Cross-examination of Dennis Fung (part 5)

📄 Cross-examination of Dennis Fung (part 5) — Monday, April 17, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\APR\17\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-DENNIS-FU.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 58 of 167

Witness: Dennis Fung
Examiner: Hank Goldberg
Called by: Defense • Date: Monday, April 17, 1995 • Utterances: 53

Goldberg redirects Fung to rehabilitate the absence of bloody shoeprints at OJ Simpson's Rockingham home, eliciting testimony that shoes could have been removed or dried out before entering the house. Fung also identifies a shoeprint-like impression on the Bronco's driver-side carpet and examines photographs of Ronald Goldman's shoes, noting the soles showed relatively little caked-on dirt.

# 1 MR. GOLDBERG:

Yes.

# 2 MR. GOLDBERG:

Sir, did you see something when you were looking at the Bronco that resembled a shoeprint?

# 3 MR. FUNG:

Yes.

# 4 MR. GOLDBERG:

And where was that?

# 5 MR. FUNG:

That was on the driver floor area.

KEY QUOTE

# 6 MR. GOLDBERG:

Carpet?

# 7 MR. FUNG:

Yes.

# 8 MR. GOLDBERG:

So based upon what you saw at the Bundy location in terms of the shoeprints that were fading out and faded out at some point along the trail and what you saw in the Bronco, would you necessarily expect to find bloody shoeprints in the Defendant's house?

# 9 MR. SCHECK:

Objection.

# 10 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 11 MR. FUNG:

Not necessarily, no.

# 12 MR. GOLDBERG:

Why not necessarily?

# 13 MR. FUNG:

There are a couple of reasons. One is, the shoes could have been removed prior to going into the house, and second, the--if the shoes were still worn going into the house, the shoes may have dried off or there may not have been enough blood left on the soles to make tracks.

KEY QUOTE

# 14 MR. GOLDBERG:

And do you have any personal knowledge one way or the other as to whether the Defendant took his shoes off when he got back to Rockingham?

# 15 MR. SCHECK:

Objection. Move to strike.

# 16 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 17 MR. GOLDBERG:

Just showing that he doesn't.

# 18 THE COURT:

Rephrase the question.

# 19 MR. GOLDBERG:

Were you there on the evening of the 12th at the Defendant's house?

# 20 MR. FUNG:

No.

# 21 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. Now, did you also take a look at some photographs depicting the shoes of Ronald Goldman or his boots at the crime scene?

# 22 MR. FUNG:

Yes.

# 23 MR. GOLDBERG:

I would like to take a look at People's 98 and People's 99. Let's try--

# 24 MR. FAIRTLOUGH:

And, your Honor, is the feed cut?

# 25 THE COURT:

It is.

# 26 MR. FAIRTLOUGH:

This is People's 98.

# 27 THE COURT:

All right. Mr. Goldberg, we are going to break in five.

# 28 MR. GOLDBERG:

Did you take a look at this photograph of Ronald Goldman's shoe?

# 29 MR. FUNG:

Briefly, yes.

# 30 MR. GOLDBERG:

Did you take a look to see whether you could see any evidence of caked-on dirt in-between the crevices and on the sole of the shoe?

# 31 MR. FUNG:

Yes.

# 32 MR. GOLDBERG:

Do you see much caked-on dirt there?

# 33 MR. FUNG:

I don't see a lot, but there is some present.

# 34 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. Let's take a look at the other shoe.

# 35 MR. FAIRTLOUGH:

People's exhibit 99.

# 36 MR. GOLDBERG:

And on this shoe, there is somewhat more caked-on dirt than on the other one?

# 37 MR. FUNG:

Appears to be, yes.

# 38 MR. GOLDBERG:

All right. And based upon your observations of the crime scene and particularly the caged-off area as well as the crime scene photographs of Ronald Goldman's shoes, would you necessarily expect to find detectable dust prints or muddy shoeprints at the Defendant's Rockingham home?

# 39 MR. SCHECK:

Objection. Leading.

# 40 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 41 MR. FUNG:

Not necessarily, no.

# 42 MR. GOLDBERG:

Why not?

# 43 MR. FUNG:

There isn't a whole lot of dirt to track around. It may be there, but then again, it may not be there. I wouldn't necessarily expect it to be there though.

# 44 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. Well, what do you mean by not a lot of dirt there? Are you talking about the soles of the shoes?

# 45 MR. FUNG:

Yes.

# 46 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. And particularly--if we can go back to 98. Are you particularly talking about 98?

# 47 MR. FUNG:

Yes.

# 48 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. And did this seem to be an exceptionally muddy area at the time on the 13th as if--

# 49 MR. FUNG:

Most--much of the area was dry, but there were some areas that were--appeared to be muddy because of the blood.

# 50 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. So based upon what you see on the soles of Goldman's shoes and your observations at the crime scene, would you expect an assailant who went back to the Defendant's location and walked on his carpet to track a lot of dirt through that location?

# 51 MR. FUNG:

I wouldn't expect there to be a lot. There may--I would--I wouldn't expect either way. If there was--if it was there, I wouldn't be surprised, but if it wasn't, I wouldn't be surprised either.

KEY QUOTE

# 52 MR. GOLDBERG:

Okay. Your Honor, at this time, I would like to mark--that's okay. I'll get to that later.

# 53 THE COURT:

All right. We'll take a break then. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take a brief 15-minute recess. Please remember all my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted do you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you. We'll stand in recess for 15.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (3)

Dennis Fung

There are a couple of reasons. One is, the shoes could have been removed prior to going into the house, and second, the--if the shoes were still worn going into the house, the shoes may have dried off or there may not have been enough blood left on the soles to make tracks.

Core rehabilitation point — explains the absence of evidence at Rockingham without undermining the blood trail evidence at Bundy

Dennis Fung

I wouldn't expect there to be a lot. There may--I would--I wouldn't expect either way. If there was--if it was there, I wouldn't be surprised, but if it wasn't, I wouldn't be surprised either.

Hedged answer that blunts the defense's argument from absence of dirt tracks at Rockingham

Dennis Fung

That was on the driver floor area.

Places a shoeprint-like impression inside the Bronco, linking physical evidence to the defendant's vehicle

Evidence (3)

People's 98

Photograph of one of Ronald Goldman's shoes at the crime scene

examined for caked-on dirt on sole and crevices

People's 99

Photograph of Ronald Goldman's other shoe at the crime scene

examined; noted to have somewhat more caked-on dirt than People's 98

Informal

Shoeprint-like impression on the driver-side carpet of the Bronco

referenced to explain why shoeprints might fade before reaching Rockingham

Notable Exchanges (2)

Hank Goldberg•Barry Scheck•Lance A. Ito

Goldberg asks whether Fung has personal knowledge of whether the defendant removed his shoes at Rockingham; Scheck objects and moves to strike; Ito sustains. Goldberg's aside — 'Just showing that he doesn't' — was itself improper and the judge directed him to rephrase.

procedural correction

Hank Goldberg•Dennis Fung

Goldberg walks Fung through Goldman's shoe photographs to establish the soles were not heavily muddy, preemptively explaining why an assailant would not necessarily track significant dirt at Rockingham.

strategic

Objections

3 objections (1 sustained, 2 overruled)

Proceeding 5743 • 53 utterances • Defense witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103