Redirect examination of Kelly Mulldorfer

📄 Redirect examination of Kelly Mulldorfer — Thursday, July 20, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\JUL\20\REDIRECT-EXAMINATION-OF-KELLY-.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 119 of 167

◀ Cross-examination of Kelly Mulldorfer Recross-examination of Kelly Mulldorfer ▶

Witness: Det. Kelly Mulldorfer
Examiner: Barry Scheck
Called by: Defense • Date: Thursday, July 20, 1995 • Utterances: 82

Barry Scheck conducts redirect examination of Detective Mulldorfer, a police commission investigator who had previously interviewed Dennis Fung about his visits to the Bronco held at Viertel's impound. Scheck uses the redirect to establish that Mulldorfer's investigation was partly focused on security procedures at Viertel's for evidentiary vehicles, and that the only person Mulldorfer could confirm had access to the Bronco was Fung — implying inadequate chain-of-custody records for a vehicle central to the DNA evidence.

# 1 THE COURT:

Mr. Scheck.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK

# 2 MR. SCHECK:

Detective Mulldorfer, when you spoke to Mr. Fung, you told him you were a detective from the LA police commission?

# 3 DET. MULLDORFER:

Yes.

# 4 MR. SCHECK:

Was there any doubt in your mind that he didn't think you were a member of the press?

# 5 MR. DARDEN:

Objection. That's speculation.

# 6 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 7 MR. SCHECK:

Did he answer your questions fully?

# 8 DET. MULLDORFER:

I was satisfied with his answers.

# 9 MR. SCHECK:

Did you inquire about a visit he had to the Bronco on an occasion other than July 6th?

# 10 DET. MULLDORFER:

I believe I asked him how many time--how many times he'd been to Viertel's and on what dates.

# 11 MR. SCHECK:

And did you get the details of what he did on those occasions?

# 12 MR. DARDEN:

Objection. Leading.

# 13 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 14 DET. MULLDORFER:

I asked him if--while he was at the vehicle or in the vehicle or whatever he was doing there, if he removed or noticed the paperwork that I was interested in.

# 15 MR. SCHECK:

Did you ascertain that on June 28th, he removed a shovel and a towel and a plastic bag?

# 16 MR. DARDEN:

Objection. This calls for hearsay.

# 17 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 18 MR. SCHECK:

What did you ascertain about June 28th? You opened up--

# 19 MR. DARDEN:

Objection.

# 20 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 21 MR. SCHECK:

Did you attempt to find out the particulars of what he did on his visits to the vehicle?

# 22 DET. MULLDORFER:

No.

# 23 MR. SCHECK:

No?

# 24 DET. MULLDORFER:

No. I--I only asked him if--while he was at the vehicle or in the vehicle, if he noticed or removed any of the paperwork that I was interested in. That--that was the--the crux of what I asked him.

KEY QUOTE

# 25 MR. SCHECK:

Well, in your investigation, did you not note down the details of precisely what he did on his searches or his visits to the vehicle?

# 26 DET. MULLDORFER:

Regarding the visit on the 28th where he removed the property, that--that information was gleaned from the property report that I got from Detective Vannatter.

KEY QUOTE

# 27 MR. SCHECK:

You mean you didn't ask him about what he removed on the 28th?

# 28 DET. MULLDORFER:

No.

# 29 MR. SCHECK:

You don't know?

# 30 DET. MULLDORFER:

No. I asked him--

# 31 THE COURT:

The answer was no. Excuse me. Hold on. Proceed.

# 32 MR. SCHECK:

Yes?

# 33 THE COURT:

No. There's no question pending, counsel.

# 34 MR. SCHECK:

I'm sorry?

# 35 THE COURT:

There's no question--

# 36 MR. SCHECK:

Did you ask him what he removed on the 28th?

# 37 MR. DARDEN:

Objection. Hearsay.

# 38 THE COURT:

Overruled. You can answer that yes or no. Did you ask him?

# 39 DET. MULLDORFER:

Not in that form, but yes, I did ask him.

# 40 MR. SCHECK:

All right. Now, Mr. Darden asked you questions about the purpose of your investigation. Now, wasn't one of the purposes of your investigation to determine whether or not Viertel's had adequate security for the holding of vehicles for purposes of evidentiary investigations?

# 41 DET. MULLDORFER:

Initially, that was one of the rules we were looking at.

# 42 MR. SCHECK:

And there's--that's covered by rule 14 and rule 12?

# 43 DET. MULLDORFER:

Board rule 12, yes, having to do with evidentiary vehicles.

# 44 MR. SCHECK:

And you came to a conclusion--

# 45 MR. DARDEN:

Objection to the form of the question.

# 46 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 47 MR. SCHECK:

All right. Did you make--did you recommend that Viertel's be closed down because--

# 48 MR. DARDEN:

Objection, your Honor.

# 49 THE COURT:

Sustained. Sustained. Sustained.

# 50 MR. SCHECK:

Were--from your investigation of the measures taken to hold the vehicle at Viertel's for purposes of evidentiary investigation, were their procedures adequate?

# 51 MR. DARDEN:

Objection. Calls for conclusion, your Honor.

# 52 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 53 MR. DARDEN:

May we approach?

# 54 THE COURT:

No.

# 55 MR. SCHECK:

Mr. Darden asked you questions about protection that this vehicle had from rain and sleet and other environmental elements. You remember that?

# 56 DET. MULLDORFER:

Yes.

# 57 MR. SCHECK:

What about people? Are there not regulations in place to limit the number of people that can enter a vehicle that is being held for possible trace evidence investigation?

# 58 DET. MULLDORFER:

Yes.

# 59 MR. SCHECK:

And would you not agree that one of the key protections when you're holding a vehicle for future criminalistic investigation is to keep a record of who goes in the vehicle?

# 60 DET. MULLDORFER:

It would be helpful.

# 61 MR. SCHECK:

It would be helpful, would it not, when trying to do subsequent tests on biological evidence recovered from such a vehicle?

# 62 MR. DARDEN:

I'm going to object. Exceeds the scope.

# 63 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 64 DET. MULLDORFER:

I'm sorry. Could you repeat--

# 65 MR. SCHECK:

Would it not be helpful to know who had access to the vehicle if one is going to be conducting future criminalistic tests such as PCR, DNA tests?

# 66 MR. DARDEN:

Your Honor, this is outside the scope.

# 67 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 68 DET. MULLDORFER:

Well, I don't know what those tests involve, but it would have been helpful to me to know who had been in the vehicle.

KEY QUOTE

# 69 MR. SCHECK:

Okay. And if one is conducting trace evidence investigations of a vehicle--

# 70 MR. DARDEN:

Your Honor, objection.

# 71 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 72 MR. SCHECK:

--would it not be helpful to know what people might have been in it?

# 73 DET. MULLDORFER:

Well, I guess. Again, I don't know what those tests are. I don't know what they involve.

# 74 MR. SCHECK:

Would it be just fair to say that from your point of view in terms of conducting an investigation of the security system at Viertel's, without knowing the details of these future tests, it's important to have records of who goes in and out?

# 75 DET. MULLDORFER:

Yes.

# 76 MR. SCHECK:

And you did the best you could with what you had to determine who went in and out?

# 77 DET. MULLDORFER:

Yes.

# 78 MR. SCHECK:

But the only person that you were able to find out about was Mr. Fung?

KEY QUOTE

# 79 DET. MULLDORFER:

Yes.

# 80 MR. SCHECK:

But you did have conversations with others attempting to find out whether other people had access to that vehicle?

# 81 DET. MULLDORFER:

Yes.

# 82 MR. SCHECK:

Thank you.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Det. Kelly Mulldorfer

I only asked him if--while he was at the vehicle or in the vehicle, if he noticed or removed any of the paperwork that I was interested in. That--that was the--the crux of what I asked him.

Reveals the narrow scope of Mulldorfer's inquiry — he was focused on paperwork, not on documenting all of Fung's activities with the vehicle, undercutting the completeness of the investigation.

Det. Kelly Mulldorfer

Regarding the visit on the 28th where he removed the property, that--that information was gleaned from the property report that I got from Detective Vannatter.

Mulldorfer admits he didn't independently ask Fung about the June 28th visit — he relied on Vannatter's property report, raising chain-of-custody questions.

Det. Kelly Mulldorfer

Well, I don't know what those tests involve, but it would have been helpful to me to know who had been in the vehicle.

Scheck extracts an admission that tracking access to the Bronco was important, even without the detective understanding the DNA implications — strengthening the defense's contamination narrative.

Det. Kelly Mulldorfer

But the only person that you were able to find out about was Mr. Fung?

Scheck's question — confirmed by the witness — underscores that Viertel's security records were so inadequate that only one person's access could be verified.

Evidence (3)

Informal

Property report from Detective Vannatter documenting items removed from the Bronco on June 28th (shovel, towel, plastic bag)

discussed — Mulldorfer relied on it rather than independently questioning Fung

Informal

LAPD Police Commission Board Rule 12 governing evidentiary vehicle storage

referenced to establish regulatory standards Viertel's was subject to

Informal

OJ Simpson's Bronco held at Viertel's impound facility

central subject — access records and security procedures discussed

Notable Exchanges (2)

Barry Scheck•Lance A. Ito

Scheck attempts multiple angles to get Mulldorfer's conclusions about Viertel's security adequacy on the record; Ito sustains objections three times in a row ('Sustained. Sustained. Sustained.') and denies a sidebar request ('No.').

frustrated/blocked

Barry Scheck•Det. Kelly Mulldorfer

Scheck walks Mulldorfer through the logic that knowing who accessed an evidentiary vehicle matters for DNA/trace evidence testing; Mulldorfer concedes the point while repeatedly noting he doesn't understand what DNA tests involve.

strategic

Credibility Attacks (1)

⚔ Det. Kelly Mulldorfer

scope limitation / incomplete investigation

Scheck establishes that Mulldorfer never independently asked Fung about what he removed from the Bronco on June 28th, relying instead on Vannatter's property report, and that his investigation could only confirm Fung's access — not whether others had also been in the vehicle.

Objections

15 objections (9 sustained, 5 overruled)

Proceeding 6948 • 82 utterances • Defense witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103