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.

REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
NOVEMBER 18, 1996

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS,

VS.

ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.


SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1996
9:25 A.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of
the jury.)

THE COURT: Morning.

JURORS: Morning.

THE COURT: Sorry for the delay.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. LAMBERT: Plaintiff calls Mr. Collin Yamauchi.

COLLIN YAMAUCHI, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiffs, was duly
sworn 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: And if you would, please state and spell your name for the
record.

THE WITNESS: My name is Collin Yamauchi, first name C-O-L-L-I-N, last
name Y-A-M-A-U-C-H-I.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:

Q. Morning, Mr. Yamauchi.

A. Morning.

Q. Would you please tell us what your occupation is.

A. I'm a criminalist; I work for the City of Los Angeles. I'm assigned
to the Los Angeles Police Department Scientific Investigation
Division.

Q. Within the Scientific Investigation Division, what is your current
area of assignment?

A. My unit is special testing.

Q. And what do they do in special testing?

A. Mainly instrumental analysis. What I work with is gunshot residue
analysis.

Q. Would you please describe for us your formal education.

A. I have a bachelor's degree in biology from California State
University, Long Beach.

And after graduating from there, I moved on to a company called ICN
Radiochemicals, where I received training in various DNA techniques.
And I even attend a class as -- a techniques workshop from a place
called BRL. It's in Frederic, Maryland.

After three and a half years as a quality control chemist at ICN
Radiochemicals, I then moved to the Police Department, where I started
off first four months introducing myself with the protocols,
procedures, and methods of the serology unit.

And through the serology unit, I attended classes at a place called
the California Criminalistics Institute. That's part of DOJ in
Sacramento.

I've had classes in forensic serology, zone electrophoresis, and also
isoelectric focusing. These are techniques that are used in
conventional serology, which is something that's similar to PCR DNA.

That, I'm sure, you heard a lot about already.

I've also had a biology class dealing specifically with forensic
applications of molecular biology, and that was held at Orange County
Sheriff's Crime Laboratory in Santa Ana.

Finally, in forensic PCR, I've had a class on forensic PCR
amplification at a workshop held by Rose Molecular Systems, which at
the time were the people associated with Percanoma, who has a patent
on the polymerase chain reaction, or the PCR system.

Q. Thank you, sir.

What year did you graduate from college?

A. 19 -- 1986.

Q. Right after college is when you went to work, I think, for ICN?

A. ICN Radiochemicals, yeah.

Q. What year did you come to work for the SID, for the Scientific
Investigation Division?

A. 1960.

Q. Pardon me. What?

A. Excuse me. 1990.

Q. I thought you weren't quite that old.

1990?

A. I wasn't even born then.

Q. So you worked from 1990 to the present for the Scientific
Investigation Division?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

And how long -- when you first started, you said you were in the
serology unit?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. And how long were you in that unit?

A. For approximately five years.

Q. And until -- And then you transferred to the special testing unit
that you're in now; is that right?

A. Yes, it's right.

Q. And as of une 12, 1994, what was your assignment at SID?

A. June 12 -- yeah, okay.

I was working in serology.

Q. Serology.

And would you describe generally what your duties were in the serology
department at that time.

A. I was working in the DNA section with PCR, but I also had training
in conventional serology which I did on occasion, also.

Q. So in the serology department at SID you did both conventional
serology and PCR DNA testing?

A. Yes.

Q. And you did work in both those areas?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Now, did you do any work in connection with the investigation in
this case?

A. Yes.

Q. And when did -- what was your first involvement in connection with
this case?

A. It would be Monday, the 13th, when my supervisor, Greg Matheson,
asked me if I would be interested in working on the blood evidence.

Q. And did -- what were you going to be doing on the blood evidence in
this case?

A. I -- he didn't say specifically blood evidence; just in general
working with this case.

We weren't sure about what types of evidence it was going to entail at
that point.

Q. And when did you first do any actual work on the case?

A. That would be Tuesday, the -- let's see -- the 14th.

Q. 14th.

And what was the first work that you did on it -- this case?

A. I analyzed blood stains from -- would you like specifics?

Q. Please.

A. The numbers. Sure.

Referring to my notes, okay. Those would be item numbers 47, 48, 49,
50, and 52. And item numbers 41 and 42, item number 9, and also item
number 17.

Q. And those were various items of evidence in the case that had been
collected by some other SID personnel?

A. Yes.

Q. And how was the decision made for you to work on those specific
items as your first task?

A. I discussed that with Dennis Fung.

Q. And Mr. Fung pointed out these items as items that needed to be
tested?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you describe for us, just first generally, the steps that you
took to accomplish the testing of those evidence items.

A. As far as the samples?

Q. Why don't we start with whatever the first step was that you took.

What was the first thing that you did in terms of doing testing on all
of those items of evidence?

A. Well, the first item I received was -- let's -- it would be the
blood vial -- the O.J. Simpson blood vial. And that was the first item
I set up because it needed a certain time to dry in order for us to
work it in our PCR process.

Q. So you took the -- this was a vial of blood, was it?

A. Yes.

Q. And what did you do with that vial of blood?

A. The vial of blood was processed in normal fashion, the way we
always handle exemplars of victims or suspects, et cetera.

And this blood was taken -- the tube held in one hand, covered the cap
up with chemwipes.

Chemwipes are sort of like a laboratory version of Kleenex. They're
something you have at the side to wipe and dab and clean, and they're
specially designed to be low in lint, and they're basically made for
laboratory purposes.

I generally use three chemwipes. I'll put them on the top of the cap
because, when you open these blood vials up, it's kind of tricky, but
you're going to get a little bit of blood on the cap. It's almost
always you get a little blood around the cap edge. So with the
chemwipes on top, that eliminates any chances of any blood getting
elsewhere and all over the place.

And you do these type of -- you take these type of procedures -- well,
mainly for my case, I'll just say it's mostly for my own physical
health and safety, because basically we don't know what these -- who
these blood vials are from -- in general, in a general sense. And as
everybody knows, there's a lot of blood-borne pathogens and diseases
you can get from blood.

So we try to wear gloves, of course, and keep the chemwipes on the top
and carefully open these vials up.

So I opened the vial up, put the cap down on the side, and then I
would reach over and grab my pipe header, which is an instrument -- a
scientific instrument used to transfer blood or other various
solutions. I use that and I transfer the blood over to what's known as
a Fitzco card, which is a card that's used to pool the blood in a
dried state for further testing, transfer the blood onto that card,
and allow it to dry.

The type of pipe header was put in the receptacle and the cap was
placed back on the vial and put away. My chemwipes and my gloves was
taken off in a sterile fashion.

At that point, I recall I needed to throw them away in the proper
receptacle. Unfortunately, I was working in the evidence processing
room, which is not where I usually make exemplars, and there was no --
as far as my recollection went, I recall holding them and trying to
decide whether I should throw them in there, in the evidence
processing room, or back at serology.

Q. When you have something like gloves and these chemwipes, is there a
special kind of receptacle that they're put into after -- when you
want to dispose of them?

A. The gloves and chemwipes, yeah. Well, it's a large biohazard
receptacle.

Q. It's a receptacle designed to put biological hazards in, as opposed
to just ordinary waste?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you mentioned the evidence processing room is that -- that's
where you did this particular Fitzco card that process you described?

A. Yes.

Q. And where about in the evidence processing room were you when you
did the Fitzco card?

A. I was working on a kind of a laboratory bench that would be on the
far, side away from where the evidence was, which were on tables in
the middle of the room.

Q. So the evidence item was on a table in the middle of the room while
you were doing the Fitzco card on it's work bench?

A. Yes.

Q. And about how far away from where you did the Fitzco card were the
items of evidence?

A. Approximately ten to fifteen feet.

Q. Can you describe for the jury the condition that the items of
evidence, the blood evidence that we're talking about here, was in
while you did the Fitzco card?

A. Oh, the evidence collected?

Q. Yes.

A. Okay.

Those were packaged in coin envelopes, inside paper bindles. The paper
bindles were inside of the coin envelopes.

Q. So the swatches that we've heard of before, that contained the
evidence, were inside closed paper bindles at the time?

A. Yes.

Q. And those paper bindles, were they inside of a coin envelope?

A. Yes.

Q. And was that also closed?

A. Well, flap shut or something. Not necessarily gum shut.

Q. But the flap was shut?

A. Yes.

Q. That was -- all of that evidence was ten to fifteen feet away from
where you did this Fitzco card?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, this process of preparing a Fitzco card or a swatch from a an
evidence vial, is that something you've done in the past before this
occasion?

A. Yes.

Q. About how many times have you done it?

A. It's got to be hundreds.

Q. And when you do this, do you commonly follow the same process
you've just described to us here today?

A. Yes, I -- yes, I did.

Q. And when you did this process that you've described here today, the
purpose in putting the chemwipes over the top of the receptacle is to
protect any of the blood from getting on you or on any of the items of
evidence; is that right?

A. Yeah. First and foremost, personal protection, and then of course,
secondary, of course, we don't want to contaminate any evidence; and
that's why we wear gloves and take all those precautions.

Q. Now -- and in this case, after you've gone through the process and
taken all the steps you have, you then disposed of the gloves and the
chemwipes?

A. Yes. I'm not sure where. I don't remember specifically that much of
it.

Q. You're not sure which trash container you threw them in when you
disposed of them?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) The blood vial, when you first started the process
it, was it closed? I mean was the cap on it?

A. Yes.

Q. Yeah. And when you finished, did you put the cap back on?

A. Yes, of course,

Q. Now, in his opening statement, Mr. Baker stated that --

MR. BAKER: I'm going to object to -- I'm going to object. This is
argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Mr. Yamauchi, when you were -- did you spill the
blood at all when you were doing this process?

A. No.

Q. Did the blood go flying out of the vial and go across the room and
land on the evidence envelopes that were ten or fifteen feet away?

A. No.

Q. Did the blood in any way at all contaminate those items of evidence
during this process?

A. No.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, after you finished doing the Fitzco card,
what did you next do?

A. Took a look at the glove.

Q. By "glove," maybe you should describe for the jury what glove it is
you're talking about.

A. I'm sorry; it's item number 9. It's a regular brown glove, with
blood on it.

Q. And where did you do this process?

A. Again, in the evidence processing room.

Q. And approximately at what location in the evidence processing room?

A. It would be on the same workbench in front of where we have clean
roll-out paper.

Q. And did you use the roll-out paper?

A. Yes.

Q. What -- how did you use that?

A. Well, we lay out paper to serve as a barrier between the counter
top and any evidence item that we'll be working on.

Q. So you put the paper down in connection with the examination of the
glove?

A. Yes.

Q. And were you wearing gloves when you did this?

A. Of course.

Q. So this is a clean set of gloves that you've put on after you did
the Fitzco card?

A. Of course.

Q. Would you describe what you did in connection with your examination
of the glove?

A. Initially, I had to search for signs of blood. It's not readily
apparent because the color of the glove is rather brown, but you can
see that there's a lot of discoloration on the glove.

We have a test that's a -- what we use is a preliminary screening test
for the presence of blood. Doesn't necessarily confirm that it's human
blood or not, gives us a good indication whether or not there's blood
there.

I utilized some spot checks of this phenolthalein test in order to
determine areas that were phenol positive and possible for sampling.

Q. And how many different areas on the glove did you test with the
phenolthalein test?

A. Initially a couple.

Q. Did you then take any samples from the glove for further testing?

A. Yes.

Q. And how many did you take?

A. I wound up taking four samples.

Q. And can you just describe generally where on the glove those four
samples were taken from.

A. I took a sample, A, from right around this area (indicating to
hand), a sample B from right around this area, (indicating.)

The B sample, rather than making an incision and cutting out a piece
of the glove, I used a technique where we use swatches to transfer the
stain to the swatch, and then --

MR. BLASIER: May I object? Narrative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: And then C, on the inside cuff, on the inner lining, I
cut out a sample.

And then D, on the back side, right here in -- (indicating to hand).

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) So just for the purposes of the record, you've
demonstrated for us and the jury. Maybe you could state in words, you
took some off the back of the glove. And where were the other areas?

A. Right here and here, off of the back, and right here (indicating).

Q. When you say "here," the court reporter can't take down what that
means. I'm trying to get it a little better.

A. Excuse me.

Off of the back of the glove, beneath about where the middle finger
is, and also along the blade edge of the hand, closer towards the
wrist, and on the front side of the glove, on the thumb section around
where the top joint is, and also on the inner lining, down towards the
wrist, the back inner lining of the wrist section.

Q. Now, in the process of doing this glove evidence, item number 9,
when you started that process, you, yourself, were wearing gloves?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you change your gloves at all during that process?

A. I probably did change a few times.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Move to strike as nonresponsive, speculative.

THE COURT: Overruled. That was the response.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Could you tell us, sir, you mentioned that you
worked for ICN in your first job.

Did that job have any effect on the way in which you change your
gloves when you're doing scientific procedures?

A. Well, generally speaking, at ICN, I worked with radiochemicals. One
of the things about them, you can't see them. You can't see the
radiation. So working in that kind of environment, you change gloves
on a more than routine basis; you've got to constantly change gloves
working with radiation.

And I probably have taken that particular part of my work on to
working at SID, because I tend to change my gloves a lot more than
most of the people I work with.

Q. And then, after doing this sampling on evidence item number 9, what
was the next thing that you did that day, sir?

A. Started sampling the cloth swatches.

Q. And those were the ones that you listed, the evidence items you
listed for us previously?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell us what steps you took to test, or rather sample, the
cloth swatches?

A. When I sample cloth swatches, I take them out of the coin envelope
and I'll place the bindle on top of about a stack of three -- what do
you call it -- chemwipes.

And the reason is because I'll use that bindle as a cutting surface in
order to take my scalpel blade and cut the swatches.

And I've become rather dexterous with this. And I don't know how
everybody else does it, but most people that use scalpel blades do it
in pretty much the same fashion: You can cut the swatch if you hold
the blade at maybe about a 45-degree angle or less and down on it, you
can pick it up, and then, manipulating the micro centrifuge tubes,
which are scientific tubes we use to hold our samples, you can hold
that over there and then put the sample in.

This is probably the most sterile technique to use in this regard,
because what I use are sterile scalpel blades that are disposable.
That way, after each item I sample, I just toss the blade.

And then I'll move on to the next one, and I'll change the stack of
chemwipes that I have underneath each time, thereby insuring that no
cross-contamination can occur. And also, first and foremost, actually
only work on one item of evidence at a time; that's the key. That way,
it eliminates chances of cross-contaminating from one item to another.

Q. So during this process, you only work on one item of evidence at a
time?

A. Yes.

Q. So you take out one coin envelope. And could you describe for us
what you would find in each of the coin envelopes.

A. The coin envelopes contain both evidence samples of the red stain,
as well as a substrate control. And what a substrate control is, it's
something taken beside the place where the stain is to show that there
is no interfering substances already in that particular area that
could cause a result or something anomalous.

And therefore, what I expect to find and what I generally do find,
would be one paper bindle containing a control swatch and one paper
bindle containing the swatch or swatches of the stain itself.

Q. And is that what you found in this case, with these evidence items?

A. Yes.

Q. And you processed each coin envelope one at a time; is that right?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you do both the evidence bindle and the bindle containing the
control, one at a time, as part of this process?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. And you did that for all of the various evidence items that you
sampled that day?

A. Yes.

Q. And as part of this, did you also examine what was in the bindles
and make notes in your work papers to describe what it is you found
there?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And did you make notes as to which portion of the swatches you,
yourself, were then going to use to run your testing?

A. Yes. I make general approximation drawings to indicate even that.

Q. Okay.

And as you finish with each bindle, examining what's in it and taking
a sample for testing purposes, what do you then do with the bindle?

A. Oh, they're put back into the coin envelopes.

Q. And before you proceed to the next evidence item?

A. Yes.

Q. And these chemwipes that you said you put underneath each bindle,
how often do you change those?

A. With each bindle.

Q. So you put new chemwipes down for each bindle?

A. Yes.

Q. And the steps that you've described as to how you do this sampling
process, did you follow that same set of steps with all of the
evidence items that you processed on the 14th?

A. Yes.

Q. And you processed for each envelope both an evidence swatch and a
control swatch, as well?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, before we -- after you finished all of this, this evidence
sampling, what did you then do with the items of evidence that you had
taken out from sampling process?

A. Well, they were left on that same workbench.

Q. Did you then do any testing with them?

A. Oh, with the cuttings that I took?

Q. Yes.

A. They were run PCR analysis.

Q. And what particular test did you employ with those evidence items?

A. That would be specifically the DQ Alpha.

Q. And why did you choose to run the DQ Alpha test on these items of
evidence?

A. Because it happens rather rapidly, gives you a lot of information.

Q. What, does it give you information -- more information than
conventional serology tests would give you?

A. Take, for example, the A, B and O system. Everybody's familiar with
A, B, and O. We have type A people, type B people and type O; also,
type AB.

There are four different types there and they're broken down in the
population, except approximately half the population, maybe a little
less, is type O.

So if I were to run that test, the ability of that test to distinguish
between two or three different people wouldn't be all that powerful,
being as how approximately half the people are type O.

So what we needed was a test that was a little more powerful. The DQ
Alpha test has six alleles or six different types. Like the A, B, O
has A, B, O, the DQ Alpha has 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2, 3 and 4. That can make
a numerous amount of combinations and give you a lot more information
than you could possibly get out of something in conventional typing
like the ABO system.

THE COURT: Mr. Lambert, we've had two lectures from specialists in the
field already. We don't need --

MR. LAMBERT: I'll speed up.

THE COURT: -- from every person who testifies.

MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) You then proceeded to do the DQ Alpha test on
these items of evidence?

A. Yes.

Q. Let me show you --

MR. LAMBERT: And ask that it be marked as Exhibit 2189, which is the
next in order. Copy here to Mr. Blasier.

(The instrument herein referred to as analyzed evidence report
associated with DR number 940817431 of Collin Yamauchi was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2189.)

Q. And I ask that you identify it for the jury, please.

A. This is my analyzed evidence report associated with DR number
940817431.

Q. That's the DR number for the case of People versus Mr. Simpson?

A. Yes.

Q. And what does the analyzed evidence report that you're looking at
contain?

A. It contains a list of the evidence items I analyzed and the
results.

Q. And before we get too much into that, let me ask if in addition to
the items that you tested on the 14th, did you, the next day, do any
subsequent testing of any evidence items?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Okay. Let's go back to the next day, then, and ask you what you did
on that day?

A. Started off in the morning receiving two blood samples from the
coroner's office via Detective Vannatter.

I then proceeded to make Fitzco cards in the same fashion I described
earlier, except I made them in the serology unit. And then I returned
to the evidence processing room and handed over the blood vials to
Dennis Fung.

Q. So the first thing you did that morning was to receive from
Detective Vannatter some blood vials containing the victim's blood?

A. Yes.

Q. And you prepared Fitzco cards?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you use the same steps that you described already in
preparing those Fitzco cards?

A. Yes.

Q. But you mentioned this -- these Fitzco cards you prepared in the
serology lab; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Why did you do that?

A. Well, because I received them in the serology unit.

Q. Is that where you normally work?

A. And -- of course, that's where I normally work.

Q. So, those cards were done in a serology unit.

When you finish them, they have to dry I take it; is that right?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Where did you leave them to dry?

A. It would be on my workbench.

Q. In serology?

A. Yes.

Q. And after you did the Fitzco cards and left them on your workbench
in serology, what did you next do?

A. I went to the evidence processing unit and returned the blood vials
to Dennis Fung.

Q. Were the blood vials closed?

A. Of course, caps were on, yeah.

Q. And were they in envelopes, as well?

A. I don't have that in my notes. And to tell you the truth, I don't
recall specifically.

Q. Okay.

A. They could very well have been.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Move to strike as speculative.

THE COURT: The answer remains.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Then what did you do next?

A. Just had a discussion with Dennis Fung, where he explained a number
of other items that needed to be tested, and I then went about my same
protocol and procedure to sample those.

Q. And which items did you sample on this second day?

A. That would be item number 23, number 34, 33, 25, 31, 12, and 14.

Q. And did you follow the same sampling process with those items of
evidence as you already described from the prior day?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you again do the items of evidence one at a time?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you again have chemwipes under each bindle when you processed
the items of evidence?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you again use the procedure of using a sterile disposable
scalpel that you changed each time?

A. Yes.

Q. And after you finished doing the sampling of these items of
evidence, did you again run the DQ Alpha PCR test on those items of
evidence?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And so you have two separate sets of evidence items that you ran
PCR tests on, one on one day and one on the next day; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And of -- are all of those results reflected in the analyzed
evidence report that you have in front of you?

A. Yes, they are.

Q. I'm not going to go through all of the results of all of the tests
that you did, Mr. Yamauchi, but I just wanted to go over these few
that are reflected on this board.

Evidence item number 48, which is one of the drops from the Bundy
walkway, did you test that evidence item?

(Counsel displays board entitled Results of DNA Analysis, Bundy Crime
Scene.)

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And the results you got were what, sir?

A. DQ Alpha type 1.1, comma 1.2.

Q. And the reference vial for Mr. Simpson, did you get a DQ Alpha type
on that, as well?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What was the type on it?

A. 1.1, 1.2.

Q. So the DQ Alpha type you obtained for item 48 matched Mr. Simpson's
DQ Alpha type?

A. Yeah. They have the same DQ Alpha type.

Q. Right. And you can see from the chart here, the results you got are
the same that DOJ and Cellmark got of that same evidence item. Do you
see that, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. And then for items 50 and 52, did you get the same results on those
evidence items?

A. Yes.

Q. And you can see from the chart that Cellmark and DOJ, they also
tested those and they also got the same results. Do you see that, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you.

MR. LAMBERT: The chart is Exhibit 291 for the record, Your Honor

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, Mr. Yamauchi, I'd like to turn to another
subject.

Did you, in this case also do some work in connection with an
examination of the socks evidence, item number 13?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Did you, on August the 4th, do any anything in connection with those
socks?

A. Yes. I searched them for blood.

Q. And prior to August the 4th, had you looked at those socks on any
prior occasion?

A. On June 29.

Q. And on June 29, was that at a meeting with Mr. Matheson and Michele
Kestler?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Matheson already testified about that meeting, so we won't go
into it again.

But let me just ask: On that occasion, June 29, did you have occasion
to look at the socks?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you notice any blood on the socks on June 29?

A. No.

Q. Did you closely examine the socks on that occasion?

A. No.

Q. Then on August the 4th, you did a search for blood; is that right?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. Can you describe for us -- well, first let me ask you this:

When you first took the socks out and looked at them on August the
4th, did they look any different than they had on June 29?

A. August the 4th? I really didn't look at them all that well on the
29th, and so, no, I wouldn't notice any difference.

Q. When you first took them out on August the 4th, did you notice any
blood that was apparent on the socks?

A. No.

Q. So you then did a closer examination for blood?

A. Well, yes. That phenolthalein test I described earlier was
utilized. I basically looked at the socks, looked closely for slight
discolorations or anything that might indicate a stain. It's a very
dark surface, so it's hard to see a stain on it.

And I then utilized that presumptive test that I described earlier and
it was positive, indicative of the presence of blood.

Q. So you did the phenolthalein test on more than one portion of the
socks?

A. Yes.

Q. And were all the tests positive that you did?

A. I did two spots. They were both positives.

Q. Did you do anything else with the socks at that point?

A. No. At that point, I asked my supervisor, Mr. Matheson, what to do
next.

And he just said, well, just package them back up and we'll decide
later what to do with that item of evidence.

Q. So that's all you did at that point with the socks, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you.

MR. LAMBERT: Your Honor, I move Exhibit 2189 into evidence.

THE COURT: Received.

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2189 was
received in evidence.)

MR. LAMBERT: No further questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Cross.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. Thank you, Your Honor.

Mr. Yamauchi, can you give me an estimate of the total amount of time
that you have spent working with or for the plaintiffs in this case?

A. Actually meeting with them maybe about five, ten hours something
like that.

Q. And how much time -- we took your deposition. How much time was
that?

A. I'm not really sure. Maybe an hour and a half.

Q. And how much preparation time did you do?

A. As far as reading, like going over my transcripts and stuff?

Q. Yes.

A. Got to be over 40 hours.

Q. Okay. Did you keep track of that time with any kind of
particularity?

A. I've been writing it down.

Q. Do you know whether or not the plaintiffs have been billed for any
of your time?

A. I'm not sure. The City Attorney's Office is supposed to handle that
for us.

Q. Have you submitted any kind of billings at all to the City
Attorney?

A. No, I haven't.

Q. You know, the time that you spent with the plaintiffs, how much
time have you spent with Mr. Lambert?

A. Counting today, before this morning, probably a little over five
hours.

Q. And did he go over the questions he was going to ask?

A. Well, he didn't go over, like, specifically what he's going to ask,
but he asked me questions.

Q. How much experience did you have with case work in the PCR process
at the time that you did the tests in this case?

A. I'm sorry; one more time.

Q. How much experience did you have in case work with PCR analysis at
the time that you did the tests in this case?

A. I believe about six months.

Q. And there were other analysts at LAPD that had more experience than
you, correct, in that topic?

A. Well, specifically in PCR, but in conventional and DNA serology, I
was the most experienced.

Q. In PCR, there were other people of much more experience than you?

A. I wouldn't say much, but there were people with more experience.

Q. I'm sorry. Were you done?

A. Yes. That's fine.

Q. Was there anybody there that was doing PCR that had less experience
than you?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Relevance.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Yamauchi, do you think it's important to have
procedures in place to avoid the manipulation of samples, to avoid
transferring material from one piece of evidence to another?

A. You talking about contamination?

Q. To avoid cross-contamination, yes.

A. Yes, it's very important.

Q. It's extremely important, is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And that applies to evidence samples before they get to you, as
well as when you get them; is that correct?

A. Of course.

Q. It applies in packaging and unpackaging materials, correct?

A. Packaging and unpackaging materials? I'm sorry; can you be more
specific?

Q. Anytime that a sample is looked at by you -- for instance, you have
to unpack it from whatever container it's in, from the person who had
it before?

A. I see what you're saying.

Yes, that's correct.

Q. It's very important each time you do that, that is, take it out of
something and put it back, that you avoid too much manipulation of the
item to avoid possible contamination, correct?

A. It's always a good rule of thumb, yes.

Q. Now, in this case, you were aware right from the beginning that
this was a very high profile case, were you not?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I didn't know it was going to be as high profile as it
turned out to be, but we've had -- we work in LA. We've got a lot of
high profile cases.

Q. Like, is this one of them?

A. Sure turned out that way.

Q. You knew it at the time you did your testing?

A. At the time of my testing, like I said, I knew it was a high
profile case.

I didn't know it was going to be as big as it turned out to be.

Q. Okay.

And you were told that it was a priority matter, were you not?

A. Priority? Well, I was told that the results and things like that,
there was reasons why they would need them rather quickly, yes.

Q. They told you they wanted them as soon as possible, correct?

A. I'm not sure if they used those words exactly.

Q. Remember testifying at the criminal trial that that's what they
told you?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, Your Honor. If he has a reference, he should
give it, not ask him.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Well, if I said and agreed to that, then I must have done
it. I don't have a recollection of those specifics.

Q. All right. And they told you they wanted results that day, correct,
on the 14th?

A. No, nobody ever told me that.

Q. Now, the manual for the DQ Alpha system suggests that you not do
more than 15 samples at a time; isn't that correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. It's beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I believe it states more something on the line of
approximately 15.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And how many items did you process at one time in
one series on the 14th?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. All those items are admitted, Your
Honor.

THE COURT: I'll allow a limited examination.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Twenty-three items, wasn't it, Mr. Yamauchi?

A. I believe one batch was 23 items, yeah.

Q. And on the 15th, you did 19 items, correct?

A. Yes. That sounds -- that sounds correct.

Q. And for the 23 items you did on the 14th, that includes the
preparation of the samples, the extraction of the DNA, the
amplification of the DQ Alpha, the hybridization -- in other words,
putting the solution on the testing strips, preserving the testing
strips, and photographing the testing strips, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, in your lab, you have to go to two different locations to do
DQ Alpha tests, do you not?

A. Yes, we do.

Q. And you have to start preparing the sample at Pipertech, which is
where your lab is located, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And then when you're ready to amplify a sample, that is to make
multiple copies of small amounts of DNA, you've got to go to Parker
Center, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And that's -- you go in a car, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you have to carry these samples in the car?

A. Yes.

Q. And you conduct the amplification at a small room or small area in
Parker Center, correct?

A. Yes, it's a rather small room.

Q. And after you do that, the amplified DNA, that has a lot more DNA
than when you started, and you go back to Piper Tech, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you carry it back in a car, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's where you do the rest of the testing, correct?

A. Well, no. Actually, we do the hybridizations over there. The only
reason we take the DNA back, the DNA product back, is to do our
product gels, which is done in a separate room from where the sampling
takes place.

Q. Okay.

But you bring back the amplified product from your amplification room
and you bring it back to the lab; isn't that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You do not have a procedure in place that prohibits taking
amplified product out of the amplification area back to your lab;
isn't that correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant; beyond the scope; it's all
admitted.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Unless I take the amplified product back to the lab, I
can't analyze it on the product gel.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Okay.

Now, you can't do -- you can do what is called a yield gel, can you
not?

MR. LAMBERT: Same objection.

Q. -- before you do a test?

MR. LAMBERT: Excuse me. Same objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I'll sustain that.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did you ever do a yield gel or a blot test to
determine how much DNA you had and how much of it was human?

MR. LAMBERT: Same objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BAKER: May we be heard on this, Your Honor?

THE COURT: No.

I'll allow examination regarding contamination but not as to ultimate
results.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Have you been taught that cross-contamination is
much more of a potential problem when you're dealing with smaller
amounts of degraded DNA?

A. Contamination's going to be a problem, regardless of whether you
have a large sample that contains a lot of DNA or a small sample in
quantity of DNA.

Part of the problem is, though, you can't tell by looking at a blood
swatch whether you have one blood swatch or a thousand blood swatches,
what quantities or quality of DNA is in that swatch. So your point --
I'm not sure I really get it.

Q. Okay.

Weren't you trained that where you have small quantities of degraded
DNA, that cross-contamination, a little bit of it, can cause you to
get improper results or incorrect results, because the small amount of
contamination and the small amount of starting sample all amplified
together?

Haven't you been taught that?

A. Small amount -- small amount of sample and small amount of
contamination all amplified together.

Q. Um-hum.

If you start with a larger quantity of DNA in your evidence sample,
then a small amount of contamination is not going to be -- is not
going to overwhelm your original larger amount, correct?

A. Well, that's true, if you know the quantity and quality of the DNA
you're working with.

Q. And that's what the blot and the yield blot are for?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Same objection as before.

MR. BLASIER: It's relevant to cross-contamination.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Well, the only thing we could use would be a blot. A gel
is not effective with the type of extraction process that we utilize.

Q. A gel tells you the count of DNA, both human --

THE COURT: Excuse me. Okay.

From here on in, I will sustain the objection based upon the
motion-in-limine ruling I made previously with regards to different
collections in the different testing techniques.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: And of testing techniques.

You may examine as to what he did, not whether there was any
contamination as to what he did. We will not go into what other
techniques there are available.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Yamauchi, before you were allowed to do case
work, you were required to do proficiency testing, correct, and
validation studies in your lab?

A. Yes.

Q. And you took a certain number of tests to determine whether you
were capable of accurately reading DQ Alpha results, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And one of those tests involved nine different samples. Do you
recall that test?

A. Specifically, I must have done a lot of tests involving nine or
more samples.

Q. Do you recall the test that involved nine different vaginal samples
that had combinations of vaginal fluids and semen?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant.

MR. BLASIER: The proficiency testing is relevant for the ability of
him to get results.

THE COURT: You stipulated to the results. The question is
contamination. You may examine as to his procedures re contamination.

Q. BY MR. BLASIER: Now, Mr. Yamauchi, how did you get Mr. Simpson's
reference blood on the 14th?

A. From Dennis Fung.

Q. He gave it to you personally, didn't he?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you started to take your notes about that reference
sample, you put down that it was item 18, didn't you?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Dennis Fung did not tell you that that was a mistake, it was really
17, did he?

A. Well, he -- at that point, I don't think he had all those items in
order.

Q. Mr. Yamauchi, he didn't tell that you it should be 17 rather than
18, did he?

A. As far as I my recollection goes -- and this requires an
explanation.

Q. Mr. Yamauchi, did he tell you or didn't he?

A. Mr. Blasier, can I explain?

Q. That's a yes-or-no answer.

A. I know. But I'd still like to explain.

Q. Well, Mr. Lambert will have plenty of time with you.

Yes or no?

A. I need to give an explanation.

THE COURT: No, you don't; you need to answer the question.

THE WITNESS: Okay; I'm sorry.

One more time, please.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Mr. Fung didn't tell you when he gave you that
sample, that it was really item 17, did he?

A. No.

Q. Now, that envelope was not sealed -- the envelope that had the vial
was not sealed, was it?

A. I don't recall.

I don't think it was.

Q. And isn't it accurate that the procedure for those blood vials
requires that that envelope be sealed at the time the blood is drawn?

A. I'm not sure.

MR. BLASIER: Here is Exhibit 1112.

(The instrument herein referred to as document entitled breath alcohol
test given, yes, no, results, was marked for identification as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 1112.)

(Counsel displays Exhibit 1112.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Yamauchi, do you recognize this as a copy of
the printing that appears on the front of the blood vial envelope?

A. I can't tell you that, since I'm not involved with that section of
the collection process.

I really don't think I've ever read that.

Q. So you don't know whether it's supposed to be sealed or not,
correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. THE WITNESS: After they sample it, no, I don't know what the
procedures are.

Q. Isn't sealing evidence items one of the requirements, to protect
their integrity?

A. Sealing is.

And as far as SID is concerned, we have to have our evidence sealed.

Q. Now --

A. Final packaging sealed before it's booked.

Q. But it's left open before booking?

A. Yeah.

Well, how can you collect it if it's sealed?

Q. It's supposed to be sealed from the time of collection until
somebody does something with it; isn't that correct?

A. No.

Q. So it's left open -- evidence items are left open from the time
they're collected until they're analyzed?

A. Until they're booked.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. Until they're booked.

Q. That's another procedure used in your lab?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, when you got Mr. Simpson's reference vial, your testimony is
that you took three chemwipes and put it over the cap of the vial?

A. Yes.

Q. Along with your gloves?

MR. LAMBERT: What do you mean?

Object to the question.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You were wearing gloves at the same time?

MR. LAMBERT: Oh.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You were wearing gloves at the same time?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you opened the vial, you got blood -- blood soaked through
all three chemwipes, on your glove; isn't that correct?

A. All three chemwipes, onto my glove?

Yes, I got a little bit of blood onto my glove.

Q. By the way, you didn't measure what the quantity of blood was in
that blood vial, did you?

A. Of course not.

Q. Now, after you -- or, you said you took the cap off and you set it
down on the table, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And that was the cap that had all the blood that got through the
three chemwipes, onto your glove, correct?

A. Same cap.

Q. And you said unfortunately, you were in the evidence processing
room.

You're not supposed to process those kinds of samples in the evidence
processing room, are you?

A. There's no reason why it can't be done.

Q. Why did you say "unfortunately?"

A. Well, because it wasn't a familiar environment to me. If I were
doing it back in serology, I would know where all my disposal
receptacles are.

Q. You have any idea how much blood got out of that vial when you took
the cap off and put the cap down on the table?

A. How much blood got out of the vial?

Q. Yes.

A. Well, I sampled, generally speaking, about a one ML.

Q. Do you know how much of it got out on the chemwipe, on your glove,
and the cap on the table?

A. You said on the table.

No blood got on the table, but soaking into the chemwipe and onto my
glove, if I had to approximate, I'd say it's probably 10 to 20
microliters.

Q. You have any idea what 20 nanograms of blood looks like?

A. 20 nanograms of blood?

Q. Yeah. Blood that has 20 nanograms of DNA.

A. Oh, okay. Sure.

Q. How much?

A. Well, you're talking about approximately three to five microliters.

Q. What did that look like?

A. Three to five microliters of blood, well, if you were to put it
onto a piece of paper or something like that, it would be a visible
stain.

Q. How big?

A. Not very big.

Maybe -- you know, this is a generalization -- it's going to depend
upon the type of paper, of course, and other factors, but I would say
approximately three millimeters in diameter.

Q. Now, after the blood got out onto your glove and into the chemwipe,
you took your gloves off and did something with it, correct?

A. Okay. After I replaced the cap, I had my gloves with the chemwipes
in my hand, took my gloves off, and I realized I had to throw them
out.

Once again, I had to decide whether to go to the back of this room,
where they had the proper disposal receptacle, or to take them back to
serology.

Q. By the way, prior to the time you testified in the criminal trial,
did you have any recollection at all of changing your gloves after you
opened that cap?

A. Specific recollection I had while I was up on the stand?

Q. My question was, before you testified in the criminal trial, do you
-- did you have any recollection of changing your gloves?

A. Not a specific recollection.

Q. And isn't it accurate that what happened at the criminal trial,
after you admitted that you had opened the cap and got blood on the
chemwipes and on your hands, that's when you remembered, I changed my
gloves, too?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative.

MR. BLASIER: Isn't that correct?

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: When I got -- when I looked and saw that there was blood
on my glove.

MR. BLASIER: No.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) My question was, isn't it true that it was only
after you admitted that blood had gotten out of the vial onto the
chemwipes onto the glove, that you then remembered that you changed
your gloves, also?

A. Yes, because --

Q. Thank you.

A. Okay.

Q. Now, after -- the first thing you did after you opened Mr.
Simpson's reference vial and started processing that, was process the
Rockingham glove, correct?

A. Yes.

MR. BLASIER: We have an exhibit we're getting, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) But while we're getting that, when you got the
next day -- when you got the reference samples for both victims, those
were personally delivered to you by Detective Vannatter, correct?

A. Well, he had handed them over to me from his custody.

Q. That's a yes, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

And you didn't make any note of the quantity in those vials; of either
of those, did you?

A. No.

Q. You would have no way of knowing whether there was less blood in
those vials than had been put there by the coroner?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: This is Exhibit 1110.

(Counsel displays Exhibit 1110.)

(The instrument herein referred to as Board entitled Mr. Yamauchi's
diagram of glove found at Rockingham was marked for identification as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 1110.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Yamauchi, can you see that from where you are?

A. Yes.

Q. And you remember this exhibit from the criminal trial?

A. Looks familiar.

Q. And you actually drew a diagram in your notes about how many times
you handled or took things from the Rockingham glove, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And each one of these arrows represents your taking something away
or handling the Rockingham glove, correct?

A. Taking something or sampling.

Q. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And there are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, times that you checked in the wrist
area with phenolthalein testing or other samples, correct?

A. One, two -- I'll double-check my own notes.

Three times.

Q. You did two phenol tests, three phenol tests, a spot-check, a
sample cutting, did you not, in the wrist area of the glove?

A. That spot check and the phenol test, they are the same thing.

Q. Okay.

A. Yeah.

Q. You also handled the glove to put your initials on the inside of
the wrist notch, correct?

A. Yes, I put my initials --

Q. Thank you.

A. -- over there.

Q. Now, you have no specific recollection of changing your gloves
between samples, do you?

A. Specific recollection, no.

Q. Thank you.

A. But I would have changed my gloves.

Q. Because that would be good procedure, wouldn't it?

You don't have anything in your notes that tells you what you did in
processing these samples with respect to changing your gloves by any
law enforcement officer, do you?

A. Of course not. It's common procedure.

It's common sense, also.

Q. To not write in your notes the steps you go through?

A. No; to change your gloves.

Q. Oh.

MR. BLASIER: Can we have the Bronco results board?

THE COURT: Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about
the case. (Recess.)

MR. BLASIER: Would you permit me briefly -- may I approach briefly to
make an offer?

THE COURT: All right.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, this witness testified that he did the test
in this case the way he always does this test.

We stipulated to what the test results -- what numbers they were going
to give. We did not stipulate that they were accurate results, whether
the tests were done properly.

The very first sample of this -- first sample of the proficiency test
got the wrong answer. He reported that he got the right answer. But he
got the wrong answer.

That's relevant to the weight of all of his testimony, and I think it
should be admissible and I think we ought to be able to go into that.

MR. LAMBERT: How can it possibly be relevant if he did get the wrong
test results of a proficiency test he took a year later? They even
admitted these test results had the correct answer.

MR. BLASIER: No, we admitted that they were the results he got, not
that they were accurate or done properly.

MR. LAMBERT: They've admitted all the DQ Alpha results for all of the
evidence items.

THE COURT: It would appear to me that the testimony so far, we've had
three different examinations of the same, they all come out with the
same results to which you've stipulated with regards to what the
result was.

Now, I think it's -- in order to -- it's a waste of time with regard
to testing out of the issue of whether he used a -- he was proficient
at his testing.

You want to argue contamination, go ahead, examine him on -- all you
want on contamination, but as far as the proficiency aspect of it is
concerned, on the basis of the evidence that is received thus far,
this is almost cumulative.

MR. BLASIER: I want the record to be clear that we did not agree that
these test results were accurate. We had qualifiers in there, some of
which the court --

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, three experts examined the same blood coming
out with the same result.

MR. BLASIER: We're going to get into results that are different now.

THE COURT: How are they different?

MR. BLASIER: He got an inconclusive on two samples where they've
reported results. In fact, one of them was on the board.

THE COURT: You go ahead and ask him about the inconclusive, you may do
that and you may argue the inconclusive.

MR. BLASIER: I can?

THE COURT: I'm not going to allow examination as to proficiency I
think on the basis of the evidence -- on the basis of the fact that
you've stipulated to the result. I'm not going to allow it.

Thank you.

(The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of
the jury.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. Mr. Yamauchi, you testified as to Dr. Cotton that the DQ Alpha
system only has 6 alleles?

A. Yes.

Q. That's not correct, is it; it has 8 alleles, doesn't it?

A. Well, in the DQ Alpha system that we use, or that I use, it has 6.

Q. There is a 4.1 and a 4.2 in addition to the 4, is there not?

A. In the new kits.

Q. Those are different alleles in that system, are they not?

A. Of course they are.

Q. So when you call somebody a 4, you never did the testing to find
out whether they were a 4, a 4.1 or a 4.2, did you?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, irrelevant, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. No, I didn't.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) So all of the results that might be consistent
with Mr. Goldman with a 4 allele, you don't know whether this might
actually be an exclusion?

A. Well, for that matter, there could have been other systems and
other tests that we could have run to narrow it down further.

Q. You didn't though, did you?

A. No, I only ran --

Q. Thank you.

A. -- that one test.

Q. Now, with respect to the Bundy drops, none of the bindles that you
looked at had Andrea Mazzola's initials on them, did they?

A. I don't recall if they did or not.

Q. Thank you.

When you ran the reference samples for both victims and for Mr.
Simpson --

MR. BLASIER: This is 1275.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Is it accurate on June 15 when you ran the victims
DQ Alpha results from Nicole Brown Simpson showed a possible 1.2
allele?

A. That was on her exemplar?

Q. Yes.

A. I don't recall that.

Q. You have your strips with you, your pictures?

A. I don't have pictures of the strips with me.

Q. Those were provided to the defense in the criminal trial, weren't
they?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you.

And with respect to Mr. Goldman, isn't it true that you found an
indication of a 1.1 allele and a possible 1.2 allele on his reference
sample?

A. Yes.

Q. Possible 1.2.

A. No --

Q. Those strips --

A. Let me look at my notes first.

According to my notes, I don't have any extraneous dots indicated. I'd
have to look at the strips again.

Q. All right. You don't have those with you, do you?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Those strips were provided to Dr. John Gerdes, who was a defense
expert, correct?

A. A lot of strips were provided to him, yes.

Q. Okay.

(Counsel displays board entitled "Results of DNA Analysis Bronco
Automobile.")

MR. BLASIER: This --

MR. P. BAKER: 293.

MR. BLASIER: 293.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Mr. Yamauchi, on the 15th you processed, among
other samples, samples from the Bronco, correct?

(Exhibit 293 displayed)

A. Yes.

Q. And one of those samples that's on your results is 31, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you reported that as an inconclusive, didn't you?

A. Yes, that was reported inconclusive.

Q. Let's look at 2189, the second page.

If we zoom in on 31. They say inconclusive. That's what you reported
out, correct?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. You didn't report out 1.1, 1.2, weak 1.3, 4, did you?

A. As a result, no.

Q. Thank you.

Now, you also tested 33, which was a carpet fiber from an area in the
floor board of the Bronco, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you got no results, didn't you?

A. On 33?

Q. Yes.

A. No results, yes, that's correct.

Q. In fact of all the Bronco samples that you tested on the 15th, none
of them showed anything consistent with either victim, correct?

A. Well, I did obtain results that weren't conclusive.

Q. Inconclusive means you don't report the results out, doesn't it?

A. And the reasons for that.

Q. Okay.

Between the time that you reported inconclusive and we got to the
criminal trial, this had been changed to a 1.1, 1.2, weak 1.3, 4,
hadn't it?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, changed where, vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Had it been changed?

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Yes.

A. As far as right here on this board versus the time that it was put
up at the criminal trial?

Q. No, no. This was -- what you reported or what the prosecutors had
you report in the criminal trial was your results for 31, is it not?

A. Those are the actual interpretations of the strip. Those are the
results.

Q. Your interpretation?

A. Not conclusive.

Q. Your interpretation was inconclusive, wasn't it?

A. As far as my report went, yes, it was.

Q. And that was before anyone recognized the importance of there being
no victim's blood in the Bronco from the June 14 samples, correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, 293, which is listed on this board, along
with 33 -- let me show you property report 12.

MR. P. BAKER: 1412.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) 1412. I put a tab there for you.

Do you recognize these as the property reports for this case?

(The instrument herein described as property reports amended to add
page 58 was marked for identification as Plaintiff's Exhibit No.
1412.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Is that for the whole case?

MR. BLASIER: (Nodded.)

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you.

A. They're property reports, I'll take your word for it, sure.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) When was 293 collected that got results consistent
with Nicole Brown?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, calls for speculation, lack of foundation to
this witness.

MR. BLASIER: It's a business record.

THE COURT: The way the question is written (indicating to computer), I
don't understand the question.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) The business records that you have in front of you
indicate that 293 was collected on September 1, isn't that accurate?

MR. LAMBERT: Same objections, Your Honor. He's having him read from a
record.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes, according to this record.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Thank you.

Now, I'll ask you some questions about June 29, your meeting with
Michelle Kestler, Greg Matheson and yourself.

Do you recall that?

A. Yes.

Q. And Michelle Kestler was the Acting Director of the lab at that
time, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And she's now the Director of the lab, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. She's a highly experienced criminalist, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You had the experience that you've testified to, correct, in terms
of your experience as a criminalist, you've had several years
experience, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Matheson was highly experienced as well?

A. Yes.

Q. And the purpose of that meeting was to evaluate each piece of
evidence for its possible evidentiary value, wasn't it, for possible
testing?

A. Yes.

Q. For possible blood testing?

A. Yes.

Q. And another purpose of that meeting was to determine if there was
enough evidence in the various blood samples to give some to the
defense, correct?

A. No. I'm not sure if that was the purpose.

Q. Do you remember if the paperwork that was filled out, they had a
column that said "Split." You ever seen that?

A. Okay, that sounds familiar.

Q. That was one of the purposes for looking at all those evidence
items, wasn't it?

A. We could never make that determination fully by just looking at the
items, though.

The main purpose of that exercise was to act in sort of a form of a
triage and in type of MASH, where four doctors, eight casualties, only
four of them can be operated on at a time, so they have to send a
doctor out in order to evaluate which ones need high priority.

Well, that's exactly what we did in this situation. We had a large
amount of evidence and we didn't have enough of -- the facilities to
analyze every single bit of it simultaneously.

So we had to get together and they had to decide from a management
standpoint which evidence items took priority over others, and the
only way we could do this is by taking a quick look at them and trying
to determine which ones should be analyzed first and analyzed in what
fashion.

Q. So I take it you didn't have enough time to look at all of them
carefully, is that what you're saying?

A. Again, that's not the point.

Q. Well, Mr. Yamauchi, that's what you just said, isn't it?

A. No, it's not.

Q. Oh.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, misstates his testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did you have enough time to look at all of this,
Mr. Yamauchi?

A. To get a look, yeah. Not to analyze them.

Q. Well, there wasn't any testing done on that day, was there?

A. Of course not.

Q. You were looking at them to decide what kind of testing we (sic)
should do on them?

A. Potential testing, that's correct.

Q. In order to decide that, you have to look at the item to see if it
has any blood on it or other biological material, correct?

A. Potentially, yes.

Q. And you did that with the socks, didn't you, as you did with
everything else?

A. Yes, we took a look at those socks.

Q. You didn't see any blood on them on June 29, did you?

A. Didn't see anything obvious on June 29, didn't see anything obvious
on August the 4.

I could bring those socks out right now, show everybody in this room
those socks, you wouldn't see anything obvious that looks like blood
on them either.

But the fact remains that those socks have blood on them to this day.

Q. Mr. Yamauchi, you knew that the socks were a dark color on the 29th
when you looked at them, didn't you?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you knew it's hard to see blood on dark cloth, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. So you would have looked at those, if you were doing your job, more
carefully than something lighter, wouldn't you?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You would have looked at those more carefully?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, let's get to August 4.

Now, is it your testimony that when you got the socks on August 4 --
by the way, who told you to look at them on August the 4?

A. I believe that must have been from a manager, like Greg or
somebody.

Q. Do you have it in your notes?

A. I don't believe so but I'll check.

Q. You don't write those kind of things down, do you?

A. No.

Q. All right.

So when you got them on August 4, you're saying that you still
couldn't see any blood on them?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you did two phenol tests, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you just happen to hit the stain on the ankle, didn't you?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did you just happen to hit the stain on the ankle
with the phenol test?

MR. LAMBERT: Same objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You may rephrase it.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did the two stains -- the two areas that you
checked, how did you know where to check?

A. Again, I looked at them carefully and I -- the only thing I can
perceive is a very slight discoloration in certain areas. To be
thorough, I did a phenolphthalein test in those areas.

Q. You saw a big discoloration around the ankle, didn't you, that you
thought was blood?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. That's not what I said. I said --

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) I'm asking you isn't that what you saw, you saw a
big discoloration that you could see with the naked eye and you tested
it like you should?

A. It wasn't a big discoloration. It was barely perceptible.

Q. Barely perceptible. How big was it?

A. I don't know, I don't remember.

Q. Did you draw a diagram of it?

A. A cursory one.

Q. Can we look at this, please?

A. Certainly.

Q. Now, let's take it out here.

MR. BLASIER: Like to have this marked as next. We can make a copy so
he can have it as a written record.

THE CLERK: 2190.

(The instrument herein described as a Diagram from Mr. Yamauchi's
notebook was marked for identification as Defendant's Exhibit No.
2190.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That's what you saw in the ankle area of the sock,
isn't it?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. What did he mean by that's what you saw.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That's what you diagramed -- you saw on the sock
on August 4?

A. What that diagram represents is the approximate area where I took
the phenolphthalein test.

Q. Not -- that doesn't represent the size of the stain you saw?

A. You can't see the stains on that sock. There's just slight
discoloration, they're barely perceptible.

Q. By the way, Mr. Yamauchi, do you know where the reference vials of
the two victims and Mr. Simpson were on August 4?

A. I don't know specifically.

MR. BLASIER: I have no further questions.

MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, Your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:

Q. Let me just cover a few of the subjects that Mr. Blasier covered
during his examination.

First let's go back to the DQ Alpha test. That test is done using a
kit, isn't it, Mr. Yamauchi?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And manufactured by whom?

I think you mentioned the name of them.

A. Perkin Elmore.

Q. And at the time that you did the DQ Alpha test in question here,
did that kit have the capability of isolating the 4.1 or 4.2 allele?

A. No, it did not.

Q. What was the capability of the kit at that time?

A. Just 6 alleles, that I mentioned previously.

Q. And just the 4 alleles at that location?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, we also had some testimony concerning your use of the word
inconclusive in your reports.

A. Yes.

Q. But let's take a look again at this one evidence item here, No. 31.

Now, you actually did a DQ Alpha test on evidence item 31?

A. Yes.

Q. And what -- what alleles did you see on the DQ Alpha strip for
evidence item 31?

A. The alleles that are up there are properly represented.

Q. 1.1, 1.2, weak 4, very weak 1.3?

A. Right.

Q. And --

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I object. That misstates the chart. That says
DOJ, doesn't say SID.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Are those the alleles that you saw --

MR. BLASIER: I'd like a ruling.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) These are the alleles that you saw when you did
the DQ Alpha test?

A. Yes.

Q. In the report, you reported inconclusive for 31. Why is that?

A. Because based upon that amount of alleles, that indicates a
mixture, and rather than make a statement on it that we couldn't be
sure of, we were uncertain at this point and just stated it as
inconclusive, didn't make any conclusions or draw any conclusions on
that particular stain.

Q. Thank you, sir.

MR. LAMBERT: Take this one down.

(Indicating to chart)

(Counsel displays exhibit entitled "Mr. Yamauchi's Diagram of Glove
Found at Rockingham.")

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Mr. Blasier asked you whether in doing your
testing and sampling of the glove whether you did several tests down
here at the bottom of the glove, sir, do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. You also tested these other areas on the glove, didn't you, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you.

Now, when you -- when you ran -- you mentioned during -- during your
direct testimony that in addition to each item of evidence, there was
also a control for each item of evidence when you ran your PCR test.
Did those control swatches also go through the PCR test?

A. Yes, they ran through the same process.

Q. And what results did you get on the control swatches?

A. There were no results on that.

Q. And what does that tell us about the control swatch?

A. The way that's acting is acting in the form of what's called a
negative control saying that the process up from the sampling point
and when the control's taken off of the substrate which I explained
earlier, that process -- there's no contaminants being produced along
the way. And because we don't -- excuse me. Because we don't obtain
any results, that's an indication to us that the test was run soundly.

Q. So, Mr. Yamauchi, if you actually had blood on your glove and you
actually had that blood on your glove when you handled one of those
control swatches, would that have then shown up when you did the PCR
test of that control swatch?

A. If hypothetically I had blood on my gloves and I touched them to
the swatch, I would expect a possibility of that showing up.

Q. But for all of the controls that you tested, you got no hint of any
DNA being present; is that right?

A. The controls ran blank, yes.

Q. Now, Mr. Blasier asked you some questions about whether evidence
items were sealed or open, do you remember that, during the
cross-examination?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, when LAPD books items of evidence, do they then seal the item
of evidence?

A. Yes, we seal our evidence items before we book them.

Q. Would you describe what you mean by sealing?

A. Well, what that in essence means is the final packaging -- let's
say we could have maybe ten items and -- to a certain box or
something. Well, that box before it's booked has to be taped shut and
across the tape a seal has to be placed to show that it was sealed by
such and such individual on such and such date, so on and so forth.

Q. And prior to the time that an evidence item is sealed, is it just
left in the open or is it in some kind of closed container?

A. The evidence items?

Q. Yeah. For example, the swatch, a blood swatch, is that just left
out in the open or is it in some kind of container before it's sealed?

A. Well, going through the processing, there's a drying process and
then proper handling after it's dry, you would put it in the bindles
and the bindles go into the coin envelopes, et cetera.

Q. So those aren't sealed but they're all in containers, those items
of evidence?

A. Of course they are, yes.

Q. And the blood vials that you talked about in this case, were they
closed, the ones that you dealt with when you got them?

A. Yes.

Q. They had caps on them?

A. Yes, they did.

Q. They weren't just open?

A. No.

Q. Finally, Mr. Blasier asked you some questions about item number 17
and how -- and the fact that it was originally recorded as item number
18.

Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Now, did you later find that that was an error and that
item number 18 should have been listed as item number 17?

A. Yes, I did. During the time that I was receiving these items to
sample, Dennis had not yet run the tally and and done the clerical
work to figure out what item numbers were finally going to assigned to
each item.

And I wrote my report out under the impression that that would be 18.
After he wrote his report, that item ended up being 17.

So a sheet was made to correct that miscommunication.

Q. Thank you.

MR. LAMBERT: No further questions.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. Mr. Yamauchi, did you just say that when Mr. Fung gave you the
envelope, he didn't know what item number it was going to be?

A. The blood envelope?

Q. Yeah.

A. With Mr. Simpson's blood?

Q. Yeah.

A. No, I don't think he would have known specifically what item it
would end up with.

Q. How did it get 18?

A. I'm not sure. I can't remember every little detail but that's what
I was under the impression of. Either he told me or Andrea Mazzola
told me.

Q. There wasn't a 17 in red written on the envelope, was there?

A. No, there was no item number on that envelope.

Q. Thank you.

Now, did you also say that the coin envelopes that had the bindles
with the Bundy drops in them had been left unsealed?

A. Coin, Bundy blood, yes.

Q. You always seal items after you look at them so that -- and you
write your initials on the seal and there's special type tape that
says seal so that you can tell when somebody else -- when anybody
opens up an envelope, don't you?

A. On the final packaging, yes. The individual items don't necessarily
have to be sealed.

Q. The coin envelopes, the packaging is always sealed so that you know
how many times people have gone in and out of it, isn't that true?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Now, item 31.

(Counsel displays Exhibit 31.)

Q. This chart, under SID -- that's you guys, right -- says 1.1, 1.2,
weak 1.3, 4, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you report this result or did you report weak 4, very weak 1.3?

A. On my report was stated inconclusive.

Q. When did it become weak 1.3, 4?

A. That's what it always was on my data sheet. That's what's written
down.

Q. When did it become this result for purposes of documentation?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, irrelevant, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I'm not sure. Because that result always was indicated on my data
sheet.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) But your sheet that we showed here, that you
brought in, that was introduced as your final results, isn't it?

A. That's my report, yes, it is.

Q. And then at some point, when this big chart was prepared, the
results were put on it as it appears here, correct?

A. Yes, somebody -- some attorney decided to put up my results off of
my data.

Q. Okay.

A. And I will confirm that that's what I got as far as my data is
concerned.

Q. But you took the conservative approach when you did your test and
when you found it inconclusive, right?

A. When I wrote that down, my initial report, yes, I did.

Q. And some attorney said we don't want you to be quite that
conservative, right?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, you said that when you -- by the way, you
don't have your testing strip with you on this test?

A. No, I don't.

Q. That was turned over to the defense as well, was it not?

A. I certainly hope so.

Q. How intense was the 1.3 dot?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Compared to the C dot?

A. I imagine if I wrote weak it would have been less than the C dot.

Q. How about the 1.3?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, that's the one he just asked.

A. Didn't you just ask --

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) I'm sorry, I thought I just asked for 4.

A. The 4, I'm not sure, I'd imagine was less than the C dot also.

Q. Now, you're saying that where you get that result, where you get
dots that are less than the C dot, that indicates a mixture?

A. Well, it can depending on the intensity.

Q. Didn't you just indicate that that indicates a mixture?

A. Yes, previously I said that.

Q. What did the manual say it means?

A. What does the manual say it means?

Q. Yes.

A. What part are you referring to?

Q. Doesn't the manual say that it could be a mixture, it could be
contamination, it could be a DX gene, or it would be
cross-hybridization?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, calls for hearsay, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled. Goes to this witness's knowledge.

A. No, I don't believe so.

Q. The manual didn't say that?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

How about the difference between the 1.3 and the 4, was there any
difference in intensity?

A. I have on my data sheet 1.3, very weak, weak 1.3, 4. So judging by
what I wrote on my data sheet, the 1.3 was probably a little weaker
than the 4, although this is a photocopy of my strip so I can't really
tell.

Q. Okay. So there was -- But your records indicates there was a
difference in intensity between those two, correct?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. Lots of times when you get a 1.3, that's an indication of
cross-hybridization, correct?

A. That's a possibility.

Q. So some attorney at some point decided we're going for call the 1.3
and the 4 real alleles.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: No further questions.

MR. LAMBERT: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: You may step down.

MR. KELLY: Judge, could we briefly?

THE COURT: You may.

THE COURT REPORTER: With the reporter?

MR. KELLY: No, it's not necessary.

(A bench conference was held which was not reported.)

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, did you give her that exhibit, the one you
want a copy of?

MR. BLASIER: No, I didn't. I also want to introduce 1112 --

THE CLERK: Wait, wait. Okay.

MR. BLASIER: 1112, 1110, 2190, page 58 of 1412, and then from Mr.
Matheson's testimony, 2187, 308, 309, 2188, 1118, 1279, 1281, and
1275.

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 1112)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 1110)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 2190)

(The instrument herein described as page 58 was received in evidence
as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1412)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 2187)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 308)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 309)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 2188)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 1118)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 1279)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 1281)

(The instrument herein described was received in evidence as
Defendants' Exhibit No. 1275)

MR. LAMBERT: These are from Mr. Matheson's testimony?

MR. BLASIER: Yes.

MR. LAMBERT: I may need to look at my notes before so I can see what
those items of evidence are.

THE COURT: Let me know if there are any.

MR. LAMBERT: Can I bring in 291, which is the Bundy results board? We
now have all results on that.

MR. BAKER: We'd object, it's cumulative.

THE COURT: Okay. Overruled.

MR. KELLY: Next witness?

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. KELLY: John Edwards.

JOHN EDWARDS, called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiffs, was
duly sworn 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: And if you would please state and spell your name for the
record.

THE WITNESS: John Philip Edwards, J-o-h-n P-h-i-l-i-p E-d-w-a-r-d-s.

MR. KELLY: Ready, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yeah.

DIRECT-EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY:

Q. Morning, Detective?

A. Morning.

Q. Are you currently employed?

A. Yes, I am. I work for the City of Los Angeles. I'm assigned to Van
Nuys homicide.

Q. Okay. And what is your rank with the LAPD right now?

A. I'm a Detective Supervisor.

Q. Okay. Now, drawing your attention to January 1, 1989, at
approximately 4 AM were you on duty that day?

A. Yes, I was. I was in uniform in a black and white police vehicle
assigned as a training officer to a newer officer that just came on
the department.

Q. By the way, how many years have you been employed by the LAPD?

A. 26 years.

Q. Okay. Now, going back to January 1 of '89, did you have occasion to
receive a radio call at approximately 4 AM?

A. Yes, I did, to 360 North Rockingham.

Q. And what was the substance of that radio call?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled. Received only as to explain why the officer went
to a location.

A. Received a 911 call to that address, woman being beaten.

Q. Okay. And in that -- when that dispatch came in, did you proceed to
a particular location?

A. Yes, I did. I proceeded to 360 North Rockingham.

Q. And you eventually arrived there?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And within how long after reading the communication did you arrive
at that location?

A. Within approximately 10 minutes.

Q. Would you be able to describe, just in general terms, the climate
that particular early morning on New Year's Day, '89?

A. In the area of that address it's a hilly area. It was at night, it
was dark, it was cool, it was damp, and it had been like a misty,
light rain earlier that evening, so the ground was wet and the -- and
the air was still thick with mist.

Q. And approximately what time did you arrive at 360 North Rockingham?

A. Somewhere around 4 o'clock I believe.

Q. Okay. 4 AM?

A. Yes.

MR. KELLY: So I'll put up a diagram here.

(Counsel placed diagram entitled 360

North Rockingham Avenue Exhibit 116.)

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, Detective, what --

MR. KELLY: I'm sorry, that's 116, the exhibit number, Your Honor,
referring.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Can you explain, first of all, in what manner you
approached that location in your marked vehicle?

A. Yes. I came off of Sunset and I drove up Rockingham, I was driving
rapidly and I missed the first gate, I didn't even see it, and I went
around the corner and I saw the second gate and I stopped there.

Q. Okay. Did you stop directly in front of the gate on Ashford?

A. Little bit in that green area off to the side, not quite in front
of the gate because it appeared to me the gate opened outward.

Q. And what, if anything, happened upon your arrival there at that
location?

A. I got out of the car, walked over to the intercom box, it's a black
pole with a little box on the top with a button, and I pressed the
button to get someone's attention inside.

Q. Okay. Do you have a pointer there, by the way?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. I'm going to ask if you can step up by the board when you're giving
these answers.

(Witness complies, approaches board)

A. I came up Rockingham past this gate, parked my car approximately at
this location here, walked over and pressed the button on this
intercom box.

Q. And what, if anything, happened next?

A. Next thing I saw -- well, next thing that happened was a woman came
on the intercom box, and I said I'm a police officer, I'm here
responding to a 911 call, a woman has been beaten at this location, I
need to talk to her, I need to see her. And this woman responded,
everything's fine here, the police are not needed.

Q. By the way, were those gates to the entrance on Ashford open or
closed?

A. They were closed.

Q. And after that woman communicateed that to you, what, if anything,
did you do next?

A. I stood there. I told her I wasn't going to leave until I spoke to
the person that was being beaten and saw them personally, I was not
leaving. And within a few seconds a female Caucasian, blond hair,
wearing a white bra only and a light colored jump -- pants or sweat
pants or a pajama bottom, ran across right by the bushes and right
over directly to this control box -- ran across the driveway from the
bushes to the control box.

Q. And what, if anything, did this woman do upon her arrival at the
control box?

A. When she got to the control box she collapsed onto it. She
literally collapsed onto the control box and kept pushing on the
button about four, five times. Of course I couldn't see the button,
but it appears she was pushing on the button, and she yelled several
times to me, he's going to kill me, he's going to kill me.

Q. You were actually able to hear her say that at this time?

A. Yes.

Q. What, if anything, happened next after she was pushing the buzzer
and saying that?

A. Well, after she pushed the button several times she ran to the
gate. The gate hadn't opened yet. As she got to the gate it opened,
and she came flying through that open area of the gate, ran directly
to me and collapsed onto me.

Q. When you say she collapsed onto you, did she physically grab hold
of you?

A. Yes, she did.

Q. Okay.

A. Both arms.

Q. Both arms.

And could you describe to me exactly what she felt like in your arms
at that time?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) You were able to make physical contact with her with
your own arms, were you not?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. Were you able to make any observations yourself in terms of what
you felt of Nicole's body at this time? Can you describe her body,
what you felt?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Yes. She was cold, wet, and shivering. And as I had my arms around
her upper torso and her back, I could feel her bones were shivering.

Q. And could you describe her overall demeanor at that time also,
detective?

A. She was crying, she was hysterical, and appeared to be very
frightened and exhausted.

Q. And what, if anything, did she say to you at that time when she
collapsed in your arms?

A. Well, she repeated again he's going to kill me, he's going to kill
me. I asked her -- I said -- says, well who's going to kill you? And
she responded O.J. So I wasn't quite sure who she meant. I had a
feeling from the initials, so I asked her do you mean the football
player, O.J. Simpson, and she says yes, O.J. Simpson.

Q. Okay. What, if anything, did you do next?

A. I took my flashlight out and I illuminated her face and her torso
to see if she had any injuries. At the same time I told my partner to
take off her jacket and put it on Nicole because she was shivering,
very cold. And I looked at her face and I could see a bruised swelling
on her right side of her forehead.

Q. Indicating above her right eye?

A. Yes, above her right eye and down a little bit and then -- a
swollen right eye, some sort of a mark or a scratch on her right
cheek, about a 1-inch cut above her left lip, just below her nose on
the outside, there was an open cut, you could see the blood, then a
little bit of blood was coming down between her teeth, in the cracks
between her teeth. And she -- when I asked her about the injuries, she
held up her -- she flipped up her upper lip and I could see a cut on
the inside of her lip. Then I saw a bruise and her eye was start --
swollen and blackend on the left eye, and I saw a human hand print on
the left side of her neck. I could actually see the three -- at least
three finger outlines.

Q. Okay. And you were utilizing your flashlight at that time when you
made these observations?

A. Yes, I was standing right next to her using my flashlight.

Q. And what, if anything, did Nicole say to you at that time?

A. Well, I asked her what happened to her, and she said that --

MR. LEONARD: Objection, hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I asked her what happened to her and she said that O.J. had hit
her, kicked her, slapped her, and pulled her hair.

Q. After she told you those things, what, if anything, did you do next
for Nicole or with Nicole?

A. What I did was I had -- my partner and I walked her to the police
car which is just a short distance away, put her in the right rear
seat of the police vehicle, closed the door, and then my partner and I
got in the front seat and were looking back at her as she was crying.
And we were -- we asked her if she wanted to place O.J. Simpson under
arrest for beating her. She said yes. My partner then -- I told my
partner, I said well, give her a crime report to sign. Normally we
fill out those crime reports, but at this time I felt I needed to get
her to sign a crime report. And my partner handed it to her, she took
it rapidly and very determinedly signed it sideways, across, and --
instead of on the line she signed it sideways, in big letters signed
her name.

Q. By the way, while you were back in the car with your partner and
Nicole, were the gates to the Ashford Street entrance open or closed?

A. They closed again.

Q. Okay. Now, after Nicole had taken this action of signing off on the
record, you were back in the front seat, what, if anything, did you
observe next?

A. Well, she was crying, and she made a statement to us. She said --

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I object, hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. She said, you guys come out here, you talk to him and then you
leave, you've been out here eight times before, you never did
anything, I want him arrested and I want my kids back.

Q. Was she still crying at this time?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, did there come a time after she made these statements that you
exited your vehicle again?

A. Yes. Once she said that and had signed the crime report, and my
partner was starting to get the detail boxes of the crime report
filled out, I walked back towards the front of the gate and stood
there looking in this direction. And pretty soon --

Q. Was the gate still closed at this time again?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

I'm sorry, go ahead.

A. Then I turned to walk back towards the car and the gate opened,
apparently, because a female came out of this yard area through the
gate and walked over to my car rapidly, without me knowing it.

Q. Prior to the appearance of that woman, had you observed anything or
anybody on the other side of the gate?

A. No.

Q. Okay. What happened next?

A. Well, this female -- she was a short female, Hispanic. She walked
over to the right rear door of the police car, she opened the door,
and by this time I was walking towards her cause I saw her. She
grabbed a hold of Nicole Simpson's right arm and she started pummeling
on her, and she says, Nicole, you don't want to do this, come, come
with me.

Q. Did you see Mr. Simpson at all prior to this woman showing up?

A. Yes. I think he came out before this -- I'm sorry, I got my
sequence -- cause he came out twice. He came out prior to this woman
-- this woman coming out.

Q. You want to back up a little bit?

A. Yes, I'm sorry. I was standing here looking, and Mr. Simpson came
out the front door, walked directly towards me wearing a bathrobe,
very determined, walked straight towards me, rapidly.

Q. And was this right after you had exited the vehicle?

A. Yes.

Q. And left Nicole in speaking to her?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell me, when Mr. Simpson was walking towards you, were you
able to observe what he was wearing at this time?

A. Yes. I used my flashlight to illuminate him as he got fairly close
to me and I saw that he was wearing approximately a 3/4 length
bathrobe, it was open, he was wearing some sort of underwear, shorts,
no shoes and no other garments.

Q. And what, if anything, happened next as he approached the gate?

A. Well, he walked rapidly towards me and I thought he was going to
talk to me, but what he did is he looked at the patrol car and he
started yelling in the direction of the patrol car, and it was very
animated.

Q. Were you able to recall anything that he was yelling at that time?

A. Yes. He was yelling I don't want that woman in my house any more, I
don't want that woman in my house -- in my bed any more, I got two
other women, I don't want that woman in my bed any more.

Q. And did he get all the way up to the gate at that time?

A. Yes, he was about one to two feet from the gate when he did that.

Q. And was the gate still closed?

A. Yes.

Q. And how far were you from the gate on the other side?

A. I was about a foot from the other side of the gate.

Q. And did you have your flashlight on at that point still?

A. Up until the point that he got right up to me. I turned it off.

Q. Okay. Did you ever see Mr. Simpson prior to that night in any sort
of situation?

A. Just in football interviews, just on television.

Q. Okay. And would you be able to describe -- first of all, were you
able to see Mr. Simpson's face clearly that night when he approached
you at the gate?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you describe as best you can his facial characteristics at
this time when he arrived at the gate?

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, objection, lack of relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. At the time that he started yelling his face was in a rage, he was
very exited. He was yelling and he had -- there's two veins on his
head, one on each side of his head, up before you got to the hairline,
and they were pulsating rapidly, you could see him very -- see them
very visibly.

Q. What, if anything, did you say to Mr. Simpson at that time when he
was up at the gate?

A. I told him that his wife had been beaten, she said that he's the
one that did it, she wanted him arrested, and that I had seen visible
injuries to her, trauma, and I -- it was my duty to place him under
arrest for spousal battery.

Q. Did he respond at this time to the statements you made to him?

A. Yes. He said that I didn't -- I didn't hit her, I just pushed her
out of bed. Then he made a statement -- says, you know, you guys be up
here eight times before and now you want to arrest me for this, and he
emphasized this. And he said, this is not a big deal, it's a family
matter, why make a big deal of it.

Q. And what, if anything, did you respond to that?

A. I told him I was obligated to place him under arrest and -- for
spousal battery, and I told him when my supervisor got here, got to
the gate, then we would have to place him under arrest. I told him go
inside and change clothes.

Q. And did he go inside at that time?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. After Mr. Simpson went inside, what, if anything, happened next?

A. That's when the gate opened. I walked back towards the car, the
gate opened, and a female came out.

Q. If you could tell us once again, what happened when the female came
out through the gate?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. After she had left the car that Nicole was in, what, if anything,
did this woman do?

A. She walked -- I didn't pay attention to her. Somehow she got that
gate open, she went back inside, and the gate closed again.

Q. What, if anything, happened next after she went back inside the
gate?

A. About three minutes later, O.J. Simpson came back out. He walked
right back to the -- only this time he went towards the corner of the
gate, towards the wall, and we talked over -- just a little bit over
the wall.

Q. Was he still wearing the bathrobe at that time?

A. No. Now he was wearing a dark suit, jogging suit or running suit,
either blue or dark blue. I couldn't be sure about the color.

Q. Okay. And what happened then as he approached the corner of the
gate there?

A. He told me -- he says, what makes you so special, why do you want
to make a big deal of this, you know. And again, I told him -- I says,
you know, it's spousal battery, I have injuries, trauma, your wife
wants you arrested, you have to be arrested for this. About that time
a black-and-white patrol car came driving up the street, it was my
supervisor, and I turned my direction from Mr. Simpson. I thought he
understood what was about to occur, so I turned my direction to my
supervisor, walked over onto the roadway and talked to my supervisor.

Q. In which direction was your supervisor's car facing?

A. He had pulled up and parked a little bit in front of my car, just
-- blocking just the left front of it. And I walked over -- we both
got out of the car and we were talking.

Q. Was his car facing the same direction as yours?

A. Basically, yes.

Q. Okay. And what, if anything, happened when you went -- by the way,
who was your supervisor?

A. Sergeant Vinger, V-i-n-g-e-r.

Q. What, if anything, happened after you went to speak to Sergeant
Vinger?

A. I was talking to the sergeant, I heard a car start up, I walked
away, I looked through the gate and I could see that a blue Bentley
had -- the lights were on, and it drove out of this driveway down
Rockingham towards Sunset, went out of the driveway at around 15 miles
an hour, and when it got in this area here, it was on up towards 35,
45 when it left down Rockingham.

MR. LEONARD: Can we just -- can the record indicate that the officer
was pointing just below the gate southbound on Rockingham when he
indicated the vehicle was going 45 miles an hour.

MR. PETROCELLI: That misstates his testimony.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) When the vehicle --

MR. PETROCELLI: 15 miles an hour.

Q (BY MR. KELLY) When the vehicle reached Rockingham initially, could
you be able to approximate what speed it was going as it entered onto
Rockingham?

A. As it was going -- as it was coming out of the driveway towards
Rockingham, it was going about 15 miles an hour.

MR. LEONARD: Just so the record is clear, the witness has indicated
right at the entrance to the Rockingham gate on Rockingham is at the
point at which the vehicle accelerated to 45 miles an hour. May the
record reflect that?

THE COURT: No.

MR. LEONARD: 35.

THE COURT: Reelicit the testimony.

MR. PETROCELLI: Also, objection, object to interfering with the
examination.

THE COURT: Overruled. He has a right to have a complete record.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) You indicated that the vehicle was going
approximately 15 miles an hour when it reached Rockingham Avenue; is
that correct?

A. Right. This is a long driveway. It was up around 15 miles an hour
as it reached the gate.

Q. Okay. And after going through the gate onto Rockingham Avenue what
did you observe next?

A. I observed the vehicle going away from me on Rockingham towards
Sunset, and it appeared it was -- accelerated up to 35, 45 miles an
hour.

Q. And that is the street as it headed down Rockingham Avenue?

A. Right.

Q. And how long a distance were you able to see that car accelerate as
it left the Rockingham entrance?

A. Very short distance because Rockingham curves, bushes -- It went
out of view.

Q. And what, if anything, did you do after you observed the Bentley
leave?

A. The Sergeant and I got back in our cars, and I -- once he moved his
car, he will make a U-turn, go back down Rockingham towards Sunset in
an attempt to catch up with the Bentley, and I broadcast on Symplex --
that's a car-to-car frequency, not over the city frequencies -- that
we were in pursuit of a blue Bentley, O.J. Simpson driving, and we
started to -- started searching through the area for the Bentley, and
never did find it.

Q. By the way, when you took off after the Bentley was Nicole still in
the car?

A. Yes, she was in the rear seat.

Q. What was her demeanor at that time as you were all off looking for
the Bentley?

A. She was crying, hysterical.

Q. And what happened next after you weren't able to locate the
Bentley?

A. I took Sunset down to -- I think it was Bundy -- Bundy down to
Wilshire. We ended up around Wilshire and Bundy, and couldn't find the
car anywhere.

So I asked her if she would like to go to the emergency hospital so we
could get her treated for her injuries. She said, no, she wanted to go
home to her kids. So then I asked her -- I said well, would you go to
the photo lab for us so we can get some good 35 millimeter photos of
your injuries. It's downtown. She says no, I want to go home to my
kids.

So then I explained to her -- I said West L.A. Station is really not
that far from here, and we got to turn around and go back anyway, can
we go over to the station and I'll use a Polaroid camera and we'll
take some quick pictures of you, and I'll take you right back home to
yor kids. She agreed to that.

So I got over to West L.A. Police Station on -- what street is that
on? It's off Sunset -- I mean it's off Santa Monica. It's on --
escapes me. Starts with a B. Then I parked in front and went inside
the front entrance of the police station, the public entrance, to the
front desk.

Q. Before going in there, when you were driving around with Nicole in
the car, do you recall whether the vehicle windows were open or
closed?

A. Oh, it was cold and damp outside. She was shivering. We had the
windows up. I think the heater was on low.

Q. And you had had occasion to speak to Nicole up close when she had
first fell into your arms, had you not?

A. Yes.

Q. Is there any time that you notice the -- you noticed the odor of
alcohol, either in the car or in any of your conversations with her?

A. No. I didn't notice any odor of alcohol.

Q. Did she act intoxicated in any way?

A. No.

Q. Now, you indicated that you then arrived at the station to take
some photos. Did you in fact locate a camera, first of all, that
night?

A. Yes. Fortunately, the desk officer was able to give me a Polaroid
camera; I believe it was a black Polaroid 600. And I took three
photographs of Nicole at that time; one was a full body length
photograph, mainly of the right side to depict the mud that was on the
right side of these long pajama type pants, on the right leg.

Then I took two photographs of her face; one depicting a little bit to
the -- to the right side, and a little bit of the front and left.

And then the camera was out of film. I gave the camera back to the
desk officer and had my partner take her inside.

Q. Was there any other film available?

MR. LEONARD: Objection, calls for speculation.

MR. KELLY: I'll withdraw the question.

Can I see Exhibit No. 5, Steve.

(The instrument herein described as photograph of side of Nicole Brown
Simpson's face was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit
No. 5.)

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Behind you -- Detective, I'd ask you to step back
and look up on the board there, and I ask you if you recognize that
photograph?

A. Yes. This is the -- looks like the second or third photograph I
took. Here's one of the photographs laying on the desk, this is the
right-side photograph of Nicole Simpson depicting the mud on the right
pants leg, and my partner's uniform jacket is on her. Underneath that
jacket is just a white bra.

Q. Other than the jacket, does that fairly and accurately represent
her appearance when you first saw her when you arrived at Rockingham?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. And I notice she has bare feet. Was she shoeless when you arrived
at Rockingham?

A. This is exactly how she looked. She was barefoot, no shirt, no
purse.

MR. KELLY: Exhibit No. 4, Steve.

MR. LEONARD: Which number was that, please?

MR. KELLY: That was 5.

MR. LEONARD: Okay.

(The instrument herein described as a photograph of Nicole Brown
Simpson was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 4.)

Q. Do you recognize that photograph, Detective?

A. Yes. I had her pull her hair back to take a photograph of the front
and right side of her face, as best as I could. And this depicts some
bruising on the right forehead above the right eye. The right eye is
swollen above it and below. And there's a mark or a scratch on the --
on the right. You can see a -- is this the same photo? Then there's --
got big on me (indicating to TV screen zooming in on photo) -- Then a
scratch underneath her nose on the left side is approximately a 1-inch
open gash or scratch going into her lip. You can't see the one below
it, under -- I mean underneath the lip.

Q. Okay. Can you first point out the scratch under the nose you're
referring to?

A. Yes. This is the 1 -- approximately 1-inch or so scratch, open
scratch.

Q. That where she lifted up her lip and you could see?

A. The corresponding cut underneath her lip.

Q. Above her right eye, are you able to better discern the injury on
her forehead at this point?

A. There's this swelling -- swollen area. It's easier to see with the
naked eye. This photo depicts it a little bit. This is a swollen area
of redness, and then that's some sort of a scratch pattern up here,
and another scratch down below, and this area is all swollen.

Q. Okay. By the way, did that picture fairly and accurately represent
her facial appearance at that time the photo was taken?

A. No. The picture is not of good quality. She was actually injured
more than that.

Q. And you also indicated earlier that you observed a neck injury or
markings when you first arrived at Rockingham. Are those -- is that
apparent on this picture here?

A. No. It doesn't show up on the photograph at all.

Q. Okay.

MR. KELLY: Can I see Exhibit No. 3, Steve.

(The instrument herein described as a photograph of Nicole Brown
Simpson was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 3.)

A. This is a little bit more towards the front. I was trying to show
the -- I had her pull her hair up a little bit more off the left side
to show the swollen eye. There was a scratch here and her forehead was
swollen here, and the eye was swollen -- starting to blacken. And
again, you can't -- you can see that there's a cut right there over
her lip. You can't see that handprint.

MR. KELLY: Your Honor, this would be a good time.

THE COURT: 1:30.

Ladies and gentlemen, don't talk about the case. Don't form or express
any opinion.

(At 11:56 A.M. a recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)


SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1996
1:39 P.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, outside the
presence of the jury.)

THE COURT: All right. At this time, the Court had a previous set of
evidentiary motions that the Court took under submission, that the
Court is now ready to issue its ruling on.

The Court initially will address Plaintiff Goldman's motion to allow
testimony of Dr. Deitz and Dr. Dutton regarding motive and spousal
homicide and defendants' motion in limine thereon.

Plaintiff seeks to admit Dr. Dietz' testimony of his opinion of the
general motive of the person who killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron
Goldman and the killer's behavior at the crime scene, based upon an
analysis of the crime scene and the autopsies, and the motive that the
defendant had for committing the murders based on various factors,
primarily including the history of the relationship between defendant
and Nicole Brown Simpson and defendant's past behavior.

Plaintiff seeks to admit Dr. Dutton's testimony of his opinion that
spousal homicides have certain characteristics for the purpose of
supporting Plaintiff's contention that the evidence establishes the
existence of these characteristics concerning defendant and Nicole
Brown Simpson (sic), and this was a spousal homicide committed by
defendant.

The testimony of both Dr. Dietz and Dr. Dutton is offered to establish
a profile of spousal homicide, into which Plaintiff endeavors to
establish the identity of the killer by showing that defendant fits
the profile.

This implies that there is a science of spousal homicide which can
establish that every homicide of a spouse by a spouse contained
certain characteristics, that a spouse who had these characteristics
would necessarily commit spousal homicide, that there could not be
spousal homicide without these characteristics, that a spouse had
these characteristics; i.e., a spousal relationship, spousal abuse
that was physical and/or verbal, estrangement, jealousy, stalking, was
necessarily the killer of a former spouse who died a violent death.

This Court is not satisfied that opinion testimony of this nature
rises to the level of acceptability in the legal or scientific
community.

As discussed in People versus Bowker, 203 Cal.App.3d, 385, it is one
thing to say that in child sexual abuse syndrome cases, a child often
exhibits a certain characteristic; but it is quite another to conclude
that where a child meets certain criteria, it can be predicted with
reasonable certainty -- a reasonable degree of certainty that the
child has been abused.

The same analysis applies in the present case. Say that spousal
homicide often exhibits certain characteristics, it is quite another
matter to say that this particular homicide was a spousal homicide
and/or that this defendant perpetrated it.

Such testimonial opinion by experts inappropriately supplants the
function of jurors of evaluating the evidence by giving the experts'
imprimatur and scientific approval upon the Plaintiff's theory of the
case.

Also as noted in Bowker, quote, "There may be more danger where the
application is left to the jury because the jurors' education and
training may not have sensitized them to the dangers of drawing
predictive conclusions." Unquote.

Where the matter at issue is the identity of the killer of two people,
and the evidence relied upon by the proponents of the expert testimony
is not beyond common experience, to-wit, a relationship of former
spouses, alleged abuse by one spouse of the other, jealousy, stalking,
the manner of killings, the jurors are clearly capable of evaluating
the evidence without the need of an expert to guide their conclusions.

The motions in limine to preclude the testimony of Dr. Dietz and Dr.
Dutton are granted and they are excluded for the foregoing reasons.

The Court also feels that the same analysis as I discussed in Bowker
applies in the application of Evidence Code Section 352; that is, the
prejudicial aspect of allowing such testimony from experts is
prejudicial and its probative value does not overcome that prejudicial
aspect of it.

The other issue that the Court now addresses is Plaintiff Goldman's
motion to allow --

Oops.

(Pause in proceedings.)

THE COURT: The other issue is Plaintiff Goldman's motion to preclude
prior testimony of Fuhrman tendered by Defendant under Evidence Code
Section 1292 and motion to preclude reference to Fuhrman's perjury
conviction.

Plaintiff gave Defendant sufficient notice of his objection to the use
of Fuhrman's prior testimony under Evidence Code Section 1292 and the
conviction of perjury prior to opening statement. And the Court had
reserved ruling on this issue pending further briefing.

The fact that this issue was not raised prior to the deadline for
motions in limine, it is excused by this Court, finding it excusable,
in view of the unsettled status of Fuhrman's potential availability as
a witness at the time because of the then pending criminal proceedings
and plea of nolo contendere therein, and that the Defendant is not
presently prejudiced because Defendant had ample time to prepare,
since October 21, 1996, when this present motion was filed, it now
being November 18.

Plaintiff contends that Fuhrman's prior testimony is not admissible
under Evidence Code Section 1292 because the People did not have the
right to cross-examine Fuhrman with an interest in motive similar to
Plaintiff, that the People called Fuhrman as their witness, conducted
direct examination and did not have the opportunity to cross-examine
him, and defended, rather than challenged, his testimony.

The precise language of Section 1292 of the Evidence Code states,
quote:

Cross-Examination:

Section 1291 of the Evidence Code allows former testimony to be used
against the party that offered it in the prior proceeding, or that
party's successor in interest, or the admission of former testimony
against a party who had the opportunity to cross-examine with an
interest in motive similar to that in the prior proceeding.

The legislative history notes the distinct languages of both Sections
1291 and 1292, but the legislature, in Section 1292, made no provision
for admission of such prior testimony offered by the party in the
prior proceeding, against another party in a subsequent proceeding,
except when it was subjected to, quote, "cross-examination." Unquote.

The term "cross-examination" is a defined term in Evidence Code
Section 761.

Section 761 defines it as, quote, "The examination of a witness by a
party other than the direct examiner." Close quote.

The legislature is presumed to know what it included in its own
enactments, particularly when it defines the terms it used in that
same enactment.

Federal Rule of Evidence Section 804(b)(1) allows prior testimony
where there was opportunity to, quote, "develop the testimony by
direct, cross, or redirect examination," close quote specifically
including the term "direct . . . examination," which distinguishes its
scope from that of Evidence Code Section 1292.

Plaintiff has no interest in offering Fuhrman as a witness. Plaintiff
has established the circumstances of the discovery and collection of
the Rockingham glove by testimony of percipient witnesses, independent
of Fuhrman. Defendant has no apparent need for Fuhrman's testimony,
other than to show his alleged bias against defendant, and his
impeachment by his conviction of the felony of perjury.

In other words, Defendant is not offering Fuhrman's testimony for any
evidentiary purpose other than to discredit him as a witness.

Plaintiff has not offered Fuhrman as a witness; thus, there is no
basis for his impeachment.

Plaintiff Goldman's motion to preclude the introduction of Fuhrman's
prior testimony in the criminal case and to further exclude reference
to his perjury conviction is granted on the foregoing grounds. MR.
GELBLUM: Thank you, Your Honor.

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of
the jury.)

THE COURT: Okay. You may resume.

THE CLERK: You are still under oath.

Would you state your name again for the record.

THE WITNESS: John Philip Edwards.

JOHN PHILIP EDWARDS the witness on the stand at the time of the
luncheon recess, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and
testified further as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. KELLY:

Q. Detective Edwards, when we broke for lunch, you just finished
testifying as to the three Polaroids you had taken of Nicole Brown
Simpson at West L.A. station; is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, after you had taken those three photographs of Nicole, what,
if anything, did you do next?

A. I retained those photographs in my possession.

Then I walked back out to the patrol car with Nicole Simpson. My
partner and I drove her back to her home.

Q. Okay.

What, if anything, did you do when you got back to her house?

A. She operated the gate which allowed us inside. We dropped her off
and then returned en route back to the station to complete the crime
report.

Q. When you dropped her off, did you happen to see that Bentley in the
driveway that you had observed earlier?

A. No, it was not in the driveway.

It was now daylight.

Q. And what, if anything, happened when you were en route back to the
station?

A. About 15 minutes after we dropped her off, I got another message
over my M.D.T., mobile digital terminal, in the car.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) You received a communication in your car?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

As a result of that communication you received, what, if anything, did
you do next?

A. I returned back to the Rockingham address.

Q. And did you drive by the residence at that point?

A. Yes.

I looked for the Bentley and I didn't see it.

Q. Okay.

What, if anything, happened next?

A. I parked approximately three houses up from the address for 45
minutes, in hopes of seeing the Bentley return.

Q. And did you see it return?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Did you take any further action after you did not see the Bentley
return?

A. I radioed the station and asked them to call Nicole Simpson at her
home, and ask her if the defendant, O.J. Simpson, was at the house.

And they did, and they said that --

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, calls for hearsay. Objection at this point.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Just yes or no, Detective: Did you receive a
response as to whether Mr. Simpson was home or not?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And as a result of that response, did you remain in that location
or did you leave?

A. I left.

Q. Now -- and did you have occasion to go back to that location any
other time that day?

A. No.

Q. Or any future time after that day at all?

A. No.

Q. Did you have occasion to fill out a police report as a result of
that incident later that morning?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

And how was that filled out?

A. I directed my -- the officer I was training, Patricia Milewski,
M-I-L-E-W-S-K-I (sic) to complete the report because I was training
her, and then I read the report, I made some changes on it in my own
handwriting. Then we turned the report in.

Q. Was this done in the normal course of your duties that day?

A. Yes.

Q. And was this a business record of the LAPD, kept in the normal
course of business, also?

A. Yes.

And we booked the photographs as evidence, also.

MR. KELLY: Steve, can I see --

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) I'm going to ask you to take a look at this,
Detective, and see if you recognize that as the report you --

I believe is that 2191.

A. Yes, it is 2191 on this yellow piece of paper.

(The instrument herein referred to as three-page report with an
attached property report was marked for identification as Plaintiffs'
Exhibit No. 2191.)

A. This is the four-page -- a three-page report with an attached
property report that we completed.

MR. KELLY: Your Honor, at this time I'd like to move in Exhibits 3, 4,
and 5, which were the three photographs, and this also, Exhibit 2191.

MR. LEONARD: Your Honor, I have an objection only to the last exhibit.
I believe that calls for hearsay, doesn't fall within any exception.

I'll remind the Court of its previous ruling with regard to Sergeant
Berris' -- or Detective Berris' report from the Chicago Police
Department.

THE COURT: Can I see counsel at side bench.

MR. LEONARD: With the reporter? Need the reporter?

THE COURT: Yeah.

(The following proceedings were heard at the bench, with the
reporter.)

THE COURT: Okay. Didn't we have a hearing on this?

MR. PETROCELLI: Yes.

MR. KELLY: Yes, we did.

MR. PETROCELLI: Your Honor permitted the production of the
out-of-court statements made in the police reports in one of the
motions in limine.

THE COURT: What day was that?

MR. PETROCELLI: I think that was on the 16th, Your Honor. September 16
was that big day we had all the hearings.

MR. KELLY: I think it was number 9 -- defense's motion in limine
number 9 or 12.

MR. LEONARD: Every statement made in a police report is admissible.

MR. PETROCELLI: None of Nicole's out-of-court statements were
admissible under 1240 of the Evidence Code as spontaneous statements;
plus, the document itself is a business record.

It's unlike the Berris police reports, where you don't have
spontaneous statements. That's the difference.

THE COURT: All right. The Court ruled that statements in the police
report qualify spontaneous declarations and are within the parameters
of Section 1280 of the Evidence Code, and also under 1240. And the
Court allowed the statements of Nicole that were made to the police
officers.

Now the objection is to the report itself, isn't it?

MR. LEONARD: Yes.

MR. PETROCELLI: It's a business record.

THE COURT: I'm sorry?

MR. PETROCELLI: It was a report, a business record. They established
the foundational elements and the statements of Nicole all qualify as
spontaneous statements under 1240. So I think that covers all the
hearsay rulings.

MR. LEONARD: There's no foundation for that.

MR. PETROCELLI: For what?

MR. LEONARD: Every one of them is spontaneous.

MR. PETROCELLI: Every statement he elicited from Nicole is at a time
of stress, as indicated by his questions.

MR. KELLY: She was crying.

THE COURT: Okay. What in particular are you objecting to?

MR. LEONARD: Well, it's not necessarily -- are you -- is this the only
one you intend to get in?

MR. KELLY: We'll take one at a time.

MR. LEONARD: Okay.

Well, there's a statement in the --

MR. PETROCELLI: This one?

MR. LEONARD: No. I -- no. I can't point to anything in here other than
I would point out that this report was not written by this officer. He
claims that he had some authority over it and that he reviewed it.
There's, I suppose, the impeachment.

I wonder why these guys want this. For instance, this -- she reports
that Nicole came out and said that Simpson said to her, "I'll kill
you."

Okay. That's not what this witness said. This witness said that Nicole
ran out and said, he's going to kill me. That's a major difference.
There is a threat; whereas, the other statement is her state of mind
as to what was going to happen to her. This is radically different.

And I think if they're going to try to put this in, they're obliged to
bring a witness in so we can cross-examine the witness.

What I mean, this particular officer who wrote this is not this guy;
some other officer wrote this, Milewski or whatever her name is. I
think it's unfair.

MR. KELLY: Well, it goes --

THE COURT: Could you keep your voice down.

MR. KELLY: I'm sorry.

That goes into evidence. They had every opportunity to use this
witness to impeach him.

MR. LEONARD: I'm to impeach him with the oral statement -- I'm to
impeach him with a victim's state of mind. Lovely.

MR. KELLY: He indicated he had firsthand knowledge of everything,
indicates it in the report.

MR. LEONARD: He contradicted himself. I think that goes to reliability
of the report. He didn't say anything about a threat from Simpson.
That was not elicited, nor has he testified to that in any prior
proceeding, and it's not in any subsequent reports.

I think we're at a distinct disadvantage. I don't want to have to
impeach the guy with a worse statement. It's not fair.

THE COURT: Okay. I'll stand on the ruling I made on September 17.
Overruled.

MR. LEONARD: It's coming in?

THE COURT: Yeah.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of
the jury.)

MR. KELLY: Your Honor, to confirm, 3, 4, 5, and 2191 have all been
moved into evidence at this time; is that correct?

THE CLERK: Yes.

THE COURT: Yes.

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 3 for
identification was received in evidence.)

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4 for
identification was received in evidence.)

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 5 for
identification was received in evidence.)

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2191 for
identification was received in evidence.)

Q. (BY MR. KELLY) Now, Detective Edwards, did you ever see Mr. Simpson
again after you saw him that morning on New Year's Day, 1989?

A. Not personally.

Q. And did you ever see Nicole Brown Simpson after that morning of New
Years Day 1989 when you dropped her off?

A. No.

MR. KELLY: I have no further questions.

THE COURT: Cross-examine.

MR. KELLY: Judge, could we approach just briefly again on one matter?

THE COURT: On what?

MR. KELLY: It's related to something different than before.

THE COURT: All right.

(The following proceedings were heard at the bench, with the
reporter.)

MR. KELLY: Your Honor, this has to do with cross-examination of this
witness. That's why I'm bringing this up right now. It wasn't related
to what we were discussing before.

In Mr. Baker's opening statement he made reference to this witness
being named in what's called a Christopher Commission report, which
was a report compiled by independent attorneys and others that cited
44 police officers for certain alleged violations such as unusual use
of force.

The way this report was filed was, this commission did a statistical
analysis using computers to determine which officers had the most
complaints lodged against them. They never interviewed the police
officers; they never interviewed any of the complainants; there's no
document that's relied upon at all by the Los Angeles Police
Department, and none of the complaints against this particular officer
have ever been sustained.

None of the complaints alleged in there related to this particular
incident of New Year's Day, 1989.

I would ask that the defense be precluded from referring to the
Christopher Commission or its substance in the context of their
cross-examination.

MR. BAKER: Well, Number one, the Christopher Commission report is
relied upon by the LAPD.

Number two, he was an officer that was -- he -- it was indicated was
one of the worse. And -- Of the 9,000 in LA.

Number three, there will be testimony about his threats of violence to
O.J. Simpson while he was at the gate, and his demeanor is consistent
with -- at the gate, although he certainly denies it now. He's the
model of decorum now, that in fact, he was abusive to Simpson. And it
was witnessed by Michelle, the housekeeper, and it's been testified to
by O.J.

THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection as to reference to the
Christopher Commission.

You may inquire about any threats he made.

MR. PETROCELLI: To Mr. Simpson?

THE COURT: Yeah, to explain his absence from the scene.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of
the jury.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LEONARD:

Q. I'll try to stay behind the podium this time, Your Honor.

Detective Edwards, what did you do to prepare for your testimony
today?

What items did you read?

Whom did you talk to?

What did you do?

A. Let's see.

Yesterday, I met with plaintiffs' counsel, Mr. Kelly, for about 45
minutes, approximately three, four blocks from this court. And he just
asked me a few questions, and I reviewed my report.

And then I met again today with Mr. Kelly for about ten or fifteen
minutes prior to walking over here to the court.

Q. Did you look at your prior testimony from the criminal trial?

A. I browsed through that, yes.

Q. Browsed through it?

A. Yes, highlighted.

Q. How much time did you spend looking at it?

A. Approximately ten, fifteen minutes.

Q. Did you look at both the direct and the cross-examinations?

A. Briefly.

Q. Well, did you want to make sure that you gave testimony that was
basically consistent with your criminal trial testimony, or did you
want to make sure of that when you looked at the transcript of your
prior testimony?

A. Yes, somewhat.

Q. Did you know anything -- after having sat up here and answered some
questions before lunch, did you think about at lunch whether there was
anything inconsistent that you had testified in your direct
examination from what you had stated in your criminal trial testimony?

Did you think about that?

MR. KELLY: Objection as to form.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Did you consider that, sir?

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: No.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) You testified that you looked -- that you also
reviewed your report. And I assume you're referring to the basically
contemporaneous report that was prepared by your partner?

A. Not only that, my subsequent supplemental report.

Q. What Mr. Kelly was referring to is Exhibit 1291. That was a report
that was prepared what, the next day?

MR. PETROCELLI: It's 2191.

Q. (BY MR. LEONARD) Excuse me, 2191.

That was prepared on what, the 1st of January 1989?

A. The day of the occurrence.

Q. Okay.

You mentioned that you had asked your partner -- and what was her name
again?

A. Patricia Milewski.

Q. She's still a police officer?

A. Yes, she is. She is instructing at the police academy.

Q. Here in Los Angeles?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. You instructed her to prepare a report, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you wanted that report to be -- to completely and accurately
represent what had occurred just hours before, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And in fact, you reviewed it to make sure everything that was in
there was accurate and that there was a complete description of what
had occurred; isn't that right, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. That was important because this was going to memorialize what had
occurred; and you wanted to make sure, for instance, if you had to
testify sometime in the future, that it would be accurate and would be
complete, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. All right. That's something that you do on a daily basis as a
police officer, right?

A. Yes.

Q. You realize how important accurate and complete reports are, don't
you, Officer?

A. Yes. That's why we --

MR. KELLY: Objection.

THE WITNESS: -- quite often make supplemental reports, to bring out
details that we may have forgotten in the original report. And we do
that quite often.

Q. Okay.

But in any event, you took the time to review the report that your
partner had prepared; and, in fact, you said you made some additions,
right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

You described in some detail discussions that you had with both Nicole
Brown Simpson and O.J. Simpson, referring to other times that the
police allegedly had been out to Rockingham, correct?

Do you remember that in your direct testimony?

A. Yes.

Q. And in fact, if you recall, both Nicole Brown Simpson, and minutes
later, O.J. Simpson, used the same exact language, basically, didn't
they?

Let me --

A. Close, but not quite.

Q. Let me refresh your recollection.

Didn't they both say, according to you, you guys have been out here
eight times before?

First Nicole said that; minutes later, O.J. Simpson said that. Do you
remember testifying to that?

A. Right. They both said that in a sentence, but the sentence was
different.

Q. Focusing on the number, they both said the number eight, didn't
they?

A. Yes.

Q. Not ten, not several, not many, but the number eight, right?

A. Exactly.

Q. Now, I want to you take a look at what's been marked as 2191.

Show me in that report where there's any indication of any discussion
about police being out there on prior occasions.

And this is a report that was prepared at your behest, reviewed by you
the next day, correct?

A. Yes. It doesn't have the original report. It's in the supplemental.

Q. Now, when you reviewed that report, did you remember that it