Cross-examination of William Bodziak

📄 Cross-examination of William Bodziak — Monday, September 18, 1995

Address:

C:\DEPT103\CRIMINAL\1995\SEP\18\CROSS-EXAMINATION-OF-WILLIAM-B.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 156 of 167

◀ Jury return Sidebar: test impressions admissibility ▶

Witness: William Bodziak
Examiner: Barry Scheck
Called by: Prosecution • Date: Monday, September 18, 1995 • Utterances: 120

Defense attorney Barry Scheck continues his cross-examination of FBI shoe print expert William Bodziak, extracting concessions that Bodziak agrees with Agent Deedrick's conclusion that the bloody imprints on the envelope and paper were made by something landing on them while they lay flat — not by the paper contacting the jeans. Scheck also establishes that Bodziak never searched the FBI's computerized shoe database for parallel line patterns matching those on the evidence, despite using that very database to identify the Bruno Magli prints. The session ends at a sidebar as Scheck moves to introduce photographs of how the jeans test impressions were made.

# 1 MR. SCHECK:

Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

THE JURY: Good morning.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. SCHECK

# 2 MR. SCHECK:

Good morning, agent Bodziak.

# 3 MR. BODZIAK:

Good morning.

# 4 MR. SCHECK:

How are you today, sir?

# 5 MR. BODZIAK:

Fine.

# 6 MR. SCHECK:

Agent Bodziak, I think you indicated to us on Friday that your knowledge of the extent to which Dr. Lee actually goes to crime scenes and inspects imprint evidence, shoeprint evidence is somewhat limited.

# 7 MR. BODZIAK:

Yes. I stated what knowledge I had about Dr. Lee on Friday.

# 8 MR. SCHECK:

Are you aware that this Saturday, Dr. Lee investigated a crime scene involving imprint evidence in Kennebunkport, Maine--

# 9 MS. CLARK:

Objection. Irrelevant.

# 10 THE COURT:

Sustained. Sustained. It's irrelevant.

# 11 MR. SCHECK:

--at the request of the FBI?

# 12 THE COURT:

It's irrelevant.

# 13 MR. SCHECK:

Now, we left off discussing reasons I believe on Friday that the imprints on the envelope and the piece of paper in your opinion could not possibly have come from a shoe.

# 14 MR. BODZIAK:

That's correct.

# 15 MR. SCHECK:

And I believe we discussed on Friday your views that the non-printing area around the imprints and the lack of a border were factors you considered in reaching your conclusion that it could not have possibly come from a shoe.

# 16 MR. BODZIAK:

That's part of the factors, yes.

# 17 MR. SCHECK:

Yes. And I believe you told us that although you recalled seeing 95 percent of Dr. Lee's testimony, you did not see his testimony about the blood patterns on the envelope and the basis for his belief that the parallel line imprints were made first and other bloodstains were deposited later?

# 18 MR. BODZIAK:

I didn't see that nor do I believe it has anything to do with whether or not that is a shoeprint.

# 19 MR. SCHECK:

I understand. Now, have you, since we last discussed this on Friday, made any effort to read or review that testimony of Dr. Lee?

# 20 MR. BODZIAK:

No, I haven't.

# 21 MR. SCHECK:

We also had a discussion at the end of the day on Friday about whether Agent Deedrick believed that the paper and the envelope were probably laying down when something landed on it and made those imprints on it. Do you recall that?

# 22 MR. BODZIAK:

Yes, I do.

# 23 MR. SCHECK:

All right. Now--and at that time that we were discussing it, neither of us had Agent Deedrick's testimony right at hand.

# 24 MR. BODZIAK:

Well, I know what Agent Deedrick's conclusion was and what his statement--what I believe the significant statement in his testimony was that there had to be pressure.

# 25 MR. SCHECK:

My only question to you, sir, is, neither of us had that precise testimony at hand?

# 26 MR. BODZIAK:

No. No.

# 27 MR. SCHECK:

Okay. Now, I'd like to read you something and ask--from Agent Deedrick's testimony on this issue and ask if you agree with it. All right?

# 28 MR. BODZIAK:

Sure.

# 29 MS. CLARK:

May I see it?

# 30 MR. SCHECK:

Sure. It's from the real time, so--and do you want to look--

# 31 (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

# 32 MR. SCHECK:

"Question:" this is to Mr. Deedrick. "And on Mr. Goldman's jeans, you saw areas where it was saturated? "Answer: It appeared to be." Now--"Question: Now, another scientific fact or would you agree that another scientific fact about these imprints is that they were in blood, but also that the imprint on the envelope, the piece of paper and the jeans actually are static, that is, they show evidence of little movement? "Answer: Well, it's difficult to say with the jeans because I think I have already testified that it might be a swiping or moving type motion that may have caused that. But the papers is probably static. I think the papers were sitting and then something landed on it." Recall that?

# 33 MR. BODZIAK:

Yes.

# 34 MR. SCHECK:

"Question: So you would agree that in terms of the observation also that we could agree it's a scientific fact that the bloody imprints were made and impressed with relatively little movement? "Answer: Yeah. That's reasonable. I don't really know the dynamics nor could I say with 100 percent certainty what the dynamics were of this, but it was probably laying down and something landed on that one area." Do you recall him saying that?

# 35 MR. BODZIAK:

Yes.

# 36 MR. SCHECK:

"Question: And you would think that would be the most reasonable interpretation of how the imprint got on the paper and how it got on the envelope? "Answer: Yeah. That's more logical than having the paper float down and land on something and I think it's more reasonable." Do you recall Agent Deedrick saying that?

# 37 MR. BODZIAK:

Yes.

# 38 MR. SCHECK:

All right. Now, do you disagree with that?

# 39 MR. BODZIAK:

No. I totally agree. May I explain?

KEY QUOTE

# 40 MR. SCHECK:

Okay. All right.

# 41 MS. CLARK:

Objection, your Honor. He's an expert witness. He should be allowed to explain.

# 42 THE COURT:

No. He said, "I totally agree."

# 43 MS. CLARK:

And he asked to explain.

# 44 THE COURT:

Next question.

# 45 MR. SCHECK:

All right. And then there was further discussion, just to read it all. "Question: But it would be fair to rule out in terms of your interpretation that the imprint, for example, on the envelope or the piece of paper could have come about with the envelope or piece of paper hitting the jeans and then falling to the ground? "Answer: I don't know. I think I said that it seems reasonable that the papers were laying flat and then contact occurred causing the imprints pattern. That seems to me logical." Excuse me. "But there has to be some force, some resistance to that contact so the paper, if it were not on the ground, would have had to have been against something so that the imprint occurred. It wouldn't be floating. It would either have to be either held or on something else. "Question: When you and I were talking before, we were operating on your premise that this could have come from Mr. Goldman's jeans, these two imprints, that didn't you indicate or aren't you saying that you felt it unlikely that either the piece of paper or the envelope could have gotten these imprints if they had just touched the jeans? "Answer: Yeah. I think I've already testified to that too. Yes."

# 46 MR. SCHECK:

Fair enough?

# 47 MR. BODZIAK:

Yes.

# 48 MR. SCHECK:

Okay. Now, without repeating the entire discussion, can we agree that on direct examination, you told us that you did not believe these parallel line imprints on the envelope and paper were typical of the parallel line imprints one expects to see from shoes?

# 49 MR. BODZIAK:

That's correct.

# 50 MR. SCHECK:

However, it would be fair to say that there are many parallel line imprints in shoe patterns?

# 51 MR. BODZIAK:

Yes, there are.

# 52 MR. SCHECK:

And you have a computerized database of shoe patterns at the FBI?

# 53 MR. BODZIAK:

Yes, I do.

# 54 MR. SCHECK:

And that was the computerized database that you consulted when you were looking for the Bruno Maglis?

# 55 MR. BODZIAK:

That's correct.

# 56 MR. SCHECK:

And I guess as of Friday, you had not reviewed that database looking for the parallel line imprint on this envelope. Yes or no?

# 57 MR. BODZIAK:

No, I would not.

# 58 MR. SCHECK:

And over the weekend, you have not done that either, have you?

KEY QUOTE

# 59 MR. BODZIAK:

No, I would not.

# 60 MR. SCHECK:

Now, the--

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

# 62 MR. SCHECK:

Now, there were test imprints of the jeans that were created in this case?

# 63 MR. BODZIAK:

It's my understanding that Doug Deedrick prepared some when he was out here and I know there were some prepared prior to his coming, yes.

# 64 MR. SCHECK:

Right. And one set were done on August 21st at the LAPD lab by LAPD personnel and some were prepared on August 31st.

# 65 MR. BODZIAK:

I don't know the exact dates, but it was in August, yes.

# 66 MR. SCHECK:

Right. Two on August 21st and five on August 31st.

# 67 MR. BODZIAK:

Okay.

# 68 MR. SCHECK:

And, your Honor, we don't have the--upstairs they have the full set of imprints, but what I have here are Xeroxes of the actual imprints and two pieces of paper. They appeared in one piece of paper. So for the sake of expediting things, could we mark these two documents Defendant's next in order and then we'll later substitute it with the full imprint pad, if that's okay?

# 69 THE COURT:

1376.

# 70 THE COURT:

And this is going to be test impression from the jeans?

# 71 MR. SCHECK:

Test impressions from the jeans.

# 72 THE COURT:

Do you know what date that was taken?

# 73 MR. SCHECK:

I'm sorry?

# 74 THE COURT:

Is this the LAPD or the FBI?

# 75 MR. SCHECK:

These are the ones that were done by the LAPD and sent to the FBI that formed the basis for the boards.

# 76 THE COURT:

All right. These are the 8-21 impressions.

# 77 MR. SCHECK:

They're 8-31 and--

# 78 THE COURT:

8-21 or 8-31?

# 79 MR. SCHECK:

They're all dated on the paper.

# 80 THE COURT:

8-21 or 8-31?

# 81 MR. SCHECK:

They're--there's one on 8-30, there's one on 8-31, another on 8-30, another on 8-30, another on 8-30 and another on 8-30 on the two pages I have.

# 82 THE COURT:

All right. Multiple dates. Thank you.

# 83 MR. SCHECK:

But they're each labeled.

# 84 (Brief pause.)

# 85 MR. SCHECK:

Have you seen these test impressions before?

# 86 MR. BODZIAK:

These are of the jeans, yes. They have actually my initials on them because they passed through me. Yes.

# 87 MR. SCHECK:

Okay.

# 88 MR. SCHECK:

Now--your Honor, may I put these on the elmo?

# 89 THE COURT:

Yes.

# 90 (Brief pause.)

# 91 MR. SCHECK:

Now, agent Bodziak, the manner in which these test impressions are created is that the jeans are laid flat on the surface?

# 92 MR. BODZIAK:

I wasn't present when these were prepared.

# 93 MR. SCHECK:

Have you seen subsequently pictures of how they were done?

# 94 MR. BODZIAK:

No, I have not.

# 95 MS. CLARK:

Your Honor, there would be an objection, 352, incomplete. If we can approach.

# 96 THE COURT:

Well, let him show you what he is going to show you first.

# 97 MS. CLARK:

I know what he has.

# 98 MR. SCHECK:

Well, they gave them to me.

# 99 MR. SCHECK:

Let me just establish this while Miss Clark is looking at the various pictures. Are you aware that pictures were taken of the process by which these test impressions were made at the LAPD laboratory?

# 100 MS. CLARK:

Objection. That's misleading.

# 101 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 102 MR. BODZIAK:

Only now that you've just told me. No.

# 103 MS. CLARK:

Then the objection is speculation.

# 104 THE COURT:

Overruled.

# 105 MR. SCHECK:

Did you have any--withdrawn. Would it have been your--was it your recommendation that the manner in which these test impressions be made that the jeans are laid flat and then this yellow pad, this palm print chemical pad is placed on the jeans and then--and rolled and then subsequently a white piece of paper is put on the jeans and then these--these impressions are made by the interaction of the chemicals from the yellow pad on to the white piece of paper? Is that how it works?

# 106 MR. BODZIAK:

I wasn't present when they were made. I didn't direct the obtaining of these impressions.

# 107 MR. SCHECK:

Well, you sent the Identicator kit to the LAPD?

# 108 MR. BODZIAK:

Yes, I did.

# 109 MR. SCHECK:

And you have testified that you've used this yourself for purposes of taking impressions of soles of shoes and I think socks whereby people step on them?

# 110 MR. BODZIAK:

Right. That's correct.

# 111 MR. SCHECK:

Now, is the method that--when you sent this Identicator kit to the LAPD, did you direct them that the method of creating the test impression would be to lay the jeans flat and then place the yellow palm print pad on it and roll it and then place the papers on it?

# 112 MR. BODZIAK:

I've never used a roller. So I know I would not have recommended that. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but with shoes and socks, it's easy to wear them and step on the object.

# 113 MR. SCHECK:

Uh-huh. Why wouldn't you have recommended the roller in this case?

# 114 MR. BODZIAK:

Well, it's not that it wouldn't in a case of a fabric--I don't conduct fabric examinations. So I don't get into that kind of a problem. But there would be nothing wrong with using a roller. You're get a representative sample of the jeans, but I'm more used to taking the object and pressing it on the pad and then onto the paper because I deal with shoes and socks.

# 115 MR. SCHECK:

Uh-huh.

# 116 (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

# 117 MS. CLARK:

Your Honor, we need to approach.

# 118 THE COURT:

Well, are you going to use any of these at this point, Mr. Scheck?

# 119 MR. SCHECK:

Well, I'm going to show him these pictures.

# 120 THE COURT:

All right. Sidebar with the court reporter, please.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (4)

William Bodziak

No. I totally agree. May I explain?

Bodziak fully concedes Deedrick's conclusion that the papers were laying flat and something landed on them — undercutting his own direct testimony that the imprints couldn't have come from a shoe based partly on the impression dynamics.

William Bodziak

No, I would not.

Bodziak confirms he never searched the FBI's own shoe database for parallel line patterns matching the envelope/paper imprints, despite using that database to identify the Bruno Magli shoe — a significant gap in his methodology.

Barry Scheck

And over the weekend, you have not done that either, have you?

Scheck highlights that Bodziak made no effort over the weekend to review Dr. Lee's testimony or search the shoe database, reinforcing that his opinion is fixed and unexamined.

Lance A. Ito

No. He said, 'I totally agree.' Next question.

Ito cuts off Bodziak's attempt to explain his concession, a procedural ruling that left the admission standing without qualification.

Evidence (4)

Defendant's 1376

Xerox copies of test impressions made from Ron Goldman's jeans on multiple dates in August (8-30, 8-31) at the LAPD laboratory using an Identicator chemical transfer kit

Introduced and marked; Scheck preparing to display on ELMO before sidebar

Informal

FBI computerized shoe pattern database used to identify Bruno Magli prints

Referenced to establish Bodziak had not searched it for parallel line patterns matching the envelope/paper imprints

Informal

Agent Deedrick's prior trial testimony regarding dynamics of bloody imprints on Goldman's jeans, envelope, and paper

Read into record by Scheck; Bodziak confirmed accuracy and agreement

Informal

Photographs of the LAPD process for creating test impressions from Goldman's jeans

Scheck attempting to introduce at time of sidebar; Clark objecting

Notable Exchanges (3)

Barry Scheck•William Bodziak

Scheck reads Deedrick's testimony verbatim about the papers being static and something landing on them, then walks Bodziak through each conclusion until Bodziak says 'I totally agree' — a clean concession that directly undercuts the prosecution's framing of the imprint evidence.

strategic

Barry Scheck•William Bodziak

Scheck establishes that despite opining the parallel line imprints were not typical of shoe prints, Bodziak never searched the FBI's own comprehensive shoe database for parallel line patterns — neither before his testimony nor over the weekend.

revealing

Marcia Clark•Lance A. Ito

After Bodziak says 'I totally agree. May I explain?', Clark objects that as an expert he should be allowed to explain. Ito simply notes he already said he totally agreed and moves on — leaving the concession unqualified.

procedural

Credibility Attacks (2)

⚔ William Bodziak

Omission / methodological gap

Scheck established that despite Bodziak's opinion that the parallel line imprints were not typical shoe prints, he never searched the FBI's own shoe database for parallel line patterns — a database he used to find the Bruno Magli — either before testifying or over the weekend.

⚔ William Bodziak

Failure to review contrary evidence

Bodziak confirmed he did not review Dr. Lee's testimony about blood pattern sequencing on the envelope, which formed the basis for Lee's conclusion about the imprints, and made no effort to do so over the weekend.

Witness Demeanor

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

(Brief pause.)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

Objections

5 objections (1 sustained, 2 overruled)

Proceeding 7704 • 120 utterances • Prosecution witness

Criminal Trial

Department 103