Direct examination of Andrea Mazzola (part 2)

📄 Direct examination of Andrea Mazzola (part 2) — Tuesday, December 10, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\DEC\10\DIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-ANDREA-M.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 29 of 57

◀ Redirect examination of Andrea Mazzola Administrative matters ▶

Witness: Andrea Mazzola
Examiner: Robert Blasier
Called by: Defense • Date: Tuesday, December 10, 1996 • Utterances: 254

Defense attorney Robert Blasier completed his direct examination of LAPD criminalist Andrea Mazzola, then plaintiff's attorney Tom Lambert conducted cross-examination, followed by redirect and recross. The examination focused on whether the blood swatches and bindles Mazzola processed on June 14, 1994 were the same ones later examined by the lab, inconsistencies between her August 1994 preliminary hearing testimony and later statements, the locked evidence room, and whether additional blood found in the Bronco in August 1994 was present when she processed it.

# 1 (Jurors resumed their respective seats.)

# 2 MR. BLASIER:

Thank you, Your Honor.

# 3 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Ms. Mazzola, if you initialed the bindles that you processed on the morning of the 14th, and later on those bindles did not have your initials on them, that would indicate that they weren't the same bindles, correct?

# 4 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence, argumentative.

# 5 THE COURT:

Sustained. You can argue that.

# 6 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Now, you are sure you made sure that those swatches were all dry at the time that you put them in bindles, on the morning of the 14th, correct?

# 7 A:

The ones that I had control over, yes.

# 8 Q:

And you learned later, that at least one of the bindles, when it was opened later on showed evidence of a wet transfer on the paper itself?

# 9 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, calls for hearsay, Your Honor.

# 10 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Are you aware of that?

# 11 THE COURT:

Excuse me.

Sustained.

# 12 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Did you ever look at these bindles after they were prepared on the morning of the 15th?

# 13 A:

No, I did not.

# 14 Q:

So you don't have any independent knowledge that the bindles that were later examined were the same ones that you guys fixed on the morning of the 14th?

# 15 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, argumentative.

# 16 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Prepared?

# 17 MR. LAMBERT:

Assumes facts not in evidence.

# 18 THE COURT:

You can rephrase that, maybe.

# 19 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) You have no personal knowledge that the bindles that you and Dennis Fung prepared on the morning of the 14th were the same ones that were later examined by Collin Yamauchi?

# 20 MR. LAMBERT:

Same objection, still argumentative.

# 21 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 22 A:

No, I do not.

# 23 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Now, going back to Mr. Simpson's reference blood, you were ordered at some point to change your paperwork to show that Mr. Simpson's reference blood should be item 17 rather than 18; isn't that correct?

# 24 A:

Mr. Fung told me the tennis shoes had been brought in by Detective Lange on the 14th, and that they should be given the number later down the blood vial, what he received the day before.

# 25 Q:

Is the answer to my question yes, at some point you were directed to change the number for Mr. Simpson's reference blood from 18 to 17?

# 26 A:

Correct.

# 27 Q:

And that was to eliminate the appearance that the blood had been kept overnight by Detective Vannatter; isn't that correct?

# 28 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, argumentative, Your Honor.

# 29 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 30 A:

The tennis shoes were brought in after the blood; therefore, they should have gotten a later number.

# 31 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Of all of the items that you collected on the 13th and 14th, was there any other item that you were directed to change the number on, other than Mr. Simpson's reference blood?

# 32 A:

No.

# 33 MR. BLASIER:

Thank you. That's all I have.

# 34 THE COURT:

Cross-examine.

# 35 MR. LAMBERT:

Thank you, Your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:

# 36 Q:

Ms. Mazzola, you were asked a number of questions by Mr. Blasier about your testimony in August, 1994.

Do you remember that?

# 37 A:

Yes.

# 38 Q:

That testimony wasn't during the actual criminal trial, was it?

# 39 A:

No, it was not.

# 40 Q:

Was that during some preliminary hearing of some sort?

# 41 A:

Yes.

# 42 Q:

And on that occasion, had you had an opportunity to prepare at all for that testimony?

# 43 A:

No.

# 44 Q:

Had you had an opportunity to review your notes?

# 45 A:

No.

# 46 Q:

Did you even have your notes with you?

# 47 A:

No.

# 48 Q:

So you testified on that occasion without any preparation, and without any notes; is that right?

# 49 A:

I did not have any personal notes. I borrowed Mr. Matheson's.

# 50 Q:

He didn't have all the same things that you have in your notes, did he?

# 51 MR. BAKER:

Leading.

# 52 MR. BLASIER:

Objection, leading.

# 53 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 54 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Did he have all the same things in his notes that you had in your notes?

# 55 A:

No.

# 56 MR. BLASIER:

Objection.

# 57 THE COURT:

Excuse me. There's an objection.

Foundation. Sustained.

Lay a foundation.

# 58 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Did you look at Mr. Matheson's notes a little bit on the stand that day?

# 59 A:

On the stand, yes.

# 60 Q:

Were his notes identical to your notes?

# 61 A:

He was lacking one sketch.

# 62 Q:

And were you able, during your testimony to completely review his set of notes to refresh your recollection about the events during the evidence collection?

# 63 A:

Not while I was testifying, no.

# 64 Q:

Did you later discover that you had made some mistakes during your testimony, because of your lack of preparation?

# 65 MR. BLASIER:

Objection, leading.

# 66 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 67 A:

Yes.

# 68 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, in regard to the collection of the evidence at Rockingham, Mr. Blasier asked some questions about whether Mr. Fung was supervising you during every swatching of every piece of evidence that you swatched.

He was present on the premises throughout the time you were working, wasn't he?

# 69 A:

Yes, he was present.

# 70 Q:

And was there also another supervisor from SID present?

# 71 A:

Towards the end, yes.

# 72 Q:

That was who?

# 73 A:

Mr. Steve Johnson.

# 74 Q:

And what's his position at SID?

# 75 A:

Assistant laboratory director.

# 76 Q:

And did he also supervise you, some of the work that you were doing, or observed?

# 77 A:

He watched me do one or two towards the end, yes.

# 78 Q:

And the actual swatching method that you used, using the little cotton swatches and distilled water and -- and clean tweezers and so on, is that the same method that you're still using today?

# 79 A:

Yes.

# 80 Q:

Have you changed it at all, in any way, since the time you collected the evidence at Bundy and Rockingham?

# 81 A:

No.

# 82 Q:

You're now what level criminalist?

# 83 A:

Criminalist 2.

# 84 Q:

And how many crime scenes have you processed since Bundy and Rockingham?

# 85 MR. BLASIER:

Objection, irrelevant.

# 86 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 87 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) The technique -- the swatching technique that you used in that case, were you careful throughout the time that you did it?

# 88 A:

Yes.

# 89 Q:

Same level of care that you've used on crime scenes since then?

# 90 A:

Yes.

# 91 Q:

The -- the -- questions were asked of you about whether you could specifically remember precisely when you changed your gloves when you were processing the Bundy crime scene.

Is it your recollection that you changed your gloves more than one time during that crime scene processing?

# 92 A:

I know it was more than one time but I can't give you a specific number.

# 93 Q:

Do you have a custom or habit of changing gloves often during crime scene processing?

# 94 MR. BLASIER:

Objection, leading, irrelevant.

# 95 THE COURT:

Overruled. You asked on direct exam.

# 96 A:

You change your gloves so often in the lab, especially where I work in, we are in gloves almost the entire day. To us, changing gloves is the same as blinking. We do it, we don't think about doing it, we don't remember how many times we do it.

KEY QUOTE

# 97 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) And it was your -- was that your custom when you were doing -- at the time you were doing the blood collection in this case?

# 98 A:

Yes.

# 99 Q:

Now, in regard to the blood in the Bronco, there was some questions about the -- the blood collection on June 14.

Who actually did the swatching on that occasion?

# 100 A:

Mr. Fung.

# 101 Q:

So you were just assisting Mr. Fung?

# 102 A:

Yes.

# 103 Q:

And was Mr. Fung able to literally swatch up all of the blood that was visible?

# 104 A:

No, not all of the blood.

# 105 Q:

So there was some blood left over after the swatching was done?

# 106 A:

Yes.

# 107 Q:

You were also asked some questions about this cabinet in the evidence processing room that is not locked. That room itself, is it locked or unlocked?

# 108 A:

It is locked.

# 109 Q:

And who has access to it?

# 110 A:

After hours, the criminalist 2's and above, only, have access.

# 111 Q:

And other than criminalists within the scientific investigation division, can any other person get inside that evidence processing room?

# 112 A:

No.

# 113 Q:

Can police officers go in there?

# 114 A:

No.

# 115 Q:

So the blood was left overnight in this locked room that only -- only SID personnel, criminalists 2 or above would have access to?

# 116 A:

Correct.

# 117 MR. BLASIER:

Objection, leading.

# 118 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 119 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Finally, you were asked some questions about whether you took any photographs of the swatches during the time that you were processing them.

Have you ever, on any of your cases, taken photographs of any of the swatches?

# 120 A:

No.

# 121 MR. BLASIER:

Objection, irrelevant.

# 122 Q:

Would --

# 123 THE COURT:

Just a minute.

Sustained.

# 124 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Have you ever taken a photograph of a swatch during the evidence collection process?

# 125 MR. BLASIER:

Objection, irrelevant.

# 126 THE COURT:

That's overruled.

# 127 A:

No, I have never.

# 128 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Would the failure to take a photograph turn the swatch from one person's blood into another?

# 129 MR. BLASIER:

Objection, argumentative.

I'll withdraw it.

# 130 THE COURT:

Okay.

# 131 A:

No, it would not.

# 132 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) Have you ever sketched one of the swatches when you're in the process of doing this evidence collection?

# 133 A:

No.

# 134 Q:

Would the failure to sketch one of the swatches turn the blood from one person's blood into another?

# 135 A:

No.

# 136 Q:

And finally, this question about the bindles, whether the swatches were dry or not, did you do any test to determine if swatches were dry before you put them into the bindles?

# 137 A:

No.

# 138 Q:

Did you see Mr. Fung doing any tests?

# 139 A:

No.

# 140 Q:

You just looked at them, if they looked dry, you put them in the bindles?

# 141 MR. BLASIER:

Objection, leading.

# 142 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 143 A:

Correct.

# 144 MR. LAMBERT:

No further questions, Your Honor.

# 145 THE COURT:

Redirect.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

# 146 Q:

Ms. Mazzola, apparently you didn't blink between the knit cap and the glove, did you?

KEY QUOTE

# 147 A:

No, I did not.

# 148 Q:

Now, is it your testimony that since your work in the criminal case, you still don't sketch swatches?

# 149 A:

That is correct.

# 150 Q:

You still don't take pictures of swatches?

# 151 A:

That is correct.

# 152 Q:

You haven't changed your technique at all?

# 153 A:

Not in the collection, no.

# 154 Q:

And isn't one of the reasons you take pictures, and draw sketches, so you can demonstrate later that the swatches haven't been tampered with?

# 155 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.

# 156 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 157 MR. LAMBERT:

Says she didn't do it.

# 158 THE COURT:

Jury to disregard that question. It's argumentative.

# 159 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Now, let me see if I understand your testimony in August, two months after you did the work in this case.

You're saying that you've made mistakes because you weren't prepared?

# 160 A:

I did not refresh my memory at the time, yes.

# 161 Q:

All right.

Now, you said that you had Greg Matheson's notes, right?

# 162 A:

Correct.

# 163 Q:

And you looked at them carefully enough to know that they were the same as yours except one sketch was missing, correct?

# 164 A:

There were photocopies of the original except the sketch was on the back of one of the pages and he did not have that.

# 165 Q:

So you had everything in front of you except one sketch, correct?

# 166 A:

Correct.

# 167 Q:

And you knew that from looking at the notes, that you had everything there except one sketch, didn't you?

# 168 A:

As I was being asked the questions and I was trying to answer them, yes.

# 169 Q:

What mistakes did you make in August?

# 170 A:

I didn't have a chance to look at the crime scene photos. Sit down, go through the notes beforehand to refresh my memory. I was trying to do that as I was being asked questions by the defense.

# 171 MR. BLASIER:

Move to strike, nonresponsive.

# 172 THE COURT:

Denied.

# 173 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) What mistakes did you make in August?

# 174 A:

Just whether or not -- where Mr. Fung was at certain times, or if he picked up one thing and I picked up another.

# 175 Q:

Any other mistakes?

# 176 A:

I do not know.

# 177 Q:

So your testimony that you signed -- that you initialed the bindles, that was correct, wasn't it?

# 178 A:

No, it is not.

# 179 Q:

Oh, it's not correct.

When did you learn that you didn't initial the bindles?

# 180 A:

After I saw photos and I was told by serology that the bindles did not have my initials or Mr. Fung's.

# 181 Q:

So they weren't the same bindles, were they, that you initialed when you made them?

# 182 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, argumentative, misstates the evidence.

# 183 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 184 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) So your reason for thinking that your under-oath testimony from August was a mistake is because the bindles that were later examined didn't have your initials on them; is that what you're saying?

# 185 A:

That was one of the things.

# 186 Q:

And now you know for sure that was a mistake, because you saw the pictures that don't have your initials on them; is that what you're saying?

# 187 A:

The bindles that we prepared with the blood swatches did not have my initials. Initially, I thought that they did. They do not.

KEY QUOTE

# 188 Q:

And that's all the information you have to conclude that you made a mistake when you testified under oath in August, correct?

# 189 A:

Correct.

# 190 Q:

Now, when you testified in April that Mr. Fung and you collected all of the blood from the Bronco, had you had plenty of time to prepare your testimony that time?

# 191 A:

Yes.

# 192 Q:

You spent a lot of time with the prosecutors in preparing for your testimony in April of '95, did you not?

# 193 A:

Actually not a lot of time, no.

# 194 Q:

When you testified under oath that you collected the entire visible stain of every stain that you saw in the Bronco in April, that was the truth, wasn't it?

# 195 A:

After you pick up a stain, there's going to be a little bit left from the water from the swatch. You will not pick up -- it's -- you will not pick up a stain so it is so clean. You cannot tell if there was something there before.

# 196 Q:

Your testimony in April of '95 was the truth, wasn't it?

# 197 A:

In some parts I was not mistaken; in others I was.

# 198 Q:

Now -- okay.

So you're saying now that your testimony in April of '95 was a mistake, the part about you collected everything from the Bronco, right?

# 199 A:

We collected representative stains, samples from what we saw.

# 200 Q:

How did you find out that was a mistake?

# 201 A:

Perhaps the mistake was saying the word "all."

KEY QUOTE

# 202 Q:

You thought that was a mistake, because in August of '94 they found a lot more blood in the Bronco, didn't they?

# 203 A:

Apparently after they tore the seats out, yes.

# 204 Q:

That blood wasn't there when you processed that car on the 14th, was it? MR. LAMBERT: Objection, argumentative, Your Honor.

# 205 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 206 A:

We did not tear the seats out of the Bronco. We collected the stains from what we saw.

KEY QUOTE

# 207 Q:

The blood -- you did not see any blood consistent with what was later found in August when you processed that car on the 14th of June --

# 208 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection.

# 209 Q:

-- 1994, did you?

# 210 MR. LAMBERT:

Lack of foundation.

# 211 THE COURT:

Sustained.

MR. BLASIER No further questions.

# 212 MR. BAKER:

Wait a minute.

# 213 MR. BLASIER:

Oops, wait a minute.

Let me show you 1420.

# 214 (The instrument herein described as a photograph was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1420.)

# 215 (Exhibit 1420 displayed on the Elmo.)

# 216 MR. BLASIER:

Can you zoom in on that better.

# 217 (Indicating to Elmo.)

# 218 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Ms. Mazzola, when you were done processing the Bronco on the 14th, and as you testified in April of '95, that blood was no longer there, was it?

# 219 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection as to foundation of this photograph, Your Honor.

# 220 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Well, let's look at what you see here and here was not there at -- after you finished with the Bronco on the 14th of June, was it?

# 221 A:

I do not know.

# 222 Q:

Did you take any pictures on the 14th?

# 223 A:

Photos were taken, yes.

# 224 Q:

Are there any pictures after you were done on the 14th, to your knowledge, that show the presence of those two stains?

# 225 A:

Photos were taken before collection, not after.

# 226 Q:

Oh, so we don't have any pictures after you were done, right?

# 227 A:

That is correct.

# 228 MR. BLASIER:

No further questions.

RECROSS-EXAMINATON BY MR. LAMBERT:

# 229 Q:

Ms. Mazzola, do you ever take photographs after you finish doing the evidence collection?

# 230 A:

No, never.

# 231 Q:

You take the photographs before the collection?

# 232 A:

Before, yes.

# 233 Q:

And one more time, in regard to this Bronco, when you tried to swatch up the blood, is it -- is it physically possible to clean it all up just using the swatch technique or does some always remain left?

# 234 A:

Some will remain just from the fact that the swatch is damp with water. You will collect as much as you can on the swatches because serology needs a lot of sample. There's going to be a little water mixed with the blood that is left on the surface.

# 235 Q:

And this collection that you did on the Bronco, this took place inside the print shed?

# 236 A:

Yes.

# 237 Q:

Was it easy to see inside the print shed?

# 238 A:

No, it was not.

# 239 MR. LAMBERT:

Thank you. No further questions.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

# 240 Q:

Let me see if I understand it.

You spent 3 hours on the Bronco, in the print shed, where you couldn't see it very well; is that your testimony?

# 241 A:

Flashlights were used by Mr. Fung to go over and identify the stains that he wanted to collect. Those were the stains that were numbered, photographed and collected.

# 242 Q:

No. My question was, is it your testimony, that you just told Mr. Lambert, that when you processed the Bronco on the 14th for 3 hours, you couldn't see it very well?

# 243 A:

We saw it well enough.

# 244 Q:

Okay.

And you haven't changed a single procedure that you testified to, that you used in this case, since the Simpson criminal case, have you?

# 245 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, beyond the scope.

# 246 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 247 MR. BLASIER:

He asked a question about photographs.

# 248 THE COURT:

You already asked the first time and she said no.

# 249 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) You haven't learned anything from the criminal case, have you?

# 250 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, argumentative.

# 251 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 252 MR. BLASIER:

Nothing further.

# 253 THE COURT:

You may step down.

# 254 ANDREA MAZZOLA:

Thank you.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (5)

Witness

You change your gloves so often in the lab, especially where I work in, we are in gloves almost the entire day. To us, changing gloves is the same as blinking. We do it, we don't think about doing it, we don't remember how many times we do it.

Mazzola's explanation for why she couldn't account for specific glove changes — a memorable analogy that simultaneously rehabilitates her credibility and underscores the lack of documentation in evidence handling.

Witness

The bindles that we prepared with the blood swatches did not have my initials. Initially, I thought that they did. They do not.

Mazzola acknowledges that the bindles she believed she initialed turned out not to bear her initials — a central defense argument that the bindles were switched or tampered with.

Witness

We did not tear the seats out of the Bronco. We collected the stains from what we saw.

Mazzola's defense of her June 14 collection, while implicitly acknowledging that blood found in August 1994 — discovered only after seats were removed — was not visible during her collection.

Witness

Perhaps the mistake was saying the word 'all.'

Mazzola concedes her prior sworn testimony that she collected all visible blood from the Bronco was an overstatement, undermining her credibility on precision of observation.

Examiner

Ms. Mazzola, apparently you didn't blink between the knit cap and the glove, did you?

Blasier's pointed redirect using Lambert's own 'blinking' analogy against Mazzola, highlighting that she failed to change gloves between processing the knit cap and the glove — a contamination concern.

Evidence (4)

Defendants' Exhibit No. 1420

Photograph displayed on the Elmo showing blood stains in the Bronco, used to challenge whether those stains were present after Mazzola and Fung completed their June 14 collection

introduced and displayed

Informal

Blood swatches and bindles prepared on the morning of June 14, 1994 — specifically whether they bore Mazzola's initials

discussed, authenticity challenged

Informal

Greg Matheson's notes, used by Mazzola at the August 1994 preliminary hearing testimony in place of her own notes

discussed

Informal

OJ Simpson's reference blood vial, renumbered from item 18 to item 17

discussed, numbering change challenged

Notable Exchanges (4)

Robert Blasier•Witness

Blasier pressed Mazzola on the renumbering of Simpson's reference blood from item 18 to 17, suggesting it was done to hide that Vannatter held the blood overnight. Mazzola deflected with the explanation about the tennis shoes' arrival order but ultimately confirmed the change was made only for Simpson's reference blood and no other item.

strategic

Tom Lambert•Witness

Lambert rehabilitated Mazzola by establishing she testified at the preliminary hearing in August 1994 without preparation, without her own notes, and borrowed Matheson's incomplete notes — laying groundwork to excuse her prior inconsistent statements.

rehabilitative

Robert Blasier•Witness

Blasier used redirect to dismantle Lambert's rehabilitation, pointing out that Mazzola had reviewed Matheson's notes and knew they were nearly identical to hers, then extracted that her claimed 'mistake' about initialing the bindles was based solely on seeing photos showing no initials — implying the bindles were different ones.

revealing

Robert Blasier•Witness

Blasier closed redirect by asking 'You haven't learned anything from the criminal case, have you?' — drawing an objection (sustained) but leaving the rhetorical point hanging that Mazzola's procedures remain unchanged despite the scrutiny.

heated

Light Moments (1)

Robert Blasier

Blasier said 'No further questions' then immediately said 'Oops, wait a minute' and introduced a new exhibit, drawing a mild rebuke from Baker.

Credibility Attacks (3)

⚔ Andrea Mazzola

prior inconsistent statement

Blasier confronted Mazzola with her August 1994 preliminary hearing testimony that she had initialed the bindles, contrasting it with her current acknowledgment that the bindles later examined bore no initials — arguing the bindles were substituted.

⚔ Andrea Mazzola

prior inconsistent statement

Blasier highlighted that Mazzola testified in April 1995 that she and Fung collected all visible blood from the Bronco, yet substantially more blood was found in August 1994 when the seats were removed, suggesting her observations were incomplete or inaccurate.

⚔ Andrea Mazzola

omission / failure to document

Blasier established that Mazzola never photographed or sketched swatches, never tested bindles for dryness, and had no personal knowledge that the bindles later examined by Yamauchi were the same ones she and Fung prepared — leaving the chain of custody unverifiable.

Objections

28 objections (12 sustained, 8 overruled)

Proceeding 8564 • 254 utterances • Defense witness

Civil Trial

Department 103