Cross-examination of Collin Yamauchi (morning, part 4)

📄 Cross-examination of Collin Yamauchi (morning, part 4) — Tuesday, May 30, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\MAY\30\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-COLLIN-YA.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 84 of 167

◀ Sidebar: evidence admissibility Cross-examination of Collin Yamauchi (morning, part 5) ▶

Witness: Collin Yamauchi
Examiner: Barry Scheck
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Tuesday, May 30, 1995 • Utterances: 179

Barry Scheck continued cross-examination of LAPD criminalist Collin Yamauchi, focusing primarily on two issues: (1) attempting to introduce Defense exhibit 1107, the evidence collection report filled out by Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola, which Judge Ito repeatedly excluded as hearsay; and (2) establishing a timeline placing Yamauchi's glove cutting between 9:00 A.M. and 10:00 A.M. on June 14th, after Fung allegedly removed a hair from the glove. Scheck also attacked SID protocols, getting Yamauchi to admit he had never read or even heard of the crime scene field unit procedures manual in five years at the lab.

# 1 MR. SCHECK:

I'm going to move the entire report in evidence, 107.

# 2 THE COURT:

Let's proceed.

# 3 MR. HARMON:

No foundation.

# 4 (The following proceedings were held in open court:)

# 5 MR. SCHECK:

Your Honor, I would move 1107 at this time into evidence based on the prior testimony of Mr. Fung and Miss Mazzola.

# 6 MR. HARMON:

There's no foundation. It's hearsay.

# 7 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 8 MR. SCHECK:

In the course of your work at the SID laboratory, is it part of the regular course of business to fill out crime scene identification--investigation checklists?

# 9 MR. YAMAUCHI:

For crime scene investigations, yes.

# 10 MR. SCHECK:

And is it part of the normal course of businesses in those crime scene identification checklists to fill out what are known as evidence collection reports?

# 11 MR. YAMAUCHI:

It's one of the pages in that packet.

# 12 MR. SCHECK:

And in some of these evidence collection reports, there is a box for sample numbers and there's a box for item collected and time?

# 13 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes.

# 14 MR. SCHECK:

And these reports are supposed to be filled out--are these reports filled out in the regular course of business at your laboratory?

# 15 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Regular course of--yes. Those--that whole set of forms is what's made available to all of us when we go out to crime scenes.

# 16 MR. SCHECK:

And you fill out these reports at or near the time that you collect the item of evidence?

# 17 MR. YAMAUCHI:

You mean me personally when I do a crime scene or--

# 18 MR. SCHECK:

You mean criminalists in your laboratory. It's part of the regular course of your business to fill out these evidence collection reports at or near the time that you collect the item of evidence.

# 19 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Sometimes I do, sometimes I fill in a collective where I put the time in from the first item collected and the time in on the last item collected.

# 20 MR. SCHECK:

All right. But sometimes you will actually fill in the time under the box "Time"?

# 21 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Fill them all out, yeah, occasionally I'll do that.

# 22 MR. SCHECK:

And when you do that, you fill it out, it's the regular course of your business to fill that out at or near the time that you collect the item?

# 23 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Sure.

# 24 MR. SCHECK:

All right. And criminalists in your laboratory have an obligation when they fill in these forms to fill them in accurately and truthfully?

# 25 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Of course.

# 26 MR. SCHECK:

All right. Now, have you reviewed in the course of this case the crime scene investigation checklist and the evidence collection report filled out by Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola?

# 27 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Have I reviewed it? No.

# 28 MR. SCHECK:

Never seen it once?

# 29 MR. YAMAUCHI:

No.

# 30 MR. SCHECK:

All right. I show you what has been page 2 of 2 pages of the evidence collection report that is exhibit 1107, Defense 1107. Is this page one of those evidence collection reports page that's filled out in the regular course of your business at SID?

# 31 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes.

# 32 MR. SCHECK:

And is it the regular course of your business at SID for criminalists to fill that out accurately?

# 33 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Sure. Yes.

# 34 MR. SCHECK:

And are they supposed to fill it out sometime at or near the time that they locate the item collected and put in the time?

# 35 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes.

# 36 MR. SCHECK:

All right. Your Honor, I would offer these two pages from the evidence collection sheet of 1107.

# 37 MR. HARMON:

It's somebody else's report, your Honor.

# 38 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 39 MR. HARMON:

Thank you.

# 40 MR. SCHECK:

Do you rely on the evidence collection reports of other criminalists in the course of your work on a case?

# 41 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Do I rely upon it?

# 42 MR. SCHECK:

Yes.

# 43 MR. HARMON:

Objection. It's vague, it's irrelevant, it's beyond the scope.

# 44 THE COURT:

Overruled. Overruled.

# 45 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Well, I might utilize them in reference.

# 46 MR. SCHECK:

Would you rely on the information in this report to be accurate even though you didn't create the report yourself?

# 47 MR. HARMON:

Objection. That's irrelevant.

# 48 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 49 MR. YAMAUCHI:

I would assume it's correct.

# 50 MR. SCHECK:

And, your Honor, I would offer it now.

# 51 THE COURT:

Nope. Sustained.

# 52 MR. SCHECK:

Would you rely--as part of your formulating your expert opinion about how crime scene samples are handled in this case, would you rely upon the evidence collection reports filled out by Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola?

# 53 MR. HARMON:

Objection. Calls for speculation. It's beyond the scope of his direct examination.

# 54 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 55 MR. HARMON:

It's still hearsay.

# 56 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 57 MR. YAMAUCHI:

I think I would rather have that--have a discussion with them and then have them explain and tell me that this is reference material for certain--certain areas. So in other words, what I'm saying is, I would rather have it in conjunction with physically speaking with them because they're their notes and not my own. They might have their own personal style of writing and taking notes.

# 58 MR. SCHECK:

In terms of the time that hair and fibers might have been removed from the glove, is the evidence collection report an item that you would generally rely upon in formulating your expert opinion about crime scene samples in a case?

# 59 MR. HARMON:

Objection. That's irrelevant.

# 60 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 61 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Once again, I would--I would like to talk to them first to clarify issues and make sure I understand the way that they fill out and address their notes. For one thing, there's times on here, but it doesn't say what date they were collected on. I--is there more of this or--

# 62 THE COURT:

Let me see counsel without the court reporter, please.

# 63 (A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

# 64 (The following proceedings were held in open court:)

# 65 THE COURT:

Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

# 66 MR. SCHECK:

Thank you, your Honor.

# 67 MR. SCHECK:

Mr. Yamauchi, do you recognize these two pages which have been marked Defendant's 1107?

# 68 MR. YAMAUCHI:

They look like part of the crime scene note packet.

# 69 MR. SCHECK:

The crime scene note packet that is filled out in the ordinary course of business at the SID laboratory?

# 70 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes.

# 71 MR. SCHECK:

And looking at the rest of the materials, 1107 and these last two pages, do you recognize this to be the evidence collected--collection report filled out by Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola in connection with this case?

# 72 MR. HARMON:

Objection. There's no foundation, it calls for hearsay.

# 73 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 74 MR. YAMAUCHI:

I don't see any initials or anything like that on there and I'm not--I can't say that I--I could recognize their style of writing or anything. But judging by the--

# 75 THE COURT:

Go ahead. Finish your answer.

# 76 MR. YAMAUCHI:

--judging by the numbers and the other stuff, it--it seems like it's related to this case.

# 77 MR. SCHECK:

Well, you recognize these to be the item numbers in this case accord with the item numbers that--of the various different specimens that you've been dealing with in this case and you were dealing with on June 14th?

# 78 MR. HARMON:

Objection. Calls for speculation, no foundation, it's hearsay.

# 79 THE COURT:

All right. Mr. Scheck, let's--we're not going to make any progress in this area. The jury's already heard the testimony of Mr. Fung. Let's proceed.

# 80 MR. SCHECK:

Do you notice on the first page of this evidence--this crime scene investigation checklist, do you see the names Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola?

# 81 MR. HARMON:

Objection. That's hearsay, your Honor.

# 82 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 83 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes.

# 84 MR. SCHECK:

Having seen that, looking at all these documents, do you now recognize 1107 to be the crime scene investigation checklist and the evidence collection report filled out by Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola in connection with this case?

# 85 MR. HARMON:

Objection. Calls for speculation, no foundation, it's hearsay, your Honor.

# 86 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 87 MR. YAMAUCHI:

I guess I'd have to take your word for it.

KEY QUOTE

# 88 THE COURT:

All right. Let's move on.

# 89 MR. SCHECK:

Mr. Yamauchi, let me ask you to assume that Mr. Fung removed hair and fibers from the glove at 9:00 A.M. on the morning of June 14th. Do you have that in mind?

# 90 MR. HARMON:

Objection. Improper hypothetical. It's inconsistent with the testimony.

# 91 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 92 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Okay.

# 93 MR. SCHECK:

Now, if you assume that to be true, would you not agree in reconstructing the events of June 14th, that you cut samples from the glove sometime between 9:00 A.M. and Mr. Fung removed the hair and 10:00 A.M. when you began cutting the swatches from the Bundy samples?

# 94 MR. HARMON:

Objection. That's argumentative. It's an improper hypothetical.

# 95 THE COURT:

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

# 96 MR. HARMON:

Thank you.

# 97 MR. SCHECK:

Assuming that Mr. Fung removed the hair from the glove at 9:00 A.M., looking--based on that assumption and looking at all your notes and canvassing your recollection of the morning of June 14th, do you believe it likely that you cut samples from the glove between 9:00 A.M. and 10:00 A.M. on the morning of June 14th?

# 98 MR. YAMAUCHI:

That's possible although my notes don't reflect any times as to when I specifically did that.

# 99 MR. SCHECK:

The understand--your notes don't reflect times?

# 100 MR. YAMAUCHI:

But--not on--not on that particular item, I didn't write the time down.

# 101 MR. SCHECK:

But in reviewing the glove entries with you this morning, did you not agree that in terms of the listing of the items and the order in which you put in your notes, that it is likely that you cut samples from the glove before you cut the Bundy swatches?

# 102 MR. HARMON:

Objection. That's argumentative.

# 103 THE COURT:

Overruled. And, Mr. Scheck, you're going to have to remove your items from the Prosecution's side of the table.

# 104 MR. SCHECK:

I'm sorry?

# 105 THE COURT:

You're going to have to remove your belongings from the Prosecution side of the table unless you want to leave them there.

KEY QUOTE

# 106 MR. SCHECK:

You're right. I'd better move them.

# 107 MR. SCHECK:

Do you have my last question in mind?

# 108 MR. YAMAUCHI:

I'm sorry. Could you ask it one more time, please?

# 109 MR. SCHECK:

In reviewing your notes this morning, did you not reach the conclusion that it was likely that you cut samples from the glove before you did the Bundy samples?

# 110 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes, that's possible. But once again, I don't have it written down and I don't have independent recollection of that, using your terminology.

# 111 MR. SCHECK:

And assuming that Mr. Fung removed a hair from the glove at 9:00 A.M.--

# 112 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes.

# 113 MR. SCHECK:

--and combining that with your notes and the recollections you do have of the morning of June 14th, do you not consider it likely that you cut samples from the glove between 9:00 A.M. and 10:00 A.M. on the morning of June 14th?

# 114 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes. That makes sense.

KEY QUOTE

# 115 MR. SCHECK:

Okay. Your Honor, I would like to have a diagram I would like to--what time? 2:30?

# 116 THE COURT:

2:30.

# 117 MR. SCHECK:

--I would like to mark Defendant's next in order. I believe this is Defendant's--

# 118 THE COURT:

1186.

# 119 MR. SCHECK:

1186.

# 120 THE COURT:

This is a drawing of the glove.

# 121 (Deft's 1186 for id = drawing of glove)

# 122 MR. SCHECK:

Now, have you had an opportunity to examine this board, Mr. Yamauchi?

# 123 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes.

# 124 MR. SCHECK:

Now, you examined this with Mr. Harmon the other day, Friday I believe?

# 125 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes. If that's the same board, yes, that's the one then.

# 126 MR. SCHECK:

And are you satisfied that the blown-up diagrams of the backside, the front side of the glove and the wrist area where you put your initials are accurate reproductions of what you drew on your serology item description notes?

# 127 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes, it seems to be.

# 128 MR. SCHECK:

And the--I guess the phrase we use here is "The pull out lines" or the "Cut out lines"--that are--accurately reflect your own notes about what procedures and manipulations you made of the glove on the morning of June 14th?

# 129 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes. I didn't notice any inconsistencies.

# 130 MR. SCHECK:

All right. Now, if we assume that Mr. Fung removed a hair from the glove on the morning of June 14th, you have no idea from your knowledge of this case where he removed it from, do you?

# 131 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Where Mr. Fung--no, I don't know where he removed anything.

# 132 MR. SCHECK:

And you have no idea whether or not he was wearing the same pair of gloves that he used to handle the crime scene specimens when he removed a hair from this glove on the morning of June 14th?

# 133 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Of course I don't know what he did.

KEY QUOTE

# 134 MR. SCHECK:

Now, in your training, have you been taught that it is fundamental criminalist procedure to take a photograph of an item of evidence such as this glove before anyone in the crime lab alters it?

# 135 MR. HARMON:

Objection. Argumentative.

# 136 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 137 MR. YAMAUCHI:

I would say that's a good idea and something that I would practice on most occasions. But to give it that much emphasis, not necessarily.

# 138 MR. SCHECK:

Are you familiar--you've been working at SID for how many years?

# 139 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Five years.

# 140 MR. SCHECK:

Five years. Have you ever come in contact with a document known as a "Crime scene field--crime scene field unit protocol and procedures manual"?

# 141 MR. HARMON:

Objection. Beyond the scope of direct.

# 142 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 143 MR. YAMAUCHI:

First time I ever heard about that was during this case.

KEY QUOTE

# 144 MR. SCHECK:

Uh-huh. Well, since this case began, have you had an opportunity to look through the crime scene and field--crime scene field unit protocol and procedures manual?

# 145 MR. HARMON:

Objection. It's irrelevant.

# 146 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 147 MR. HARMON:

Beyond the scope of direct.

# 148 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 149 MR. YAMAUCHI:

No, I've never looked at that.

# 150 MR. SCHECK:

Never looked at it. In the course--well, you have served on the crime scene field unit for SID; have you not?

# 151 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes, I've had field duties.

# 152 MR. SCHECK:

You've gone out to crime scene and collected evidence?

# 153 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes.

# 154 MR. SCHECK:

And you received training on how to do that?

# 155 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes.

# 156 MR. SCHECK:

And some of that training I take it is part of the SID oral tradition?

# 157 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Could you be more specific about that, what you mean by that?

# 158 MR. SCHECK:

You were--instead of getting any written instruction sheets on what to do, you were given oral instruction about what to do?

# 159 MR. YAMAUCHI:

I've been to a crime scene investigation class from the California Criminalistics Institute as well as have been at numerous seminars and training sessions at SID.

# 160 MR. SCHECK:

Did you go to what they call an SID mini academy?

# 161 MR. YAMAUCHI:

I don't know if that's what it's called, but we had seminars on Thursdays.

# 162 MR. SCHECK:

Okay. In your Thursday seminars, did anybody ever tell you that before altering the condition of any evidence, it should be photographed?

# 163 MR. HARMON:

Objection. Beyond the scope.

# 164 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 165 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Well, the items of evidence are photographed as they lay in the--in the field by the photographer and the criminalists that are at the scene. And when they come back, will quite often will remove bloodstains and things like that from them. It's not always critical to photo document them at that point. One reason that I would is if I was going to alter it in some way like make a cutting and that's in this case what I did.

# 166 MR. SCHECK:

Would you consider removing a hair from a glove altering it?

# 167 MR. YAMAUCHI:

It--it would depend on the situation.

# 168 MR. SCHECK:

Let's try this one. Would you consider removing a hair from the Rockingham glove altering the evidence, altering item no. 9?

# 169 MR. HARMON:

Objection. Argumentative, calls for speculation, beyond the scope.

# 170 THE COURT:

Sustained.

# 171 MR. SCHECK:

In analyzing--you conduct--withdrawn. You conducted an investigation of the glove yourself before you cut it?

# 172 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Of course I looked it over.

# 173 MR. SCHECK:

And you were trying to figure out in the course of your examination of the glove what the best areas were to either swab or cut for purposes of DNA testing?

# 174 MR. YAMAUCHI:

Yes. I was looking for areas to sample.

# 175 MR. SCHECK:

All right. And would it have been of some importance in terms of figuring out which area to sample to know where a hair had been found on that glove?

# 176 MR. HARMON:

Objection. Speculation, no foundation.

# 177 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 178 MR. YAMAUCHI:

As far as my analysis is concerned, removing blood, I--that's--that's not an issue that affects me. It would be something that would be taken up with trace or the people that analyze hairs and fibers if that's what you're getting at. I'm not sure.

# 179 MR. SCHECK:

Did you see a piece of tissue imbedded anywhere in the notch area of the Rockingham glove on the morning of June 14th?

Temperature

tense

Key Quotes (5)

Collin Yamauchi

I guess I'd have to take your word for it.

Yamauchi's reluctant concession that Defense exhibit 1107 appeared to be Fung and Mazzola's evidence collection report — undermining his credibility as someone familiar with his own lab's documentation.

Collin Yamauchi

First time I ever heard about that was during this case.

Yamauchi admits he had never heard of the SID crime scene field unit protocol and procedures manual despite five years on the job and active crime scene duties — a damaging concession about training gaps.

Collin Yamauchi

Yes. That makes sense.

Yamauchi concedes that, assuming Fung removed the hair at 9:00 A.M., it is likely he cut glove samples between 9:00 and 10:00 A.M. — locking in a timeline favorable to the defense's contamination theory.

Collin Yamauchi

Of course I don't know what he did.

Yamauchi acknowledges he had no idea whether Fung was wearing gloves contaminated with crime scene specimens when he handled the Rockingham glove — opening the door to cross-contamination arguments.

Lance A. Ito

You're going to have to remove your belongings from the Prosecution side of the table unless you want to leave them there.

A small procedural interruption mid-examination that momentarily broke the rhythm of Scheck's questioning.

Evidence (4)

Defense 1107

Crime scene investigation checklist and evidence collection report filled out by Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola, including item numbers, times, and collection details

repeatedly offered by Scheck, repeatedly excluded by Ito as hearsay without foundation

Defense 1186

Blown-up diagram of the Rockingham glove showing front, back, wrist area with Yamauchi's initials and cut/pull-out lines reflecting his June 14th sampling procedures

marked for identification; Yamauchi confirmed it accurately reproduced his serology notes

Informal

SID crime scene field unit protocol and procedures manual

referenced by Scheck; Yamauchi admitted he had never seen or heard of it before this case

Item No. 9

The Rockingham glove, informally referenced throughout in discussion of cutting procedures and hair removal

discussed

Notable Exchanges (3)

Barry Scheck•Rockne Harmon•Lance A. Ito

Scheck made six or more attempts to introduce Defense 1107 under various theories (business records, expert reliance, recognition by Yamauchi), each met with hearsay objections from Harmon and sustained rulings from Ito. Ito eventually told Scheck flatly: 'We're not going to make any progress in this area.'

procedural, frustrating for defense

Barry Scheck•Collin Yamauchi

Scheck walked Yamauchi through a hypothetical — if Fung removed a hair at 9:00 A.M., and Yamauchi began Bundy swatches at 10:00 A.M., did Yamauchi cut glove samples in between? Yamauchi ultimately conceded 'Yes. That makes sense,' locking in a contamination-favorable timeline.

strategic, methodical

Barry Scheck•Collin Yamauchi

Scheck established that Yamauchi had never seen the SID crime scene field unit procedures manual in five years of lab work and crime scene duties, and that his training came largely from Thursday seminars and oral instruction — suggesting an informal, undocumented training culture.

revealing, damaging to witness

Light Moments (1)

Lance A. Ito

Ito interrupted Scheck's examination to point out that his belongings were sitting on the prosecution's side of the table. Scheck replied 'You're right. I'd better move them.'

Credibility Attacks (3)

⚔ Collin Yamauchi

professional competence / institutional ignorance

Scheck established that Yamauchi, a five-year SID veteran with crime scene duties, had never read or even heard of the crime scene field unit protocol and procedures manual — suggesting either inadequate training or willful ignorance of established protocols.

⚔ Dennis Fung

procedural failure (via hypothetical)

Through the hypothetical of Fung removing a hair from the Rockingham glove at 9:00 A.M., Scheck implied Fung may have handled the glove without documenting it, without being photographed doing so, and possibly while wearing gloves contaminated from the Bundy crime scene.

⚔ SID laboratory

systemic protocol failure

Scheck used Yamauchi's admissions to paint SID as an institution where crime scene protocols existed on paper but were unknown to working criminalists, training was largely oral, and documentation was inconsistent.

Objections

20 objections (5 sustained, 14 overruled)

Proceeding 6222 • 179 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103