Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)
(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)
(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Cochran--I saw Mr. Shapiro earlier today--Mr. Blasier. The People are represented by Miss Kahn, Miss Clark and Mr. Harmon, also Mr. Darden. The jury is not present. Mr. Blasier, good afternoon, sir.
MR. BLASIER: Good afternoon, your Honor. In order to avoid a break between Miss Clark's cross-examination and my redirect, I would like to make this motion now. Even though we called Agent Martz as our witness, I think it is apparent that he is not--that he is a hostile witness to the Defense. I think that is not only apparent by who he was doing these tests for, but his change in demeanor after yesterday morning's session, as well as his demeanor during Miss Clark's cross-examination. So I would ask leave of the Court under 776 to cross-examine him in place of my redirect examination when she is done.
THE COURT: In other words, you are asking for the ability to ask leading questions?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, any comment?
MS. CLARK: He was asking leading questions.
THE COURT: You didn't object.
MS. CLARK: That's right. I didn't. I don't see that there is any big change. I don't think that Agent Martz is going to be a hostile witness. He has been very forthright. If counsel is unhappy with his answers, that doesn't make him hostile. Seriously. You know, I mean substantively you may not like the answer, that doesn't make the witness hostile. So I don't know what Mr. Blasier proposes to change, but I would urge the Court not to make that finding because I don't think it would be warranted by the evidence or by the witness' testimony thus far.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Anything else, Mr. Blasier?
MR. BLASIER: No. I'll submit it.
THE COURT: All right. Your request is granted.
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: Your request is granted.
MR. BLASIER: Thank you.
THE COURT: You are welcome. Let's have the jury, please.
MR. DARDEN: Your Honor, additional matter.
THE COURT: Mr. Darden, good afternoon.
MR. DARDEN: Good afternoon, your Honor. We served the Defense yesterday with an SDT for a cassette tape provided the Defense by Gretchen Stockdale. May I inquire of the Defense if they intend to comply with the SDT for the audiotape today?
MR. COCHRAN: As I understand it, your Honor, the Court granted leave for Mr. Uelmen to address all motions tomorrow morning. I think he will be addressing that at that time. If that is all right with the Court.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. COCHRAN: Very well.
THE COURT: We will take it up tomorrow morning at nine o'clock. All right. Let's have the jurors, please.
MS. CLARK: Can we just have a moment for Mr. Fairtlough to redo the printouts? The exposure was not good on the first set, and I would like to be able to use those with the jury during the cross-examination of Agent Martz.
THE COURT: How long is this going to take, Mr. Fairtlough?
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: I'm finished.
MS. CLARK: Oh, well.
THE COURT: It doesn't take long to capture; it just takes long to print it.
(Brief pause.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. The record should reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: All right. Agent Roger Martz, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Roger Martz, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: All right. The record will reflect that FBI special agent Roger Martz is again on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Miss Clark. Good afternoon, Agent Martz.
MR. MARTZ: Good afternoon, your Honor.
THE COURT: Agent Martz, you are reminded, sir, that you are still under oath. And Miss Clark, you may conclude your cross-examination.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: You are welcome.
MS. CLARK: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MS. CLARK
MS. CLARK: All right, sir. Where we left off we were talking about the high pressure liquid chromatography test that you did on the blood samples. Do you recall that?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: I believe you indicated that that particular test, the HPLC, was just a screening test that you would not rely on for any conclusion? Do you recall that testimony?
MR. MARTZ: Yes. That is a screening test and you would not use that for identification.
MS. CLARK: For identification?
MR. MARTZ: That is correct, yes.
MS. CLARK: So there is a difference then between the kind of test that will give you some indication of what might be present versus a test that will give you a definitive answer that something can be identified?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct, yes.
MS. CLARK: You were present during Dr. Rieders' testimony in court the other day, were you not, sir?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I was.
MS. CLARK: And do you recall, when I began to question him concerning the work he did in the case that we called the Sconce case, People versus Sconce?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And in that case he was retained to answer the question as to whether or not the victim had been poisoned to death by the use of the oleander plant or died of natural causes. Do you recall that?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.
MR. BLASIER: I'm going to object to this line of questioning without a foundation this agent has personal knowledge of any of this.
THE COURT: Sustained. It is a little premature, but I agree with on you foundational grounds, but it is premature at this point. Proceed.
MS. CLARK: Now, he testified that he used three tests to determine--he used three tests in analyzing the autopsy tissues of the victim; thin layer chromatography, fluorescent spectrometry and radioimmunoassay. Do you recall that?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: And I believe that he testified that those were the best then available methods to test for the presence of oleandrin. Do you recall that testimony, sir?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: Are you familiar with those tests?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I am.
MS. CLARK: Have you performed them ever?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I have.
MS. CLARK: Sir, are those tests effective to positively identify a compound?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I will say absolutely yes or no. It would depend on the compound and the circumstances and you would have to review all the data. It is possible that they could under certain circumstances, but it would depend on the specific chemical you are trying to identify.
MS. CLARK: With respect to oleandrin, do you have an opinion as to whether or not those tests would be effective to positively identify that substance?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. CLARK: Have you ever performed any tests to detect the presence of poisons, sir?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I have.
MS. CLARK: Have you ever performed any tests to detect the presence of poisons such as oleandrin?
MR. MARTZ: Well, every chemical is a little different, but we have identified chemicals that are similar, but not that specific chemical.
MS. CLARK: Are there--are the same tests--for the purpose of identifying a particular poison and of the family similar to that of oleandrin, do you use the same kind of tests for that family of chemicals, poisons such as oleandrin?
MR. MARTZ: Well, at the FBI we primarily rely on mass spectrometry to do our identifications.
MS. CLARK: And in that regard, sir, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the thin layer chromatography radioimmunoassay and fluorescent spectrometry tests are more or less effective than mass spectrometry for the purpose of detection of poisons?
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, irrelevant unless he is talking about oleander.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MARTZ: They could all be used for determining whether or not it could be present, but for the identification, I would rely on the mass spectrometry to identify that chemical.
MS. CLARK: So for the purpose of identifying poisons, sir, would the tests used by Dr. Rieders be most appropriately characterized as screening tests?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained. "Poisons" is awfully vague, counsel.
MS. CLARK: For the compound known as oleandrin, sir, do you have any knowledge of the composition of that compound?
MR. MARTZ: I've looked at the chemical and I know--basically I know what it looks like. I couldn't draw the structure or give you the formula for it.
MS. CLARK: If you, sir, were asked--if you were asked in the year 1988 to analyze autopsied tissues to determine whether or not you could identify oleandrin in those tissues, would you have used thin layer chromatography, radioimmunoassay and fluorescent spectrometry?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MARTZ: To detect it or identify it?
MS. CLARK: To identify it?
MR. MARTZ: No, I would use mass spectrometry.
MS. CLARK: Because?
MR. MARTZ: It is a definitive test.
MS. CLARK: And the other three that I have outlined are not?
MR. MARTZ: They are not definitive tests in themselves, no.
MS. CLARK: Was mass spectrometry available back in 1988?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, it was.
MS. CLARK: As a matter of fact, as of 1988 did the liquid chromatograph tandem mass spectrometer exist?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, it did.
MS. CLARK: Do you know when it first became available?
MR. MARTZ: Well, there has been many forms of liquid chromatography mass spectrometry in the FBI. We have used various forms since about 1986.
MS. CLARK: 1986?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Now, you yourself at the FBI use the machine known as the liquid chromatograph tandem mass spectrometer, correct?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: And if you don't mind, from now on I'm going to say LC/MSMS?
MR. MARTZ: Okay.
MS. CLARK: Was that particular--that particular machine was available as of 1986?
MR. MARTZ: The specific one that I used presently was not, but there were other forms of LC/MSMS available in 1986. The electrospray was not commercially available, the one that I am using in 1986.
MS. CLARK: Nevertheless, there were other forms of the LC/MSMS that were available in 1986, correct?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, there were.
MR. BLASIER: Objection, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled. The answer is already in.
MS. CLARK: Would the LC/MSMS, as it existed in 1986 through `88, have been a more effective piece of equipment to use for the identification of oleandrin?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, irrelevant.
THE COURT: Foundation. Sustained. Before that was in existence then?
MS. CLARK: What form of LC/MSMS was in existence back in 1988?
MR. MARTZ: Were several types. One was a direct liquid injection. They had a moving belt. There were several different types. Probably thermospray was available then. There are many different forms of LC/MS.
MS. CLARK: Are you familiar with the in manner which they are operated and the substances that they can most effectively identify?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I am.
MS. CLARK: And would the LC/MSMS, the forms that existed then, back in 1988, would one of them or all of them have been a more effective means of identifying oleandrin than the tests used by Dr. Rieders?
MR. BLASIER: Objection. No foundation. He has never tested this.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MARTZ: Yes, the LC/MSMS would be a more effective way to identify oleandrin.
THE COURT: All right. Let's move on.
MS. CLARK: Now, you talked, sir--just now you mentioned something about detection versus identification. Can you please tell us what you mean when you say something is detected?
MR. MARTZ: Well, detecting is--is used in a general term in the laboratory. We have certain tests called spot tests, and for something like cocaine, you would do a spot test and you get a color and you could say cocaine was detected, but what you have to realize is there is many other chemicals that would also give similar results, so even though it was detected with that particular test, it doesn't mean it was identified. In order to identify something, you have to use a positive means of identification and in the FBI laboratory we use mass spectrometry as a positive way to identify something based on a full mass spectrum.
MS. CLARK: So when you detect, that means something could be present?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: But when you identify, you say it is?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: I notice that when you were being examined by Mr. Blasier he asked you specifically whether or not on one of the evidence stains there was ions consistent with EDTA. Do you recall that?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: And do you recall answering the question yes?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Consistent with?
MR. MARTZ: Right, correct.
MS. CLARK: When you say "Consistent with," do you mean that you have identified the compound or do you mean that it has been detected, that is, it could be there but you have not identified it?
MR. MARTZ: When something is consistent with something else, it is not a positive identification. It could be something else. With preliminary tests that you do in the laboratory, there is a lot of chemicals that could be consistent, but in order to identify something, you have to have something unique associated with that chemical before you can positively identify it and that is what a mass spectrum does. Some people will say that a mass spectrum, a full mass spectrum, is a fingerprint of a chemical and that is why we try to do a full mass spectrum, to identify a chemical.
MS. CLARK: Now, in that regard, sir, when you discussed this issue with Mr. Blasier in Washington or over the telephone, did you inform him of the distinction between consistent and identified?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And in this case, sir, in the evidence stains and in your own blood, I believe you testified earlier could you not find the full daughter, the full daughter spectrum?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: And that was the one you could not find the 132 ion?
MR. MARTZ: The 132, the 160 and the 293 in a certain ratio.
THE COURT: I think we have examined on this yesterday.
MS. CLARK: Just foundational to the graph, your Honor.
MS. CLARK: Now, you indicated you tested your own blood on May 11th?
MR. MARTZ: Correct.
MS. CLARK: And you did so with and without EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MS. CLARK: I would like to show you some graphs, sir. And you generated graphs as a result of those tests?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And those graphs were made to depict the results that you obtained?
MR. MARTZ: Correct.
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I have a series of three graphs. May they be marked People's 549--548?
THE COURT: 548.
THE CLERK: 549.
MS. CLARK: 549.
(Peo's 549-A b, c for id = graphs)
THE COURT: A, b and c?
MS. CLARK: That is what I--yeah, thank you. 549-A will be the chart entitled "Operator blood, no EDTA added," red top with a start time of ten o'clock and 21 seconds. The second one 549-B, "Operator blood with EDTA." And the third one, "Operator blood, no EDTA added" time start, 10:19:55, that will be 549-C.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Proceed.
MS. CLARK: Sir, putting up on the elmo 549-A, first of all. Can you see--we can just show him the top label, Mr. Fairtlough, so you can make sure that is what--
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MS. CLARK: All right. Pushing it over to the left, if you could see the start time, what does that mean?
MR. MARTZ: That is the time that the analysis began, ten o'clock in the morning.
MS. CLARK: Now, these printouts all reflect a certain time for starting?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: We talked a little bit about the variation in quantification that will occur as a result of the sensitivity of the column. Do you recall that?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Is it then important to run all of your samples at the same time?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: And in that way will you get an accurate ratio? In other words, they will all run in the same way so you will see them relate to each other in an appropriate more accurate fashion?
MR. MARTZ: It is best to run the samples very close together in order to get the best quantitation.
MS. CLARK: And the most accurate ratio between them?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: By "Ratio" I mean relative peaks. In other words, if one is very high and one is very low, if you run them at the same time, would that relative height and depth be accurate?
MR. MARTZ: Well, it depends on your definition of "Accurate." It is not going to be a hundred percent accurate, but the closer you can run your sample together, the better off you are.
MS. CLARK: All right. Now, is this the run that you did on May 11th of 1995 on your own blood that you put into a red-topped tube that did not contain EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And can you describe for us what is shown in this graph?
MR. MARTZ: This is the reconstructed ion of 160 which is an ion produced from the 293 parent of EDTA.
MS. CLARK: Now, there is a peak shown there, correct?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, there is.
MS. CLARK: What does that indicate?
MR. MARTZ: It indicates that EDTA could be present.
MS. CLARK: Based on this reading, would you identify EDTA as being present?
MR. MARTZ: No, I would not.
MS. CLARK: Does this bear any similarity, this test run on your own blood, without EDTA, does this bear any similarity to the results obtained when the evidence stains were run?
MR. MARTZ: These are very similar results I got as to the stain from the sock and from the gate.
MS. CLARK: Now, I'm going to show you, sir--I'm going to show you the next one--I'm going to show you 549-C. If you can read that, is that again a test of your own blood with no EDTA added on May 11th?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: Start time of 10:19 and 55 seconds?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: Now, was this also from a red-capped tube?
MR. MARTZ: This was a repeat of the other injection. I just repeated the same solution.
MS. CLARK: And can you describe for us what the result is as depicted in this photograph?
MR. MARTZ: Again, it is indication that EDTA could be present in my blood.
MS. CLARK: And this is the blood from the tube that does not contain EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: From that result would you form the opinion that there was EDTA present?
MR. MARTZ: No, I would not. There is not sufficient data to identify EDTA.
MS. CLARK: And that is because?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, this is just a chromatogram with one daughter ion; it is not a full daughter spectrum.
MS. CLARK: And for the full daughter spectrum, that would be that would allow you to identify EDTA, would you have to see the 132 daughter ion?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: Now then, did you run your blood with EDTA added?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: Showing you 549-B, sir, is this the graph that depicts the run in which you ran your blood with EDTA added?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: Can you tell us what the result is shown in this graph?
MR. MARTZ: The result--again, there is indications that EDTA could be present in this particular blood sample.
MS. CLARK: Now, does this have a different appearance than--excuse me--than the evidence stains that you had run?
MR. MARTZ: The peak is larger than the evidence stains.
MS. CLARK: I don't see any, although, jagged random peaks around that one larger peak?
MR. MARTZ: Well, the noise kind of gets buried when you have a large signal.
MS. CLARK: So does this graph demonstrate that the blood, your blood when having EDTA added, gives a strong signal?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: On the 160 daughter ion?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Then the random peaks that you call noise on the blood sample of your own blood, without EDTA, does that indicate that the signal for the 160 daughter ion was weak?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: And is that very similar again to the evidence stains?
MR. MARTZ: It is very similar to the evidence stains.
MS. CLARK: Now, on July 22, sir, did you do some further testing?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And what was that?
MR. MARTZ: I retested my blood the same blood samples, and got similar results on that day.
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I have here additional graphs with the date July 22, 1995, "RMM blood, no EDTA." I would ask that it be marked People's 550-A.
THE COURT: So marked.
(Peo's 550-A for id = graph)
MS. CLARK: Sir, is RMM on this graph you?
MR. MARTZ: Those are my initials, yes.
MS. CLARK: And again, July 22, 1995, "RMM blood with EDTA," 550-B.
(Peo's 550-B for id = graph)
MS. CLARK: And showing you 550-A, sir--
MR. BLASIER: May I see it?
MS. CLARK: I'm sorry.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MS. CLARK: Showing you 550-A, sir.
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Is that the graph that depicts the test you did on your own blood with no EDTA--no EDTA added on July 22, 1995?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: Can you tell us what is shown in this graph.
MR. MARTZ: Again there is indications that EDTA could be present.
MS. CLARK: And again does this graph also bear a resemblance or similarities to the evidence stains?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, it does.
MS. CLARK: And in what respect?
MR. MARTZ: It gives a low signal comparison to the known EDTA blood standards.
MS. CLARK: Compared to the known EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And showing you 550-B, is this a test of your blood, sir, with EDTA added?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: And based on the results in this graph, would you identify EDTA as being present?
MR. MARTZ: There is indications that EDTA could be present based on the 160 daughter ion.
MS. CLARK: Now, does this graph again demonstrate the same difference that you saw when you ran the known reference samples that you knew to contain EDTA that were taken from the EDTA tube in this case?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, it is very similar results.
MS. CLARK: In what respect?
MR. MARTZ: It is a very large abundance of the 160 ion.
MS. CLARK: Now, did you also attempt to conduct a test that would tell you whether or not you could find EDTA after a period of time?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And in that respect what did you do?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I took some old blood samples that we had in the laboratory and analyzed those.
MS. CLARK: And how old were they?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, one of them I believe was from 1991 and the other two were from 1993.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MS. CLARK: Two more charts, your Honor. Entitled July 22, 1995, "EDTA blood from 1993," People's 5--
THE COURT: 551.
MS. CLARK: Thank you. 551-A.
THE COURT: Fine. A and B.
MS. CLARK: And the second one, B.
(Peo's 551-A & b for id = charts)
THE COURT: Proceed.
MS. CLARK: Showing you People's 551-A, is this the photograph that depicts your testing of a stain from 1993 that was known to contain EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: And what do you see on this graph, sir?
MR. MARTZ: Again there is a very large abundance of the 160 ion.
MS. CLARK: And did that look--did that bear any similarity to the known reference sample stains that you created in this case taken from the vial of the Defendant and Nicole Brown?
MR. MARTZ: Very similar results, yes.
MS. CLARK: In that--
MR. MARTZ: A very large abundance of the 160 ion.
MS. CLARK: And 551-B, is this--does this graph depict the other tests that you ran on 1993 blood known to contain EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Now, based on these--this finding, the blood from 1993 that was known to contain EDTA, did you form some opinion about how stable the compound is or how long it will last?
MR. MARTZ: This pretty much beared out what I suspected, that EDTA is a very stable chemical and I didn't see any degradation of the EDTA over the two-year time period.
MS. CLARK: Now, as a general proposition, sir, are the chemicals found in blood more stable when blood is dried or when it is wet?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, most chemicals are much more table when they are dry than when they are wet.
MS. CLARK: So for example, if you have blood that is deposited on a rear gate, that dries quickly on that rear gate, would the chemical in that blood be more stable and more easily detected after a period of time than if they--the blood was in a wet pool of blood?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. CLARK: Sir, are you familiar with the properties of chemicals found in blood and how they degrade?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I am.
MS. CLARK: And are you familiar with the conditions that will cause the chemical properties of blood to degrade or be preserved?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I am.
MS. CLARK: And is that part of your job, sir?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And part of your training?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: And in your experience and your opinion as an expert in this field, sir, will the chemical properties of blood be better preserved if the bloodstain is dried than if it is in a wet pool?
MR. MARTZ: Most of the chemicals that I deal with, they are much more stable dry than they are in a wet condition.
MR. BLASIER: Objection, move to strike, nonresponsive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. CLARK: And the 1993 samples that you tested, sir, were those wet?
MR. MARTZ: No, they were dry bloodstains.
MS. CLARK: Okay. And were they--what substrate? What were they on?
MR. MARTZ: They were on cotton.
MS. CLARK: I have a graph, your Honor, entitled "EDTA analysis July 22, 1995," People's 552.
THE COURT: 552.
(Peo's 552 for id = graph)
MS. CLARK: Showing you People's 552, sir, can you tell us what you have depicted in this photograph, in this chart?
MR. MARTZ: Those were the blood samples, some of the ones that I ran on the 22nd.
MS. CLARK: Now, it shows on this chart you ran a blank?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: And what does that mean?
MR. MARTZ: Generally between runs you will run a blank, just a solvent to show that there is no carry-over.
MS. CLARK: And in this case does this graph depict that the blank was flat, no EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: And then you have a 50 parts per millimeter--I'm sorry, per million?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct, yes.
MS. CLARK: And that--what was the purpose of running that?
MR. MARTZ: Just to show that the instrument was working.
MS. CLARK: That it did detect a known standard of 50 parts per million?
MR. MARTZ: Not necessarily 50 parts per million; to show that it will detect EDTA in that it is fairly sensitive.
MS. CLARK: Then you have the 1993 1 and 1993 2. What do those show?
MR. MARTZ: Those were the two bloodstains that were preserved in the FBI laboratory since 1993. They were extracted, they were known EDTA blood standards and they showed very high levels of EDTA.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, you have come to the section that says "RMM, no," and what does that stand for?
MR. MARTZ: That depicts my blood which is not preserved with EDTA.
MS. CLARK: Now, is there some reading indicated on this that it is a little bit higher than the blank?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, there was some reading and that was shown on the chromatograms we had seen earlier.
MS. CLARK: And was that where you said you ran it for the daughter 160?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, Mr. Fairtlough.
MS. CLARK: Could you show us now then the blank and then the last column showing your blood--thank you--showing your blood with EDTA added?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: Okay. On this graph, sir, on this chart, can you tell us whether the results shown for your blood where it says "RMM, no," where you have not added EDTA and "RMM, yes," where you have added EDTA to your blood, bears any relationship or similarity to the comparison of the blood taken from the reference files of the Defendant and Nicole Brown and the evidence stains in this case from the gate and the sock?
MR. MARTZ: Yes. There was a very clear comparison. My blood that was preserved and Mr. Simpson and Mrs. Simpson's bloods that were preserved all contained a large amount of EDTA and my blood that was not preserved and the stain from the gate and the sock all showed indications of the 160 ion, but in none of those cases was I able to identify EDTA.
MS. CLARK: Because of the lack of the full daughter spectrum?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: Now, sir, in your job, is it unusual for you to discover new compounds, new chemicals?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MARTZ: I would say different, not necessarily new. They are chemicals that have existed and it is the first time that we identified them.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Now, does that--does the fact that you identify--would you say it is a routine thing to identify chemicals that you have not previously identified?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: In that light, sir, in light of the fact that you routinely do identify new chemicals not previously identified, does that highlight the importance of refraining from identifying a compound until you see all of the characteristics that must be present, such as in this case the full daughter spectrum of 160 and 132 before you are ready to identify it as EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: Yeah, it is very, very important. You don't want to jump to any conclusions because there are a lot of chemicals in the world. There are at least eleven million that are known and I'm sure there is more and a lot of those have similar properties, and you must be very, very careful before you positively identify one of those chemicals.
MS. CLARK: In doing so, in settling for two out of the three factors in this case, if you settle for the parent 239 and the daughter 160 without looking for the other daughter of 132, identifying EDTA when you see only two out of the three could cause a mistake to be made?
MR. MARTZ: In my opinion that could cause a mistake, yes.
MS. CLARK: Now, sir, when you were asked the question by us as to whether or not--when you were asked by the District Attorney's office to look at the bloodstains in this case to determine whether or not EDTA was present, did anyone from our office tell you what test to conduct?
MR. MARTZ: No, they did not.
MS. CLARK: Did you ever ask our permission before conducting any particular test?
MR. MARTZ: I think I had called rock up when I did the second test to make sure that I could use more sample, but that was the only time. When I initially conducted the tests I didn't ask permission from anybody, no.
MS. CLARK: The reason that you contacted Mr. Harmon was to find out if could you get more of the sample so you could run more tests?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: You were not asking his permission as a scientist to allow you to perform tests that you felt were scientific?
MR. MARTZ: No, I was not.
MS. CLARK: If in your judgment, sir, there were tests that you felt were appropriate to be conducted, were scientifically appropriate to be conducted, would you await our permission before conducting that test?
MR. MARTZ: No, I would not.
MS. CLARK: If we asked you not to perform a test that you felt was scientifically proper and correct to do, would you accept that and not do it at our say so?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I mean generally I never really talk to the Prosecutors; I just do the case. I work the case and give then the answer is the way that I routinely do analysis.
MS. CLARK: And that is what you did in this case, sir?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: When you attempted to answer the question as to whether or not EDTA from a preserved tube was present in the evidence stains from the gate and the sock, did you then conduct all of the tests that you in your judgment thought were scientifically appropriate to conduct?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.
MS. CLARK: And what answer did you obtain?
MR. MARTZ: I was able to determine that the bloodstains on the sock and the gate did not come from preserved blood.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, sir.
THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor.
MS. CLARK: I'm sorry, may I mark the charts, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor.
MS. CLARK: Excuse me, your Honor, I hadn't completed--if I may.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: Which charts do you need to mark?
MS. CLARK: These were from yesterday, your Honor. I would like to--
THE COURT: All right. Proceed.
MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, I was directing my comments to Miss Clark.
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry.
(Brief pause.)
MS. CLARK: Okay. The charts that reflect the graphs that reflect the runs for the evidence stains for the full daughter spectrum, 543-E, which is a combination of 543 a and C.
THE COURT: All right.
(Peo's 543-E for id = chart)
MS. CLARK: 543-F is the combination of the charts 543-D and B.
(Peo's 543-F for id = chart)
MS. CLARK: 544-E is a combination of the charts 544-A and B.
(Peo's 544-E for id = chart)
MS. CLARK: And 544-F is a combination of the charts 544-C and D.
THE COURT: Fine. Thank you.
(Peo's 544-F for id = chart)
MS. CLARK: May I conclude with one last question, your Honor?
THE COURT: Proceed.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: Never mind, your Honor. I'm sure it will become germane again. I will conclude with this. Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, you testified yesterday that you had no bias one way or the other either for the Prosecution or for the Defense. Do you remember that?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Is that your state of mind as you sit there today?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, yesterday morning do you recall my asking you questions and you answering the questions before the break?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And do you recall after the break you changed your demeanor, didn't you?
MR. MARTZ: I think I did, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And by the way, during Dr. Rieders' testimony you were consulting with the Prosecutors throughout the course of that examination, were you not?
MR. MARTZ: I think--yes, I was.
MR. BLASIER: You were providing them with possible questions or issues that they should raise?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.
MR. BLASIER: And you were providing them with--Miss Clark with instructions as to what questions she might raise and what technological issues she might raise?
MR. MARTZ: Well, like with them, with you, anything that you asked and they asked, I provided.
MR. BLASIER: During each break were you down there conferring with the Prosecutors in this case while Dr. Rieders was testifying?
MR. MARTZ: I don't know about each break. I did confer with them when they asked questions, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And you were conferring with them during the course of my questioning of Dr. Rieders, correct?
MR. MARTZ: When they asked questions I answered them.
MR. BLASIER: And during the break yesterday morning did you meet with the Prosecutors?
MR. MARTZ: I stepped down and talked with them, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Did you talk to them about your testimony?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, somewhat.
MR. BLASIER: And you decided after the break that you needed to be much more of an advocate, didn't you?
MS. CLARK: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Did you decide at the break that you needed to be much of an advocate?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: Did you decide that you had to be much more aggressive?
MR. MARTZ: I think I decided that I had to be more truthful. I was not telling the whole truth with yes and no answers.
MR. BLASIER: So you decided to change your demeanor?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I decided that I wanted to tell the whole truth.
MR. BLASIER: You indicated that the only other time you testified in this case for the Defense is where two police officers were charged with murdering a civilian?
MR. MARTZ: I won't say that is the only time. That is the time I remember. That is the only one I remember.
MR. BLASIER: During the course of your 17 years experience with the FBI, you have never testified for the Defense other than that and other than yesterday and today?
MR. MARTZ: I don't remember any other time.
MR. BLASIER: When I met with you in Washington about two weeks ago did you have a conversation with the Prosecutors after that meeting?
MR. MARTZ: I'm sure I did.
MR. BLASIER: Did you discuss the content of the meeting that we had?
MR. MARTZ: I'm sure that I talked to them somewhat about it. I don't remember the specifics of what I told them.
MR. BLASIER: Did you--
MR. MARTZ: I can't even remember the specifics of what we talked about, you know, all the specifics. I did talk to them after our meeting.
MR. BLASIER: Did you talk to them about some of the issues that you thought I was going to raise and how you might confront them?
MR. MARTZ: I may have mentioned something, but I was confused. As I told you when you came to Washington, I didn't know why you were calling me to testify.
MR. BLASIER: Now, can you tell me one time in your 17 years where after you talked to the Prosecutors about a case that you worked on that you called the Defense to talk to them and explain the issues to them?
MR. MARTZ: Could you repeat that question?
MR. BLASIER: Can you tell me one time in your 17 years experience when you met with the Prosecutors about a case that you followed that up by conferring with the Defense to tell them what you discussed?
MR. MARTZ: I've had occasions where I've talked to the Defense after I've talked to the Prosecution.
MR. BLASIER: Do you make that a practice of letting the Defense know when you have conferred with the Prosecution about test results?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: Do you make it a practice to let Defense counsel know what issues they might want to raise with you or with other experts?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: Is it still your testimony that you have no prosecutorial bias here?
MR. MARTZ: I have no bias whatsoever. Every question that you ask and they asked, I answer.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you were asked a lot of questions about whether Dr. Rieders could have performed some of the tests that I was asking you about yesterday to validate what you might expect to lose by way of EDTA given environmental conditions. Do you remember that?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.
MR. BLASIER: Is it your understanding--whose responsibility--when you design a test like this, whose responsibility is to it validate it?
MR. MARTZ: The test validates itself basically. You run standards and controls. In chemical analysis the instrumentation is all established. It has been validated. And in a chemical analysis that we do in the laboratory, we identify unknown chemicals on a daily basis and the instrumentation has all been established and the identification of a chemical has been established based on its mass spectrum and we routinely do that and that is what I did in this case. The validation is just to show that the chemical you are looking for can be extracted. The identification is based on mass spectrum which is well-established, but in order to get to the mass spectrum you have to extract it what so you have to do is show by using a control that you can extract that chemical and identify it.
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, your validation, your self-validation, how long did that take?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I think I can't remember when I testified the other day, but I work certainly more than a day and probably less than a week in developing a procedure that would extract the EDTA out of blood.
MR. BLASIER: And that validation concerned just determining whether taking blood from an EDTA tube, putting it on a swatch and then letting it dry for an hour and testing it, whether you could detect EDTA, correct?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: You didn't do any validation study whatsoever to determine what sample preserved under the way these samples were preserved, collected, environmental factors, you did no validation study whatsoever to determine what if any loss you might have in EDTA, did you?
MR. MARTZ: In this particular case I didn't believe it was necessary. What I had was the best scenario. I had--
MR. BLASIER: Objection, your Honor. Move to strike.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: You didn't--
THE COURT: He has answered the question.
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry.
THE COURT: Next question.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when I met with you in Washington I had requested your digital data, hadn't I?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: It had long since been destroyed, hadn't it?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, it had.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you mentioned yesterday you were talking about the 1954 study and you felt that there were some problems with that?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: One of the things you mentioned was that they found thirty parts per million EDTA in the bloodstream at some point?
MR. MARTZ: That was my interpretation, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Under what conditions did they find thirty parts per million EDTA in someone's bloodstream?
MR. MARTZ: When they injected it into their--I think it was intramuscular or intravenous.
MR. BLASIER: Injected directly into the blood?
MR. MARTZ: Yes. One of the times it was, yes.
MR. BLASIER: How long did it take to work its way out of the system, according to this study?
MR. MARTZ: I can't remember specifically, but it was a short time period I believe.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have any reason to believe that Mr. Simpson or Miss Nicole Brown Simpson had injected EDTA at any time on June 12th?
MR. MARTZ: I would have no knowledge of that.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you referred to that study for the purposes of explaining that they found thirty parts per million, correct?
MR. MARTZ: That is my recollection. They found thirty parts per million, yes.
MR. BLASIER: But you are not prepared to accept the fact that the study found only five percent of EDTA taken by mouth gets into the blood?
MR. MARTZ: I accept the fact that that is what they found in that study.
MR. BLASIER: And do you accept the fact that that cite is in a textbook that is used in every medical school, that five percent of what you ingest gets into the blood?
MS. CLARK: Objection, that assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MARTZ: Based on all the research that I did, all the latest literature refers back to the study.
MR. BLASIER: 1954 and that is where the five percent comes from?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: You have no better literature other than that, do you?
MR. MARTZ: That is the only literature that is available.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have any--you don't have a degree in pharmacology, do you?
MR. MARTZ: No, I do not.
MR. BLASIER: Did you take any courses in your undergraduate in pharmacology?
MR. MARTZ: Not specifically.
MR. BLASIER: And your degree, is it in biology?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: So you don't even have a degree in chemistry, do you?
MR. MARTZ: I have a minor.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have any kind of a degree in pharmacokinetics?
MR. MARTZ: No, I do not.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know what that is?
MR. MARTZ: Oh, not specifically.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know what pharmacokinetics is?
MR. MARTZ: Not specifically.
MR. BLASIER: When you read that particular study, did you have any--did you--did you recognize it, that it was a study in pharmacokinetics?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I was looking at the paper because it was the study of EDTA. That was my interest in reviewing the paper.
MR. BLASIER: Do you feel that you have the educational background top criticize that paper?
MR. MARTZ: I didn't criticize the paper. The paper criticized itself and I was just bringing that up.
MR. BLASIER: That was your interpretation of the paper?
MR. MARTZ: Well, the last paragraph said that there were some problems.
MR. BLASIER: What did it say the problems were?
MR. MARTZ: It wasn't consistent with previous studies.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Let me show you Defense 1268. That is the last page of that document that you are saying has contrary data to the absorption rate?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Could we look at this on the elmo again.
MR. BLASIER: Tell me where in that paragraph says that there is contrary information about absorption rate?
MR. MARTZ: It says: "The low absorption after oral administration is very surprising in view of the finding that the material is affected by the"--I'm having trouble. Can you focus that?
MS. CLARK: The monitor.
MR. MARTZ: Is that what it is?
MR. BLASIER: "Yttrium and lead"?
MR. MARTZ: "By the route of"--I can't read it on this monitor.
MR. BLASIER: Let's try again.
MR. MARTZ: "Is affected by the route in accelerating the excretion of yttrium and lead. There is no satisfactorily readily apparent explanation at this present"--
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry, were you done?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Which part of that says that there are different absorption rates?
MR. MARTZ: Well, it says, the low absorption of an oral administration is very surprising because in another paper they were able to remove yttrium and lead and to remove that you have to get into the bloodstream.
MR. BLASIER: What did that other paper say about the absorption rate?
MR. MARTZ: It didn't say.
MR. BLASIER: But it is your interpretation of that document that that says there is a different absorption rate than five percent?
MR. MARTZ: It applies a different absorption rate because to effectively remove a chemical from the blood you have to get into the blood.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you indicated yesterday, when Miss Clark was asking you about possible explanations for what you found that is consistent with EDTA on the back gate and the sock, you mentioned an artifact due to the matrix effect. Do you remember that?
MR. MARTZ: Right, correct.
MR. BLASIER: Did you try to check that out?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did, but--
MR. BLASIER: Didn't pan out, did it?
MR. MARTZ: I wasn't able to duplicate blood without it being blood.
MR. BLASIER: So you tried to check that hypothesis and you weren't able to check it out, correct?
MR. MARTZ: Well, in the time constraint I didn't have sufficient time to check that out.
MR. BLASIER: You told me, did you not, that you didn't think that was the explanation at all?
MR. MARTZ: It is a possible explanation. We have several explanations that I mentioned. That is a possible one.
MR. BLASIER: You told me that you didn't think that one was likely at all, didn't you?
MR. MARTZ: I don't think it is likely. I talked to some other experts that thought it was likely.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, let me show you Prosecution 544-E. Incidentally, yesterday in the morning, before the break you testified that what you saw on the back gate and on the sock was consistent with EDTA, correct?
MR. MARTZ: No, I didn't say that. I said one of the charts had an ion that was consistent, or if I didn't, that is what I meant to say.
MR. BLASIER: Well, you set up the experiment. This is the evidence from the back gate, is it not?
MR. MARTZ: Right.
MR. BLASIER: There is an ion there and that is the same ion you would get with EDTA there and the parent ion is there, isn't it?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And the retention time is consistent even though, as you stated, your chromatography was not particularly definitive?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the exhibit that we have on the elmo now is the gate chart, correct, when you were looking for the 160 ion, right, at the bottom?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Compared to the full daughter spectrum above it, correct?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, that is the same sample, isn't it?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: In those two runs?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: What happened to the 160 ion in the full daughter spectrum?
MR. MARTZ: (No audible response.)
MR. BLASIER: Is it no longer there?
MR. MARTZ: It didn't show up.
MR. BLASIER: Is it no longer there?
MR. MARTZ: It didn't show up in the daughter spectrum.
MR. BLASIER: Did you change the sample in some fashion that would remove the 160 ion?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: So can you assume that it is still there in the full daughter?
MR. MARTZ: No. As you mentioned with the camera with Dr. Rieders, if you are looking at one specific ion, it is easier to see, but if you are doing a full scan you may not see all the ions, but for me to identify it it has to be present.
MR. BLASIER: Are you saying the 160 is not present in the full daughter spectrum of the same sample?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: That it is not there because you can't see it on the chart?
MR. MARTZ: That's right.
MR. BLASIER: So it is your testimony that if you can't see the ion, it can't be there?
MR. MARTZ: I can't identify it if I can't see it.
MR. BLASIER: Can it be there and you are just not seeing it?
MR. MARTZ: Sure. You can always be below your detection limit.
MR. BLASIER: And if you had really been looking for the 132 ion, you could have done the same kind of scan you did for the 160, couldn't you have?
MR. MARTZ: Sure.
MR. BLASIER: Did you?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: You didn't want to find the 132 ion, did you?
MR. MARTZ: No, it wasn't that I didn't want to find the 132 ion. I needed the full daughter spectrum. In finding the 132 ion, it would just be like finding the 160 ion by itself. It could be a screening test. In order to confirm I need all the ions together in a certain ratio.
MR. BLASIER: You said yesterday that you would have loved to have an internal standard, correct?
MR. MARTZ: I don't know about love, but I would like to have an internal standard, yes.
MR. BLASIER: You told me in Washington you would have loved to have one?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, one or the other.
MR. BLASIER: That would have made your test from a non-quantitative test to at least some measure of quantitation, correct?
MR. MARTZ: I believe I do have some level of quantitation already.
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, you testified that this was not designed to be a quantitative test, didn't you?
MR. MARTZ: It wasn't, but that doesn't mean that you can use it to quantitate.
MR. BLASIER: What is the purpose of using an internal standard?
MR. MARTZ: To get precise quantitation.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you are aware now, aren't you, that there is an internal standard that is commercially available that you could have used?
MR. MARTZ: Well, you showed me a book yesterday. I still haven't called the manufacturer to confirm that it is available, but did you do that? Is it available?
MR. BLASIER: Did you look at the chemical description of what was in the book?
MR. MARTZ: I looked at a very close--I didn't look at it very closely, but I saw something that you showed me that you said it was EDTA.
MR. BLASIER: And would you like to look at it again?
MR. MARTZ: If I could.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, let me show you--perhaps we could have a copy of this page as well as the cover marked as the next exhibit.
THE CLERK: 1270.
THE COURT: 1270.
MR. BLASIER: 12--
THE COURT: What is the title?
MR. BLASIER: "Cambridge isotope laboratories, stable isotopes, 1994-1995."
THE COURT: Thank you.
(Deft's 1270 for id = article)
MR. BLASIER: Agent Marks, let me show you from the bottom of page 49 of that catalogue, does that appear to be an internal standard available that you could have used with your testing?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, it does.
MR. BLASIER: How much does it cost?
MR. MARTZ: Oh, $690.00.
MR. BLASIER: How much would you have needed to use?
MR. MARTZ: Oh, generally to weigh something you would like at least ten milligrams.
MR. BLASIER: Ten milligrams?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: How much did $690.00 buy?
MR. MARTZ: Was it a gram? I can't remember. A gram. I could have bought the smaller standard, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And what did the smaller standard cost?
MR. MARTZ: I can't remember. $115.00.
THE COURT: All right. Mrs. Robertson, would you have Mr. Lee make a copy for us, please. Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you were shown quite a few charts by the Prosecution, the red bar charts, correct?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct, yes.
THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: Are you looking for 552?
MR. BLASIER: Anyone of the red charts.
MS. CLARK: I have one I'm sure, your Honor.
MR. BLASIER: Let me show you 552. Agent Martz, you prepared this, as well as several other charts, in an attempt to compare quantities by ion count, did you not?
MR. MARTZ: It was prepared to show the dramatic difference between preserved and non-preserved blood.
MR. BLASIER: To compare ion counts between one sample and another, correct?
MR. MARTZ: I used ion counts for the comparison, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you have indicated that your ion counts can fluctuate because of the vagaries of the instrument by four-fold, can't they?
MR. MARTZ: They did over the period of--that one day, yes.
MR. BLASIER: So you could adjust those either to you make them four times bigger or four times smaller and that would still be within the realm of the tolerance of your machine? Fair enough?
MR. MARTZ: Well, that is a big variance. You generally don't get that large, but I would agree that that day it was four-fold.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Your Honor, may we approach about the exhibit?
THE COURT: Sure. With the court reporter, please.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar. And by the way, Mr. Blasier, we are going to go to 3:30 before we take a break.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I have some charts that I made for today. You are objecting to--
MS. CLARK: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: Let me tell you what this is. We ran the paint from the metal can and the gate on the 28th. These are the two area ion counts that he got. He has just testified that this could be four times as big or four times as small. I have adjusted it four times as small. This is based on his statement that the quantity used in both samples is identical, is two microliters. I intend to show, and Dr. Rieders will testify, that that quantization is not reliable and it could be ten times less. I have made this four times--I have changed it by a factor of four to compare those two under those conditions. It is a hypothetical.
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, this is completely misstating the testimony. He--first of all, he never said he could adjust it to make it four times more or less. What he said was that there is variance at different points in the day and that there were two runs that Mr. Blasier showed, to which the People did not object, showing that this was a run in the beginning of the day, that was at one peak--at one level, and at the end of the day when there had been thirty samples run through that column it was four times less, and that is because, as the agent has already testified, the column becomes less sensitive because it gets dirty because of the all the constant runs being shot through it. And when you go from one day to the next it can be also a discrepancy in the quantitation. Nevertheless, what has been brought forth, and what this deliberately misstates, is that when you run the samples at the same time, and you must do that, you will get an accurate ratio. You will never get a situation where one sample is run four times less and one sample is run four times more than in the same run, you know what I mean, within minutes of each other, so this is in direct contravention to the evidence. It is miss misleading, confusing and it is deceptive because it is to the contrary of the testimony.
THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: No. This is not based on--the gate sample here is not based on multiplying that by four because of variance in the machinery. That is based on his erroneous estimate of the quantity. If his quantity is wrong, if he says two microliters and it is really half a microliter, it is not going to do with the variation in the machinery. He has testified that he has much variation. She is free to come back and say that it could be four times higher than that, but that is what he has testified to. And Dr. Rieders will say also that that is not an unreasonable variation given electrospray and the way he did this testing, so this is a way of demonstrating that.
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, it is highly--this is actually in contravention to the testimony and it is a deceptive graph that is going to give to the jury an idea that has never been proven that Dr. Rieders really can't say because he doesn't operate that machine. And that is the limitations of his testimony. He can say a lot things, but he is not an operator and he is really not competent to make these assertions about the way this machine operates. This man is. Agent Martz is. And what this does is take and distort his testimony in a very graphic way so that the jury is deliberately deceived about what the nature of the quantitation issue is. Quantitation issue has to do with being--comparing runs at different times, not comparing runs at the same time when you will get the relative ratios in the appropriate amount.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. BLASIER: This is based on his data.
THE COURT: All right. The objection is overruled.
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, may I be heard? I would like for the--
THE COURT: I'm sorry.
MS. CLARK: I don't think that the Court can possibly appreciate how devastating that chart is and how deceptive it is.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. CLARK: Can we have a 402 with the agent?
THE COURT: Overruled.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, you were asked some questions yesterday by Miss Clark regarding why you don't belong to any professional societies that specialize in mass spectrometry other than the one that you mentioned. Do you remember that?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And the one that you mentioned doesn't specialize in mass spec, does it?
MR. MARTZ: No, and I think I said that.
MR. BLASIER: And I believe your answer or your response to Miss Clark's suggestion was that you can keep up with current trends by talking to your peers; is that right?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I think I can do it in more ways than that. I have twenty people that work for me and some of them are very highly educated. I have four Ph.D.s presently working for me. They are out attending a lot of meetings, presenting papers. We have a staff at Quantico, a lot of Ph.D.s that do a lot of research and we keep in contact with them. We are constantly bringing people into the FBI academy for training. The FBI is constantly sending people outside to give speeches, lectures, talks, papers. Some of the organizations that were mentioned that I don't belong to, I have attended some of their meetings. I have co-authored papers that were presented at those meetings. So with the staff that I have, it is very easy to keep up because we have 20 people that are very aggressively do forensic science.
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, does the FBI prohibit you from joining professional organizations in your specialty?
MR. MARTZ: No, they don't.
MR. BLASIER: So you could if you wanted to?
MR. MARTZ: I am a member of one, and like I said, a lot of the people in the unit are members of other ones, yes.
MR. BLASIER: The papers that you say you published, is that the four you mentioned yesterday over 17 years?
MR. MARTZ: Well, there is four there and then I have two papers that are being published right now.
MR. BLASIER: Now, does the FBI require that you obtain an undergraduate degree in chemistry or toxicology to become a chemist and toxicologist?
MR. MARTZ: To work in the chemistry unit you have to have a certain number of chemistry hours that are required. I met that specification. I had extensive training in chemistry in college.
MR. BLASIER: Is that answer to that no. That the FBI doesn't require that you have a degree in it?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, either chemistry, toxicology or equivalent.
MR. BLASIER: Which includes biology?
MR. MARTZ: Which includes a certain number of hours in chemistry.
MR. BLASIER: Now, yesterday I asked you some questions about your--the blood test that you ran on your blood. Do you remember that?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And I made some suggestions about the possibility that maybe the EDTA or the EDTA like substance that appears in your blood may have come from the tube itself. Do you remember that?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Had you thought of that when you did that little experiment?
MR. MARTZ: No, I did not.
MR. BLASIER: Do you think it is a reasonable point to consider?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, no, not really.
MR. BLASIER: But you didn't think of it at all, did you?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: When you got the stain from the back gate you never inquired at all what conditions under which that stain might have been subjected to either before it was collected or after, correct?
MR. MARTZ: I think the only question that I had is whether or not DNA was identified, because in my opinion if DNA was present, the EDTA would still be present.
MR. BLASIER: So you asked no questions at all about the conditions under which that stain got there and may have been subjected to prior to collection?
MR. MARTZ: Only that it was identified as blood and had DNA present.
MR. BLASIER: So you didn't consider the question as to whether the effect of the environment might have any effect at all, did you?
MR. MARTZ: In my opinion EDTA is a very stable chemical and when dried in a bloodstain the environment would not affect it.
MR. BLASIER: You didn't consider that question at all when you designed this test, did you?
MR. MARTZ: No. As I mentioned, EDTA is a very stable chemical and in dried conditions in my opinion it will not break down in that short a time.
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry?
MR. MARTZ: That short time period.
MR. BLASIER: Is there any study that you are aware of with dried bloodstains and whether or not the EDTA degrades with weathering?
MR. MARTZ: No, but I contacted the manufacturer that makes the preserved blood tubes of EDTA and the shelf life of the tubes when it is in solution is 18 to 24 months about.
MR. BLASIER: Move to strike, nonresponsive.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Are you aware of any study that anyone has ever done on bloodstains, dried bloodstains, that have been subjected to environmental influences in terms of whether or not that diminishes the amount of EDTA that you can recover?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know of any scientific literature that is relevant at all to that question?
MR. MARTZ: Probably the most relevant is the testing that I have done myself on some old bloodstains from 1993 and one from 1991.
MR. BLASIER: That is the test you never wrote a report on, correct?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Did the Prosecution tell you in this case that you are supposed to write a report when you do testing?
MR. MARTZ: In the laboratory when a case is submitted we will perform or supply a report. When we do research we generally don't supply a report.
MR. BLASIER: Move to strike as nonresponsive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: Were you instructed that if you did testing related to a case that you are supposed to write it up as a report?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: Is it your practice then, when do you a test on something, even though it is related to a case, you don't feel the necessity even to take notes?
MR. MARTZ: It would--it would depend on the circumstances. If it is something that I can remember readily, no, I wouldn't.
MR. BLASIER: So that the criterion you use is whether you can remember it down the road as to whether you write anything down?
MR. MARTZ: Yes. I mean, if I can remember what I did, I won't write it down.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, do you think it would make any difference on your ability to recover EDTA from the stain from the back gate if was placed in a wet condition in a plastic bag?
MS. CLARK: Objection. Improper hypothetical. No--no facts in evidence, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MR. MARTZ: It would depend on--was it in solution or just damp?
MR. BLASIER: Did you ever ask that question?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: It is an important question, isn't it?
MR. MARTZ: I don't believe that it is. I believe EDTA is stable, even in those conditions in that short a time period.
MR. BLASIER: So these assumptions that you are making that nothing is going to happen on the EDTA on the sock or the back gate would be the conditions under which they were put there, collected, stored, handled, since EDTA is stable, that ends the inquiry as far as you are concerned? You don't need to do any specific testing on that question at all?
MS. CLARK: That is argumentative. Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MARTZ: Well, I did test the blood which is this solution, the known blood sample. That is the best control in the world. EDTA is more stable, in my opinion, as a stain than it is in solution and it survived in the blood sample, the known sample that I tested.
MR. BLASIER: Now, which sample is this?
MR. MARTZ: The K67 and K68.
MR. BLASIER: How long did you let those stains dry?
MR. MARTZ: As I mentioned, EDTA is more stable--
MR. BLASIER: Move to strike, nonresponsive.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: How long did you let the reference blood that you put on your controls dry?
MR. MARTZ: Approximately an hour.
MR. BLASIER: How soon after that did you test it?
MR. MARTZ: It was fairly soon the first time.
MR. BLASIER: An hour?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, that would be--
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry. Did you ever make any inquiry with respect to the sock as to how many times it had been handled by various experts, criminalists, et cetera?
MR. MARTZ: No, I did not.
MR. BLASIER: Did you make any inquiry whatsoever to determine what kind of light, ultraviolet, infrared, regular light it had been subjected to before you got it?
MR. MARTZ: No. In my opinion it wasn't necessary.
MR. BLASIER: Do you do any studies to back up the notion that or your opinion that light, different kind of light sources is not going to have any effect on EDTA?
MS. CLARK: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MARTZ: The studies that I performed.
MR. BLASIER: Any studies that anybody else has ever performed?
MR. MARTZ: There is studies that show that it passes through the body unchanged and that is a severe hostile environment.
MR. BLASIER: What does that have to do with light?
MR. MARTZ: (No audible response.)
MR. BLASIER: Let me ask you this--withdraw. Are you saying that because it passes through the body that that is enough for you to conclude that different kind of light on it is not going to have any effect on it?
MR. MARTZ: No, no.
MR. BLASIER: You said that by your own experiment you determined that. What experiment did you do to test the effects of different kind of light on dried bloodstains with EDTA in them?
MR. MARTZ: I didn't do any specifically.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: You were aware, were you not, that the sock had gone through infrared light or did you know that?
MR. MARTZ: I think I knew that because an infrared photograph had been taken.
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, did do you any experiments to determine whether you could as efficiently remove EDTA blood from metal as you could from a swatch?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, the only testings that were done, per say, was the gate which was--that wouldn't count, but the can, I used one metal surface. That was the only one that I had done.
MR. BLASIER: You did two positive controls, did you not, for the gate; the can--
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: --and the swatch?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And that was a control swatch that presumably had been taken from the gate nearby, not part of the bloodstain? That is what your understanding was?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I had prepared my own control swab because that one wasn't large enough. I had mentioned that yesterday, I believe.
MR. BLASIER: So your control that you used for the gate, you didn't even use the swatch that they sent you, that was their control swatch?
MR. MARTZ: No, we had mentioned that yesterday.
MR. BLASIER: So you used a swatch that--and you don't know whether it was the same kind of material, the same thickness, do you?
MS. CLARK: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MARTZ: I answered that yesterday, no.
MR. BLASIER: So you only ran--two times you ran that control that you just told us about that you made on your material and the can to see how much--what your ion count would be, how much EDTA you got out, correct?
MR. MARTZ: For the sock--for the gate?
MR. BLASIER: The gate.
MR. MARTZ: That's correct, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would like to have a slide presentation marked next.
THE CLERK: 1271.
MR. BLASIER: 1271.
(Deft's 1271-A for id = slide)
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, that is 1271-A on the screen. Could you take a look at that. Let me ask you this: Does that represent charts 4085, the control that you just talked about where you used your own fabric?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And 4043 is the one you did on the can, right?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And those are two different days, right?
MR. MARTZ: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And what was your ion count for the control on the cloth?
MR. MARTZ: A little over eight million.
MR. BLASIER: And what was your ion count on the control you did on the can?
MR. MARTZ: A little over three million.
MR. BLASIER: And there is approximately a three-fold difference on those two, correct?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Isn't it accurate that one explanation--one possible explanation for that is that you can't remove EDTA as efficiently from metal as you can from cloth?
MR. MARTZ: Could I give my explanation for it?
MR. BLASIER: No. I will let you give that one next. Is that one reasonable explanation that I gave you?
MR. MARTZ: I don't believe that that is a reasonable explanation, no.
MR. BLASIER: Did you test that hypothesis at all?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: Now, your inclination is what, that it is the variation in the machine?
MR. MARTZ: It is the variation over the day and as I mention, when I do a control--whenever I perform this experiment we are cutting a piece of a fabric. Okay. I don't know--or on that day the size that I cut, the control is going to be the same size as the known, or the Q and the known are going to be the same. On a different day I may cut something a little larger or a little smaller. I didn't have a particular instrument or a scale to weigh the exact size that I took, so what I took was relative sizes, and the size the one day could have been larger than the size the other day, plus the instrumental conditions. Those would be my explanation as to the difference in the ion count.
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, did you write down in your work papers that you used different sizes in different tests?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: Why didn't you write that down? If you changed the conditions from one test to the next why didn't you write that down?
MR. MARTZ: As I mentioned, I didn't check the conditions. I compare the K to the Q and that is what was relevant here, to determine whether or not the stains came from preserved or not preserved blood, so I prepared those the same each day.
MR. BLASIER: You wrote down, when you did your first test on February 22nd, the sizes of the sample that you used, the size of the swatches and you wrote down that information, didn't you?
MR. MARTZ: I said approximate.
MR. BLASIER: But you didn't write anything down for February 28th showing that you had changed the conditions using different sizes?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I mean, it is--it would be impossible for me to cut the exact same size stain. I didn't see any reason to write that down.
MR. BLASIER: Does that fall in the category of something that you remembered you changed it so you didn't need to write it down?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I think it is obvious that I can't cut the exact same size of stain and I mentioned that earlier and that is why I always cut a larger amount of the questioned stain than I did the known. Now, when I'm cutting them right in front of me at same time, I can see that. Now, five days later, ten days later when I'm cutting, I don't have those in front of me any more. I am approximating the size that I am cutting.
MR. BLASIER: So you might have actually cut a bigger swatch when you did the can experiment on the 28th than you had for the positive control on the 22nd?
MR. MARTZ: Based on my results I would say.
MR. BLASIER: So you are using your results to bootstrap and find--and say that you must have used a smaller sample because of the results?
MR. MARTZ: To me it is immaterial as long as I used the same size each day.
MR. BLASIER: It couldn't be the result you got, not being able to remove EDTA from metal as efficiently as you can from the swatch?
MS. CLARK: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MARTZ: Not in my opinion. That would not be a possibility.
MR. BLASIER: Could we have slide b, please.
(Deft's 1271-B for id = slide)
MR. BLASIER: Now, Agent Martz on the 28th you tested the gate, the evidence, the bloodstain evidence from the gate, did you not?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And this is the same positive control, this is your--your can experiment, correct?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And you did those very close together, didn't you?
MR. MARTZ: (No audible response.)
MR. BLASIER: In time?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And your ion count for the can was about three million?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And what was your ion count for the evidence?
MR. MARTZ: Approximately 200,000.
MR. BLASIER: Was it 220,000?
MR. MARTZ: 221.
MR. BLASIER: 210?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you didn't make a chart that showed those experiments on the 28th for the Prosecution, did you?
MR. MARTZ: I don't believe I did, no.
MR. BLASIER: That doesn't look like a thousand-fold difference, does it?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: Now, Agent Martz, would you agree that all of these charts that you made for the Prosecution have as their basis an underlying assumption that you are using the same amount of blood from the evidence as you are using in the control?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I tried to approximate it, but you got to remember here that I'm taking blood off of a surface and I don't specifically remember how much I took off.
MR. BLASIER: Wouldn't it be very misleading to put two figures on a chart when they are based on different starting amounts?
MR. MARTZ: Well, as I mentioned earlier, when I cut a stain it is very easy, I can see it, but when I took a stain off of a can I removed it with a cotton swatch.
MR. BLASIER: Move to strike. I'm sorry, move to strike, nonresponsive.
THE COURT: The answer is stricken.
MR. BLASIER: Wouldn't it be very misleading to put together a chart when you are starting--when you have different starting amounts for the components of that chart?
MR. MARTZ: I don't believe so.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you've testified that your ion counts can fluctuate by as much as four times because of the machinery, correct?
MR. MARTZ: I testified they fluctuate at that amount on the one particular day.
MR. BLASIER: And I want you to assume hypothetically for just a moment that--well, let me ask you this: What is your assumption in terms of how much blood you used for the evidence sample on February 28th for the gate?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, it was--it was larger than the minimum amount that I required, which is the one millimeter squared.
MR. BLASIER: How much larger?
MR. MARTZ: It was probably approximately--probably one and a half by one and a half.
MR. BLASIER: Which is how many square millimeters?
MR. MARTZ: Well, one and a half square millimeters.
MR. BLASIER: One and a half square?
MR. MARTZ: Right.
MR. BLASIER: And you had determined that the minimum size swatch that you needed to use to get a detectable amount was one square millimeter?
MR. MARTZ: Well, that was based on negative ions. For a positive ion I would need one/tenth of that, so it would be a very shall very small.
MR. BLASIER: Well, you calculated what size swatch you needed for these tests to have a minimum detectable amount of EDTA blood, did you not?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: For the negative ion?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: You didn't do a different calculation for positive ion, did you?
MR. MARTZ: Based on the fact that the positive ion is ten times stronger or has ten times the ability to detect it, then I would need one/tenth the size stain.
MR. BLASIER: I want you to assume, for purposes of a hypothetical, that your estimate of the quantity of the blood that you use from the bloodstain was only one/fourth of what you thought it was. Do you have that in mind?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And obviously if you used much less blood you would expect a lower ion count, wouldn't you?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, could we have chart c, please.
(Peo's 1271-C for id = slide)
MS. CLARK: Again objection, your Honor. This is two different days that are reflected. It is misleading.
THE COURT: Overruled, overruled.
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, this is the same day, isn't it, the 28th, these two tests, aren't they?
MR. MARTZ: That is what it is labeled, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree--
MS. CLARK: Objection. That assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. CLARK: May the witness be shown the underlying graphs, your Honor?
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: Do you feel the need to check your data, Agent Martz?
MR. MARTZ: Are these the areas or the peak heights?
MR. BLASIER: Areas.
MR. MARTZ: Areas. And what is the first sample, the gate one?
MR. BLASIER: The gate and your can.
MR. MARTZ: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: If you had overestimated the amount of blood from the evidence that you started with by four, then it would not be unreasonable to assume that your ion count should be four times higher to make the same--you know, to equate the amounts together, correct?
MR. MARTZ: Can I look at my data?
MR. BLASIER: Sure.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Do you recall this is the same sample from the earlier chart where you got--
MR. MARTZ: The one you have got labeled "Positive control, 4043"?
MR. BLASIER: Uh-huh.
MR. MARTZ: You said that was my area?
MR. BLASIER: That was your can. This is your can reduced--I haven't finished the whole chart, so let's talk about the gate first.
MR. MARTZ: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: You got an ion count of 210,000, correct, from the earlier chart?
MR. MARTZ: Now, when you refer to 4049--
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MR. MARTZ: --I have a different chart labeled 4049.
MR. BLASIER: Well, you had an ion--okay. What is your ion count on 4049?
MR. MARTZ: 200,000.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. That is the one we were just talking about from the last chart.
MR. MARTZ: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: Now, my hypothetical is that you have overestimated the amount of blood by a factor of four.
MR. MARTZ: So this is not my data?
MR. BLASIER: This is four times your data to adjust for the quantities.
MS. CLARK: Same objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MARTZ: I don't understand what you are trying to--
MR. BLASIER: Let me ask it this way: If you got 210,000 ion count from a half a microliter of blood would it be reasonable to assume that you might get in the range of 800,000 from two microliters of blood?
MR. MARTZ: No, because we had mentioned once before this could be a matrix effect. We don't know what that is or where it is from. You can't assume that.
MR. BLASIER: You can't assume that if you used four times more blood from the evidence that you would get four times higher ion count?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: How much more would you get?
MR. MARTZ: It depends on what this compound is and the source of it. I told you I don't know what it is and I don't know the source.
MR. BLASIER: All right. Let's assume hypothetically that four times as much blood is going to give you four times as much EDTA. Can we assume that, if it is EDTA blood to start with?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And the range of your measurement ability on your positive controls, as well as the gate, you could have a four-fold difference in ion count. Now, you got an ion count of eight million--or I'm sorry--of three million on that I control, correct?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: One/fourth of that is 750 thousand, isn't it?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: So under that assumption of those different conditions which are within the realm of your experimental basis, you might get--it appears that you get the same quantity in terms of ion count from the evidence as you got from the known EDTA blood, doesn't it?
MR. MARTZ: No. I would disagree with that.
MR. BLASIER: Are my numbers wrong?
MR. MARTZ: Well, you are taking both numbers and moving them four times. You can't do that. That is an factor of eight then.
MR. BLASIER: Well, I'm moving the gate four times based on quantity, not on the variance of the machine.
MR. MARTZ: Well, I don't see how you can do that.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, did you take the same amount of care with everything that you did in your experiments?
MR. MARTZ: I did.
MR. BLASIER: Did you try to be as careful as possible with everything you did?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, would this be a good time?
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our mid-afternoon recess at this time. Remember all my admonitions to you. We will be in recess for about fifteen minutes. Agent Martz, you can step down. You are ordered to come back in fifteen minutes. Thank you.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.
(Brief pause.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Agent Martz, would you resume the witness stand, please. And Mr. Blasier, you may continue with your redirect examination.
MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, in your opinion is it appropriate to compare ion counts from one sample to ion counts from another sample to draw some conclusion as to whether one has more EDTA than the other?
MR. MARTZ: Certainly you can do that if it is a large difference. If you are trying to differentiate 99 from a hundred, no, you can't do that, but if you are trying to differentiate one from a thousand you can do that, yes.
MR. BLASIER: How about with--is there a difference of ten times, ten times the ion count from one, ten times--ten times higher on the other?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I mean it would depend on the day, the circumstances, the chemicals being analyzed. There is a lot of variation depending on what you are doing.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you tested your own blood both on May 11th and on July 22nd, did you not?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: What was your ion count for your own blood in the red-topped tube on May 11th?
MR. MARTZ: 54,946.
MR. BLASIER: 54,000?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: What was it on July 22nd?
MR. MARTZ: 64,882.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you were shown three charts indicating your results on your own blood with and without EDTA from May 11th, were you not? Miss. Clark showed you that this afternoon?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And there was another chart that is a record of another test that you did on your own blood at the same time, isn't there?
MR. MARTZ: Well, May 11th?
MR. BLASIER: Uh-huh.
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: May I have this marked next?
THE COURT: 1272.
(Deft's 1272 for id = chart)
MR. BLASIER: Let me show you what is 1272, Defense, and tell me if that is the chart that Miss Clark didn't show you?
MR. MARTZ: (No audible response.)
MR. BLASIER: Didn't show the jury?
MR. MARTZ: That one there?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MR. MARTZ: I don't know if she did or not.
MR. BLASIER: Do you remember seeing that displayed to the jury today?
MR. MARTZ: No, I don't. I don't think I did.
MR. BLASIER: I would like to put this on the elmo, please.
MR. BLASIER: Who tells the computer what sample it is looking at or the mass spec machine?
MR. MARTZ: I--in this particular case I did.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Could we zoom in on the top left corner.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that when that chart was printed out it was printed out as "Operator blood, no EDTA added, red top"?
MR. MARTZ: Right.
MR. BLASIER: That has been changed, hasn't it?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And you wrote that it was some other sample in later, didn't you?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: That was a sample mix-up, wasn't it?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: It was a mistake, wasn't it?
MR. MARTZ: If you look at the previous chart which is EDTA 583, that was the previous run and that that is operator's blood, no EDTA added. The next run I didn't change the label and after the computer has acquired that data it is too late to change the label, so I penciled it in.
MR. BLASIER: That was a mistake, wasn't it?
MR. MARTZ: I don't know if I would call it a mistake. I just wasn't paying attention. I guess you could call it a mistake.
MR. BLASIER: Did you check the sample afterwards to make sure that you had labeled it properly when you had changed the label?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I knew that is the sample that I had run. I just didn't label it properly.
MR. BLASIER: You knew at the time that you hadn't labeled it properly?
MR. MARTZ: After the run I did.
MR. BLASIER: And you knew after the run because you just looked at the chart?
MR. MARTZ: No, that is not true at all.
MR. BLASIER: How did you figure it out?
MR. MARTZ: Because I knew which sample I ran. I told you, you label the chart. I changed the run number. You have to change--after you change the run number it doesn't automatically change the sample. You have to change that always. In this case I didn't change the sample.
MR. BLASIER: What was the time difference between that run and the one right before it?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, three minutes.
MR. BLASIER: And you changed the labels each three minutes as they are going through the system?
MR. MARTZ: Yes. You know, there is a lot to do in that three minutes, and I made a mistake in that three-minute time period.
MR. BLASIER: Now, yesterday you were asked questions about the dress. Do you remember that?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And you said that you detected EDTA on the dress?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And the difference between the EDTA or the EDTA like substance on the dress and the evidence was the presence of the 132 ion, correct?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I got the full daughter spectrum, yes. The 132 is part of the full daughter.
MR. BLASIER: And you indicated I believe yesterday that you would not identify the 132 daughter ion unless its signal was three times higher than the noise. Do you remember that?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, I said that is what people like to look for, three times the noise, for identification of a signal, yes.
MR. BLASIER: May I mark another chart?
THE COURT: Yes. Defense 1272.
(Deft's 1273 for id = chart)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: And what is it, Mr. Blasier?
MR. BLASIER: This is a chart labeled "Control for dress for K65 dress."
THE COURT: Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, 1272.
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, let me show you 1272 and ask is the full daughter spectrum--the full spectrum for the control for the dress?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, it is.
MR. BLASIER: May I show this on the elmo, please?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, do you see numerous spikes--let me cover up the top part to illustrate this--in the bottom area going all the way along the bottom axis?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Is that noise?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, let's look at the 132 ion. It is not much higher than the noise, is it?
MR. MARTZ: No, it is not.
MR. BLASIER: So your standard of three times, you didn't apply it here?
MR. MARTZ: Well, if you remember, in my report I said it was detected. I did not identify EDTA in the sample and that is why I said it was detected and not identified. I used that because I wasn't comfortable identifying it to the exclusion of all other chemicals, but I thought I had enough there to say it was detected.
MR. BLASIER: You testified here that you believe that is EDTA, correct?
MR. MARTZ: I believe it probably is.
MR. BLASIER: And the reason that you will not say that the evidence is EDTA is because you couldn't identify the daughter spectrum, right?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: All right. Let's compare this to the full spectrum that you did on the gate stain. Do you have that chart with you?
MR. MARTZ: (No audible response.)
MR. BLASIER: The chart that corresponds to this chart that is on the screen?
(Brief pause.)
MR. MARTZ: I don't have the one that corresponds to that because there was no spectrum to print out.
MR. BLASIER: Let's look at the one for the sock that corresponds to this chart for the dress.
MR. MARTZ: I don't have that one also because there was no spectrum to print out.
MR. BLASIER: So you didn't print out any results at all like you did for the dress?
MR. MARTZ: No, there was nothing to print out.
MR. BLASIER: So--and that data has been destroyed, hasn't it?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: So we cannot look at your chart that you did on the back gate and the sock to see whether the 132 ion is really there, can we?
MR. MARTZ: Yes. You can look at the RICs that I employed.
MR. BLASIER: With a chart like this, this is a full spectrum, isn't it?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, it is.
MR. BLASIER: We don't have a chart like this for the gate or the sock, do we, because you destroyed the data and you never printed out the report?
MR. MARTZ: I looked at the chromatogram and it does not show EDTA and I didn't print it out. There was nothing to print out. It was all noise.
MR. BLASIER: But you have nothing to show us that demonstrates that?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do. I have the RIC chromatogram which shows that that there is no signal.
MR. BLASIER: That is the one that shows that the 160 disappeared also?
MR. MARTZ: If you look back, I probably have the RIC for the gate. Let's see if I have it.
MR. BLASIER: You don't want to admit that there is EDTA on the back gate and the sock because it hurts the Prosecution, do you?
THE COURT: Sustained. The question and answer is stricken. The jury is to disregard it as argumentative.
MR. BLASIER: Now, Agent Martz, you testified that your basis for estimating the quantity of blood in the evidence that you started with was looking at it, correct?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: You did no analytical method whatsoever to try and quantify the amount of blood that you started with in the evidence?
MR. MARTZ: I believe I answered this question yesterday and I will give the same answer. I looked at the stain. It was consistent with blood undiluted. I cut out the stain and then I extract it with water. I looked at the water extract. They had similar colors. And I will do a presumptive test, phenolphthalein, which gave similar responses.
MR. BLASIER: You didn't use any analytical tests that are designed to determine quantity, other than looking at it, did you?
MR. MARTZ: I believe I just answered that question.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, you made an estimate of--now, incidentally, have you ever tested your ability to measure quantities of blood by looking at it?
MR. MARTZ: I think I did in this particular case. I mean, if you look at my controls that I ran on the samples, I got fairly similar results.
MR. BLASIER: Have you ever done a blind study where you don't know how much blood there is and you are tested on your ability to recognize and quantify blood by just looking at it?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: Is there any textbook, any chemistry textbook that you have ever looked at or seen that recommends as a valid way of quantifying something for analytical purposes to just look at it?
MR. MARTZ: Oh, I don't know specifically if there is or not, no.
MR. BLASIER: Now, one of the calculations that you made here had to do with what is the biggest swatch we need to detect EDTA blood. Let's assume EDTA blood is on it and that is the biggest swatch we need to detect, right?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: It would be very unfair if you ran a sample of the evidence stains that was around or smaller than what you knew to be the minimum detectable amount, right?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I would like to use the paper chart back there.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, you can step down if you like.
MR. MARTZ: (Witness complies.)
THE COURT: Can everybody see?
THE COURT: The problem is juror no. 7 I don't think can see that because of the angle.
MR. BLASIER: All right.
THE COURT: And 165 may not be able to see it because of the height.
JUROR NO. 165: I can see it.
THE COURT: You can see it?
JUROR NO. 165: Yes.
THE COURT: Thank you, sir.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: Now, Agent Martz, you determined the minimum size of a swatch that you needed to use to detect blood with EDTA in it as one square millimeter, correct?
MR. MARTZ: That is based on negative ion results.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. And would you tell us how you arrived at that calculation?
MR. MARTZ: I took cuttings of different sizes of swatches and I was able to draw a photograph and calculate that that would be the minimum size needed.
MR. BLASIER: Well, you made a--you put ten microliters of blood on some cloth material, did you not?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And you measured the diameter--I'm sorry, the radius--the diameter of that, did you not?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Could you draw, not to scale obviously, a circle?
MR. MARTZ: (Witness complies.)
MR. BLASIER: That represents the ten microliters of blood that you--
MR. MARTZ: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: Did to determine your minimum detectable amount--
MR. MARTZ: Right.
MR. BLASIER: --that is ten microliters of blood? Did you want to write ten microliters of blood?
MR. MARTZ: I think it is probably five is what I used.
MR. BLASIER: Do you want to look at your notes?
MR. MARTZ: I think for cutting this out I used five microliters.
MR. BLASIER: Well, I want you to be accurate. Would you look at your notes.
MR. MARTZ: (Witness complies.)
MR. BLASIER: You are right. I think you are right; five microliters.
MR. BLASIER: And you found that five microliters of blood gave you a spot that was how big?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I had pictures of it. I can't remember.
MR. BLASIER: Do you want to look at your notes?
MR. MARTZ: Is it in there?
MR. BLASIER: What was the diameter?
MR. MARTZ: About five milliliters.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Do you want to draw a line that represents the diameter and write "Five milliliters."
MR. MARTZ: (Witness complies.)
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, below that I want you to draw a little square that represents a swatch. Way below it.
MR. MARTZ: (Witness complies.)
MR. BLASIER: There you go. Thank you. Well, we wanted a square one. You determined that you needed a square one millimeter on each side?
MR. MARTZ: Right.
MR. BLASIER: Right?
MR. MARTZ: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: Now--and you had previously determined by other tests that you needed not only a swatch one millimeter on the side, but .5 microliters of blood as the minimum detectable blood, correct?
MR. MARTZ: Based on negative ion. On positive ion it would be one/tenth of that.
MR. BLASIER: Now, put .5 microliters down by the swatch.
MR. MARTZ: (Witness complies.)
MR. BLASIER: So is it accurate that you calculated that you needed a swatch one half the size--I'm sorry--one/tenth of the size of your five-microliter circle to get a big enough swatch to have a minimum detectable amount of EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: Based on negative ion.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. But that is the ratio we are talking about, correct?
MR. MARTZ: No. We were talking about positive ion there. It would be one/tenth.
MR. BLASIER: In terms of five microliters, .5, there is a ten-fold difference?
MR. MARTZ: Right.
MR. BLASIER: So the area of your circle should be ten times bigger than your swatch, right?
MR. MARTZ: Right.
MR. BLASIER: Can you calculate the area of a circle with a five-millimeter diameter?
MR. MARTZ: I mean I could. I don't--math--I don't--I don't know right now what it is.
MR. BLASIER: Well, what is the formula for the area of a circle?
MR. MARTZ: Pi r squared.
MR. BLASIER: What is pi?
MR. MARTZ: Boy, you are really testing me. 2.12, 2.17.
THE COURT: How about 3.12.14.
MR. BLASIER: Isn't pi kind of essential to being a scientist knowing what it is?
MR. MARTZ: I haven't used pi since I guess I was in high school.
MR. BLASIER: Let's try 3.12.
MR. MARTZ: Is that what it is? There is an easier way to do--
MR. BLASIER: Let's try 3.14. And what is the radius?
MR. MARTZ: It would be half the diameter, 2.5.
MR. BLASIER: 2.5 squared, right?
MR. MARTZ: Right.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, may we borrow a calculator?
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Can you use calculator?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I think.
MR. BLASIER: Tell me what pi times 2.5 squared is?
MR. MARTZ: 19.
MR. BLASIER: Do you want to write down 19?
MR. MARTZ: (Witness complies.)
MR. BLASIER: Square millimeters, right?
MR. MARTZ: (No audible response.)
MR. BLASIER: The area. What is one/tenth of that?
MR. MARTZ: 1.9.
MR. BLASIER: You miscalculated by a factor of two, the size, the minimum size of a swatch you needed to detect EDTA, didn't you?
MR. MARTZ: I don't know that I did or not. I calculated a little differently. I didn't use this.
MR. BLASIER: Well, does the area change by the different method of calculation?
MR. MARTZ: Well, this is all estimations based on my eyeball. I didn't use any scientific math to determine it. What I did was I took the circle and I divided it in half and then I divided it in half again and I just cut out a piece and that is how I did it.
MR. BLASIER: So when you say in your report that you determined that you needed a square one millimeter--
MR. MARTZ: I said approximately. This is all approximate.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that under the conditions that you set forth in your report that one/tenth of a circle of five microliters of blood is a swatch two square millimeters, not one?
MR. MARTZ: That is approximately right. As I mentioned before, though, in the positive ion mode it really doesn't make any difference because it would be one/tenth that.
MR. BLASIER: Were you trying to be careful in the quantifications that you used?
MR. MARTZ: I told you what I did, and I took small portions of it and used that to calculate how much my minimum detectable limit was.
MR. BLASIER: You can retake the stand.
MR. MARTZ: (Witness complies.)
MR. BLASIER: Did you just say that you did this in a way that wasn't very scientific?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I don't know if--what the definition of "Scientific" is, but I took the circle and divided it into pieces and cut a piece out.
MR. BLASIER: Not very scientific, is it?
MR. MARTZ: Well, in this particular case we got to go back to the original focus, can we distinguish between preserved and non-preserved blood? We are talking a thousand-fold difference. Any imprecision that I may have had here will not affect my results.
MR. BLASIER: Could we have chart B.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: I don't remember the number.
MR. BLASIER: 1271-B. Do you remember that chart, Agent Martz?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Does that look like a thousand-fold difference? Those are your measurements, aren't they?
MR. MARTZ: Well, you have got to remember--
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz--move to strike.
MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. He is an expert.
THE COURT: He can answer the question. Ask him the question.
MR. BLASIER: Does that appear to be a thousand-fold difference to you from your own data?
MR. MARTZ: In that particular thing?
MR. BLASIER: Yeah.
MR. MARTZ: No, no.
MR. BLASIER: Now, Agent Martz, I would like to ask you some questions about your ability to determine quantities of blood by looking at them. Okay?
MR. MARTZ: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: You provided me with some pictures of different spots of blood, did you not?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.
(Brief pause.)
MS. CLARK: There will be an objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Side bar with the court reporter, please.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
MS. CLARK: The problem with this--
THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar. Before me there are two photographs that appear to have blood drops on them.
MR. BLASIER: I will tell you what these are. These are photographs he provided. That is ten microliters of blood, (Indicating). That is five, (Indicating). You can't tell by the appearance.
MS. CLARK: Okay. The point of--these photographs were not taken for that purpose at all. And so we are trying to show photographs that were taken for one purpose to try and impact on a completely different area. What Agent Martz was attempting to do here was show dilution factors and what he was attempting to do is show that in order to get the EDTA levels that were demonstrated on the evidence, you would have to--if it was indeed preserved blood initially, what you would have to do is dilute it to the point where you could no longer see blood at all. That was the point. And so these blood drops were never measured.
THE COURT: So you are asking how much blood is in here?
MR. BLASIER: He told me; ten microliters.
MS. CLARK: There is no scale.
MR. BLASIER: The scale is the same. He told me that, too. This is the same as this, (Indicating). Same scale.
THE COURT: He provided you with this?
MR. BLASIER: Yes, and this, (Indicating).
THE COURT: And the question is going to be what?
MR. BLASIER: Whether you can accurately determine quantities by looking at spots.
MS. CLARK: The unfairness of it is the different substrate obviously. Here we have it on paper, here we have it on whatever that is. I don't know what that is.
MR. BLASIER: He didn't use the same substrate between the evidence and his controls either.
MS. CLARK: But that is not--yeah, but that was--he did. He used the same substrate for the gate, he used the cotton swatch, and for the sock he used the sock.
MR. BLASIER: For the controls he used his own material.
MS. CLARK: That is different.
THE COURT: Hold on. The issue here, though, is can you show somebody photographs and ask them to tell you how much blood is there from blood spots?
MR. BLASIER: No. The issue is--this is his own photography showing--proving that you cannot look at a spot and tell how much blood is there. This is smaller and has twice as much blood. He said that that is his analytical method.
MS. CLARK: And you have different substrates and different purposes here. It is not the same condition. We are asking him to estimate under different conditions when he was talking about in terms of estimating sample size.
MR. BLASIER: Ask him to estimate?
MS. CLARK: Apples and oranges.
MR. BLASIER: He told me.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, did you do any testing to see what size blood drop you would get with various quantities of blood?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, I put a couple different size drops on paper to see how big they were, yes.
MR. BLASIER: One of your methods that you used to estimate how much blood you had from the evidence was to look at those blood drops, correct?
MR. MARTZ: No. I used that--basically put them on paper so I would know how much sample to take and I measured a certain amount out so I knew how large the area was.
MR. BLASIER: Does the same amount of blood put on different substrates look different in terms of the quantity, the size of the drops?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: How much different?
MR. MARTZ: Oh, it would depend. Maybe 20, 30 percent. I don't know specifically. I certainly didn't do any calculations.
MR. BLASIER: You didn't do any testing at all of that, did you?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: Did you prepare some sample with blood drops to compare--you indicated you did one set of blood drops on different substrates?
MR. MARTZ: I believe I did something on filter paper and one on a cloth. I think it was a towel.
MR. BLASIER: On a--okay. And did you do a second sample of blood drops on the same kind of material as the towel?
MR. MARTZ: I don't understand.
MR. BLASIER: Your dilution experiment, do you remember that?
MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor.
MR. BLASIER: That you talked to me about?
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. CLARK: Objection.
MR. MARTZ: I don't think I did that dilution experiment.
MR. BLASIER: What was the material you used for that dilution experiment?
MR. MARTZ: I didn't do that experiment.
MR. BLASIER: So the size of a blood drop--or your testimony is it can only vary by 20 percent?
MR. MARTZ: I'm not saying that. I don't know. I didn't measure. I gave you an approximation. I--
MR. BLASIER: So you don't know how much the size of a blood drop will change given different substrates?
MR. MARTZ: No, and that is why, you know, in this particular case when I did the sock I made sure I used the sock as a control and the gate was swabbed with a cotton swab or cotton swatch, so I used the cotton swatch. I used similar material.
MR. BLASIER: How do you know you used the same kind of swatch? You didn't look at them, did you?
MR. MARTZ: Well, they were the type that were used for serology and DNA and I got mine from the DNA unit.
MR. BLASIER: In your opinion can the size of a blood drop with a given quantity of blood vary by eight times, depending on the substrate?
MR. MARTZ: I have never observed that. That is all I can say.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor--
THE COURT: Proceed. He indicated he didn't do that dilution.
MR. BLASIER: Did you examine the photographs that you provided to me of blood spots?
MR. MARTZ: I looked at them.
MR. BLASIER: Did you examine the sizes of blood spots that you had in your photograph to determine whether or not what the difference might be with different substrates with the same amount of blood?
MR. MARTZ: We are back to the ones that I prepared?
MR. BLASIER: Yeah. Did you ever compare those to the dilution ones that were prepared for you?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: I would like to refresh his memory.
MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor. If he has never seen them how can he refresh his memory?
THE COURT: He said he provided them. I assume he has seen them.
MS. CLARK: But he has never compared, your Honor.
THE COURT: It is for the use--purpose of refreshing recollection. It is also a speaking objection. Have a seat.
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, I would like you to review those photographs.
MR. MARTZ: I would like to make a correction. This is something I did prepare here. I thought you were referring to the other one.
MR. BLASIER: All right. So you prepared both those photographs?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I did.
MR. BLASIER: You prepared the stains that are contained in the photographs?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, may I have them marked?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Two photographs.
THE COURT: 1274 and 5.
MR. BLASIER: 1274 and 5?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Deft's 1274 & 1275 for id = photos)
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, when you prepared these did you measure out the quantities of blood that you put on them?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, can I see those again?
MR. BLASIER: Sure.
MR. MARTZ: I know that I did in this one and I can't--
THE COURT: Which one is that? What is the number on that?
MR. MARTZ: 1274. Those are all labeled five microliters, so I know that that is what I did. In this other one, 1275, I don't remember what I did.
MR. BLASIER: Do you remember me showing you that picture about a hour and a half ago and asking you how much blood you used for that second picture?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: You told me ten microliters, didn't you?
MR. MARTZ: I can't remember if that is what I said. It--I probably said five--I don't know if I said ten, five. I don't know what it is.
MR. BLASIER: Did you tell me ten?
MR. MARTZ: I can't remember. I can't remember.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would like to show these--
MS. CLARK: Objection, your Honor, same as previously.
THE COURT: 1274 you can show. 1275 the objection is sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Let me ask you a foundational question. 1275, the second picture, was that the same substrate as the first?
MR. MARTZ: I can't remember.
MR. BLASIER: When you did the experiment, this dilution experiment, did you write down any of the conditions of your experiment?
MR. MARTZ: No, I did not.
MR. BLASIER: Is that because you could remember them?
MR. MARTZ: I felt for the purposes that I did there was no reason to do it. The pictures are quite evident. I did it for dramatic effect just so you could see the pictures.
MR. BLASIER: What kind of dramatic effect?
MR. MARTZ: Well, just to show that blood, when it is diluted, the color changes.
MR. BLASIER: And you didn't record the quantities of blood that you put on these?
MR. MARTZ: No. I--the amount of blood makes absolutely no difference. It is the dilution factor that is important.
MR. BLASIER: But you can't remember now what you put on it?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MS. CLARK: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: Let me show 1274.
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, looking at 1274, those are five-microliter blood drops that you put on some sort of substrate, two different substrates, correct?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: What was the substrate on the top ones?
MR. MARTZ: I believe it was a towel.
MR. BLASIER: And this was what you used to determine what a five-microliter blood drop--or five microliters of blood would look like?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Is that towel anything similar at all to swatches that you got with evidence?
MR. MARTZ: In what respect?
MR. BLASIER: Any respect?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I don't know because I didn't do the test.
MR. BLASIER: So you have no idea what five microliters of blood would look like on a swatch from LAPD, do you?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: And you are using quantities of blood in this experiment from the evidence that were relatively close to the minimum detectable amounts that you had determined for your negative ion test, correct?
MR. MARTZ: For the negative ion? I was above the minimum detectable amount.
MR. BLASIER: You were close, weren't you?
MR. MARTZ: Oh, I don't--I don't believe I was that close.
MR. BLASIER: Stain Q207 from the sock, do you remember that one?
MR. MARTZ: Yeah.
MR. BLASIER: That was taken from the middle part of the stain rather than the edge?
MR. MARTZ: The 207, I don't know. As I told you, I don't know where it came from. You showed me a picture. I don't know where it came from.
MR. BLASIER: Did you ever ask?
MR. MARTZ: I've asked many times and I don't think I have gotten a satisfactory answer.
MR. BLASIER: Is there more blood on Q207 than Q206?
MR. MARTZ: Are you talking the total amount that is on 206 versus 207?
MR. BLASIER: Yeah.
MR. MARTZ: Or where the cut--
MR. BLASIER: Now, your cutting, your Q206 cutting?
MR. MARTZ: I tried to take the same amounts of cuttings from both. I tried to get the same amount of blood.
MR. BLASIER: You didn't do a cutting on Q207, did you?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Q207?
MR. MARTZ: Yeah, the first day. The charts are labeled 206/207.
MR. BLASIER: Did you have a lot of Q207 left over?
MR. MARTZ: It is all relevant--relative. I didn't use as much as I was presented. There is more present now--there is less present now than there was when I started.
MR. BLASIER: So you didn't use all of Q207 to try to get as much blood as possible so that you could have higher amounts of blood to look for EDTA, did you?
MR. MARTZ: As I mentioned earlier, in all the cases--
MR. BLASIER: Move to strike, nonresponsive.
THE COURT: Sustained. Reask the question.
MR. BLASIER: You did not use all of Q207 which had much more blood than the cutting you took, correct?
MR. MARTZ: I don't agree with that.
MR. BLASIER: How much did you cut out of Q207?
MR. MARTZ: In all cases I took larger than the minimum amount that was needed and I combined 206 and 207.
MR. BLASIER: And you had determined the minimum amount you needed from your calculations of sizes of blood drops and what size square swatch you would need to have minimum amounts of blood, correct?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Did you suspect, when you saw the 160 ion in the back gate and the sock, that there might be EDTA there?
MR. MARTZ: Yeah, yes.
MR. BLASIER: You could have used more blood than you used in that experiment to try and find the 132 daughter ion, couldn't you?
MR. MARTZ: Umm, I didn't believe that was relevant.
MR. BLASIER: You could have used more blood, couldn't you, if you wanted to use a larger quantity of blood to try and find whether there was a true EDTA spectrum there, couldn't you?
MR. MARTZ: To me it was irrelevant and I didn't want to consume all the evidence in case the Defense wanted to use it.
MR. BLASIER: You asked--you said you called the Prosecution to see if you could get some more, didn't you?
MR. MARTZ: Right.
MR. BLASIER: That was for their test, right?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, and I wanted to save some for the Defense.
MR. BLASIER: Did they ever tell you that you had a limitation on what you could use?
MR. MARTZ: No, but I generally will never consume all the evidence.
MR. BLASIER: Did you ever ask for some more so that you could run larger quantities of blood to really determine whether there was EDTA there or not?
MR. MARTZ: I didn't feel it was relevant.
MR. BLASIER: Is the answer to that no, you didn't?
MR. MARTZ: I didn't. What is the question?
MR. BLASIER: You didn't make any effort to try and run more blood than you had run in your first set of tests to try and actually identify EDTA in the back gate and the sock, did you?
MR. MARTZ: Well--
MS. CLARK: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MARTZ: Well, I did, and that is why I went to the positive ion mode the next day, because I felt that EDTA may be present in blood.
MR. BLASIER: Move to strike, nonresponsive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: Quantity, Agent Martz. Did you ever try to test more blood that you had available to you when you suspect there was EDTA on the gate and the sock?
MR. MARTZ: I felt there was a better way and that was to do the positive ion and that is the way I looked for the EDTA. It was ten times more sensitive.
MR. BLASIER: Did you ever consider using more blood?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MS. CLARK: Objection. This is argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.
MR. MARTZ: I always try to save evidence in case the Defense wants to examine it.
MR. BLASIER: You had the sock at one point, didn't you?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: How large a cutting did you take compared to what was left on the sock?
MR. MARTZ: I probably took no more than one/tenth would be just an estimate.
MR. BLASIER: You had plenty of more sample on the sock, didn't you?
MR. MARTZ: Yeah.
MR. BLASIER: You weren't concerned with using up what you had available on the sock, were you?
MR. MARTZ: I didn't know what all their testing needed to be done. If DNA testing needed to be done, there would be more blood needed. If it was just for EDTA--there is more things to be done than EDTA.
MR. BLASIER: Did you ever ask, "Can I take another cutting since we are pretty close to minimum detectable limits"?
MR. MARTZ: No, because we weren't concerned with that because minimum detectable limit had nothing to do with whether it was preserved or non-preserved blood. In preserved blood there was so much present it didn't make any difference.
MR. BLASIER: If you test around minimum detectable amounts you are going to find less, aren't you, if it is there? A lot less, aren't you?
MR. MARTZ: I don't know about a lot less. Every instrument has a minimum detectable limit and you either have it or you don't have it and the sock and the gate didn't have it.
MR. BLASIER: Did you ever consider trying to test your suspicion that you founded EDTA by testing a larger quantity of blood?
MS. CLARK: Objection, asked and answered, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MARTZ: In this case?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MR. MARTZ: No.
MR. BLASIER: No further questions.
THE COURT: Miss Clark.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. CLARK
MS. CLARK: Mr. Martz, why would it not be relevant to use more blood to determine whether or not you had EDTA from preserved blood?
MR. MARTZ: As I mentioned earlier, it was--it was actually a very easy analysis. It may seem complicated, but it was actually very easy. The stains were taken from approximately the same amount. I always made sure that I took more stain from the questioned sample than I did the known, and as you saw from my charts, it is very easy to differentiate between blood that is preserved with EDTA and blood that is not preserved.
MS. CLARK: And by taking more stain from the evidence, you would encourage higher readings from the evidence than you would ordinarily if you just took even amounts from the evidence and the reference sample?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: And in that way you overcompensate for any variation in size by making sure that the evidence reading is going to be over-represented?
MR. MARTZ: That was my theory and that is why I did that, yes.
MS. CLARK: So if anything, the readings that you got in the evidence graphs and chart results that you have overrepresent the amount of EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: Now, you talked about detection limits, sir.
(Brief pause.)
MS. CLARK: We lost our operator, your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, try it the old-fashioned way.
MS. CLARK: What is that? I forgot.
MR. DARDEN: May I use the phone, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may. Proceed.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. I will go to something else for the moment.
MS. CLARK: Sir, you talked about detection limit. Let me ask you this: Whatever size of bloodstain you take, be it five microliters, ten microliters, whatever, assume it is five microliters, that is very small isn't it?
MR. MARTZ: Right.
MS. CLARK: When you test five microliters of blood, if it is five microliters of blood that comes from a tube containing EDTA-preserved blood, will you detect EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: Yes. It is veer easy to detect. In a stain with a positive ion mode it would even be one/tenth the size of a one-millimeter square, so it would be extremely small size.
MS. CLARK: And if you run that same sample size, as small as it can be and it is unpreserved blood, will you detect EDTA?
MR. MARTZ: In unpreserved blood?
MS. CLARK: Right.
MR. MARTZ: I have not been able to identify EDTA from bloodstains that size.
MS. CLARK: Then what does that tell you about the detectable limit? If your signal is so weak, sir, that it is below the detectable limit in your bloodstain, does that tell you that EDTA has not been identified?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: In that respect, sir, is it irrelevant whether or not you use more blood or less blood?
MR. MARTZ: As long as I use the same size stains, it is irrelevant.
MS. CLARK: Because even if you use very little blood, EDTA will produce a strong signal if it is present?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: And by that I mean EDTA-preserved blood?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Now, Mr. Blasier asked you whether or not you ever called Defense attorneys to advise them of what you tell a Prosecutor about when you work on cases for prosecutorial agencies. Do you recall that?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Have you ever refused to speak to a Defense attorney who had questions of you?
MR. MARTZ: No, no.
MS. CLARK: Have you ever refused to speak to Mr. Blasier when he had questions of you, sir?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MS. CLARK: And has he had questions of you, sir, throughout these proceedings?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, he has.
MS. CLARK: And have you answered them?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I have.
MS. CLARK: In fact, have you approached him to ask him if he had any questions?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And did he have some?
MR. MARTZ: On several occasions, yes.
MS. CLARK: Did you answer them?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MS. CLARK: You indicated, sir, that you were confused by the fact that he wanted to call you as a witness?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Why is that?
MR. MARTZ: Because my--
MR. BLASIER: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MARTZ: My results clearly show that EDTA is not present in the bloodstains in question.
MS. CLARK: Now, sir, as to all of the evidence testing now, with that in mind, I mean the evidence of the blood on the gate, the blood on the sock, did you write reports containing your conclusions and your results and the testing procedures you followed to be provided to the Prosecution and the Defense?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And when did you provide those reports?
MR. MARTZ: It was probably the end of February, the beginning of March. I don't have the exact date.
MS. CLARK: Okay. And those reports indicated your conclusion that no EDTA from preserved blood was present in the evidence?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: And having provided them by the end of March, sir, if you wanted to prove that EDTA blood--preserved blood was present on the evidence stains, what tests would you conduct?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I would conduct the tests that I performed here.
MS. CLARK: To your knowledge has the Defense conducted such tests?
MR. MARTZ: I have no knowledge of them conducting those tests, no.
MS. CLARK: If you wanted to prove that EDTA-preserved blood, when you have EDTA-preserved blood that the EDTA will break down or degrade when subjected to sunlight, high intensity light, rust, fertilizer or metal or environmental conditions, would you conduct experiments under those conditions to prove that hypothesis?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MS. CLARK: To your knowledge has that ever been done by any Defense expert?
MR. MARTZ: Not to my knowledge.
MS. CLARK: In your opinion, sir, between the beginning of March, when you turned over your results and now, would there have been ample time to conduct those experiments?
MR. MARTZ: I believe there would be, yes.
MS. CLARK: Would there have been ample time, sir, to conduct any tests on the evidence?
MR. BLASIER: Objection, your Honor. May we approach?
THE COURT: Yes. With the court reporter, please.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: We are over at the side bar. Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: The questions that are being asked are an attempt to shift the burden of proof to show that we have some kind of burden of doing testing, of going forward with testing, when we don't. And these are in the form of argument and comments on our--whether we are doing tests or not, and they are improper.
THE COURT: I'm going to direct the Prosecution to rephrase regarding opportunity and time to do testing. That is what you can ask, whether or not somebody wanted to do this, there was ample opportunity.
MS. CLARK: Okay.
THE COURT: And time, not that the Defense had any obligation to do it, so stay away from the Defense. Having the opportunity, just any scientist interested in this.
MR. COCHRAN: May I say something?
THE COURT: Neutral question.
MR. COCHRAN: In view of that, shouldn't we strike what they have already asked? They asked a series of questions along this line to straighten the record out because we don't have an obligation, Judge.
MS. CLARK: I--
MR. COCHRAN: Finish, please? Shouldn't we straighten that out, your Honor?
THE COURT: Well, there is only one person who gets to argue these things, Mr. Cochran.
MS. CLARK: The People's position is that the Defense has proffered this evidence, not the People, and we did not proffer this witness. He is subpoenaed by the Defense and was Dr. Rieders. All privilege has been waived now with respect to any testing they may or may not have done by having called a witness, and actually two witnesses on this issue, so I think it is fair comment.
THE COURT: You are right, it is fair comment in argument that they had the opportunity to do this, they had the resources, they had the people to do it; they didn't do it. That is argument. And I'm going to direct you to rephrase your question in a neutral fashion that any scientist with the appropriate equipment, you know, since the time you completed your test, had the opportunity to do these other tests.
MS. CLARK: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: In time, equipment, skill, whatever, they could have done this, anybody could have done this, correct?
MS. CLARK: Yes.
THE COURT: In a neutral fashion. That is a fair question.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, while we are here, I would like to be heard on this. Agent Martz told me right after lunch there is ten microliters in each one of these drops. I think he is becoming deceptive by denying that, and I want to state as an officer of the court that is what he told me. Ordinarily the proper way to impeach him would be to call myself as a witness to say that that is what he said. Obviously that presents additional problems. I'm not sure how to deal with that, but I--
THE COURT: Let's not take it up now, because I have a feeling we are not going to finish with Martz this morning--this afternoon because we are--although you are about to finish in about two or three minutes--
MS. CLARK: Yeah, exactly. I'm almost done.
THE COURT: How about you?
MR. BLASIER: I don't have much more.
THE COURT: Well, we may slop over.
MS. CLARK: Can we try and finish?
THE COURT: We do have to end at 5:00 today.
MR. BLASIER: If we can.
MS. CLARK: I think we can.
THE COURT: Counsel, the thing is, Bob wants to go into this.
MR. COCHRAN: Yeah. Off the record.
MS. CLARK: I wasn't present for the conversation, but the witness doesn't remember how much he actually used and Blasier asked off-the-cuff informally in Court--
THE COURT: What we will do--
MS. CLARK: He didn't know it was important.
THE COURT: What we will do, the point I was making about the fact that we are probably not going to finish with this guy today is when we take the recess, let the jurors go, because their family visitation is this afternoon, which is why we have to quit at 5:00, we can chat with Agent Martz, so let's not take up the time and talk about it now. All right.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Proceed.
MS. CLARK: Sir, had a scientist with the equipment of the liquid chromatograph tandem mass spectrometer, if such a person had that equipment, could they, between the beginning of March when you provided your results to the Defense and now, have conducted tests on the socks and on the gate to determine the presence of EDTA-preserved blood?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, they could.
MS. CLARK: And in that space of time, sir, could they also have conducted tests involving the use of an internal standard like the one pointed out to you by counsel from Cambridge to quantify the amount of blood being tested in the evidence as well as the reference sample?
MR. MARTZ: They could have quantitated the amount of EDTA. To quantitate the blood they would have had to use a different procedure.
MS. CLARK: But they could have adopted a procedure to quantitate the blood?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And they could have then tested that blood?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And they could have then quantitated the EDTA present in the evidence and in the reference blood?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, they could have.
MS. CLARK: This is Defense 1274, sir.
MS. CLARK: Can you tell us what was the point of this?
MR. MARTZ: Well, when I made the five microliters blood sample I was able to cut it in pieces and determine my minimum detectable amount of bloodstain.
MS. CLARK: And what were you attempting to show here?
MR. MARTZ: Well, I needed a certain amount of blood in order to determine the minimum--the minimum detectable amount, so I placed a known amount of blood and took a portion of that and tested it.
MS. CLARK: Okay. Were you trying to visualize what that amount of blood would look like?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MS. CLARK: That was just bloodstains showing that was the amount that you were testing?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, that's correct.
MS. CLARK: Not what it would look like?
MR. MARTZ: No.
MS. CLARK: All right. You were shown--I'm going to show you what is--
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MS. CLARK: You were shown People's 544-E--and your Honor, I have informally these. I'm going to ask leave of the Court to label them with handwriting or typing that is better than mine. Okay. These show the photographs of the evidence bloodstain on the gate?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And in this chart you indicated that the 160 was not shown in the full daughter spectrum?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: Although you had indicated you detected it you thought in the scan where you were only looking at the daughter 160 on the gate evidence, correct?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, that's correct.
MS. CLARK: What does this signify to you that when you ran the full daughter spectrum to try and achieve 293, 160 and 132 at the same time, you could not do so?
MR. MARTZ: It indicated to me that I could not identify EDTA because I needed those ions to identify EDTA.
MS. CLARK: And you hypothesized with Mr. Blasier that the 160 was below your detectable limit?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: Well, if it is below your detectable limit, sir, then can it be EDTA from preserved blood?
MR. MARTZ: No, it cannot.
MS. CLARK: Is that because the signal given--no matter how small the amount of blood, the signal given for EDTA blood is so strong that you should get the full daughter spectrum whenever you run it?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: And so you did not?
MR. MARTZ: And I did not in this case.
MS. CLARK: You were shown this chart, sir, by Mr. Blasier?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I was.
MS. CLARK: Does that chart reflect any testing that you ever conducted?
MR. MARTZ: No, it does not.
MS. CLARK: Does that chart reflect any result that you ever obtained in any test?
MR. MARTZ: No, it does not.
MS. CLARK: Does that chart have anything to do with the work that you have done and actually obtained the results in in this case?
MR. MARTZ: No, it does not.
MS. CLARK: Does that chart reflect the results of the testing of any evidence in this case?
MR. MARTZ: No, it does not.
MS. CLARK: Or any of the reference samples in this case?
MR. MARTZ: No, it does not.
MS. CLARK: Is that an accurate depiction of your testimony as it relates to the comparison between the amount of EDTA found in preserved blood versus the amount of whatever substance that is in the evidence stains?
MR. MARTZ: Could you repeat that, please?
MS. CLARK: No.
MR. MARTZ: I didn't think you could.
MS. CLARK: I'm not even going to try and read it.
MS. CLARK: Does this chart, sir, reflect your--accurately reflect your testimony concerning the discrepancy, the dramatic difference between the EDTA signal you got from the reference samples, that means blood from preserved EDTA tubes, and the evidence stains in this case?
MR. MARTZ: This chart does not reflect any of the testing that I did whatsoever.
MS. CLARK: Does it accurately reflect any of your testimony, in your opinion, concerning the dramatic difference between the signals you got in the reference sample and the evidence stains?
MR. MARTZ: No, it does not.
THE COURT: All right. Miss Clark, you have been referring to--
MS. CLARK: That was Defense 127--
MR. BLASIER: 1271-C.
MS. CLARK: Thank you.
MS. CLARK: Now, you recall being shown a square from the sock--there was a chart done by the Defense--
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MS. CLARK: Defense 1257-E.
MS. CLARK: Sir, do you remember this diagram?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I do.
MS. CLARK: It indicates that 207 was taken from the lower right-hand corner as you face this diagram?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Do you have any idea whether that is true or not?
MR. MARTZ: No, I don't know where 207 came from.
MS. CLARK: When you received 207 was it a cutting in a tube?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, it was.
MS. CLARK: And then you took a cutting from that?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MS. CLARK: Now, you indicated that you in fact did test 207 and 206 on the first day?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: Did you take a cutting from the small cutting you found in the tube marked 207?
MR. MARTZ: Yes.
MS. CLARK: And the cutting 206 is the one you made from the sock itself?
MR. MARTZ: That's correct.
MS. CLARK: You do not know then whether 207 actually came--came from the area right next to 206?
MR. MARTZ: No. To my understanding it just came from somewhere in that blue area or blue/green area.
MS. CLARK: Now, when you did the combined testing of 206 and 207, was that in the negative ion mode?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, it was.
MS. CLARK: And your result was?
MR. MARTZ: No EDTA was identified in that particular stain and that stain did not come from preserved blood.
MS. CLARK: Now, sir, you indicated--I'm going to show you the two charts that have been previously marked as People's 543 and 544-F respectively. These are labeled--this is the gate with EDTA blood applied. This is where you put known EDTA blood on the gate swatch.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, object. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. CLARK: If the blood recovered from the gate, the evidence blood in this case, were actually blood from the tube with preservative EDTA in it, is this the signal you would expect to get?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: And when you tested the actual blood recovered from the gate, the evidence blood, is that the signal you got?
MR. MARTZ: No, I did not.
MS. CLARK: And look at the chart now up.
MR. MARTZ: That is the signal I got, yes.
MS. CLARK: And that is the signal you got that is on People's 544-E?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, that's correct.
MS. CLARK: And if you had--and if the blood on the sock had in fact been blood from an EDTA preserved tube, would you have expected to get the signal shown in People's 543-F?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, I would have.
MS. CLARK: And is that the result that you got?
MR. MARTZ: No, it is not.
MS. CLARK: Showing you People's 543-E. This is the--your graph of the evidence blood tested for EDTA on the sock. This is the actual evidence. Is that the result that you got?
MR. MARTZ: Yes, it is.
MS. CLARK: And in each case, with respect to the blood recovered from the sock and the blood recovered from the gate, did your test results consistently show from May 19th through May 22nd or 23rd--
MR. MARTZ: 28th.
MS. CLARK: --28th, that there was no EDTA preserved blood in the stain on the gate and the stain on the sock?
MR. MARTZ: In all the tests that I performed no EDTA was identified in the stain from the gate or the stain from the sock. Those stains did not come from EDTA-preserved blood.
MS. CLARK: Do you have any doubt about that, sir?
MR. MARTZ: I have no doubt whatsoever.
MS. CLARK: I have nothing further.
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, would you agree that your ability to quantify any of these amounts is--relies upon your ability to accurately calculate or estimate or look at and determine how much evidence you started with?
MR. MARTZ: Not to distinguish between preserved and non-preserved blood, I don't agree with that, no.
MR. BLASIER: You don't think the amount of evidence that you started with when you tested has anything to do with your ability to detect--
MS. CLARK: Asked and answered.
MR. BLASIER: --EDTA?
MS. CLARK: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MARTZ: I don't believe with the precautions I took that it would have any effect whatsoever.
MR. BLASIER: Would you allow as how an expert with a great deal more experience than you might differ with your opinion?
MS. CLARK: Objection, argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. MARTZ: What was the question?
MR. BLASIER: Would you allow as how an expert with a great deal more experience than you might differ from your opinion?
MS. CLARK: Objection, vague. Experience in what?
MR. MARTZ: Experience in what?
MR. BLASIER: EDTA, mass spec, degrees in chemistry, toxicology, pharmacology?
MR. MARTZ: I don't think anyone probably in the world has more experience with identifying EDTA in forensic samples than I do.
MR. BLASIER: No further questions.
THE COURT: All right. Let me see counsel without the court reporter, please.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the evening at this time. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, don't allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. As far as the jury is concerned we will stand in recess until 9:00 A.M. tomorrow morning. Agent Martz, you may step down. Don't go away, though. All right. We will clear the jury and then I want to talk to counsel.
(Brief pause.)
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(At 5:00 P.M. an adjournment was taken until, Thursday, July 27, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
The People of the State of California,)
Plaintiff,)
Vs.) No. BA097211)
Orenthal James Simpson,)
Defendant.)
Reporter's transcript of proceedings Wednesday, July 26, 1995
Volume 194 pages 38887 through 39028, inclusive
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCES:
Janet M. Moxham, CSR #4588 Christine M. Olson, CSR #2378 official reporters
FOR THE PEOPLE: Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012
FOR THE DEFENDANT: Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I N D E X
Index for volume 194 pages 38887 - 39028
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day date session page vol.
Wednesday July 26, 1995 P.M. 38887 194
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGEND: Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden d Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
DEFENSE witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
Martz, Roger M. 194 (Resumed) 38892mc 38922bb 39007mc (Further) 39025bb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
WITNESSES direct cross redirect recross vol.
Martz, Roger M. 194 (Resumed) 38892mc 38922bb 39007mc (Further) 39025bb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBITS
PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
549-A thru 549-C - 38902 194 3 graphs described as sample - operator blood, no EDTA added, red top; sample--operator blood with EDTA; and sample - operator blood no EDTA
550-A & 550-B - 38908 194 2 graphs described as sample--RMM blood, no EDTA and sample--RMM blood with EDTA
551-A & 551-B - 38911 194 graph described as sample--EDTA blood from 1993
552 - Bar graph 38914 194 entitled "EDTA, July 22, 1995"
543-E - chart 38921 194 computer printout of exhibits 543-A and 543-C
543-F - chart 38921 194 computer printout of exhibits 543-B and 543-D
544-E - chart 38921 194 computer printout of exhibits 544-A and 544-B
544-F - chart 38921 194 computer printout of exhibits 544-C and 544-D
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
1271-C - slide 38964 194 presentation relating to the stain on gate (Computer printout)
1270 - 1-Page document 38939 194 excerpt for the publication "Cambridge isotope laboratories, inc.
1271-A - slide 38956 194 presentation relating to the stain on gate (Computer printout)
1271-B - slide 38960 194 presentation relating to the stain on gate (Computer printout)
1272 - Chart 38972 194 described as sample--operator blood EDTA added
1273 - Chart 38976 194 described as sample--dress K65
1274 - Photograph 38998 194 depicting an FBI ruler and red spots on fabric
1275 - Photograph 38998 194 depicting red spots on fabric