Cross-examination of Andrea Mazzola (part 8)

📄 Cross-examination of Andrea Mazzola (part 8) — Thursday, April 27, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\APR\27\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-ANDREA-MA.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 63 of 167

◀ Voir dire of Andrea Mazzola Out-of-jury proceedings ▶

Witness: Andrea Mazzola
Examiner: Peter Neufeld
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Thursday, April 27, 1995 • Utterances: 132

Neufeld resumes cross-examination of criminalist Andrea Mazzola, methodically establishing a series of documentation failures in the swatch evidence collection: no photographs were taken before booking, field notes recorded only 'red stain' with no swatch counts, property report quantity boxes were left blank, and coin envelopes were not initialed by the collecting criminalist. The session opens with Judge Ito allowing the jury to physically handle a coin envelope to assess its weight. A recess is called mid-examination.

# 1 THE COURT:

All right. Miss Mazzola, does this appear to approximate, accurately approximate the weight of the envelope that you have felt or seen with regards to this case?

# 2 MS. MAZZOLA:

It's a little hard to tell, your Honor. Blood--I don't know if blood weighs more than just a hundred percent water or not.

# 3 THE COURT:

All right. Other than that difference, does it feel approximately the same?

# 4 MR. GOLDBERG:

I didn't hear the Court's question over our computers.

# 5 THE COURT:

Other than that difference, does anything feel--does it feel the same?

# 6 MS. MAZZOLA:

Feels a little lighter, but--

# 7 THE COURT:

All right. To your knowledge, were there any other items inside that envelope, any reports or anything like that, at the time that you carried it?

# 8 MS. MAZZOLA:

That I know of personally, no.

# 9 THE COURT:

All right. Go ahead.

# 10 MR. NEUFELD:

With the Court's permission, I would now like to publish the envelope, let the jury hold it.

# 11 THE COURT:

You may.

# 12 MR. NEUFELD:

Thank you.

# 13 (Brief pause.)

# 14 THE COURT:

All right. Deputy, may I have that, please? Thank you. Mr. Neufeld.

# 15 MR. NEUFELD:

May I continue?

# 16 THE COURT:

You may.

# 17 MR. NEUFELD:

I'm moving into a whole new area.

# 18 THE COURT:

Thank you.

# 19 MR. NEUFELD:

You're welcome.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. NEUFELD

# 20 MR. NEUFELD:

On redirect examination, Mr. Goldberg asked you about your memory. Do you remember that?

# 21 MR. GOLDBERG:

Vague as to--

# 22 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 23 MR. NEUFELD:

Well, he asked you about your memory for details. Do you recall those questions that he asked you?

# 24 MR. GOLDBERG:

Still vague.

# 25 THE COURT:

As to what items, counsel?

# 26 MR. NEUFELD:

Do you believe that your memory is satisfactory, Miss Mazzola?

# 27 MR. GOLDBERG:

Argumentative, overbroad.

# 28 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 29 MR. NEUFELD:

How would you describe your own memory, Miss Mazzola?

# 30 THE COURT:

Memory as to what particular point, counsel?

# 31 MR. NEUFELD:

How would you--well, when you worked at the Kern County Crime Laboratory, did you ever have the experience in which you believed you had inventoried an item only to learn sometime later that you had failed to inventory that item?

# 32 MR. GOLDBERG:

Irrelevant.

# 33 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 34 MR. NEUFELD:

It's foundation, your Honor.

# 35 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 36 MR. NEUFELD:

Well, at the Los Angeles Police Department toxicology laboratory, did you ever have the experience where you believed you had inventoried an item only to learn later on you that had forgot to do so?

# 37 MR. GOLDBERG:

Irrelevant.

# 38 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 39 MS. MAZZOLA:

Inventoried in what respect? I don't understand the question.

# 40 MR. NEUFELD:

Making an entry in the books or making your own entry on a sample that you received for toxicology analysis.

# 41 MR. GOLDBERG:

Still vague and ambiguous.

# 42 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 43 MS. MAZZOLA:

No.

# 44 MR. NEUFELD:

And of course, when you work in toxicology, you understand the importance of chain of custody; is that correct?

# 45 MS. MAZZOLA:

Correct.

# 46 MR. NEUFELD:

And you understand that it's important to demonstrate the integrity of the evidence has not been undermined; isn't that right?

# 47 MR. GOLDBERG:

Argumentative, overbroad.

# 48 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 49 MS. MAZZOLA:

Correct.

# 50 MR. NEUFELD:

And specifically in toxicology, you knew that a police officer or other employee who took urine or drew blood would initial that sample that was eventually tested in your laboratory?

# 51 MR. GOLDBERG:

Calls for--

# 52 MR. NEUFELD:

That was the standard procedure?

# 53 MR. GOLDBERG:

Calls for speculation, not relevant.

# 54 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 55 MS. MAZZOLA:

Initial the sample itself or what?

# 56 MR. NEUFELD:

Yes. Initial the sample itself.

# 57 MS. MAZZOLA:

I have seen officers send in samples both ways.

# 58 MR. NEUFELD:

Well, either they initial the sample itself or they at least initial the package that it's contained in, isn't that correct, one or the other?

# 59 MS. MAZZOLA:

They fill out the package that the sample is contained in.

# 60 MR. NEUFELD:

With their name on it, correct, the police officer who actually collected the sample?

# 61 MR. GOLDBERG:

Not relevant.

# 62 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 63 MS. MAZZOLA:

Either collected or booked it, yes.

# 64 MR. NEUFELD:

And you testified that on the field reports, there is a box to fill in with the initials of the criminalist who personally collected each item of evidence; isn't that correct?

# 65 MR. GOLDBERG:

Asked and answered.

# 66 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 67 MR. NEUFELD:

Would you agree, ma'am, that one reason that it's important to document who collected which swatches and where they were collected is because little swatches all look pretty much alike?

# 68 MS. MAZZOLA:

The swatches are similar in size, yes.

# 69 MR. NEUFELD:

And just by looking at a swatch, you can't tell whether it was from a drop at Rockingham or a drop at Bundy?

# 70 MR. GOLDBERG:

It's been asked and answered.

# 71 THE COURT:

Sustained. We've asked these questions already, counsel, last week.

# 72 MR. NEUFELD:

Well, at the mini academy at LAPD SID, were you ever instructed that items of evidence should be photographed prior to their actual booking?

# 73 MR. GOLDBERG:

It's been asked and answered.

# 74 THE COURT:

It has.

# 75 MR. NEUFELD:

Not with respect to these items, your Honor. Not with respect to the swatches.

# 76 THE COURT:

It has. You've already gone through the general booking procedures, counsel.

# 77 MR. NEUFELD:

Not--

# 78 THE COURT:

Yes, you have. Proceed.

# 79 MR. NEUFELD:

Well, were you taught that photographs must be taken before there was any manipulation or alteration of the evidence?

# 80 THE COURT:

Same question. Proceed, counsel.

# 81 MR. NEUFELD:

Did anyone at the Los Angeles Police Department ever instruct you to have photographs taken of the swatches prior to their booking?

# 82 MR. GOLDBERG:

Asked and answered, irrelevant.

# 83 THE COURT:

That question hasn't been asked.

# 84 MS. MAZZOLA:

No.

# 85 MR. NEUFELD:

And you did not take the initiative to do that on your own?

# 86 MR. GOLDBERG:

Irrelevant.

# 87 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 88 MS. MAZZOLA:

No.

# 89 MR. NEUFELD:

So would it be fair to say that there are no photographs to show what the swatches looked like when they were collected but before they were passed to third parties?

# 90 MS. MAZZOLA:

That is correct.

# 91 MR. NEUFELD:

And there was no photograph to indicate the number of swatches that you collected for each stain?

# 92 MS. MAZZOLA:

That is correct.

# 93 MR. NEUFELD:

And would it also be correct, ma'am, that there are no written records created by you indicating the number of swatches that you personally collected?

# 94 MR. GOLDBERG:

Asked and answered.

# 95 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 96 MS. MAZZOLA:

That is correct.

# 97 MR. NEUFELD:

Your field notes only say, quote, red stain, unquote?

KEY QUOTE

# 98 MS. MAZZOLA:

Correct.

# 99 MR. NEUFELD:

And the official property reports only mention a, quote, swatch, unquote, in the singular; isn't that correct?

# 100 MR. GOLDBERG:

Argumentative, asked and answered.

# 101 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 102 MS. MAZZOLA:

I did not fill out the property reports. I could look at them and give you an answer.

# 103 MR. NEUFELD:

Well, you were able to testify about the property reports I believe during the redirect examination of Mr. Goldberg, weren't you?

# 104 MR. GOLDBERG:

Argumentative.

# 105 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 106 MR. NEUFELD:

Could you please look at the property reports and tell me?

# 107 MS. MAZZOLA:

Sure. It is in the singular.

# 108 MR. NEUFELD:

It's in the singular. And in fact, isn't there a box or a column where the person filling out the property report is to indicate the quantity of an item?

# 109 MS. MAZZOLA:

That is correct.

# 110 MR. NEUFELD:

And isn't it true that the quantity, namely, the number of swatches for each of these bloodstains that you collected is not filled in with a number?

# 111 MS. MAZZOLA:

The boxes are not filled in. That's correct.

# 112 MR. NEUFELD:

So there is no listing of the quantity of the swatches that were collected for each of these stains?

# 113 MR. GOLDBERG:

This has been asked and answered.

# 114 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 115 MR. NEUFELD:

Now, even without photographs, would you agree that one way to distinguish one set of swatches from another is to clearly document the coin envelope that the swatches are collected in?

# 116 MR. GOLDBERG:

Vague as to "Clearly document."

# 117 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 118 MS. MAZZOLA:

It is necessary to have information on the envelope, yes.

# 119 MR. NEUFELD:

And would you agree that one element of properly documenting the coin envelope the swatches are collected in is to record the initials of the criminalist who's collecting those swatches?

# 120 MS. MAZZOLA:

Not necessarily.

# 121 MR. NEUFELD:

Well, would you agree that one reason for initialing the envelope is so it would be perfectly clear that this particular package contains the swatches that you collected as opposed to some other set of anonymous swatches?

# 122 MS. MAZZOLA:

The item numbers and DR numbers identify which case and which item number the swatches came from.

KEY QUOTE

# 123 MR. NEUFELD:

And do initials of the criminalist also help to identify it?

# 124 MR. GOLDBERG:

Argumentative, asked and answered.

# 125 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 126 MS. MAZZOLA:

They could.

# 127 MR. NEUFELD:

And wouldn't it be fair to say, ma'am, that on the day that you collected swatches in this case, you didn't even know the DR number, did you?

# 128 MS. MAZZOLA:

At that time, no.

# 129 MR. NEUFELD:

The DR number hadn't been bought on June 13th, had it?

# 130 MS. MAZZOLA:

I don't know when it had been bought.

# 131 MR. NEUFELD:

Well, if you heard--if you knew that there was testimony that it was not bought until the 16th of June--

# 132 THE COURT:

Sustained. All right. Counsel, let's take our break at this point. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take a 15-minute recess. Please remember all of my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any opinions about the case, conduct any deliberations on the matter or allow anybody to communicate with you. We'll take a 15-minute recess. And, counsel, why don't you organize your exhibits for the next phase. All right. Miss Mazzola, you may step down.

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (4)

Andrea Mazzola

That is correct.

Mazzola concedes — repeatedly — that there are no photographs of the swatches before booking, no written records of swatch counts, and that the property reports list only 'swatch' in the singular with quantity boxes blank. Each admission compounds the chain-of-custody attack.

Peter Neufeld

Your field notes only say, quote, red stain, unquote?

Encapsulates the defense argument: the only documentation for each stain collected was a generic two-word label, making it impossible to verify how many swatches were collected or from where.

Andrea Mazzola

The item numbers and DR numbers identify which case and which item number the swatches came from.

Mazzola's defense of the system — but Neufeld immediately undercuts it by establishing the DR number wasn't assigned until June 16th, three days after collection.

Andrea Mazzola

At that time, no.

Mazzola admits she didn't even know the DR number on the day she collected the swatches, undermining the tracking system she just cited as sufficient documentation.

Evidence (3)

Informal

Coin envelope (approximating the one used to store blood swatches in this case)

Physically passed to jury by court order to assess weight

Informal

Field notes created by Mazzola at crime scene

Discussed — established they contain only 'red stain' notation with no swatch counts

Informal

Official LAPD property reports

Examined by Mazzola on stand — confirmed 'swatch' listed in singular, quantity boxes left blank

Notable Exchanges (3)

Peter Neufeld•Andrea Mazzola

Neufeld walks Mazzola through a cascade of documentation absences: no photos, no swatch counts in notes, no swatch counts on property reports, no initials on envelopes. Mazzola confirms each gap with 'That is correct' or 'The boxes are not filled in.'

methodical / devastating

Peter Neufeld•Lance A. Ito

Neufeld repeatedly attempts questions the court has already deemed asked-and-answered; Ito pushes back ('We've asked these questions already, counsel, last week') but allows narrower versions through when Neufeld distinguishes them.

procedural friction

Peter Neufeld•Andrea Mazzola

Neufeld attempts to introduce a hypothetical about the DR number not being assigned until June 16th; Ito sustains before Mazzola can answer, but the implication — that the tracking system Mazzola cited was nonexistent at the time of collection — is left hanging.

strategic

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Andrea Mazzola

documentation failures / omission

Neufeld establishes a systematic pattern of missing records: no pre-booking photographs, field notes recording only 'red stain' with no swatch count, property reports with quantity boxes blank and 'swatch' listed in singular, coin envelopes not initialed by collecting criminalist, and no DR number known at time of collection — all attacking the integrity and traceability of the swatch evidence.

Witness Demeanor

(Brief pause.) — during jury handling of the envelope

Objections

20 objections (8 sustained, 10 overruled)

Proceeding 5853 • 132 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103