Cross-examination of Dennis Fung (afternoon, part 1)

📄 Cross-examination of Dennis Fung (afternoon, part 1) — Wednesday, April 12, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\APR\12\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-DENNIS-FU.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 55 of 167

◀ Afternoon session opening Sidebar: document authentication ▶

Witness: Dennis Fung
Examiner: Barry Scheck
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Wednesday, April 12, 1995 • Utterances: 55

Barry Scheck cross-examines Dennis Fung about card access records for the LAPD evidence processing room on the morning of June 14th, using them to press Fung on whether Detective Lange was present with OJ Simpson's sneakers — implying Lange had improperly taken the sneakers home overnight after recovering them on June 13th. Scheck attempts to establish a chain of custody violation under LAPD Manual Rule 510.10, but is repeatedly blocked by hearsay and foundation objections.

# 1 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, WHAT DO YOU RECOGNIZE THIS DOCUMENT TO BE, SIR?

# 2 THE COURT:

EXCEPT, MR. GOLDBERG, YOU NEED NOT TO STAND BETWEEN THE WITNESS AND THE JURORS.

# 3 DENNIS FUNG:

I HAVE NEVER ACTUALLY SEEN ONE OF THESE DOCUMENTS BEFORE, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE ONE OF THE -- WELL, I HAVE SEEN THE DOCUMENT BEFORE, I TAKE THAT BACK. IT IS A CARD ACCESS DOCUMENT.

# 4 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: AND DOES THIS APPEAR TO BE A CARD ACCESS DOCUMENT FOR THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH?

# 5 A:

YES.

# 6 Q:

AND DOES IT INDICATE, SIR, THAT YOU WERE IN THE EVIDENCE POSSESSING ROOM AT 7:45?

# 7 A:

IT INDICATES I USED MY CARD FOR ENTRY, YES.

# 8 Q:

DOES IT INDICATE THAT YOU THEN USED YOUR CARD AGAIN FOR ENTRY AT 7:50?

# 9 A:

YES.

# 10 Q:

DOES IT INDICATE THAT MR. MATHESON IS IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM AT 7:44?

# 11 A:

YES, IT DOES.

# 12 Q:

NOW, HAVING LOOKED AT THIS DOCUMENT, IS YOUR RECOLLECTION REFRESHED THAT WHEN YOU ENTERED THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM AT AROUND 7:45 THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH, THAT IS WHERE YOU SAW DETECTIVE LANGE WITH THE SNEAKERS?

# 13 A:

I DON'T RECALL THE SNEAKERS AND HIM BEING THERE. THAT IS JUST MY RECOLLECTION.

# 14 Q:

BUT AS I UNDERSTAND YOUR PREVIOUS TESTIMONY, YOU RECALL SEEING DETECTIVE LANGE BETWEEN 7:30 AND EIGHT O'CLOCK, SOMETIME AROUND THEN?

# 15 A:

YES.

# 16 Q:

THAT IS WHEN THE MEETING OCCURRED WITH YOU, DETECTIVE LANGE AND MR. MATHESON, TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION?

# 17 A:

TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION.

# 18 Q:

AND LOOKING AT THESE RECORDS, CAN YOU NOW TELL US, SIR, IF THAT MEETING COULD HAVE HAPPENED IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM?

# 19 MR. GOLDBERG:

YOUR HONOR, IT CALLS FOR SPECULATION BECAUSE THIS RECORD DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT.

# 20 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 21 DENNIS FUNG:

A PORTION OF THE MEETING MAY HAVE OCCURRED THERE; HOWEVER, I SPECIFICALLY REMEMBER THE SNEAKERS BEING IN THE SEROLOGY LAB ALONG WITH MR. MATHESON AND CRIMINALIST YAMAUCHI AND MYSELF.

KEY QUOTE

# 22 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: IS THERE ANY REASON, MR. FUNG, THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO REMEMBER DETECTIVE LANGE BEING IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM WITH THE SNEAKERS WHEN YOU WALKED IN THERE?

KEY QUOTE

# 23 MR. GOLDBERG:

ARGUMENTATIVE.

# 24 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 25 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: WHEN YOU SAW DETECTIVE LANGE ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH WITH THE SNEAKERS, YOU REALIZED THAT HE HAD TAKEN THEM HOME?

# 26 A:

I DON'T KNOW IF HE HAD TAKEN THEM HOME OR NOT.

# 27 Q:

DID HE TELL YOU THAT HE HAD RECOVERED THESE SNEAKERS FROM MR. SIMPSON'S RESIDENCE ON THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 13TH?

# 28 MR. GOLDBERG:

YOUR HONOR, THIS CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

# 29 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 30 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, YOU WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR ITEMIZING IN YOUR REPORTS WHEN AND WHERE THOSE SNEAKERS WERE RECOVERED?

# 31 A:

THAT IS NOT EXACTLY TRUE, NO.

# 32 Q:

NO?

# 33 A:

IN MY REPORT I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR STATING HOW THEY CAME INTO MY CUSTODY.

KEY QUOTE

# 34 Q:

AND ARE YOU REQUIRED TO DETERMINE, FROM THE PERSON WHO IS GIVING IT TO YOU, WHERE AND WHEN THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE WERE RECOVERED?

# 35 A:

IT IS MY PRACTICE, WHEN I RECEIVE EVIDENCE FROM OTHER -- OR FROM POLICE OFFICERS OR DETECTIVES, THAT THEY -- THAT I SPECIFY THAT THEY KEEP GOOD NOTES AS TO WHERE AND WHEN THEY GOT OR RECOVERED THE EVIDENCE AND I AM ONLY GOING TO PUT DOWN IN MY PROPERTY REPORT THAT I RECEIVED IT OR THAT I RECEIVED THE EVIDENCE FROM THEM.

# 36 Q:

DID DETECTIVE LANGE SHOW YOU ANY NOTES ABOUT WHERE AND WHEN HE HAD RECOVERED THE SNEAKERS?

# 37 A:

NO.

# 38 Q:

DID HE INDICATE TO YOU IN ANY WAY THAT HE HAD RECOVERED THESE SNEAKERS ON THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 13TH?

# 39 MR. GOLDBERG:

YOUR HONOR, CALLS FOR HEARSAY.

# 40 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 41 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: LET ME ASK YOU TO ASSUME FOR A SECOND, MR. FUNG, THAT DETECTIVE LANGE HAD RECOVERED THE SNEAKERS ON THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 13TH, BROUGHT THEM HOME, AND THEN BROUGHT THEM BACK TO SID AND TURNED THEM OVER TO YOU. ARE YOU WITH ME ON THIS HYPOTHETICAL SO FAR?

KEY QUOTE

# 42 A:

YES.

# 43 Q:

WOULD THAT NOT BE A VIOLATION OF LAPD RULE 510.10?

# 44 A:

WHAT IS --

# 45 MR. GOLDBERG:

NO FOUNDATION.

# 46 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 47 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU KNOW OF A RULE IN THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT MANUAL THAT INDICATES THAT EVIDENCE AND NON-EVIDENCE SHALL NOT BE STORED IN THE PERSONAL POSSESSION OF ANY EMPLOYEE EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN FORGERY-RELATED EVIDENCE?

# 48 MR. GOLDBERG:

NO FOUNDATION.

# 49 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 50 MR. SCHECK:

MAY I APPROACH THE WITNESS, YOUR HONOR, AND SHOW HIM A DOCUMENT?

# 51 THE COURT:

CERTAINLY.

# 52 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, I SHOW YOU A DOCUMENT. DO YOU RECOGNIZE IT?

# 53 A:

IT APPEARS TO BE A PAGE OUT OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT MANUAL.

# 54 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND I'M GOING TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION --

# 55 MR. GOLDBERG:

I OBJECT TO THIS. I MEAN, HE CAN'T AUTHENTICATE THIS DOCUMENT. HE IS NOT AN EXPERT IN IT.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Dennis Fung

A PORTION OF THE MEETING MAY HAVE OCCURRED THERE; HOWEVER, I SPECIFICALLY REMEMBER THE SNEAKERS BEING IN THE SEROLOGY LAB ALONG WITH MR. MATHESON AND CRIMINALIST YAMAUCHI AND MYSELF.

Fung resists Scheck's attempt to place Lange in the evidence processing room with the sneakers, maintaining his own contrary recollection despite the card access records.

Barry Scheck

IS THERE ANY REASON, MR. FUNG, THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO REMEMBER DETECTIVE LANGE BEING IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM WITH THE SNEAKERS WHEN YOU WALKED IN THERE?

Scheck pushes beyond the records to suggest Fung is being evasive — sustained as argumentative, but the implication lands for the jury.

Barry Scheck

LET ME ASK YOU TO ASSUME FOR A SECOND, MR. FUNG, THAT DETECTIVE LANGE HAD RECOVERED THE SNEAKERS ON THE AFTERNOON OF JUNE 13TH, BROUGHT THEM HOME, AND THEN BROUGHT THEM BACK TO SID AND TURNED THEM OVER TO YOU.

Scheck explicitly states the defense theory — that Lange took evidence home overnight — even while the question is blocked, ensuring the jury hears it.

Dennis Fung

IN MY REPORT I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR STATING HOW THEY CAME INTO MY CUSTODY.

Fung narrows his own accountability, inadvertently highlighting that he asked no questions about provenance when Lange handed over the sneakers.

Evidence (3)

Informal

Card access records for the LAPD evidence processing room, morning of June 14th, showing Fung's entries at 7:45 and 7:50 and Matheson's entry at 7:44

introduced and used to refresh Fung's recollection about meeting with Lange

Informal

Page from the Los Angeles Police Department Manual, purportedly containing Rule 510.10 prohibiting personal storage of evidence

shown to witness; authentication objected to and not yet ruled on

Informal

OJ Simpson's sneakers, recovered June 13th by Detective Lange

discussed — chain of custody and overnight storage challenged

Notable Exchanges (2)

Barry Scheck•Dennis Fung

Scheck uses card access records to pin Fung's 7:45 entry to the evidence processing room, then tries to get Fung to concede Lange was there with the sneakers. Fung partially concedes the meeting 'may have' occurred there but insists his specific memory places the sneakers in the serology lab.

strategic

Barry Scheck•Hank Goldberg•Judge Ito

Scheck attempts to introduce LAPD Rule 510.10 through Fung. Goldberg objects twice on foundation grounds — Fung is a criminalist, not an LAPD policy expert — and both are sustained. Scheck then tries to show Fung the manual page directly, triggering a new authentication objection left unresolved at the end of the excerpt.

procedural battle

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Dennis Fung

prior inconsistent statement / refreshed recollection

Scheck uses card access logs to challenge Fung's account of where the meeting with Lange occurred, exposing tension between Fung's memory and the documentary record.

⚔ Detective Lange

misconduct theory (absent witness)

Scheck builds a factual predicate that Lange recovered the sneakers on June 13th and may have stored them at home overnight — a potential LAPD policy violation — though hearsay objections block Fung from confirming what Lange told him.

Objections

7 objections (5 sustained, 1 overruled)

Proceeding 5663 • 55 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103