Recross-examination of Dennis Fung

📄 Recross-examination of Dennis Fung — Tuesday, November 5, 1996

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1996\NOV\5\RECROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-DENNIS-.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 9 of 57

◀ Redirect examination of Dennis Fung (part 2) Recess and exhibit admissions ▶

Witness: Dennis Fung
Examiner: Tom Lambert
Called by: Defense • Date: Tuesday, November 5, 1996 • Utterances: 62

Robert Blasier conducts a brief recross of Dennis Fung in the civil trial, focusing on evidence collection procedures and the absence of blood evidence in OJ Simpson's bathroom sink traps. The examination is repeatedly cut short by sustained objections on relevance grounds, and ends with a notable dispute over whether Fung is truly excused — Baker announces the defense intends to recall him.

# 1 THE COURT:

You going to be long?

# 2 MR. BLASIER:

Not too long. RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

# 3 Q:

You had trash from that bag too, didn't you, Mr. Fung?

# 4 A:

No.

# 5 Q:

You had the cards that you used to mark evidence items, didn't you?

# 6 A:

No, that's not trash.

# 7 Q:

Those are not evidentiary items, are they?

# 8 A:

That's correct.

# 9 Q:

And they shouldn't be mixed in with evidence, should they?

# 10 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Irrelevant.

# 11 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 12 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Should they be mixed in with evidence?

# 13 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Irrelevant.

# 14 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 15 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Does it matter what kind of dog you have wandering and your crime scene in terms of whether that can cause problems for you in collecting evidence?

# 16 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Irrelevant.

# 17 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 18 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Is it important that your documentation be accurate, Mr. Fung?

# 19 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Irrelevant.

# 20 THE COURT:

Sustained for purposes of this trial.

KEY QUOTE

# 21 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Did you use the same level of care in collecting evidence as you did in documenting your collection of evidence?

# 22 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Argumentative, asked and answered.

# 23 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 24 Q:

(BY MR. LAMBERT) The stain on the wire, that was never confirmed to be blood, was it?

# 25 A:

No.

# 26 Q:

And did you use the stain -- the same technique to collect that stain that you used on all the other stains?

# 27 A:

Yes.

# 28 Q:

Have you ever looked at those stains after you processed them?

# 29 A:

You mean --

# 30 Q:

Prior to item 11, did you ever look at the control slides for item 11?

# 31 A:

No.

# 32 Q:

You ever compare it to what you consider to be the evidence swatch?

# 33 A:

I have, after the evidence was packaged, I have not seen the items of evidence.

# 34 Q:

Now, you took apart Mr. Simpson's sink traps in his bathroom, didn't you?

# 35 A:

Yes.

# 36 Q:

There was no evidence of any blood in the sink traps, was there?

# 37 A:

None was detected in the traps.

# 38 Q:

And you did -- you tried to do testing in the traps, didn't you?

# 39 A:

Yes.

# 40 Q:

And you got no positive results, did you?

# 41 A:

The sink traps were negative.

KEY QUOTE

# 42 Q:

And there was nothing in the bowl that appeared to be blood, correct?

# 43 A:

In the bowl?

# 44 Q:

The bowl of the sink?

# 45 A:

No. It was mainly in the -- where the drain is. There's that lip around it. That was where it was.

# 46 Q:

By the way, is it unusual to find blood in a sink trap?

# 47 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. Argumentative.

# 48 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) In a bathroom?

# 49 MR. LAMBERT:

Argumentative.

# 50 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 51 Q:

(BY MR. BLASIER) Tell me what sort of things give false positives in scenes with the kind of testing that you did? Doesn't copper plumbing do that sometimes?

# 52 A:

Well, using the two step phenolphthalein test, and making sure that it reacts immediately with the addition of hydrogen peroxide, that can be eliminated.

# 53 Q:

Tell me what sort of things in a sink give you false positives.

# 54 A:

Same things that would give you false positives out of a sink.

# 55 Q:

Cleaners, correct?

# 56 A:

Not with the two step phenolphthalein test.

# 57 Q:

Did you collect any stains in the sink area that was ever confirmed to be blood?

# 58 A:

No.

# 59 MR. BLASIER:

Thank you, Mr. Fung.

# 60 MR. LAMBERT:

Nothing further.

# 61 THE COURT:

You're excused.

# 62 MR. BAKER:

Your Honor, this witness is not excused. We'll be calling him back.

KEY QUOTE

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

Robert Baker

Your Honor, this witness is not excused. We'll be calling him back.

Defense signals Fung's testimony is not finished — he will be recalled, suggesting more challenges to evidence collection are planned.

Witness

The sink traps were negative.

Confirms no blood was found in Simpson's bathroom sink traps, undermining any theory that Simpson washed blood away after the murders.

Hiroshi Fujisaki

Sustained for purposes of this trial.

Fujisaki's qualifier signals he finds the accuracy-of-documentation question abstractly valid but irrelevant to civil proceedings — a recurring theme of his tight courtroom management.

Evidence (2)

Item 11

Evidence swatch and control slides — stain on a wire, never confirmed to be blood

discussed

Informal

Simpson's bathroom sink traps — tested for blood, all results negative

discussed

Notable Exchanges (3)

Robert Blasier•Tom Lambert•Hiroshi Fujisaki

Blasier attempts a series of questions about documentation accuracy and evidence-handling standards; Lambert objects to each as irrelevant and Fujisaki sustains every single one, effectively shutting down that line entirely.

strategic/frustrated

Robert Blasier•Witness

Blasier walks Fung through the sink trap testing — establishing there was no blood detected anywhere in Simpson's bathroom sink or traps.

methodical

Robert Baker•Hiroshi Fujisaki

After Fujisaki excuses Fung, Baker immediately objects and states the defense intends to recall him, leaving Fung's testimony open.

strategic

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Dennis Fung

impeachment via omission / procedural critique

Blasier attempted to highlight that non-evidentiary items (marking cards) were mixed with evidence, and that documentation may not have matched collection care — though most of these questions were sustained before Fung could answer.

Objections

9 objections (9 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 8150 • 62 utterances • Defense witness

Civil Trial

Department 103