Cross-examination of Dennis Fung (1 of 2)

📄 Cross-examination of Dennis Fung (1 of 2) — Wednesday, January 15, 1997

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CIVIL\1997\JAN\15\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-DENNIS-FU.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 42 of 57

◀ Direct examination of Dennis Fung Cross-examination of Dennis Fung ▶

Witness: Dennis Fung
Examiner: Tom Lambert
Called by: Defense • Date: Wednesday, January 15, 1997 • Utterances: 248

Baker cross-examines criminalist Dennis Fung, pressing him hard on inconsistencies between his January 8 testimony and his current testimony about a damaged area on the Bundy glove allegedly hidden under a rock or debris. Baker implies the glove was switched (because no damage now exists where Fung previously said it was), and also challenges Fung on improper blood swatch drying procedures and pre-testimony coaching by Lambert.

# 1 A:

Yes.

# 2 Q:

And you got some telephone calls when you got back to LAPD about -- about your testimony here last week on December 8, didn't you?

# 3 A:

No, I didn't.

# 4 Q:

You were told by various people that LAPD had a lot invested in the civil case for -- against Mr. Simpson, weren't you?

# 5 MR. LAMBERT:

No foundation, argumentative, calls for hearsay.

# 6 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 7 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Well, since you got off the stand on January 8, have you -- is it your testimony to this jury that you had absolutely no discussions with anyone at LAPD about your testimony on January 8 concerning the glove, sir?

# 8 A:

That is not my testimony.

# 9 Q:

You've had conversations with your bosses at LAPD about your testimony and that you had to fix it; isn't that true, sir?

# 10 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, argumentative.

# 11 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 12 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) How many hours have you spent trying to come up with testimony in this courtroom today since January 8th, to cover the testimony you gave on January 8th?

# 13 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, argumentative.

# 14 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 15 A:

I haven't spent even one hour trying to cover what I did last week.

# 16 Q:

Well, how many hours did you spend in here on Monday in the jury room?

# 17 A:

I spent about ten minutes looking at the photographs and the glove.

# 18 Q:

So it's your testimony that it was ten minutes with Mr. Matheson?

# 19 A:

He was present, but --

# 20 Q:

And it was ten minutes, right, that's how long you were in that jury room?

# 21 A:

Approximately, yes.

# 22 Q:

And how long were you with Mr. Lambert over the weekend before you came into the jury room?

# 23 A:

Not at all.

# 24 Q:

How many times have you met with Mr. Lambert before you came on the stand today, after you left the stand on December 8th?

# 25 A:

Maybe twice.

# 26 Q:

And the whole conversation that you had with Mr. Lambert, Mr. Matheson, is relative to your testimony on January 8th, correct?

# 27 A:

Yes.

# 28 Q:

Now, on January 8th, when you were on the witness stand, Mr. Fung, you didn't lie to this jury, did you?

# 29 MR. LAMBERT:

It's argumentative, Your Honor.

# 30 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 31 A:

I didn't lie, but I was mistaken.

KEY QUOTE

# 32 Q:

You didn't miss -- you hadn't had all of this time with Mr. Lambert relative to the position you're now taking on the glove before you got on the witness stand on January 8, had you, sir?

# 33 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, argumentative.

# 34 THE COURT:

I don't understand the question, but if you can answer it, go ahead.

# 35 MR. BAKER:

Was it that bad?

# 36 THE COURT:

Well, at least, that's the way it's written.

# 37 MR. BAKER:

Let me reask it.

# 38 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) When you got on the witness stand on January 8, 1997, last week, you had not spent an hour, two hours, whatever the number is that you have just recently spent with Mr. Lambert on the glove, correct; you had just come in fresh to get on the witness stand and answer questions, true?

# 39 A:

That's correct.

# 40 Q:

And you didn't misrepresent the truth to this jury when you said that you were extremely vigilant about looking for everything that may be evidence in the case, true?

# 41 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, misstates the evidence, argumentative.

# 42 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 43 A:

I don't know what part of the testimony that was referring to.

# 44 Q:

Well, let me read it to you and ask you if you're attempting to misrepresent to the jury.

# 45 MR. BAKER:

Page 58, lines 9 through 13. (Mr. Baker read a portion from the transcript of Dennis Fung's civil trial testimony.)

# 46 Q:

And when you're at a crime scene and there's been a double homicide, I take it you're extremely vigilant about looking for everything that may be evidence in the case, true?

# 47 A:

That's correct.

# 48 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, you weren't attempting to misrepresent that to the jury, were you?

# 49 A:

No, I was not.

# 50 Q:

So you're attempting to be extremely vigilant in your dealings with the crime scene at 875 South Bundy, true?

# 51 A:

Yes.

# 52 Q:

All right. And you didn't misrepresent to this jury when you told this jury on January 8, 1997, that when you got back to the laboratory, you found some cuts on them, referring to the gloves, correct?

# 53 A:

I don't recall exactly what my testimony was in that, but --

# 54 Q:

Well, let me read it to you, and then you tell us whether or not you were trying to misrepresent to the jury when you said the following. MS. MOLINARO: Mr. Baker, may I have a page reference?

# 55 MR. BAKER:

You certainly may. It is page 59, lines 2 through 10. (Mr. Baker reads a portion from the transcript of Dennis Fung's civil trial testimony.) "

# 56 Q:

Now, did you -- in your view, in looking at the gloves, did you determine where the cuts were on those gloves, if any?

# 57 A:

We're talking about the gloves now?"

# 58 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) My question to you: (Mr. Baker reads a portion from the transcript of Dennis Fung's civil trial testimony.) "

# 59 Q:

Yes, the gloves. Yes, sir. I switched to the gloves, sorry.

# 60 A:

I did note when I got back to the laboratory, some -- some cuts on them."

# 61 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) That was your answer, sir, you were not attempting to misrepresent that to the jury when you said that in this courtroom under oath, true?

# 62 A:

I was not attempting to misrepresent myself, no, but I was mistaken.

# 63 Q:

And were you attempting, sir, to misrepresent to the jury when you told the jury that there was a damaged area under where a rock was; were you attempting to misrepresent that to the jury, sir?

# 64 A:

No.

# 65 Q:

And is it your present testimony that there, in fact, was a damaged area underneath where the debris was?

# 66 A:

Can you repeat that question?

# 67 Q:

You told this jury last week that there was a damaged area underneath where the debris or rock was, did you not, sir?

# 68 A:

I assumed it was.

# 69 Q:

Just answer the question, Mr. Fung. Did you or did you not tell the jury there was a damaged area on the Bundy glove underneath where the rock was?

# 70 A:

I may have implied that.

# 71 Q:

Implied that. Let me read from your sworn testimony; page 62, line 16 through page 63, line 8. (Mr. Baker read a portion from the transcript of Dennis Fung's civil trial testimony.)

# 72 Q:

And you're telling me that's not a cut?

# 73 A:

Well, there's an area of damage on there. I don't know if it's a cut or if it was caused by a rip.

# 74 Q:

Now, you're telling this jury that there was a rock in that exact area and you have a recollection of that when you collected the Bundy glove on June 13, 1994?

# 75 A:

Yes.

# 76 Q:

And you didn't see the damaged area because the rock was on it; is that what you're telling this jury?

# 77 A:

I'm telling you the damaged area was where a rock was.

# 78 Q:

And you couldn't see the damaged area because there was a rock on top of it; is that your testimony, sir?

# 79 A:

I'm saying it was embedded in the damage -- that damaged area.

# 80 Q:

So it was embedded in the damaged area?

# 81 A:

Yes.

# 82 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, that was your testimony last week, was it not, sir?

# 83 A:

I was referring to --

# 84 Q:

Was that your testimony last week or not?

# 85 A:

That was the testimony, yes.

# 86 Q:

And obviously, if there was a damaged area under that rock, the glove had to have been switched because there's no damage there, isn't that true, sir?

KEY QUOTE

# 87 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence.

# 88 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 89 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Well, leather doesn't necessarily heal itself, does it?

KEY QUOTE

# 90 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, argumentative.

# 91 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 92 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) If there was a damaged area under the rock -- there is no damaged area on the glove, correct?

# 93 A:

The damaged area I was referring to --

# 94 Q:

Can you answer the question instead of giving a speech, Mr. Fung. I want you to answer the question.

# 95 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection. I think he was answering the question.

# 96 THE COURT:

You may answer.

# 97 A:

The damaged area I was referring to was what was depicted in the photograph, not what was on the actual glove.

KEY QUOTE

# 98 Q:

Now, then you changed your testimony last week and said it wasn't even in that area, true?

# 99 A:

Well, because I had looked at the photograph, and it did look --

# 100 Q:

No. Maybe you didn't understand the question.

# 101 A:

There was an area of damage.

# 102 MR. BAKER:

I object, Your Honor. I wish this witness would be instructed to answer the question that's put to him. He can make his speech when he gets back to the station.

# 103 MR. LAMBERT:

He is answering. I don't think he should be interrupted while he is answering.

# 104 THE COURT:

Strike all of that and you can start over.

# 105 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Mr. Fung, you were able to examine the glove here in the courtroom, were you not?

# 106 A:

Yes.

# 107 Q:

And this case is the biggest case you have ever in your entire police career worked on, isn't that true?

# 108 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, argumentative.

# 109 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 110 MR. LAMBERT:

Irrelevant.

# 111 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Have you ever worked in a case that has had more publicity than this case, sir?

# 112 A:

No.

# 113 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, irrelevant.

# 114 THE COURT:

Ask the question. You know, you asked these questions last week. We don't need to go over them again, the preambles. Just ask the essential questions.

# 115 MR. BAKER:

Judge, I think I'll probably ask the questions that I want to ask.

KEY QUOTE

# 116 THE COURT:

Well, then I'm going to strike them.

# 117 MR. BAKER:

Okay.

# 118 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, Mr. Fung, after you had talked about the damaged area, then you switched, did you not, in terms of where you thought the cuts were on the glove?

# 119 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, argumentative as framed.

# 120 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 121 A:

Well, my memory was shaken because I couldn't --

# 122 Q:

Maybe you didn't understand the question. You then switched, did you not, as to the area, true or untrue, Mr. Fung?

# 123 A:

I did switch.

# 124 Q:

Now, you have testified in this case, this is the third time in the civil Simpson case, this is the third time. You have -- you have testified for how many days in the criminal trial?

# 125 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, irrelevant, Your Honor, beyond the scope.

# 126 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 127 MR. BAKER:

Your Honor, I think it goes to --

# 128 THE COURT:

Sustained. I sustained the objection.

# 129 MR. BAKER:

It goes to the issue of --

# 130 THE COURT:

Sustained. Ask another question.

# 131 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Now, you had seen the Bundy glove in the criminal trial, had you not?

# 132 A:

Only to identify it.

# 133 Q:

Well, you -- that's what you looked at it for, was to identify it, wasn't that true, sir?

# 134 A:

Yes.

# 135 Q:

And you identified it at the preliminary hearing?

# 136 A:

Yes.

# 137 Q:

And you identified it in the grand jury hearing?

# 138 A:

I'm not sure about that.

# 139 Q:

You've had this glove in front of you on numerous occasions before it was placed in front of you last week on January 8, isn't that correct, sir?

# 140 A:

Actually I'm not sure if it was the Bundy glove that was ever shown to me before. I remember the other glove was.

# 141 Q:

In fact, you told this jury you couldn't be sure that the glove in front of you last week was the glove that you collected on Bundy, isn't that true, sir?

# 142 A:

I did state that.

# 143 Q:

And you weren't attempting to misrepresent the truth to the jury at that time, were you, sir?

# 144 A:

No, I was not.

# 145 Q:

One other area I want to reopen on -- on a different subject.

# 146 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection to reopening, Your Honor, at this stage.

# 147 THE COURT:

I'll permit it.

# 148 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Just one other question about the photograph. You testified last week on December 8, 1997 (sic), that that area was debris, did you not, that is the whitened area on the glove, did you not?

# 149 A:

My first testimony was that -- that I believed it was debris, yes.

# 150 Q:

Thank you. Now, I want to go back to June 13, 1994 for a minute, when you went to the laboratory, and that's when you looked at both gloves, right?

# 151 A:

The June 14, yes.

# 152 Q:

14?

# 153 A:

June 13.

# 154 Q:

June 13. Remember the day where you collected the evidence, sir?

# 155 A:

Okay.

# 156 Q:

That was when you were back in the laboratory and you looked at both of those gloves, correct?

# 157 A:

I'm not exactly sure when -- when I looked at them. I know that I did look at them between the time I collected them and the time I booked them.

# 158 Q:

When did you book them?

# 159 A:

They were finally booked on -- approximately three days after the day they were picked up.

# 160 Q:

Now, those gloves should have been booked immediately, shouldn't they?

# 161 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, irrelevant.

# 162 THE COURT:

Sustained. You can ask him when he booked them.

# 163 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) When you were in -- strike that. When you got back to SID on the night of the 13th, and you took the blood swatches and you and Andrea put blood swatches in glass test tubes for drying, right?

# 164 A:

Yes.

# 165 Q:

And you have done that on previous occasions, have you not?

# 166 A:

Yes.

# 167 Q:

And you're certainly familiar with the fact that if you clump swatches together, you diminish the surface area and they don't dry, correct?

# 168 A:

I am now.

# 169 Q:

You were then -- I mean you're not telling this jury that you didn't understand that if you take the damp objects and put them on damp objects -- and put them on damp objects, that they're going to dry quicker than if you spread them all out? You're not telling the jury that, are you, sir?

# 170 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, argumentative.

# 171 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 172 DENNIS FUNG:

I may answer?

# 173 THE COURT:

Yes.

# 174 A:

Well, I was aware of it but --

# 175 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) And you certainly made efforts to ensure, because you wanted those swatches to dry, that they were in the best position in the test tube so that they could be in the drying rack and -- and get dried, didn't you? I mean you -- didn't you, sir?

# 176 A:

No, not at that point.

# 177 Q:

So you were negligent in that regard as well?

# 178 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, irrelevant.

# 179 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 180 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Were you negligent or not, sir?

# 181 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection.

# 182 THE COURT:

I'll sustain it. You can ask him what he did.

# 183 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Did you watch Andrea Mazzola put the initials on the bindle, Mr. Fung, in 1994, that she testified to putting on the bindle?

# 184 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, misstates the evidence, not what she testified to.

# 185 THE COURT:

You want to show me?

# 186 MR. LAMBERT:

We're going to have to find Andrea Mazzola's testimony. She testified to the opposite.

# 187 THE COURT:

You make objections, you have to back them up.

# 188 MR. LAMBERT:

He has to have a good basis for asking the question.

# 189 MR. BAKER:

I have a very good basis for asking the question.

# 190 MR. PETROCELLI:

He doesn't have to --

MR. P. BAKER: Page 89 of December 10, Judge. Would you like me to bring it up there?

# 191 THE COURT:

They made the objection.

MR. P. BAKER: Okay.

# 192 THE COURT:

Are you going to help them on it? MS. MOLINARO: You can take it up. (Indicating to notebook computer.)

# 193 MR. BAKER:

It's on 89 and 90, 20 for the record. (The following proceedings were held at the bench with the reporter.)

# 194 THE COURT:

Okay.

# 195 MR. LAMBERT:

Let me get the right spot. This is Mr. Blasier, I guess.

# 196 MR. BAKER:

I can ask the question. Right there.

# 197 MR. LAMBERT:

What she testified to she -- in August of '94, she had testified that she put her initials on the bindles. She now realizes that she didn't.

# 198 MR. BAKER:

That's enough to ask the question.

# 199 THE COURT:

Excuse me?

# 200 MR. LAMBERT:

The testimony in this case was she did not put the name on bindles.

# 201 MR. BAKER:

They twisted every witness. That is enough to ask the question. She said, "I believe I had."

# 202 MR. LAMBERT:

She believed in August of '94.

# 203 THE COURT:

Let me see what you have.

# 204 MR. LAMBERT:

They're asking her about a hearing that took place before the criminal trial (indicating). (Court reads computer screen of Mr. Lambert.)

# 205 THE COURT:

What are you pointing out to me?

# 206 MR. LAMBERT:

This here. Right here. I do not believe -- well, you put your initials. I believed that I had. Yes. And she said -- and you testified that you had in August. This is at a pretrial hearing before the criminal trial. I believed that I had, but I -- and you found out at some later time after the hearing, but before the criminal trial, that the bindles didn't have your initials on it, correct? She said -- and you then changed your testimony now at the criminal trial. She testified she didn't have the initials on the bindle. That's what this is all about. So she's not testified in this trial that she had her initials on bindles. She's saying the opposite.

# 207 THE COURT:

Okay. If you want to ask whether he saw her put initials on, you may.

# 208 MR. BAKER:

All right.

# 209

THE COURT: But the objection is sustained with regards to the form of the question implying that she testified that she put it on. I think the evidence shows that she said she didn't. (The following proceedings were held in open court in the presence of the jury.)

# 210 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Did you see Andrea Mazzola write her initials on the night -- or the morning of the 14th when you took the swatches out of the -- out of test tubes in the drying area?

# 211 A:

I don't recall seeing her write her initials.

# 212 Q:

Not one way or the other, right?

# 213 A:

No.

# 214 Q:

All right. Just one other area. You did testify that the area of damage was exactly where the rock was, did you not, on January 8, 1997?

# 215 A:

I thought the rock was the area of damage.

# 216 Q:

Did you testify -- did you testify that the rock was at the exact area of the damage, sir? Can you answer that question? It was one week ago.

# 217 A:

Yes, I testified to that because I thought the piece of debris was an area of damage.

# 218 Q:

Okay. Let me read your deposition -- or your testimony, sir. MS. MOLINARO: May I have the page numbers.

# 219 MR. BAKER:

You sure may. It's 62, line 6.

# 220 (BY MR. BAKER) (Reading:)

# 221 Q:

Now, does that look like a rock to you or does it look like a cut?

# 222 A:

That's a damaged area on the finger that -- there you go.

# 223 Q:

That area?

# 224 A:

This area here could be -- could be that rock I remember.

# 225 Q:

Well, that's exactly the same area I pointed to on the other two exhibits, isn't it, sir?

# 226 A:

Yes, it is.

# 227 Q:

And you're telling me that's not a cut?

# 228 A:

Well, that's an area of damage on there. I don't know if it's a rip, I don't know if it's a cut or if it was caused by a rip.

# 229 Q:

Now, are you telling this jury that there was a rock in that exact area and you have a recollection of that when you collected the Bundy glove on June 13, 1994?

# 230 A:

Yes. That was your testimony then, sir, correct?

# 231 A:

Yes.

# 232 Q:

And now you say it wasn't a rock over a rip or a tear; it was just a piece of debris, right?

# 233 A:

Well, going over the photographs and -- yes.

# 234 Q:

Can you answer my question. And you have no idea where this purported piece of debris is now and no idea where the damaged area underneath it is, true?

# 235 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, assumes facts not in evidence, compound, argumentative. (Court reviews real time screen.)

# 236 THE COURT:

It is compound. Sustained.

# 237 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) You have no idea where the damaged area is that you testified under that rock is, because it's not on the glove, isn't that true, sir?

# 238 MR. LAMBERT:

Objection, argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence.

# 239 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 240 Q:

(BY MR. BAKER) Isn't that true, sir? Yes or no?

# 241 A:

We were referring to a --

# 242 Q:

Yes or no?

# 243 A:

-- photograph.

# 244 Q:

And when -- you testified to this jury you had a recollection of the glove that you collected on Bundy on June 13, true?

# 245 A:

I had some recollection of it.

# 246 Q:

Well, you testified you had a recollection of it -- strike that.

# 247 MR. BAKER:

I have nothing further of this witness. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:

# 248 Q:

The -- Mr. Fung, you were asked a bunch of questions about whether you were trying to mislead the jury. Were you trying to mislead the jury in your testimony?

Temperature

heated

Key Quotes (5)

Dennis Fung

I didn't lie, but I was mistaken.

Fung's concession that his prior sworn testimony was wrong — without admitting dishonesty — is the central tension of this examination and underscores Baker's theme of a compromised witness.

Tom Baker

obviously, if there was a damaged area under that rock, the glove had to have been switched because there's no damage there, isn't that true, sir?

Baker's most explicit statement of the glove-planting theory, framed as a logical inference from Fung's own prior testimony — sustained as argumentative but the implication lands.

Tom Baker

Well, leather doesn't necessarily heal itself, does it?

Pithy, sarcastic follow-up to the glove-switching argument — sustained, but the rhetorical effect was clear to the jury.

Dennis Fung

The damaged area I was referring to was what was depicted in the photograph, not what was on the actual glove.

Fung's revised explanation for his earlier testimony, which Baker treats as a mid-examination switch that further undermines his credibility.

Tom Baker

Judge, I think I'll probably ask the questions that I want to ask.

Rare moment of Baker openly defying Judge Fujisaki's direction, illustrating the adversarial temperature of the proceeding.

Evidence (5)

Informal

Bundy glove collected June 13, 1994 — examined for damaged area allegedly beneath a rock or debris

discussed, challenged; Fung's prior and current descriptions of damage location compared

Informal

Photographs of the Bundy glove showing whitened area identified as debris or damage

discussed; Fung revised his testimony to say the damaged area referred only to the photograph, not the actual glove

Informal

Transcript of Dennis Fung's civil trial testimony, January 8, 1997 (pages 58–63)

Baker reads excerpts aloud to confront Fung with prior inconsistent statements

Informal

Blood swatches placed in glass test tubes for drying on the night of June 13/14, 1994

discussed; Baker challenged Fung on whether clumping swatches was negligent

Informal

Bindles allegedly initialed by Andrea Mazzola

discussed at bench; Baker sought to establish Fung did not witness Mazzola write her initials

Notable Exchanges (4)

Tom Baker•Dennis Fung

Extended back-and-forth over whether the damaged area on the Bundy glove was actually beneath the rock Fung described, or whether Fung changed his story after reviewing photographs. Baker repeatedly cuts off Fung's attempts to explain, demanding yes/no answers.

heated

Tom Baker•Judge Fujisaki

When Fujisaki told Baker to stop repeating preamble questions from the prior week, Baker responded 'Judge, I think I'll probably ask the questions that I want to ask,' prompting Fujisaki to threaten to strike them.

confrontational

Tom Baker•Daniel Lambert•Judge Fujisaki

Bench conference over whether Andrea Mazzola had testified she put her initials on bindles. Lambert argued she testified the opposite; Baker argued she said 'I believed that I had.' Court allowed Baker to ask whether Fung saw her write initials, but sustained the objection to the form implying she had testified she did.

strategic

Tom Baker•Dennis Fung

Baker confronts Fung about meeting with Lambert twice after January 8 testimony, framing the meetings as coaching sessions to 'cover' his prior testimony. Fung denies spending even an hour 'covering' prior testimony.

accusatory

Light Moments (1)

Tom Baker

After Fujisaki said he didn't understand Baker's question, Baker quipped 'Was it that bad?' — getting a small acknowledgment from the court before rephrasing.

Credibility Attacks (3)

⚔ Dennis Fung

prior inconsistent statement

Baker reads Fung's January 8 testimony verbatim and forces him to acknowledge he 'switched' his account of where the damaged area on the Bundy glove was located, and that a rock or debris he described is not visible on the actual glove.

⚔ Dennis Fung

bias / coaching

Baker establishes Fung met with Lambert twice after his January 8 testimony and spent time in the jury room reviewing photographs with Matheson, implying his revised testimony was prepared rather than genuine recollection.

⚔ Dennis Fung

professional negligence

Baker elicits that Fung was aware clumping blood swatches together impedes drying, yet failed to ensure proper positioning — suggesting systemic carelessness in evidence handling.

Witness Demeanor

Fung frequently attempts to explain rather than answer yes/no, prompting Baker to repeatedly interrupt him

Fung concedes switching his testimony mid-examination ('I did switch')

Fung hedges on dates, initially saying June 14 then correcting to June 13

Fung admits he cannot account for where the damaged area on the glove is

Objections

20 objections (12 sustained, 7 overruled)

Proceeding 8811 • 248 utterances • Defense witness

Civil Trial

Department 103