All right. Back on the record. The jury is not present. Counsel, we had two matters that we wanted to take up at 4:30. Mr. Neufeld, you indicated that you want--you wanted discovery of reports regarding the activities of Miss Mazzola on June the 14th and you wanted the reports of her activities for some particular reason.
Yes, your Honor. At the hearing on August 23rd, Miss Mazzola testified that she had personally participated in the processing of the now dried swatches on the morning of June 14th with Mr. Fung at the laboratory. This morning, she suggested for the first time, your Honor, that on the morning of June 14th, she did not participate in the processing of evidence in this case with Mr. Fung.
But instead--but instead, spent the morning before she went to the print shed doing paperwork on another case.
That was her testimony. I would like to see this paperwork that she claims she was doing in the evidence processing unit during the two or three hours that morning before she went to the print shed. In fact, I don't believe her and I believe I'm allowed to challenge her credibility with regard to that representation because it contradicts her testimony at the August 23rd hearing, and I want to see if this paper work supports her claim.
But let me cut to the chase. Is there some reason the Prosecution doesn't want to provide the Court with a copy of any report?
Your Honor, I don't have a copy in my possession at any rate. But the only reason that we're objecting to it is, I just don't believe it falls within any of the discovery provisions. And I think that the Prosecution's interest has been hurt by overcomplying with discovery. It has not worked, it has not served our interest, it has not sped the case along, and I think that it's in our interest at this time on every discovery issue to try to see that we are not required to do anything more than what is mandated under discovery law. And that is my position. It has nothing to do with this particular report. I haven't seen the report. I don't know how it could be located. It simply has to do with not wanting to provide discovery beyond our discovery obligations.
Your Honor, I'm not trying to find out the actual information about some other case. I don't care about the other case. It could all be redacted. But what she said on August 23rd under oath in this courtroom is that she spent the morning of June 14th before going to the print shed with Dennis Fung processing the swatches in this case. Today for the very first time, she contradicted herself on that point and she said that she wasn't processing specimens with Dennis Fung the morning of June 14tgh before going to the print shed because instead, she was doing the paperwork on another case. I believe, your Honor, that I'm allowed to impeach her with that paperwork to the extent that it does not corroborate her sworn testimony here and it would be a relevant written statement used to impeach this witness. That's what it's for.
Well, counsel, isn't this real collateral and haven't you already gotten the benefit if you got one statement here and another statement today that contradicts that statement? I mean, haven't you gotten the impeachment value out of that?
Your Honor, this witness has been suggesting on many different areas in this case that her testimony August 23rd was inaccurate because she hasn't had time to really think about it whereas now that she's had more time to think about it, her testimony at this trial should be given greater weight. And what she's saying on this particular point is that she should be given greater weight because she now remembers that that morning for the two or three hours that she was there, that she was preoccupied doing paperwork in another case. All I want to do is see that paperwork to see whether or not it corroborates her bald-face claim that she made before your Honor this morning that that's what she was doing. I think in light of the fact that it's a flat-out contradiction from her testimony on August 23rd, bearing in mind that she's going to say what she said on August 23rd should not be given any serious consideration by the jury because she didn't know what she was saying, that I should be entitled now to impeach the claim that she made this morning by showing her that there isn't this paperwork to support her claim that that's what she was doing during the morning.
Well, your Honor, number one, I believe that her testimony on August 23rd was in fact the correct testimony, the truthful testimony. And to the extent that it is truthful, it is exculpatory evidence. And to the extent, your Honor, that this written report undermines her claim today that she spent the time doing this--
Well, do you have any case that describes something like that as exculpatory evidence under California case law?
Well, your Honor, not just as exculpatory evidence, your Honor, but I would submit I don't have a case before me. I--your Honor, even if you thought about it in terms of 352, what are we talking about here? We're talking about the People producing a single report which can be redacted so as no information about another case is disclosed, simply to show how long it is and how much time was expended on it to undermine her claim that she's made under oath in this courtroom that she spent the entire morning when she arrived before going to the print shed involved in, you know, in--on processing papers in another case. It just doesn't make sense and I should be entitled that much leeway. That is not a collateral matter, your Honor. I'm not going in to proving the other case. I'm simply going to prove, your Honor, that her testimony August 23rd was the truthful and correct testimony and her testimony today just wasn't credible. That's the purpose of it. I also think under the same section, your Honor, it comes in under subsection (F). It's irrelevant written or recorded statement of this witness. She's the one who made the recorded statement.
Keep reading. Keep reading. It's about something the Prosecution intends on producing. That's the modifier. All right. I'll take your request under submission. My tentative ruling is to deny your request. Bring me something that says that you're entitled to it. All right?
I asked on Friday or Thursday, Thursday I asked the Prosecutor to simply produce in Court during my cross-examination of Miss Mazzola the actual evidence that she collected on the 13th and the 14th, her evidence, okay, which means the coin envelopes and the bindles, and the People last week said they would think about it. And they told me this morning they decided that they're not going to bring it in here. And I believe that I'm entitled to confront this witness with the actual evidence that she collected in this case, and that's what I would like to do tomorrow morning. So I would ask the Court to instruct the People to produce in Court tomorrow morning the actual items, which would be the original coin envelopes and the original bindles.
Well, your Honor, the problem is that of course--there's several problems. One of them is that we're talking about biological evidence, a lot of which has not been tested. For example, on our chain of custody boards, we only have the items that were tested. We tested item no. 6 and item no. 7, but the Prosecution did not test 3 and 4 at this time because obviously we've had to prioritize, and the laboratories are inundated with the amount of material that we've given them. So they're talking about bringing in evidence that still contains biological evidence that can be tested, defrosting it, destroying its utility for any future testing, evidence that constitutes a bile hazard and should not be in Court at any rate and has made absolutely no showing as to why we are going to destroy the evidence in this case. I mean obviously the Defendant doesn't care about destroying the evidence in this case because it's not going to exonerate him. But we still have an interest in trying to preserve the evidence to the extent that it exists. They have been provided with an opportunity to inspect all of this evidence in Albany at a tremendous expense to the People. It has been photographed by the Prosecution. We have provided them with photographs of it. They have had the opportunity to inspect it on a variety of other occasions at an enormous expense and burden to the People.
Well, rather than saying all evidence that this witness collected, is there anything in particular that you need, Mr. Neufeld?
Well, yes, your Honor. But let me just--well, it's the items of--the bloodstains that were actually collected by Miss Mazzola at Bundy and at Rockingham. That's what we're talking about here. Those are the items. Let me just say two things.
Your Honor, that's true. But, you know, let the Prosecutor submit to you a single authority to support his point--
No. No. Counsel, wait. Mr. Neufeld, I'm just interested in what efforts have you made to try to get them to bring this over? First effort is to identify specifically what it is you want. I'm asking you now, tell me what you want. I'm just curious if you even have a written list of these items which would help me immensely to get started here.
The items--the bloodstains collected at Bundy, which would be items 41 through 52. That's--I'm not talking about a huge amount of evidence. These are coin envelopes which are dislodged, your Honor.
41 and 52 at Rockingham. We're talking about items 3, 4, 5--I am sorry. Not--I'm sorry, your Honor. Item 1, item 4, 5, 6.
All right. Counsel, what we are going to do, I am going to stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 9:00 o'clock. I want you to prepare a list of what it is you want from the Prosecution, give it to the Prosecution. I want from the Prosecution by 8:30 tomorrow morning a list of any specific objections as to why those items can not be produced in Court, to the specifics requested by the Defense. I assume that if there is any refrigeration problem, they can be packed, brought over, exhibited briefly. I assume that this is not a tremendous logistical problem since we are talking about a lab that's less than a mile away from here.
Your Honor, just so the record is clear on this, these items were sent to Albany, taken out of the freezer for extended periods of time.
No. I am ordering you to confer, provide the Prosecution with a list. I'm giving the Prosecution until tomorrow morning at 8:30 to lodge any written objections that they have to those items, and I'll make an order if it's appropriate tomorrow morning directing LAPD SID to bring those things over packed in dry ice if necessary.
I started off this morning and I would like to finish off the day, your Honor. Your Honor, we had made an informal request I believe for so-called Kato Kaelin's tapes that have not been made available to us.
No. If you recall, the Prosecution said that they had turned over a set to the Court and that they were available to you from the Court any time you wanted to take them and copy them.
Absolutely. I've had them sitting in my chambers for the last two weeks now.
KEY QUOTEAnd the other thing is, could the Court set aside some time this week? We probably need--we need one of your famous graphs. We need to recalendar certain of our motions that have kind of fallen by the wayside, but at your convenience. We need to probably get that--
Actually, we ought to probably have a brief morning chambers conference perhaps Thursday morning just to get a list of all the matters that we have not considered. I will have Mrs. Robertson put together a list of motions that we have not addressed yet or had taken off calendar.
That would be fine. We have one other witness that's going to I think be interviewed at some time when the Court decides.
Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012
Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire also present: Jana Winograde, Esquire Steven M. Perry, Esquire
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I N D E X
For volume 133 pages 24142 - 24419
day date session page vol.
Tuesday April 25, 1995 A.M. 24142 133 P.M. 24347 133
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden d Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronological Index of witnesses
People's witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
Mazzola, Andrea 133 (Resumed) 24155n (Resumed) 24298n
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alphabetical Index of witnesses witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
EXHIBITS
Defense for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
1113 - photograph of 24218 133 the number "20" on a white Bronco vehicle
1114 - photograph of 24224 133 the driver's side of a white Bronco vehicle
1115 - 1-page document 24236 133 entitled "Crime scene investigation"
1116 - 2-page document 24248 133 entitled "Forensic photography"
1117 - videotape of 24356 133 Andrea Mazzola collecting evidence (Demonstration)
1117-A - photograph of 24358 133 Andrea Mazzola collecting evidence (Demonstration)
1118 - 2-page document 24396 133 entitled "Collection and preservation of body fluids"
1119 - photograph of 24401 133 the number "12" on a white card on the ground at 360 north Rockingham
I think that the Prosecution's interest has been hurt by overcomplying with discovery. It has not worked, it has not served our interest, it has not sped the case along, and I think that it's in our interest at this time on every discovery issue to try to see that we are not required to do anything more than what is mandated under discovery law.
All I want to do is see that paperwork to see whether or not it corroborates her bald-face claim that she made before your Honor this morning that that's what she was doing.
Mr. Neufeld, stop while you're ahead.
I'll make an order if it's appropriate tomorrow morning directing LAPD SID to bring those things over packed in dry ice if necessary.
I've had them sitting in my chambers for the last two weeks now.