ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE THE SO-CALLED DNA EXPERTS HERE. LET'S PROCEED. MR. HODGMAN, MR. SCHECK.
YES. SHE WANTED TO FIND HER WAY BACK TO THE COURT. SO I SHOWED HER THE WAY. YOUR HONOR, I GUESS I'LL OPEN THE PROCEEDINGS BY SAYING WE ARE IN RECEIPT OF A LETTER FROM MR. NEUFELD, MR. SCHECK AND MR. BLASIER, AND I ASSUME THAT THE COURT IS IN POSSESSION OF THIS LETTER AS WELL.
ON PAGE 2 OF THAT LETTER, THERE ARE THREE REQUESTS BEING MADE OF THE PROSECUTION, AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THOSE REQUESTS. ITEM 1, IN ESSENCE, THE DEFENSE IS ASKING THAT THE SOCKS, LAPD ITEM NO. 13, AS WELL AS A PAIR OF SHOES, WHICH WE'VE NOW IDENTIFIED AS LAPD ITEM NO. 415, BE SENT TO DR. HENRY LEE'S LAB IN NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT. AND, YOUR HONOR, THE PEOPLE OPPOSE THAT REQUEST. FIRST OF ALL, THE SHOES NOW IDENTIFIED AS ITEM NO. 415 ARE HERE. I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL JUST AS I WAS LEAVING FOR COURT CONFIRMING THAT THOSE SHOES HAD JUST BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM THE PROPERTY DIVISION TO THE SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION DIVISION. SO THE SHOES ARE NOT IN WASHINGTON D.C. THEY ARE NOT AT THE FBI LAB. THEY ARE HERE IN LOS ANGELES. WE HAVE A COURIER EN ROUTE TO WASHINGTON RIGHT NOW TO PICK UP THE SOCKS AND RETURN WITH THEM TO LOS ANGELES TOMORROW. IF THE COURT WILL RECALL ITS ORDER OF FEBRUARY THE 8TH, THE COURT STATED THAT EXAMINATION AND TESTING SHALL BE CONDUCTED LOCALLY UNLESS GOOD CAUSE IS MADE BY AFFIDAVIT OR OTHER SIMILAR SHOWING. WITH REGARD TO ITEM 1, THE SOCKS AND THE SHOES, I WOULD SUBMIT THAT NO GOOD CAUSE HAS BEEN SHOWN AND THAT WE WILL MAKE THOSE ITEMS AVAILABLE LOCALLY AT THE LAPD SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION DIVISION, BUT THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE PEOPLE TO INCUR THE ADDITIONAL EXPENSE OF REROUTING OUR COURIER TO NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT, AND NO NEED HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED.
ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE IT UP ITEM BY ITEM. ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK, WITH REGARD TO THE SHOES AND THE SOCKS.
WELL, THE FIRST POINT TO BE MADE IS THAT, AS THE LETTER INDICATES AND I'M SURE WE'LL GET INTO, THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFUSION UNFORTUNATELY ON SATURDAY AS TO WHERE IMPORTANT ITEMS OF EVIDENCE WERE THAT IMPEDED EXAMINATION. AND IT WAS BELIEVED AT THE TIME ON SATURDAY THAT THOSE SHOES WERE IN WASHINGTON. SO -- AND WE SPOKE TO MR. HODGMAN, CALLED HIM BEFORE THIS LETTER WAS EVEN FAXED, APPRISED HIM OF THIS SITUATION, AND I THINK IT WAS HIS LAST INQUIRY JUST BEFORE HE CAME DOWN HERE, HE WAS ABLE TO DETERMINE WHERE THE SHOES WAS. SO THAT'S THE REASON. BUT THE KEY POINT IS THE SOCKS.
FORGIVE ME FOR INTERRUPTING, BUT LET'S SORT OF CUT TO THE CHASE. WE'VE GOT THE SHOES, WE'VE GOT THE SOCKS. BOTH ARE GOING TO BE HERE -- THE SHOES ARE HERE, THE SOCKS WILL BE HERE TOMORROW, CORRECT?
THAT'S THE PROBLEM. AS THE COURT RECALLS, WE SET UP THIS EXAMINATION AT LAPD PAINSTAKINGLY OVER THE LAST TWO WEEKS. IT WAS ANTICIPATED CERTAINLY THAT THE TESTING AT THE FBI WOULD BE DONE I THINK IT WAS A WEEK AGO MONDAY SO THAT THE SOCKS WOULD BE HERE AND WE COULD HAVE AN EXAMINATION OF THE SOCKS, THE SHOES, THE DRESS, THE SHIRT, THE RELEVANT ITEMS OF EVIDENCE, MR. BODZIAK'S REPORTS SO ALL THAT EVIDENCE COULD BE LOOKED AT AS A WHOLE INTELLIGENTLY BY OUR EXPERTS. AS THE COURT RECALLS, BECAUSE OF THIS COURIER PROBLEM, THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SEND A COURIER OUT EARLIER IN THE WEEK TO BRING THE SOCK BACK SO THAT IT COULD BE PRODUCED ON SATURDAY, THE SOCK WAS UNAVAILABLE. I THINK --
WELL, HERE'S -- LET'S FORGET ABOUT ALL OF THAT. THAT'S ALL IN THE PAST. THE SOCK WILL BE HERE TOMORROW. THE SHOES ARE HERE. HOW DO WE GET THEM TESTED BY THE DEFENSE?
-- WHO IS THE ONE THAT HAS BEEN DOING EXTENSIVE RESEARCH INTO IT. DR. LEE WAS HERE -- YOU KNOW, CHANGED ALL HIS SCHEDULING, CAME DOWN HERE, WAS HERE TO DO THIS, COULDN'T GET IT DONE ON SATURDAY. HE'S NOW IN DENVER, HE HAS TO GO BACK TO THE EAST COAST. HE HAS RESPONSIBILITIES THERE. AND IT SEEMED TO US THAT THE MOST EXPEDITIOUS AND BEST THING TO DO IN TERMS OF EXPENSE FRANKLY TO BOTH SIDES IN THIS MATTER WAS, SINCE THE COURIER WAS GOING OUT, THAT THE SOCKS COULD BE TAKEN BY THAT ONE COURIER TO DR. LEE'S LABORATORY IN NEW HAVEN SO THAT HE CAN PERFORM HIS TESTS AND EXAMINATION ON THAT SOCK. THE PROBLEM WE HAVE IS THAT THE CONDITIONS THAT DR. LEE AND MR. MORTON AND THE OTHER EXPERTS HAVE TO WORK UNDER AT LAPD ARE FAR FROM IDEAL. IN FACT, IN CERTAIN INSTANCES, THEY'RE INADEQUATE FOR PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING THESE TESTS. THEY NEED THEIR OWN EQUIPMENT, SPECIAL EQUIPMENT, PARTICULARLY FOR THE EXAMINATION OF THESE SOCKS AND HAIRS AND FIBERS WE'LL GET INTO. SO DR. LEE HAS STRONGLY URGED US TO TRY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT. AND IT SEEMED TO ME I HAD TO BRING THIS TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION -- I THINK WE EVEN RAISED IT LAST WEEK AS A POSSIBILITY WHEN IT BECAME CLEAR THAT NO COURIER WAS GOING TO BE SENT OUT LAST WEEK TO GET THE SOCK FOR SATURDAY; THAT THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY WHEN THAT COURIER CAME BACK, THAT THAT COURIER COULD -- ALREADY IN THE EAST COAST, COULD GO TO DR. LEE'S LAB AND TAKE IT. WE RAISED THAT LAST WEEK AND WE WANTED TO BRING THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE THAT'S CRITICAL EVIDENCE, IT'S COMING IN SOON AND WE WANT TO HAVE OUR --
SO YOU ARE SUGGESTING THAT WE HAVE A COURIER STOP AT THE FBI, GO TO DR. LEE'S LAB AND THEN BRING IT BACK HERE TO L.A.
WELL, THE SHOES, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD PREFER THAT HE HAVE THOSE AT THE SAME TIME. BUT IF ALL WE CAN GET ARE THE SOCKS, WE'LL TAKE THE SOCKS BECAUSE THAT'S CRITICAL.
ALL RIGHT. HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO LOOK AT AND EXAMINE THE SHOES IF THEY'RE HERE IN L.A.?
WELL, WHAT WE WERE ABLE TO DO FOR THE PRESENT PERIOD WAS LOOK AT ONE SET OF SHOES IN THE LAB. OBVIOUSLY THE OTHER SET WERE THERE, BUT NOBODY KNEW IT. I KNOW THAT THE EXAMINATIONS OF DR. LEE WANTS TO PERFORM ON THE SOCKS. THERE'S ONE SEPARATE SET HE WANTS TO PERFORM ON THE SOCKS AND ONE SET THAT HE WANTS TO PERFORM ON THE SOCKS AND THE SHOES IN COMBINATION. BUT THE MORE PAINSTAKING ONES IMMEDIATELY JUST CONCERN THE SOCKS. SO THAT WOULD SOLVE A LOT OF OUR NEEDS IF HE GOT A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THOSE SOCKS RIGHT AWAY. THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE SOCKS AND THE SHOES IS SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE LATER IN THE TRIAL, BUT I WOULD EXPECT IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS THE SOCKS ARE COMING IN, AND SO HE WANTS TO SEE THOSE.
ALL RIGHT. MR. HODGMAN, WHAT IS THE ADDITIONAL -- WHAT OBJECTION DO YOU HAVE TO THE SOCKS GOING TO DR. LEE'S LABORATORY OTHER THAN THE ADDITIONAL EXPENSE?
YOUR HONOR, THERE'S BEEN NO DEMONSTRATION OF GOOD CAUSE. I WOULD POINT OUT TO THE COURT THAT BASED UPON SYLLABUS OF SORTS THAT WE PRESENTED TO THE COURT LAST WEEK, THAT THESE SOCKS HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE DEFENSE ON FOUR OCCASIONS INCLUDING ONE SEVERAL-HOUR EXAMINATION BY DR. LEE AT LAPD SID JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO. SO WE HAVE THE MATTER OF ADDITIONAL EXPENSE. WE HAVE THE FACT THAT THESE SOCKS HAVE BEEN EXAMINED MULTIPLE TIMES BY THE DEFENSE THUS FAR, AND DR. LEE CAN COME HERE. PART OF THE PROBLEM, AS DESCRIBED OR CHARACTERIZED BY THE DEFENSE WITH SATURDAY, IS THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO GET A LOT DONE IN THE SAME SPACE. THERE IS A CONFERENCE ROOM OVER AT LAPD SID WHICH SEEMED TO BE SUITABLE WHEN DR. LEE EXAMINED THOSE SOCKS THE FIRST TIME AROUND A FEW WEEKS AGO. ON THIS PARTICULAR OCCASION THIS LAST SATURDAY, WE HAD MR. MORTON AT ONE END OF A LARGE CONFERENCE TABLE, MR. LEE AT THE OTHER END, AND THINGS WERE A BIT CROWDED. IF WE REMOVED HALF OF THE EXAMINERS FOR PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING A SINGLE EXAMINATION, I THINK ONCE THE EQUIPMENT IS BROUGHT IN, WHATEVER EQUIPMENT THE DEFENSE WANTS TO BRING IN, THE CONDITIONS OR THE PROBLEM WITH THE CONDITIONS WILL BE SOLVED. SO THE PEOPLE OBJECT, THAT THERE'S NO SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE. WE ASK THAT THIS EXAMINATION BE DONE LOCALLY. IN ADDITION, YOUR HONOR, WE ONLY HAVE A COURIER WHO WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO TAKE THE SOCKS. WE STILL HAVE THE MATTER OF HAVING A MONITOR OR SPECIAL MASTER OR SOMEONE LIKE THAT WHO WOULD HAVE TO BE ARRANGED IF WE WERE TO GO TO THE NEW HAVEN LAB. SO OUR POSITION IS, LET'S HAVE DR. LEE COME HERE AND EXAMINE THE SOCKS AT LAPD SID.
WHEN DO YOU ANTICIPATE IN YOUR CONSULTATIONS WITH MISS CLARK WHEN THOSE SOCKS WILL BE OFFERED INTO EVIDENCE BY THE PEOPLE?
ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK, WHEN IS THE SOONEST DR. LEE CAN COME TO LOS ANGELES AND USE LAB FACILITIES HERE AND EXAMINE THE SOCKS?
I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT IMMEDIATELY, BUT I WOULD JUST POINT OUT THAT BEFORE THE SOCKS WERE TAKEN TO THE FBI FOR TESTING, WHEN THAT WAS ANNOUNCED AND DECIDED, WE FLEW DR. LEE IN FOR THE FIRST MEANINGFUL EXAMINATION OF THE SOCKS, THE FIRST TIME ANY EXPERT COULD TOUCH AND REALLY EXAMINE THE SOCKS. HE DID THAT AT THE LAST MINUTE. IF YOU RECALL, WE FLEW HIM DOWN AT 6:55 IN THE MORNING FROM SEATTLE TO GO TO THE LAB. WE GOT A MICROSCOPE THAT WAS THE BEST THAT COULD BE OBTAINED ON QUICK NOTICE THAT WAS NOT NEARLY POWERFUL ENOUGH, AND HE WAS ABLE TO ESSENTIALLY START A FIRST EXAMINATION. SINCE THEN, THEY'VE BEEN TESTED AGAIN. THERE ARE COMPLICATED THINGS HE HAS TO DO. THERE'S AN INFRARED VIDEOTAPE THAT WAS TAKEN BY THE PROSECUTION'S EXPERTS OF THE SOCK IN VARIOUS SPOTS. THEY'VE HAD MR. ENGLERT LOOK AT IT. THEY'VE HAD VARIOUS DIFFERENT EXPERTS LOOK AT IT FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME. WE REALLY HAVE TO STUDY THE SOCK. THE CONDITIONS MOST RESPECTFULLY AT LAPD AND THE VARIOUS EQUIPMENT THAT'S NEEDED ARE WILLFULLY INADEQUATE FOR THAT PURPOSE. AND IF THE COURT DESIRES AN AFFIDAVIT FROM DR. LEE TO THAT EFFECT IMMEDIATELY, YOU KNOW, I WILL LOCATE HIM TO GET IT. BUT THE REASON --
I DON'T THINK HE'S AVAILABLE TO MY KNOWLEDGE TO COME TO LOS ANGELES FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT WEEK, AND I KNOW IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR HIM TO MAKE THIS TIME. THAT'S WHY WE TRIED TO MAKE THESE ARRANGEMENTS FOR SATURDAY.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER LAB FACILITIES HERE IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES THAT DR. LEE WOULD FIND ACCEPTABLE TO USE?
WE'VE INVESTIGATED THIS, AND THE PROBLEM IS GETTING ALL THE EQUIPMENT THAT'S NECESSARY IN ONE PLACE AT ONE TIME AND GETTING THE MATERIAL THERE. FRANKLY, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WAS EXPENDED IN OVERTIME IN OPENING UP THE LAPD LAB TO GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO IN THERE WHERE THE FACILITIES WERE INADEQUATE FOR STUDYING THIS EVIDENCE FOR LOTS OF PURPOSES I'M SURE COSTS MONEY. AND I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT THE COST OF THIS COURIER STAYING OVER AN EXTRA DAY TO TAKE THE SOCKS -- OR TWO DAYS TO TAKE THE SOCKS TO NEW HAVEN FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ONE EXAMINATION COULD POSSIBLY BE AS HIGH AS THE COSTS OF OPENING UP THAT WHOLE LAB, ARRANGING FOR THINGS TO BE BROUGHT OVER, HAVING A PHOTOGRAPHER COME, HAVING DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND EVERYBODY ELSE SIT AND WATCH, TAKE NOTES AND MAKE ALL THOSE LOGISTICAL ARRANGEMENTS.
THERE'S NO OTHER LAB FACILITY HERE IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES THAT'S AVAILABLE TO YOU FOR THIS TESTING THAT WOULD BE ADEQUATE?
WE HAVE MADE INQUIRY AND WE HAVE NOT FOUND ANYTHING THAT APPROACHES THE INSTRUMENTATION THAT DR. LEE HAS AVAILABLE TO HIM IN HIS LAB. AFTER ALL, HE IS PERHAPS THE FOREMOST EXPERT IN THESE AREAS IN THE COUNTRY AND HE HAS LOTS OF STATE OF THE ART EQUIPMENT THAT ARE NOT AVAILABLE THAT WE CAN FIND AT ANY ONE LAB IN THIS IMMEDIATE VICINITY. SO IT WOULD BE --
I HAVE TO TELL YOU, MR. SCHECK, THAT I AGREE WITH MR. HODGMAN'S POSITION THAT THE INDICATION WAS, I WOULD ALLOW THIS TESTING TO GO ON OUTSIDE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IF THERE WAS A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE, WHICH I HAVEN'T SEEN HERE. I MEAN, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT STEREOSCOPIC MICROSCOPES, WHICH I'M SURE THEY'RE A DIME A DOZEN.
WELL, THERE ARE OTHER FACILITIES AND OTHER KINDS OF TESTS THAT HE I THINK INTENDS TO DO.
ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK, THEN WHY DON'T WE DO THIS? WHY DON'T YOU GET A DECLARATION FROM DR. LEE AS TO WHAT IT IS HE WANTS TO DO, WHAT KIND OF EQUIPMENT HE NEEDS. I NEED EXACT DECLARATION FROM YOU THAT ALL OF THIS EQUIPMENT ISN'T AVAILABLE HERE LOCALLY AND THAT THERE'S GOOD REASON TO HAVE TO DO IT OTHERWISE. THEN MY PROBABLE -- IF I DO GRANT THAT, I WILL PROBABLY REQUIRE YOU TO PAY THE COST FOR THAT.
WELL, I THINK THAT FRANKLY, THAT WOULD BE FAR PREFERABLE TO US AND FAR LESS EXPENSIVE FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND FOR EVERYBODY ELSE FOR US TO PAY THAT COURIER. I'M SURE IT WOULDN'T EVEN BE APPROACHING WHAT IT TAKES TO RENT ALL THE EQUIPMENT AND BRING EVERYBODY OVER INTO A SITUATION THAT ISN'T GOING TO BE AS GOOD AS IT WOULD BE IF IT WERE SENT OUT THERE. SO WHAT I'M REALLY URGING THE COURT IS THAT PART OF THE GOOD CAUSE IS, IF IT'S DONE THE WAY THAT WE URGE IT BE DONE, IT'S CHEAPER.
YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO THAT, WE WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO EXPLORE WITH LABS LOCALLY ONCE WE OBTAINED THE AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION FROM DR. LEE WHAT EQUIPMENT HE NEEDS BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT CAN BE DONE LOCALLY AND WE WOULD PREFER THAT IT BE DONE LOCALLY.
THAT'S WHY I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AN AFFIDAVIT TELLING ME WHAT KIND OF EQUIPMENT WE NEED AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SEE, THAT COURIER IS GOING TO BE GETTING ON A JET TOMORROW MORNING IN WASHINGTON TO BRING THE SOCKS BACK. I AM INFORMED THE SOCKS WILL BE BACK HERE AT 3:00 P.M. TOMORROW. SO THAT'S THE TIME LINE WE'RE DEALING WITH. BUT, YOUR HONOR, OUR PREFERENCE IS, LET'S DO IT LOCALLY. IF IT HAS TO BE AN INDEPENDENT LAB, THEN IT CAN BE AN INDEPENDENT LAB THAT HAS -- PRESUMABLY HAS THE EQUIPMENT THAT DR. LEE REQUIRES AND THE DEFENSE HAS CHOSEN --
BUT I'M NOT RESTRICTING THIS TO THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. I MEAN ANY CONTIGUOUS COUNTY. I KNOW THERE ARE SOME GOOD CRIME LABS DOWN IN ORANGE COUNTY, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. I'M SURE WE CAN FIND A LAB SOMEWHERE, SHERIFF'S LAB, WHO KNOWS.
THERE'S ONE ADDITIONAL WRINKLE IN THE SOCKS, YOUR HONOR, AND THAT IS THIS. PARDON ME.
MR. SCHECK INFORMED ME THAT DR. LEE WOULD LIKE TO DO SOME CUTTING WITH REGARD TO THE SOCKS. AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, THAT'S GOING TO NECESSITATE CERTAIN SPECIALIZED PERSONNEL FROM OUR PART -- ON OUR PART TO BE ABLE TO OBSERVE WHAT GOES ON. SO THAT GETS FOLDED INTO THE MIX AS WELL.
ALL RIGHT. WELL, LIKE I SAY, WHEN I SEE THE AFFIDAVIT OF GOOD CAUSE, I'LL THINK ABOUT IT. AND WE'LL SEE -- YOU'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, MR. HODGMAN. ALL RIGHT. THAT ONE IS STILL ON THE TABLE. ALL RIGHT. NUMBER 2, TRACE EVIDENCE.
YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO NUMBER 2, ONCE AGAIN, WE HAVE A SITUATION WHERE THIS TRACE EVIDENCE WHICH -- OTHER THAN THE ITEMS FROM WHICH IT WAS COLLECTED, BUT OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY NOT SPECIFIED IN THE DEFENSE REQUEST, HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY THE DEFENSE. THIS -- AS THE COURT WILL RECALL, THE TRACE, THAT IS THE HAIR AND FIBER EVIDENCE, THAT WAS EXAMINED BY MR. SHOLBERG IN VIRGINIA SOME MONTHS AGO. IN ADDITION, MR. MORTON HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO VIEW THIS TRACE EVIDENCE IN ALBANY JUST A FEW SHORT WEEKS AGO. SO, AGAIN, AS WE HAVE REQUEST FOR MOVEMENT OF THIS TRACE EVIDENCE, I'M ASKING THAT IT BE DONE LOCALLY INTO THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS WE'RE CONTEMPLATING FOR ITEM NO. 1. THAT IS, IT CAN BE DONE LOCALLY. HERE, THE DEFENSE WAS AWARE OF THE SITUATION OF THE CONFERENCE ROOM SITUATION. THE SETTING WAS CHOSEN, WE OPENED UP THE LAPD LAB AND WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE ACCEPTABLE. AND WE RECEIVED A DECLARATION TODAY THAT SOMEHOW IT WAS UNACCEPTABLE BECAUSE THE DEFENSE APPARENTLY TRIED TO DO TOO MUCH ON ONE DAY. SO, AGAIN, I WOULD SUBMIT THAT IF WE'RE A LITTLE BIT -- IF THE DEFENSE IS A LITTLE BIT MORE REASONABLE IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY TRY TO ACCOMPLISH OVER AT LAPD, MR. MORTON'S EXAMINATION CAN BE DONE AT LAPD OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SOME LOCAL LAB NEARBY WITHOUT NECESSITATING GREAT MOVEMENT OF THESE ITEMS OF EVIDENCE.
YES. WE WOULD RELY ON MR. MORTON'S AFFIDAVIT. I BEG TO DIFFER WITH MR. HODGMAN ABOUT WHAT COULD OR COULD NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED AND WHAT SPACE WAS OR WAS NOT AVAILABLE AND WHAT WAS ANTICIPATED. WE DIDN'T ANTICIPATE THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO NECESSARILY STAY IN THAT ONE ROOM. A REQUEST WAS MADE TO GO INTO THE MICROSCOPY ROOM BY MR. MORTON, AND MR. MATHESON INFORMED HIM THAT IT WAS AGAINST POLICY FOR HIM TO DO SO. I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S ANY SERIOUS QUESTION AMONG CRIMINALISTS OR FRANKLY EVEN THE PEOPLE IN LAPD THAT THE KIND OF EXAMINATION THAT'S NECESSARY TO LOOK AT ALL THESE HAIRS AND FIBERS AS MR. MORTON DESCRIBES ABSOLUTELY CANNOT BE CONDUCTED UNDER THOSE KINDS OF CONDITIONS. IT TAKES A LONG PERIOD OF TIME TO GO THROUGH THESE BINDLES, SOME OF WHICH WE HAVE CREATED BECAUSE WE FOUND NEW EVIDENCE ON THE SAME KEY PIECES OF -- THE SAME ITEMS THAT PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN EXAMINED BY THE PROSECUTION'S EXPERTS. WE FOUND MORE. WE WANT TO LOOK AT ALL THAT TOGETHER. HE HAS TO -- SOME SLIDES HAVE BEEN MOUNTED. TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU CAN LOOK AT A MOUNTED SLIDE, IT'S EASIER. BUT IT TURNS OUT UPON EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE, THAT MOST OF THIS IS NOT MOUNTED. SO WHAT HE HAS TO DO IS CAREFULLY GO THROUGH EACH OF THESE THINGS, LOOK AT THEM, DECIDE WHICH ONES TO MOUNT. IT'S A PAINSTAKING PROCESS. IT CAN'T BE DONE IN A MARATHON SESSION.
WHAT I GOT OUT OF MR. MORTON'S DECLARATION IS THAT HE SAYS, IT'S PAINSTAKING, IT'S TIME-CONSUMING, IT TAKES A LOT OF TIME AND I NEED MORE TIME. THAT'S WHAT I GOT OUT OF THE THREE PAGES HERE.
YES. AND ALSO, THAT THE WAY THAT THIS HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST IN ALMOST EVERY OTHER CASE THAT HE DEALS WITH WITH RARE EXCEPTION IS THAT ORDINARILY, THE EVIDENCE IS SIMPLY SENT TO HIS LABORATORY BY VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS IN CALIFORNIA, INCLUDING LOS ANGELES PROSECUTORS AND SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT ON OTHER OCCASIONS, AND IT'S TAKEN TO HIS LAB AND HE LOOKS THROUGH IT.
ALL RIGHT. MR. HODGMAN, WHY CAN'T WE DO THAT IN THIS CASE? MR. MORTON IS LOCAL, SEMI-LOCAL, ALAMEDA COUNTY, WELL KNOWN TO YOU, WELL KNOWN TO ME.
AND THE REASON WHY, YOUR HONOR, IS THEY'VE ALREADY HAD TWO SHOTS AT THIS VERY SAME EVIDENCE. MR. SHOLBERG LAST FALL -- AND THE ALBANY TRIP WAS ARRANGED AT GREAT EXPENSE, THAT THE DEFENSE HAD THREE DAYS TO EXAMINE THIS EVIDENCE BACK IN ALBANY OR AT LEAST THE BETTER PART OF TWO DAYS. MR. MORTON WAS THERE. WHY IS IT THAT WE NEED TO DO IT AGAIN? I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY GOOD CAUSE JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT YET.
WELL, LET'S ASSUME THAT I ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT THAT THERE'S SO MUCH OF THIS STUFF, THIS TRACE EVIDENCE AND THAT IT'S VERY TIME-CONSUMING TO LOOK AT. HOW WOULD YOU PROPOSE WE ALLOW MR. MORTON TWO OR THREE ADDITIONAL DAYS TO LOOK AT THIS STUFF?
I WOULD SUBMIT, YOUR HONOR, THAT MR. MORTON -- WELL, IF YOU FEEL HE NEEDS TWO OR THREE MORE DAYS. BUT THEY HAVE HAD TIME. BUT PUTTING THE TIME ISSUE ASIDE, WE WOULD LIKE THE EVIDENCE TO REMAIN LOCALLY. AS THE COURT SAW FIT IN ITS ORDER, WE HAVE A PREFERENCE FOR THIS TYPE OF EVIDENCE TO BE EXAMINED LOCALLY. IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, I WOULD SUBMIT WE EITHER USE THE LAPD FACILITIES, MR. MORTON CAN BRING IN WHAT HE NEEDS -- AGAIN, PART OF THE PROBLEMS OF THIS PAST SATURDAY WAS BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO DO TOO MUCH IN THE SPACE THAT WAS CHOSEN. THAT CAN BE REMEDIED BY SIMPLY BEING REASONABLE IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IN THE SPACE THAT IS GIVEN TO THEM AND IN THE TIME THAT IS ALLOWED.
ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK, MR. MORTON DOES NOT INCLUDE IN HIS AFFIDAVIT ANY INDICATIONS AS TO WHAT EQUIPMENT HE NEEDS FOR THIS EXAMINATION.
YES. WELL, I THINK IT'S KNOWN TO THE PROSECUTION THAT IT'S A COMPARISON MICROSCOPE. AND THE ONLY ONE WE WERE ABLE TO GET FROM HIM DOWN HERE THAT WAS LIKE HIS WAS NOT, AS HE SAID, UP TO HIS STANDARDS OF THE ONE HE HAS IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. NOW, THIS IS IN CALIFORNIA. IT'S IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA. AND THERE'S -- THEY WOULDN'T LET US USE THE MICROSCOPY ROOM AT LAPD. IT DOESN'T HAVE COMPARABLE EQUIPMENT IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. AND IT IS JUST NOT REASONABLE GIVEN THE FACT THAT THEY HAD THESE FIBERS AND HAIRS AND WERE LOOKING AT THEM FROM THE 8TH OF AUGUST THROUGH THE 7TH OF SEPTEMBER AT THE FBI IN THEIR FACILITIES. THIS TAKES TIMES. AND IT IS -- WE DID THE BEST WE COULD UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IN ALBANY. WE'VE GENERATED YET NEW EVIDENCE FROM THE SAME ITEMS RECOVERED AT THE SCENE. AND FRANKLY, RIGHT NOW, WE'RE ONLY FOCUSING ON THE MOST IMPORTANT ITEMS OF EVIDENCE THAT HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED OR ARE GOING TO BE INTRODUCED IN THE TRIAL, AND THERE'S A NEED FOR US TO GET THIS DONE EXPEDITIOUSLY. HE'S WILLING TO SIT THERE, GET RID OF ALL HIS OTHER CASES AND SIT THERE AND GET THIS DONE JUST BY LOOKING AT THIS THREE DAYS IN A ROW.
WELL, I WOULD SAY THIS. I AT THIS POINT, GIVEN THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE, I WOULD WELCOME THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL MASTER TO GO THROUGH THIS DISCOVERY. NOTHING COULD BE BETTER FROM MY POINT OF VIEW TO TRY TO WORK THIS OUT AS BEST AS POSSIBLE. I DON'T KNOW. IT'S UP TO THE PROSECUTION. I MEAN THEY CAN HAVE SOMEBODY SIT IN THE ROOM AND PHOTOGRAPH HIM LOOKING AT A MICROSCOPE FOR THREE DAYS OR THEY CAN DO WHAT'S USUALLY DONE AND LET HIM LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE.
YOUR HONOR, I WOULD POINT OUT ONCE AGAIN, THERE IS STILL THE ISSUE OF WHY WHEN THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY IN ALBANY AND TIME IN THE LAB OF THEIR CHOOSING --
AND LAPD WILL MAKE THE ROOM AVAILABLE. THEY CAN BRING IN WHAT EQUIPMENT THEY WANT TO BRING IN, AND THEN IT'S MR. MORTON'S TIME. LAPD WILL ALLOW THE TIME THERE AT SID. WHY DO WE HAVE TO MOVE THE EVIDENCE? NO GOOD CAUSE HAS BEEN SHOWN.
ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHECK, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY WE SHOULD DO IT THIS WAY. I THINK WHAT YOU NEED TO DO -- I AGREE MR. MORTON SHOULD HAVE ADDITIONAL TIME TO LOOK AT THESE THINGS. THE PROSECUTION ISN'T WILLING TO LET IT GO TO ALAMEDA WITHOUT A FIGHT. I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING HERE THAT THE EQUIPMENT IS COMPLETELY INADEQUATE.
WELL, I THINK -- I THINK HE SPELLS OUT PRETTY CLEARLY ABOUT THE WORKING CONDITIONS AND --
WORKING CONDITIONS DOESN'T TELL ME ANYTHING. WHAT I NEED TO KNOW IS, I NEED A MODEL X, XYZ STEREOSCOPIC COMPARISON MICROSCOPE, YOU KNOW, I NEED THIS LIGHT SOURCE, I NEED THAT, THAT, THAT, IT'S NOT AVAILABLE HERE.
HE DID INDICATE IN HIS AFFIDAVIT THAT IN ADDITION, A RENTED COMPARISON MICROSCOPE OF LIMITED CAPACITY WAS MADE AVAILABLE. IT TAKES ABOUT AN HOUR TO SET THAT UP. THAT WAS THE BEST MICROSCOPE -- WE GOT IT FROM MR. SUGIYAMA I BELIEVE -- THAT WE COULD FIND IN THE AREA TO DO IT FOR THESE PURPOSES. HE --
HE CAN'T DO IT. WE'VE ASKED HIM THAT ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. IT'S JUST NOT MOVABLE. IT'S PLANTED IN HIS LAB APPARENTLY. HE SAYS IT'S JUST NOT TRANSPORTABLE. WE'VE ASKED HIM TO --
ALL RIGHT. HAVE HIM CALL MY CLERK THIS EVENING WITH THE NAME, NUMBER, MODEL NUMBER, WHO MANUFACTURES IT, WHO RUNS IT. I'LL FIND YOU ONE. OR MORE APPROPRIATELY, MY LAW CLERKS WILL FIND YOU ONE.
THE ONLY OTHER THING I WOULD NOTE IS THAT IN TERMS OF THE WORKING CONDITIONS, ONE PROBLEM IS THAT EVERY TIME THAT A BINDLE WAS OPENED OR HE WAS LOOKING AT A SLIDE, SOMEBODY WOULD COME RUNNING OVER, TAKE A PICTURE OF IT. THERE WAS A DANGER OF ALL THE EVIDENCE, YOU KNOW, BEING BLOWN ACROSS THE TABLE. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT AND UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, AND I THINK EVERYBODY RECOGNIZED IT. IT WASN'T THE NATURE OF THE ROOM. IT WAS THE NATURE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
OKAY. WELL, GET ME THE MODEL NUMBER, NAME, SERIAL NUMBER, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. I'LL FIND YOU ONE. ALL RIGHT. LAST MATTER ARE THE UPDATED TRACKING LISTS. MR. HODGMAN.
KEY QUOTEYOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO THAT, I HAVE TO RELY UPON INFORMATION THAT I WAS GIVEN BY MR. MATHESON LAST WEEK. WITH REGARD TO THE SETS INFORMATION -- AND THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO ACHIEVE A PRINTOUT OF THE INFORMATION LAST WEEK AND APPARENTLY THE PRINTER, BE IT ANTIQUATED OR OTHERWISE INADEQUATE, BROKE DOWN. THERE WAS SOME SORT OF MELTDOWN WITH THE PRINTER.
MR. MATHESON WAS OFF TODAY. I DON'T KNOW. HE INFORMED ME LAST WEEK THAT THEY WERE GETTING SOME NEW SOFTWARE WHICH WOULD ALLOW THEM TO BE ABLE TO PRINT OUT THE SETS INFORMATION, BUT THAT WAS GOING TO BE ARRIVING WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF LAST WEEK. AND WITH REGARD TO THE APINS INFORMATION, AT THIS POINT, I DON'T KNOW.
ALL RIGHT. WHY DON'T YOU REPORT BACK TO ME BY THE CLOSE OF THE MORNING SESSION TOMORROW AS TO WHEN THESE ITEMS WILL BE AVAILABLE BECAUSE I THINK THE DEFENSE IS ENTITLED TO LOOK AT THOSE. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE?
IF I MAY, YOUR HONOR. ONE POINT WITH REGARD TO THE HAIR AND FIBER INFORMATION. I REALIZE THE COURT IS TRYING TO CRAFT A WAY FOR THE DEFENSE EXPERTS TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT. I WOULD SIMPLY POINT OUT THEY HAD OPPORTUNITY AND TIME BEFORE. THEY'VE HAD THE ALBANY --
WELL, THE PROBLEM IS, EVERY TIME WE LOOK AT THESE THINGS THOUGH, THERE'S AN EVER-EXPANDING NUMBER OF ARTICLE ITEMS TO LOOK AT. AND THIS STUFF REALLY IS TIME-CONSUMING. IT REALLY IS. IF YOU'VE EVER DONE ANY MICROSCOPY BEFORE, IT'S VERY TEDIOUS, TIME-CONSUMING STUFF TO DO.
ONE MORE MATTER I SHOULD BRING TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION I DIDN'T INCLUDE IN THE LETTER BECAUSE I WAS MAKING INQUIRY ABOUT LABS IN THE LOS ANGELES AREA IN TRYING TO GET EXPERTS. WHEN WE WERE IN THE LAB ON SATURDAY, WE WERE GIVEN ACCESS TO THE ORIGINAL COPIES OF NOTES BY CRIMINALISTS. AND AN EXAMINATION OF THAT REVEALS TO US THAT WE NEED TO HAVE THOSE LOOKED AT BY A QUESTIONED DOCUMENTS EXAMINER. AND I CAN PROVIDE TO THE PROSECUTION THE EXACT ITEMS THAT WE HAVE IN MIND. I KNOW MR. GOLDBERG WAS SITTING THERE WITH ME FOR QUITE A FEW HOURS AND SAW ME TABBING EVERY PAGE, SO HE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR, WHAT ITEMS ARE IN ISSUE. BUT I WANT TO PUT HIM ON NOTICE THAT THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH THOSE PARTICULAR -- WITH THAT NOTEBOOK OF ITEMS THAT WERE FILLED OUT BY THE CRIMINALISTS, THE ORIGINALS OF WHICH WE FIRST SAW ON SATURDAY. DR. LEE TOOK A LOOK AT THOSE AS WELL. AND WE KNOW WE WANT AN EXAMINATION OF THOSE DOCUMENTS. I'VE MADE INQUIRY OF A LAB IN LOS ANGELES THAT I KNOW COULD BE AVAILABLE, A MR. HARRIS. HOWEVER, HE CAN'T DO THE CASE BECAUSE OF OTHER TIME COMMITMENTS. AND SO I'M LOOKING FOR ANOTHER EXPERT WHO I CAN HAVE GO AND USE THIS LAB IN LOS ANGELES. I ASSUME THAT THAT PLAN GIVEN THE CONSTRAINTS HERE IS A SAMPLING. BUT I WANTED TO PUT THEM ON NOTICE THAT'S SOMETHING WE WANT TO DO RIGHT AWAY.
WELL, YOUR HONOR, THIS MAY BE SOMETHING THEY WANT TO DO, BUT I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY JUSTIFICATION OR REASON WHY. IF THE DEFENSE EITHER BY WAY OF MOTION OR BY WAY OF LETTER PERHAPS --
I ASSUME THAT WAS JUST MR. SCHECK PUTTING YOU ON NOTICE THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT MAY OCCUR.
AND FRANKLY, I DON'T KNOW WHY -- I GUESS MY PROBLEM HERE IS, I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFICULTIES INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. BUT WE ARE ONLY TRYING TO GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE BEFORE IT'S PUT ON. WE ARE IN AN UNUSUAL SITUATION. I'VE LOOKED AT THE COURT'S RULING ON THE TESTING QUESTION AND READ IT AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, AND MY CONCERN THAT I'VE EXPRESSED BEFORE TO THE COURT, AND JUST TO PUT IT ON THE RECORD, IS THAT WHEN THE COURT MADE ITS RULING THAT THE PROSECUTION COULD HAVE -- COULD CONTINUE TESTING THROUGH THE TRIAL WITHOUT ANY PARTICULAR TIME LIMITS BALANCING THE DEFENDANT'S NEED FOR A SPEEDY TRIAL AND THE SITUATION WE WERE THROWN INTO. ONE CONSEQUENCE HOWEVER THAT WASN'T SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED OR EVEN ARGUED BY ME OR CONSIDERED IS THAT, AS ALL THESE ITEMS WERE ESSENTIALLY BEING FROZEN FOR PURPOSES OF POTENTIAL DNA TESTING, GENETIC TESTING AND WHATEVER OTHER KINDS OF TESTING THEY WANTED TO CONTINUE TO PERFORM AS THIS CASE WENT ON, THAT MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE DEFENSE TO GET ACCESS TO DO ITS TESTING UNTIL THE PROSECUTION WAS FINISHED. SO WHAT WE HAVE GOING ON IN THIS TRIAL IS AN UNPRECEDENTED SITUATION FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF OUR EXPERTS WHO --
I MEAN, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT STEREOSCOPIC MICROSCOPES, WHICH I'M SURE THEY'RE A DIME A DOZEN.
A THOUSAND DOLLARS A DAY.
GET ME THE MODEL NUMBER, NAME, SERIAL NUMBER, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. I'LL FIND YOU ONE.
WHAT WE HAVE GOING ON IN THIS TRIAL IS AN UNPRECEDENTED SITUATION FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF OUR EXPERTS WHO — ... AS ALL THESE ITEMS WERE ESSENTIALLY BEING FROZEN FOR PURPOSES OF POTENTIAL DNA TESTING ... THAT MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE DEFENSE TO GET ACCESS TO DO ITS TESTING UNTIL THE PROSECUTION WAS FINISHED.
IT'S A LITTLE LATE IN THE AFTERNOON TO BE DOING THAT TO ME, MR. HODGMAN.