All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Mr. Matheson, would you resume the witness stand, please. The record should reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury. Mr. Gregory Matheson is again on the witness stand under oath now to begin cross-examination by Mr. Blasier.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY Mr. BLASIER

Mr. Matheson, good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

Mr. Matheson, I want to start by asking you some questions about your background that you had testified to on direct. You indicated that you had attended several courses in DNA technology and I believe your testimony went to the year 1990. Am I accurate on that?

I would have to confirm the dates on that.

You mean 1990 as a formal course on the most recent end?

That is the last entry that I have concerning DNA training.

As far as course work, yes.

And that was a two-week course in 1990 in Denver, Colorado, as well as a course at Cetus corporation?

Well, the PCR workshop was actually the university of new haven sponsored by Cetus.

And it was at that conference that you learned a little bit about RFLP and something about PCR?

Vague as to "Something" and a "Little bit."

Overruled.

Which one are we talking about? The one--the one-week Cetus course was a fairly involved course on PCR and we actually did the typing ourselves and that type of thing. The two-week course that I mentioned in Denver was an overview of our RFLP type techniques along with having a chance to try some of the them.

And then in 1990 you had the other two courses, the Denver course and the Cetus course?

That is what I was just referring to.

All. Right the new haven course was an earlier course?

No. The--there was actually a couple at new haven.

Okay. Since 1990 have you attended any training courses in DNA technology?

Not course work, no.

And have you done any reading on DNA technology since 1990?

Yes.

What sorts of readings?

I've reviewed some technical articles. As far as just reading goes, I looked through, you know, the different journals that are out there, journal of forensic science society, that type of thing; not a lot in-depth.

Now, there are regular seminars every year put on by * Roche molecular puts some on and other organizations put on seminars concerning DNA technology and advances that are being made in that area, correct?

That's correct.

And those courses are available to you if you choose to attend them?

Yes, and if I am given time from the city.

And you have not chosen to attend any of those courses?

When I said yes, you mentioned seminars?

Yes.

Yes, I have actually attended a couple since 1990 along that line, seminars. When I was talking about before, no, no course work after 1990, I was talking about a classroom type of setting. As a matter of fact, in 1993 in September I attended a Promega meeting at the International Symposium on Human Identification in Scottsdale, Arizona. And that would be one that was directly related strictly to the area of DNA?

I also attended the CAC seminars and American Academy meetings which tend to go in length in the area of DNA.

Have you ever taught any aspect of DNA technology at any of those seminars?

No, I have not.

Have you ever taught DNA technology at any program at all?

Depends on what you mean by "DNA technology." I give general overview in particular within our department to detectives so that they are aware of our current status and that type of thing, but not in any of the seminars.

Now, you indicated that you are a member of the California association of criminalists?

That's correct.

And you have an attended every seminar of theirs since 1979?

Except for either three or four, yes.

Now, how often are those held?

Twice a year; once in the spring and once in the fall.

And again, are those voluntary programs that you can choose to go to or not choose to go to?

Yes, that's correct.

And are those--does your organization allow you to attend those if you want to?

They will give us time to attend. They don't cover expenses normally.

Now, to your knowledge has Dennis Fung attended any of those courses?

Calls for hearsay.

Vague.

Also irrelevant to this witness and beyond the scope.

"Any other courses" is vague.

I'm sorry?

That is vague, "Any of those courses."

The California association of criminalists seminars that happen twice a year, do you have that in mind?

Yes.

And to your knowledge did Dennis Fung attend any of those seminars this year?

Well, this year moaning 1995 there hasn't been one yet.

`94?

Let's see. I'm not sure. The one in the fall was in Pasadena. I think I might have seen him there, but I'm not sure.

`93?

I don't have any specific recollection of whether he has attended or not.

Is there a record kept somewhere of who attend various seminars?

Normally it is included, if they choose to include it as part of their statement of qualifications or CV. Beyond that our department requires something that is called a travel authority. If it is going to be travel for training purposes or seminars out of the county, it would be recorded in that, but it is not like a listing of individual attendances.

And they are not required to keep a record of how many courses they attend or what types of courses they are?

Well, it is recommended that they are and that they keep their statement of qualifications up to date.

So is it your experience that had he attended courses that would be on his CV?

It should be, yes.

Do you know whether Andrea Mazzola has attended any California association of criminalist seminars?

No.

Still calls--

You don't know or she hasn't?

No, I do not know.

Now, make any effort to monitor some sort of classes or seminars the people that work under you attend?

Well, we make sure that we give people the opportunity to attend if they are interested and we try and encourage people to attend. As far as myself monitoring what courses each individual person goes to, no.

Now, you indicated I believe that you are a member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences?

Yes, just recently.

Now, you are--the activity where you are a member of the board of directors, that is the California association of criminalists?

Where I was a member of the board of directors, yes, that and the American Board of Criminalistics.

Now, with both of those organizations were you involved in accreditation programs?

I was--neither one of those organizations are involved in accreditation. They are both associated to some extent with certification.

Now, describe what certification is.

Certification is a system whereby--in our case a voluntary system whereby a professional has an opportunity to show that they meet minimum qualifications of standards within a certain area, as opposed to accreditation in forensics which tests whole laboratories or laboratory systems.

So certification is for an individual and accreditation is for the lab as a whole?

That's correct.

And is it your understanding that within the forensic community the idea of certification is an important one?

It is with many of the members, yes.

And there has been a substantial amount of controversy in the forensic community about how forms of certification should take place? Are you aware of that.

Calls for hearsay, vague.

Overruled.

Well, during the course--particularly during the course of when I was involved in setting up the CAC certification program, there was a lot of discussion amongst our members as to what the criteria should be to be able to apply. Yeah, there was give and take on that. There was some differences of opinion and then when we got involved in the American Board of Criminalistics, which is the national body, that because of the wide nature of the different people involved, also indicated that there was a difference of opinion in a lot of different areas.

And is it accurate to say that certification programs are designed to ensure that the people who work in this field are competent?

Well, I'm not sure it really ensures anything. What it does, it gives an indication that a person meets a minimum level of competence through testing, particularly a written test.

It is a method to weed out people who might not be competent from people who are competent? Is that accurate?

Vague as to "Weed out."

Overruled.

It is a--well, the fact that it is voluntary, I'm not sure it would weed somebody out, because if somebody feels they are not going to meet the standards, they may choose not to apply for it or they may choose not to apply for it just because they don't believe in it or for a variety reasons. I think it is just an opportunity for an individual that wants to show that they meet the minimum standards to take the tests and apply and demonstrate that.

No, there is not.

No, except for one in one area. There is some regulation when it comes to blood alcohol analysis.

Now, you are familiar with blood banks that draw people's blood to do routine blood testing?

Generally, yes.

And you are aware that they are heavily regulated by the government?

I know that there are regulations, yes.

And there are regulations about proficiency testing of people who work in those labs to make sure they don't make mistakes?

Not relevant, no personal knowledge, no foundation.

Sustained.

Now, there is no such governmental regulation, quality control, for instance, in crime labs, is there?

No, there is not.

And there is no required qualifications set forth by the government for people to be a criminalist?

No, there isn't. That is why the associations entered the area.

Now, the associations entered the area because there was a need for such programs, would you agree with that?

Yes.

And there is a need for that type of program to ensure the quality of criminalistics work that is done by criminalists, correct?

Well, we are going back to the word "Ensure." I'm not sure that just by offering a program like this that it will ensure that this will occur; particularly the fact that it is voluntary.

Well, that is the idea, though, isn't it?

That's correct. The idea is for the people that are competent to demonstrate that they are.

Now, how many different informal involuntary--I'm sorry--voluntary certification programs are there?

Well, right now there is actually only one and that would be the one that is sponsored by the American Board of Criminalistics. The program that the California association of criminalistics or the CAC put into place was in essence folded into or melded into the American Board of Criminalistics program. We didn't want competing systems out there.

Now, has Dennis Fung applied for certification?

I don't know.

Has Andrea Mazzola applied for any form of certification?

I don't know.

Are the people that work in your division encouraged to apply for certification?

It is--yes. We make sure that they know that they * it is something that they can do and are welcome to do if they like.

Do you make any effort to track the people that work for you in terms of whether they have applied for certification and been certified?

Not relevant.

Sustained. This goes beyond the scope of the direct.

Now, you talked about the Denver--I'm sorry, the new haven course was taught by, among other people, Henry Lee?

One of courses at new haven, yes.

And Henry Lee, would you agree, is one of the world's foremost forensic scientists?

He is very well-known and qualified, yes.

And he is the director of the Connecticut State Police Crime Lab, correct?

My understanding, yes.

And he works primarily for Prosecutors?

I believe he works for the system. I suppose in general, yes, they do tend to work for the Prosecutors.

And you are aware that he is an expert for the Defense in this case?

That is my understanding, yes.

Tell us what ASCLAD is.

Asclad stands for the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors.

And this is an organization that also has or does have an accreditation program for crime labs, correct?

Well, they started the--what I believe is the only accreditation program for crime laboratories. That organization now is a separate body from ASCLAD called ASCLAD lab.

I'm sorry, ASCLAD--

Lab for laboratory.

And the function--one of the functions of that organization is to go examine the crime lab, make recommendations, see whether they meet minimum standards in order to perform services as a crime lab, correct?

That's correct.

And how long has that program been in effect?

I believe it has been about seven, eight years, not quite sure.

Did you have--participate in any way in setting up that program?

No, not at all.

Are you aware of the requirements for accreditation?

I have read the handout they have, yes.

Is it your understanding that the requirements for accreditation are basically standards, minimum standards that a lab should meet in order to qualify for accreditation?

Yes, that's true.

And those standards are supposed to be minimum standards that would be used by a crime lab and criminalists that work for a crime lab in doing their work?

It is a goal to attain those, yes.

And you are familiar with the particular guidelines that ASCLAD has set forth in order for a lab to be accredited?

I have read them. I haven't--don't have them memorized.

Do you think they are good guidelines?

Well, it is vague as to "Good."

Overruled.

As a rule, yes.

And do you think that the guidelines that are set out by ASCLAD are desirable for a crime lab to follow?

Within the criteria they have. In other words, delineating which are essential. Let's see. Essential, necessary--I forget what the three terms are, but it allows you to meet certain portions of each of those and only all of the essential ones.

Now, I believe you indicated on your direct testimony that you have not--or LAPD has not applied for accreditation for lack of funding?

That's the major reason, yes.

And it is your understanding that the funding required is what?

Have you--has your lab ever applied for accreditation?

Well, we can't apply until the city authorizes the expenditure of the money and we have requested that money to be made available to us.

Is it fair to say that you have been one of the movers to try and get accreditation for your lab?

Umm, not to this point, no, because that--the accreditation, it was more on a managerial level, and up until just four months ago I was not at that level; I was at a supervisory level. And though I feel that it is something that we should obtain, it was our managers at the time that were pushing for it.

Are they still pushing for it?

Yes. At this point we are.

It is considered to be something that is important to your lab?

Yes.

Now, is it your opinion that your current practices, many of which you have described here today, meet the minimum standards of ASCLAD?

Not relevant, your Honor. Beyond the scope.

Sustained.

Do you have a quality manual at SID?

We currently have one that is being developed. We do not have one that is complete.

What is that called?

The manual itself?

Yes.

Well, it is being compiled by our quality control quality assurance manager. I'm sure at some point it will be named like quality control manual or something. I don't believe it has a name at the moment.

Is that the field manual that there has been testimony about?

No, it is not.

Field manual is some different document?

That's correct.

What is that?

The field manual is a guideline, general protocol and procedures manual that was being compiled by the trace analysis field unit supervisor as guidelines on how we should operate in the field.

How long has that been under development?

I believe it was--it was probably started about three to four years ago, but actual work on the manual stopped when that particular supervisor resigned and moved to another laboratory.

Now, is there any other manual that you have in SID that your criminalists are required to follow?

Not relevant, beyond the scope.

Overruled.

Well, most of the units have protocol and procedure manuals within the unit.

Is there a protocol and procedure manual for the field unit?

Not at this point. That is the one that we just referenced that is under development.

Do the materials in the field manual, in your opinion, set forth standards that should be followed by the criminalists that work for SID?

At this point it has been a while since I have reviewed the whole thing. I do know that there is some information in there that is outdated that needs to be updated. In general the information is good, but that is one reason why it has not been presented to the lab, because it has not had a chance to be updated and managerially reviewed.

Now, I want to ask you some questions about the required training for criminalists at SID. I think you indicated the minimum educational requirements are a bachelor of science in some sort of science?

In a science, that's correct.

And is there any additional training, other than the mini academy that we have been talking about, that criminalists are required to take in order to work for SID?

Are you talking about once they are on the job or prior to being hired?

Well, let's talk about prior first.

Prior to being hired the only requirement is that they have a bachelor's degree in a science.

And after they are hired is there any required program that they must attend?

Well, there is no required or formally required program except for what we have described as the informal SID academy.

And they are not required to attend any courses outside of SID; is that correct?

No, there is no requirement for the people to attend them. We do--there are courses available and there are certain ones that we do try and get--you know, we get them to fill out applications and submit them to the agency that is offering this training, and if they are accepted, you know, then we give them time and hopefully resources in order to attend.

Now, the mini academy, how often is that held?

Well, the SID academy, as it has been called, is kind of an informal structure of a variety of different topics. The goal is to have one every Thursday afternoon, but due to work load considerations and vacations and things like that, many times it is postponed until the next week or the instructor that is supposed to be doing it is on a day off or something, so we shoot for every Thursday afternoon. It doesn't always work out that way.

So it is an on again-off again type of program?

The program is not on again off again. It doesn't--we do keep track of who attends what within this program, but it is many times that it could be two or three weeks or more before it meets again.

Are criminalists required to attend?

Criminalist 1's are required to attend and any other criminalist that is offered to them, if they want to.

Are they required to keep any kind of manuals, written notes of course work?

Compound.

Overruled.

I don't know about as far as required. It depends on the instructor for a particular module and the instructors as a rule are more experienced criminalists within the laboratory. If there are handouts that are provided to the criminalists, then they are encouraged to keep them, keep them within their possession so that they can refer to them at a later date.

Is there some kind of record kept as to who attends various seminars and what the subject matter is?

Are we talking about seminars outside of the division or the academy?

The academy in the lunchroom area there?

My understanding is that they do keep track of who attends them.

Do they keep track of what courses have been given for a particular session?

Yes.

Is there some kind of a compilation of handout material that has been passed out as part of the course work?

I don't believe so, no.

Are they given any kind of examinations?

I don't believe there has been any written examinations. I do know that in some of the instructors they work into a segment where the person is--if it is--to give you an example, a demonstration on casting shoeprints, they will have everybody in the class cast a shoeprint but as far as formal examinations, no.

So there isn't--I assume there are no grades given out in terms of how well people do or don't do?

That's correct.

Is there any kind of disciplinary procedure that you invoke if someone doesn't attend these?

No. I--if somebody does fail to attend, we have a supervisor find out why it is and if there was no particularly good excuse--many times people are doing case work or they are going to Court or something so they miss out on one, but if they just fail to attend, then that is noted and when that subject comes around again they are told to attend that one.

Is there instruction ever provided by outside experts?

We have occasionally brought in somebody, but it has been more in the area of general police topics, and the academy includes not only forensics, but things such as radio procedures and a variety of things like that when you are dealing with a departmental agency like we are, and in those instances we bring somebody in from the department to do that.

How often does that happen?

This is not relevant, your Honor.

Sustained.

Now, you indicated on direct that you offer a training program to detectives in terms of how to collect evidence?

Well, the department has a number of very formal courses, among which are detective--homicide detective school, sexual assault detective school and detective supervisor school, and they always give SID or the crime lab a portion of that so that we can teach the detectives about what their forensics is about.

And are homicide detectives regularly taught how to collect blood stains?

Well, the ones that attend the courses that I teach are, yes.

They are provided kits to collect blood stains, are they not?

If they request them, yes.

So they have access to swatches?

Yes.

And they have access to coin envelopes and plastic envelopes?

Yes.

And they have access to tweezers and other tools for making swatches for blood stains?

Well, if you mean access on all of these items, we have them within our laboratory and if they run low or they lose them or they need a replacement, they call us up and we supply them to them.

This is also that they might have available to them wherever they happen to be working out of?

That calls for speculation.

Overruled.

No foundation, personal knowledge.

Overruled.

Well, we supply them, like I mentioned. It is basically just a file box with the tools and implements they need to collect these things, and if they were to run out, particularly, say, the cloth swatches or if they lose their tweezers or if they lose their scissors, they call us up and ask us for new ones.

Now, did I understand you to say that ninety percent of homicides it is detectives that process the scene rather than a criminalist?

These are very rough numbers. My guess is that we probably respond to somewhere between 1- and 20 percent of them, yes.

And whose decision is it whether a criminalist is going to respond or the police are going to handle the scene themselves?

It is the detective that is assigned that case.

Do you know what the criteria is for that decision?

I don't think there is any defined criteria for it. It is kind of up to the detective. If they feel that there is evidence there that they want assistance in collecting, then they call the crime lab.

Now, within SID at the time of this case on June 13th your position was what?

I was--my position was as a supervising criminalist and the units that I supervised was serology, our trace unit, the field unit, the forensic photographer and our chemical processing unit.

Were you the supervisor for Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola during the time they processed the crime scene in this case?

Not correctly, no. They both worked in different units. I suppose indirectly in that field services at that point, at least during the daytime, were part of my responsibility, but not directly, no.

Who was their direct supervisor?

Well, in the case Dennis Fung, his supervisor is Dorene Music at the Firearms Unit and for Andrea Mazzola her supervisor is Bernie Sanchez in Toxicology.

But when they get called out to a scene, do they still report to the same supervisors or is it one person who is knowledgeable about crime scene investigations that they report to as to that aspect of their job?

Well, as a rule they have some autonomy out there. If they needed some assistance, normally at that point they are advised to call one of the assistant directors or the director of the laboratory.

And is it pair to say it is pretty much up to them whether they call for additional assistance or not?

As to whether or not they say they need additional assistance, yes.

So there is no one that is directly overseeing this to check with them to see if they need help; it is pretty much just in response to a request by them?

As a rule, yes. Many times the field calls come in in the middle of the night and as a supervisor I may not even know it occurred until the next day after the person has gone, done their work and gotten back to the laboratory.

Now, Steve Johnson, who is he?

He is another assistant director of the laboratory.

And he was present at the crime scenes on June 13th, was he not?

Yes, he was.

Were you present at those scenes?

No, I was not.

When Steve Johnson was present what was his function?

Calls for speculation. No personal knowledge, beyond the scope.

If you know?

Overruled.

If you know?

He was responding assistant director along with the captain of our division. Both of them were out there to see how thing were going to do a quick overview of the scene and provide assistance if necessary. If not, to return back to the laboratory.

Now, you indicated that the captain of your division, the person that is over the lab director, is a police captain, correct?

That's correct.

Do the people that work for SID carry badges?

We are issued Scientific Investigation Division badges, yes.

And but the criminalists are considered civilian employees of the police department?

Yes.

What was Michele Kestler's position as of June 13th?

Not relevant, beyond the scope.

Overruled.

On June 13th she was one of the assistant directors of the laboratory. At that time we did not have a director. That spot was empty. She and Mr. Johnson shared the responsibility for administration of the laboratory.

And she is now the director of the lab?

That's correct.

She is married to a robbery/homicide detective, is she not?

Yes, she is.

Does she work fairly closely with detectives in the police department, to your knowledge?

Irrelevant.

Overruled.

Well, to some extent we all do. I don't think she does any more than the rest of us, other than the fact she is married to one.

Do you know whether she socializes with detectives in robbery/homicide?

We are getting beyond the scope of the direct here, counsel.

Now, you indicated on direct that you were in charge of managing items in this case. Do you remember that testimony?

I believe so, yes.

What did you mean by that?

Well, one of the roles that I've had is in coordinating an awful lot of the activities, when it comes in, tracking what happens in analysis in relation to this case. Every time that a request for analysis have gone through me, requests to have the evidence submitted outside have gone through me if I have been available. The times where we have set up viewings for the Defense, I have been mainly involved in that, making sure the items were available and that the areas were available and that type of thing. Just general coordination.

And have you had that function since the beginning of the case?

Pretty much, yes.

Has it been your responsibility to track all of the items of evidence that have been collected from the 13th onward?

What do you mean by "Track"?

Keep track of where they are?

No, it is not.

Has it been your job to determine what items of evidence are to be analyzed and what aren't to be analyzed?

Well, like I mentioned, most of the requests go through me. As a--a contact point for the detectives or the D.A.'s office, they would call me up to put in their request specifying what type of analysis was requested to be done. I would then prepare a request and forward it on to the appropriate person.

Now, have you been monitoring, since June 13th, the media coverage about this case?

Off and on, yes.

And have you been following the Court proceedings?

Off and on.

When you say "Off and on," what do you mean?

Well, I would watch some and there got to be a point awhile back where I figured it was probably best not to. It was consuming too much of my time during the day. I tended to be paying more attention to it once people within our laboratory were involved.

At what point did you stop watching television?

Well, during the daytime that would be during the detective's testimony.

Now, did you watch the testimony of Dennis Fung?

As much as I did. I still am working, so I would be in and out of my office and I would miss segments of it.

Did you try to watch the testimony of Andrea Mazzola?

Same thing, as much as possible.

And that was with a television in your office?

Yes.

Did you discuss their testimonies with them in the evenings after they testified?

Umm--

Let me start with Dennis Fung.

From the time that Mr. Fung started testifying until he was done I only--I left messages on his answering machine twice, didn't talk directly with him, and I met with him one evening and we went out to dinner and that was it.

During Andrea Mazzola's testimony did you have any conversations or meet with her when she wasn't testifying?

I believe there was one meeting that we had; it was myself, Michele Kestler and Collin Yamauchi, and Miss Mazzola in Miss Kestler's office.

When was that?

Oh, I don't know the exact date. It was sometime I believe early on in her testimony.

And what was the subject matter of that meeting?

So you talked about specific issues that might come up as part of her testimony?

We didn't so much talk about it, just suggest areas that she may want to be aware of as far as potential questions that may be applied to her.

What sorts of areas did you suggest to her might come up?

Umm--

This is beyond the scope, not relevant.

Sustained.

Did Michele Kestler participate in that meeting?

Irrelevant, beyond the scope.

Sustained.

Was there any specific discussion of item 17, Mr. Simpson's blood vial, at that meeting?

Objection, irrelevant, beyond the scope.

Overruled.

Were you aware that that was a significant issue or had been raised as a significant issue by the Defense by this time?

Yes.

And was the purpose of that meeting to discuss that issue, among others?

No, it wasn't.

You have no recollection of whether you discussed that or not with her?

Well I don't remember if we discussed that specific item. Like I said, we were talking generally about style and just how to testify, feeling comfortable about testifying.

When you say "How to testify," what do you mean?

Just--

This is still beyond the scope and irrelevant.

Mildly. One answer. Go ahead and answer the question, then we are going to quit for the day.

The concept of trying to be comfortable, to make eye contact, that type of thing, to deal with the attorneys and the jury, the whole process of being in a courtroom and testifying.

All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the afternoon. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, do not conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We will see you back here tomorrow morning at nine o'clock. We will stand in recess for five minutes and then I would like to see counsel again. Thank you. All right. Mr. Matheson, tomorrow morning at 8:45.