Cross-examination of Cheri Lewis

📄 Cross-examination of Cheri Lewis — Tuesday, June 27, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\JUN\27\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-CHERI-LEW.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 104 of 167

◀ Cross-examination of Denise Lewis Witness dismissal ▶

Witness: Cheri Lewis
Examiner: Robert Blasier
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Tuesday, June 27, 1995 • Utterances: 122

Defense attorney Robert Blasier methodically cross-examined LAPD criminalist Cheri Lewis about her handling of victim Ron Goldman's clothing and other Coroner's office evidence. Lewis acknowledged multiple documentation failures: no separation of trace evidence into bindles, no identification of which sock came from which foot, no case identification on evidence bags, and no knowledge of who wrote the original labels on the bags. Blasier also highlighted a discrepancy between Lewis's testimony that the socks showed no debris when she examined them and a photograph taken a month later showing debris present.

# 1 (Brief pause.)

# 2 MR. BLASIER:

When you have items--debris or hair or trace evidence come off of an item onto the paper, do you make any effort to preserve that particular trace evidence in a separate bindle so that you can reconstruct at some later time when trace evidence came off of an item?

# 3 MS. LEWIS:

What do you mean by "When" exactly?

# 4 MR. BLASIER:

Well, you indicated at least with one of the items that some trace evidence came off and you saw it on the paper, you took the paper and you poured it back in the bag?

# 5 MS. LEWIS:

Yes.

# 6 MR. BLASIER:

Now, would you agree that there is no way, if someone looked at this later and other trace evidence came off the item, you would have no way of telling the sequence in which things might have come off an item because they weren't preserved in separate bindles?

# 7 MS. LEWIS:

Exactly.

# 8 MR. BLASIER:

You had never done that where--when something comes off of it, you put it in a separate bindle so you know when it came off, who was there, what the circumstances were?

# 9 MS. LEWIS:

Not with Coroner's evidence, no.

# 10 MR. BLASIER:

With regular--with other evidence you do that?

# 11 MS. LEWIS:

Some evidence that is gathered in the field, if something falls off, then it is going to get packaged in a coin envelope at that time and it is indicated in my notes where the item was removed from.

# 12 MR. BLASIER:

Okay. But you don't do that with Coroner's evidence?

# 13 MS. LEWIS:

No.

# 14 MR. BLASIER:

And is that because of--you have no way of vouching for how the evidence is actually collected and preserved by the Coroner's office or it doesn't matter?

# 15 MS. LEWIS:

I have no way of knowing how it came from the Coroner's office, correct.

KEY QUOTE

# 16 MR. BLASIER:

So it is not going to make any difference to you to preserve it separately because you can't tell how it was preserved originally?

# 17 MS. LEWIS:

Exactly.

# 18 MR. BLASIER:

The hair that you found in the shoe bag, that was in a separate bindle, was it not?

# 19 MS. LEWIS:

Yes.

# 20 MR. BLASIER:

Is there any indication on that bindle as to which shoe it came from?

# 21 MS. LEWIS:

It didn't state it came from a shoe.

# 22 MR. BLASIER:

Where did it state it came from?

# 23 MS. LEWIS:

It didn't state. It was just in a brown paper bag that was in the--in the other bag.

# 24 MR. BLASIER:

Was there any identifying information at all as to where it came from?

# 25 MS. LEWIS:

No.

# 26 MR. BLASIER:

Did you find that unusual?

# 27 MS. LEWIS:

Yes.

# 28 MR. BLASIER:

Were there any markings on it at all?

# 29 MS. LEWIS:

The bag had "Hair" written on it, but I don't recall if I put "Hair" on it or if it came from the Coroner's office that way.

# 30 MR. BLASIER:

You would never preserve something that way and just write "Hair" on it and nothing else?

# 31 MS. CLARK:

Objection, irrelevant.

# 32 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 33 MR. BLASIER:

Now, the one bag had both the pants and the socks in it, correct?

# 34 MS. LEWIS:

Correct.

# 35 MR. BLASIER:

Was there any indication on the socks as to which one was on the left foot and which one was on the right foot?

# 36 MS. LEWIS:

No.

# 37 MR. BLASIER:

Is that something that you would ordinarily record as standard procedure so that you could correlate the socks perhaps to the shoes?

# 38 MS. LEWIS:

I haven't.

# 39 MR. BLASIER:

Did you consider putting the socks, one in each separate bag?

# 40 MS. LEWIS:

No.

# 41 MR. BLASIER:

That is because they were already mixed up with the pants, right?

# 42 MS. LEWIS:

Yes.

# 43 MR. BLASIER:

Now, the pants also in the bag that you got, the bag just said "Pants and socks," didn't it?

# 44 MS. LEWIS:

From the Coroner's office I would have to verify.

# 45 MR. BLASIER:

Okay. Let me show you People's 423. Does that appear to be the bag, the pants and the socks?

# 46 MS. LEWIS:

Yes.

# 47 MR. BLASIER:

And could we zoom in on the writing, please.

# 48 MR. BLASIER:

Now, the pant and the socks, you have no idea who wrote that, do you?

# 49 MS. LEWIS:

No, I don't.

# 50 MR. BLASIER:

No initials at all about who wrote that?

# 51 MS. LEWIS:

No.

# 52 MR. BLASIER:

Then you have a "Plus" and a "Debris" that appears to be a different kind of ink. Do you have any idea who wrote "Plus debris"?

# 53 MS. LEWIS:

That is my scribble.

# 54 MR. BLASIER:

Okay. When did you put that on there?

# 55 MS. LEWIS:

When I was doing the evidence.

# 56 MR. BLASIER:

So that wasn't on there when the Coroner's office sent it to you?

# 57 MS. LEWIS:

No, it was not.

# 58 MR. BLASIER:

And there is something underneath where you say "Debris" that is scribbled out. Do you have any idea what that is?

# 59 MS. LEWIS:

I have a guess of what it was.

# 60 MR. BLASIER:

What is your best estimate?

# 61 MS. LEWIS:

I believe I was trying to put down about the bindle again.

# 62 MR. BLASIER:

Okay. So that certainly wasn't on there when you got it from the Coroner's office?

# 63 MS. LEWIS:

No, it was not.

# 64 MR. BLASIER:

Now, could we come in a little bit on the lower right.

# 65 MR. BLASIER:

S.A.B. Is Susan Brockbank, correct?

# 66 MS. LEWIS:

Yes, she does.

# 67 MR. BLASIER:

She works at SID?

# 68 MS. LEWIS:

Yes, she does.

# 69 MR. BLASIER:

Not at the Coroner's office?

# 70 MS. LEWIS:

Correct.

# 71 MR. BLASIER:

So would you presume that was put on sometime after you processed it?

# 72 MS. LEWIS:

Yes, it was.

# 73 MR. BLASIER:

"C.Y." Is Collin Yamauchi?

# 74 MS. LEWIS:

Yes.

# 75 MR. BLASIER:

That would have been put on after you processed it?

# 76 MS. LEWIS:

Yes.

# 77 MR. BLASIER:

So is it accurate to say that the only thing on that bag when it came from the Coroner's office was "Pants, socks."

KEY QUOTE

# 78 MS. LEWIS:

Yes.

# 79 MR. BLASIER:

And showing you People's 425, the pants, when they came out of the bag, again were all rolled up, weren't they?

# 80 MS. LEWIS:

I don't know if they were rolled or folded.

# 81 MR. BLASIER:

There was no paper used to try and keep one area of the pants from touching other areas of the pants and contaminating them?

# 82 MS. LEWIS:

Exactly.

# 83 MR. BLASIER:

And you didn't make any effort to do that because what is the use, right?

# 84 MS. LEWIS:

It is already been contaminated or handled, I should say, not contaminated.

KEY QUOTE

# 85 MR. BLASIER:

It is already been mixed up so what might now be on the bottom of the pant might now be on the top and vice versa?

# 86 MS. LEWIS:

Yes.

# 87 MR. BLASIER:

Let me show you People's 427. Now, you indicated when you looked at the socks there was no debris on the paper after you--after you set them out, correct?

# 88 MS. LEWIS:

Correct.

# 89 MR. BLASIER:

Now, you would agree that in this picture there is debris there?

# 90 MS. LEWIS:

Yes.

# 91 MR. BLASIER:

Now, this picture was taken at some other time, I assume?

# 92 MS. LEWIS:

Yes.

# 93 MR. BLASIER:

When was this picture taken?

# 94 MS. LEWIS:

No knowledge. I could determine it if I looked at the tag, but that is only from what is stated there. I was not present at the time. It appears to be 7/27/94.

# 95 MR. BLASIER:

So that is sometime after--clearly after you looked at them, a month after you looked at them?

# 96 MS. LEWIS:

Yes.

# 97 MR. BLASIER:

It is not unusual, is it, for evidence like clothing to have trace evidence fall off of it one time and not another time?

# 98 MS. LEWIS:

No, it is not unusual.

# 99 MR. BLASIER:

Do you have any idea whether the debris from the sock in that picture was ever preserved in a separate bindle?

# 100 MS. LEWIS:

No knowledge.

# 101 MR. BLASIER:

Now, the dress and the panties were also kept in the same bag, correct?

# 102 MS. LEWIS:

They were received from the Coroner's office in the same bag, yes.

# 103 MR. BLASIER:

All kind of mixed up together?

# 104 MS. LEWIS:

Yes.

# 105 MR. BLASIER:

And you put them in separate bags, correct?

# 106 MS. LEWIS:

Yes.

# 107 MR. BLASIER:

Was there any indication on the bag with the--with both the dress and the panties as to what case it was connected with?

# 108 MS. LEWIS:

No.

# 109 MR. BLASIER:

You indicated this morning that there was a slight delay in Mr. Goldman's items being booked?

# 110 MS. LEWIS:

Yes.

# 111 MR. BLASIER:

What did you mean by that?

# 112 MS. LEWIS:

The items were received from, according to my record, from Miss Degrandis on June 27th, 1994, and they were physically booked into--the report was made and the items were physically booked into the evidence processing unit, or I'm sorry, evidence control unit, on June 28th.

# 113 MR. BLASIER:

That is the delay you were referring to?

# 114 MS. LEWIS:

Yes.

# 115 MR. BLASIER:

And being booked into the evidence processing unit, that is where they bar code it and it is put into the security system there at the property unit at the lab?

# 116 MS. LEWIS:

Yes.

# 117 MR. BLASIER:

Now, the tag on the box that you were asked to identify that you said was not your writing, do you know whose writing it was?

# 118 MS. LEWIS:

No.

# 119 MR. BLASIER:

May I have a minute, your Honor?

# 120 THE COURT:

Certainly.

# 121 (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

# 122 MR. BLASIER:

That's all I have, your Honor.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

Cheri Lewis

I have no way of knowing how it came from the Coroner's office, correct.

Undermines the chain of custody — Lewis cannot vouch for how evidence was handled before it reached her.

Cheri Lewis

It is already been contaminated or handled, I should say, not contaminated.

Self-correcting slip reveals a telling instinct — she initially said 'contaminated' before walking it back, reinforcing Blasier's implication.

Cheri Lewis

The bag had 'Hair' written on it, but I don't recall if I put 'Hair' on it or if it came from the Coroner's office that way.

Highlights that a key piece of trace evidence (hair from a shoe bag) had no identifying information and uncertain provenance.

Robert Blasier

So is it accurate to say that the only thing on that bag when it came from the Coroner's office was 'Pants, socks.'

Establishes that all additional notations — by Lewis, Brockbank, and Yamauchi — were added later, complicating the documentary record.

Evidence (3)

People's 423

The Coroner's bag containing Ron Goldman's pants and socks

Examined and zoomed in on writing to identify who made notations and when

People's 425

Ron Goldman's pants

Discussed condition when removed from bag — rolled or folded, no paper separation between areas

People's 427

Photograph of Ron Goldman's socks showing debris, taken approximately July 27, 1994

Used to impeach Lewis — she said she saw no debris, but photo taken a month later shows debris present

Notable Exchanges (3)

Robert Blasier•Cheri Lewis

Blasier walks Lewis through the notation history on People's 423, establishing that only 'Pants, socks' was on the bag when received from the Coroner — all other writing (Lewis's 'Plus debris,' Susan Brockbank's initials, Collin Yamauchi's initials) was added later by LAPD personnel.

strategic

Robert Blasier•Cheri Lewis

Blasier confronts Lewis with People's 427, a photo showing debris on the socks taken a month after she examined them, contrasting with her testimony that she saw no debris. Lewis concedes the debris is visible and that she has no knowledge whether it was ever separately preserved.

revealing

Robert Blasier•Cheri Lewis

Blasier establishes that the hair found in the shoe bag had no identifying information — no case number, no indication of which shoe it came from, only the word 'Hair' in unknown handwriting.

strategic

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ Cheri Lewis

prior inconsistent statement / photographic contradiction

Lewis testified she saw no debris when she examined the socks; Blasier introduced a photo (People's 427) taken a month later showing debris, implying either her observation was wrong or evidence was disturbed in the interim.

⚔ LAPD SID evidence-handling procedures

admission of inadequate documentation

Lewis conceded that Coroner's evidence is not handled with the same bindle-separation discipline as field evidence, that socks were not identified by foot, that bags had no case identification, and that the hair bindle had no provenance information — a systemic critique of the lab's intake procedures.

Objections

1 objections (1 sustained, 0 overruled)

Proceeding 7930 • 122 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103