All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Next witness.
Defense calls Michele Kestler, please.
Michele Kestler, called as a witness by the Defendant, was sworn and testified as follows:
Raise your right hand, please. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Please have a seat in the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.
I'm employed by the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Police Department as Chief Forensic Chemist.
And are you also the director of the Scientific Investigation Division laboratory?
And could you please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury when your title changed?
All right. So as the director of the criminalistics laboratory of the Los Angeles Police Department, I mean, you were Dennis Fung's boss; is that correct?
Now, as the laboratory director of the criminalistics laboratory of the Los Angeles Police Department, did you have day-to-day management responsibilities for the various units within that criminalistics laboratory?
I had overall management responsibility for the laboratory, not day-to-day responsibilities. For day-to-day functions within the laboratories, no.
All right. And in that criminalistics laboratory, you would have management responsibilities for the crime scene investigation unit?
And how many criminalists were working for the criminalistics laboratory on June 12th of 1994 approximately?
Uh, I can't recall exactly, we had so many vacancies. Probably about--I believe at that time, we were down to about 40 staff members, but that's approximate.
And was another one of your responsibilities, Miss Kestler, the evaluation of current programs and procedures of those units?
Ultimately, yes. Not day to day again, not until they're approved all the way up through the chain.
Well, and if the procedures in a particular unit were inadequate, you would have ultimate responsibility to make improvements in those units, wouldn't you?
I would suggest and listen to my supervisors, and if I personally was an expert in the field, depending on what it was, and I thought a procedure needed to be changed, I would ask for it to be changed.
But if your deputies made recommendations to you, ultimately it would be your decision whether or not to implement those changes; is that correct?
Umm, most of the time. Most of the time, they made their own changes because I don't need to be involved in every small change that's made in the division.
Well, let's talk about some of the larger changes. If you introduce a new program into the criminalistics laboratory and as a result of that, new procedures needed to be implemented as well, would that ultimately be a decision you would make as the manager of or as the director of that laboratory?
Thank you. Not necessarily every small detail, not--again, no. They might review them with me and then I would agree or disagree that we should go forth with the program.
Well, for instance, how many years ago was it that the DNA unit was introduced into the SID criminalistics laboratory?
When they started operating doing casework or when we started beginning to attempt to implement doing DNA or researching it?
They began actually doing casework--I can't say when the implementation began. The actual casework began in late 1993.
And if as a result of implementing this new unit--I'm sorry. If as a result of opening this new unit at the LAPD it was determined that new procedures were needed, new training, for instance, was needed, would that ultimately be a decision that you as the director would make?
Again, I think we can cover this all in one answer. Again, it's not always my decision as to who gets the training. I take the advice of my subordinates who are directly responsible for that. Now, if it comes down to a let's draw straws and see who wins, often times, I make that tie-breaking decision.
Now, in addition to those responsibilities, Miss Kestler, did you also take responsibility for managing, for overseeing some of the larger cases?
Not overseeing or managing. Just being kept abreast of what was going on in those--in larger cases at times, especially when they get out of hand, in volume that is.
Miss Kestler, do you recall testifying at a hearing in this case on June 30th, 1994?
Miss Kestler, isn't it true that you also have responsibility for managing or overseeing large cases at the SID criminalistics laboratory?
Well, I'm not clear what you're trying to ask. You asked me this once a minute ago, and I said that I often review and not directly oversee on a day-to-day basis, again, unless there's some reason for me to maybe jump in and take part. It's much as the chief of police oversees anything in the department. He doesn't do it personally. So you need to be more specific what you mean.
No, it isn't my practice to stay involved. I like to be kept abreast of any large case and occasional run-down of what's going on in the case as I try not to get overly involved, stay out of people's way.
On June 30th, when you testified in a hearing, were you the assistant laboratory director or the acting--were you the acting laboratory director or were you the assistant laboratory director?
At that point in time--and by the way, were you also the acting--I'm sorry--were you also the assistant laboratory director on June 12th, 1994?
Okay. And at that point in time, wasn't one of your responsibilities to manage large cases?
No. I didn't manage them. I often took part in them or reviewed them, but I didn't directly manage the large cases for the most part.
Under oath on June 30th of 1994, were you asked this question, did you give this answer?
"Answer: My duties include the managing and overseeing of several areas there, including the serology, DNA lab, the trace unit and many of the other units that are there. "Question: And what does that mean? What exactly do you mean by that? "Answer: Well, managing also means evaluating and implementing programs such as serology and DNA, including evaluating crime scenes and managing task forces or large cases and the employees that are doing the work."
Yes. And that's exactly what I've been telling you here. I try not to get involved. I don't do every large case. You asked me if I--
I was trying--that's exactly--what you said there is exactly what I was trying to say. I try not to get involved in every large case. You asked me if one of my duties, I thought you asked, was to do--manage large cases. Occasionally, I will manage a task force or a large case and yes, I oversee the units. We talked about that.
Well, through part of the case, did you play a role in overseeing what happened at the SID criminalistics laboratory?
Along with Mr. Matheson, who was primarily in charge of overseeing the case, and then I worked with him a little bit more.
In fact, Miss Kestler, didn't you play a larger role in the Simpson case than in other cases because of certain staffing problems with regard to Mr. Matheson being the only deputy you had?
He was the only supervisor in charge of the serology, DNA and trace unit. So yes, I played a little larger role than I usually do.
KEY QUOTEAnd it wasn't just Mr. Matheson. It was just our lack of staffing in several areas.
Didn't you--isn't it true that the reason was not because of other staffing, but because there was no assistant laboratory director besides Mr. Matheson? Isn't that the reason?
No. Mr. Matheson wasn't the assistant lab director at that time. He was the supervisor of the serology, DNA unit and Mr. Johnson was the assistant laboratory director.
On August 1st, 1995, were you asked this question, did you give this answer at a hearing outside the presence of the jury in this courtroom under oath?
Were you asked this question, did you give this answer? "Question: In this particular case, did you play a role in overseeing the processing and handling of the case? "Answer: I was attempting to assist in that process because at this time, Mr. Matheson--there was no assistant laboratory director. So I played a little larger role than I normally would." Did you give that answer to that question just two weeks ago?
Well, I said that, but I was referring to myself as the only assistant laboratory director at the time. I don't know--I don't remember what that was referring to. Is it out of context?
Well, do you acknowledge that you gave that answer to that question just two weeks ago in this courtroom?
I possibly did, but I don't know what it was in reference to. I don't know what time frame it was referring to either. Do you have a time?
Miss Kestler, did you give that answer to that question on August 1st at a hearing in this courtroom?
In fact, during the first couple of weeks after September 12th--I'm sorry. In fact, during the first couple of weeks after June 12th, 1994, didn't you participate in several meetings concerning this case?
I wouldn't say several. Maybe two or three, maybe four meetings. Not a lot. I don't recall a lot of meetings.
Well, I didn't ask you if it was a lot. I asked you if you participated in several meetings, Miss Kestler.
All right. Miss Kestler, did you take any notes at the--I'm sorry. You believe you participated in how many meetings during the first two weeks?
All right. In the few meetings that you recall participating in, did you take any notes?
Well, Miss Kestler, didn't you say a moment ago that you did play some role in overseeing this case in your role as the laboratory--as the assistant laboratory director?
Yes, but there was not any need to take notes. Notes were being taken by the parties involved if they were necessary. I had no reason to.
Miss Kestler, as the assistant laboratory director, would you give certain suggestions or directives to other people?
And would you agree that one way to know what directives to give to these other people would be to write down what you say so you can look back at it at a later time and see whether or not the person followed your directive?
Excuse me. I didn't think that was important, so I wouldn't have written that down anyway probably.
Who was present at the first meeting that you participated in in connection with this case?
Again, I wouldn't have thought it was important. So I wouldn't have written it down.
Do you remember--do you remember the subject matter of the very first meeting you participated in in connection with this case?
Isn't it true that as early--that is, 8:30 in the morning on June 13th, you were telephoned, they called you at your home to tell you about this case?
Did you participate in a meeting on June 15th with assistant District Attorney Marcia Clark about deciding which evidence should be sent out for testing?
I don't recall the date because I didn't take notes on that. There are notes on that meeting, but I didn't take them. I don't recall the date. We did have a meeting soon after with Marcia Clark.
Who else was present at this meeting on June 15th with Marcia Clark from the District Attorney's office?
Was there a discussion at that meeting regarding a decision to send evidence out for DNA RFLP testing?
I don't recall if there was that day or not. I know at some point, we had a meeting as to what evidence we had and what was going to be tested and who was going to test it.
On the very next day, June 16th, did you participate in another meeting about this case?
Do you recall being at a meeting with Erin Reilly, Collin Yamauchi and Dennis Fung and Greg Matheson about this case on June 16th?
Do you recall participating in a meeting on or about that time to discuss the need for security in this case?
No, I do not recall the meeting, but we have a security policy on evidence in general, which was followed in this case, the same as it is in all cases.
I'm not asking you about the policy in general. I'm asking you, ma'am, if you recall participating in a specific meeting to address security issues concerning evidence in this case on or about June 16th, 1994?
As the director of the criminalistics laboratory at SID, wouldn't you agree that security of the evidence in this high profile case would be a concern of yours as the director?
I agree that it would be a concern, but it's a concern in every case we have and we treat all cases regarding evidence the same. Now, if the department classifies it as a confidential case, then the evidence in our property section, whether it be in our property section or somewhere else, is handled differently. But we don't declare it confidential. That's done by the police department, not us.
Miss Kestler, but is it your testimony there was no specific discussion about security in this case?
Well, what is your recollection as to whether or not there was any meeting to discuss security issues pertaining to this case in particular with other individuals in the SID criminalistics laboratory?
Do you recall participating in a meeting--by the way, do you have any notes of the meeting to discuss security in your laboratory?
No. Well, I don't personally, no, and I don't know if there are any. I did not review all the notebooks before I came here.
On June 21st of 1994, did you participate in a meeting with Dennis Fung, Greg Matheson and Collin Yamauchi regarding what additional analysis should be done on the evidence in this particular case?
You said a moment ago that one of the reasons you didn't take notes is, it was your impression of the time that you could remember what transpired if need be. Do you recall testifying to that a few minutes ago?
Yes. And I said at the time, I remembered. At this point in time, I don't remember because at this point in time, it's--it wasn't important. So, you know, once it wasn't important anymore, I don't remember it.
If you don't remember what it is that transpired, how can you determine that it's not important, Miss Kestler?
Okay. If you don't remember what transpired at any of these meetings that you were present at, how can you make--I'm sorry. How do you make an assessment as to whether or not what transpired at the meeting was important?
Miss Kestler, you said you did play some role, a greater role in this case than in other cases in overseeing; is that correct?
In assisting in overseeing. Mr. Matheson, again, was the main major--played the major role, kept the notes and documented everything.
Would you agree as part of that role of overseeing or assisting in the overseeing of this case, that maintaining the security of the evidence is certainly an important point?
And would you agree, Miss Kestler, that someone who is assisting in the overseeing of this case in that laboratory, that decisions as to whether or not the evidence should be sent out for DNA testing as opposed to be handled in-house for certain logical testing is another important question?
Yes. And I never said that we didn't discuss it at some point. I just don't know the date and the time and who was there and exactly when we made those decisions.
Miss Kestler, didn't you tell this jury not only do you not remember who was there when it happened, but you don't even remember what was said in substance at those meetings? Isn't that true?
Do you have any recollection at all of the substance of the meeting regarding the security measures that needed to be taken in this particular case?
Was it your practice, Miss Kestler, not to take notes in meetings that you participated in where you were involved in assisting to oversee a particular case?
It depends on what the substance of the meeting is and how much my role is in the meeting whether I take notes or not. If I don't give any directive and I just sit back and listen, I don't always take notes.
Miss Kestler, you--as you sit here today, do you know whether or not you gave any directive regarding the security that needed to be taken, security measures that needed to be taken regarding the evidence in this case?
Once the case was made confidential, I gave some directives, and those are standard directive policies within the department. So I wouldn't write that down as being specific because it's not to any one particular individual.
KEY QUOTEMiss Kestler, what you're saying is, you didn't write down the directive that you gave in this case regarding security; is that correct, ma'am?
No, other than I notified everyone that it was to be--it was being handled as a confidential case, and confidential cases have a standard way of handling the evidence.
Your Honor, I would move to strike. I asked her if any directives were given, not what the directives were.
Certainly. Did you write down the directive that you gave regarding security measures to be taken in this case?
Did you write down any of the decisions that were made regarding what types of analyses should be done in this case?
Those were written on an inventory we did--I did with a couple other individuals on I believe June 29th.
Did you write down--did you write down any of the directives that you gave at a June 21st meeting with Dennis Fung, Greg Matheson and Collin Yamauchi regarding what types of analyses should be performed?
You said a moment ago that you mentioned directives on a particular date. What was that date, ma'am?
And how do you remember now on August 14th, 1995 writing down directives on June 29th?
Uh, no, but I brought them with me I believe or I looked at them before because we talked about them at other meetings.
Are there other notes and documents that you looked at and that you brought with you today to assist you on the witness stand?
Part of my problem, counsel, is, I tried to bring like my attendance records and things that you interviewed me about. So those are things I tried to review, and you didn't interview me about any of these things. So I would not have thought to review them.
Miss Kestler, did you bring any notes with you to assist you in your testimony today?
No. No. What I was--Miss Kestler, please, I'm just asking you if you brought anything with you today. I'm not even asking you particular--
Excuse me. Both of you stop. I am going to quit today. I want counsel to stay on both sides. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the afternoon. Please remember all my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. Also, don't allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. I'll see counsel in chambers.
At that time, I felt I could remember anything that was going on, yes.
managing also means evaluating and implementing programs such as serology and DNA, including evaluating crime scenes and managing task forces or large cases and the employees that are doing the work.
He was the only supervisor in charge of the serology, DNA and trace unit. So yes, I played a little larger role than I usually do.
Once the case was made confidential, I gave some directives, and those are standard directive policies within the department. So I wouldn't write that down as being specific because it's not to any one particular individual.
I am going to quit today. I want counsel to stay on both sides.