All right. Mr. Dennis Fung is again on the witness stand undergoing redirect examination by Mr. Goldberg. Good morning again, Mr. Fung.
You are reminded, sir, you are still under oath. And Mr. Goldberg, do we have the tape? Mr. Scheck, do we have the tape? The tape?
Thank you. I would like to mark as my next exhibit in order, I believe it is 186.
Your Honor, I wanted to show this tape as my next exhibit, but may I offer the stipulation now?
Okay. Counsel, will you stipulate that Mark Coogan of KABC be deemed to have been called, duly sworn and testified that People's 186 is a videotape that was shot on June the 13th of 1994, that he makes it his practice to check his personal watch against the station clock which he does every two to three weeks in order to set them, that when he does this he has noticed that he is off by no more than thirty to forty seconds, that he told the camera woman that shot this tape to turn on the clock inside the camera which was set against his watch. The sequences contained in the tape are in sequence chronologically and that the clock on the camera continues to roll even when the camera is off.
All right. The stipulation is accepted by the Court. Ladies and gentlemen, as I told you when we began the trial, a stipulation between the attorneys is an agreement between the parties as to certain facts. You are to accept those facts as being true. All right. Mr. Goldberg, you may proceed.
Criminalist Mazzola and I have just taken back the evidence and placed it into the crime scene truck.
Do you recognize anything about the item that Detective Vannatter was holding? Maybe we can rewind that again. Can we go slowly? Can we get it right when it flipped back, right when the item flipped back.
If we could go in slow motion possibly. Now, look carefully, Mr. Fung, from when the wind pushes the top of the item back. Okay. There, there, just one frame--one frame or two frames back. There.
All right. Just so the record is complete, this is frame 17:17:07 sub 20 on the counter.
Your Honor, I would like to approach the witness and show him People's 163-H again, if I may.
Sir, I'm showing you 163-H again. Can you hold up the item there that constitutes the type of gray envelope into which reference samples are placed and show the jury?
Okay. Now, if you look at the reverse side of that, is that the way these envelopes typically appear?
When you worked in toxicology at the Los Angeles Police Department did you see these kind of envelopes on a regular basis?
It appears to be a gray analyzed evidence envelope that typically holds biological specimens.
KEY QUOTEMaybe we can back up again, Mr. Fairtlough, and take another look at the sequence inside the foyer area.
Can you go like two frames forward? Okay. There. Stop. Can we get a print of that, Mr. Fairtlough? That is at 17:18:57, your Honor.
Now, Mr. Fung, did you have the opportunity to take a look at this videotape yesterday several times?
The--there are two things I am carrying. One is a plastic bag and the other is an envelope.
Did this refresh your recollection, sir, as to where you were at the time that you received the envelope from Mr. Vannatter?
Mr. Fairtlough, can you see if you can get that second zoom-in that we just saw, a few frames back.
Right there, (Indicating). Let's go several frames forward from here, Mr. Fairtlough.
Why don't you try backing up--reversing a little bit and let's see if we can get a shot of it that way.
Let's do it this way: Let's start and just run it through in real time, okay, from the beginning of the sequence of the foyer.
That is the plastic bag that Miss Mazzola carried out to the crime scene truck on the second trip.
And the envelope is--the envelope is the envelope which contained the blood vial given to me by Detective Vannatter.
Now, sir, the gentleman who has his back to the door, to the camera, do you know who he is?
Sir, as you sit here today, independent of what you have seen on the videotape, do you have a recollection of Mr. Wilson being there?
I know that he was in the area, but I don't know how close--close that he was watching.
Were you paying attention to who was around you at the time that this transaction occurred?
Mr. Fung, do you have an independent recollection, as you sit here today, of placing the item that you received from Detective Vannatter, the envelope, into the plastic bag?
Okay. And when you looked at the scene of Andrea Mazzola taking the plastic bag out of the location, was there anything that you collected between five o'clock and when you left with Andrea Mazzola that could have accounted for the heft in that bag, other than the envelope?
Did you collect anything between five o'clock and the time that Miss Mazzola and yourself left with the plastic bag that was the same approximate size and dimension of the analyzed envelope, 163?
Your Honor, perhaps I think we've covered the scenes that I want to cover at this time. Mr. Fairtlough, that is fine.
So sir, based upon your independent recollection and also viewing the videotapes, is the first event that occurred with respect to the vial Detective Vannatter arriving with what appears to be the analyzed evidence envelope?
The two items were an envelope that is consistent with the gray envelope in People's--
And then the third item in the sequence of events is Andrea Mazzola carrying the black plastic bag out of the location?
Sir, I was asking you about independent recollection of placing the item in the bag and you said that you don't have an independent recollection of that. What do you mean by that?
By "Independent recollection," I don't have a mental picture from memory of myself placing the envelope in the plastic bag.
So when you are thinking about the events of the 13th and you are trying to conjure up an image, you think of an image of what was happening at and around the time that you received the envelope, do you see an image of yours doing that?
From viewing the videotape and piecing together memory that I do remember that is what I have concluded that I did.
KEY QUOTEI move to strike that answer, your Honor. That is speculation. I think the tapes and what the witness says speak for itself.
Now, sir, we were talking before we broke on Friday about what "Collection" means as a criminalist and you said that it meant something in addition to physically picking items up; is that correct?
All right. And I asked you whether in your mind you participated or whether you did participate in the collection of all of the items on June the 13th, all the biological evidence. And what was your answer?
Okay. Now, when you were working with Andrea Mazzola on the 13th, I think you testified that you were working as a team. What do you mean by that?
In working as a team two people are working towards one goal and we were working towards collecting and documenting the evidence that was at those scenes.
All right. Now, when you testified at the Grand Jury did you have any opportunity to prepare by talking with Marcia Clark before you testified?
Did you have an opportunity to prepare on your own, by reviewing your own notes in order to refresh your recollection before you testified?
Okay. Did you have any conversation with Miss Clark before you actually went into the Grand Jury room?
We had a brief conversation as to the basic--basic testimony I would be covering, the topics we would be covering, but it was nothing very detailed.
She said--she introduced herself and I introduced myself. She said something to the effect, "You are the criminalist who did the collection?" And I said "Yes," and there wasn't much more than that, if any.
Do you usually have an opportunity to sit down and go over your testimony in advance and know the kind of questions you are going to be asked and so on?
All right. Now, I want to ask you some questions about your testimony at the Grand Jury, sir.
Sir, you have since had an opportunity to go over your Grand Jury transcript testimony?
And at the Grand Jury did you give the following answers to the following questions starting on page 389, line 23: "Question: With respect to the blood on the car shown in photograph a of People's 5, as well as b, and the blood behind the Ford Bronco shown with no. 4 in the photograph, c, and the blood shown in photograph f on this exhibit and in photograph--that same drop of blood shown in photograph d of People's 2, in fact all of the blood recovered as shown on the markers in People's 2 in g and f, as well as 5 in photograph g and h, did you recover all of those from the scene for further analysis?
"Answer: The ones labeled with the numbers? Yes, I did. "Question: How did you recover them? "Answer: I recovered them in the manner described before where I would wet a cloth swatch or several cloth swatches if needed, apply it to the red stain and then let the stain transfer onto the cloth swatch." Do you remember giving those answers to those questions?
And when the question was asked, "And how did you cover them," did you believe the questioner wanted to know how they were recovered and who did it?
Were you trying to mislead anyone when you talked about in the first person, "I did it"?
Your Honor, I would next like to read a reference from the same transcript at page 399.
Starting line 5 through line 12, and your Honor might want to take a look at that because that is going to bring to us another issue.
I don't understand how this is rehabilitating him on the issue of what he did or didn't do to bring in all this information about presumptive testing at this point.
"We collected a stain," your Honor. There is someone else involved that. Someone else is Andrea Mazzola. He has made this out that this bias trying to purposefully conceal the existence and here he is referring to "We." "We collected that stain in the master bedroom" and then he changed to "I," "I did a presumptive test," so it is clear, absolutely 100 percent clear, that there are two people there. And the question has not been asked who was this other person. This has to be brought in in light of the cross-examination that Mr. Scheck engaged in.
No. I certainly didn't impeach him with respect to item no. 14. He agreed Andrea Mazzola picked that up.
No, he impeached him. He said he was trying to conceal her existence. He was trying to make it sound like he did everything on every stain and here he is at--he discloses "We" and then he is not asked who are you talking about and there are two--
There may be some way to redact that, if he just wants to introduce "We collected that stain in the master bedroom," and that is the whole point of this.
I mean I understand Mr. Goldberg's argument. He wants to indicate that at one point during the Grand Jury testimony on page 399 Mr. Fung used the word "We" with respect to collecting a stain in the master bedroom.
Bathroom. I think he can ask the question were you asked the question were you shown some photographs of the stain in the master bedroom.
I think you can ask him did you testify at the Grand Jury that we collected that stain in the master bathroom.
I have no objection to that, but I think that trying to read the rest of this is obvious.
No. We haven't argued the pheno matter yet. Remember, we delayed doing that, but I will--I agree that you can ask did you, in response to a question, testify that we collected the stain in the master bathroom.
At some point--at some point or whatever. Are we going to take a break at all at this point?
Can we just agree before we--that is what he is going to ask. Could we just agree to the question that you are going to ask?
I'm going to read it except I'm not going to read the last sentence, "I did a presumptive test for blood in the sink drain and it came back noting the presence of blood in the sink drain," and I'm just going to delete that as if it didn't exist, but later on we may want to get that in.
May I just suggest, as a matter of clarity, why don't you say were you asked a question at the Grand Jury, were you shown photographs in the Grand Jury of stain no. 14 and a card next to it? Yes. And when you were shown that stain did you say we collected that stain in the master bedroom?
Your Honor, you know, really I think that perhaps the phenolphtalein test, maybe it would make more sense to resolve it now because it is not going to be that much longer before we get into that.
No, it is not okay. You can ask him were you asked a question regarding stain no. 14 and did you give this answer, "We selected that stain in the master bathroom," period. That is what you can ask.
Sir, at the Grand Jury hearing were you asked a question as to the collection of stain no. 14 in the master bedroom--master bathroom, rather, and did you say that "We collected that stain in the master bathroom"?
And when you say "We collected it," who was this other person that you were referring to?
Okay. And next I would like to look at the Grand Jury transcript, page 408 at lines 9 through 13, your Honor.
Sir, were you asked the following question and did you give the following answer: "Was the blood between the two victims analyzed, either the blood on the floor--on the ground between the two victims analyzed or collected for analysis? "Answer: We did collect or try to collect blood--that blood and it was analyzed, yes." Do you remember that?
Now, did it appear to you, based on the questions you were being asked at the Grand Jury, that the questioner was interested in who did what or what was done?
What did it appear to you that the questioner was interested in when you were being questioned about what was collected?
And when you went through the transcript, did you come up with an estimate as to approximately how many minutes you were questioned about the collection process at Rockingham in terms of what was collected and how it was collected?
And in your review of the transcript were you ever asked specifically who the--the question who did this or who did that in terms of collecting evidence at Bundy?
Now, I would like next to refer to the preliminary hearing transcript at page 40 at lines 5 through 10.
Were you asked the following questions and did you give the following answers: "Question: Did you prepare a report documenting what item numbers 1 through 8 are in this case? "Answer: Yes, I did. "Question: Did you collect them, sir? "Answer: I did, along with my assistant, criminalist Mazzola." Did you give those answers to that question?
Were you making any effort to conceal criminalist Mazzola's participation in the collection in this case?
Did you have any hesitation to say that you collected them along with criminalist Mazzola at the preliminary hearing?
And I would like next to look at pages 43 through 44, lines 27 on page 43, through line 3 on page 44.
Okay. "Question: And were all of those items packaged by yourself bearing the DR number of this case? "Answer: Yes. I may have had some assistance from criminalist Mazzola with some of the items."
And by the way, when we are talking about DR number being assigned, that is what?
That is the divisional record number that is assigned to each case. Each case has its own DR number.
Now, when you were answering this question about having assistance from criminalist Mazzola in the packaging with the DR numbers, did you have any hesitation in disclosing that she assisted you in that process?
All right. I would next like to refer to the--what we have been terming the Griffin hearing which happened on August the 22nd of last year at page 52--excuse me--page 538.
This is improper rehabilitation because these are not prior consistent statements. The impeachment that I did with this witness had to do with his leaving out Miss Mazzola in his Grand Jury testimony and his preliminary hearing testimony. There was never any contention that he was able or trying to leave out Miss Mazzola in his Griffin hearing testimony and he wasn't impeached to this effect or under cross-examination, so what he is trying to give him here is a prior consistent statement. Our point was that he was leaving that stage of the proceedings plainly at the time of the Griffin hearing. He couldn't leave her out and he has conceded and discussed together who did what, so this is improper redirect.
Well, we are only talking about one question now, and that question is there were--there was an item of blood that he did not personally supervise. "Do you know which ones those were? "Not specifically, no." Because he now realized that item 52 is the one that he didn't supervise, and counsel tried to impeach him by suggesting he said at the Griffin hearing that he supervised every single last one.
No, no. It was at the same hearing. Counsel impeached him with a statement at the Griffin hearing to the effect that he made it--I think the phrase that counsel used took great pains to indicate that he had observed each and every blood stain being collected, that the witness has now testified that he--that he has since learned that he did not see item no. 52 being collected. At the Griffin hearing he said that there was some that he did not remember being collected.
No, no, no. Then this is improper and that is, his testimony at the Griffin hearing was clear that he supervised her for 47 through 52. His testimony at the trial was that he didn't completely observe the collection of 52. This is not in any way a prior consistent statement.
But it refers to--it says that he did not observe her collect every single item in the trail and counsel made it sound--
No, no, no, that doesn't say that. That doesn't say that. He specifically testified that he observed her collect every item on the trail and that was his recollection. There may have been other items that he didn't observe her collect. That was the testimony. This is improper.
Well, anyway, this is already--this is the exact passage that he has already asked about and I want to ask him some questions about how he came to the conclusion that he didn't see 52. So I'm just asking the questions about something that has already been gone into,, this exact passage was already put in the record.
Your Honor, you have to understand the nature of the attack against this man. They are talking about being a co-conspirator who has lied about material facts. That is different--
That is different than the usual, and therefore, the scope of redirect is broader. I also wanted to bring up--that is why I was asking the issue about what he thought the questioner was asking, because his state of mind is relevant. The issue is--
This testimony, your Honor, says, starting at 538, line 17, that he remembers that the person supervised her for each and every one of the blood stains that were leading along the so-called escape route.
Sir, did you give the following responses to the following questions: "Question: And so she would be collecting some of those blood stains, I mean--withdraw that. "Question: As you sit here today do you have a vivid memory as to which of the 50 or so items she collected at Bundy she collected in your presence, as opposed to those she collected outside your presence? "Answer: I do remember that the blood stains leading from the--where the victims were along the escape route, as it has been referred to in the past, is--I was there with her, personally supervising her. "Question: For each and every one of those? "Answer: I believe so, yes. "Question: Were there other blood stains, however, that she selected at the scene that you personally did not supervise? "Answer: Yes. "And as you sit here today do you know which ones those were? "Not specifically, no." Do you remember those answers to those questions?
Okay. Now, were you indicating, when you said, "I believe so, yes," that you supervised her on the trail items, that you were positive?
And how did you come to--did you come to that conclusion after your conversation with Andrea Mazzola where you went through the checklist or before?
Were you trying to mislead anyone at the Griffin hearing about what you observed and what you didn't observe in terms of what Miss Mazzola did?
Now, in this case you will also out property reports documenting the evidence that was collected on June the 13th; is that correct?
Your Honor, at this time I would like to mark as People's next in order, I believe it is 189--
And I have another report that I would like to mark as People's 188 and it contains items 35 through 37.
Sir, were the property reports that you generated in this case created before June 16th?
I would like to direct your attention to the report that we've now marked as 187 for identification. Your Honor, I just put a "187" up on the top of the report and circled it.
Sir, on this report did you write that items 1 through 11 were collected by criminalist Mazzola and Fung on 6/14/94 at 360 north Rockingham?
All right. And when you wrote this document did you have any hesitation to list criminalist Mazzola as being one of the people that collected the items with you?
I would now like to direct your attention to the next exhibit that we have marked, People's 188, the fourth page.
And did that say that items 35 through 57 were collected by criminalist Mazzola and Fung on 6/13 at 875 south Bundy?
And did you have any hesitation whatsoever to list criminalist Mazzola as having participated in the collection of those items?
So before you testified at the Grand Jury, as far as you were concerned, was it a matter of public record in these property reports that criminalist Mazzola and yourself collected the items on June the 13th?
Did you know that these reports were in existence at the time that you testified at the Grand Jury?
Your Honor, I would now like to mark another exhibit, and it appears to be a vehicle search checklist dated 6/12 and it is l-21 through l-31, as People's--
This is the vehicle search checklist that we filled out to--in conjunction with doing the Bronco search.
And in the--I'm having trouble seeing it, but on the "OIC" box, maybe you can--oh, I see. Maybe we can zoom in on that. The OIC box it says "Mazzola," and it has the date "6/13" over to the right.
Now, how much after you arrived at Rockingham was this document actually filled out?
Did you have any conversation with Miss Mazzola about who to put in the OIC section or who to put in the assistant's name section?
All right. And when did you first become aware that she was the OIC as listed on this form and that you were the assistant?
Did it ever occur to you to ask Andrea Mazzola to write up a new form to switch the name to put yourself in the OIC position and switch her to assistant?
Okay. And did you know that this document was in existence when you testified at the Grand Jury?
Now, sir, have you noticed in your experience as a criminalist when someone asks you the question "Did you collect" a particular item of evidence, in a case where you were working with a criminalist 1 who may have done the actual physical picking up, have you noticed any particular habit that you have?
Yes. In reviewing some of my testimony, I tend to use the word "I" in that situation--an example--well, there is many examples that you have given today and it is like an engineer who says I built a bridge or a businessman who says I wrote a report when he may actually have many other people working under him helping him finish his job.
Did you have the opportunity to review portions of your trial transcript in this case and see yourself following that practice?
And were there instances in the trial transcript where you testified as if you had done the physical collection when you didn't?
Did you find any instances of your answering questions in conformity with the habit that you just described to us?
All right. Your Honor, I would like to direct counsel's attention to page 21564 of the trial transcript.
I don't know. Some pages appear to be missing out of my trial transcript, your Honor. May I just have one moment?
Your Honor, I will come back to this after lunch when I have an opportunity to find the missing pages.
Sir, after you were cross-examined by Mr. Scheck about this issue of the Grand Jury transcript and, umm, the issue of whether or not you wanted to conceal the existence of Andrea Mazzola--do you remember that?
And during the cross-examination did you notice that you were still at time testifying in conformity with your habit of using the term "I" or making it sound--
Did you notice, even after that, that you were testifying at times in conformity with your habit?
Do you recall giving the following answer to the following question: "Question: Mr. Fung, did you ever collect a pager in the caged-in area? "Answer: Yes." Do you remember that?
Thank you. "Question: Now, did you, in terms of how you and Miss Mazzola approached this, did you perform any what is known as phenolphthalein tests on those blood drops? "MR. SCHECK: Did you? "Answer: Yes. "And was that one of the first things you did? "Answer: It was one of the things that we did. "Question: All right. Then in terms of approaching these red stains, there is one that I think is item no. 1, the one on the door; is that correct? "Answer: Yes. "Question: And before you swatched that stain you did a presumptive test on it? "Answer: Yes. "Question: All right. And before you took a picture of that stain you did a presumptive test on it? "Answer: I'm not sure which order that occurred in."
When you answered the question about the picture, were you trying to lead Mr. Scheck to believe that you personally took the photograph?
I was--I was trying to answer his question as to what was done; not who did what.
KEY QUOTEOkay. And next I would like to refer to one last portion of the transcript at 22331, lines 15 through 25.
Your Honor, if he is going to read that, I think he should read the two or three questions above it.
Sir, did you give the following answers to the following questions? "On June 13th you collected 112 which is 47, right? "Answer:"--
Your Honor, I would object and ask you to take a look at the previous questions. I thought he was going to do it.
Oh, I didn't know that the Court want--okay. I will read it. On lines 1 through lines 26 did you give the following answers to the following questions? Well, it starts with an answer, but please, Mr. Scheck will read that. "Answer: Generally that we do our crime scene or collection in order, but not a steadfast rule, though, but generally we do. "Question: Well, you certainly would want to keep the photo I.d. Numbers in order here because that's what you are using to keep track of the samples? "Answer: In order--in what regard?
"Question: In order of collection? "Answer: What kept the samples in order was that we collected each sample. We collect them one at a time and label the photo I.d. Number into the coin envelope and place the sample that we have just collected that has been labeled in that envelope. That is what keeps track of the sample. "Question: On June the 13th you collected 112, which is 47, right? "Answer: Yes. "Then you did 113, which is 48? "Answer: Yes. "Question: Then did you 114, photo no. 114, which is sample 49? "Answer: Yes. "Then you got sample 50, just near the back rear gate? "Answer: Yes."
And sir, were you trying to mislead Mr. Scheck into believing that you had physically collected those items?
Had you already testified that in fact Andrea Mazzola did the physical swatching on most of those items?
Collecting a stain is not very difficult. The actual swatching of the stain is not very difficult at all.
All right. And is this something that in your experience detectives sometimes do?
Now, when you testified at the Grand Jury about you swatching the stains, was that consistent with this habit that you've described to us?
I was answering the questions as to what was happening, not who--I didn't think the topic was who did what.
Okay. Now, I would like to ask you a couple of questions on the subject of training and your training in the area of collecting a blood stain. Were you trained on how to collect a blood stain for the purposes of conventional serology, as opposed to DNA analysis?
At the time I was trained it was for conventional serology--serological blood and biological.
Was your first actual training in collecting a blood sample at the lab at LAPD or was it in school or somewhere else?
Okay. Did they actually have you physically collecting stains at mock crime scenes or how did they do it?
I don't recall at this time whether we actually had to collect stains or not, but it was covered in the course work.
Did you also have some more training on how to collect stains once you joined the lab?
Now, after the advent of DNA--the use of DNA technology in criminal cases, did the physical mechanics of how you collect a stain change?
All right. And when you said you received some additional training after the advent of DNA, what was the nature of this additional training?
The nature was describing to us how large a sample was needed to perform DNA testing and that was back in the late eighties--around `88, `89.
Now, when you saw Andrea Mazzola collecting stains at the crime scene at Rockingham and Bundy, can you describe the manner in which she would collect them in terms of her technique?
Criminalist Mazzola was very deliberate in her collection. She was single-minded in her tasks and she was--
Your Honor, I would object to this as being conclusionary. If he wants to ask him about specific stains that he observed--
Well, did she appear to be concentrated on her task when she collected all of the stains at Bundy?
How did she appear when she was collecting the stains at Bundy in terms of the way that she was approaching her task?
And did she appear to be using or was she using the technique that is used in the Los Angeles Police Department for the purposes of collecting biological stains?
Now, going back to the Bundy location, you were asked about a videotape that depicted an item that was being passed between yourself and criminalist Mazzola?
Sir, if you look closely at that videotape, did you appear to be holding a pen in one hand?
All right. I was about to try to get the counter number, since that is part of our record. All right. We are looking at the segment at 13:34, approximately. Proceed.
When I say the eyeglass envelope, I mean the eyeglass envelope without any packaging on it?
Does the eyeglass envelope--if I may approach the witness, it is People's 32 for identification--have some blood stains on it?
And do you see any blood stains on the item that is depicted in the Defense exhibit 1082?
All right. When you recovered the eyeglass envelope, was it relatively crisp, as the item in 1082, or did it look somewhat as it does now?
Do you have any practice that you follow in terms of when you wear gloves and when you don't wear gloves at a crime scene?
I personally wear gloves only when necessary and that is when I am about to touch an item of evidence or I'm going into a very, very bloody scene, portion of the scene.
Why don't you wear gloves a hundred percent of the time when you are at the crime scene?
For me, when I am not wearing gloves, it makes me that much more conscious not to touch things for prints and I tend to be very careful. When I'm wearing gloves or at least when I'm in my thought process, when I'm wearing gloves, I would be more likely to touch something, because I would think that the gloves would protect the item from prints.
Now, in arriving at that conclusion as to when gloves should and should not been worn at a crime scene, as a criminalist, did you consider the opinion of Barry Fisher on that issue?
And that was the same text that was cited from earlier during cross-examination?
I would like to cite from page 21 of Mr. Fisher's text at--it is the third edition. Maybe I can approach the witness.
Sir, you have already looked at Mr. Fisher's quotation as to the wearing of gloves; is that correct, before today?
Okay. And does Mr. Fisher say: "The wearing of gloves should not be permitted on the crime scene. There is always a risk that the wearer will become careless and touch objects that bear the Criminalist's fingerprints, thereby destroying or wiping them out"? Was that his view?
All right. People's next in order will be Defendant's 190--excuse me--People's 190.
Now, sir, is blood at a crime scene considered to be a contaminant with respect to the health of the criminalist?
The--the blood could have infectious diseases in it and it could be transmitted to the criminalist.
Would you touch an item that had visible blood on it, sir, with your bare hands at a crime scene?
Sustained. The answer is stricken. The jury is to disregard. Rephrase the question.
Now, sir, under the practices of the crime lab and using the standard procedures that you use at a scene, would a criminalist at the Los Angeles Police Department hand to another criminalist an item with someone's blood on it?
Now, sir, directing your attention back to the exhibit, the eyeglasses in front of you, what is the brown paper bag that is contained in that exhibit?
In looking at the brown paper bag were you able to see what type of a bag that was?
Your Honor, I would like to mark as People's next exhibit what appears to be a--it is a Townsend no. 4 brown paper bag.
Sir, directing your attention to what we have just marked, I think it is 192, your Honor--
Your Honor, it seems to me if it is being offered as a--I'm objecting on the grounds that I take it this is being offered as--
Your Honor, if I could just have a couple more questions before the noon recess, it won't take that long.
Sir, is the item that is depicted in Defense 1082 consistent with the item that we have just marked, the paper bag, the Townsend no. 4?
From viewing the videotape and piecing together memory that I do remember that is what I have concluded that I did.
I tend to use the word 'I' in that situation...it is like an engineer who says I built a bridge or a businessman who says I wrote a report when he may actually have many other people working under him helping him finish his job.
I was trying to answer his question as to what was done; not who did what.
It appears to be a gray analyzed evidence envelope that typically holds biological specimens.