Evidence items and blood splits

📄 Evidence items and blood splits — Thursday, June 30, 1994

Address:

C:\DEPT103\PRELIMINARY\1994\JUN\30\EVIDENCE-ITEMS-AND-BLOOD-SPLIT.DOC

TRIAL

▲ Day 1 of 6

◀ Motion: hair sample limitation Direct examination of Michele Kestler ▶

Date: Thursday, June 30, 1994 • Utterances: 6

Judge Kennedy-Powell and counsel organize the logistics of an upcoming hearing on splitting blood samples and hair evidence for the defense. The judge seeks a clear property report listing the specific items of evidence to be addressed, distinguishing between evidence from the Bundy crime scene and evidence from Simpson's Rockingham home.

# 1 THE COURT:

All right. Then let's -- also then in conjunction with the determination of the number of hairs, there remains the determination of the sufficiency of certain blood samples for defense splits. Now, I also should mention that the court is in receipt of the defense motion that was filed to quash and traverse and to suppress certain evidence, and attached as an exhibit to the defense motion was a property report listing certain items of evidence, I think 1 through 34 denoted there. Is it correct that all of the scientific evidence about which we're speaking about splitting is included in those items 1 through 34?

# 2 MR. UELMEN:

I don't believe so, Your Honor. I believe there is scientific evidence related to items recovered at the scene of the homicide, 875 Bundy. The motion only goes to the evidence that was obtained at the home of Mr. Simpson.

# 3 THE COURT:

All right. Does anyone have something to provide to the court with a listing of what specific items we're dealing with? If there's going to be different testimony concerning a particular item that was received in evidence and the court would ultimately be making orders perhaps differing or designating certain samples that would be split and certain samples that would not be split, it would certainly be helpful to the court to have some sort of a number, and the way it's denoted in the property report would make sense since that's the way all of you will be dealing with the evidence, and the criminalists as well. Is there a copy of the property report that could be made available just for the Court's use in keeping track of the items of evidence, scientific evidence that we're dealing with?

# 4 MR. SHAPIRO:

We have extra copies, Your Honor.

# 5 MS. CLARK:

I do, Your Honor.

# 6 THE COURT:

If someone could hand that to my clerk, it would greatly assist me during this motion. All right. Then I guess then we'll just commence with the testimony with regard to the splitting of the evidence at this point in time. Ms. Clark.

Temperature

procedural

Key Quotes (2)

Kathleen Kennedy-Powell

there remains the determination of the sufficiency of certain blood samples for defense splits

Establishes the core issue: whether the defense gets split samples of the physical evidence for independent testing.

Gerald Uelmen

I believe there is scientific evidence related to items recovered at the scene of the homicide, 875 Bundy. The motion only goes to the evidence that was obtained at the home of Mr. Simpson.

Clarifies that the suppression motion is limited to Rockingham evidence, while the splits discussion covers Bundy evidence as well — two overlapping but distinct sets of items.

Evidence (3)

Items 1–34 (property report)

Property report listing evidence obtained at Simpson's Rockingham home, attached to defense motion to quash, traverse, and suppress

discussed — scope clarified relative to Bundy scene evidence

Informal

Blood samples from both Bundy crime scene and Rockingham, subject to defense split requests

discussed — court seeking organized listing for tracking

Informal

Hair evidence — number of hairs still to be determined

noted as pending determination

Notable Exchanges (1)

Kathleen Kennedy-Powell•Gerald Uelmen

Judge asks whether all scientific evidence subject to splitting is captured in items 1–34; Uelmen corrects that the suppression motion covers only Rockingham evidence, not Bundy scene evidence, so the split discussion is broader.

clarifying

Objections

None recorded

Proceeding 8948 • 6 utterances

Preliminary Trial

Department 103