) THE COURT: Witness, would you step outside. THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. (Witness exits courtroom.) MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor. (The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the MR. KELLY: Can we play it, Your Honor? THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, at this time the parties have stipulated Does everybody understand that? JURORS: Nod affirmative. THE COURT: Go ahead. (Tape is played) (Tape concludes playing.) THE COURT: Bring your witness in. (Witness resumes witness stand) THE CLERK: You are still under oath. Please state your name. THE WITNESS: Robert Lerner. Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Sergeant, going back to approximately 10 p.m. on October 25, A. Yes, I did. Q. And what, if anything, did you observe out front at that residence when you A. We observed a vehicle that was described in the comments reports as a white Q. And where did you see that in relationship to the house itself? A. The Bronco was parked in the street facing southbound. It was -- it was in Q. And did you make any other observations about the car at that time? A. Yes. Q. What was that? A. The headlights were on, the ignition was off. Q. Okay. Was there anybody in there at this time? A. Nobody in the vehicle, no. MR. KELLY: If I could see 2195. (The instrument herein described as photo depicting 325 South Gretna Green with Q. I'm going ask you to look at that residence and see if you recognize it? A. Yes. That's the house at 325 South Gretna Green. Q. Okay. And that's where you indicated the white Bronco was parked out front A. Yes. It was over here in the south part of the house, south side of the Q. There's a driveway from that house, isn't there? A. Yes. MR. KELLY: Okay. You can take it off. Q. Now, what, if anything, did you observe next after seeing the white Bronco A. We approached the front door of the residence and were met by the tenant. Q. And who was the tenant? A. Nicole Brown Simpson. Q. Okay. And did you step into the house or did she come outside at this time? A. She came out front. Q. And could you describe her appearance and demeanor at the time you first saw A. Well, she was pretty upset, she was visibly shaking, and she was -- she had MR. BAKER: Move to strike. THE COURT: Stricken. Q. Did she appeared frighten when you saw her? A. She told me -- she said she was scared. MR. BAKER: Move to strike as hearsay. THE COURT: State of mind, overruled. Q. (MR. KELLY) I'm sorry, she was -- A. She told me she was scared. MR. KELLY: Can you flip on Exhibit 21, please. (Exhibit 21 displayed.) (The instrument herein described as a photograph of Nicole Brown Simpson was Q. Do you recognize that photo? A. Yes. That was the person to whom we responded, the call, Nicole Brown Q. And you determined that she was the one who had made those phone calls? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And did you also determine whether the individual was -- the subject A. Yes. She told us he was still there. Q. And what, if anything, did you do next after you met Nicole? A. We tried to establish the location of the suspect. MR. BAKER: Your Honor, can we take that off the screen? He's identified this. THE COURT: You may. (Exhibit 21 removed.) A. We established the current location of the suspect, and if he was armed, if Q. And what did you do upon entering the house? A. We walked through the house where she directed us to the suspect's location, Q. Did you make any observations regarding the interior of the house as you A. Yes. Upon exiting from the main house into the backyard area there was a Q. What was that observation? A. The door was broken, there was a wood chip that was -- or wood splinter that Q. And after looking at the rear French doors, where, if anywhere, did you go A. We responded to the rear guest house. Q. Was that separate from the main house? A. Yes. Q. And how far was it from the main house back to the guest house? A. Oh, 40 feet. Q. And who, if anybody, was in the guest house when you arrived there? A. Two people were present in the guest house; one was Mr. Simpson -- O.J. Q. And can you describe Mr. Simpson's demeanor when you observed him at that A. He was -- he was pretty much enraged. He was pacing back and forth talking Q. And what, if any, action did you take at this time? A. I tried to calm Mr. Simpson. I wanted to have a discussion with him and I Q. Okay. Did you engage him in discussion at this time? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did there come a time that anybody else arrived back in the guest house? A. Yes. Q. And who was that? A. That was my immediate supervisor, Sergeant Craig Lally. Q. Okay. How long had you been out there when Sergeant Lally arrived? A. Oh, 7 to 10 minutes. Q. Okay. And was there any further discussion between yourself, Sergeant Lally A. Yes. Q. And do you recall approximately how long the conversations were that you had A. Well, the first conversation took about 10 minutes or so. We were in Q. When you say on and off, were you talking to anyone else in the interim? A. Yes. Q. Who was that? A. Nicole Brown Simpson. Q. Did there come a time that Mr. Simpson left the premises? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Let me ask you, did it ever come to your attention that a tape A. Yes. It came to my attention about two days before I appeared in the Q. And prior to then -- first of all, who -- did you find out who made that A. I found out Sergeant Lally made that recording. Q. When that recording was being made, did you have any idea it was being A. No, not a clue. Q. Okay. If you had -- have you had occasion to listen to that tape in its A. Yes, I listened to it. Q. When was the first time you listened to that tape? A. Two days before the criminal trial. Q. And do you recall approximately when that was in terms of -- A. February of '95. Q. And have you had occasion to listen to it since that time also? A. Yes. Q. When was that? A. Last week, Friday. Q. And that was with me? A. Yes. Q. And would you be able to say that that tape fairly and accurately represents A. Yes, it's accurate. MR. KELLY: Okay, Your Honor, at this time I'd like to play Exhibit 757. MR. BAKER: Objection. THE COURT: How long is that? MR. KELLY: It's 30 minutes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, you got 15 minutes left. I don't want to listen to half of it. Objection overruled. What's the number? MR. KELLY: 757. (The instrument herein described as a tape recording made on October 25, 1993 THE COURT: Is there anything else, anything more you want to ask of this Q. (BY MR. KELLY) What, if anything, did you do after Mr. Simpson left the A. Yes. Q. What was that? A. I completed a crime report. Q. And after you completed that crime report, what, if anything, else did you A. I believe just counsel Nicole Simpson, and we left the residence. Q. And after that night, when you left that premises, did you ever see Nicole A. No. MR. KELLY: I have no further questions, Your Honor. MR. BAKER: I've got a few, Your Honor. THE COURT: We'll adjourn till tomorrow at 8:30. Ladies and gentlemen, don't talk about the case, don't form or express any THE WITNESS: I guess I'm ordered back? THE COURT: You're ordered back. THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor. (At 4:16 P.M. an adjournment was taken until Tuesday, November 19, 1996 at 8:30 |