📄 Cross-examination of Dennis Fung (morning, part 2) — Wednesday, April 12, 1995
Address:
C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\APR\12\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-DENNIS-FU.DOC
TRIAL
▲ Day 55 of 167

Cross-examination of Dennis Fung (morning, part 2)

Witness: Dennis Fung
Examiner: Barry Scheck
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Wednesday, April 12, 1995 • Utterances: 361
Barry Scheck continues his methodical cross-examination of LAPD criminalist Dennis Fung, focusing on chain of custody failures: an undated, possibly reconstructed document tracking evidence transfers, the three-day gap between evidence collection (June 13) and formal ECU booking (June 16), and an unlocked cabinet where swatches were stored overnight. Scheck also probes a morning meeting on June 14 in the serology lab with Detective Lange, Yamauchi, and Matheson, establishing that Lange pushed for priority analysis of the Bundy blood drops before evidence had been formally entered into the tracking system.
1 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)
2 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED.

3 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU RECOGNIZE ANY OF THE HANDWRITING ON THIS DOCUMENT?

4 A:

YES.

5 Q:

AND WHOSE HANDWRITING IS IT?

6 A:

IT IS MINE.

7 Q:

AND YOU DID NOT LOOK AT THIS DOCUMENT AND REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHAT YOU DID WITH SAMPLES ON JUNE 14TH AND ON JUNE 15TH WHEN YOU WERE TESTIFYING ON DIRECT EXAMINATION?

8 A:

I MAY HAVE. I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT.

9 Q:

DO YOU -- THIS DOCUMENT IS UNDATED?

10 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

11 Q:

DO YOU KNOW WHEN YOU FILLED IN THIS DOCUMENT?

12 A:

I DON'T RECALL WHEN I DID, NO.

13 Q:

THIS DOCUMENT REFERS TO WHAT YOU DID ON JUNE 14TH WHEN YOU RELEASED CERTAIN ITEMS TO CRIMINALIST YAMAUCHI?

14 A:

YES.

15 Q:

AND THE ITEM NUMBERS HERE REFER TO PHOTO IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS?

16 A:

THE NUMBERS REFER TO PHOTO I.D. NUMBERS, YES.

17 Q:

AND NO. 117 HERE WOULD BE REFERRING TO ITEM 52 OR A BLOOD DROP AT BUNDY?

18 A:

YES.

19 Q:

AND ITEM 115 WOULD BE ANOTHER BLOOD DROP AT BUNDY?

20 A:

YES.

21 Q:

AS WOULD BE 114, 113 AND 112?

22 A:

YES.

23 Q:

AND 107 AND 106 WERE RED STAINS YOU TOOK IN AN EFFORT TO GET EXEMPLARS FROM THE VICTIMS AT THE SCENE, CORRECT?

24 A:

YES.

25 Q:

AND BY EXEMPLARS WE MEAN SAMPLES THAT YOU THOUGHT WOULD ALMOST CERTAINLY BE THE BLOOD OF EACH OF THE VICTIMS?

26 A:

YES.

27 Q:

AND THEN THE NEXT NOTATION HERE CONCERNS RECEIVING FROM MR. YAMAUCHI ON JUNE 15TH A BLOOD VIAL FROM -- MADE UP OF THE BLOOD OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

28 A:

YES.

29 Q:

AND THEN THE NEXT NOTATION REFERS TO JUNE 15TH AND A SERIES OF NOW WHAT ARE ITEM NUMBERS?

30 A:

YES.

31 Q:

SO IN THE LAST ENTRY HERE YOU ARE NOW NOT USING PHOTO I.D. NUMBERS, YOU ARE NOW USING ITEM NUMBERS?

32 A:

I BELIEVE THE PHOTO I.D. NUMBERS AND THE ITEM NUMBERS ARE -- ARE THE SAME IN THOSE CASES.

33 Q:

AND THESE -- YOU ARE REFERRING HERE ON JUNE 15TH TO TURNING OVER TO MR. YAMAUCHI SAMPLES 23, 24, 25, 31, 33?

34 A:

YES.

35 Q:

THOSE ARE SAMPLES FROM THE BRONCO?

36 A:

LET ME CHECK. YES.

37 Q:

AND YOU REFER HERE TO GIVING THOSE TO MR. YAMAUCHI, "RETURN SAME NIGHT AFTER SAMPLING"?

38 A:

IT SAYS, "RETURNED SAME RIGHT AFTER SAMPLING."

39 Q:

"RETURNED SAME RIGHT AFTER SAMPLING." NOW, IS THIS PAGE A CONTEMPORANEOUS RECORD THAT YOU MADE AS THESE EVENTS WERE OCCURRING?

40 A:

I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WAS CONTEMPORANEOUS OR NOT. I MAY HAVE COPIED THIS ONTO THIS PAGE FROM A SCRAP OF PAPER OR SOMETHING.

KEY QUOTE
41 Q:

WOULD YOU NOT AGREE, SIR, THAT FOR PURPOSES OF KEEPING RECORDS WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO CREATE A CHAIN OF CUSTODY, THAT THE PROPER PROCEDURE IS TO MAKE OUT RECORDS AS YOU ARE PERFORMING THE ACTIONS, TURNING OVER THE SAMPLES?

42 A:

THAT IS ONE WAY TO DO IT.

43 Q:

WOULDN'T THAT BE THE MOST RELIABLE WAY TO DO IT?

44 A:

THAT IS ONE WAY OF DOING IT.

45 Q:

ISN'T THAT THE WAY THAT YOU WERE TAUGHT TO DO IT?

46 A:

THAT IS ONE WAY, YES.

47 Q:

WOULD YOU NOT AGREE THAT IN TERMS OF CREATING RECORDS FOR PURPOSES OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY THAT IT IS NOT A PARTICULARLY RELIABLE THING TO MAKE OUT A RECORD OF WHAT YOU DID ON AN UNDATED PIECE OF PAPER?

48 MR. GOLDBERG:

WELL, MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE. ARGUMENTATIVE.

49 THE COURT:

ARGUMENTATIVE. SUSTAINED.

50 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: THERE IS NO DATE AS TO WHEN YOU FILLED OUT THIS REPORT?

51 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

52 Q:

NO DATE AS TO WHEN YOU MADE ENTRIES ABOUT TURNING OVER THESE PIECES OF EVIDENCE?

53 A:

THE DATES ARE WRITTEN IN THE INFORMATION.

54 Q:

BUT THIS DOCUMENT COULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN WEEKS AFTER THESE EVENTS?

55 A:

IT WASN'T WEEKS.

56 Q:

WELL, IS THERE ANY WAY, FROM LOOKING AT THIS PAPER, THAT YOU CAN TELL US WHEN YOU FILLED OUT THIS DOCUMENT?

57 A:

NO.

58 Q:

AND YOU DON'T HAVE AN ORIGINAL OF THIS DOCUMENT, DO YOU?

59 A:

I BELIEVE I FOUND IT AND TURNED IT OVER TO MR. MATHESON.

60 Q:

THE ORIGINAL?

61 A:

I BELIEVE SO.

62 Q:

WHEN DID YOU DO THAT?

63 A:

TWO WEEKS AGO MAYBE, THREE WEEKS AGO. I DON'T REMEMBER.

64 Q:

ARE YOU CERTAIN OF THAT?

65 A:

YES.

66 MR. GOLDBERG:

WELL, IT IS VAGUE AS TO WHAT HE IS CERTAIN ABOUT, THAT HE TURNED IT OVER OR THE TIME FRAME.

67 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

68 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: ARE YOU CERTAIN THAT YOU TURNED THAT OVER TO MR. MATHESON TWO OR THREE WEEKS AGO, THE ORIGINAL OF THAT DOCUMENT?

69 A:

SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

70 Q:

WHERE DID YOU FIND THE ORIGINAL?

71 A:

IT WAS IN HERE, (INDICATING).

72 Q:

IT WAS IN YOUR -- WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO NOW IS WHAT?

73 A:

MY NOTEBOOK.

74 Q:

SO THAT IS YOUR PERSONAL NOTEBOOK?

75 A:

YES, IT IS.

76 Q:

AND THAT CONTAINS COPIES OF THESE VARIOUS CRIME SCENE CHECKLISTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS CASE?

77 A:

THIS CONTAINS THAT AND OTHER THINGS, YES.

78 MR. SCHECK:

YOUR HONOR, MAY WE APPROACH FOR A MINUTE?

79 THE COURT:

I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING WE CAN TAKE UP WHEN WE CONCLUDE WITH THIS.

80 MR. SCHECK:

WELL, I JUST WANT TO MAKE A BRIEF RECORD ON THIS POINT RIGHT NOW.

81 THE COURT:

THE RECORD EXISTS.

82 MR. SCHECK:

ALL RIGHT.

83 THE COURT:

PROCEED.

84 (BRIEF PAUSE.)
85 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE WAS THE ORIGINAL OF THAT DOCUMENT TURNED OVER TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?

86 A:

I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS OR NOT.

87 Q:

NOW, YOUR REPORTS WITH RESPECT TO FIELD INVESTIGATIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE REVIEWED BY A SUPERVISOR?

88 A:

YES.

89 Q:

AND PRIOR TO APPROVING AND SIGNING THESE REPORTS THE SUPERVISOR IS SUPPOSED TO INSPECT ALL CASE NOTES, PHOTOGRAPHS, ET CETERA, TO ENSURE THAT YOUR REPORTS ARE ACCURATE AND COMPLETE?

90 A:

YES.

91 Q:

AND WHAT IS A FIELD INVESTIGATION NOTE PACKAGE?

92 A:

THAT WOULD CONTAIN FIELD INVESTIGATION NOTES AND A PROPERTY REPORT.

93 Q:

SO THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE CRIME SCENE CHECKLISTS THAT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING DURING YOUR TESTIMONY?

94 A:

YES.

95 Q:

IT WOULD INCLUDE THE VEHICLE SEARCH CHECKLISTS THAT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING DURING YOUR TESTIMONY?

96 A:

YES.

97 Q:

IT WOULD INCLUDE THE EVIDENCE COLLECTION SHEETS THAT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING DURING YOUR TESTIMONY?

98 A:

YES.

99 Q:

IT WOULD INCLUDE THE DIAGRAMS THAT WERE DRAWN ON THE BACK OF SOME OF THESE PIECES OF PAPER THAT YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA MADE DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR INVESTIGATION ON THE 13TH AND THE 14TH?

100 A:

YES.

101 Q:

AND ISN'T IT REQUIRED THAT THE FIELD INVESTIGATION NOTE PACKAGES MUST BE SUBMITTED, PRIOR TO FILING AT THE LAB, TO THE SUPERVISOR OF THE TRACE ANALYSIS UNIT FOR REVIEW?

102 A:

AT THE TIME THERE WAS NO TRACE ANALYSIS SUPERVISOR.

103 Q:

ALL RIGHT. WHAT SUPERVISOR WAS IN CHARGE OF REVIEWING YOUR FIELD INVESTIGATION NOTE PACKAGE IN THIS CASE?

104 MR. GOLDBERG:

ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE.

105 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

106 DENNIS FUNG:

MY PROPERTY REPORTS WERE REVIEWED BY MR. MATHESON.

107 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: WHAT ABOUT THE CRIME SCENE CHECKLISTS? WHO REVIEWED THOSE?

108 A:

I DON'T KNOW.

109 Q:

TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE WERE THEY GIVEN TO ANYONE FOR REVIEW?

110 A:

COPIES WERE GIVEN TO LAB MANAGEMENT.

111 Q:

ARE YOU AWARE THAT DEFICIENT NOTE PACKAGES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DIRECTED AND SUPPLEMENTED BY INVOLVED EMPLOYEES AND SUBSEQUENTLY FILED AND STORED?

112 MR. GOLDBERG:

ASSUMES A FACT NOT IN EVIDENCE AS PHRASED.

113 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

114 MR. SCHECK:

I AM ASKING IF HE IS AWARE.

115 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

116 DENNIS FUNG:

THAT HAS BEEN A PRACTICE, YES.

117 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: AND WOULD THAT LAB MANAGEMENT INCLUDE MICHELE KESTLER, THE HEAD OF THE LABORATORY?

118 A:

SHE IS THE CRIME LAB DIRECTOR.

119 Q:

AND TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE WAS SHE REVIEWING YOUR WORK IN THIS CASE?

120 A:

I DON'T KNOW IF SHE REVIEWED OR HOW MUCH OF IT SHE REVIEWED.

121 Q:

WAS SHE DISCUSSING YOUR WORK IN THIS CASE WITH YOU IN THE PERIOD -- IN THE WEEK OF JUNE 13TH TO JUNE 20TH?

122 A:

I DON'T RECALL IF SHE DID OR NOT.

123 Q:

TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE DID ANYONE AT THE LABORATORY IN A SUPERVISORY POSITION COME BACK TO YOU AND POINT OUT ANYTHING THAT NEEDED TO BE SUPPLEMENTED IN YOUR FIELD NOTE PACKAGE?

124 A:

NOT THAT I CAN RECALL.

125 Q:

NOW, ORDINARILY WHEN YOU BOOK SOMETHING AT THE LABORATORY, YOU GO THROUGH CERTAIN PROCEDURES, BOOK AN ITEM OF EVIDENCE?

126 A:

YES.

127 Q:

AND THIS WOULD INCLUDE SWATCHES THAT WERE COLLECTED FROM BLOOD STAINS?

128 A:

YES.

129 Q:

AND CERTAIN PHYSICAL ITEMS OF EVIDENCE, SUCH AS THE GLOVE AND THE HAT THAT WERE COLLECTED IN THIS CASE?

130 A:

YES.

131 Q:

AND THE ORDINARY PROCEDURE IS THAT A DR NUMBER IS BOUGHT BY ONE OF THE DETECTIVES IN THE CASE?

132 A:

YES.

133 Q:

AND AFTER THE DR NUMBER IS BOUGHT YOU CAN BEGIN TO BOOK CERTAIN EVIDENCE IN A PLACE CALLED THE EVIDENCE CONTROL UNIT?

134 A:

YES.

135 Q:

AND THE EVIDENCE CONTROL UNIT IS A CERTAIN ROOM AT SID?

136 A:

IT IS MORE THAN JUST A ROOM, BUT IT IS A SECTION OF SID.

137 Q:

IT IS A SECTION OF SID, AND WHEN YOU BOOK AN ITEM OF EVIDENCE IN A CASE WHAT HAPPENS IS, IS THAT THE PEOPLE AT ECU WILL STAMP IT WITH A DATE?

138 A:

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY DO ONCE I GIVE IT TO THEM.

139 Q:

WELL, HAVEN'T YOU EVER SEEN AN ITEM OF EVIDENCE BOOKED AT ECU?

140 A:

YES, I HAVE.

141 Q:

I MEAN, YOU DO THAT ALL THE TIME, DON'T YOU?

142 A:

YES.

143 Q:

AND DON'T YOU -- HAVEN'T -- DON'T YOU RECALL THAT AT ECU WHEN THEY GET EITHER A PAPER BAG OR AN ENVELOPE OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE THAT THEY WILL PUT A STAMP ON IT THAT GIVES THE DATE?

144 A:

I BRING MY EVIDENCE TO PROPERTY. I SIGN MY NAME NEXT TO A REGISTER. THE STATION OFFICER OR PROPERTY OFFICER READS THE REPORT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN BOOK OR UNDERSTAND WHAT IS ON THE REPORT AND I LEAVE. I DON'T STICK AROUND AND SEE WHAT THEY DO.

145 Q:

SO YOU HAVE NEVER NOTICED A TIME STAMP ON IT?

146 A:

I NEVER HAVE, NO.

147 Q:

HAVE YOU EVER NOTICED AT ECU THAT THEY WILL PUT A BAR CODE ON THE ITEM -- THE PACKAGING OF THE ITEM OF EVIDENCE WHEN YOU TURN IT OVER TO THEM?

148 A:

I HAVE NOTICED BAR CODES, YES.

149 Q:

AND YOU ARE AWARE THAT WHEN THE BAR CODE IS PUT ON THE ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT ITEM IS THEN PUT INTO A COMPUTER TRACKING SYSTEM?

150 A:

I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WORKS, BUT IT IS TRACKED BY A COMPUTER.

151 Q:

WELL, ONCE AN ITEM OF EVIDENCE IS BOOKED AT ECU, ARE YOU AWARE OF HOW CRIMINALISTS AT SID WOULD THEN OBTAIN THAT PACKAGE FOR SUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS?

152 MR. GOLDBERG:

IRRELEVANT AND BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE DIRECT.

153 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

154 DENNIS FUNG:

I KNOW HOW I DO IT.

155 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, YOU HAVE WORKED IN TRACE ANALYSIS?

156 A:

YES, I HAVE.

157 Q:

AND IN ORDER -- IF YOU ARE WORKING IN TRACE ANALYSIS AND YOU WANT TO GET AN ITEM OF EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN BOOKED IN A CASE, YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE ECU?

158 A:

WHEN I WORKED IN TRACE ANALYSIS ECU WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE.

159 Q:

HAVE YOU WORKED IN ANY UNIT WHERE YOU HAVE TO GO TO ECU TO OBTAIN AN ITEM OF EVIDENCE?

160 A:

THE UNIT I WORK IN NOW I OCCASIONALLY HAVE TO GO DOWN AND PICK UP ITEMS FROM ECU.

161 Q:

AND WHEN YOU PICK UP AN ITEM FROM ECU, THE PERSON AT ECU HAS TO TAKE ONE OF THESE BAR CODE READERS AND HIT A BAR CODE OF THEIR OWN? HAVE YOU SEEN THAT?

162 A:

YES.

163 Q:

AND YOU HAVE A BAR CODE, CORRECT?

164 A:

YES.

165 Q:

AND YOUR BAR CODE IS LIT WITH ONE OF THESE LIGHT PENS?

166 A:

OR A TRACKING DEVICE.

167 Q:

TRACKING DEVICE. AND THEN THE BAR CODE ON THE PACKAGE OF EVIDENCE IS HIT WITH ONE OF THOSE LIGHT PENS?

168 A:

THAT IS ONE OF THE STEPS.

169 Q:

AND THE PURPOSE OF THOSE OPERATIONS IS TO TRY TO CREATE SOME KIND OF TRACKING RECORD AS TO THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE GONE TO ECU TO TAKE OUT A PIECE OF EVIDENCE FOR ANALYSIS?

170 A:

IT DOES MAKE A RECORD, YES.

171 Q:

AND THEN WHEN YOU FINISH YOUR ANALYSIS YOU WOULD RETURN IT TO THE ECU AND A SIMILAR PROCEDURE IS PERFORMED?

172 A:

YES.

173 Q:

AND IT IS BY THAT METHOD THAT TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING ITEMS OF EVIDENCE ARE TRACKED AT SID?

174 A:

THAT IS ONE OF THE METHODS.

175 Q:

NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE EVIDENTIARY ITEMS IN THIS CASE, THEY WEREN'T -- THE ONES YOU COLLECTED AT BUNDY ON JUNE 13TH, THEY WERE NOT BOOKED UNTIL JUNE 16TH?

176 A:

THAT'S CORRECT. NO. THE FINAL BOOKING WAS NOT UNTIL JUNE 16TH.

177 Q:

IN OTHER WORDS, THIS PROCESS OF TAKING THE PACKAGE WITH THE BAR CODE ON IT AND HANDING IT TO THE PERSON AT ECU WAS NOT DONE UNTIL JUNE 16TH?

178 A:

I DID NOT DO THAT UNTIL JUNE 16TH BECAUSE MY PROPERTY REPORTS WERE NOT WRITTEN OR COMPLETED UNTIL THAT TIME.

KEY QUOTE
179 Q:

BUT THE POINT IS, SIR, THAT UNTIL JUNE 16TH THESE ITEMS WERE NOT PUT INTO THAT COMPUTER TRACKING SYSTEM AT SID?

180 A:

THEY COULDN'T BE BECAUSE THE PROPERTY REPORT WASN'T PREPARED YET.

181 Q:

THEY COULDN'T BE BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT YET BEEN FORMALLY BOOKED, OR TO USE YOUR PHRASE, FINALLY BOOKED?

182 A:

THEY WERE NOT PLACED INTO ECU AT THAT TIME.

183 Q:

AND BY PLACING THEM INTO ECU AND HAVING AT LEAST THE BAR CODE PUT ON IT AND THE EVIDENCE TRACKING PROCEDURE BEGUN, THAT IS WHAT IS ORDINARILY MEANT BY FINAL BOOKING, TO USE YOUR PHRASE?

184 A:

FINAL BOOKING, YES.

185 Q:

ON THE EVENING OF JUNE 13TH THE SWATCHES FROM BUNDY HAD BEEN PLACED IN TEST-TUBES?

186 A:

YES.

187 Q:

THE SWATCHES FROM ROCKINGHAM HAD BEEN PLACED IN TEST-TUBES?

188 A:

YES.

189 Q:

THEY WERE PUT INSIDE COIN ENVELOPES?

190 A:

YES.

191 Q:

THEY WERE LAID IN A CARDBOARD BOX TOP, LAID DOWN?

192 A:

THEY -- THEY WERE LAID -- THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE BOX TOP, BUT YES.

193 Q:

THOSE BOX TOPS WERE PUT IN A CABINET IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM?

194 A:

YES.

195 Q:

THAT CABINET WAS UNLOCKED?

196 A:

THE CABINET WAS UNLOCKED; HOWEVER, THE DOOR TO THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM WAS LOCKED.

197 Q:

WAS THE CABINET UNLOCKED?

198 THE COURT:

WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. YOU NEED TO LET HIM FINISH THE ANSWER.

199 MR. SCHECK:

I THOUGHT HE DID. HE WAS VOLUNTEERING, YOUR HONOR.

200 THE COURT:

WELL, THEN THERE IS AN APPROPRIATE MOTION, AND DON'T INTERRUPT ME EITHER.

201 MR. SCHECK:

MY APOLOGIES. I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST PART OF HIS ANSWER.

202 THE COURT:

AS BEING NONRESPONSIVE?

203 MR. SCHECK:

YES.

204 THE COURT:

GRANTED. THE JURY IS TO DISREGARD THE LAST PART OF THE ANSWER. PROCEED. THE QUESTION WAS WAS THE CABINET LOCKED OR UNLOCKED?

205 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: WAS THE CABINET LOCKED? YES OR NO?

206 A:

THERE IS NO LOCK ON THE CABINET.

KEY QUOTE
207 Q:

WHEN YOU RECEIVED THE BLOOD VIALS FROM DETECTIVE VANNATTER ON DECEMBER 15TH -- WITHDRAWN. ON -- MY APOLOGIES. I GOT THE WRONG YEAR, THE WRONG MONTH.

208 THE COURT:

TAKE A DEEP BREATH.

209 MR. SCHECK:

OKAY.

210 Q:

ON JUNE 15TH YOU RECEIVED SOME BLOOD VIALS FROM MR. YAMAUCHI?

211 A:

YES.

212 Q:

A BLOOD VIAL CONTAINING WHOLE BLOOD FROM MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

213 A:

THAT IS ONE OF THE VIALS.

214 Q:

A BLOOD VIAL CONTAINING WHOLE BLOOD FROM RON GOLDMAN?

215 A:

YES.

216 Q:

THESE VIALS, WHEN YOU RECEIVED THEM FROM MR. YAMAUCHI, DID THEY HAVE BLOOD STREAKING OVER THE TOP OF THE VIAL ON PAPER THAT WAS COVERING THE VIAL?

217 A:

I DON'T RECALL.

218 Q:

ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH YOU CAME TO THE LAB?

219 A:

YES.

220 Q:

YOU ARRIVED AROUND WHEN?

221 A:

BETWEEN 7:30 AND 8:00.

222 Q:

AND WHEN YOU GOT THERE AT 7:30 DID YOU MEET WITH SOMEONE?

223 A:

I MET WITH SEVERAL PEOPLE.

224 Q:

WHO DID YOU MEET WITH?

225 A:

I SAW CRIMINALIST MAZZOLA THAT MORNING, DETECTIVE LANGE, CRIMINALIST YAMAUCHI, MR. MATHESON TO NAME A FEW.

226 Q:

I'M SORRY?

227 A:

TO NAME A FEW.

228 Q:

ANYONE ELSE THAT YOU CAN RECALL?

229 A:

NOT THAT PERTAINS TO THE CASE.

230 Q:

WELL, JUST TELL US WHO ELSE WAS THERE, WHETHER THEY PERTAINED TO THE CASE OR NOT.

231 MR. GOLDBERG:

WELL, IT IS IRRELEVANT IF HE IS REFERRING TO THE ENTIRE LABORATORY.

232 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

233 DENNIS FUNG:

THERE WERE MANY PEOPLE IN THE LABORATORY AND I SAW MANY OF THEM.

234 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: THIS MEETING THAT YOU HAD AT AROUND 7:30 OCCURRED IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM?

235 A:

NO. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHERE -- SOME OF THE -- I SAW DETECTIVE LANGE IN THE SEROLOGY UNIT.

236 Q:

SO THERE IS A SEPARATE ROOM FOR THE SEROLOGY UNIT, IT IS A LABORATORY ROOM?

237 A:

YES.

238 Q:

AND THAT CONTAINS A SEPARATE FREEZER FOR THE SEROLOGY UNIT?

239 A:

SEROLOGY UNIT DOES HAVE A FREEZER, YES.

240 Q:

AND THAT IS A SEPARATE ROOM FROM THIS EVIDENCE CONTROL UNIT WHERE ITEMS ARE BOOKED, CORRECT?

241 A:

WHERE THE BOOKING PROCESS TAKES PLACE, YES.

242 Q:

AND AFTER ITEMS ARE RECEIVED IN THE EVIDENCE CONTROL UNIT, THERE IS A FREEZER WHERE THEY MIGHT BE STORED?

243 A:

COULD YOU REPEAT THAT?

244 Q:

THE EVIDENCE CONTROL UNIT HAS A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PLACES WHERE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE ARE STORED?

245 A:

YES.

246 Q:

THERE ARE SHELVES WHERE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE ARE STORED?

247 A:

YES.

248 Q:

THERE IS A FREEZER WHERE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE IS STORED?

249 A:

YES.

250 Q:

THERE IS A REFRIGERATOR UNIT WHERE THINGS SUCH AS WHOLE -- BLOOD VIALS THAT CONTAIN WHOLE BLOOD ARE STORED?

251 A:

YES.

252 Q:

IN THIS CASE THERE WAS ACTUALLY AN ORDINARY KIND OF LOCKER WHERE CERTAIN ITEMS OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WERE STORED?

253 A:

ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE EVIDENCE CONTROL UNIT OR THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM?

254 Q:

YES. EVIDENCE CONTROL UNIT.

255 A:

I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE EVIDENCE WAS STORED ONCE I PLACED IT INTO -- PUT IT INTO CUSTODY.

256 Q:

BUT WHAT I HAVE JUST DESCRIBED AS ONE WHOLE UNIT WHERE THE FORMAL BOOK -- FINAL BOOKING PROCEDURES TAKE PLACE, IS THE EVIDENCE CONTROL UNIT, RIGHT?

257 A:

YES.

258 Q:

NOW, THERE IS A SEPARATE PLACE CALLED THE SEROLOGY LABORATORY?

259 A:

YES.

260 Q:

AND IN THE SEROLOGY LABORATORY THERE IS A SEPARATE FREEZER WHERE ITEMS ARE KEPT WHEN SEROLOGISTS ARE WORKING ON THEM?

261 A:

I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS KEPT IN THE SEROLOGY FREEZER.

262 Q:

ALL RIGHT.

263 A:

I HAVEN'T WORKED THAT UNIT.

264 Q:

BUT YOU ARE SAYING THAT ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH YOU SAW DETECTIVE LANGE IN THE SEROLOGY LAB?

265 A:

HE WAS THERE, YES.

266 Q:

WAS HE THERE WHEN YOU GOT THERE?

267 A:

I'M NOT SURE.

268 Q:

HE COULD HAVE BEEN?

269 A:

HE COULD HAVE BEEN.

270 Q:

AND WHO ELSE WAS WITH HIM, IF ANYONE?

271 A:

I DON'T RECALL.

272 Q:

SO YOU HAD A MEETING -- THE FIRST MEETING YOU RECALL TOOK PLACE IN THE SEROLOGY LABORATORY WITH DETECTIVE LANGE?

273 A:

I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS THE FIRST, BUT IT WAS ONE OF THE MEETINGS.

274 Q:

ALL RIGHT.

275 A:

I --

276 Q:

WHERE ELSE DID MEETINGS TAKE PLACE THAT MORNING AT AROUND 7:30?

277 A:

WELL, I CAN'T SAY IF IT WAS AT 7:30 OR NOT, BUT I CAN TELL YOU DIFFERENT MEETINGS THAT OCCURRED THAT MORNING.

278 Q:

IF YOU CAN, SIR, GIVE US YOUR BEST RECOLLECTION OF WHO YOU MET WITH AND WHERE YOU MET WITH THEM FROM THE MOMENT YOU ARRIVED AT THE SEROLOGY LAB ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH?

279 MR. GOLDBERG:

THAT IS OVERBROAD, YOUR HONOR.

280 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED. REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

281 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: CAN YOU TELL US WHO YOU MET WITH AND WHERE YOU MET WITH THEM WHEN YOU FIRST ARRIVED AT THE SEROLOGY LABORATORY THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH?

282 A:

IN THE SEROLOGY LAB DETECTIVE LANGE, MR. MATHESON AND CRIMINALIST YAMAUCHI WERE PRESENT.

283 Q:

AND YOU HAD A DISCUSSION AT THAT TIME?

284 A:

YES.

285 Q:

ALL OF YOU? YOU DISCUSSED THE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?

286 A:

TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES.

287 Q:

DETECTIVE LANGE INDICATED WHICH ITEMS HE WANTED ANALYZED FIRST?

288 A:

I DON'T KNOW IF HE WAS INVOLVED IN THAT -- IN SPECIFYING WHICH ITEMS HE WANTED TO BE ANALYZED.

289 Q:

DO YOU RECALL DETECTIVE LANGE INDICATING THAT HE WANTED THE BLOOD DROPS FOUND AT BUNDY ANALYZED RIGHT AWAY?

290 A:

HE MAY HAVE SAID SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.

291 Q:

AND YOU TOOK AWAY FROM THAT CONVERSATION --

292 MR. GOLDBERG:

HOLD ON, MR. SCHECK. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO STRIKE THE WITNESS' ANSWER AS CALLING FOR SPECULATION, NO FOUNDATION OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.

293 THE COURT:

OVERRULED. OVERRULED. HE MAY HAVE SAID SOMETHING.

294 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: DO YOU RECALL WHETHER DETECTIVE LANGE WAS INDICATING WITH SOME URGENCY THAT HE WANTED THE BLOOD DROPS AT BUNDY ANALYZED RIGHT AWAY?

295 MR. GOLDBERG:

THAT IS ASKED AND ANSWERED.

296 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

297 DENNIS FUNG:

HE WANTED A PRIORITY PUT ON IT.

KEY QUOTE
298 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: DID HE WANT A PRIORITY PUT ON THE ANALYSIS OF THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE?

299 A:

I DON'T RECALL IF THAT WAS ONE OF THE ITEMS HE SPECIFIED OR NOT.

300 Q:

WAS THERE AN AGREEMENT AT THAT MEETING AS TO WHAT ITEMS SHOULD BE ANALYZED IMMEDIATELY?

301 A:

AT SOME POINT IN THE MORNING IT WAS DECIDED WHAT ITEMS WOULD BE ANALYZED, BUT I DON'T KNOW AT EXACTLY WHAT TIME OR IF DETECTIVE LANGE WAS PRESENT OR NOT.

302 Q:

DID THERE COME A TIME THAT YOU WENT TO THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM THAT MORNING?

303 A:

YES.

304 Q:

WAS THAT AFTER THIS MEETING IN THE SEROLOGY LAB?

305 A:

YES.

306 Q:

AND AROUND WHAT TIME DID YOU ENTER THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM?

307 A:

APPROXIMATELY 9:00, 9:30, SOMEWHERE IN THERE.

308 Q:

HAVE YOU LOOKED AT ANY RECORD TO REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION AS TO WHEN YOU MIGHT HAVE ENTERED THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM, BEFORE YOU CAME TO TESTIFY?

309 A:

YES; HOWEVER, I DON'T REMEMBER THE TIME.

310 Q:

HAVE YOU GONE OVER THESE EVENTS WITH SOME CARE WITH THE PROSECUTION?

311 A:

YES.

312 Q:

A NUMBER OF TIMES?

313 A:

I WOULDN'T SAY A NUMBER OF TIMES, BUT WE HAVE GONE OVER IT.

314 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AROUND 9:00 OR 9:30 YOU RECALL GOING TO THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM?

315 MR. GOLDBERG:

MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.

316 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

317 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: IS THAT RIGHT?

318 A:

THAT IS ABOUT THE TIME, YES.

319 Q:

AND MISS MAZZOLA WAS THERE AS WELL?

320 A:

I DON'T RECALL.

321 Q:

WELL, WAS IT ABOUT THIS TIME THAT YOU BEGAN TO REMOVE THE SWATCHES FROM THE TEST-TUBES, YOU AND MISS MAZZOLA?

322 A:

IT WAS IN THAT TIME FRAME, YES.

323 Q:

ALL RIGHT. WHAT ABOUT THE SNEAKERS THAT DETECTIVE LANGE BROUGHT ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH? DID YOU RECEIVE THOSE IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM?

324 A:

NO.

325 Q:

YOU RECEIVED THOSE IN THE SEROLOGY LAB?

326 A:

TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES.

327 Q:

HE HAD THOSE WITH HIM IN THE SEROLOGY LAB WHEN YOU ARRIVED?

328 A:

I BELIEVE SO.

329 Q:

WHAT ABOUT THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE? WAS THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE IN THE SEROLOGY LAB WHEN YOU ARRIVED?

330 A:

NO.

331 Q:

WHEN YOU WENT TO THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM AT AROUND 9:30 DID YOU PERFORM SOME ANALYSIS ON THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE?

332 A:

I DIDN'T DO ANY ANALYSIS, NO.

333 Q:

WELL, DID YOU NOT REMOVE A HAIR FROM THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE?

334 A:

YES, I DID.

335 Q:

WAS THAT ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS YOU DID -- WAS THAT THE FIRST THING YOU DID WHEN YOU GOT INTO THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM THAT MORNING?

336 A:

I DON'T RECALL WHAT THE ORDER OF EVENTS WAS.

337 Q:

SO YOU DON'T RECALL WHETHER OR NOT YOU REMOVED THE HAIR FROM THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE BEFORE OR AFTER THE PROCESSING BEGAN OF REMOVING THE SWATCHES FROM THE TEST-TUBE?

338 A:

THEY WERE DONE AT DIFFERENT TIMES.

339 Q:

BUT YOU DON'T RECALL THE ORDER?

340 A:

NO, I DON'T.

341 Q:

AND AT SOME POINT THAT MORNING, BEFORE YOU LEFT TO GO SEARCH THE BRONCO AT THE PRINT SHED, YOU POURED OFF SOME BLOOD FROM MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD VIAL?

342 A:

NO.

343 Q:

WELL, DID YOU PARTICIPATE IN POURING OFF SOME BLOOD FROM MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD VIAL WITH MR. YAMAUCHI?

344 A:

NO.

345 Q:

DID YOU GIVE MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD VIAL TO MR. YAMAUCHI ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 14TH?

346 A:

YES, I DID.

347 Q:

DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN YOU DID THAT IN TERMS OF THE ORDER OF WHAT -- WITHDRAWN. LET'S START IT THIS WAY: DID YOU HAND MR. YAMAUCHI MR. SIMPSON'S BLOOD VIAL IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM?

348 A:

I GAVE HIM THE PACKAGE.

349 Q:

YOU GAVE HIM THE PACKAGE?

350 A:

THE GRAY ENVELOPE, YES.

351 Q:

WAS THE GRAY ENVELOPE SEALED?

352 A:

NOT AT THAT POINT.

353 Q:

DID YOU REACH IN AND TAKE OUT THE BLOOD VIAL AND HAND IT TO MR. YAMAUCHI?

354 A:

I GAVE HIM THE PACKAGE.

355 Q:

WERE YOU PRESENT WHEN MR. YAMAUCHI TOOK THE BLOOD VIAL OUT OF THE PACKAGE?

356 A:

I DON'T RECALL IF -- IF I SAW HIM DO THAT OR NOT.

357 Q:

NOW, AT SOME POINT IN THE EVIDENCE PROCESSING ROOM MR. YAMAUCHI BEGAN CUTTING SAMPLES OUT OF THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE?

358 A:

I DON'T KNOW THAT.

359 Q:

YOU DIDN'T SEE THAT?

360 A:

I DON'T RECALL SEEING THAT.

361 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK, I THINK THIS WILL BE A GOOD POINT TO CHANGE COURT REPORTERS. ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A BRIEF RECESS AT THIS TIME. PLEASE REMEMBER ALL OF MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU. DO NOT DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU OR CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU. MR. FUNG, YOU MAY STEP DOWN. WE WILL BE IN RECESS FOR FIFTEEN MINUTES.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Dennis Fung
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WAS CONTEMPORANEOUS OR NOT. I MAY HAVE COPIED THIS ONTO THIS PAGE FROM A SCRAP OF PAPER OR SOMETHING.
Fung concedes the chain of custody document may not be a real-time record, undermining its reliability as evidence of proper handling.
Dennis Fung
THERE IS NO LOCK ON THE CABINET.
Confirms that overnight, the swatches containing biological evidence from Bundy and Rockingham sat in an unlocked cabinet — a key contamination vulnerability the defense was building toward.
Dennis Fung
I DID NOT DO THAT UNTIL JUNE 16TH BECAUSE MY PROPERTY REPORTS WERE NOT WRITTEN OR COMPLETED UNTIL THAT TIME.
Establishes a three-day window (June 13–16) during which evidence existed outside the formal computer tracking system at SID.
Dennis Fung
HE WANTED A PRIORITY PUT ON IT.
Confirms Detective Lange was directing the order of analysis before evidence was formally booked — suggesting chain of custody was subordinated to investigative urgency.

Evidence (7)

Informal
Undated handwritten document in Fung's personal notebook recording transfers of evidence items on June 14 and June 15
challenged — Scheck attacks its reliability as a chain of custody record due to lack of date and possible retroactive creation
Informal
Blood swatches from Bundy (photo IDs 112–117) placed in test-tubes overnight June 13–14 in an unlocked cabinet
discussed — storage conditions and lack of formal booking established
Informal
Blood vials from Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman received by Fung from Yamauchi on June 15
discussed — questioned whether vials showed blood streaking on packaging
Informal
OJ Simpson blood vial (gray envelope, unsealed) handed to Yamauchi by Fung on the morning of June 14
discussed — Scheck probes whether Fung was present when Yamauchi removed the vial
Informal
Bronco evidence items 23, 24, 25, 31, 33 turned over to Yamauchi and returned same night after sampling on June 15
discussed — referenced in undated document
Informal
Rockingham glove — Fung removed a hair from it in the evidence processing room on June 14
discussed — Scheck tries to establish order of events and whether Yamauchi was cutting samples from it
+ 1 more

Notable Exchanges (4)

Barry ScheckDennis FungLance A. Ito
Scheck asks whether the cabinet holding overnight evidence was locked. Fung answers 'The cabinet was unlocked; however, the door to the evidence processing room was locked.' Scheck moves to strike the volunteered second clause, Ito grants it, and forces a yes/no: 'There is no lock on the cabinet.'
strategic — Scheck successfully strips away Fung's qualifying context to isolate the damaging admission
Barry ScheckDennis Fung
Scheck methodically walks Fung through the ECU bar-code tracking system to establish that none of the June 13 Bundy evidence entered the computerized chain of custody until June 16 — a three-day gap during which samples had already been distributed to Yamauchi for analysis.
revealing — procedural questioning that constructs a timeline of institutional failure
Barry ScheckDennis Fung
Scheck presses Fung on the undated chain of custody document, getting Fung to admit he may have reconstructed it from a 'scrap of paper,' that there is no way to determine when it was written, and that the original was only produced to Matheson two or three weeks before testimony.
devastating — core impeachment of Fung's documentation reliability
Barry ScheckLance A. Ito
Scheck tries to approach the bench mid-examination to make a record about the notebook. Ito declines: 'The record exists. Proceed.' Scheck backs down.
procedural friction

Light Moments (1)

Lance A. Ito
Scheck misstates the date as 'December 15th' when he means 'June 15th.' Ito dryly tells him: 'Take a deep breath.'

Credibility Attacks (3)

⚔ Dennis Fung
prior inconsistent statement / inadequate documentation
Scheck attacks the undated chain of custody document as unreliable — potentially reconstructed after the fact from scratch paper, lacking any timestamp, and only surfaced to prosecutors weeks before testimony. Combined with Fung's admission that he 'may have copied it from a scrap of paper,' this undermines the integrity of all transfer records Fung created.
⚔ Dennis Fung
deviation from established protocol
Scheck establishes that contemporaneous record-keeping is the proper and taught method for chain of custody documentation, then shows the document in question may not be contemporaneous — forcing Fung to repeatedly say keeping records 'as you perform the actions' is only 'one way of doing it.'
⚔ Dennis Fung
gap in formal tracking / lack of supervision
Scheck pins down that evidence collected June 13 was not formally booked into SID's computer tracking system until June 16, spent that time in an unlocked cabinet, and had already been distributed for analysis before entering the chain of custody — with no identified supervisor who reviewed the field note package.

Witness Demeanor

(BRIEF PAUSE.) — after Ito declines Scheck's request to approach
Fung is evasive and hedging throughout, frequently qualifying answers with 'I don't recall,' 'I don't know,' and 'that is one way of doing it' rather than direct responses

Objections

10 objections (2 sustained, 8 overruled)
Proceeding 5650 • 361 utterances • Prosecution witness
Criminal Trial
Department 103
⚖️ Start
📂 APR 12, 1995 📄 Cross-examination of Dennis Fu
APR 12, 1995 KRT DvH TD