Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Neufeld, you had a matter you wanted to raise?
Two matters. You ordered the People to immediately produce those items of evidence and I had been informed by Mr. Goldberg that apparently Mr. Matheson says it may take another few hours and I just wanted to bring that to the Court's attention.
You should also know, as I said before the lunch break, I have about fifteen more minutes on this area and then I will be going into the area which requires the production of these items, which will take about one hour of cross-examination.
Well, I need those items, your Honor, and of course you ruled that they have to bring them over forthwith. I can finish--finish this area of cross-examination I think in about fifteen or twenty minutes--
Mr. Cochran has suggested that the next two witnesses the People intend to call are both very short witnesses; one is the photographer and the other is the tow truck driver. We would certainly be willing to allow them to use up the rest of the afternoon with one of those short witnesses and then we could resume with Miss Mazzola tomorrow morning once they produce those items of evidence.
I don't think they are in the building. We could conceivably start with Greg Matheson. We may do that anyway.
Your Honor, the--I'm sorry. Could Miss Mazzola step out of the room, your Honor, with the Court's permission, to discuss this matter?
As you may recall, at the end, after a series of questions and answers by Miss Mazzola, I asked her whether or not she had participated in a meeting with two investigators from the D.A.'s office and Miss Kestler.
Well, there was an objection and you said "Sustained for the time being," okay, and if I can proceed, then there is no problem.
Well, I don't know exactly what counsel intends to get into, but a while ago there was--
No, no. We have wasted enough time. This is not a secret. She has acknowledged the meeting. You were going to ask her what was discussed in the meeting, correct?
Especially the fact that there were certain denials about having these discussions initially.
Well, I don't know exactly which discussion he is talking about for sure. May I just have a moment?
Well, umm, Mr. Darden tells me that it is possible that the subject matter that I think counsel is going to get into was under seal and that it was a matter that the Defense said that they didn't want to pursue. Maybe we are--
Well, I don't know. There doesn't seem to be a consensus of opinion as to whether or not this subject was discussed. Mr. Cochran says he doesn't know, and Mr. Darden says he thinks it was, and therefore I don't know whether I can address it in open Court. Maybe Mr. Darden could, with the Court's permission, because I wasn't here for this discussion.
Your Honor, and I may be incorrect, and perhaps Mr. Neufeld can correct me if I am, but as I understand it, these questions will relate to an investigation we conducted after we received certain documents presented to the Court on November 7, those documents which I presented to you in chambers when I first appeared in this matter, and as I recall, at that time the Court placed those documents under seal and there was an indication from the Defense that they had no interest in it, it was irrelevant, and that they would not pursue it.
If I could interject this. As a matter of fact, they indicated they didn't even want the documents.
Your Honor, sorry. What I am interested in is a meeting which occurred with Miss Mazzola, Miss Kestler and two investigators from the District Attorney's office. She had said earlier on under examination that she never had a discussion where Miss Kestler was present at which the actual subject matter of this case was ever discussed or any allegations of tampering ever came up. This was in fact a meeting which was--which was held on November 22nd, 1994, where she is told by the investigators that: "We are working on the murder case of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. There is rumors, allegations going around at the crime lab working that some of its swatches in the early goings, early stages, right after the collection of blood, tampering going on, going on in O.J.'s blood on the swatches, things of that sort. Do you know anything about that at all?" And that is the beginning of then a meeting that happens between Miss Mazzola, Miss Kestler is present and these two investigators. In light of the fact that she had already testified that no discussion like this ever occurred, okay, and she was given a number of opportunities, your Honor, to answer that question differently--
No, that is not my recollection of her testimony. She said that she has had a number of conversations, short, long, in between, in passing with the D.A.'s.
No, no, not with the D.A.'s. D.A. Prep session, she said that, but she said that the conversations she had with Miss Kestler, and she just said it about a half our--toward the very end of the morning--were limited to pointers about her testimony. That is what she said, you know, very explicitly here on the record, your Honor. This was a discussion when Miss Kestler was present which was not about pointers for when she testified as a witness. It was a discussion about the actual substance of her involvement in this case. And that is what I wanted to ask her. I do not intend to go into any collateral matters or anything of that nature. I am simply limiting myself to what--
--after you get the question and answer that yes, she does not recollect this meeting with the District Attorney's representatives and--
Series of questions, because I also asked her whether or not there had been--whether she was aware of any concern--
The question would be, "And didn't the two detective investigators inform you at that meeting where Miss Kestler was present that they were interviewing you in connection with an investigation they were conducting into allegations that someone tampered with Mr. Simpson's blood vial?" That is the first question. Then there is two or three questions simply to point out that each time she was asked questions about discussions in Miss Kestler's presence about the substance of this case or about tampering, that she claimed that those kind of discussions didn't happen. Then--then I would ask her in the 18 months that you have been at the Los Angeles Police Department have you ever been questioned by D.A. Investigators about allegations of evidence tampering in any other context, any other case? Again something to suggest that this is not something that she would have forgotten.
Umm, I asked her whether or not she would agree that an allegation or investigation into tampering is not simply--is not your typical encounter that you would have. Just a whole series of questions about how she wouldn't forget it. Then--and then, your Honor, what I'm going to bring to her attention is the fact that during this meeting, Michele Kestler, fully aware the fact this she already testified on August 23rd that she never saw any transfer of blood and never saw anything else passed after items 15 and 16, isn't it a fact that during the session held with these investigators and with Michele Kestler that didn't Michele Kestler suggest to you that you actually saw Vannatter pass the blood to Fung? And the reason I wanted to bring that out, which is something that happened during that meeting, is I believe, your Honor, it goes to this witness' bias and interest to testify a certain way in this case. I think there is no question that she is a probationer employee at the LAPD.
Certainly was at the time that this encounter occurred back in November. Umm, that--
I think that is going to require a joint response from Mr. Goldberg and myself, your Honor, but let me just indicate this: We conducted a mini investigation based on allegations brought forth by the Defense last year or last November, the allegations contained in the documents that I have an alluded to already. As I read and understood the document, they suggested that somehow Miss Mazzola was somehow involved in some misconduct, and an internal investigation may have been done by the LAPD, I don't know. We did an investigation. If the Court were to go back and look at the documents I surrendered to the Court, the Court would note that they contain the content of conversations allegedly had between Mr. Cochran and Mr. Douglas with the author of those documents. I think that we are in danger perhaps of creating a situation where Mr. Cochran and Mr. Douglas may somehow be witnesses. I think that we are in danger of heading in a direction where we may have a mini trial on the issues raised in that--in that particular document. I think it is dangerous and I think it is irrelevant, it would cause undue consumption of the Court's time. Mr. Neufeld has been at Miss Mazzola for two days now on cross-examination. I don't think that the Defense case is going to be harmed in any way or to any degree if they are not allowed to go into this area, but it is a dangerous area. We cannot sit by and allow Mr. Neufeld to ask those types of questions without explaining to the jury why those conversations took place in the first place. So I would ask the Court to disallow counsel from going into that area.
All right. Mr. Goldberg, anything to add to that? Don't feel compelled to do so. Do you have anything else you want to add to that?
Well, I take it from the Court's indication that the Court doesn't feel it needs to hear anything else?
Just because I invite counsel to speak doesn't mean that they have to say something just to say something.
Okay. Your Honor, I would like to address really, no. 1, is there any inconsistencies between what she was asked by Mr. Neufeld and what he proposes to impeach her with, since I guess that is the legal basis upon which he wants to introduce this as impeachment. And it is my recollection that she was asked for several questions about whether she discussed with Michele Kestler the substance of this case or her involvement in this case. This has nothing to do with her involvement in this case. This is a fantasy that was somehow created which some author, I'm not sure where the exact source is or whether it is in fact attributable to the Defense in any way, I don't know what the resolution on that was, but the point is, is that it is a fictitious set of events that apparently neither party subscribes to that she is being questioned about. And how can you argue that that is discussing her involvement in the case? I think what we have seen here has been cross-examination through innuendo where the Defense has been allowed to ask a lot of questions that, quite frankly, I am not used to having seen, about didn't the Prosecution tell you to do this? And weren't you told to say this? And are you lying because of that? And did someone suggest to you the following? And it is all in an effort to place innuendo before this jury as to things that the Defense does not have a the good faith belief occurred.
Uh-huh. And most of your objections have been sustained and the jury has been admonished.
I realize that, your Honor, but I think that this fits into the mold, as soon as you start asking a witness have you been investigated and did they ask you about allegations of tampering and so on and whether you had anything to do with it, it is not coming in for any substantive impeachment purpose, but to put a rumor and allegation and innuendo in front of this jury. And I don't think that it should be allowed under 352 because there is no real impeachment value here and there is a tremendous danger of confusing, misleading this jury and spending a lot of time trying to sort out an issue that I'm not sure that is in either side's interest ultimately to get into. The Prosecution could not allow those kind of allegations and rumor to be placed before the jury without trying to put them into context, and I'm sure the Court would allow us the opportunity to do so, and that is going to involve additional witnesses and explanations that are really going to get us away from the issues in this case which are related to the evidence collection, testing results and the Defendant's guilt or innocence. And I don't see how putting these kind of rumors before the jury is going to help resolve them.
No, thank you. I have heard both arguments. All right. I'm going to allow Mr. Neufeld to ask a question whether or not Miss Mazzola recalls having a meeting that involved Miss Kestler, the then--I think she was then the interim head of the lab--and two investigators from the District Attorney's office. He will be allowed to ask whether or not the subject matter of that discussion was in fact the collection of evidence with regards to this particular case. He will be allowed to ask those questions as to those issues, whether or not she recollected those discussions, since that appears to be inconsistent with her prior testimony. All right. Let's have Miss Kestler (Sic). Let's have the jury, please.
May I ask her about the vial, because that is one of the items of collection, just to be more precise?
You can ask her the discussion involving the vial, if it involved the vial, and its booking.
I may not ask her what--whether Michele Kestler said something specifically to her?
Will he be precluded from suggesting that there was any kind of investigation or she was the subject of an investigation?
Your Honor, I'm sorry, I would just ask for one minute so I can change my questions here so I do not say anything that is inappropriate and that is outside of--
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated.
Andrea Mazzola, the witness on the stand at the time of the noon recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
Let the record reflect we have now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Miss Mazzola is again on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Neufeld. And ladies and gentlemen, we are taking just a moment to allow Mr. Neufeld to make a few adjustments before we resume, but I thought we would get you in here and get you settled so we can get started. Take your time, Mr. Neufeld.
isn't it a fact that during the session held with these investigators and with Michele Kestler that didn't Michele Kestler suggest to you that you actually saw Vannatter pass the blood to Fung?
I think that we are in danger perhaps of creating a situation where Mr. Cochran and Mr. Douglas may somehow be witnesses.
it is a fictitious set of events that apparently neither party subscribes to that she is being questioned about. And how can you argue that that is discussing her involvement in the case?
Are you guys sure you want to get into this?