MITCHELL, SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP
DANIEL M. PETROCELLI (State Bar No. 97802)
EDWARD M. MEDVENE (State Bar No. 32227)
THOMAS P. LAMBERT (State Bar No. 50952)
PETER B. GELBLUM (State Bar No. 102695)
11377 West Olympic Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90064-1683
(310) 312-2000
Attorneys for Plaintiff
FREDRIC GOLDMAN
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SHARON RUFO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, et al.,
Defendants.
FREDRIC GOLDMAN, etc. et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, et al.,
Defendants.
LOUIS H. BROWN, etc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON,
Defendant.
Case No. SC 031947
Consolidated With
Case No. SC 036340
And
Case No. SC 036876
DECLARATION OF DANIEL M. PETROCELLI IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS IN LIMINE OF PLAINTIFF FREDRIC GOLDMAN TO PRECLUDE ARGUMENT AND QUESTIONING REGARDING PLANTING OF EVIDENCE
Trial Date: September 17, 1996
RE GOLDMAN MOTIONS NOS. 1-7
DECLARATION OF DANIEL M. PETROCELLI
I, DANIEL M. PETROCELLI, declare:
1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice before all of the courts of the State of California. My professional corporation is a partner in the law firm of Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp LLP, counsel for Fredric Goldman in this action. I have personal knowledge of all of the following facts and, if called as a witness, could and would competently testify thereto.
2. The purpose of this declaration is to summarize in a convenient format the interrogatory responses of defendant Orenthal James Simpson that are relevant to Goldman's motion in limine to exclude evidence that blood evidence was planted. All of the answers relevant to this motion are in response to Goldman's First Set of Special interrogatories. A true and correct copy of that document is attached as Exhibit 1. Simpson's answers are taken from his Further Responses to these interrogatories that were served on or about July 25, 1996. (The original responses contained only objections.) A true and correct copy of that document is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. These documents are attached solely so the Court can verify that this declaration accurately summarizes and quotes the relevant interrogatories and responses.
3. The Bundy blood trail [LAPD evidence item numbers 47, 48, 49, 50, and 52]. Special Interrogatories 1 through 6 sought information regarding Simpson's contention that this evidence "consisted, in whole or in part, of PLANTED EVIDENCE." Interrogatories 2 and 5 specifically asked Simpson to "set forth in detail all facts" that supported any such contention. Simpson's response to interrogatory 2, which he incorporated by reference into his response to Interrogatory 5, is as follows:
"As to this and all other interrogatories, it is the Defense contention that the manner of collection, storing, processing, and testing of this and all forensic evidence was such that reasonable inferences can be drawn that this and other evidence was planted as defined by Plaintiff or contaminated, either accidentally or intentionally, at some time after collection.
"Testimony was elicited regarding the manner of collection, storing, processing, and testing of the evidence in this case a the criminal trial, the grand jury hearings beginning on June 1 1994, the preliminary hearing beginning on July 1, 1994, the motion for a split of the forensic samples beginning on August 1994, and the motion to suppress hearing beginning on September 21, 1994.
"All testimony regarding the manner of collection, storing, processing, and testing of the evidence in this case as well as all testimony concerning the proper manner of collection, storing processing, and testing of forensic evidence such as was found this case, is relevant to the integrity of each piece of evidence which was collected at each of the crime scenes.
"Counsel is further directed to the closing arguments of Mr. Cochran (RT 47607,19, and following, 9/27/94) and Mr. Scheck (RT 47852,6 and following, 9/28/94) which contain specific references to facts in the record of the criminal trial which support the Defense answer to this interrogatory and all other interrogatories regarding the physical evidence in this case.
"Additionally, the following is a listing of the witnesses who presented testimony relevant to the manner of collection, storing, processing, and testing of the evidence in this case as well as the proper manner of collection, storing, processing, and testing, with the name of the proceeding, and the page and line number [if available] where the witness's testimony begins concerning these issues.
GRAND JURY HEARING - JUNE 17 THROUGH JUNE 20, 1994
Name.............................. Page,Line
Lange............................. GJ284,7
Riske............................. GJ 313,15
Vannatter......................... GJ 324,6
Peratis........................... GJ 369,14
Fung.............................. GJ 374,13
Yamauchi.......................... GJ 420
PRELIMINARY HEARING - JUNE 30, THROUGH JULY S. 194
Fuhrman........................... PX 24, 7/5/94
Fung.............................. PX 78, 7/6/94
Golden............................ PX 1, 7/8/94
Kestler........................... PX 101 6/30/94
Lange............................. PX 15, 7/7/94
Matheson.......................... PX 82, 7/7/94
Peratis........................... PX 21, 7/7/94
Vannatter......................... PX 1, 7/6/94
GRIFFIN HEARING - 8/22/94 THROUGH 8/23/94
Fung.............................. GH 532,16
Kestler........................... GH 483,13
Matheson.......................... GH 640,24
Mazzola........................... GH 686,3
Sims.............................. GH 391,16
Yamauchi.......................... GH 566,21
MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE - 9121194 THROUGH 10/6/94
Brockbank......................... MD 2610,7
Fung.............................. MD 1704,1 and
--................................ MD 2579,11
Lange............................. MD 2545,23
Marlow............................ MD 1574,10
Matheson.......................... MD 2595,11
Raquel............................ MD 2617,8
Vannatter......................... MD 1437
CRIMINAL TRIAL
A. Prosecution Witnesses
Adkin............................. RT 21245,14
Bodziak........................... RT 32622,10
Brockbank......................... RT 34082,1
Cotton............................ RT 26292,1
Dedrick........................... RT 34676,1
Ford.............................. RT 21265,1
Fuhrman........................... RT 18073,4
Fung.............................. RT 21403,1
Harper............................ RT 21349,17
Lange............................. RT 15361,10
Lewis............................. RT 34001,16
Lakshmanan........................ RT 30386,1
Luper............................. RT 21293,18
Matheson.......................... RT 24998,18
Mazzola........................... RT 23669,9
Montgomery........................ PA 28816,1
Phillips.......................... RT 14746,4
Riske............................. RT 13999,20
Rossi............................. RT 14438,27
Sims.............................. RT 27627,10
Spangler.......................... RT 19053,7
Vannatter......................... PT 19129,8
Yamauchi.......................... RT 29154,8
B. Defense Witnesses
Shields........................... RT 33255,1
Aguilar........................... RT 42126,1
Baden............................. RT 40979,1
Berris............................ RT 42575,1
Ford.............................. RT 37995,16
Fuhrman........................... RT 44397,1
Gerdes............................ RT 39784,1
Kestler........................... RT 39492,1
Lee............................... RT 42666,1
Luper............................. RT 38286,1
Martz............................. RT 38618,1
McDonnell......................... RT 39101,1
Mulldorfer........................ RT 38259,1
Ragle............................. RT 42258,1
Rieders........................... RT 38392,14 and
--................................ RT 41436,4
Rokahr............................ RT 44036,1
Speed............................. RT 40676,1
"The defense will also rely on all deposition testimony taken in this case by any of the witnesses named above as well as the deposition testimony of Gary Siglar."
4. The Bundy back gate blood [LAPD evidence item numbers 115, 116, and 1171. Special Interrogatories 7 through 15 sought information about Simpson's contention that this evidence "consisted, in whole or in part, of PLANTED EVIDENCE." Interrogatories 8,11, and 14 specifically asked Simpson to "set forth in detail all facts" that supported any such contention. Simpson's response to Interrogatory 8, which he incorporated by reference into his responses to Interrogatories 11 and 14, is as follows:
"See answer to Interrogatory No. 2. In addition, this item was not observed on June 13,1994 by any of the criminalists assigned to examine and process the crime scene. This item was not referred to in any police reports from officers observing the Bundy crime scene on June 13. This item was not seen by Rolf Baur after June 13, 1994 when he washed down the Bundy crime scene. Item No. 115 was not collected until three weeks after the homicide. Item No. 115 contained amounts of DNA more consistent with a fresh drop, than one which had been subjected to the elements for three weeks. L.A.P.D. Item No. 117 which was allegedly found at the same time as No. 115 was tested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and was determined to contain the blood preservative EDTA. Pictures taken by the Los Angeles Police Department on June 13,1994 do not show the presence of Item Nos. 115, 116 and 117."
5. The Bronco blood collected on June 14, 1994 [LAPD evidence item numbers 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, and 341. Special Interrogatories 16 through 30 sought information about Simpson's contention that this evidence "consisted, in whole or in part, of PLANTED EVIDENCE." Interrogatories 17, 20, 23, 26, and 29 specifically asked Simpson to "set forth in detail all facts" that supported any such contention. Simpson's response to Interrogatory 17, which he incorporated by reference into his responses to Interrogatories 20, 23, 26, and 29, is as follows:
"See answer to Interrogatory No. 2 with the additional information that the Bronco was never secured at the Rockingham scene. It was kept in the street for any members of the media or bystanders could have access to it. It was towed to an unsecured facility prior to the time Item No. 24 was collected."
6. The Bronco blood collected on September 1, 1994 [LAPD evidence item numbers 293, 303, 304, and 305]. Special Interrogatories 31 through 42 sought information about Simpson's contention that this evidence "consisted, in whole or in part, of PLANTED EVIDENCE." Interrogatories 32, 35, 38, and 41 specifically asked Simpson to "set forth in detail all facts" that supported any such contention. Simpson's response to Interrogatory 32, which he incorporated by reference into his responses to Interrogatories 35, 38, and 41 is as follows:
"See answer to Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 17 with the additional information that between June 13 and August 2, when Item No. 293 was collected, the Ford Bronco was kept in an unsecured facility with access by many different people both in law enforcement and out of law enforcement. In fact, the Bronco was examined by William Blasini, Jr. during that period of time (RT 43971,1). Mr. Blasini is specifically trained to look.for such things as stains inside a car. He saw no stains consistent with blood."
7. The Rockingham glove [People's-Exhibit number 77]- Special Interrogatories 67 through 69 sought information about Simpson's contention that this evidence "consisted, in whole or in part, of PLANTED EVIDENCE." Interrogatory 68 specifically asked Simpson to "set forth in detail all facts" that supported any such contention. Simpson's response to Interrogatory 68 is as follows:
"See answer to Interrogatory No. 2. Additionally, there was no blood trail leading to where Exhibit 164(a) was found. It appeared to be moist when it was found in the morning. It did not have any dirt, plant material, cobwebs, or other indicia that it had been at that location for a lengthy period of time. There was no evidence of blood on the ground under the glove. There was no evidence that anyone could have or did climb over the fence in the area where the item was found.
8. The Rockingham blood trail [LAPD evidence item numbers 5, 6, 7, 8,12, and 141. Special Interrogatories 43 through 51 and 61 through 63 sought information about Simpson's contention that this evidence "consisted, in whole or in part, of PLANTED EVIDENCE." Interrogatories 44, 47, 50, and 62 specifically asked Simpson to "set forth in detail all facts" that supported any such contention. Simpson's response to Interrogatory 44, which he incorporated by reference into his responses to Interrogatories 47, 50, and 62, is as follows.
"See answer to Interrogatory No. 2. Additionally, counsel is referred to their own deposition of Mr. Simpson in this matter where he was repeatedly questioned and repeatedly gave answers concerning explanations of how his blood might be found at his own house."
9. The Rockingham socks [LAPD evidence item numbers 13,13A, 13B, and 13C]. Special Interrogatories 52 through 60 sought information about Simpson's contention that this evidence "consisted, in whole or in part, of PLANTED EVIDENCE." Interrogatories 53, 56, and 59 specifically asked Simpson to "set forth in detail all facts" that supported any such contention. Simpson's response to Interrogatory 53, which he incorporated by reference into his responses to Interrogatories 56 and 59, is as follows:
"See answer to Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 8. Additionally, a comparison of criminalist Fung and Mazzola's notes as to the collection of Item No. 13 compared with testimony from the police videographer, compared to still photographs taken by the police show that Item No. 13 was not present on Mr. Simpson's bedroom floor immediately prior to the time it was photographed and collected from Mr. Simpson's floor. Item No. 13 was examined several times between the time of collection and early August of 1994 when blood was purportedly first observed. No blood was observed at any of the inspections prior to the August 1994 inspection. Examination of Item No. 13 revealed evidence that a large bloodstain attributable to Nicole Brown.Simpson was placed on the sock at a time other than when it was being worn. (See testimony of Dr. McDonnell as referred to in answer No. 2.) The Federal Bureau of Investigation also found evidence of presence of the blood preservative EDTA in the bloodstain believed to be Nicole Brown Simpson's blood. (See testimony of Roger Martz and Dr. Rieders as referred to in answer to No. 1)."
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 26, 1996 at Los Angeles, California.
/s/
DANIEL M. PETROCELLI