Cross-examination of Dennis Fung (afternoon, part 4)

📄 Cross-examination of Dennis Fung (afternoon, part 4) — Wednesday, April 5, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\APR\5\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-DENNIS-FU.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 52 of 167

◀ Sidebar: secondary transfer Cross-examination of Dennis Fung (afternoon, part 5) ▶

Witness: Dennis Fung
Examiner: Barry Scheck
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Wednesday, April 5, 1995 • Utterances: 301

Barry Scheck cross-examines criminalist Dennis Fung about two major evidence-handling failures at the Bundy crime scene: the placement of a blanket from inside the Simpson residence directly into the middle of the crime scene (creating a potential source of secondary transfer contamination of hairs, fibers, and DNA), and the fact that Fung arrived after Nicole Brown Simpson's body had already been turned over, meaning blood drops visible on her back were never swabbed and collected. Scheck methodically uses hypotheticals to get Fung to concede that the blanket was a 'terrible mistake' and that leaving it uncollected was also 'a mistake,' while Fung consistently retreats to softer language like 'preferable' and 'possibly.'

# 1 (THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD IN OPEN COURT:)

# 2 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COUNSEL. PROCEED. AND I THINK I'VE ALREADY INSTRUCTED THE JURY AS TO HYPOTHETICAL QUESTIONS.

# 3 MR. SCHECK:

THANK YOU.

# 4 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: MR. FUNG, AGAIN, ASSUMING THAT MR. SIMPSON HAD BEEN IN THE BUNDY RESIDENCE AND SAT OR LAID ON THAT BLANKET, SHED HAIRS ON THAT BLANKET AND THAT BLANKET IS TAKEN AND PUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS CRIME SCENE, COULD THAT IN YOUR EXPERT OPINION BE A SOURCE OF SECONDARY TRANSFER OF HIS HAIRS TO THE CRIME SCENE?

# 5 A:

IT'S POSSIBLE.

# 6 Q:

POSSIBLE?

# 7 A:

YES.

# 8 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND THAT WOULD BE WHAT IS KNOWN AS CONTAMINATION OF THE CRIME SCENE?

# 9 A:

YES.

# 10 Q:

AND IF MR. SIMPSON OR HIS -- ANY OF HIS CHILDREN OR MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON HAD BEEN IN MR. SIMPSON'S FORD BRONCO, PICKED UP FIBERS FROM THAT BRONCO AND AT SOME POINT IN TIME SAT OR LAY ON THAT BLANKET, THERE COULD BE FIBERS FROM THE BRONCO ON THAT BLANKET?

# 11 MR. GOLDBERG:

OBJECTION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION, YOUR HONOR.

# 12 THE COURT:

REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

# 13 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: COULD THERE BE IN YOUR EXPERT OPINION ASSUMING -- WITHDRAWN. ASSUMING THAT MR. SIMPSON OR HIS CHILDREN OR MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON HAD BEEN IN MR. SIMPSON'S FORD BRONCO AND GOTTEN FIBERS FROM THAT BRONCO ON THEIR CLOTHING AT SOME POINT IN TIME AND THEN AT SOME OTHER POINT IN TIME SAT OR LAY ON THAT BLANKET, FIBERS COULD BE SHED FROM THE BRONCO TO THE BLANKET?

# 14 MR. GOLDBERG:

YOUR HONOR, THERE'S NO FOUNDATION. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

# 15 THE COURT:

OVERRULED. THIS IS ANOTHER HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION.

# 16 MR. SCHECK:

PREMISE OF A HYPOTHETICAL.

# 17 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: ARE YOU WITH ME SO FAR?

# 18 A:

IT'S KIND OF HARD TO FOLLOW, BUT YES.

# 19 Q:

AND IF A DOG -- HAVE YOU SEEN THIS DOG KATO?

# 20 A:

THE CANINE? NO.

# 21 Q:

KATO. KATO. KATO THE DOG.

# 22 A:

NO, I HAVEN'T.

# 23 Q:

IN THE COURSE OF YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THIS CASE, YOU'VE NEVER SEEN A DOG NAMED KATO?

# 24 A:

NO, I HAVEN'T.

# 25 Q:

NOT AT THE ROCKINGHAM LOCATION AT SOME POINT WHEN YOU DID SUBSEQUENT SEARCHES, DID YOU SEE THIS DOG KATO?

# 26 A:

I DON'T KNOW THE DOG BY NAME.

# 27 Q:

WELL, WERE YOU TOLD THAT THERE WAS A DOG THAT WAS OWNED BY MR. SIMPSON THAT WAS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IN SOME CONNECTION?

# 28 MR. GOLDBERG:

OBJECTION. CALLS FOR HEARSAY AND IRRELEVANT.

# 29 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 30 DENNIS FUNG:

I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A DOG INVOLVED IN THE CASE SOMEHOW, BUT I COULDN'T IDENTIFY THAT DOG FOR YOU.

# 31 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: AND AGAIN, AS A BASIS FOR THIS HYPOTHETICAL, CAN YOU ASSUME THAT IF A DOG WERE LYING ON THIS BLANKET IN QUESTION OR MOVING ON THIS BLANKET IN QUESTION, THAT DOG HAIRS CAN BE TRANSFERRED TO THE BLANKET?

# 32 MR. GOLDBERG:

YOUR HONOR, IT'S IRRELEVANT. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

# 33 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 34 DENNIS FUNG:

YES.

# 35 THE COURT:

YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.

# 36 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: ALL RIGHT. AND THE DOG ITSELF MAY HAVE HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM OTHER PEOPLE WITH WHOM IT HAS BEEN IN CONTACT?

# 37 A:

YES.

# 38 Q:

THAT HAPPENS, RIGHT, IN YOUR JUDGMENT?

# 39 A:

IT'S POSSIBLE.

# 40 Q:

AND ASSUMING THAT TO BE THE FACT, THAT A DOG COULD HAVE SHED FIBERS AND HAIRS ON THE BLANKET AND PEOPLE WHO HAD BEEN THE CHILDREN OF MR. SIMPSON AND MR. SIMPSON HIMSELF AND MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON HAD BEEN IN AND OUT OF THE BRONCO AND BEEN ON THAT BLANKET, HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM THE DOG AND FROM THE BRONCO COULD BE ON THAT BLANKET?

# 41 A:

IT'S QUITE A LOT FOR ME TO --

# 42 Q:

QUITE A LOT, HUH?

# 43 A:

FOR ME TO --

# 44 Q:

ASSESS.

# 45 A:

YEAH. THERE'S A LOT OF FACTORS IN THERE.

# 46 Q:

YEAH. I'M JUST ASKING YOU TO -- LET'S JUST ASSUME ALL THAT OCCURRED AND THOSE FIBERS ARE ON THAT BLANKET. ALL RIGHT? YOU WITH ME?

# 47 A:

YES.

# 48 Q:

IF THAT BLANKET WAS TRANSFERRED AND PUT RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CRIME SCENE, THERE IS A CHANCE OF SECONDARY TRANSFER OF THOSE HAIRS AND FIBERS ACROSS THIS CRIME SCENE?

KEY QUOTE

# 49 A:

YES, THERE IS A CHANCE.

# 50 Q:

AS A GENERAL PRINCIPAL AS A CRIMINALIST, YOU TRY AT ALL COSTS TO AVOID TAKING AN OBJECT THAT COULD HAVE LOTS OF HAIRS AND FIBERS ON IT AND PUTTING IT RIGHT INTO THE MIDDLE OF A CRIME SCENE, DON'T YOU?

# 51 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 52 Q:

THAT'S A TERRIBLE MISTAKE FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A CRIMINALIST, ISN'T IT?

KEY QUOTE

# 53 A:

YES.

# 54 Q:

AND IT'S A TERRIBLE MISTAKE PARTICULARLY WHEN BODIES ARE BEING REMOVED AND THEY'RE BEING DRAGGED INTO THE SAME AREA WHERE THAT BLANKET WAS?

# 55 A:

IT CAN BE, YES.

# 56 Q:

BECAUSE THAT CREATES A SITUATION WHERE YOU CAN HAVE CROSS CONTAMINATION OF THE FIBERS FROM THE BLANKET AND IT COULD COME INTO CONTACT WITH THE CLOTHING OF NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON?

# 57 MR. GOLDBERG:

YOUR HONOR, I THINK IT'S UNINTELLIGIBLE AT THIS POINT BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY ANGLES TO IT.

# 58 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 59 DENNIS FUNG:

COULD YOU REPEAT THE LAST PART OF THIS?

# 60 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: WE'VE AGREED THAT IT WAS A TERRIBLE MISTAKE TO PUT THIS BLANKET INTO THE MIDDLE OF A CRIME SCENE, HAVEN'T WE?

# 61 MR. GOLDBERG:

YOUR HONOR, THAT MISSTATES THE TESTIMONY AT THIS POINT.

# 62 MR. SCHECK:

I'M ASKING.

# 63 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 64 DENNIS FUNG:

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A HYPOTHETICAL HERE.

# 65 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, NOW LET'S TALK SPECIFICALLY.

# 66 A:

OKAY.

# 67 Q:

THIS BLANKET, IT WAS A TERRIBLE MISTAKE TO PUT THIS BLANKET FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE CRIME SCENE BECAUSE OF THE DANGERS OF CROSS CONTAMINATION OF HAIRS AND FIBERS?

# 68 MR. GOLDBERG:

ARGUMENTATIVE AND VAGUE AS TO THE WORD "TERRIBLE MISTAKE."

# 69 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 70 DENNIS FUNG:

DEPENDING ON THE -- HOW CLEAN THE BLANKET WAS, THAT WOULD -- THAT WOULD AFFECT MY ANSWER.

# 71 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, IF YOU HAD NO IDEA HOW CLEAN THE BLANKET WAS, WOULDN'T IT STILL BE A TERRIBLE MISTAKE TO BRING A BLANKET FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE RIGHT INTO THE MIDDLE OF A CRIME SCENE?

# 72 A:

I WOULD PREFER THAT IT WAS NOT DONE.

KEY QUOTE

# 73 Q:

PREFER -- I'M ASKING YOU, WAS IT NOT -- LET'S JUST START WITH THIS -- A MISTAKE.

# 74 MR. GOLDBERG:

YOUR HONOR, AT THIS POINT, IT IS ARGUMENTATIVE.

# 75 THE COURT:

WELL, COUNSEL, YOU'VE ALREADY ASKED THE QUESTION NOW SEVERAL TIMES. YOU'VE GOTTEN THREE OR FOUR DEFINITIVE ANSWERS.

# 76 MR. SCHECK:

WELL, YOUR HONOR, I THINK --

# 77 THE COURT:

I AGREE TERRIBLE MISTAKE, MISTAKE, PREFERENCE NOT TO HAVE BEEN DONE, I THINK YOU'VE ESTABLISHED THE POINT.

KEY QUOTE

# 78 MR. SCHECK:

I THINK HE'S BACK TO POSSIBLE NOW.

# 79 THE COURT:

NO. YOU'VE GOT YOUR RECORD. PROCEED.

# 80 MR. SCHECK:

ALL RIGHT. I'LL MOVE ON.

# 81 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: ASSUMING THAT THIS BLANKET -- WELL, YOU HAD NO WAY OF KNOWING WHETHER THAT BLANKET WAS CLEAN OR HAD FIBERS ON IT AND HAIRS, RIGHT?

# 82 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 83 Q:

AND LET'S JUST ASSUME THAT IT DID -- AND EVEN -- WITHDRAWN. AND EVEN A BLANKET THAT APPEARS TO BE CLEAN CAN HAVE LOTS OF HAIRS AND FIBERS ON IT BECAUSE THE NATURE OF TRACE EVIDENCE IS THAT YOU REALLY CAN'T SEE IT WITH THE NAKED EYE?

# 84 A:

SOME TRACE EVIDENCE YOU CAN SEE WITH THE NAKED EYE.

# 85 Q:

WELL, THIS KIND OF TRACE EVIDENCE, HAIRS AND FIBERS, ARE OFTEN NOT NOTICED?

# 86 A:

YOU HAVE TO LOOK CAREFULLY, YES.

# 87 Q:

SO YOU CAN LOOK AT A BLANKET AND THINK IT WAS CLEAN AND IT COULD BE JUST FULL OF HAIRS AND FIBERS?

# 88 A:

POSSIBLY. IT WILL HAVE FIBERS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT MOST BLANKETS ARE MADE FROM.

# 89 Q:

ALL RIGHT. HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM OTHER SOURCES THAN JUST WAS MADE UP OF THE BLANKET ITSELF?

# 90 A:

POSSIBLY, YES.

# 91 Q:

AND I MEAN ONE GOES ABOUT LOOKING FOR THE HAIRS AND FIBERS LATER WITH A STRONG STEREO MICROSCOPE TO PICK THEM UP, RIGHT?

# 92 A:

SOMETIMES, YES.

# 93 Q:

ALL RIGHT. NOW, BASED ON YOUR OBSERVATIONS AT THE CRIME SCENE THAT DAY, MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BODY WAS IN THE AREA OF THAT BLANKET?

# 94 A:

YES.

# 95 Q:

AND MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS EVENTUALLY PLACED IN THE AREA OF THAT BLANKET?

# 96 A:

YES.

# 97 Q:

AND ASSUMING THAT BLANKET HAD HAIRS AND FIBERS AND OTHER TRACE EVIDENCE ON IT, THAT COULD BE A SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION OF ANYTHING THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND ON MR. GOLDMAN'S CLOTHING?

# 98 A:

I BELIEVE THE CORONER'S PERSONNEL HAD PLACED A SHEET AND A PLASTIC SHEET OVER THE BLANKET BEFORE PLACING HIM ON IT.

# 99 Q:

WELL, GIVEN THE NATURE OF TRANSFER, JUST THE FACT THAT THE BLANKET IS THERE, EVEN IF THEY PUT A PLASTIC SHEET OVER IT, ISN'T THERE A GRAVE DANGER FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE CRIMINALIST OF THESE SECONDARY TRANSFERS OCCURRING WHEN MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY IS PUT THERE?

# 100 MR. GOLDBERG:

IT'S VAGUE AS TO THE TERM "GRAVE DANGER."

# 101 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 102 MR. SCHECK:

ALL RIGHT.

# 103 THE COURT:

YOU ALSO FORGOT THE SHEET.

# 104 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: LET'S START IT THIS WAY. IF THE PEOPLE -- THERE WERE TWO INDIVIDUALS FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE THAT WERE INVOLVED IN MOVING THE BODY?

# 105 A:

YES.

# 106 Q:

AND DETECTIVE LANGE WAS PRESENT AT THE TIME THAT THE BODY WAS MOVED?

# 107 A:

YES.

# 108 Q:

AND DETECTIVE LANGE COULD HAVE COME IN CONTACT WITH THE BLANKET?

# 109 MR. GOLDBERG:

WELL, YOUR HONOR, THIS CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

# 110 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 111 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: ASSUMING DETECTIVE LANGE CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE BLANKET, COULD HIS CLOTHING BE A SOURCE OF SECONDARY TRANSFER FROM THE BLANKET TO MR. GOLDMAN'S CLOTHING?

# 112 MR. GOLDBERG:

OBJECTION. IMPROPER HYPOTHETICAL. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

# 113 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 114 DENNIS FUNG:

IF HE WAS NOT CAREFUL, YES.

# 115 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: COULD MR. JACOBO FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE, THE MAN WE SEE -- HE WAS IN A BLUE SUIT RIGHT THAT DAY?

# 116 A:

I DON'T KNOW HIM PERSONALLY.

# 117 Q:

THE MAN IN THE BLUE SUIT FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE.

# 118 A:

THE JUMPER SUIT?

# 119 Q:

THE JUMPER SUIT.

# 120 A:

OKAY.

# 121 Q:

IF HIS CLOTHING OR BODY OR HANDS CAME INTO CONTACT WITH THAT BLANKET, HE COULD HAVE BEEN THE SORT OF SECONDARY TRANSFER OF HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM THE BLANKET TO MR. GOLDMAN'S CLOTHING?

# 122 A:

POSSIBLY.

# 123 Q:

MISS RATCLIFFE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE AS WELL, SHE WAS THE WOMAN INVESTIGATOR FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE, DO YOU RECALL HER?

# 124 A:

I RECALL THERE BEING TWO PERSONNEL THERE, YES.

# 125 Q:

DO YOU REMEMBER AN AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMAN? REMEMBER SEEING HER THERE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE?

# 126 A:

YES.

# 127 Q:

SHE WAS THE ONE THAT HAD THE GRAY SHOES?

# 128 A:

I DON'T REMEMBER HER SHOES.

# 129 Q:

YOU'VE SEEN HER ON THE VIDEO?

# 130 A:

YES.

# 131 Q:

ALL RIGHT. SAME WITH HER, RIGHT? SAME ANSWER? THAT IF SHE CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE BLANKET, SHE COULD HAVE BEEN THE SOURCE OF SECONDARY TRANSFER AS WELL?

# 132 A:

POSSIBLY.

# 133 Q:

ALL RIGHT. IF YOU CAME INTO CONTACT WITH THE BLANKET, YOU COULD HAVE BEEN A SOURCE OF SECONDARY TRANSFER?

# 134 A:

TO?

# 135 Q:

TO MR. GOLDMAN'S CLOTHING?

# 136 A:

I WAS NOT IN THAT AREA WHEN THE BODIES WERE BEING PROCESSED.

# 137 Q:

YOU WERE NOT IN THE AREA WHERE MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS?

# 138 A:

NOT ON THE BLANKET.

# 139 Q:

I'M SORRY?

# 140 A:

NOT ON THE BLANKET. NOT THAT I RECALL.

# 141 Q:

I MEAN, WERE YOU IN THAT AREA WHERE THE BLANKET WAS AND THEN WENT OVER TO THE AREA WHERE MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS?

# 142 MR. GOLDBERG:

WELL, IT'S VAGUE AS TO TIME.

# 143 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 144 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: AT ANY POINT BEFORE MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS MOVED, DID YOU WALK THROUGH THE AREA WHERE THE BLANKET WAS TO THE AREA WHERE MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS?

# 145 A:

I DON'T RECALL IF I DID OR NOT. I DON'T THINK I DID.

# 146 Q:

THIS BLANKET COULD HAVE BEEN A SOURCE OF GETTING -- ASSUMING THAT THE BLANKET HAD BEEN COVERED WITH HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM PEOPLE WITHIN THE HOME, THAT BLANKET COULD THEN HAVE BEEN A SOURCE OF SECONDARY TRANSFER TO THE HAIRS AND THE FIBERS IN THE WHOLE AREA OF THAT WALKWAY, THAT AREA WHERE MISS SIMPSON'S BODY WAS FOUND?

# 147 A:

POSSIBLY.

# 148 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND IF AN OBJECT SUCH AS THE GLOVE OR THE HAT AT BUNDY WERE DRAGGED OUT INTO THAT WALKWAY, THEY COULD HAVE BECOME CONTAMINATED BY HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM THE BLANKET?

# 149 MR. GOLDBERG:

IMPROPER HYPOTHETICAL. CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

# 150 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 151 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: ASSUMING THE BLANKET WAS COVERED WITH HAIRS AND FIBERS AND IT WAS PLACED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CRIME SCENE AND HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM THE BLANKET WERE SPREAD OUT FROM THE CRIME SCENE AND ASSUMING FURTHER THAT THE GLOVE OR THE HAT WAS DRAGGED INTO THAT AREA WHEN MR. GOLDMAN'S BODY WAS MOVED, THEY COULD HAVE BECOME CONTAMINATED WITH HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM THE BLANKET?

# 152 MR. GOLDBERG:

SAME OBJECTION.

# 153 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 154 DENNIS FUNG:

POSSIBLY.

# 155 (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

# 156 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, YOU SAW THIS BLANKET AT THE SCENE THROUGHOUT THE AFTERNOON WHEN YOU WERE PROCESSING THE BUNDY CRIME SCENE?

# 157 A:

YES.

# 158 Q:

AND WHEN YOU LEFT, THE BLANKET WAS LEFT THERE?

# 159 A:

YES.

# 160 Q:

AND IT WAS NOT PICKED UP?

# 161 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 162 Q:

IT HAD BLOOD ON IT?

# 163 A:

YES, IT DID.

# 164 Q:

FRANKLY, FOR ALL YOU KNOW, IT COULD HAVE HAD CELLULAR MATERIAL FROM PEOPLE IN THE SIMPSON HOUSEHOLD, TO WIT, LAYING ON THE BLANKET OR SAT ON THE BLANKET?

# 165 A:

POSSIBLY.

# 166 Q:

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN BY "CELLULAR MATERIAL"?

# 167 A:

YOU MEAN MATERIAL WHICH WOULD HAVE DNA EVIDENCE ON IT?

# 168 Q:

YES.

# 169 A:

YES.

# 170 Q:

SALIVA.

# 171 A:

COULD IT HAVE -- COULD IT HAVE HAD SALIVA EVIDENCE ON IT?

# 172 Q:

YEAH. NO. SALIVA IS A SOURCE OF DNA EVIDENCE.

# 173 MR. GOLDBERG:

NOW COUNSEL IS TESTIFYING.

# 174 THE COURT:

REPHRASE THE QUESTION.

# 175 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: IS SALIVA A SOURCE OF DNA EVIDENCE?

# 176 A:

I'M NOT A DNA EXPERT. I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT.

# 177 Q:

WELL, IN YOUR TRAINING AS A CRIMINALIST, HAVE YOU BEEN INSTRUCTED THAT SALIVA CAN BE A -- WHEN SPREAD OVER A SURFACE, CAN BE A SOURCE OF EVIDENCE FOR FUTURE DNA ANALYSIS?

# 178 A:

I KNOW IT CAN BE ANALYZED, BUT I'M NOT A DNA PERSON. I DON'T KNOW IF SALIVA CAN BE -- MAYBE SOME FACT, SOMETHING IN THE SALIVA THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH IT CAN BE, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT SALIVA ITSELF IS SUBJECT TO DNA ANALYSIS.

# 179 Q:

WELL, SALIVA -- HAVE YOU EVER HEARD THE TERM AMYLASE?

# 180 A:

I'VE HEARD THE TERM. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS THOUGH.

# 181 Q:

DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT SALIVA CONTAINS CELLS FROM INSIDE OF ONE'S MOUTH?

# 182 A:

IT CAN.

# 183 Q:

ALL RIGHT. AND DO YOU KNOW -- HAS ANYBODY EVER TOLD YOU WHETHER OR NOT THE CELLS FROM THE SALI -- THE CELLS FROM THE INSIDE OF ONE'S MOUTH CAN BE A SOURCE OF EVIDENCE FOR PURPOSES OF DNA ANALYSIS?

# 184 A:

THE CELLS INSIDE THE MOUTH CAN BE, YES.

# 185 Q:

AND YOU EVEN HEARD OF EXEMPLARS BEING TAKEN WHERE SOMEONE WOULD PUT A COTTON SWAB AND SWAB THE INSIDE OF SOMEONE'S MOUTH TO TAKE A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE FOR PURPOSES OF DNA TESTING?

# 186 A:

OF THE CELLS, YES.

# 187 Q:

YES. AND THE CELLS FROM INSIDE THE MOUTH, YOU WOULD EXPECT BASED ON YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE WOULD BE IN SALIVA AND A SOURCE OF DNA ANALYSIS?

# 188 A:

I DON'T KNOW HOW EASILY THE CELLS FROM THE MOUTH ARE TRANSMITTED INTO SALIVA. I'VE NEVER DONE A STUDY ON IT AND I'VE NEVER WORKED SEROLOGY.

# 189 Q:

FROM YOUR OWN COMMON SENSE, WOULD YOU EXPECT THAT SALIVA CONTAINS CELLS FROM --

# 190 THE COURT:

WELL, AT THIS POINT, GIVEN HIS ANSWER, YOU'RE SPECULATING.

# 191 MR. SCHECK:

OKAY.

# 192 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: THIS BLANKET -- WELL, WITHDRAWN. WOULD YOU AGREE LOOKING BACK THAT THIS BLANKET COULD HAVE BEEN A SOURCE OF TRACE EVIDENCE?

# 193 A:

YES.

# 194 Q:

AND WOULD YOU AGREE IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO KNOW IF THAT BLANKET CONTAINED HAIRS AND FIBERS FROM MR. SIMPSON, MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, THEIR CHILDREN OR THE DOG KATO?

# 195 MR. GOLDBERG:

OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR. IT'S ARGUMENTATIVE AS TO THE WORD "IMPORTANT."

# 196 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 197 DENNIS FUNG:

YES.

# 198 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO KNOW IF THAT BLANKET CONTAINED FIBERS THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH MR. SIMPSON'S BRONCO?

# 199 A:

POSSIBLY, YES.

# 200 Q:

IMPORTANT IF IT EVEN HAD HAIRS OR FIBERS THAT WERE CONSISTENT WITH MR. GOLDMAN IF HE HAD EVER BEEN IN THE HOUSE OR LAIN OR SAT ON THAT BLANKET?

# 201 A:

POSSIBLY.

# 202 Q:

BUT THAT BLANKET WAS LEFT AT THE CRIME SCENE AND NEVER PICKED UP FOR FUTURE ANALYSIS?

# 203 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 204 Q:

THAT WAS A MISTAKE, WASN'T IT?

# 205 A:

IT COULD BE CONSIDERED ONE.

KEY QUOTE

# 206 (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

# 207 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: INCIDENTALLY, YOU'VE OBSERVED THE VIDEOS?

# 208 A:

YES.

# 209 Q:

AND HAVE YOU SEEN IN ANY VIDEOS THAT THE BLANKET OVER THE -- OVER ON MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BACK OR BODY WHEN IT WAS STILL AT THE CRIME SCENE?

# 210 A:

I HAVE NEVER SEEN VIDEOS OF THAT, NO.

# 211 Q:

YOU'VE NEVER SEEN A VIDEO THAT SEEM TO HAVE -- WITH A BLANKET OVER HER BACK?

# 212 A:

I MAY HAVE. I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY IF I HAVE OR NOT.

# 213 Q:

OKAY. NOW --

# 214 (BRIEF PAUSE.)

# 215 MR. SCHECK:

YOUR HONOR, AT THIS POINT, I WOULD WANT TO SHOW MR. FUNG A VIDEO. DO YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT FIRST?

# 216 MR. GOLDBERG:

YES.

# 217 MR. SCHECK:

MAYBE MR. GOLDBERG CAN PREVIEW IT ON THE MONITOR. I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY A SEGMENT THAT WE'VE SEEN BEFORE.

# 218 MR. GOLDBERG:

ACTUALLY WHAT?

# 219 THE COURT:

MAYBE WE CAN VIEW IT ON COUNSEL'S MONITOR WITHOUT DISPLAYING IT TO THE JURY.

# 220 (AT 2:51 P.M., A VIDEOTAPE WAS PLAYED.)

# 221 (AT 2:54 P.M., THE PLAYING OF THE VIDEOTAPE CONCLUDED.)

# 222 THE COURT:

COUNSEL, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS SEGMENT?

# 223 MR. GOLDBERG:

YES, YOUR HONOR.

# 224 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. LET'S PROCEED.

# 225 MR. SCHECK:

YOUR HONOR, MAY I SHOW IT --

# 226 (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN DEFENSE COUNSEL.)

# 227 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: I WOULD ASK YOU TO LOOK AT THIS SEGMENT, MR. FUNG, THAT YOU'VE JUST VIEWED. YOU'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE, HAVEN'T YOU?

# 228 A:

I DON'T KNOW IF I'VE SEEN IT IN ITS ENTIRETY, BUT I'VE SEEN PORTIONS OF IT, YES.

# 229 (AT 2:55, A VIDEOTAPE WAS PLAYED.)

# 230 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: NOW, THAT IS DETECTIVE LANGE TALKING WITH MISS RATCLIFFE FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE?

# 231 A:

YES.

# 232 Q:

AND THAT'S DETECTIVE LANGE PUTTING THE BLANKET DOWN OVER MISS SIMPSON?

# 233 A:

YES.

# 234 Q:

NOW, LOOKING AT THIS SEGMENT, SEE IF YOU CAN TELL US IF YOU RECALL -- LET'S STOP IT RIGHT THERE, OKAY? NOW --

# 235 THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. THAT'S AT 1:18:17:17.

# 236 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: AT THIS POINT, DO YOU KNOW WHICH OF THE TWO VICTIMS WAS BEING REMOVED BY THE CORONER'S OFFICE AT THIS POINT IN TIME?

# 237 A:

I -- BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, THAT WAS MR. GOLDMAN.

# 238 Q:

AND HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN AT THE SCENE BEFORE THIS TOOK PLACE TO THE BEST OF YOUR RECOLLECTION?

# 239 A:

APPROXIMATELY FIVE, 10 MINUTES.

# 240 Q:

AND WHEN YOU GOT TO THE SCENE, MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BODY HAD NOT YET BEEN REMOVED FROM THE SCENE?

# 241 A:

SHE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING MOVED.

# 242 Q:

WELL, WHEN YOU SAY THAT, HAD SHE BEEN TURNED OVER ON HER BACK?

# 243 MR. GOLDBERG:

WELL, CALLS FOR SPECULATION.

# 244 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 245 DENNIS FUNG:

TURNED OVER ON HER BACK. I BELIEVE SO.

# 246 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, WHEN YOU GOT TO THE CRIME SCENE, DID YOU EVER HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE MISS NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BODY IN THE CONDITION -- IN THE POSITION WHERE YOU WERE INFORMED IT WAS ORIGINALLY FOUND?

# 247 A:

I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

# 248 Q:

SO BY THE TIME YOU HAD GOT THERE, SHE HAD BEEN ALREADY -- HER BODY HAD ALREADY BEEN TURNED OVER ON ITS BACK BY THE CORONERS?

# 249 A:

I BELIEVE SO, YES.

# 250 Q:

SO YOU NEVER GOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE HER BACK, EXPOSED BACK?

# 251 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 252 Q:

YOU NEVER GOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE ANY BLOOD DROPS ON HER BACK?

# 253 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 254 Q:

AND IF YOU HAD SEEN THOSE BLOOD DROPS ON HER BACK, YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SWATCH THEM AND REMOVE THEM FOR FUTURE BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS?

# 255 MR. GOLDBERG:

WELL, IT'S IRRELEVANT AS TO WHETHER HE WOULD BE ABLE TO.

# 256 THE COURT:

OVERRULED.

# 257 DENNIS FUNG:

THE COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE ON THE BODY IS THE JURISDICTION OF THE CORONER.

# 258 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: BUT WORKING TOGETHER, THE CORONERS, THE DETECTIVES AND THE CRIMINALISTS CAN DECIDE THAT IT WOULD BE USEFUL FOR THE CRIMINALISTS TO COLLECT EVIDENCE FROM A BODY FOUND AT A HOMICIDE SCENE?

# 259 A:

IT'S POSSIBLE. USUALLY THE CORONER WILL HAVE HIS OWN OR THE CORONER'S DEPARTMENT HAS THEIR OWN CRIMINALISTS THOUGH.

# 260 Q:

BUT THE CORONER'S DEPARTMENT CRIMINALIST WASN'T THERE?

# 261 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 262 Q:

AND THIS IS ALREADY 10:15 IN THE AFTERNOON? IN THE MORNING?

# 263 A:

YES.

# 264 Q:

AND THE CORONER'S OFFICE DIDN'T HAVE THEIR CRIMINALIST THERE?

# 265 A:

THAT'S CORRECT.

# 266 Q:

AND YOU WERE THE ONLY CRIMINALIST AT THE SCENE?

# 267 A:

NO. MISS MAZZOLA WAS THERE ALSO.

# 268 Q:

AND MISS MAZZOLA, RIGHT?

# 269 A:

AND CHIEF FORENSIC CHEMIST JOHNSON.

# 270 Q:

AND BETWEEN -- THAT CHIEF FORENSIC CHEMIST JOHNSON, HE'S A SUPERVISOR, RIGHT?

# 271 A:

YES, HE IS.

# 272 Q:

AND YOU'VE SEEN HIM IN VIDEOS? HE'S A HEAVYSET GUY IN A BLUE BLAZER?

# 273 A:

VERY TALL ALSO.

# 274 Q:

TALL? OKAY. NOW, GIVEN THE FACT THAT YOU'RE THE CRIMINALIST AT THE SCENE, IF THERE HAD BEEN NO CORONER'S CRIMINALISTS AT THE SCENE, WOULDN'T IT HAVE BEEN YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO REMOVE THE BLOOD DROPS FROM NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S BACK?

# 275 A:

NOT NECESSARILY, NO.

# 276 Q:

WELL, IF THE CRIMINALIST FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE ISN'T THERE AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT, WHO COULD DO IT?

# 277 A:

THE -- IT MIGHT WAIT UNTIL THE BODY WAS TRANSPORTED BACK TO THE CORONER'S OFFICE AND IT WOULD BE DONE THERE.

# 278 Q:

BUT, MR. FUNG, IF THE BODY IS TURNED OVER ON ITS BACK, ON HER BACK, THAT COULD SMEAR CROSS CON -- AND CONTAMINATE THOSE BLOOD DROPS?

# 279 A:

IT'S POSSIBLE.

# 280 Q:

AND WOULDN'T IT BE THE WISE PRACTICE, THE SOUND PRACTICE TO HAVE A CRIMINALIST, BE IT FROM THE CORONER'S OFFICE OR SID, REMOVE THOSE BLOOD DROPS BEFORE MISS SIMPSON WAS TURNED OVER ON HER BACK?

# 281 A:

IT WOULD BE PREFERABLE.

# 282 Q:

PREFERABLE?

# 283 A:

YES.

# 284 Q:

WELL, IF IT WASN'T GOING TO BE DONE BY A CRIMINALIST AT THE SCENE, BE IT FROM YOUR OFFICE OR THE CORONER'S OFFICE, AND SHE'S TURNED OVER ON HER BACK, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, RIGHT?

# 285 MR. GOLDBERG:

YOUR HONOR, ARGUMENTATIVE.

# 286 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 287 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: WELL, MR. FUNG, IT'S YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU WERE AT THE SCENE TOO LATE TO REMOVE THOSE BLOOD DROPS FROM HER BACK BEFORE SHE WAS TURNED OVER?

# 288 MR. GOLDBERG:

MISSTATES THE EVIDENCE.

# 289 THE COURT:

SUSTAINED.

# 290 Q:

BY MR. SCHECK: WHEN YOU GOT THERE, SHE WAS ALREADY TURNED OVER ON HER BACK?

# 291 A:

I BELIEVE SO.

# 292 Q:

WELL, WHEN SHE'S TURNED OVER ON HER BACK -- WELL, WITHDRAWN. THE BLANKET THAT WAS ON HER BACK BEFORE SHE WAS TURNED OVER, THAT MIGHT CONTAIN TRANSFERS OF THE BLOOD FROM HER BACK?

# 293 A:

POSSIBLY.

# 294 Q:

AND THAT COULD HAVE BEEN ANALYZED IF IT HAD BEEN SECURED, BROUGHT BACK TO THE LABORATORY?

# 295 A:

YES.

# 296 Q:

AND IF THAT ANALYSIS -- WITHDRAWN. OKAY. LET'S GET BACK TO THE PICTURE.

# 297 THE COURT:

ARE YOU SHIFTING RIGHT NOW?

# 298 MR. SCHECK:

I'M SORRY?

# 299 THE COURT:

ARE YOU SHIFTING OR YOU WANT TO FINISH?

# 300 MR. SCHECK:

I'M GOING -- I DID A SEQUE. I'M SORRY. I'M GOING RIGHT BACK TO THE VIDEO.

# 301 THE COURT:

I NEED TO CHANGE COURT REPORTERS. ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A 10-MINUTE RECESS. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS TO YOU; DON'T DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES -- LET'S HAVE IT QUIET IN THE COURTROOM, PLEASE. BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THE ADMONITION IS VERY IMPORTANT AND A NECESSARY PART OF THE COURT PROCEEDING EACH TIME. PLEASE REMEMBER MY ADMONITIONS; DO NOT DISCUSS THE CASE AMONGST YOURSELVES, FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, CONDUCT ANY DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU OR ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CASE. WE'LL TAKE A RECESS FOR 10 MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. MR. FUNG, YOU CAN STEP DOWN.

Temperature

devastating

Key Quotes (5)

Barry Scheck

THAT'S A TERRIBLE MISTAKE FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF A CRIMINALIST, ISN'T IT?

Scheck's core attack on the blanket placement — Fung concedes 'yes,' then walks it back to 'I would prefer that it was not done,' triggering a rare judicial intervention

Lance A. Ito

I AGREE TERRIBLE MISTAKE, MISTAKE, PREFERENCE NOT TO HAVE BEEN DONE, I THINK YOU'VE ESTABLISHED THE POINT.

The judge himself summarizes the damage done to Fung's credibility, cutting off Scheck's repeated attempts to nail down the exact word 'mistake'

Dennis Fung

I WOULD PREFER THAT IT WAS NOT DONE.

Fung's evasive non-answer when pressed on whether placing the blanket in the crime scene was a mistake — illustrates his pattern of retreating from direct admissions under cross

Dennis Fung

IT COULD BE CONSIDERED ONE.

Fung's hedged concession that leaving the blanket at the scene uncollected was a mistake — again refusing to give a clean 'yes' despite the obvious implication

Barry Scheck

IF THAT BLANKET WAS TRANSFERRED AND PUT RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CRIME SCENE, THERE IS A CHANCE OF SECONDARY TRANSFER OF THOSE HAIRS AND FIBERS ACROSS THIS CRIME SCENE?

The culminating hypothetical that Fung confirms — the foundation for the defense's contamination theory attacking fiber and hair evidence

Evidence (5)

Informal

Blanket taken from inside the Simpson/Brown residence and placed over Nicole Brown Simpson's body at the Bundy crime scene

challenged as source of secondary transfer contamination; established it was left uncollected — a mistake

Informal

Crime scene video footage showing Detective Lange placing the blanket over Nicole Brown Simpson and the subsequent removal of Ron Goldman's body

played in court at 2:51-2:54 PM and again at 2:55 PM; used to establish timeline and blanket placement

Informal

Knit cap (hat) found at Bundy crime scene

hypothetically challenged as potentially contaminated by secondary transfer from blanket when Goldman's body was moved

Informal

Glove found at Bundy crime scene

hypothetically challenged as potentially contaminated by secondary transfer from blanket when Goldman's body was moved

Informal

Blood drops on Nicole Brown Simpson's exposed back

established as never collected — Fung arrived after she had already been turned over; coroner's criminalist was not present

Notable Exchanges (3)

Barry Scheck•Dennis Fung•Lance A. Ito

Scheck presses Fung repeatedly to call the blanket placement a 'terrible mistake.' Fung says 'I would prefer that it was not done.' Ito intervenes, telling Scheck he's already made the point and listing all the synonyms Fung has conceded. Scheck protests that 'he's back to possible now.' Ito shuts it down: 'No. You've got your record. Proceed.'

revealing

Barry Scheck•Dennis Fung

Scheck builds an elaborate multi-part hypothetical involving OJ, Nicole, their children, dog Kato, the Bronco, and the blanket — all as potential sources of secondary transfer. Fung responds: 'It's quite a lot for me to — ' Scheck helps him finish: 'Assess.' Fung: 'Yeah. There's a lot of factors in there.'

strategic

Barry Scheck•Dennis Fung

Scheck establishes that Nicole's body had already been turned over when Fung arrived, that the blood drops on her back were never collected, and that the coroner's criminalist was absent from the scene. Fung concedes the coroner's department had no criminalist there at 10:15 AM.

devastating

Light Moments (3)

Barry Scheck / Dennis Fung

Scheck asks Fung whether he's seen 'this dog Kato.' Fung, confused, asks 'The canine?' Scheck clarifies: 'Kato. Kato. Kato the dog.' Fung: 'No, I haven't.' Scheck then asks if Fung ever saw a dog named Kato at Rockingham. Fung: 'I don't know the dog by name.'

Dennis Fung

Scheck asks Fung whether he remembers the African American woman investigator from the coroner's office: 'She was the one that had the gray shoes?' Fung: 'I don't remember her shoes.'

Dennis Fung

After a long hypothetical about the blanket, saliva, cells, amylase, and DNA, Scheck asks if Fung has heard of the term 'amylase.' Fung: 'I've heard the term. I don't know what it is though.'

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Dennis Fung / LAPD SID

admission of protocol failure

Scheck gets Fung to concede that placing the Simpson household blanket into the middle of the Bundy crime scene was a 'terrible mistake' and that leaving it uncollected was also 'a mistake,' establishing a foundation for the defense contamination theory

⚔ LAPD / Coroner's office

failure to collect evidence

Fung admits he arrived after Nicole's body had been turned over, that the blood drops on her back were never swabbed, that the coroner's own criminalist was absent from the scene, and that there was no coordination to collect the evidence before the body was moved

Witness Demeanor

Repeatedly retreats to hedged language ('possibly,' 'it could be considered one,' 'I would prefer that it was not done') when pressed for direct admissions

Visibly struggles with compound hypotheticals: 'It's quite a lot for me to —'

Clarifies his own testimony when pushed: 'Not on the blanket. Not that I recall.'

Objections

24 objections (7 sustained, 14 overruled)

Proceeding 5621 • 301 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103