PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT COPY CERTIFIABILITY
WARNING: This electronic transmission of the official transcript of proceedings is deemed certifiable only to the extent that the reader of this message is viewing a first-generation authorized transmission. All subsequent transmissions of this first-generation electronic copy and all copies printed therefrom are unauthorized and non-certifiable, and the Official Reporter assumes no responsibility for consequences stemming from the use of such unauthorized non-certifiable copy. Responsibility for such consequences is that of the person or organization whose use of a non-certifiable unauthorized transmission or printed copy creates those consequences, including civil liability arising therefrom. No portion of this file may be redistributed or resold without permission, pursuant to California Government Code Section 69954(d). Authorized certifiable transcript copies are protected by digital signature. If you would like to purchase an official transcript of the proceedings, contact NetCourt, 1316 Harding Place, Charlotte, North Carolina, 28204 or click here.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE
SHARON RUFO, ET AL., )
)
PLAINTIFFS, )
)
VS. )NO. SC031947
)
ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., )
)
DEFENDANTS. )
_________________________________________)
REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
JANUARY 8, 1997
VOLUME 38
REGINA D. CHAVEZ, CSR #8446
OFFICIAL REPORTER
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: DANIEL M. PETROCELLI ESQ.,
THOMAS LAMBERT, ESQ.,
PETER GELBLUM, ESQ., and
EDWARD MEDVENE, ESQ.
Firm: MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP
11377 West Olympic Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90064-1663
For: Plaintiff Goldman
JOHN QUINLAN KELLY, ESQ.
330 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10017-5090.
For: Plaintiff the Estate of
Nicole Brown Simpson
MICHAEL A. BREWER, ESQ.
Firm: HORNBERGER & CRISWELL
444 South Flower St.
Los Angeles, CA 90071.
For: Plaintiff Rufo
PAUL F. CALLAN, ESQ.
Firm: CALLAN, REGENSTREICH,
KOSTER & BRADY
One Whitehall St.
New York, NY 10004
For: Plaintiff Estate of
Ronald L. Goldman
FOR THE DEFENDANTS: ROBERT C. BAKER, ESQ.,
MELISSA BLUESTEIN, ESQ., and
PHILIP BAKER, ESQ.
Firm: BAKER, SILBERBERG & KEENER
2650 Ocean Park Blvd., #300
Santa Monica, CA 90405-2936.
-and-
DANIEL LEONARD, ESQ. and
ROBERT D. BLASIER, ESQ.
Firm: BAILEY, FISHMAN & LEONARD.
6355 Riverside Blvd.
Suite 2-F
Sacramento, CA 95831
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
DEFENDANTS' WITNESSES: PAGE
---------------------- -----
KAELIN, BRIAN
DIRECT (B) 16
MERRIN, STEPHEN
DIRECT (B) 37
CROSS (M) 39
REDIRECT (L) 41
RECROSS (M) 42
REDIRECT (L) 42
FUNG, DENNIS
DIRECT (B) 44
CROSS (TL) 80
REDIRECT(B) 84
RECROSS(TL) 89
MERRILL, JIM
DIRECT (L) 95
MERRILL, JAMES
CROSS (P)Reading of deposition 117
REDIRECT (L)Reading of deposition 129
RECROSS (P)Reading of deposition 132
KILDUFF, RAYMOND DAVID
DIRECT (L)Reading of deposition 133
CROSS (P)Reading of deposition 149
PARTRIDGE, MARK
DIRECT (L)(Reading of Deposition) 154
CROSS (P) 169
FIATO, LAWRENCE
DIRECT (PB)Reading of trial transcript 194
CROSS (K) 203
REDIRECT (PB) 206
Legend: (B) = Mr. Robert B. Baker
(BL) = Mr. Blasier
(BR) = Mr. Brewer
(C) = Mr. Callan
(G) = Mr. Gelblum
(K) = Mr. Kelly
(L) = Mr. Leonard
(M) = Mr. Medvene
(MB) = Ms. Bluestein
(P) = Mr. Petrocelli
(PB) = Mr. Philip Baker
(TL) = Mr. Lambert
DEFENDANTS'
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
---------- ------------ -----
2309 Photograph of glove 60
2310 Photograph of glove 60
2311 Photograph of close-up of 61
fourth finger of glove
2312 Left-hand glove 67
2313 Right-hand glove 77
847 Notes of Mark Fuhrman 93
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1997
8:30 A.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE
APPEARANCES: (Per Cover Page)
(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)
THE COURT: Morning.
MR. PETROCELLI: Good morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: We have a defense declaration
regarding witness Fiato.
MR. PETROCELLI: Yeah, I guess Gary Randa has
yet to serve anyone.
MR. LEONARD: Not true. He served Dr. Shipp
yesterday.
MR. PETROCELLI: This guy is in the witness
protection program, and we're going to object to his
testimony, but not on this ground.
THE COURT: Okay.
The Court, at this time, will make its
rulings on the objections filed by plaintiff on
December 12, 1996, with regards to the video
deposition of Henry Lee.
The Court has heretofore proceeded to
make rulings prior to the December adjournment and had
gone up to page 31 -- 33, page 33, line 19.
The Court's rulings on the objections are
based upon the written objection and grounds stated in
the plaintiffs' motion which I have referred to as the
one filed December 12, 1996, and the Court
incorporates into its rulings today without further
repetition and incorporates by reference in the
grounds for the objections stated in the written
objections.
The Court also has considered the
argument of counsel made yesterday in support of the
objection and in support of opposition to the
objections.
The Court has gone through the transcript
of Dr. Henry Lee, two volumes taken September 7 and 8,
1996; there are approximately 388 pages.
The Court is disappointed in the fact
that counsel was not able to work out these
differences as counsel had indicated they would.
So the Court has had to go through these
yesterday afternoon and yesterday evening.
The Court's rulings are as follows:
I will read the page number -- I'm sorry,
the page number and line number and indicate that the
objection is either sustained which means that it will
be excised and excluded from the videotape, or
overruled in which case it will be permitted to be
shown to the jury.
Starting with lines -- page 34, line 10
through 17, sustained.
Page 34, 22 to 35, page 35, line 12,
sustained, except that page 35 line 7 through line 18
the objection is overruled.
Page 35, line 15 through line 19,
sustained, remainder is overruled to page 36, line 6.
Page 36, line 10 through line 20,
sustained.
I think for simplicity in as much as the
written objections are in the form of a first number,
for example, 37, indicating page, colon O2, indicating
the line, I'm going to read it in that fashion so that
counsel have the written objections before them and
will be aware of the Court's ruling.
37:02, sustained.
37:08 to 37:19, sustained.
39 -- I'm sorry 37:20 to 39:06,
overruled.
39:10 to 39:12, overruled.
39:18 to 41:12, overruled.
41:17 through 43:13, overruled.
43:18 through 44:11, overruled.
44:18 through 45:13, overruled.
45:16 through 46:13, overruled.
51:15 through 54:06, overruled.
54:13 to 55:10, overruled.
56:22, overruled.
58:03 through 58:05, sustained.
58:08 through 58:15, sustained.
58:21 through 59:11, sustained.
59:14 through 60:09, sustained.
60:12 through 60:18, sustained.
60:19 through 60:20, overruled.
60:25 through 61:03, sustained.
61:06 through 61:11, sustained.
61:15 through 61:21, sustained.
61:24 through 67:12, overruled.
67:15 through 68:18, overruled.
69:01 through 70:18, overruled.
70:24 through 71:13, sustained.
71:17 through 72:07, sustained.
72:12 through 73:11, sustained.
73:21 through 74:08, overruled.
74:09 through 74:14, sustained.
74:17 through 75:05, sustained.
82:10 to -- through 82:25, overruled.
83:03 through 83:08, sustained.
83:11 through 95:5 -- 05, sustained.
95:14 through 100:19, overruled.
102:12 through 106:02, overruled.
106:15 through 106:25, overruled.
108:21 through 109:07, overruled.
109:09 through 109:10, overruled.
109:13 through 110:03, sustained.
110:14 through 111:01, overruled.
111:02 through 111:08, sustained.
111:11 through 111:12, sustained.
111:13 through 112:01, overruled.
112:20 through 115:08, overruled.
115:11 through 117:14, overruled.
117:17 through 117:19, sustained.
117:21 through 117:23, sustained.
117:24 through 118:07, overruled.
118:12 through 119:23, overruled.
119:24 through 120:19, sustained.
120:20 through 121:19, overruled.
121:21 through 124:19, overruled.
125:04 through 127:12, overruled.
127:13 through 127:20, sustained.
127:24 through 129:12, objection was
withdrawn.
MR. PETROCELLI: Withdrawn as to violate
stipulation, Your Honor, but as not to the motion in
limine.
THE COURT: 127:24 through 129:12, sustained.
129:15 through 130:20, objection
withdrawn.
130:23 through 131:01, overruled,
Sustained as to 131:02 through 131:04.
And overruled as to 131:05 through
132:16.
Overruled as to --let's see, 132:19
through 133:06, overruled.
Sustained as to 133:07 through 133:16.
133:17 through 133:18, overruled.
134:22 through 136:21, overruled.
138:04 through 138:21, withdrawn.
MR. PETROCELLI: Prior one is withdrawn also,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Excuse me.
MR. PETROCELLI: The prior objection is also
withdrawn at line 14.
THE COURT: Okay.
136:24 through 137:24, withdrawn.
140:20 through 141:15, overruled.
141:16 through 142:04, sustained.
142:07 through 142:12, sustained.
144:01 through 144:15, sustained.
Remainder of line -- Of that portion
between 142:13 through 143:25 and 144:16 through
146:23 are overruled.
147:01 through 148:07, overruled.
148:10 through 149:03 are overruled.
149:06 through 149:08, overruled.
149:11 through 149:16, overruled.
149:17 through 150:22, sustained.
150:25 through 151:09, sustained.
151:13 sustained.
151:14 through 153:07, sustained.
153:10 through 154:01, overruled.
154:05 through 154:07, sustained.
154:11 through 155:07, sustained.
156:16 through 157:06, overruled.
157:10 through 157:14, overruled.
157:15 overruled.
157:18 through 157:20, overruled.
157:22 overruled.
157:25 through 158:05, overruled.
158:08 through 158:22, overruled.
159:01 through 159:08, overruled.
159:13 through 160:23, overruled.
160:24 through 161:05, sustained.
161:08 through 161:16, sustained.
164:21 through 166:15, overruled.
166:18 through -- I'm sorry, 166:18
through 171:01, overruled.
171:06 through 175:08, overruled.
175:16 through 178:09, sustained.
178:15 through 179:09, sustained.
179:16 through 180:22, sustained.
181:09 through 183:04, sustained.
183:07 through 184:17, overruled.
184:18 through 184:20, sustained.
184:21 through 185:23, overruled.
187:04 through 187:22, overruled.
187 -- 187:25 through 189:01, overruled.
189:03 through 189:06, overruled.
189:09 through 189:22, overruled.
189:23 sustained.
190:02 through 190:04, sustained.
190:07 through 190:21, overruled.
190:24 through 190:25, sustained.
191:02 through 192:06, sustained.
192:09 through 192:22, sustained.
192:25 through 193:03, overruled.
193:05 through 193:16, overruled.
193:22 through 194:06, overruled.
194:07 through 194:11, sustained.
194:13 sustained.
194:16 through 194:18, sustained.
194:20 through 194:21, sustained.
194:22 through 195:24 through 196:02,
sustained.
196:01 through 196:06, sustained.
196:07 through 198:15, overruled.
198:18 through 203:23, overruled.
204:12 through 209:17, overruled.
209:20 through 210:24, overruled.
211:02 through 211:12, overruled.
211:15 through 212:09, overruled.
212:15 through 214:04, sustained.
214:08 through 214:11, sustained.
214:14 through 215:09, sustained.
This next one I don't quite understand
the pagination of the objection. It would appear to
me if there was going to be an objection it ought to
run from 354 through 357:18.
MR. BAKER: We need to -- then we need to
object to more stuff.
THE COURT: Otherwise the objection makes no
sense.
MR. PETROCELLI: Through what line, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Well, the objection as posed runs
from 356:01 through 357:18 which looks like a non
sequitur on this is it starts as page 354, I don't
understand the objection.
MR. PETROCELLI: Actually, Your Honor, why
don't you just omit that line.
THE COURT: Excuse me?
MR. PETROCELLI: Just omit it.
We will withdraw the objection on line 6
of page 8, okay. The objection is to lines 1 through
19 on page 356, and I think that's an error there
because it's in relation to Mr. Medvene's
cross-examination.
MR. GELBLUM: No, it's not.
MR. PETROCELLI: According to mine it is.
THE COURT: On your -- are you withdrawing the
entire objection on line 6 of your page 8?
MR. PETROCELLI: One second, Your Honor.
(Mr. Petrocelli and Mr. Gelblum
converse sotto voce.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.
Here's the explanation, Your Honor.
Because of the direct exam on the new work which I
believe Your Honor has excluded on lines 1 through 19
on page 356, that's the cross on that point, so that
would come out as well, that's why it's in there.
THE COURT: Well, what about -- what's the
material from 354 through --
MR. PETROCELLI: We don't have any objection to
page 354. I don't see it on here.
They didn't designate that part of the
transcript to be played, so therefore --
THE COURT: Oh, is that what it is?
All right.
MR. GELBLUM: The left column is their
designated.
MR. P. BAKER: We designated all the direct.
MR. PETROCELLI: 354 is in cross.
MR. P. BAKER: Okay.
THE COURT: So that's not included.
All right.
So what are you asking for a ruling on?
On your line 6 of page 8?
MR. PETROCELLI: That's the new work on the --
on the imprint.
MR. GELBLUM: It's on both. It starts out --
THE COURT: Well --
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, we're going to
withdraw that objection right there.
THE COURT: All right.
Withdrawn then. That's 356:01 through
357:18.
MR. PETROCELLI: One second. We want to
make -- are you intending there to designate our --
you've designated 19 lines of our cross-examination or
so.
MR. P. BAKER: We're not going to play any of
your cross.
MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. So based on that
representation we're omitting the objection to their
designation that appears on line 6, page 8.
THE COURT: Withdrawn.
MR. PETROCELLI: Picking up again at page 358,
358:15 - 24 is where we pick up.
THE COURT: 358, line 19 through -- 358:19
through 358:24, sustained.
359:03 through 359:07, sustained.
359:10 through 359:15, sustained.
359:18 through 359:23, sustained.
360:01 through 360:05, sustained.
360:13 through 360:18, sustained.
361:04 through 361:14, sustained.
361:18 through 361:22, sustained.
362:19 through 363:05, overruled.
363:10 through 363:23, overruled.
364:02 through 364:09, sustained.
364:16 through 366:02, sustained.
366:04 sustained.
366:07 through 366:17, sustained.
366:21 through 367:14, sustained except
as to 367:04 through 367:10, that's overruled.
367:20 through 367:22, that's overruled.
367:23 through 368:03, sustained.
368:06 through 369:07, sustained.
369:10 sustained.
372:01 through 372:06, overruled.
374:24 through 375:11, overruled.
375:22 through 376:11, sustained.
376:15 through 376:19, sustained.
376:21 through 377:21, sustained.
377:25 through 378:14, sustained.
378:17 through 379:14, sustained.
379:18 through 379:22, sustained.
379:25 through 380:05, sustained.
380:08 through 381:01, sustained.
384:20 through 385:03, overruled.
385:08 through 385:14, overruled.
385:17 through 385:18, overruled.
385:20 through 385:25, sustained.
386:03 through 386:06, sustained.
387:03 through 387:07, sustained.
And 387:10 through 387:25, sustained.
MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor.
Your Honor, very briefly, the next
witness is Kato Kaelin, and I have a couple of issues
I want to take up with the Court.
First of all, I want to reiterate that
the Court permitted Mr. Baker to, in effect, take this
witness out of order when I examined him, and
Mr. Baker was permitted to go way, way beyond the
scope of the cross, on the representation that he
wouldn't have to come back again. And I just would
like to make sure that we're not going over the same
ground again.
Secondly, Mr. Baker has indicated to me
in prior conversations, that one of the topics of
examination might involve television appearances by
Mr. Kaelin following his civil trial testimony.
And as the Court will recall, in
connection with the prior examination of Dr. Baden, we
were not permitted to play any of those tapes unless
there was a foundation for it, for a particular, for
example, inconsistent statement that was made, or
something to that effect.
I've asked Mr. Baker before Your Honor
took the bench whether he intended to play any of the
tapes, and he would not disclose that to me. So I
just want to make sure that if the defense intends to
play any of these TV tapes, that we have an
opportunity to be heard with regard to the relevance
and an offer of proof.
And lastly, Your Honor, on the issue that
came up yesterday when Mr. Tippin was on the stand and
he was shown a police report that he had prepared --
of handwritten notes, I should say, that had reference
to alleged drug use, and I suspect that Mr. Baker may
question Mr. Kaelin about any alleged drug use by
Nicole Brown Simpson. And we objected to that
yesterday, but the police report was admitted.
I submit, Your Honor, that there's
absolutely no relevance at all in regard to any issue
of drug use by Nicole Brown Simpson.
First of all, there's no proof of it.
And secondly, even if it could be
established, under the case of People versus Kaurish,
there has to be some direct link-up, either directly
or through circumstantial evidence, that had anything
to do with her murder. And just throwing out that
somebody does drugs doesn't do it.
The Court, in that case, in fact, went
even farther and said mere evidence of motive or mere
evidence of opportunity is not enough.
If you're trying to suggest drug use
because you want to paint the picture that a person is
involved with unsavory characters, therefore, there's
a third party out there who might have killed her,
you've got to have more than that; you've got to have
some direct evidence or some circumstantial evidence
linking any drug use to her death.
And there were other motions in limine
that were made in which the Court, for example,
excluded any reference of Faye Resnick's drug use on
this issue.
So I would ask that the witness not be
questioned in regard to that issue, Your Honor.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, the plaintiffs have
tried to paint the picture that Mrs. Simpson --
Ms. Simpson was not pursuing Mr. Simpson, and that
that's why he was enraged.
We have suggested that the evidence will
show that her behavior was erratic. And my
understanding is that this goes not only to the
erratic behavior that she exhibited in April, May, and
the early part of June of 1994, but it also goes to
the -- the cross-examination that the plaintiffs put
on, their own witness, in effect, as Tippin was an
employee of theirs, that they -- that he never said --
that is, Kaelin never said that Nicole Brown Simpson
was the person who was the drug -- using drugs and
listed in the Tippin report, Exhibit 2190.
THE COURT: Okay.
The Court will preclude examination of
Kaelin with regards to drug use.
MR. BAKER: With respect to what?
THE COURT: Drug use by the decedent.
MR. BAKER: And whether he ever mentioned it
to --
THE COURT: That's irrelevant, really.
Okay. May we proceed?
THE CLERK: That exhibit is 2198, for the
record, not 2190.
MR. PETROCELLI: In regard to the television
tapes, can we have some advance notification before a
tape is played in front of the jury?
THE COURT: All right. So ordered.
Bring in the jury.
(Jurors resume their respective
seats.)
THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
JURORS: Good morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
MR. BAKER: Brian Kaelin.
THE CLERK: Just have a seat.
You've been previously sworn. You are
still under oath.
Would you please state your name again
for the record.
THE WITNESS: Brian Kaelin.
BRIAN KAELIN,
called as a witness by the Defendants, having been
previously duly sworn by the Clerk, testified further
as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BAKER:
Q. Good morning, sir.
A. Morning.
Q. How many television shows have you
appeared on, with or without your attorney, since you
left the witness stand in this case?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Relevance.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, in terms of -- you
have made a career out of this case, haven't you?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Relevance.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. No.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You -- let me ask you
this, sir:
You met with the plaintiffs' attorneys
this morning, did you not?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You went over a statement, a police
statement that you had given Detective Tippin before
you got on the witness stand today, did you not?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Have you at any time gone over the
witness statement that you gave Detective Tippin on
June 13, 1994?
A. Is that the one that -- last time I was
here?
Q. No. June 13, 1994.
A. No; I never went over anything.
Q. You know, about two and a half years ago?
A. No, never.
Q. You were interviewed at the West L.A.
station at 1330, or about 1:30 in the afternoon by
Detectives Tippin and Carr. You recall that?
A. Correct.
Q. And you indicated various things about
your relationship with Nicole Brown Simpson and O.J.
Simpson, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you indicated, for example, that O.J.
had never indicated to you he had any problems with
Nicole Brown Simpson, correct?
A. I don't -- I don't recollect that.
Q. O.J. mentioned no problems between Nicole
and himself. Did you tell Detective Tippin that on
June 13, 1994, sir?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Don't have any reason to disbelieve it if
it's in the report of Detective Tippin?
A. Correct.
Q. Don't have any reason to disbelieve
anything that's in the report of Detective Tippin as
relative to what you told him on June 13, 1994 and he
recorded as you were being interviewed by him?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, Your Honor. Lack
of foundation. He's never seen a report. It's not
his report. He can't vouch for everything that's in
it.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) This is 2198, Mr. Kaelin.
Is that the document -- strike that.
Have you ever never seen that?
A. No, I never saw this.
Q. All right.
But that is the time you were at West
L.A. station when you gave the report, correct?
A. I think I was there a lot earlier than
1:30, but. . .
Q. You were there earlier; that's when that
statement was taken.
And you recall being interviewed by
Detective Tippin, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you recall that you, in fact,
answered some questions of him?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you recall that it took a period of
time, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you told him the truth as you
understood it on that day, true?
A. True.
Q. And I take it that your memory was more
fresh concerning the events of the prior evening than
at any time thereafter when you testified, true?
A. Yeah, probably.
Q. And you were trying to be true and honest
as you could in giving Detective Tippin the
information that you did on June 13, 1994, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Now, was it your understanding when you
told Detective Tippin that O.J. Simpson was wearing a
sweatsuit, that he was wearing a sweatsuit when he
entered the limousine?
A. Yeah. I always thought he was wearing a
dark suit.
Q. A dark suit when he entered the
limousine?
A. Sweatsuit.
Q. And when -- after Mr. Simpson came out of
the house around 11 o'clock on the evening of
June 12, 1994, you were with him when you were talking
about the thumps, right?
A. Repeat the question.
Q. Sure.
After Mr. Simpson came out of the house,
you were with him when you were talking with him and
Alan Park concerning the thumps that you heard earlier
in the evening, correct?
A. Correct.
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, it's all been gone
over. Page 181, et seq. of the transcript of November
19.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you had occasion to
view Mr. Simpson for a -- for about five to seven
minutes, and you thought he was in a dark sweatsuit
when he entered the limousine, correct?
A. In my minds's eye, I always picture him
in that dark suit.
Q. You didn't picture him in Levis or Levis
jacket; he was in a dark pants -- dark suit, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And he had dark or white shoes on? Don't
recall?
A. I don't recall.
Q. You don't recall any types of shoes he
had on?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Now, you were talking to Rachel Ferrara
the night of June 12, 1994, when you heard the thumps,
correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you, in your conversation with her,
you talked to her and told her at 10:30, that it was
approximately 10:30, correct?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. It's all been gone
over.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You have no reason to
disbelieve Rachel Ferrara if she said that you told
her the thumps occurred at about 10:40, correct?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, Your Honor. Same
thing.
THE COURT: I'll permit that.
A. I don't know.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well --
A. I don't -- I mean -- say the question
again.
Q. Sure.
Rachel Ferrara testified at the criminal
trial. You're aware of that?
A. Correct.
Q. And she testified that you told her that
the thumps occurred at 10:40?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, Your Honor. That
absolutely misstates the testimony.
MR. BAKER: The testimony was read into the
record.
MR. PETROCELLI: It misstates the testimony.
I wish you would ask a question, not make
any representations.
MR. BAKER: You're making a representation.
THE COURT: Well, approach the bench and show
me where it's wrong, Mr. Petrocelli.
MR. PETROCELLI: He should have to show where
he testified to this, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You're making the objection. I'll
see the basis for your objection.
(The following proceedings were
held at the bench, with the
reporter.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Ms. Ferrara's testimony was
that the only time that was ever mentioned to her in
her conversation with Kaelin was the time of 10:30,
when she asked Kaelin what time it was, and Kaelin
said 10:30. And everything beyond --
THE COURT: Show me.
MR. PETROCELLI: -- beyond that were estimates.
I'm looking for it.
MR. BAKER: 2462.
THE COURT: Do you have a copy of Kaelin's
testimony?
MR. BAKER: Yeah.
(Court reviews transcript.)
THE COURT: Okay.
Objection sustained.
MR. BAKER: Wait just a second.
MR. PETROCELLI: What does that say?
MR. BAKER: 10:30.
MR. PETROCELLI: Kaelin didn't say it was
10:30.
THE COURT: Sustained.
You may rephrase the question.
(The following proceedings were
held in open court, in the
presence of the jury.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Do you recall in your
conversation with his Rachel Ferrara, that you and she
talked about at 10:30, that it was, in fact, 10:30?
A. No.
Q. And if she testified to that, you'd have
no reason to disbelieve her, correct?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. Argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I don't know if she had a clock when she
was talking to me.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You said that you and she
discussed at 10:30 that it was, in fact, 10:30. You
have no recollection of that?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. There was nothing
about that it was, in fact, 10:30.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Then it was about 10:30
when you and she discussed -- about the time, at
10:30, in a telephone conversation you had with her,
before you got off the phone and went to look for what
made the noises, correct?
A. Not correct.
Q. You have no recollection of that, right?
A. I don't remember saying -- if there's a
time mentioned, it wasn't a time involving, I'm sure,
the thumps.
Q. In the conversation you had before you
got off the phone to go look to where the noises may
have come from, Rachel Ferrara says that you and she
discussed that it was approximately 10:30, when it was
approximately 10:30.
Do you recall that having occurred at
all, sir?
MR. PETROCELLI: I'm going to object, Your
Honor. It really misstates the tenor of the testimony
of Ms. Ferrara.
MR. BAKER: Your honor -- Your Honor, at
20462 --
MR. PETROCELLI: We're not talking about the
time.
MR. P. BAKER: 20462.
(Court reviews realtime computer
screen.)
THE COURT: Are you asking about when the
conversation occurred, Mr. Baker?
I can't understand from the way this
question looks on the computer exactly what the nature
of your question is.
MR. BAKER: Let me see if I can rephrase it to
make it clear.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Do you have any
recollection whatsoever that, during the first
conversation you had with Rachel Ferrara on
June 12, 1994, that you mentioned or she mentioned any
time of the evening?
A. There might have been some mention of
time during the evening, yes.
Q. And do you have a recollection that at
approximately 10:30 in the evening, in your -- during
your telephone call with Rachel Ferrara, that you and
she discussed that it was about 10:30?
A. I don't recollect that.
Q. And do you have any recollection that,
about ten minutes later -- well, strike that.
Do you have any recollection, at
approximately 10:40, ever telling her that you heard
thumps outside your bedroom wall?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. This was the
subject of --
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PETROCELLI: -- extensive testimony, Your
Honor, page 168.
MR. BAKER: You can answer that.
A. No, I don't.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, if -- Rachel
Ferrara, as far as you're concerned, is a pretty
honest person, isn't she?
A. Yes.
Q. And if she testified that, at
approximately 10:30, you and she discussed that it was
about 10:30, and ten minutes later, when you told her
about the thumps and asked her about the earthquake,
you'd have no reason to disbelieve that, either, would
you?
A. I don't know if she has a clock there. I
can't tell you.
Q. I didn't ask you whether she has a clock
there.
I said, you have no reason to disbelieve
her, would you, sir?
A. No.
Q. Now, let's go back for a moment, to
the -- your testimony relative to the clothing
Mr. Simpson was wearing.
You believed that Mr. Simpson was
wearing -- and you testified in the preliminary
hearing and you testified here in this courtroom that
Mr. Simpson was wearing a dark sweatsuit when you went
to the McDonald's, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And it had a white zipper down the front,
right?
A. Right.
Q. White, both sides of the zipper?
A. Something that contrasted to the suit,
right.
Q. It had white on both sides of the opening
in the front, correct?
A. There was a zipper that stood out. I
believe it could have been white.
Q. You testified it was white, and it was a
white zipper that went down the front, didn't you,
sir?
A. I said that.
Q. And you testified that's exactly the same
clothing that he was in when you watched him get into
the limousine, when you came out of the front of his
house; isn't that true?
A. I don't remember.
Q. Well, let's go back.
A. Okay.
Q. You were in Mr. Simpson's house with him,
were you not, in the foyer, when you were going to go
look for a flashlight?
A. Correct.
Q. And Mr. Simpson said to you, "it's late;
I got to go," went out the foyer, into the limousine,
and you went out behind him, correct?
A. Not immediately.
Q. You followed him. Mr. Simpson went out
the front door, and you went out after him, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you watched Mr. Simpson get into the
limousine, correct?
A. At some point I did, yes.
Q. And Mr. Simpson -- and you say
Mr. Simpson was in a dark sweatsuit, true?
A. It's always been that way in my mind's
eye, yes.
Q. If you were the only one that testified
that he was ever in a dark sweatsuit in that
limousine, or on the airplane, or at the airport,
you'd agree you're wrong, true?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, Your Honor.
Argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And you're equally wrong
about what he was wearing when you went to McDonald's
on the night of June 12, 1994. You don't recall any
better what he was wearing when he went to get a
hamburger at McDonald's than what you recall when you
observed him get in the limousine, do you?
A. I recall the dark suit.
Q. You recall with specificity the dark
suit, both at -- going to get the hamburger and he
going into the limousine, because you were a couple
feet behind him and looked at him, right?
A. I've always said it was a dark suit, sir.
Q. And it wasn't, was it?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you tell anybody on
television that when you testified here on November 19
that the jurors all believed you, they sat up straight
in their seats and believed you?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, outrageous.
THE COURT: Sustained. Jury is to disregard
that question.
MR. PETROCELLI: Ask that the question be
stricken.
THE COURT: Question stricken.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, when Mark Fuhrman
was in your room on the night of -- morning of
June 13, 1994, did he ask you to inspect your boots?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, Your Honor, all
this has been gone over. Starting at page 197. Mr.
Fuhrman's conversation starts at 197 and pretty much
goes through 207 about 10 pages.
(Pause for Court to read
transcript.)
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Detective Fuhrman went
into your bathroom and looked around in your bathroom
on the night of June 13 -- the morning of June 13,
1994, correct?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection. You just
sustained it and he asks the same question, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. PETROCELLI: He's just arguing to the jury
right now.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) If Detective Fuhrman
testified --
MR. PETROCELLI: Again, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Let him finish the question.
MR. PETROCELLI: He's referring to Detective
Fuhrman's testimony that's been subject of a lot of
rulings.
THE COURT: I haven't heard the question.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) If Detective Fuhrman
testified in the criminal trial that he inspected your
bathroom, the shower area and the closet, would you
agree that he in fact did that?
MR. PETROCELLI: Calls for hearsay, calls for
a conclusion, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I didn't see that.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, that room, as I
recall it, is about 14 feet across to maybe 20 feet,
and it's 20 feet long, correct? Do you know?
A. I don't know but you're probably -- you
know, if you measured it -- I didn't measure.
Q. Well, the approximate size. I'm not
saying -- it wasn't a big room, let me put it that
way.
A. Right.
Q. And from where your bed was in that room,
the bathroom adjoins it, and it's not exactly a master
bathroom, is it?
A. Correct.
Q. I mean a small little area, true, the
bathroom?
A. Yeah. I don't know what the measurements
would be.
Q. It's got?
A. Shower, bathroom sink.
Q. Sure. But it's not exceptionally
spacious, is it?
A. No.
Q. And you were standing at the doorway when
Mr. Fuhrman came in, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And then Mr. Fuhrman went over and
inspected your clothes, true?
MR. PETROCELLI: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. That's completely gone
over, page 202.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You never saw Detective
Fuhrman in your bathroom or in your closet, ever?
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
He was asked that question and he
answered that.
MR. BAKER: Nothing further.
THE COURT: Anything else of this witness?
MR. PETROCELLI: No, no questions.
THE COURT: You may step down.
THE WITNESS: Go ahead.
THE COURT: You're excused.
Call the next witness.
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, we're checking to see
if he's here.
MR. PETROCELLI: If the Court please, may we
approach before the witness.
(The following proceedings were
held at the bench with reporter:)
MR. MEDVENE: If the Court please, our
understanding is this witness is being called to see
whether or not he told Officer Tippin --
MR. LEONARD: Tippin?
MR. MEDVENE: -- Tippin, on or about June 15
that he received a phone call from a news reporter on
June 12 sometime between 10 and 10:30 with respect to
a double murder, and this witness said he didn't have
any such information.
MR. LEONARD: What?
MR. MEDVENE: Mr. Tippin already was questioned
about this.
We object to Officer Merrin's testimony
because it's hearsay, what questions he was asked by a
news reporter. But more importantly, it's irrelevant
because under Your Honor's ruling, clue evidence
cannot be admitted unless the defense can show some
tie-in to the offense in question.
And all they're trying to establish here
is that there was a call by a news reporter asking
Officer Merrin if he had heard about a double murder
being committed on June 12 and -- and about 10, 10:30,
and he said no.
So unless there's some tie-in to the
murders of Ms. Brown and Mr. Goldman, Detective -- or
Officer Merrin's testimony is not relevant under Your
Honor's prior ruling.
THE COURT: Mr. Leonard?
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, this is a person who
was holding themselves out to be some type of a
reporter, a woman called between 10:30 -- 10 o'clock
and 10:30 on June 12 asking if there had been a
report -- a report of a double homicide.
That is completely inconsistent with
their theory of the case, particularly their time
line, the time of the murders.
It's also inconsistent with the murders
having been committed by a single assailant.
Obviously, there was -- first of all,
this witness will testify there was only one double
murder that night anywhere in West LA. So he's
someone who has knowledge of a double murder being
committed.
That's completely inconsistent with their
theory, No. 1, that only one person was involved and,
No. 2, the time line, and I think it's highly
relevant, Your Honor.
I think there's no reason that we
shouldn't be able to get into this at this point.
Also, this was not -- this was not -- as
far as we know, this witness was not followed up at
all. This is before the jury.
I think we have a right to corroborate
what Sergeant Merrin has already -- excuse me, what
Tippin has already testified to. I think it's
relevant for the reasons I stated.
MR. MEDVENE: Your Honor, if we -- they want to
call a witness, I don't think the witness to call,
Officer Merrin, is relevant. I think that's what they
want to do, but I think that's irrelevant. They
can't --
MR. LEONARD: How could we? They didn't follow
up on it.
MR. MEDVENE: They can't show that the call
from a news reporter, whether what -- whatever the
news reporter was talking about had anything to do
with this case. There's no indication it has anything
to do with the murders of Goldman or Nicole Brown.
They have to show under Your Honor's
ruling some connection or --
THE COURT: What's the connection?
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, it's a circumstance.
Just like -- Just like Nancy Ney.
I mean, here we have a caller named
Nicole. It's the same -- it's the same kind of
evidence.
Why should they be able to put in Nancy
Ney's statement and we can't put this in. It's the
same type, it's a circumstance; it's a circumstance
that's inconsistent with their circumstantial case.
I can't think of anything that would be
more relevant. I mean, you allowed the Nancy Ney
hearsay in. That was total hearsay, not connected
other than by circumstance.
THE COURT: Touche.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
(The following proceedings were
held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
STEPHEN R. MERRIN,
called as a witness on behalf of the Defendants, was
duly sworn and testified as follows:
THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the
testimony you may give in the cause now pending before
this court shall be the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE WITNESS: I do.
THE CLERK: Please state and spell both your
first and your last names for the record.
THE WITNESS: Stephen R. Merrin. First name
with a P-H, last name M-e-r-r-i-n.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. LEONARD:
Q. Good morning. Is it Sergeant Merrin?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you employed?
A. Employed by the Los Angeles Police
Department. I'm a Sergeant. I'm in charge of the
West Valley vice unit.
Q. How long have you been employed by the
Los Angeles Police Department?
A. 24 and a half years.
Q. Directing your attention to June 12,
1994, particularly on the evening of that night, were
you assigned to the West LA division?
A. No, sir, I was not.
Q. Where were you assigned, sir?
A. I was the patrol watch commander for
Wilshire community police station.
Q. Now, just explain in brief terms what a
watch commander is?
A. Basically that's the individual that's
responsible for that particular watch, that particular
time frame.
I was the p.m. watch commander. I was
responsible for the officers that were patroling
Wilshire from approximately 2 in the afternoon 'til
10:30 at night.
Q. Now, again, directing your attention to
June 12, 1994, in particular around the time of 10 to
10:30 p.m., did you receive a phone call from a woman
who asked you if a double homicide on the west side
was being handled? Do you recall that, sir?
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, Your Honor, calls for
hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I received a phone call from a female.
It basically -- with that line on the conversation.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) She asked you if a
double homicide on the west side of Los Angeles was
being handled, correct, sir?
A. Not a double homicide. She said that --
she asked me if we were sitting on two bodies on the
west side?
Q. What does a double 187 mean, sir?
A. It means that there was two people that
had been killed.
Q. What does a 187 term mean in police
jargon?
A. Murder.
Q. Homicide, right?
A. Right.
Q. Did you tell a Detective Tippin on
approximately July -- on July 7, 1994, that a woman
had called at about 10 to 10:30 p.m. on June 12 and
asked if a double 186 was being handled on the west
side.
THE COURT: Do you know what a 186 is?
Q. 187. Excuse me.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you, Your Honor.
A. During the conversation, yes, it did get
around to that, but the original portion of the
conversation was she asked me if we were sitting on
two bodies on the west side.
Q. Now, the woman represented to you that
she was -- was somehow associated with Channel 4; is
that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Were there any double homicides on the
west side other than the one that occurred at 875
South Bundy on the evening of June 12, 1994, sir?
A. Not to my knowledge.
MR. LEONARD: Thank you.
THE COURT: Cross.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. MEDVENE:
Q. You have no information of any kind, do
you, Sergeant Merrin, that whatever the call was about
had anything at all to do with the murders of Ron
Goldman or Nicole Brown?
MR. LEONARD: Objection, calls for speculation.
(Court reviewed realtime computer
screen.)
THE COURT: In the form in which it is asked,
sustained.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You have no personal
information that whoever called was referring to the
murders of Nicole Brown or Ronald Goldman, do you?
MR. LEONARD: Same objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Do you have any idea or
any personal knowledge what the caller was referring
to?
MR. LEONARD: Same objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. No, sir, I do not.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) And you received calls
as watch commander several times a day asking whether
or not you've heard of any murders or crimes that have
gone on in the area that you have any association
with?
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object as
irrelevant and vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) You receive many calls
a day asking if there are any murders by the police
reporter's?
A. At least 12.
MR. LEONARD: Objection, irrelevant and vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. At least 12 calls a day from the news,
the press, different news rooms.
Q. (BY MR. MEDVENE) Does the Wilshire area
cover Brentwood?
A. No, sir, it does not.
MR. MEDVENE: Nothing further.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. LEONARD:
Q. Mr. Medvene asked you if you received
calls on occasion from reporter's about murders,
correct? If there are any murders reported, right?
Remember him just asking you that?
A. Yes, sir, I certainly do.
Q. This caller didn't ask you if any murders
had been reported. She asked you if you had been
sitting on two bodies that had been found on the west
side; isn't that correct, sir?
A. That's correct.
MR. LEONARD: No further questions.
RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. MEDVENE:
Q. And you had no knowledge as you took the
call of any murders in the Wilshire area that you have
anything to do with; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you have nothing to do with -- the
watch commander shift of Wilshire has nothing to do
with Brentwood; isn't that correct?
A. That's correct.
MR. MEDVENE: Nothing further.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. LEONARD:
Q. I asked you before on direct examination
if you were aware of any other double homicides on the
west side other than the one that occurred at 875
South Bundy.
Your answer was you were not; is that
right, sir?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay.
And I take it you followed up after you
got this phone call about whether or not there were
any other homicides; is that right, sir?
MR. MEDVENE: Objection, outside the scope,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may reopen.
Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You followed up, didn't
you?
A. I followed up, yes.
Q. You found out there hadn't been; isn't
that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. By the way, you know this phone call came
in certainly before 10:45 'cause that's when you left
that night, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. That was the end of watch, EOW?
A. That's correct.
Q. Thank you.
MR. LEONARD: No further questions.
MR. MEDVENE: No further questions.
THE COURT: Thank you.
You may be excused.
MR. BAKER: Dennis Fung.
DENNIS FUNG,
previously called as a witness on behalf of the
Defendants, previously sworn, testified as follows:
THE CLERK: You've been previously sworn. You
are still under oath.
Would you state your name again for the
record.
THE WITNESS: My name is Dennis Fung.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BAKER:
Q. Good morning.
A. Morning.
Q. As I recall, Mr. Blasier examined you,
and Mr. Blasier has had some major surgery and it's
doubtful he will return to the trial.
I want to go back to the -- to the trash
bag that you indicated you left Rockingham with
Mr. Simpson's reference vial in it.
Remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. What else did you have in the trash bag
besides Mr. Simpson's reference vial?
MR. LAMBERT: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Do we have a copy of his testimony?
MR. LAMBERT: I only have one copy.
THE COURT: Cite me a page.
MR. LAMBERT: Apparently I don't have a page
cite. And I -- if you want me to find a section I'll
find it for you. It will take me a couple of minutes.
I think you would remember. This was a
subject of lengthy cross-examination.
THE COURT: This has been a long trial.
MR. LAMBERT: True.
THE COURT: I can't remember every word that is
spoken by counsel.
MR. BAKER: The objection will take longer than
the testimony, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I imagine so.
MR. GELBLUM: Page -- November 5, page 63.
MR. BAKER: Got about three questions on this,
Your Honor.
MR. LAMBERT: Well, I'll withdraw it, Your
Honor. Let him answer it again.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you have trash in the
trash bag?
A. There may have been crime scene labels in
there, but I don't think there was any trash in there,
no.
Q. Well, you picked up the numbers that you
placed down on the concrete and you put them in that
trash bag, didn't you?
A. I don't specifically recall doing that.
They may have been in there, but I don't recall.
Q. You went into the house, this is on the
afternoon of the 13, you came out of the house and
were going to leave before Vannatter arrived at the
house, and then suggested to Andrea Mazzola that she
go back in and take one more quick look around; isn't
that true?
A. Yes.
Q. And Vannatter wasn't there when you
started to leave the house, isn't that correct, the
first time? And then you --
A. When we brought --
Q. You made the decision to go back in to
see -- check to see if there was something else,
correct?
A. We brought the crime scene kit and some
items of evidence out to the truck and then went back
in for a second look, yes.
Q. And you picked up the little numbers that
you had on the driveway, you threw those numbers in
the trash bag as trash with the reference vial of
Mr. Simpson's blood, right?
A. That's possible, but I don't recall if
that actually happened or not.
Q. Well, let me ask you this: When you
didn't have the trash bag to carry around sterile
reference vials of blood, did you -- the trash bag was
there so that you could put trash in it when you left
Mr. Simpson's home; isn't that true?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, that has been -- the
purpose in using the trash bag was specifically gone
into, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may answer.
A. The trash bag was used as a carrying
device, it wasn't used as a trash bag.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, the numbers were
trash after you used them, weren't they, on the
driveway and in the foyer?
A. I don't consider it trash, no.
Q. Okay.
They are valuable pieces of paper, right?
A. I don't know how valuable they are, but
they are not trash.
Q. Well, in any event, all of the blood
spots -- and you put those little pieces of paper
around in the foyer, were perfectly round, correct?
I mean they didn't look like Mr. Simpson,
Allan Park, Kato Kaelin, didn't look like anybody had
stepped in it, true?
A. Now, which drops are you talking about?
Q. In the foyer when you had your little
numbers. And you collected those at 4:30, remember,
Item 12?
A. They did not appear to have been stepped
in.
Q. And you collected the foyer blood drops
at 4:30, and -- it was at 4:40.
Then you were up in Mr. Simpson's bedroom
where you collected Item 13 which were the socks,
right?
A. It was around that time. Those are
relative times.
Q. Well, you didn't put relative times on
your log. You put the times that item and event
occurred; isn't that true?
A. Those times are ballpark figures.
Q. So they are all just ballpark figures now
that there's been a big issue as to whether or not the
socks were there when the videotape -- these numbers
have become ballpark figures; is that what it is,
Mr. Fung?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Your log is supposed to
show the times that you do various things when you're
at a crime scene; isn't that true, sir?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, asked
and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, what's the purpose
of putting down the time if it's a ballpark figure,
Mr. Fung?
MR. LAMBERT: Same objections, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I do not use those or that column in the
crime scene sheet when I do my crime scenes unless
it -- it is outside the parameters of when I got there
and when I left.
Ms. Mazzola decided that she was going to
write down those times and she went ahead and filled
in those times.
Q. Well, do you think that these forms that
you're using at a crime scene, it's kind of your
decision as to whether or not you should use them or
fill in the appropriate blanks?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, in
violation of the Court's pretrial orders, Your Honor,
in limine order No. 11.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) The times that are down
on the sheets that you and Ms. Mazzola filled out at
the crime scene at Rockingham indicate the times that
you accomplished various tasks; you would agree with
that?
A. As I stated before, those are pretty
close to the times that they happen, but they are
ballpark figures.
Q. Pretty close to the time things happened,
you wouldn't put down that you collected the red blood
stain or red stain in the foyer, this perfectly round
blood stain in the foyer, at 1630, if in fact it was
1610, would you? You wouldn't be off 20 minutes,
would you?
A. I would say they were within 10 minutes.
Q. Just happened to be 10 minutes?
A. Well --
Q. You know the issue relative to the socks,
don't you?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Are you trying to tailor
your testimony relative to the collection of the socks
in the bedroom, Mr. Fung?
A. No.
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. No, I'm not.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you knew that in the
bedroom -- by the way, did it look like, on the bed,
right in front of the socks, did it appear that
anybody had sat down on that bed and had taken those
socks off?
A. I don't recall.
Q. Well, do you recall there was a piece of
luggage there, that you couldn't even sit down on the
bed to take the socks off that were sitting so
perfectly on that little throw rug?
A. I don't recall that, no.
Q. Do you recall whether the straps were up
and down -- up or down on the luggage, Mr. Fung, when
you were in the room?
A. I'd have to refer to the photographs.
Q. Do you recall that Sergeant Luper picked
the straps up when he was looking for items underneath
the -- underneath the bed?
A. I do not remember Sergeant Luper picking
those up.
Q. Do you remember him getting under the bed
to look for items, right?
A. I don't recall that.
Q. Do you recall that there was any evidence
of blood whatsoever on that throw rug in the middle of
the area right behind Mr. Simpson's bed?
A. I did not -- I did not detect any blood
on that throw rug.
Q. You didn't detect any blood in the area,
did you, in the bedroom at all, did you?
A. No, none was detected.
Q. Now, you testified in this courtroom on
November 5 that item number 12 was collected at 4:30.
You didn't say ballpark then, did you?
A. I was referring to the -- to my notes and
that's what the notes say.
Q. And when you testified that item number
13 was collected at 4:40, you didn't say ballpark
then, did you?
A. I think I said they were approximate
times. I --
Q. Well, let me read what you said so that
you have it.
MR. LAMBERT: Let's have the page and line.
MR. BAKER: 51, line 7 through 11.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Oh, I'm sorry. Item 12.
(Reading:)
Q. 4:30, correct?
Your answer: Correct.
Q. And item number 14 was at
what time?
Item 14 was at 4:40.
That's your answer.
You didn't mention ballpark then, did
you, sir?
A. Apparently not.
Q. Now, in terms of your collection of these
socks, you then picked the socks up and put both socks
in one container, cross-contaminating the socks,
correct?
MR. LAMBERT: Argumentative, asked and
answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: Do you want to play that video.
Then we'll --
MR. LAMBERT: Like to know what it is before --
MR. P. BAKER: Number 901.
MR. LAMBERT: It's already been played.
MR. P. BAKER: It was not in evidence when
Mr. Fung testified the first time.
THE COURT: Okay. Overruled.
(Videotape played.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you --
MR. BAKER: Stop it. Back it up, please.
(Tape is halted with view of bed.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That strap had been
picked up by Sergeant Luper, had it not?
MR. LAMBERT: Asked and answered, Your Honor.
He just said he didn't see that.
THE COURT: You may answer if you know.
A. I don't know.
MR. BAKER: All right. Go ahead.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now --
MR. BAKER: Back it up.
MR. P. BAKER: I'm sorry. I apologize.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) There's a fireplace --
MR. BAKER: Stop it right there. That
obliterates what I wanted to see (indicating to
screen.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) This fireplace is at the
end of Mr. Simpson's bed, is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. In other words, if you're lying on the
bed with your head back up against the headboard,
you'd look at that fireplace, correct?
A. It was at that time, yes.
Q. Okay.
And then this is the throw rug down here
(indicating to Elmo screen).
That is kind of a pale beige, is it not,
sir?
A. There's a print pattern on it.
Q. A light color, it's pale, is it not,
there's not any dark colors on it?
A. There's -- no, just some portions are
darker than others. There's a pattern on it.
Q. There's no blood whatsoever on that throw
rug, correct?
A. I did not detect it.
Q. And it was never collected by you or
anybody from the LAPD to see if there was blood that
had allegedly transferred from these found socks to
that rug, isn't that true, sir?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, violates in limine
order No. 11.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: I didn't hear your ruling, sir.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You didn't ask that that
carpet be picked up and collected, did you, sir?
MR. LAMBERT: Same objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, did you just pick
the socks up with your hands, sir?
A. No.
Q. What did you pick them up with?
A. I don't recall exactly how I did it. I
may have used the gloves; I may have used the scoop
method.
Q. You don't have a recollection if you
picked them up with your hands or not, isn't that
true?
A. No, I know I didn't.
Q. Now, you do recall that you took the
Rockingham glove to the Bundy crime scene at the
direction of Detective Lange, correct?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You walked into the crime
scene with a brown bag with the Rockingham glove
pursuant to orders from Detective Lange, did you not?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, asked and answered.
It's all been gone into.
THE COURT: I don't recall that one.
Overruled.
A. Can you repeat that?
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You took the Rockingham
glove, the glove that was purportedly found on this
little side pathway behind Mr. Simpson's house, and
took that glove at the direction of Detective Lange
and you took it over to Bundy in a brown paper bag and
took it onto the crime scene, correct?
A. Yes.
MR. BAKER: Show that tape, please.
(Videotape played.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And let me ask you if
this is you with the brown paper bag and the glove
that you took onto the Bundy crime scene pursuant to
the request and orders of Detective Lange?
MR. P. BAKER: 2258.
(Exhibit 2258 displayed
at 1:18:17.12.)
THE COURT: Is there a question?
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Is this you?
A. That is me.
Q. And is that the brown paper bag
containing the Rockingham glove that you were
requested to bring onto the crime scene by Lange?
A. I don't recall if that was it or not. It
may have been but I don't know.
(Tape played to 1:18:18.24)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) One other area. And I
apologize for skipping around.
When you --
MR. BAKER: Phil, you can cut that off.
(Mr. P. Baker complies.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) When you collected the
socks, no matter whether you did it with your hands,
your gloved hands or the scoop method, there was no
debris on those socks, were there?
A. I did not detect any debris on it. But I
didn't look for it, either, that closely.
Q. You didn't look, right?
A. Not that closely.
Q. Well, you picked the socks up, and in
however method you did it --
MR. BAKER: It's wonderful when they pass you a
note and you can't read what it says (indicating). I
know it's my son's writing. I just can't read it.
MR. PETROCELLI: It says no further questions.
MR. BAKER: Is that "sit down?"
(Laughter.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, you had the socks
and you had to have them in a scoop or in the -- and
the bag open to put the socks in, right?
A. Correct.
Q. So you had them within a couple of feet
of your eyes, true?
A. No, at least arm's distance.
Q. And you didn't notice any dirt, any soil,
any blood, nothing, correct?
A. Those were collected so that that could
be done at a later time back at the lab.
Q. Maybe you didn't understand my question,
sir.
You're a criminalist, are you not?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. You're not paid to close your eyes and
not see things, are you?
A. No.
Q. And when you're at a crime scene and
there's been a double homicide, I take it that you're
extremely vigilant about looking for everything that
may be evidence in the case, true?
A. That's correct.
Q. And your vigilance, if you will, is
heightened because you know this is a high-profile
crime and you knew it on June 13, 1994, when you
picked up the socks in the bedroom at 4:40; isn't that
true?
MR. LAMBERT: Argumentative, Your Honor, gone
into before.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You didn't see any soil,
no debris, no blood, no nothing on those socks?
MR. LAMBERT: Asked and answered, Your Honor.
THE COURT: You may answer.
A. They were dark socks, and I --
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) What did you see? Did
you see any soil, debris, blood, sir?
A. I did not detect any, no.
Q. Now, did you -- in your view, in looking
at the gloves, did you determine where the cuts were
on those gloves, if any?
A. We were -- we're talking about the gloves
now?
Q. Yes, the gloves. Yes, sir. I switched
to the gloves. Sorry.
A. I did note when I got back to the
laboratory some -- some cuts on them.
Q. Now, the left-handed glove was the glove
that was found near the hat which was underneath the
railing of the fence, right?
A. Referring to my notes.
Q. Please do.
(Witness reviews notebook.)
A. The glove from Bundy was a left-handed
glove, yes.
Q. How many cuts were on the glove from
Bundy, Mr. Fung?
A. I didn't make a note of that.
Q. Did you make a note of any cuts on the
gloves?
A. I know at the -- a day or so after -- a
day after the -- I had collected them, they were
asking if -- to describe different -- the different
gloves. I did it telephonically and I -- but I didn't
write it down.
Q. Well, was there a cut on the top of the
fourth finger of the left glove?
A. I'd have to see photographs of the glove.
I don't recall.
Q. Let me show you.
MR. P. BAKER: Next in order. Two numbers.
THE CLERK: 2309.
(The instrument herein described
as a photograph of glove was
marked for identification as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 2309.)
(The instrument herein described
as a photograph of glove was
marked for identification as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 2310.)
MR. P. BAKER: Okay.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Do you see the cut on
what would appear to be the top portion of the fourth
finger?
(Witness reviews photograph.)
A. Not really.
Q. Right there.
A. Yes, I do see that.
Q. And that cut does not go through the
lining of the glove, does it?
A. Actually, from what I recall, there was a
rock that was -- a piece of rock or something that was
stuck in the glove, like someone had hit it, the
glove -- was wearing the glove, hit it real hard, and
a piece of concrete or something from a wall had
embedded into the finger.
MR. BAKER: You want to get the --
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Whatever happened to the
rock?
A. It was with the glove when I booked it.
I don't know.
Q. And it just kind of -- like the lens,
it's just kind of gone?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, does it look like a
rock in that picture?
MR. P. BAKER: Next in order would be 2311,
close-up of top of fourth finger.
(The instrument herein described
as photograph of close-up of
fourth finger of glove was marked
for identification as Defendants'
Exhibit No. 2311.)
MR. BAKER: Do you want to put that on the
Elmo.
(Exhibit 2311 displayed on Elmo.)
Q. Now, does that look like a rock to you or
does that look like a cut?
A. There's a damaged area on the finger
that -- there you go.
Q. That area?
A. This area here could be -- could be that
rock that I remember.
Q. Well, that's exactly the same area I
pointed to on the other two exhibits, isn't it, sir?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And you're telling me that's not a cut?
A. Well, there's an area of damage on there.
I don't know if it's a cut or if it was caused by a
rip.
Q. Now, are you telling this jury that there
was a rock in that exact area, and you have a
recollection of that when you collected the Bundy
glove on June 13, 1994?
A. Yes.
Q. And you didn't see the damaged area
because a rock was on it; is that what you're telling
this jury?
A. I'm telling you that damaged area was
where a rock was.
Q. And you couldn't see the damaged area
because there was a rock on top of it; is that your
testimony, sir?
A. I'm saying it was embedded in that
damaged area.
Q. So it was embedded in the damaged area?
A. Yes.
Q. And you couldn't see the light-colored
lining through the damaged area; is that your
testimony, sir?
A. I don't recall seeing the lining. I -- I
believe I left the rock in the glove.
Q. Now, when you collected that glove at
Bundy, the glove was with the palm up, correct? In
other words, that portion of the fourth finger would
have been down in the dirt area at the crime scene
next to the sidewalk, correct, or walkway?
A. I don't recall if the palm was up or the
back hand was up.
Q. Does that look like that could be a -- a
bite mark from possibly a dog?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you ever look at Mark
Fuhrman's notes where he noted that the area was
possibly a dog -- a bite mark, that the suspect was
possibly bitten by a dog? Did you look at those
notes?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: Asked if he looked; doesn't call
for hearsay.
THE COURT: I sustained it.
MR. LAMBERT: Ask that the question be
stricken, too, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Stricken.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In doing your work as a
criminalist, did you look at any of the detectives'
notes that were at the crime scene on June 13, 1994,
Lange, Fuhrman or anybody else?
A. I was never given access to those notes.
Q. You don't know whether Fuhrman's notes
indicate that the witness was -- that the suspect may
possibly have been bitten by a dog because of that
bite mark?
MR. LAMBERT: Same objection. Ask that the
question be stricken.
THE COURT: Sustained. Stricken.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And if --
A. You know, I'm sorry, looking at the
photograph more closely now, it's in the knuckle area
instead of the fourth finger area that the rock was
in.
Q. You said that's the knuckle area?
A. Yes.
Q. That's a cut in the glove?
THE COURT: No, that's not his testimony.
A. No, I'm sorry --
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I'm sorry?
A. It's this area here that I was talking
about, and this very well could be a -- I was
mistaken.
THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, take
ten. Don't talk about the case; don't form or express
any opinions.
(Recess.)
(Jurors resume their respective
seats.)
MR. BAKER: Would you put that up?
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I want you to indicate to
the jury where you believe -- where you believe you --
MR. P. BAKER: This is 2308.
(2309 displayed on Elmo.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) This is the area we've
determined was a damaged area, correct?
A. Yes, that is a damageed area.
Q. And your earlier testimony here was there
was a rock in there and you couldn't see any of the
light colored area underneath it, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And your present testimony is -- where
was the rock?
A. I'm not sure now whether it was the right
glove or the left glove, but there was an area of
damage which would be analogous to the knuckle area
instead of the finger.
Q. So there was an area of damage found --
how big was this -- was this rock, sir, eighth of an
inch, quarter of an inch?
A. Small. It was like a piece of debris
that would come off a stucco wall or something.
Q. And did -- did you make any effort to
ensure that that wasn't lost?
A. I booked it with my -- with the evidence.
Q. I mean you didn't put any piece of tape
or book it separately or put it on scotch tape or
anything like that?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Okay.
Now, I put before you the earlier two
photos that I had asked you to review, sir.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, does that appear to you to be the
left glove or the glove that was located at Bundy?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. Okay.
MR. BAKER: And let me have --
MR. P. BAKER: On the screen is 2309.
THE CLERK: It was misidentified as 2308.
MR. BAKER: The left glove is which number?
MR. P. BAKER: That, I believe, is Civil
Exhibit 129.
THE CLERK: If you want to mark that glove by
reference and have a new case right now, we have a
photograph of that glove -- I mean exhibit number.
Would you like to mark that as a new
exhibit number by reference or --
MR. BAKER: Yeah, that's fine.
THE CLERK: New exhibit number by reference is
2312.
(The instrument herein referred to
as a left-hand glove was marked
for identification by reference to
Criminal Case Number BA097211 as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 2312.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) I'm putting before you
2312 which was Evidence No. 77 in the criminal trial
that, at least I was told, was the Bundy glove.
Where is the damage area on the fourth
finger of that glove; do you see any damaged area at
all on that?
A. I do not.
Q. Now, there's some markings down here with
some lines on the glove pointing to some stains in the
glove, correct?
A. I'm not sure this is the same glove.
Q. Well, I'm pretty sure it isn't, aren't
you? I mean there's no damaged area on the ring
finger of that glove, is there?
A. No, there is no damage on this.
Q. All right.
Now, you didn't do any criminalist work
on the gloves after you collected them, did you, sir?
A. No.
Q. So let me ask you this, because I'm
obviously confused, is the area, pointing to the
stains, is that commonly done when a criminalist is --
is examining something like a glove?
A. I didn't put those marks on there, so I
can't comment as to why they marked them in the
fashion that they did.
Q. Okay.
There is a letter -- it would appear to
me at least that there's a letter A, correct, on the
palm of the left glove, true?
A. Yes.
Q. And it would appear to me that there is a
stain above that where the arrow is, correct? Right
there. You got better eyes than I do. Come on.
A. There's some type of mark on there, yes.
Q. And over on the surface there is a
letter O, it would appear, and two stains, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right.
Now, this picture of Mr. Fuhrman pointing
at the glove --
MR. P. BAKER: That's a blowup of Exhibit 40.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) -- taken somewhere around
4 o'clock in the morning.
MR. LAMBERT: Object to that, Your Honor.
THE COURT: What are you objecting to?
MR. LAMBERT: Object, assumes facts not in
evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: On what fact is allegedly not in
evidence.
MR. LAMBERT: Time of the photo.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Rokahr's testimony from the
deposition is that, sir.
MR. PETROCELLI: There's evidence going in
different directions on that, Your Honor, so --
MR. BAKER: Let me say something. This
photograph was taken at nighttime, okay.
MR. LAMBERT: Object even to that, Your Honor,
assumes facts not in evidence.
Why didn't he ask the question?
THE COURT: Are we going to go through and
search the record to see when that photograph was
taken, if that's your objection. You have some
objection to that photograph?
MR. LAMBERT: No. Why doesn't he ask a
question about the photograph instead of making an
argument about when it was taken.
MR. BAKER: When I need legal advice from my
adversary, I'll ask for it in writing.
THE COURT: Go ahead and ask the question.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) That picture of Fuhrman
pointing to the glove shows the palm up, does it not?
(Witness reviews blowup.)
A. Yes, it does.
Q. If, in fact, the glove had a mark and was
noted as a damage cut on the ring finger of the left
hand noted by Mr. Fuhrman in his notes, would he have
had to have picked the glove up to have seen that cut
because it's not visible as it lies on the ground
there, true, sir?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, hearsay,
argumentative.
THE COURT: Argumentative, sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) There's no way to see
where the damaged area is on that glove in the
position that it is in, you would agree with that,
sir?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, calls for speculation,
conclusion on the part of witness. He wasn't even
there when that photograph was taken.
THE COURT: You may argue that.
Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You collected the glove,
didn't you?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You couldn't see the damaged area before
you picked the glove up, could you?
A. When I picked up the glove I didn't look
at it for damage.
Q. This is this high state of vigilance and
you didn't look at it for damage?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You were trying to
collect evidence from a crime scene, that evidence was
within feet of both of the bodies of the victims, was
it not, sir?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Did you look at the glove
before you put it in a bag?
A. I did look at the glove before I put it
in the bag, yes.
Q. Was it in this position when you
collected it?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, this has all been gone
into in length the first time around.
I do have a page reference.
THE COURT: Give me a page reference.
MR. LAMBERT: Page 10, November 5, you want me
to bring it up.
THE COURT: Bring it up.
(Counsel hands transcript to
Court.)
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, may I be heard on that?
(The following proceedings were
held at the bench with the
reporter:)
MR. BAKER: We have never heard of this pebble
before.
THE COURT: That's fine. You can ask about the
pebble.
MR. BAKER: My point --
THE COURT: Blasier went through four pages of
examining this witness as to how he observed it at the
time.
MR. BAKER: My point is that he now can't tell
us which glove this pebble was allegedly embedded in
and whether it's indigenous to the area is where I'm
going. I want to know if it was in that position when
he believes that that glove was found.
THE COURT: So ask that.
You can ask about the pebble.
MR. BAKER: All right.
(The following proceedings were
held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, when you collected
the right hand glove at Rockingham, was there any cut
on it?
A. I don't recall if there was or not.
Q. Have no recollection of that?
A. Not at this point in time, no.
Q. Did you -- was the -- was the pebble
embedded in that glove when you picked it up,
whichever glove it was?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. As if somebody had stepped on the glove
perhaps and embedded it into the leather?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, it was pushed into
the leather and you saw this little pebble that you
say would be consistent with something being knocked
off a stucco wall, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And did see whether there was any cuts or
tears in the glove, right?
A. I don't recall. I know that there was
damage to the gloves. I don't know where they were
though and or which one it was.
Q. Where's the damage if this is the Bundy
glove, you would agree with me there isn't one bit of
damage to that glove, correct?
A. If that is the Bundy glove.
Q. It's a left-handed Aris Isotoner glove.
MR. BAKER: Put it on the Elmo and show us the
whole thing.
(Glove displayed on Elmo.)
MR. P. BAKER: I need to take down this.
MR. BAKER: I'm sorry. I apologize.
(Counsel removes blowup.)
A. No evidence there.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) No evidence of a tear,
correct?
A. I -- there is none, no.
MR. BAKER: Turn it over.
(Glove is turned over.)
MR. BAKER: Pull it the other way, please,
Phil.
A. This is the A -- there's a spot that's
discernible but barely.
Q. If you can pull it over there's an O here
spot here, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, the gloves were taken, after you as
a criminalist picked them up, and maintained by Los
Angeles Police Department until they were introduced
into evidence, right?
A. Can you repeat that again?
Q. The gloves, after you picked them up at
Bundy and Rockingham, were maintained by LAPD, true?
A. If they were -- they were booked into
evidence in the evidence control unit.
Q. Now, on the right-hand glove, cuts on
that, sir, did you notice those?
A. There may have been cuts. I don't --
Q. Have no recollection of that either?
A. No.
Q. And you don't know if the pebble was in
the right or the left, correct?
A. I don't recall at this time.
Q. And what color was the pebble?
A. It was a light color.
Q. So it kind of like -- it showed -- that
is, it was visible because of the contrast of the
color of the pebble in the glove?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, would you have made any notations on
your records anywhere if you saw cuts on those gloves?
A. No.
MR. BAKER: Could we just pass this glove to
the jury, please.
THE COURT: You may.
(Jurors review glove.)
Q. You will certainly agree, Mr. Fung, that
the glove that was booked into evidence and the glove
that is pictured as Items 301 and 302 are not the
same, correct?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, calls for speculation,
conclusion.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Well, the glove didn't
miraculously get the hole repaired, did it?
MR. LAMBERT: Argumentative, same thing.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Can you tell from
visualizing this glove if that was the glove that you
picked up at Rockingham?
MR. LEONARD: Excuse me. For the record, do we
have a --
MR. BAKER: What's the number on that, please.
THE CLERK: Do you want to mark it by reference
2313.
MR. LEONARD: That is the Criminal Trial
Exhibit No. 164A.
THE CLERK: Correct.
MR. LEONARD: Which is the right glove?
(The instrument herein referred to
as the right-hand glove was marked
for identification by reference as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 2313.)
THE WITNESS: This appears to be.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And did the other appear
to be the glove that you picked up at Bundy?
A. It was very similar to it, yes.
Q. This one you say appears to be, and that
one you say is similar, and the reason that you can't
say that that was the glove that you picked up at
Bundy is that there are pictures taken by the LAPD
that show a hole in the ring finger of the glove that
was picked up at Bundy and the glove booked into
evidence has no hole in it, correct?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. The photo appears to have a defect in it
and that glove does not.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) There's no doubt in your
mind there's a defect from the photograph; isn't that
true, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. All right.
Now, relative to the glove that you have
no doubt that you picked up at Rockingham, is there
cuts on the top of that glove?
A. Yes, there are.
Q. Are there cuts on the bottom or wear
marks on the bottom of that glove?
A. There's damage to the palm side, yes.
Q. Now, on any of these either -- of these
gloves, did you compare whether those cuts would match
any cuts on Mr. Simpson's hand?
A. That was not my duty, no.
Q. So you didn't?
A. I did not.
Q. And the glove that we've seen in evidence
that has cuts on it is the right glove, correct?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Okay.
And Mr. Simpson had no cuts on his right
hand.
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Now, this glove certainly
looks like it has a fair amount of wear; you would
agree with that?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, Your Honor, calling
for speculation on the part of the witness.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. It appears to have been worn, yes.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And the left glove
doesn't appear to have virtually any wear on it; isn't
that true?
A. Well --
Q. You need to look at it again?
MR. BAKER: May I borrow that for a minute.
(Indicating to juror.)
(Counse
l retrieves glove from juror.)
A. They're about the same.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) So in your estimation the
wear on both of these gloves is the same?
A. Approximately, yes.
Q. Okay.
I'd just pass those gloves to the jury,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you want to start from seat No.
1 again since you're going to pass two instead of one?
Q. That looks -- those look like
approximately the same amount of wear, you say?
A. From -- I'm not a glove expert.
Q. I understand.
A. But --
Q. There may not be such a -- never mind.
MR. BAKER: I don't think I have anything
further at this time.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. LAMBERT:
Q. Just a couple of questions, Mr. Fung.
First, in regard to this trash bag that
was used to transport the blood vial, is it uncommon
for criminalists to use something like a trash bag to
transport some evidence?
A. No, it is not.
Q. In this instance, in addition to
transporting the blood vial, were there any other
items of evidence that were also put inside the trash
bag to be transported?
A. I believe there may have been.
Q. So you transported several items of
evidence plus these cards that you picked up off the
ground in the trash bag; is that your best --
MR. BAKER: Argumentative, speculation and
leading as well. That whole area was gone into, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Is it your best
recollection, sir, that when you took out the blood
vial in the trash bag, you also took out some other
items of evidence in that trash bag?
A. To the best of my recollection, yes.
Q. Thank you.
You were also asked some questions by
Mr. Baker relating to your prior testimony in this
case as to when you picked up the socks and Mr. Baker
read you a part of that testimony.
I'd like to read the rest of it to see if
that accurately reflects your recollection.
These are questions that -- by
Mr. Blasier.
MR. BAKER: Well, Your Honor, I would object
that he's not impeaching him. Ask him questions and
that's what he can use the transcript for, nothing
else, other than argument. I don't think.
THE COURT: I don't think -- the plaintiff is
entitled to have the entire statement read in rather
than just part.
MR. LAMBERT: This is from page 50, line 28,
Your Honor.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) (Reading:)
Now, what do your records show in
terms of the time that you processed
number 12?
A. Number 12 has the time
of -- I'm referring to my notes -- 4:30
in the afternoon.
Q. You have that in your
notes?
A. Well, on the evidence
collection, item number 12 --
Q. Oh, I'm sorry. Item
number 12. 4:30, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Item number 14, what
was -- was at what time?
A. Item 14 was at 4:40.
Q. And you collected the --
or at least labeled the socks between 12
and 14, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What time did you
physically collect the socks?
A. The socks were collected
within -- somewhere within that time
frame there.
So you did not intend to imply that those
times were precise times, did you?
MR. BAKER: Objection, leading, suggestive.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Did you intend those
times to be precise times, Mr. Fung?
MR. BAKER: Same objection.
THE COURT: Go ahead and answer it.
A. They are ballpark figures; they're not
exact.
Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Well, in regard to
these gloves that are somewhere with our jury now,
after you collected those gloves, were you involved in
much further work with them at LAPD?
A. Once I had booked them into evidence, I
did not see them again until the trial.
Q. So you weren't really that familiar with
what happened to those gloves afterwards?
A. No, I'm not.
Q. Okay.
And when you collect items of evidence
like the gloves or the socks, is it your purpose at
the time of collection to inspect them for whatever
evidence they may contain?
A. I collect them so that they can be
analyzed at a later date, and if there's some evidence
that -- that I see that needs to be further collected,
I will make that another item number and collect it
separately.
Q. But other than that, you don't purport to
be closely examining those items of evidence for
additional evidence at the time of their initial
collection; is that what you're saying?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay.
MR. LAMBERT: I have no further questions.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. BAKER:
Q. Now, why don't you explain to this jury
how the stone and the hole that was in the -- that was
in the glove when you collected it just disappeared.
Tell us how that happened.
MR. LAMBERT: Beyond the scope, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. I can't explain.
MR. LAMBERT: Argumentative, as well.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You have no explanation
whatsoever why that hole is not there now, right?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) What other items --
Mr. Fung, tell this jury every item you removed from
the trash bag other than the reference vial of O.J.
Simpson's blood. Tell them.
A. Excuse me?
Q. What other items -- you said to
Mr. Lambert you removed other items from the trash bag
besides Mr. Simpson's reference blood.
Tell this jury what it was.
A. I can speculate.
Q. You have been.
MR. LAMBERT: Move to strike the comment as
argumentative.
THE COURT: It's stricken.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Mr. Fung, let's -- have
you got it there, you got anything there that tells
you if there was one other item in that trash bag?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative. Let
him answer the question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. There may have been items 15 and 16 in
that trash bag.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) And there may not have
been, right?
A. I don't specifically remember.
Q. So you don't know of any other -- as you
sit here now, you know of no other items in the trash
bag except the trash, the little numbers on the
driveway and the reference vial of Mr. Simpson, right?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, use of
the word trash.
THE COURT: Trash is stricken.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) Correct?
A. To the best of my recollection, 15 and 16
were in the plastic bag along --
Q. That would be speculation?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative. He
said to the best of his recollection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. That's the best of my recollection.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You don't know if -- what
was in the trash bag. The only reason you know
Mr. Simpson's blood vial was in there was there was a
videotape showing you put it in there, correct?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. That helps refresh my recollection.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You didn't have any
recollection to be refreshed, you just couldn't refute
what was on the videotape; isn't that correct, sir?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Went into the last
time as well.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) In your -- in your prior
testimony, you were asked what time did you physically
collect the socks, and your answer was the socks were
collected within -- somewhere within that time frame
there, referring to the time frame between 4:30 and
4:40, correct, sir?
A. Within the ten-minute period either way.
Q. Well, you didn't say in your testimony
when you visited with us on November 5 anything about
ten minutes either way. You said, after you reviewed
your notes --
(Reading:)
Q. What time did you
physically collect the --
Let me read it all. (Reading:)
Now, what do your records show in
terms of the time you processed number
12?
A. Number 12 has the time
of -- I'm referring to my notes -- 4:30
in the afternoon.
Q. Have you that in your
notes?
A. Well, on the evidence
collection sheet, item number 12 --
Q. Oh, I'm sorry. Item 12.
4:30, correct?
A. Correct.
And item 14 was at what time?
Item 14 was at 4:40.
Q. You collected the or at
least labeled the socks between 12 and
14, correct?
A. Yes.
What time did you physically
collect the socks?
The socks were collected
within -- somewhere within that time
frame.
And that time frame that you
referred to, sir, was the time frame
between 4:30 and 4:40, was it not?
A. The times on the -- written on this sheet
are approximate.
Q. Maybe you didn't understand my question.
I'll give you another opportunity.
In your answer that I just read, "The
socks were collected somewhere within that time frame
there," you were referring to the time frame between
4:30 and 4:40, were you not, sir?
A. Perhaps you didn't understand my answer.
Q. Well, that's not the test, Mr. Fung.
A. May I finish?
Q. No, you may not. Answer my question.
MR. LAMBERT: Your Honor, I ask that the
witness be able to answer.
THE COURT: The witness is not answering. The
witness is arguing with counsel.
MR. LAMBERT: Counsel is being argumentative.
MR. BAKER: I don't need your comments about my
comments.
THE COURT: Mr. Baker, we don't need that
either.
Go ahead and answer.
Q. (BY MR. BAKER) You were referring to the
time between 4:30 and 4:40 when Mr. Blasier asked you
when you collected the socks, were you not?
A. No, I was not.
Q. You weren't referring to that?
A. I was referring to what I just explained
to you.
Q. You were referring to -- in your answer
to that question, you weren't incorporating the time
frame between 4:30 and 4:40, right?
A. The time frame I'm referring to is a
ballpark figure.
Q. You were referring to the time frame that
you had just mentioned in the previous questions of
between 4:30 and 4:40; yes or no?
A. And those, between 4:30 and 4:40, they
could go either way --
Q. And you never --
A. -- in time.
Q. You never mentioned in any of your
testimony about the time of the socks, either in this
courtroom on November 5 or in the criminal trial in
your testimony for days, that you were talking
ballpark figures. Today is the first time you have
mentioned your terminology of ballpark figures, ten
minutes either way, true?
MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BAKER: I don't have anything further.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. LAMBERT:
Q. Mr. Fung, let me read to you from one
other page of your testimony.
This is a question --
MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to this.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. LAMBERT: Let me show you the quote.
THE COURT: I think we've done this enough.
MR. LAMBERT: He just said --
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. LAMBERT: -- in front of the jury --
MR. BAKER: You're arguing.
THE COURT: Sustained.
You're excused.
THE COURT: Okay. We'll adjourn till 1:30.
(The following proceedings were
held at the bench with the
reporter:)
(The notes of the proceedings at
this point were ordered sealed by
the Court, not to be opened,
Transcribed, or destroyed except
upon order of a Judge of the
Superior Court.)
(The following proceedings were
held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
THE BAILIFF: Is the jury excused, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Jury is excused to 1:30.
(At 12 P.M. a recess was taken
until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1997
1:40 P.M.
DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE.
APPEARANCES: (Per Cover Page)
(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)
(The following proceedings were
held in open court outside the
presence of the jury.)
MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor, before lunch
during Mr. Fung's examination by Mr. Baker, he asked a
series of three questions which I just had the
reporter find and read back, which indicates that Mark
Fuhrman's notes indicated in the notes that there was
a dog bite mark on the glove. And I went and checked
Mark Fuhrman's notes which were briefly identified by
Mr. Baker as Exhibit 847 in the examination of
Detective Ronald Phillips, and there is absolutely no
mention whatsoever of any dog bite mark on any glove,
and Mr. Baker's question directly represented that
there was such a marking.
The only reference to dog bites in the
notes is at page 3 of the notes where it says at rear
gate of Nicole Simpson's residence two blood spots at
bottom inside of cage area might have been where the
dog was kept, suspect ran through this area suspect
upon being bitten by dog.
There is nothing in these notes about any
marking on a glove caused by a dog bite as reflected
in Mark Fuhrman's notes.
And we ask that the jury be admonished
that there is no such evidence in the notes of Mark
Fuhrman, there is no such mention, just like this
Court admonished the jury with regard to, for example,
Mr. Gelblum was asking Mr. Groden about photos which
allegedly were taken, and the Court specifically told
the jury that that was innuendo and to be disregarded.
And we believe that was highly
prejudicial because Mr. Baker knew that the notes
didn't say that and yet he so represented they did.
I can show you the notes, Your Honor.
(The instrument herein described
as a notes of Mark Fuhrman was
marked for identification as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 847.)
THE COURT: I believe you objected, Court
sustained it and struck it, so there's no point in
doing anything.
MR. PETROCELLI: There was no good faith basis
for asking the question, Your Honor, and that's the
test. When we have a document and the document is
being absolutely misrepresented to the jury, and it's
highly prejudicial.
THE COURT: Bring the jury.
MR. BAKER: Your Honor, I have one other thing.
That is that we had called the LAPD
to get Officer Donald Thompson back, who is the -- the
officer you may recall who was about a foot taller
than my son, and he's the -- we asked him to come
back. The LAPD says we're not going to have him come
back unless you resubpoena him and pay us more money.
What I would like from this Court is just
an order he was not excused, he was placed on call. I
would just like an order from this Court requiring
LAPD to produce him here at 8:30 Monday morning.
THE COURT: So ordered.
MR. BAKER: Thank you.
(Jurors resume their respective
seats.)
(The following proceedings were
held in open court in the presence
of the jury.)
MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, at this time we'd
like to read the deposition of Jim Merrill taken on
May 28, 1996, in Chicago.
JIM MERRILL,
called as a witness by the Defendant via deposition
testimony, testified as follows:
(Reading of selected portions of
the deposition transcript.)
Mr. Leonard reads the questions
and Mr. P. Baker reads the
answers.)
Q. Would you state your name,
spelling your last name for the record.
A. Jim Merrill, M-e-r-r-i-l-l.
Q. How old are you,
Mr. Merrill?
A. 28.
Q. Are you presently employed?
A. Yes.
Q. What do you do for a
living?
A. A mortgage broker.
Q. How long have you been at
your present employment?
A. Since January of this year.
Q. Prior to that, where were
you employed, sir?
A. Hertz Corporation.
Q. What was your position at
Hertz Corporation?
A. I was a commercial sales
representative.
Q. How long did you work for
Hertz Corporation?
A. Just over two years.
Q. Were you a commercial sales
representative during your entire tenure
at Hertz?
A. Yes.
Q. And in very general terms
what did your job involve as a
commercial sales representative?
A. Basically, keeping
accounts, established accounts, that we
had, happy, and actively pursuing
accounts.
Q. Now, drawing your attention
to June 13, 1994, did you have occasion
to meet O.J. Simpson that day?
A. Yes.
Q. And where did you meet him?
A. At O'Hare Airport.
Q. And without discussing
anything anyone told you, how was that
meeting arranged, why was it that you
were there?
A. Well, he was in town for a
golf outing that we were having that day
and I -- I don't know whether I was
chosen or whether I chose to go out
there to help participate in the
planning of this event, went to go pick
him up.
Q. Was there anyone else with
you to pick Mr. Simpson up?
A. Bombay Shaw.
Q. Was he also an employee of
Hertz?
A. Yes.
Q. And where did you go to
pick up Mr. Simpson?
A. At the gate where he
arrived.
Q. This would be at the
airport?
A. Yes.
Q. That would be O'Hare
Airport?
A. O'Hare.
Q. What did you do after you
first saw Mr. Simpson at the gate?
A. Well, he came walking out
of the gate, we shook hands and had a
mild discussion about the flight and
then walked down the corridor to the
baggage claim department.
Q. Can you describe his
demeanor as he walked out the passageway