Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect we've now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Dennis Fung is again on the witness stand now for recross examination by Mr. Scheck. And, Mr. Scheck, you may begin your recross-examination.

Thank you, your Honor.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK

On redirect examination, Mr. Fung, do you recall that it began with a number of questions about conspiracies?

I object. His ability to recall the testimony is irrelevant.

Overruled.

Do you recall that?

I don't know what--where it was, but yes.

Do you recall questions to the effect, are you in a conspiracy with Detective Lange, Michelle Kestler, who--her husband, whoever that might be, or Detective Fuhrman against this Defendant? Remember that?

Irrelevant.

Overruled.

Do you remember being asked if you were in a conspiracy with Miss Mazzola to cover up receiving some item with your bare hand?

Something to that effect.

All right. Do you remember being asked if you were in a conspiracy to allow Detective Lange to get into the evidence processing room and somehow get DNA on swatches?

I remember a question something to that effect also.

And you answered all those questions no?

That's correct.

Now, let me ask you, have you ever heard the term "Cover up"?

Yes.

What does that mean to you, sir?

When something--somebody does something wrong and cover their tracks. You try to show that they didn't do anything wrong.

Or they try to protect them from being discovered?

Yes.

And that one--have you tried, sir, to cover up mistakes by yourself or others that occurred during this investigation?

In your testimony, sir, in the way you answered questions, have you ever tried to cover up mistakes that were made by yourself or others?

No.

Have you tried in your testimony to cover up misconduct by anyone?

No.

Mr. Fung, in the course of your--you were asked a number of questions about the way you normally testify.

Yes.

All right. Now, when you testify, sir, do you revise your recollections of events in order to make it--make your testimony come out in a way that you think favors the position of the Prosecution?

No.

At any time, sir, have you claimed not to remember some event one way or the other because being vague in your recollection would help cover up mistakes or misconduct?

Not on purpose, no.

Not on purpose?

No, I have not?

Now, Mr. Fung, haven't you repeatedly been changing your testimony about what you told this jury you independently remembered based on fear of being caught in inconsistencies or lies by videotapes?

Argumentative, your Honor.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Have you repeatedly changed your testimony about what you independently remember based on looking at videotapes?

Argumentative. Overbroad.

Sustained. It's vague.

Have you ever--have you ever changed your testimony about what you said happened because you saw a videotape of those same events?

Same objection.

Overruled.

Well, haven't you just offered some testimony this afternoon where you told us that you had no independent recollection of events, but you could only piece together and reconstruct things based on what you saw in a video and still photos?

Vague. Overbroad, argumentative, irrelevant.

Overruled.

I was able to reconstruct events by looking through videos, looking at videos.

Right. Events that you have no independent memory of whatsoever.

Your Honor, it's still overbroad as to which--

That's vague.

Now, before you came in here and testified at trial on direct examination, you had seen a video of Andrea Mazzola picking up the glove and the hat at Bundy and putting them in a paper bag?

Yes.

All right. And so when you came here and testified at trial, you did not testify that you had seen--that you yourself had collected the hat and collected the glove and put it in a paper bag?

Well, it's unintelligible the way that it's phrased, your Honor.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Did you testify at this trial that you had picked up the hat at Bundy and the glove at Bundy and put those in a paper bag for later processing?

I don't recall I said that during this trial, no.

You didn't say that during this trial, right?

I don't think so.

No. On direct examination, you said Miss Mazzola had done that.

Is that a question?

Yes.

Right?

I don't remember everything I said, but that's not--that's what happened, yes.

But in the Grand Jury, sir--

And I'm now at page 337 and 338 starting at line 8.

All right. Hold on.

337?

Uh-huh.

At what line?

Actually I'll start--start on line 23 to save time.

"Question: In photographs a, b and c, do they actually depict the glove in the location and condition you found it? "Answer: Yes. "Question: What did you do with respect to that glove? "Answer: Initially, I measured to see, to locate where it was found, documented that location and then placed it in a paper bag for later processing." Were you asked those questions, did you give those answers?

Yes, I--

Beyond the scope of the redirect, your Honor.

Overruled. The answer will stand.

Now, you testified, sir, that when you went into the Grand Jury, that you did not have an opportunity to have extensive conversations with Miss Clark about your testimony?

Yes.

That misstates the testimony. He said he didn't have any conversations.

Overruled.

Did you have any conversations with Miss Clark about your testimony before you went into the Grand Jury?

Only brief, brief conversation.

And you were testifying on June 22nd?

Or thereabouts.

And that was only nine days after this collection that occurred at Bundy?

Yes.

And the events certainly, sir, were fresher in your mind on June 22nd than they have been when you've been testifying at this trial?

Yes.

And because you hadn't spoken with miss clark before you went into the Grand Jury and you were going to be asked questions, you wanted to make sure that your testimony was as accurate as possible about what you could remember?

Well, it's compound, your Honor.

Overruled.

When I testified at the Grand Jury, I wasn't trying to mislead anybody and I was trying to tell the fruit.

Trying to be accurate?

Yes.

And your memory was fresher than it is here today?

Yes.

But you told us on redirect examination that you have this habit of saying "I did something" when testifying even if you didn't do it?

When I am working in a team and I am the supervisor of that team and I'm calling the shots and--I tend to use "I" when asked questions of procedure.

Well, wait a second. I thought that one explanation you gave for why you said "I" in the Grand Jury was this concept in working as a team, correct?

Yes.

Well, didn't Mr. Goldberg ask you other questions about testimony at this trial about your habit of saying "I did something" when in fact you didn't do it, but someone else did?

That's irrelevant what questions I asked.

Overruled.

He did ask questions to those effect.

Is that a habit that you have all the time, sir; that when somebody asks, "What did you do," you tend to say, "I did it," even if you didn't do it?

When you testified at the Grand Jury--

I'm now at page 379, line 8.

--were you asked these questions--

Hold on. Mr. Goldberg.

Which line? 8 through what?

Actually line--starting at line 5.

Can I see counsel's transcript?

Proceed.

Thank you, your Honor.

"Question: Were the blood drops next to those shoeprints--"

Your Honor, I'm going to object to this. We've already gone over this twice. It's asked and answered.

Overruled.

"Question: Were the blood drops next to those shoeprints? "Answer: Yes, they were. "Question: Did you attempt to retrieve and preserve the blood found in those blood drops? "Answer: Yes, I did. "Question: What did you do? "Answer: I transferred the blood drops onto--onto cloth squares or cloth swatches. What I did was wet the cloth swatches with distilled water and then applied them to the stains, the red stains which were later determined to be blood, and they were transferred in that method." Were you asked those questions, did you give those answers?

I would object because this isn't inconsistent with anything.

Overruled.

Yes.

Now, you weren't asked anything there about documenting and measuring drops, were you?

No.

You weren't asked anything about mental processes, were you?

The collection phase or the collection process includes those parts.

Yes. But the question you were asked is what did you do, right?

Yes.

And the answer that you gave talked about what you did in terms of putting cloth swatches on the ground and putting water on them and taking up blood, right?

It's part of the answer, yes.

Well, wasn't that the entirety of the answer? When you were asked, what did you do when you talked about transferring the blood drops onto cloth squares, you were describing your physical actions?

Your Honor, it's argumentative, vague.

Sustained.

You were describing in your answer your actions nine days previously?

In that answer, I was describing the procedure for which the blood was collected.

You weren't asked the procedure. You were asked what did you do, correct?

Sustained. Argumentative.

Were you asked what did you do?

Asked and answered.

Overruled.

Yes.

You were not asked what was the procedure generally?

But that was my interpretation.

Well, on other occasions in the Grand Jury and at the preliminary hearing, didn't Miss Clark ask you questions about what general procedures were?

Irrelevant.

Overruled.

She may have.

But this question was what did you do, right?

That's what that question was.

And it's your testimony, sir, that in answering those questions about the blood drops found at Bundy, it never occurred to you at all that it would sound better to testify that you did it and not Andrea Mazzola?

That did not occur to me.

It was just this habit of answering questions where you say "I did something" even if you didn't do it. Just that bad habit?

Well, it's overbroad.

Sustained. Rephrase the question. Haven't we about exhausted this area?

Well, I'll just do one more, quick one.

One quick one.

One quick one.

Now, with respect to the red stain at the Bronco--

I'm at the Grand Jury, page 390, line 6.

"Question: How did you recover them?"

May I have a moment, your Honor?

Certainly. Hold on.

390, line 6?

Line 6.

"Question:"

Wait a minute, Mr. Scheck.

Do you have it in front of you by chance, Mr. Fung, your Grand Jury testimony?

No, I do not.

Line 6 through--

Just that question and answer.

Line 6 through line 8?

Uh-huh.

May we approach?

Your Honor, again, I went into this, counsel went into this. I think it's the third time.

One last question.

The question was in reference to the red stain in the Bronco and all the broncos at Rockingham. "Question:"

Wait a minute.

I'll just read a few lines before that.

Proceed.

"Question: How did you recover them? "Answer: I recovered them in the same manner described before where I would wet a wet cloth swatch or several cloth swatches if needed, apply it to the red stain and then let the stain transfer onto the cloth swatch." Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers?

Yes.

And the fact is, sir, that the only stains where you took a cloth swatch and put them onto the ground were nos. 55 and 56, two footprints at Bundy?

No. I did do actual swatching with some other stains.

But the--

Along the trail.

But you're now referring to, you actually showed Miss Mazzola a better technique as she was swatching and you did one or two yourself?

No. There were times where I would take the tweezers, go through the substrate control collection, go through the swatching of the red stains with the cloth square and putting it in a plastic bag. There were times when I did that.

Didn't you tell us previously, sir, that it was Miss Mazzola that did the swatching of those stains at Bundy?

Misstates the testimony.

Sustained.

Now, you were asked on redirect examination that at the preliminary hearing, you actually mentioned Miss Mazzola?

Yes.

And you were asked questions about how you were in the--not in any way reluctant to reveal what her role was in the collection of evidence when you testified at the preliminary hearing?

I did reveal her--that she was part of the search team, yes.

Well, but you were in no way reluctant to reveal how much of the collection and swatching she actually did?

No, I was not.

And Mr. Goldberg read you part of this. I would like to read the rest of it from the preliminary hearing.

Your Honor, that's argumentative, counsel's commentary. Ask that it be stricken.

I would like to read you a segment--

Wait a minute.

All right. Proceed.

Preliminary hearing July 7th at page 39 starting at line 17.

39, 17?

Now redirect.

17 through what, counsel?

17 through the next page to 21.

"Question: How do you collect bloodstains from a crime scene? "Answer: Generally stains are transferred onto a swatch by first wetting the swatch with distilled water, applying it to the stain so the blood is absorbed onto the swatch, and at that point, it is put into a plastic bag and then put into a coin envelope where it is labeled with the corresponding photo id number. "Question: Now, is it also your job, sir, to package all of the evidence you collect and label it with what is known as a DR number? "Yes, it is. "And did you do so in this case? "Yes, I did. "Question: Now, directing your attention to items no. 1 through 8, did you prepare a report documenting what item nos. 1 through 8 are in this case? "Answer: Yes, I did. "Did you collect them, sir? "Answer: I did along with my assistant criminalist, Miss Mazzola." Now, up to that point, do you recall Mr. Goldberg reading you that on redirect examination?

Yes.

All right. Let's read the rest. "Question: Is that another criminalist with the Los Angeles Police Department? "Answer: Yes. "Question: Do you usually send two criminalists to a crime scene? "Answer: Not always, no. "Question: What was this criminalist doing with you on that particular day? "Answer: She was there to learn how to process crime scenes. "Question: You were showing her how it is done? "Answer: Yes." Were you asked those questions, did you give those answers?

Yes.

And when you said that she was just there for you to show her how it is done, were you trying to convey at the preliminary hearing on national television that you did most of the work and she was just there observing?

Your Honor, this was gone into on cross and I didn't ask about this quote on redirect. So it's beyond the scope.

Overruled.

That was not my intention when I answered those questions.

That--

All right, counsel. We're beyond the time now. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, as far as the jury and presentation of the evidence in Court today, we are going to stand in recess. However, as I indicated to you, I'm going to be talking to some of you this afternoon one at a time. So as far as the presentation of evidence is concerned, we will stand in recess. Mr. Fung, you may step down. You are ordered to return tomorrow morning, 9 o'clock. All right. And we'll take a 10-minute recess to recycle. I want to see counsel over at sidebar with the Court reporter, please.