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: Good morning, counsel. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Blasier, Mr. Scheck, Mr. Neufeld. The People are represented by Mr. Darden and Mr. Clarke. The jury is not present. I assume there are a few things we need to discuss before we resume with the jury?
MR. CLARKE: Yes, your Honor. With regard to the remaining area with Dr. Cotton--
THE COURT: All right. Good morning, Mr. Clarke.
MR. CLARKE: Good morning, Dr. Cotton has spent overnight actually toiling at very late hours in preparation of these population frequencies that the Court has requested. It is my opinion that she is not prepared at this time to present those with the type of preparation that is necessary. It is our intent to call another witness to describe the frequencies with these mixtures in which we will comply with the Court's direction. We will provide frequencies for those numbers. It is our intent not to do it at this time.
THE COURT: Who is this other witness?
MR. CLARKE: Dr. Bruce Weir.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, may I be heard?
THE COURT: Excuse me. When do you anticipate Dr. Weir being available?
MR. CLARKE: He will be available and what it is our intent to do with Dr. Weir is to have him discuss obviously not just these frequencies as to these particular two mixtures, but also other frequencies in the case as well, so what we will await for his testimony is a description of the results in this case and then to conclude that in terms of once frequencies are discussed or described by the witnesses who are yet to be presented, he will then present testimony about those calculations.
THE COURT: All right. So you anticipate under your proposal we finish with Dr. Cotton this morning, move on to the California Department of Justice? Are we going to get any other lab results from any other lab?
MR. CLARKE: The Los Angeles Police Department.
THE COURT: And then somewhere in this mix you are going to have Dr. Weir?
MR. CLARKE: Correct.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Neufeld.
MR. NEUFELD: Certainly. Your Honor--
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. NEUFELD: Good morning. As you may recall, you issued a ruling in this case stating that DNA results of a match or of a consistency could not be presented without some number, although you said that every time you use the word "match" you don't have to at that point articulate a number. With respect to Dr. Cotton, you issued a ruling saying that at some point during her testimony she had to provide these aggregated frequencies for the mixtures pursuant to the NRC position.
THE COURT: I don't think that is quite what I said.
MR. NEUFELD: Umm--
THE COURT: But go ahead.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. In any event--
THE COURT: We were talking in terms of mixtures, not specifically in terms of Dr. Cotton's testimony.
MR. NEUFELD: I think we were talking in terms of both, your Honor.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. NEUFELD: Both mixtures and Dr. Cotton's testimony. In any event, she did apparently produce numbers. The numbers were given to us this morning. The suggestion, at least in the pieces of paper that I received, is that they concur with our numbers on the steering wheel, item 29. Is that--just from the papers that they have presented to us, and then they calculated different numbers for item no. 78 using--applying three different assumptions. I believe that under the Court's ruling I didn't go into this on cross-examination because it was an understanding that we had at the bench, side bar, that Mr. Clarke would be allowed to reopen his direct testimony to introduce their numbers for these mixtures through Dr. Cotton.
If they don't intend to do so now and the Court is going to allow them not to do that now, then I have an absolute right, your Honor, to reopen my cross-examination as to these two limited issues, and ask her questions about frequencies pertaining to item 78 and frequencies pertaining to item 29. I have a right to do that with this jury while this witness is still here and this jury is assessing the totality of this witness' testimony. I gave up that right to do that as part of my cross because I was under the impression, based on the Court's ruling, that I would have an opportunity to do that through this witness once they reopen their direct. And even if you are going to allow them to postpone their presentation, then certainly since genotype frequencies were brought out for lots of different items on direct examination, I should be entitled to cross-examine her now based on the frequencies for 29 and 78.
THE COURT: All right. Any response, Mr. Clarke?
MR. CLARKE: Just that I think that under those circumstances, that testimony, cross-examination testimony would clearly be beyond the scope of direct examination. I don't think there is any requirement that we elicit a particular fact from a particular witness when we are going to comply with the Court's order.
THE COURT: All right. Okay. All right. Well, the Court's ruling in this matter was in concurrence with the NRC report, that frequencies with regards to mixed stains, there had to be some report of some number, some statistical importance attached to that conclusion. The Defense did withhold any cross-examination as to that issue; however, there is nothing within the scope of the direct examination that can be cross-examined at this point with regards to frequencies on the mixtures. Mr. Neufeld, I'm not preventing you from questioning Dr. Cotton as to those issues. If you want to call Dr. Cotton in your Case in Chief during your Defense, you are entitled to do so, if you want to question those frequencies. You asked me to make this ruling to require the Prosecution to provide the statistical information. They have chosen not to present that at this time. They have indicated they have another witness that they are going to use to present that information. They are entitled to present their case in the manner which they wish to.
MR. NEUFELD: Your Honor, there is two points that need to be made at this point.
THE COURT: No. That was the ending of the argument. Next item. Next item.
MR. NEUFELD: Well, your Honor--
THE COURT: That was the end of the argument.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Counsel.
MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, in this matter I wanted to just point out a matter to the Court, and in our ever ongoing attempt to keep the Court abreast of things that are happening. In driving around the city recently, your Honor, I have seen these billboards--I have seen only the ones that say "guilty," which is troubling to me, but I understand there are also some that say "innocent." I'm not sure who put up these billboards, whether they are some kind of promotion or some kind of a movie or whatever, but I wanted to point out to the Court, because I'm concerned that as our jury goes on these outings--the Court was aware that somebody shouted out something at a lacer game when the jury was there.
And I wanted the Court to be aware of that so that if and when the jury is taken out on outing we need to know about this so if they are taken down routes that have signs saying one thing or the other, that could be prejudicial to either side of this case. And I thought it was incumbent upon me to bring this to the Court's attention at this point. The other thing I wanted to point out to the Court is that we do have a number of matters that kind of slipped off our plate, as it were, and I would like at the appropriate time for both sides to try and meet with the Court to try and get some things rescheduled. I know we have been very busy and it is good to have the matters move along, but we need to meet at some point.
THE COURT: I think need to have Mrs. Robertson make up a list of the other items that are yet to be resolved and we will start with that and then we will schedule a meeting amongst principal counsel for both sides to schedule resolving those issues. Unfortunately, we just had the autopsy Coroner's hearings changed to the afternoon of the 19th, which would have been an ideal time.
MR. COCHRAN: Yes. All right.
THE COURT: And I anticipate, since we are talking about 50 photos and some significant legal and medical issues on that, I anticipate probably having to spend the whole afternoon with that motion.
MR. COCHRAN: Probably so, your Honor. We will be available. Thank you very much.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Then Mrs. Robertson, would you advise Sergeant Smith I would like to speak with him regarding outings.
THE COURT: All right. Anything else before we conclude Dr. Cotton?
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, I was just proposing to Mr. Cochran that perhaps we can discuss some of these matters that we have pending before the Court. Some of those motions perhaps can be resolved between counsel without need to take up the Court's time, and if that is possible, we will do that. I wanted to indicate to the Court that I have seen those billboards. The ones I saw were "innocent," and I mean there is something other worldly about this, but I kind of thought it was a promo for something else. I'm hopeful that that is the case, in any case, but if there is any possibility of making sure that the bailiffs look at the route that would be taken by the jurors wherever they are going to make sure they see neither of those billboards.
THE COURT: No. My instructions and the Sheriff's Department precautions always include a survey of the route to and from before, but I just wanted to make--that is why I asked Mrs. Robertson to contact Sergeant Smith for me. I just want to make sure that we both understand that that is still the policy. That has been the policy, but just to give Sergeant Smith a head's up to avoid this.
MS. CLARK: Thank you, your Honor. And we will try to resolve some of these matters.
MR. NEUFELD: One last matter then before the conclusion of Robin Cotton. In light of the Court's ruling, I would ask the Court to strike the testimony of Robin Cotton with respect to the mixture on item 78. I think that as you may recall, there were several times during my cross-examination of Dr. Cotton where I tried to introduce certain facts subject to connection and the Court said that wasn't appropriate and said that if I wanted to do so during my case I can go right ahead and do so. I think that out of fairness, your Honor, the same result and the same approach is warranted here. You had ruled that evidence of mixtures and matches would not be--
THE COURT: Counsel, you are rearguing the issue.
MR. NEUFELD: No, no. No, I'm not. I'm asking for you to strike that portion of the testimony. I'm not talking about my right to cross-examine her on this point at this time. I'm simply asking that since the Court has taken the tact that it has taken, that the appropriate relief is with respect to item 78, that that should be stricken from the record at this point.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Neufeld, first you want me to make a ruling requiring the Prosecution to present the evidence in a certain manner. I grant that. They decide in light of that they have to adjust their case, so you can't have it both ways.
MR. NEUFELD: I don't think I'm asking for both ways.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Clarke, any response?
MR. CLARKE: No. Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. The motion is denied. All right. Let's have the jurors.
(Brief pause.)
MR. CLARKE: Your Honor, I'm not sure where we left off with Dr. Cotton in terms of questioning.
MR. NEUFELD: She is finished.
MR. CLARKE: I think she may be concluded.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: Mr. Clarke, do you have your next witness available?
MR. CLARKE: Yes. Mr. Harmon does.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CLARK: Dr. Cotton would like to hear you excuse her, your Honor.
(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. Let the record reflect that we have been now rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
THE COURT: All right. As to Dr. Cotton, she is again present in the courtroom. Both sides have concluded recross and redirect. Mr. Clarke, Mr. Neufeld, in light of the Court's rulings, any further questions of Dr. Cotton?
MR. CLARKE: Not on behalf of the People, your Honor.
MR. NEUFELD: In light of the Court's ruling there is no further questions by the Defense at this time, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Then Dr. Cotton, you are excused subject to recall. All right. Thank you, ma'am. All right. The People may call their next witness. All right. Good morning, Mr. Harmon. Are you going to be handling the next witness?
MR. HARMON: Good morning, your Honor. May I introduce myself to the jury?
THE COURT: Yes, you may.
MR. HARMON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Rockne Harmon. I will be handling the next few witnesses.
THE JURY: Good morning.
MR. HARMON: The Prosecution calls Gary Sims.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Sims, would you come forward, please.
Gary Sims, called as a witness by the People, was sworn and testified as follows:
THE CLERK: Please raise your right hand. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this Court, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
MR. SIMS: I do.
THE CLERK: Please have a seat on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.
MR. SIMS: My name is Gary Sims, G-A-R-Y S-I-M-S.
THE CLERK: Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.
MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARMON
MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, who do you work for?
MR. SIMS: I work for the California Department of Justice in their DNA laboratory in Berkeley.
MR. HARMON: Could you describe the relationship of your laboratory within the state administrative system?
MR. SIMS: Yes. We are part of the Department of Justice and we are within the Bureau of Forensic Services, and specifically, the DNA laboratory serves the entire state. Our particular jurisdiction is generally those areas that are not covered by a lot of the major cities and that sort of thing and so we have regional laboratories located throughout California and they generally feed cases into us.
MR. HARMON: Now, what is the relationship of the Department of Justice to the State Attorney General?
MR. SIMS: We are under the office of the Attorney General.
MR. HARMON: And does the Department of Justice have many different branches other than the Bureau of Forensic Services?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it does.
MR. HARMON: What are those other branches?
MR. SIMS: There is several divisions such as the Division of Law Enforcement. There is other divisions that include the attorneys, state attorney, deputy attorney generals, that sort of thing.
MR. HARMON: And other than the DNA laboratory, could you give us an idea of what the Bureau of Forensic Services provides statewide?
MR. SIMS: Yes. They provide forensic criminalistic services to a number of jurisdictions, a number of different law enforcement agencies throughout the state. As I mentioned earlier, in California most of the major cities and counties have their own crime laboratories, but we provide services to some of the--what used to be more rural areas of California, but will make our services available to other counties, the larger counties also.
MR. HARMON: Now, other than--you have one DNA laboratory; is that right?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. HARMON: Other than the DNA laboratory are there other laboratories under the bureau throughout the state?
MR. SIMS: Yes, there are.
MR. HARMON: Could you give us an idea of how many and where they are.
MR. SIMS: Yes. There are laboratories located in places such as riverside, Fresno, Sacramento, Redding, Santa Rosa, Santa Barbara.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, how long has the DNA laboratory been in place?
MR. SIMS: The DNA laboratory for the state DNA laboratory was established in late 1989, so a little over five years now.
MR. HARMON: And has it always been in Berkeley?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it has.
MR. HARMON: Were you one of the original employees?
MR. SIMS: I was not one of the original, but I was one of the early group, yes. The earliest people were hired in late 1989. I came on board in January of 1990.
MR. HARMON: Could you please explain to the jury the types of services the DNA laboratory provides to the citizens of this state.
MR. SIMS: Yes. We analyze biological evidence. Generally the types of cases we work on are homicides or also sexual assault cases, and the types of evidence that we analyze using DNA technology would generally involve blood, semen, hair, other bodily fluids.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, would we call that case work services?
MR. SIMS: Yes. That is our principal case work service. We also are in charge of the felon offender database whereby DNA or blood samples are collected from felons upon release from prison and then we type those samples for the DNA profile and we feed those into the database so that we have an ongoing bank of felon offender data files.
MR. HARMON: And how long has the database or that bank been in place?
MR. SIMS: The plans for it have been in place for a number of years. We recently--well, not recently. It has been I think about three years now that we have been putting those sample profiles together.
MR. HARMON: And so the goal is to have known offenders in this database in case--
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I think I would object on relevance.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. HARMON: What is the goal of this database with respect to known offenders?
MR. SIMS: The goal of this is so that when we have, for example, a sexual assault case where we don't know--we don't have somebody arrested to check their DNA profile on, we can go into this database and see whether or not that DNA profile that we might obtain from, for example, a semen sample on a vaginal swab, whether or not that profile is in our database that we may provide that we may have the perpetrator through the DNA.
MR. HARMON: Do other states have a similar database set up?
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor--
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Yes, this is a nationwide effort.
THE COURT: All right. Let's move on.
MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. HARMON: Are the same technologies that were used in this case used in the database?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: But are they done by different people?
MR. SIMS: Yes. We have a different part of our laboratory that does what we call the--it is a 290 on that so we call that the 290 program.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, let's talk about you and your background for a little while, okay?
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. HARMON: Starting with your undergraduate education, could you please describe where you obtained it and what your degree was in.
MR. SIMS: Yes. I obtained a bachelor of science degree in criminalistics from the University of California at Berkeley and that was in 1975.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Did you obtain any honors at UC Berkeley?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. HARMON: And what were they?
MR. SIMS: I graduated phi beta kappa.
MR. HARMON: Could you explain what that means. Phi beta kappa is a Honor society that recognizes a certain percentage of the graduates. I don't know the exact formula, but it is considered an academic Honor.
MR. HARMON: Did you pursue any graduate studies after that in criminalistics?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did. I pursued graduate studies in criminalistics also at the University of California at Berkeley and I did that from 1975 to 1976. And then also I worked on a graduate program at California State University, Los Angeles, from 1978 to `80.
MR. HARMON: Okay. In the graduate program at UC Berkeley in `75 and `76, did you obtain any honors in that program?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I was studying under a regents fellowship.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And what specialized courses have you taken over the years that lent to your credentials for forensic DNA typing?
MR. SIMS: Yes. Among the specialized classes that I've taken, umm, one thing, I've gone back to school with the advent of DNA technology into forensic science, so I went back to school and took courses in recombinant DNA technology through University of California extension and also classes in molecular biology through the extension. And I also I took a class in genetics from the California University at Hayward so I could be brought up to date with the DNA technology.
MR. HARMON: What years did you take those classes?
MR. SIMS: That would be from 1990 through `91.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Subsequent to that did you have some training in Virginia?
MR. SIMS: Well, actually the Virginia training is two-fold. There was a class that I took that is offered through the Federal Bureau of Investigation at their research center in Quantico, Virginia, and that was a one-month class in forensic DNA typing and that is actually credited, along with the laboratory portion, that is credited through the University of Virginia.
MR. HARMON: And did you take another class in the same setting?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did. I went back two years later to take an advanced class in 1992. That was a one-week class.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And also did you take a forensic DNA class at UC Berkeley?
MR. SIMS: Yes. That was offered through the extension and a lot of the criminalists in the Bay area attended that class. It was about DNA technology. The class was taught by Dale Dykes and also the PCR portion was taught by Dr. Blake and then the--also by Dr. Cecilia Beroldingen.
THE COURT: How do you spell that?
MR. SIMS: Von and then B-E-R-O-L-D-I-N-G-E-N, I think.
MR. HARMON: That's right.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, these are all formal classes and courses that you have taken over the years. Are there other ways that people in your field keep abreast of things and further their intellectual and educational--
MR. SIMS: Yes. We do that by attending specialized classes that are designed for people in our field and they are typically--sometimes they are a one-day seminar, sometimes they are a week, something like that, and I have taken a number of those.
MR. HARMON: Are they frequently taught by prominent people in their respective fields?
MR. SIMS: Yes, they are.
MR. HARMON: Can you tell us what kind of classes or sessions fall into that category, please.
MR. SIMS: Yes. Umm, one of the most recent ones was in 1992, a one-week class taught in population genetics and statistics by Dr. Bruce weir. That was put on by the California Association of Criminalists and that was one week as I mentioned. I have also took a one-week class that was offered by the Cetus Corporation. They are the company that under--in which PCR was developed. They held the patent on the PCR. And that was in the use of doing PCR, DQ-Alpha typing in forensic work.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harmon, Mr. Sims, I think the record should reflect that the witness is referring to a CV.
MR. SIMS: Yes, I am referring to--
MR. HARMON: You are referring to your CV?
MR. SIMS: Yes. There is a lot of dates on here.
MR. HARMON: Kind of hard to remember all of them?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't you tell us about the next one.
MR. SIMS: I have also attended, for example, in DNA a non-isotopic detection class that was offered by allo-type genetic testing services down in Atlanta, Georgia. That was taught by Dr. Moses Schanfield and also by Dale Dykes. That was my first formal course work in--first formal class in DNA procedures and that was in 1988. I have also taken various workshops, such as workshops in statistics, blood spatter, that sort of thing. I have also taken a three-week class in conventional forensic serology, such as the EAP marker that I think you have heard some things about. That was in 1979 and that was a three-week class.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Over the years have you been recognized or been awarded certificates in areas of expertise in your field?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Could you tell us what those are.
MR. SIMS: Yes. Most recently I obtained a certificate of professional competency in criminalistics from the American Board of Criminalistics and that was in 1993.
MR. HARMON: Could you tell us a little bit about that program and how--what it reflects.
MR. SIMS: Yes. What this program reflects is a nationwide effort to enhance the professionalism of criminalistics is what it is all about, and what it involves is taking examinations in certain areas to show that you are competent and also now it will involve proficiency testing and that sort of thing, so it is to raise the professionalism.
MR. HARMON: Now, is that something that recently came about, that program?
MR. SIMS: Well, California took an early lead in this--in the late 1980's this was the--the program was offered through the California Association of Criminalists and I first obtained my certificate in 1990 from the California Association of Criminalists, and then this program has now gone nationwide.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, you have used the word "criminalistics." could we broaden that definition and explain what is entailed? Let's say in that certificate, what kinds of things did that certification process cover?
MR. SIMS: What the certification program in criminalistics entails is the various aspects of physical evidence examination and that would include the collection of evidence, the analysis of evidence, the interpretation of evidence.
MR. HARMON: What sorts of evidence?
MR. SIMS: Various kinds of evidence. For example, biological evidence, trace evidence, firearms evidence, all the different disciplines within criminalistics.
MR. HARMON: Did you necessarily feel much more qualified simply because they gave you the certificate than you did before you obtained it?
MR. SIMS: No. But I think that kind of program is valuable in that you have to have a certain level of knowledge to pass the exam.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Are you a member of the California Association of Criminalists?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I have been a member since the late 1970's.
MR. HARMON: Please describe the nature of your employment in the field of criminalistics from the first job in this area.
MR. SIMS: Yes. My career began in 1976 about almost 19 years ago now, June of 1976, with the Department of Chief Medical Examiner Coroner here in Los Angeles where I worked in the laboratory. I performed toxicological and serological examinations at that time. Some of that would be blood-alcohol testing, that sort of thing, but also doing blood typing, examination and sexual assault evidence.
MR. HARMON: Conventional serology?
MR. SIMS: Conventional serology, yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
MR. SIMS: And I worked at the Coroner's office for three years and then in 1979 I went to work at the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department in their crime laboratory where I worked in the serology program again doing what we have termed conventional serology. And after a little over a year in that I took an opportunity to go work at the institute of forensic sciences criminalistics laboratory, which is a private crime laboratory in Oakland, California, under the directorship of Charles Morton.
MR. HARMON: Chuck Morton?
MR. SIMS: Chuck Morton, yes.
MR. HARMON: What sort of clientele did you have there?
MR. SIMS: Well, since we were a private concern, we had--we did work for both Prosecution agencies, police agencies, but most of our work was for Defense attorneys.
MR. HARMON: Did that cause you any personal problems?
MR. SIMS: No.
MR. SCHECK: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. HARMON: Philosophical problems?
MR. SIMS: No. As a criminalist I approach the evidence. I don't care which side it is coming from. My concern is with the evidence and the examination of the evidence.
MR. HARMON: In the course of those years did you ever testify for a Defendant?
MR. SIMS: Very often.
MR. HARMON: Did you ever contradict any Prosecution evidence?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. HARMON: Now frequently?
MR. SIMS: Occasionally. Sometimes in--when you are doing this kind of reanalysis, this Defense reanalysis, you may--you may, for example, have a situation where you out and out disagree with the result, and then you have to be able to go in and defend that, but also you have situations where there is other types of evidence that perhaps the Prosecution has not looked at and then you might examine that evidence and say this is what my findings are and they are really contradictory to other findings.
MR. HARMON: Now, in that context you mentioned that you reanalyze things; is that right?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: So physical evidence was made available to you to reanalyze and evaluate?
MR. SIMS: Yes. That is a very common--that was a very common part of our practice.
MR. HARMON: And what year did you move on from there to the Department of Justice?
MR. SIMS: I worked at the institute of forensic science from 1980 to 1990 and then it was in early 1990 that I went to work at the Department of Justice.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you describe the nature of your initial responsibilities at the Department of Justice.
MR. SIMS: Yes. Our initial responsibilities were two-fold. One, we had to set up the laboratory because all we had was a building, a room in a building, and we were working through Lawrence Berkeley laboratory, we had sublet space within their facility up in Berkeley, and so we obtained the equipment. And then the next portion was to go through the training and the--what we call in-house validation procedures to take validated procedures and put them on line in our own laboratory, and that went on for about two years until we actually started doing any case work.
MR. HARMON: Okay. What was your specific role during that time period?
MR. SIMS: My specific role was to take part in some of these research projects and to get trained in these other areas.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, at the time the DOJ began were there other laboratories around the country and the world that were already providing forensic DNA services?
MR. SIMS: Yes, there were.
MR. HARMON: Can you recall which ones those might be?
MR. SIMS: Well, for example, the FBI went on line with DNA in I believe late 1988. Cellmark has--was on line before that time, life codes, and then some of the other state laboratories. I believe Virginia was on line before that, too, but I don't know those exact dates.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Please describe the next phase of the implementation of what your specific role was.
MR. SIMS: Well, the next phase was then to prepare myself to actually do case work and so we went through proficiency tests, that sort of thing, mock evidence samples, and then once we showed--once we had shown that we could handle that type of evidence and get the correct result, then we actually started accepting cases and I was one of the first case workers.
MR. HARMON: How many other case workers were involved at that point in time?
MR. SIMS: One other.
MR. HARMON: What took so long if these other labs were already providing the services?
MR. SIMS: Other people have asked me that same question. Umm, the approach that we took was to--first of all, we wanted some experience with the techniques and that takes some time. We didn't want to rush into this. We didn't want to make a rush to just get on line for the sake of going on line. We wanted to feel confident in our abilities to analyze this evidence and also some of the types of research studies that we did involved trying to make what starts out, for example, as a good bloodstain, a bad bloodstain. In other words, to see what can happen to various types of forensic evidence so that you are just not dealing with fresh samples, you are looking at samples that may have been degraded, for example, and seeing what you can do and what happens when you challenge those types of samples with various environmental conditions. And that was one of our big experiments that took a long time.
MR. HARMON: Now, had other people already done these kind of experiments?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Why did you feel the need to do them yourselves?
MR. SIMS: Well, at that time some of the studies weren't all published, so this is--you have to remember that some of these plans were laid down in 1990 and then some of the publications that came along would be maybe `91, `92, but there was not a lot of published information at that time. But also, I think it is important for somebody who is going to look at this type of evidence to get an appreciation for what can really go wrong with this type of evidence and why you have to be concerned about degradation and those sorts of things.
MR. HARMON: And so when was it that you actually accepted your first case in this state?
MR. SIMS: It was--I believe it was either May or June of 1992.
MR. HARMON: We will get back to your experience at DOJ in a moment. Have you made, you yourself made presentations at some of these scientific symposia over the course of your clear?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I have.
MR. HARMON: And typically are there co-presenters or co-authors at some of these presentations?
MR. SIMS: In our laboratory some of these presentations involve a team approach and usually one person becomes a speaker.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Could you please go through the presentations you've made.
MR. SIMS: Yes. Again I'm going through my CV to review this. My most recent presentation was regarding some case work analysis that I did. This was presented in 1993 to the California Association of Criminalists at their seminar and they have a seminar twice a year where criminalists get together and exchange ideas, so this was just a part of that. And this was specifically now what we call the western region DNA laboratory's workshop where the field has gotten somewhat more specialized, and so the DNA people will huddle together in a room for a day and talk about DNA. Another presentation that I did was at the second international symposium on forensic aspects of DNA analysis that was hosted by the FBI academy and this was in March of 1993. I presented a poster regarding concordance of RFLP results between laboratories contributing to the DNA data bank that I mentioned. And what that basically involved was having different laboratories in the state, such as Orange County, San Bernardino and our laboratory, being able to show that we could exchange our data and that it could all go into the same data bank for this profile offender.
MR. HARMON: Okay. So you could use other people's data that had a compatible system with you?
MR. SIMS: Yes, yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. We will come back to that in a while.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. HARMON: What was the next presentation about?
MR. SIMS: The next presentation was a study that I did with Allen Keel at the--and also Martin Buoncristiani from our laboratory which was presented at a statewide criminalist Department of Justice criminalist convention, it is called the step conference and that was in 1990. And we did a study whereby we took actual sexual assault evidence and compared our results with the results of an analyst at the Oakland Police Department.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And the next presentation?
MR. SIMS: The next presentation that I gave was one where we did fairly early on in 1990, the recovery of--and we also--we extracted DNA from bone samples that had been very badly burned to show that you could still do typing on this kind of sample. This was presented at the California Association of Criminalists' meeting in Long Beach in October, 1990, and then it was also presented by Jennifer Mihalovich at the American Academy of Forensic Science meeting in February of 1991.
MR. HARMON: Who were your other colleagues on this collaborative effort?
MR. SIMS: On that particular presentation from our laboratory myself, Lance Gima, Ken Konzak and then the other authors on the paper or the presentation were Jennifer Mihalovich and Dr. Edward Blake from Forensic Sciences Associates.
MR. HARMON: And is Jennifer Mihalovich with forensic sciences as well?
MR. SIMS: Yes, she is. Yes, she is.
MR. HARMON: Now, this Dr. Blake, has he also made presentations at your laboratory, educational type presentations in the field of PCR typing?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And have I also made presentations at the same time?
MR. SIMS: Yes. You have lectured us on the legal aspects.
MR. HARMON: Okay. How frequently has this Dr. Blake made these kind of presentations at your laboratory?
MR. SIMS: Once or twice a year.
MR. HARMON: What would be the next presentation then in the order after the Jennifer Mihalovich at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences?
MR. SIMS: I have given a lecture on DNA typing to the California District Attorney's Association. That was in 1990. And then in--also in 1990 I gave a talk at the California Association of Criminalists on the role of the special master for the serological evidence in the case of People versus Richard Ramirez.
MR. HARMON: Is that the night stalker case?
MR. SIMS: Yes, that was the night stalker case, and our laboratory, institute of forensic sciences, was assigned the role under Judge Tynan, I believe it was, to act as a special master, which meant that we were in control of the serological evidence and we would bring it to the Defense laboratory and let them reanalyze it while it was still under our care. So we were responsible for taking evidence from LAPD, getting it over to the Defense laboratory and monitoring their testing, not--not that we would record what they were doing, but just to keep an eye on the evidence, basically to ensure the safety of the evidence.
MR. HARMON: And have you ever performed that role in any other case?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I believe I have.
MR. HARMON: Where you monitored Defense testing of physical evidence?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: What other contributions have you made, either in presentations or in publications?
MR. SIMS: Umm, I've also contributed to, in our seminars among the California Association of Criminalists, I've gone before our--the CAC or California Association of Criminalists and talked about what I thought was, for example, questionable testimony regarding sexual assault evidence and hair examinations. Those are things that I saw as a Defense expert that I--that I thought needed to be brought out that I was not pleased with.
MR. HARMON: And the next presentation?
MR. SIMS: The next presentation was one on the value of Defense reanalysis in forensic serology. That was given at a medical/legal seminar sponsored by the institute of forensic science in May of 1987.
MR. HARMON: Was that based on your years of experience of reanalyzing physical evidence for defendants in criminal cases?
MR. SIMS: Yes. And what I did is I showed what I thought were the value of certain illustrative cases where doing the Defense analysis proved to be very useful, provided useful information.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And the next presentation?
MR. SIMS: I've presented aspects of physical evidence to the criminal Defense panel of the Sacramento County Bar Association. That was in 1985. And I have also given talks on paternity resolution with using conventional serology. That was a medical/legal seminar in May of 1985. And I have also given a lecture on problems observed in the comparison analysis of human and animal bloodstains. And again that was a medical/legal seminar institute of forensic science back in 1984.
MR. HARMON: Okay. The next category is co-presentations where you co-presented papers. Could you describe those in order, please?
MR. SIMS: Yes. This next series of papers where I have just been one of the authors or I have been on the group of people that actually did the paper, but I wasn't the one who actually presented it, the first one is the application and evaluation of D1S80 for case work analysis. That was presented by Renee Montgomery at the California Association of Criminalists seminar in May of 1994.
MR. HARMON: D1S80 is one of the markers that we'll be talking about, DNA markers?
MR. SIMS: Yes. It is a PCR marker like DQ-Alpha or this polymarker.
MR. HARMON: It was used in this case?
MR. SIMS: It was used in this case.
MR. HARMON: Okay. What was the next presentation?
MR. SIMS: This was a paper presented at the second international symposium hosted by the FBI academy in March, 1993. The title was penile swab evidence in the investigation of sexual assault. The actual presenter was Allen keel. This was a poster presentation and what we did in that case was to look at some swabs that had come--that had been taken from the penis of a rape suspect and looked at that using PCR markers to see if we could get information about the victim's type transferring to the male.
MR. HARMON: All right. And in those instances that research demonstrated that with that kind of physical contact you could find the trace of the female's DNA on the assailant's penis?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: What was the next presentation?
MR. SIMS: The next--the next presentation was--this was actually presented by Dr. Nora Rudin of our laboratory in February, 1992, at the American Academy and this was the environmental abuse sample that I--or abuse study that I mentioned earlier where we took a large number of blood and semen samples, subjected them to things like ultraviolet light, heat, humidity, looked at various substrates and see what the effect would be. And then we presented that work at this American Academy meeting and then the next one was another American Academy meeting, this was actually presented by Keith Inman of our laboratory in February of 1990, involving establishing the matching guidelines within the California Department of Justice laboratory, and that was basically to establish how our laboratory went about saying when do two bands match that you heard some talk about earlier.
MR. HARMON: Okay. The next presentation?
MR. SIMS: The next presentation was a poster presentation involving--it was presented at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in 1990. It was entitled DNA electrophoresis tank evaluation. And this was basically one to evaluate which equipment would be best for our needs, which equipment gave us the best results, and we looked very seriously at the different types of apparatus available to perform these electrophoretic gel separations and we evaluated that and presented our results.
MR. HARMON: And then the prior co-presentation, please?
MR. SIMS: The last one goes way back to May, 1977. This was regarding a toxicological presentation about barbiturates in radio-immunoassay screening and postmortem samples. This was done by Ron Bergeson along with George Nakamura who were at the Coroner's office and this was back in 1977.
MR. HARMON: Okay. As part of your role in the forensic community do you frequently teach?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I have been asked to teach.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Could you please describe the courses or teaching classes that you've been a teacher in.
MR. SIMS: Yes. The--the experiences that I've had are generally through the California criminalistics institute, which is a research group in--as part of the Department of Justice Bureau of Forensic Services. One of their principal missions is to train criminalists from throughout the state and I have taught classes involving the investigation of sexual assault, what you do with sexual assault evidence, that sort of thing. I have also taught classes in conventional serology at the California criminalistics institute.
MR. HARMON: Okay. What other teaching experiences have you had?
MR. SIMS: I have also taught in this level at the--in the PCR DQ-Alpha procedures. I have lectured in that.
MR. HARMON: Could you be more specific than that?
MR. SIMS: Yes. This--some of these classes are now offered--this PCR DQ-Alpha class is actually offered through the Department of Justice, through the California criminalistics institute, and I have taught that. I have also taught in the area, or not actually taught, but I have participated in workshop discussions in classes put on by Roche Molecular System. They are the ones that officer these PCR kits such as the DQ-Alpha and the polymarker kit. And I have been invited to speak at their classes to people who are now learning the technology, and I'm exchanging some of the experiences that I've had with the kits.
MR. HARMON: And what other teaching experiences have you had?
MR. SIMS: And the final one is with regard to the forensic academy. Again, this is part of the training of new forensic scientists.
MR. HARMON: That is under the auspices of the Department of Justice?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it is.
MR. HARMON: Do you belong to any professional organizations?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I do.
MR. HARMON: I will ask you to describe them, and if you are members of any specific committees or panels, could you please describe them when you describe the organization you belong to.
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Go ahead.
MR. SIMS: The first one, as I mentioned earlier, is the California Association of Criminalists. This is getting to be an very old body now, it goes back into the fifties. I think about the time I was born is when it was established, but it has got a large number of members who practice criminalistics not only in California, but we have members from various states. I was a member of the board of examiners within the California Association of Criminalists and that was--I talked about how we put together this test in certification and I was involved in that process. I was also a member of the quality assurance committee for forensic serology, that is conventional serology, and that goes back now to 1986. I have also been a chairman of the serology studies groups for both northern and southern California because the CAC tends to divide between north and south, as do many things in California, and that would involve the conventional serology. And I am also now involved in the DNA study group.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Is there a CAC ethics committee?
MR. SIMS: Yes, there is a CAC ethics committee, and I am a member of the ethics committee.
MR. HARMON: Are you presently taking any courses towards obtaining a master's degree?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I had some unfinished business, as I mentioned earlier, where I was taking my graduate classes and I never did complete my actual degree and so I have gone back now to the University of California at Berkeley to complete my master's degree.
MR. HARMON: How close did you come to obtaining your master's?
MR. SIMS: Back in 1976 I had all the course work, but I hadn't finished my thesis, when I opted to get married and take a job in Los Angeles.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now you are trying to catch up?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. How much more work do you think you have before you get the master's?
MR. SIMS: One more year.
MR. HARMON: Have you ever testified in a court of law as an expert in any field of criminalistics?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I have.
MR. HARMON: How many times, just generally, in the field of criminalistics?
MR. SIMS: About a hundred times.
MR. HARMON: And what areas have you qualified in?
MR. SIMS: The areas that I've qualified in initially would be blood alcohol testimony, certainly a lot of forensic serology trace evidence. I've also testified in paternity blood testing and more recently it has all been DNA testing.
MR. HARMON: And can you give us an idea of what types or what jurisdictions you have qualified as an expert in these various fields?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I went back and counted up and it is about 27 counties I believe in California, maybe more now. I have also testified in the states of Alaska, Arizona and Nevada and Washington and also in the U.S. District Court.
MR. HARMON: Okay. In your capacity with the Department of Justice how many times have you actually presented testimony in the field of forensic DNA typing?
MR. SIMS: Eight, I believe.
MR. HARMON: What year was the first time you presented expert testimony in that area?
MR. SIMS: 1993, about two years ago.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And your lab provides both PCR and RFLP services; is that right?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. HARMON: Can you give us an idea of what--whether it was RFLP or PCR in the eight cases in which you've testified?
MR. SIMS: I think they all involved PCR and all but one involved RFLP.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, let's talk about some of the areas of expertise or education that you have as they relate to the various components of forensic DNA typing, okay? Have you taken courses in biology and molecular biology over the years that lend themselves to your credentials as an expert in forensic DNA typing?
MR. SIMS: I've taken classes in molecular biology and also in genetics and also in recombinant DNA technology to get me--give me the background in the DNA analysis.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, would it be fair to break up forensic DNA typing into, just generally speaking, molecular biology and population frequency statistics?
MR. SIMS: Yes. There are the techniques and then there is the population, the numbers.
MR. HARMON: Maybe kind of a coarse way to break it down is do these things match, what does the match mean?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And the molecular biology and genetics would fall into the first category?
MR. SIMS: Yes, although genetics also falls of course into the second category.
MR. HARMON: As well have you taken courses in statistics that lend themselves to your credentials in the field of forensic DNA typing?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I have, and I have also, as part of my forensic training, statistics is a big part of that, interpreting evidence.
MR. HARMON: Now, you had mentioned quite frequently the field of conventional serology. Did statistics play an important component, in the years before you became a DNA analyst, in presenting the meaning of conventional serology results to a jury?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it did.
MR. HARMON: How so?
MR. SIMS: Well, we would just type in different genetic marker systems and the population would break down into different percentages for those various types and so we would use that information to come up with an overall statistic as to how common or how rare a certain profile of types was comparing a bloodstain, for example, in a person.
MR. HARMON: Now, are the population genetics and statistics considerations in conventional serology identical--
MR. SCHECK: Objection, no foundation.
MR. HARMON: --to hose issues or those questions in forensic DNA typing?
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: The foundations are very similar. There is more complexity because of the greater variation that is seen with the DNA typing.
MR. HARMON: So the molecular biology can help you discriminate more?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it can.
MR. HARMON: Make the statistical calculations more complicated?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it can, because--because of the numbers of types of people and the great amount of what we call polymorphism or typeability of the population. In other words, we can make very discriminating statements using DNA technology that we couldn't make before with just conventional, in most cases.
MR. HARMON: But in essence you are relying on the genetics and statistics that you relied on when you were testifying in conventional serology?
MR. SCHECK: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Leading.
MR. HARMON: Have you relied on the same issues or principles of population genetics and statistics in forensic DNA typing that you have relied on in conventional serology?
MR. SCHECK: Objection, no foundation, vague.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: How many times do you think you've testified in the area of conventional serology?
MR. SIMS: I would estimate about sixty--sixty times, something like that, maybe seventy.
MR. HARMON: In all of the eight cases in which you presented testimony in the field of forensic DNA typing, did you also present some sort of statistical estimate for whatever results you obtained?
MR. SIMS: I either presented that or I discussed that process, yes.
MR. HARMON: Now, you mentioned proficiency testing at different points along the way, I believe, with the American Board of Criminalistics. Is there a proficiency testing component to it?
MR. SIMS: Yes, there is, coming along now.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, have you yourself--let's separate you from the lab for a minute--have you yourself participated in any sort of proficiency testing program at the Department of Justice?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I have.
MR. HARMON: Could you describe that, please.
MR. SIMS: Yes. The analysts at the California Department of Justice are tested twice a year in proficiency tests, so in other words, we are given what is essentially a mock case twice a year to test and try to determine what sample may have come from whom and that sort of thing.
MR. HARMON: When you say it is a mock case, does it say "mock case" on it when you get it?
MR. SIMS: No, but we know we are being tested and the types of samples, they give you a scenario, so they tell you this was a bloodstain found on so and so's car or something like this and these are the reference samples from a victim and a suspect and a witness or something like that.
MR. HARMON: So it is not a funny case, it is just a real case, but it is a simulated case?
MR. SIMS: It is simulated, that is the right word for it, a simulated case.
MR. HARMON: Are any efforts--what efforts, if you know, are made to actually simulate the case in terms of making up the samples?
MR. SIMS: Well, sometimes, for example, we will get samples that are--that are mixtures. For example, we will get a vaginal swab that is not just--not just fluid from one person, but fluid from two people.
MR. HARMON: How many of those have you taken over the years?
MR. SIMS: I have completed now five in the time that we have been doing case work.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Are other case workers also forced to take these same kind of tests?
MR. SIMS: Yes, they are.
MR. HARMON: How many case workers do you have now?
MR. SIMS: Currently we have four plus two people that are half time case work, half time research.
MR. HARMON: What about the other employees, the other bench workers, the database people, do they have to take proficiency tests, too?
MR. SIMS: They do some proficiency testing that is in-house, I believe, but I don't work in that program so I don't know all the regulations.
MR. HARMON: So I take it this is all in-house so somebody in-house scores the tests; is that right?
MR. SIMS: No. The ones that I take are external.
MR. HARMON: They are external?
MR. SIMS: So in other words, some outside agency provides us with these samples and they also hold the answers, so the way it is worked in the past is we have to do one that is--that we have no information as to the answers on. The other one may have been--someone may now know the answers because it may be later that you actually take that--that exam. Let me go back and explain that a little bit. What happens with proficiency testing is somebody manufactures the test. They put together all these tests. Then they send them out nationwide. Now, in our laboratory we try to meet that--in fact, we do meet that deadline of, say, maybe three months later that we submit results for that particular test, so we don't know--nobody in our laboratory knows what those correct results are. We have to submit them. Now, there are other proficiency tests that we take whereby those samples that came to us maybe we hold on to for a certain period of time, maybe even a year, and then the analyst does them blind, but somebody in our laboratory may have access to the correct results, and that is just the way proficiency testing works. But we have to do at least one of those where nobody in the lab, and certainly not the analyst, knows the results. We have to do at least one of these a year and I think that is now changing with some new legislation that we might have to do two of those a year.
MR. HARMON: Federal legislation?
MR. SIMS: I believe so.
MR. HARMON: Have you ever made a mistake on any of those?
MR. SIMS: No, I haven't.
MR. HARMON: Does that mean you can't make a mistake?
MR. SIMS: No, it doesn't.
MR. HARMON: Do you--do you try any harder on these because they are mock cases than you do on a real case where life and liberty is at stake?
MR. SIMS: No, I certainly don't. I approach these proficiency as just very much like a case and--no.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And do you know whether or not any of your co-workers have made a mistake on any of their tests?
MR. SIMS: No, I--the latest summary that I have on that is that we have in the laboratory--the case workers have now tested something like 135 samples with no mistakes.
MR. HARMON: Now, this information is routinely made available to both sides in criminal cases, is it?
MR. SIMS: Yes. Through discovery and other processes we have opened books on all these things that Defense experts can come and view our test results.
MR. HARMON: And not only are your conclusions available, but actually all the underlying data upon request or court order?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Just from the chronology, your lab was not in existence when the CACLD trials that cellmark testified about were created; is that true?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. HARMON: Now, the Department of Justice lab has received accreditation through the American Society of Crime Lab Directors; is that true?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And is proficiency testing a component or having a proficiency testing program a component of that accreditation process?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it is.
MR. HARMON: When were you accredited?
MR. SIMS: I believe it is June, 1993.
MR. HARMON: Do you feel that you are any more competent because you got accredited in `93?
MR. SIMS: No, I don't really feel that, but I think accreditation is important nationwide as a program. I believe in it. I think it is a step again towards higher--enhancing the profession.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, did you receive large volumes of samples to test in this case?
MR. SIMS: Yes. By DNA standards this would be a very large volume of samples.
MR. HARMON: Could you explain what you mean by that.
MR. SIMS: Well, in a typical DNA case you may have one or two questioned stains and then you may have two or three or four reference samples that is the basis for the comparison, and so you usually don't have that much evidence to look at, but in this case we had a large number of evidence items, something like 61 different items, and then there were sub items within those, most of those.
MR. HARMON: And are there records--or strike that. Did you receive these items over a period of time?
MR. SIMS: Yes, we did.
MR. HARMON: In groups?
MR. SIMS: Yes, they came in waves.
MR. HARMON: And are there records that your laboratory maintains to reflect when you received something and to sort of document the intake and outgo of the chain of custody of these things?
MR. SIMS: Yes. We have a standard form that we use for that.
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I would like to mark as People's 265 chain of custody records for all of the evidence in this case.
THE COURT: All right. People's 265.
(Peo's 265 for id = 18-Page records)
THE COURT: You have shown those to Mr. Scheck?
MR. HARMON: I just handed them to him, your Honor.
MR. SCHECK: He has shown them to me now.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Proceed.
MR. HARMON: Could you describe, while Mr. Scheck is looking at those, could you describe how you document just the intake of items?
MR. SIMS: Yes. We--the standard form is to list the items, describe the items, describe what purpose it is, and then we document who we received it from, the date and the time and who in our laboratory received it. That is the standard form. And then, of course, the accompanying information, such as the DNA case number and the relevant information.
MR. HARMON: Now, were you the lead analyst for all the typing that was to be done in this case?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I was assigned that position back in August of 1994.
MR. HARMON: Could you tell us what that means.
MR. SIMS: Yes. What that means is basically I am responsible for the--how the evidence is processed and analyzed in this particular case. I have co-workers, other criminalists that I work with, and specifically in this case I worked with Renee Montgomery and Steve Meyers in our laboratory who both performed analyses independent of me and then my actual work and their actual work was all put together in several reports where we combined the findings of the various analysts. And then that work is reviewed by a case work supervisor who in this case was Ken Konzak, so he actually reviewed all these items and all these reports and all these notes before it would go out.
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, should I write "265" on this?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. HARMON: May the record reflect it is a 18-Page document.
MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, I would like to show you People's exhibit 265 for identification. Would you look at that and see if that reflects the complete intake and outgo of the items that the DOJ had and dispensed in this case?
MR. SIMS: This is complete except there was the one additional transmittal for cellmark to analyze some evidence from the sock bloodstain in October.
MR. HARMON: Now, is that in the form of one of your documents or a letter?
MR. SIMS: That would be--there would be actually one of these forms, this is called a bfs4 form. There would be one of those.
MR. HARMON: Okay. So we are missing one page?
MR. SIMS: Yes. We need to come up with that one page.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Umm, I would like you to look at some boards, Mr. Sims. You previously had an opportunity to look at those. Could we start with 177-A, and I want you to reexamine these boards and see if they accurately reflect the items you received and the dates you received them.
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
MR. HARMON: Why don't you take a second or a minute and look at it.
MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)
THE COURT: Mr. Fairtlough, can you get that up just a little more?
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Yes, your Honor.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: A little more. Perfect. Thank you.
MR. HARMON: Just as a general question, as you struggle to see those, do you recognize photos that are in the "DOJ" column?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I do.
MR. HARMON: How do you recognize them?
MR. SIMS: I recognize them from my initials, G.A.S., my writing on the photos. Some of them appear to be--for example, this one looks like a photo of a photo of mine. There is a Polaroid photo of mine that is on each one of these.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Let me know when you have had a chance to assure that, at least for 177-A, which is also from 6--LAPD no. 6 to 24, that there are items in the "DOJ" column, they accurately reflect what you received.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. HARMON: Okay. 177-1 is correct as far as what DOJ received?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Could we look at 177-B, please.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. HARMON: Okay. So 177-B, the photos you recognize?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I do.
MR. HARMON: Accurately reflect the packages that you received on the dates that are on the board?
MR. SIMS: Yes, they do.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Could we look at 177-C, your Honor.
THE COURT: 177-C.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SIMS: Okay.
THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.
MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. HARMON: Are we going on, Mr. Sims, on that one?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Can we look at the next board?
MR. SIMS: I just wanted to make sure that these are the control swatches and these are the stain swatches, (Indicating).
MR. HARMON: Right. The legend down at the bottom, the blank ones are controls.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. SIMS: Okay.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.
MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. HARMON: So 177-D is consistent with your records on what you received and when you received it?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't we look at 209 then.
MR. HARMON: The same question. Look at the ones that are in the "DOJ" column.
(Brief pause.)
MR. HARMON: Do you need to see that top one a little bit better, Mr. Sims?
MR. SIMS: I can see it.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
(Brief pause.)
MR. SIMS: It is only this column that I should be concerned with, (Indicating)?
MR. HARMON: Right, wherever DOJ is described.
MR. SIMS: Okay. So this is for LAPD's?
MR. HARMON: Right.
MR. SIMS: Yes, this is fine.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. HARMON: That was fine. We skipped one of the 177 ones, 177-E.
MR. HARMON: Would you look at that one.
MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.) (Brief pause.)
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: 177-E is okay?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Consistent with your records?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't you have a seat for just a minute.
MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: Is it common practice in criminalistics for one such as you, or any responsible criminalist, when a package is opened, that some sort of initials or date or identifier is placed on the package?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Could you explain why that is common practice.
MR. SIMS: Well, to me it is part of the chain of evidence that you want to show that you looked at that particular item and that that way when you go back you can say, yes, that is the item I looked at because there is my initials and case number.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Is that what you do?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. We will talk about that in this case. I want you to focus just for a moment and we are going to put another board up there, on items 47 and 50. Were those received by the DOJ lab for processing for DNA typing?
MR. SIMS: Yes, they were.
MR. HARMON: What date were they received?
MR. SIMS: That was on August 12 of 1994.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Those are drops from the Bundy walkway?
MR. SIMS: That's my understanding, yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And did you try to conserve evidence each time you sampled--we will talk about your sampling process--but did you try to conserve evidence in every instance where it was possible?
MR. SIMS: Yes, we did. It is part of our policy with any case, not just this case, but in particular, we are under court order also to be in conservative in our approach to this evidence.
MR. HARMON: And with respect--specifically with respect to item 47 from the Bundy walk and item 50, the blood drop from the Bundy walk, did you in fact save or conserve evidence?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. HARMON: When I say "evidence," I mean part of the swatch or swatches?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Do you recall or can you look in your photos to be precise about how much for each of those two items you conserved or you saved?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Would you like--I can probably direct your attention to a page. Would that help?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: 47, you might check page 18, and 50, you might check page 13 of your notes.
MR. SIMS: I would just like to point out that we have about 500 pages of notes in this case, so bear with me if I have to find something.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
MR. SIMS: I'm sorry, you said page 13 was for item no. 50?
MR. HARMON: 50, I hope it is on page 13, and 47 should be on page 18.
MR. SIMS: Yes. I took about half of item no. 50. About half of the material that was there I took for our purposes, left the other half. And then the other page was?
MR. HARMON: When you say "the other half," can you be more specific? What did you leave?
MR. SIMS: I left--excuse me. I left a portion of the swatch.
MR. HARMON: And you consumed a portion of the swatch in your testing?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And 47, same question?
MR. SIMS: Which is on page?
MR. HARMON: 18.
MR. SIMS: I think in that one it was about--we took about two-thirds maybe, something like that. There were two swatches and I think we took the larger one.
MR. HARMON: And your notes actually attempt to reflect the size of what you took and what you set aside or saved?
MR. SIMS: Yes. These--I have details as to actually the measurements in terms of millimeters as to what the estimate of the size of each swatch was, and for most of these stain samples with Dr. Blake we--we actually did a weighing of most of these evidence swatches.
MR. HARMON: When were items 47--
MR. SCHECK: Excuse me, your Honor. I realize we are getting close to the break. I may have an objection about the next few questions that he is going to ask.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the morning at this time. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Do not discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't allow anybody to communicate with you, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. And we will take a break for fifteen minutes. All right. Mr. Sims, you can step down.
(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. The jury is not present. Mr. Scheck, you wanted to bring something to my attention as we were closing?
MR. SCHECK: Yes. I think that the next--I anticipate that the next few questions that Mr. Harmon is going to ask is that he's going to bring out the board which involves 47 and 50 being sent out to Defense experts and then being sent back, which is something we've already gone into with Greg Matheson. That point's already been established. And I think the Court made limiting rules with respect to that and I don't think it should be brought up again in this context. And one of the reasons that I have particular concerns about that is that we filed a letter yesterday that made more concrete my citation to the County of Los Angeles case, and we still have pending the whole issue of prosecutorial misconduct with respect to attempting to learn about privileged communications concerning those samples and what was done with them. And it seems to me that this testimony is already in and it shouldn't be brought up again at this time because, depending on how the Court rules with respect to that misconduct motion, there are certain remedies involved and remedies involving this particular Prosecutor. So it seems to me that at this point, Mr. Sims has testified as to what he cut, Mr. Matheson has already testified that a portion was taken from the swatches and returned. The chain of custody is complete. There's no objection with respect to that and there's no reason to trot out this board again because the only purpose in doing so is an attempt to raise the implication in front of the jury that the Defense received samples and did something with them, and the jury is not hearing the full truth about what was done, and it gets us into a whole can of worms that we should avoid.
THE COURT: I take that to be an objection in anticipation. Mr. Harmon, are we about to see that board?
MR. HARMON: Yes. Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Let me see the board again.
MR. HARMON: I would like you to look at it and then I would like to respond to Mr. Scheck if I could.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: You don't need that. You can just show it to me.
MR. SCHECK: My point is, your Honor, if you recall, Mr. Matheson already testified to this and he testified to the initials on the packaging and whose the initials were in a very limited way under a limiting instruction by the Court. It was established that swatches were given to Mr. Ragle, that some portions of the swatches were taken and then returned. So this is cumulative testimony. And the only reason it's being offered right now is that we had a whole examination through this witness about Defense reanalysis and how he had done it and it's just trying to raise the implication that something was done with these samples and the jury is not hearing about it. And the whole question of what was done and what they know about it and what they don't know about it, you know, should not be raised at this time. This is purely cumulative and it's done to just raise this other implication. It's already come out through Mr. Matheson. The Court's made a ruling on this. There's no reason to do it again.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harmon.
MR. HARMON: Sometimes the truth is a can of worms and I'm happy that they want the truth to come out, but they don't want this truth to come out, Judge. You know, I love these letters that they keep filing that want to prevent the truth that they got these samples to analyze.
THE COURT: Mr. Harmon, I'm only interested in two things. One, whether it's redundant since we already heard Mr. Matheson testify with regards to it; and, two, what is the scope of what you intend on asking Mr. Sims about with regards to this board.
MR. HARMON: Sure. It's not redundant. Mr. Sims took these pictures and he will say when--I'm sorry. He will say--I withdraw that. Mr. Sims did not take these pictures. They were taken by LAPD. Mr. Sims will say when I sent them back in October, they didn't have national medical services tape on them. They didn't have Kevin Ballard, K.D. Ballard on them. They didn't have those dates on them. Now, let's not forget something, your Honor. You ruled way back in February, and they're--they've been trying because this was a secret at that point that they had gotten these. They've been trying to get you to undo your ruling. Your ruling was perspectively, but it was based on the law and it was bound on--based on sound legal principles; that if you consume or alter our evidence in testing, we are entitled to explain that to the trier of fact. They do not want to allow us--to have you allow us to explain that to the jury. It's plain and simple. They want to pretend that this never happened. In fact, and we're about to get to this dilemma, when Mr. Sims sent something back tiny, you allowed us to say--
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Fairtlough, you can put that down.
MR. HARMON: --to tell the jury--you allowed us to tell the jury that they consumed things in testing or--and I guess we're still up in the air about exactly what we're going to tell them. But one of the problems is, they've told us in chambers--and I'm not sure if they ever admitted it on the record. But way back when I kept pushing this in January and February, they admitted they consumed half of this tiny sample in testing. And somehow, in order to invoke the legal protection you afforded us in your order of February 8th, we're at that point where we need to explain that to this jury. And they want--they keep talking about sanctions and misconduct about me to prevent which--you know, whatever happens happens. I want to utilize the order that was based on sound legal principles and they want to--they want to hold me hostage, which is fine, for my alleged misconduct and tell the jury that this didn't happen or pretend that it didn't happen. We're at this point in the trial, we're about to demonstrate that those names and dates were not on there when Mr. Sims sent them back, and they want to stop the whole process. And, you know, that's why they filed that other scurrilous letter yesterday about me. So I'll take whatever you dish out in terms of whatever you feel about my conduct, but we're right at a point in this trial where we want to explain that to the jury, Judge.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I believe when the chart was out the last time, you ruled that they couldn't bring out--use the word testing or bring out the implication. Mr. Matheson's testimony was limited. He was--it was his lab that took the pictures before and after. His testimony came back about the consumption of the swatch. It's plain from Mr. Harmon's remarks that this is not only cumulative, but he just wants Mr. Sims to say again something about the initials of Kevin Ballard and Carl Slovka and get us right into the problem that has not yet been resolved. So this adds nothing except he's I think just admitting that he wants to do what this court has already ruled he can't do with respect to commenting on testing. And in addition, there is still pending, you know, a serious question as to what extent Mr. Harmon has invaded the Defense camp in trying to--
THE COURT: No. Mr. Scheck, don't go into that. That issue is irrelevant to this determination.
MR. SCHECK: Well, no. I'm--all that I'm pointing out is that a remedy if you make a finding--
THE COURT: No. No. It's--it's irrelevant.
MR. SCHECK: My point is simply this. It's cumulative. It's already come out through Mr. Matheson. There's no point in bringing it out through this witness except to raise the implication which this court's ruled already has to be limited.
THE COURT: Mr. Harmon, what do you intend on asking Mr. Sims about this other than, "when I packaged it up, sent it back to LAPD, this is the condition it was in and it didn't have all this other writing on it"?
MR. HARMON: That's it, your Honor.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Matheson already testified to that.
MR. HARMON: He couldn't testify to that because he didn't send it back from DOJ to LAPD. I mean this is the point. Matheson did not--I invite them or I challenge them to show that a full explanation for this is in this record. It's not because Matheson could not testify to that. He can say that's what was on there when it came back, and I'm entitled to prove that's not what was on there when it went out, and that's how I do it through--
THE COURT: The thing that I'm worried about, Mr. Harmon, is any implication that testing was done by somebody else. That's what I'm worried about.
MR. HARMON: Well, your Honor, you've never addressed the clear--your clear language in your order. Now they want to--
THE COURT: Because it's clear language, I don't have to address it.
MR. HARMON: Well, we may not have to address it now and I can't--Mr. Sims can't talk about testing. He can just describe the condition of it. I understand the restrictions--
THE COURT: All right.
MR. HARMON: --and it would be improper to ask that question or seek to comment on that at this point.
THE COURT: All right. Then we understand each other.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I think that there's no question that Mr. Matheson testified about the initials. He testified it went out to DOJ. He was--you allowed him to testify about the chain of custody without objection. In fact, we spent a lot of time hammering this out with you in chambers. You made a ruling in terms of a limiting instruction. You told them we're going to do it through this witness, we'll put it in this way, we'll get it over with, that will be it. He just wants to do the same thing again to bring out these foreign initials. That's all he said he wants to do.
THE COURT: All right. Can you cite me to a point in the record where Mr. Matheson talked about that?
MR. SCHECK: It's--well, I think if we--in fact, if you give us a second, I'm sure with the computer, we can find it.
MR. HARMON: I think the point is, that's how it came back. But I need to prove that's not how it went out, your Honor.
MR. SCHECK: I believe through the evidence custody board itself, they demonstrated it went to DOJ.
THE COURT: No. I just want to know, show me in the record where Matheson talked about the initials of these other people on the envelope. While we're looking for that, Mr. Harmon, do you have anything else you can go into at this point? I assume so.
MR. HARMON: Sure.
THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jurors. And by the way, Mr. Cochran, the Sheriff's Department advises me that they were already aware of those signs already, were already aware of the locations of those signs.
MR. COCHRAN: Good. That's fine, your Honor.
THE COURT: They were ahead of you on that.
MR. COCHRAN: Good.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Mr. Sims, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. Mr. Harmon, you may resume.
MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, I think we found the missing page from your chain of custody records. It relates to sending some items to cellmark?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: May that be 265-A, your Honor? It's part--it's the missing part of 265.
THE COURT: All right. 265-A.
(Peo's 265-A for id = missing page of 265)
(Brief pause.)
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I'll write 265 on the top of it.
THE COURT: Fine. Thank you.
MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, showing you 265--People's 265-A, is that the document that was missing from your entire set?
MR. SIMS: Yes. This was in the earlier discovery packages, why it was missing from the second set. But this documents the transmittal of extracted DNA, DNA that I extracted from the sock, no. 13, to cellmark via the D.A.'s office investigator.
MR. HARMON: Okay. We're--why don't you describe that a little bit. This is DNA that you extracted from a stain that was sent to you from LAPD?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And what--go ahead.
MR. SIMS: It's as part of my examination of the socks, the pair of socks, item no. 13. A stain had been previously cut out. My understanding was that was by the LAPD, Mr. Matheson, and that was part of the package that was sent along with the evidence. And so I took portions of those cut outs, of that cut out, extracted it, ran my tests, and then part of that extract of DNA in the tube I sent to cellmark for them to test.
MR. HARMON: What else did you send to them?
MR. SIMS: I also sent a control, a substrate control from the sock that Matheson had also cut out and I also submitted my extraction reagent blank that I extracted along with those samples.
MR. HARMON: And why did you send that reagent blank along with the samples?
MR. SIMS: Well, that was part of the extraction set. I always extract a reagent blank along with the stains and the substrate control samples, and I wanted them to have that so if they wanted to do any PCR analysis, they would have an extraction blank. That's important for PCR.
MR. HARMON: Okay. We'll talk about that probably this afternoon.
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: When did you send 13 or that stain and the substrate control and the reagent blank?
MR. SIMS: Those extracts were sent on October 19th, 1994.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, the boards that you looked at merely reflected items that you had received directly from the LAPD; is that correct?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And was there or has there been am exchange of items between you and cellmark on occasion?
MR. SIMS: Yes. There was one occasion when I received some samples from cellmark and then there was another occasion besides this when I sent samples to cellmark.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Just a bit of background here. When you receive items, they have the LAPD item numbers on them?
MR. SIMS: Yes, they did.
MR. HARMON: And did you--does the DOJ assign separate item numbers to them?
MR. SIMS: Yes, we do. We give each item our own number.
MR. HARMON: And the set of documents numbered People's 265 for identification, those reflect both the LAPD item numbers and your numbers; is that correct?
MR. SIMS: Yes, they do. The only exception was the--some of the exemplar samples just had the name of the person, the Coroner's case number, for example.
MR. HARMON: And those are reflected that way in People's 265 for identification?
MR. SIMS: Yes, they are.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Other than the stain from the sock that you sent to cellmark, what other items did you either receive from cellmark or send to cellmark? And if you would please use the LAPD item numbers.
MR. SIMS: Yes. The item numbers were as follows: And I received these actually via Mike Stevens of the District Attorney's office. He was the messenger for these items coming from cellmark to us. The item numbers were item no. 49--
MR. HARMON: Okay. That's one of the drops on the Bundy walkway?
MR. SIMS: That's my understanding, yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
MR. SIMS: And item no. 52, another drop.
MR. HARMON: From Bundy?
MR. SIMS: That's my understanding, yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. What else?
MR. SIMS: Those--okay. Those were the two items that we received from cellmark. And then the other thing that involved cellmark or the other shipment was--oh, and I should give you a date for those two items. 49 and 52, that was received by us on October 13th of `94.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
MR. SIMS: Then on February 16th of 1990--1995, February 16th, we received--I'm sorry--we sent to cellmark via the D.A.'s office investigator Dana Thompson extracted DNA from the--I can give you our numbers. I'll hold off a second and then I'll give you the LAPD numbers. LAPD no. 29, LAPD no. 29 control.
MR. HARMON: Now, that's the steering wheel drop?
MR. SIMS: That's the steering wheel, yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
MR. SIMS: And then also items from the fingernail scrapings--
MR. HARMON: Those are LAPD--
MR. SIMS: --for Nicole Brown.
MR. HARMON: Are those LAPD 84-A and b?
MR. SIMS: Yes, they are.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
MR. SIMS: And then also, another extraction reagent blank was sent out.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Did you ever receive LAPD item no. 48, another Bundy walkway drop?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. HARMON: When was that?
MR. SIMS: That was received--that was received on August 12th, 1994.
MR. HARMON: And did you send that somewhere else as well?
MR. SIMS: On--this is no. 48 now?
MR. HARMON: Yeah.
MR. SIMS: That--that particular sample was sent back on October 11th.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Did you also send numerous or several items to the FBI?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did send items to the FBI.
MR. HARMON: And when did you do that and what were those items?
MR. SIMS: There were two items that were submitted to the--to--again, this was through D.A.'s investigator Dana Thompson. This was on February 16th, 1995 for transmittal to the FBI. One of those was a heavily blood-stained area from item no. 86, the dress of Nicole Brown, and then a relatively unstained area from the dress also was sent.
MR. HARMON: Anything else?
MR. SIMS: Those are the actual samples that I sent out to the FBI. I believe there were some others that went via LAPD.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, in a while, probably this afternoon, we're going to discuss the testing methods that you used and the results of your analyses. But is it true that some of the samples of the many samples that you received, some were not typed?
MR. SIMS: That's true.
MR. HARMON: And--and of the ones that were not typed, were there even some that were never even opened?
MR. SIMS: Yes. There were about 10 items that we did not examine.
MR. HARMON: And there were a few that produced no results; is that true?
MR. SIMS: Yes. That's true.
MR. HARMON: And if it's okay with you, we're only going to discuss the results later on today.
MR. SIMS: That's fine.
MR. HARMON: Okay. You've described your role as the lead analyst in this case, and you mentioned a couple other people that worked with you, Steve Myers and Renee Montgomery?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Are there actually others that performed routine tasks in the typing process that we'll be hearing about in a while?
MR. SIMS: Yes. For example, we have a staff of people that do what we call batch probing whereby these RFLP membranes are actually probed with the various--the various DNA RFLP probes, and they actually perform that part of the analysis themselves, and then I'm the one that develops the films.
MR. HARMON: Now, where do they stand in the pecking order at DOJ?
MR. SIMS: Well, they're all part of our team. Some of them are criminalists and some of them are technicians.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Could you--before we get into some of these results, could you just describe the items by number and description of items that were never tested by DOJ lab?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I can do that. Excuse me. I have that summarized on my--my last report, which is dated April 6th, 1995. The items that were never examined were item no. 49 control, item no.--
MR. HARMON: That's a substrate control?
MR. SIMS: That's a substrate control.
MR. HARMON: And why was that never tested?
MR. SIMS: Because we didn't do any typing on item no. 49.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
MR. SIMS: So we didn't have any need for the substrate control.
MR. HARMON: Why no typing on 49?
MR. SIMS: Item no. 49 gives a very low level of human DNA to work with. And rather than consume the additional sample that was available to us in the form of the swatches, we just decided to let that one go and preserve the swatches.
MR. HARMON: Okay. What--go ahead through your list.
MR. SIMS: Okay. Item no. 4, item--
MR. HARMON: And item no. 4 is one of those stains from Rockingham?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Why was that never tested?
MR. SIMS: Well, we did some testing on one of the stains from Rockingham, but we didn't feel that that was that critical to test the other stains.
MR. HARMON: Well, I guess that gives rise to a question. Is it important to have some background information about a case in deciding which samples to test and which not to test?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I think so.
MR. HARMON: And based on the information that was provided to you about the location of stains at Rockingham, is that why you didn't test 4?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: What information did you have?
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Hearsay.
THE COURT: It is hearsay.
MR. HARMON: It's not offered for the truth of the matter.
THE COURT: For a limited purpose.
MR. HARMON: Yes. Of explaining why he didn't do any typing on it. I'll withdraw the question.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. HARMON: Were you aware of other test results and the location of that stain when you decided not to test no. 4?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And taking those things into consideration, is that a reason or the primary reason you didn't test no. 4?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Have you heard the term "representative sampling"?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I have.
MR. HARMON: And did that contribute to your decision not to test no. 4?
MR. SIMS: Yes. That and that there were other things that we felt were more important to test.
MR. HARMON: At that location?
MR. SIMS: At that location and with regards to this case.
MR. HARMON: Okay. What other stains did you not test?
MR. SIMS: Item no. 5.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And is that in the same category as no. 4, the reason it wasn't tested?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: It's another Rockingham stain?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Next item you did not test?
MR. SIMS: Item no. 8.
MR. HARMON: And is that another Rockingham stain that fell into the category of 4 and 5?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And that's why you did not test it?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Next item?
MR. SIMS: Item no. 12.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And what information did you have about that that made you decide not to test it?
MR. SIMS: My under--
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HARMON: Were you aware of Cellmark's results when you made the decision not to test it?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And--okay. What other item?
MR. SIMS: Item no. 21.
MR. HARMON: And that's one of the stains from the Bronco?
MR. SIMS: Yeah. It was from--yes. It was from the Bronco driver's door interior.
MR. HARMON: And why did you not test that stain?
MR. SIMS: We had tested several other stains in the Bronco.
MR. HARMON: And is the representative sample, is that--did that play a role in your decision?
MR. SIMS: Yes. That's part of it.
MR. HARMON: What other items did you not test?
MR. SIMS: Item 22, a similar stain from the Bronco.
MR. HARMON: And was that also based on your feeling that you already had a representative sample?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: What other items?
MR. SIMS: Item no. 23, which was another driver's door interior sample.
MR. HARMON: From the Bronco?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And why did you not test that?
MR. SIMS: Same reason.
MR. HARMON: Now, when you say "the same reason," the jury hasn't heard all the results of the tests that you performed on these various locations. Are the results that will unfold this afternoon part of the reasons you didn't test the samples that you're describing?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Next item that you did not test?
MR. SIMS: Item 2--296.
MR. HARMON: And how was that described to you?
MR. SIMS: Again, that was Bronco driver's door interior.
MR. HARMON: And did that fall into the same category as the other Bronco items?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And same reasons you did not test that as you did not test the other Bronco items?
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Leading, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Next item you did not test?
MR. SIMS: The last one is the--item no. 81, which was the shirt of Ronald Goldman himself or the shirt itself.
MR. HARMON: And you did not test the shirt?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. HARMON: Okay. But were cuttings provided to you?
MR. SIMS: Yes. Cuttings were provided to me that had been made by the LAPD and those were the items from the shirt that I tested.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Okay. We've discussed and defined your role as the lead analyst. But before you actually performed any analyses in this case, you received items of evidence such as items of clothing or the nail kits that had to be processed; is that true?
MR. SIMS: Yes. In other words, before we can do our DNA analysis, we have to look at the evidence and document the evidence and do that sort of processing before we can actually extract the DNA and test it.
MR. HARMON: All right. Could you describe a typical--I think we've picked August 18th as a representative day for how you processed a series of items in this case. Could you describe the--you've logged them in and now you get around to processing it. Why don't you describe that to the jury.
MR. SIMS: Okay. Excuse me. This was--this was fairly early on in the case when we first started looking at the evidentiary items and the--I'm just going to go through my lab notes as to the process because--
MR. SCHECK: Excuse me. If I could--lab notes?
THE COURT: Yes. Which page are you referring to, Mr. Sims?
MR. SIMS: Yes. This would be page 5 of my notes.
THE COURT: August 18th? Is that the date?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Just one second.
MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor.
MR. SCHECK: One second.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't you describe the events of August 18th, if that's a typical representative day.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: I'll only object to the phrase "representative day," describes August 18th.
THE COURT: Overruled. Proceed.
MR. SIMS: The--the work on this case began around 1:30. This was at a time when Dr. Blake was present to view the sampling, the initial opening of these various items.
MR. HARMON: Is that the same Dr. Blake that's taught courses with me at your lab?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Same one you collaborated with on some of the presentations you've described?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: What sort of an arrangement did you have with him to allow him to be there on August 18th?
MR. SIMS: Dr. Blake was given full access to view everything we basically did on this case. He had an open invitation to see anything we did. And as it turned out, what he usually did was to view the actual opening of the items and document what was there, and then he would also come by and review our results.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And how would you let him know something was going to happen?
MR. SIMS: By telephone.
MR. HARMON: And he lives nearby?
MR. SIMS: Yes. He lives in Oakland and he works in Richmond.
MR. HARMON: And what was his--he was not just a disinterested bystander in this case; is that true?
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HARMON: Whose interest was he there to represent?
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Leading.
THE COURT: Sustained. Let's move on.
MR. HARMON: He is not always there, is he?
MR. SIMS: No. It just seemed that way.
MR. HARMON: Seemed that way. Now, what did you do on the 18th? What kinds of things did you process?
MR. SIMS: We--we processed two of the bloodstains on this case. Began by removing the evidence from a box--a locked box that we have inside our vault freezer. So we would get the evidence out. I would show the contents of the items to Dr. Blake. He would take photographs to document them, and I had already photographed them and that's why you saw all those board photographs. I had already done that when--the actual date of receipt. Typically--and I'll start here with our item no. 6, which is the 48 Bundy drop. No, I'm sorry. I will start with item no. 6 from Rockingham. That was the first item looked at this date. The LAPD item number is 6. Make sure I get that right. So what I would do is, I would--after the outside of the envelope had been photographed as far as documentation and sealing by Dr. Blake, then I would open up the envelope and lay out the evidence in a particular, you know, part of the laboratory to do the examination. I would make notes about what was present, what all the writing was that was on all the bindles and all the coin envelopes. I would initial now the bindles because the bindles are inside the coin envelopes. I had already initialed the coin envelope when I received it. But now that I took out the bindle, I would write on the bindle. Then inside this bindle would be a stain swatch. We've heard a lot of discussion about what a swatch is, so I won't go into that. But then I would photograph and document what was present as far as the swatches. So I would make measurements as I mentioned earlier--
MR. HARMON: How would you make those measurements?
MR. SIMS: Just take a ruler, hold it close to it and see how many millimeters it is.
MR. HARMON: Why don't you just flatten it out and press it right up against the ruler?
MR. SIMS: Well, I don't--I don't really want the ruler to come into contact with the swatch.
MR. HARMON: Why not?
MR. SIMS: Well, I don't want to take any chance on contaminating it in that fashion.
MR. HARMON: So how good are your measurements on these sizes then?
MR. SIMS: Well, they're--they're actually pretty close because I could hold a pair of forceps up to the ruler. And in fact, between items, I would actually bleach the ruler. So it got pretty clean that way.
MR. HARMON: Now, do you actually note all the identifying marks in writing on the bindles as you observe them?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I do.
MR. HARMON: And they're written in your notes?
MR. SIMS: They are actually written in my notes as to what it would say on that. So, for example, on this bindle, there were the initials "CYG" and then the number "G8880 to DOJ 8-11-94." on the back of the bindle, the item number--well, not item number. Just the no. 6, the numeral 6 and what appeared to me the initials "DF."
MR. HARMON: And you actually described what the swatches looked like?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I would describe them in terms of how well stain they appear, what their measurements were, how many there were certainly, that sort of thing.
MR. HARMON: And later on, when you got substrate controls, did you actually describe how they appeared to you?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't you take it up and talk again about 6 and 48, the processing of those.
MR. SIMS: Yes. This is still on item no. 6. After the--that initial documentation and photography and again Dr. Blake would take his photographs, then we actually weighed these particular items. Each swatch was individually weighed.
MR. HARMON: Why did you do that?
MR. SIMS: That--that has not been my practice, but I believe it was Dr. Lee or--that proposed that from this original cellmark cutting back in July or whenever that was and--so I told Dr. Blake that if that's what they wanted to do, that's what we would do, that was fine with me.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. SIMS: And then I would do the actual cutting, which is the--to say the sampling of the particular item. And part of that process was to take a pair of forceps, a pair of--small pair of scissors which I had rinsed and actually flamed to make sure they were absolutely clean. And then I would make a cutting of that particular sample. I would also then take the particular cutting that I had made to extract for my purposes, put that into a test tube labeled with the item number, our case number, and then I would show those one by one to Dr. Blake to show that this was in fact the swatch from that particular item number.
MR. HARMON: And he's snapping away with his camera?
MR. SIMS: Well, at that point, he's observing. He's carefully observing what I'm doing as far as what sample I'm putting in each tube.
MR. HARMON: Do you have any idea how many pictures you took of this whole process? This is just one day. I'm talking about the entire case.
MR. SIMS: I think the stack if you--it's a stack about a foot tall, something like that.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
MR. SIMS: So it's pretty massive. I don't know the numbers. I think it's several hundred.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Go ahead. Keep describing what you did.
MR. SIMS: Of course--and of course, some of those are multiple exposures too. So--then the--once that--there would also be documentation as to what portion was saved, and Dr. Blake would generally photograph the remainders of what I had saved.
MR. HARMON: Okay. We'll talk about that in a little bit.
MR. SIMS: And then I would also do a presumptive blood test on those particular samples just to make sure, and that involves just a minute portion of the actual stain.
MR. HARMON: Why would you do that?
MR. SIMS: Just to confirm in my mind that there appeared to be blood on those samples.
MR. HARMON: Even though the people who collected it might have done the same thing at the scene?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I would just do that on my own.
MR. HARMON: Why?
MR. SIMS: It's part of my practice to just know that I have run that particular test because that's how I test a bloodstain.
MR. HARMON: Okay. It was just a minute amount?
MR. SIMS: Yes. It's a extremely sensitive test. And so you can do it with just a speck--excuse me--a speck of material.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Keep describing the process of these stains.
MR. SIMS: Okay. Then the next part of the process would be to seal the remainder in the bindle. So I put the remainder back into the bindle, put my seal on the bindle, then put the bindle back into its envelope and seal that envelope up. And so part--part of the process here is that we're working on items one at a time. In other words, we're not laying out a bunch of these swatches. We're going through these items one at a time as far as the processing. And the purpose of that of course is to eliminate the possibility as best as possible of mixing up any of the samples. So in other words, that sample now is all sealed up, the sample is in its tube and that's put on a separate rack now to be extracted before we move on to the next sample.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And is it fair to say that these items when you've described them, which is this day is simply one day in the life of this case, that all the evidence received from the Los Angeles Police Department was in a sealed condition when you received it?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it was. Yes, it was. Some of the larger items were inside sealed boxes, that sort of thing, but yes, they were all sealed.
MR. HARMON: And your notes for each shipment actually are specific to describing the cartons and the containers within?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I have very detailed notes on that.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Keep describing the work you did on the 18th in the company of Dr. Blake, if you would.
MR. SIMS: Okay. It was clear at this point that these were the two main samples we were going to initially focus on. When I say "the two," I mentioned item no. 6, which was the Rockingham drop, and then the other item we were interested in was item no. 48, a Bundy drop. And intervening there, as far as the cutting process, I--I next looked at what we call a quality control bloodstain. And in our laboratory, every time we do a set of extractions in this case, we would also run a bloodstain that is unknown as to the type to the analyst. So in other words, I'm going to take--I'm going to go to a bank of samples that are just coded by number, and I have no idea what those typing results are for those numbers. I take one of those. And in this case, it was QC, quality control sample no. 806. And that sample then gets processed in the same fashion.
MR. HARMON: Why do you do that?
MR. SIMS: It's--to us, in our laboratory, it's an important quality control measure because it really tests the analyst each time the analyst does a particular test. And in this particular case, we ran something like 20--about 20 of these different samples because of the large number of extraction sets that we looked at.
MR. HARMON: So this gets--this is something you know the answer--you know the real type of?
MR. SIMS: I do not know.
MR. HARMON: Do not know?
MR. SIMS: I do not know.
MR. HARMON: When you follow it through the process, do you look it up?
MR. SIMS: No. What happens is, I go through the whole process, and then at the final stage when the--when I submit my results for supervisorial review, then the supervisor goes and sees if I got the correct results.
MR. HARMON: Did you do okay in this case?
MR. SIMS: Yes, we did.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't you keep describing August 18th, if you would.
MR. SIMS: Okay. So in this case, I took a particular quality control sample and I sampled it in the same fashion as I would one of these swatches, although I didn't do all the documentation as far as photography and that stuff because it wasn't of an evidentiary nature. Then next, the item was 48. And again, we went through the process of opening up the sample, documenting what was on the bindle and the coin envelope. And in this case, it was "113 DF CYG 8880." Dr. Blake photoed it. I photoed it. The--the swatches then were again measured and sampled.
MR. HARMON: And notes are made describing all these observations and activities?
MR. SIMS: Yes. And again, it's weighed out. A cutting is taken. It's put into a tube. A presumptive blood test is run again, and then Dr. Blake photoed the remainder. And then that item is then all sealed up, the swatch is sealed in the bindle, the bindle is sealed in the coin envelope.
MR. HARMON: So in the normal course of the processing, once you do the sampling, it's sealed up and put back in the freezer?
MR. SIMS: Yes. And it's important to note that what we do is, as we process these samples, you don't run in the freezer every five minutes. So what you do is, during the course of that afternoon or whatever, I'm finishing a sample, putting it aside, finishing another sample, putting it aside. Then when I get to the end of the day, then as a group, they all go into the freezer.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
MR. SIMS: Because it's quite cold to work in the freezer.
MR. HARMON: And then unless you have to go back and get anything out of those package, that's what's left?
MR. SIMS: That's exactly right. And it's in a sealed condition. So it's ready to go out the door at any time now if somebody wants to have that evidence back.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And have we missed anything on August 18th that you and Dr. Blake did together?
MR. SIMS: Well, we--we also decided at that time that Dr. Blake would be allowed to photograph what other items we had in house, and this would relate to the Bundy drops at 40--no. 47 and no. 49 and no. 50. And so at that point, we--we actually got those items out, I did the measurements and the photography was done, but no sampling was conducted at that time.
MR. HARMON: And is that it for the 18th?
MR. SIMS: Yes. That takes us to about 8:00 o'clock in the evening. And--
MR. HARMON: Was Dr. Blake there the whole time?
MR. SIMS: Yes. Well, he was there from I think I mentioned about 1:30 till about 8:00 in the evening.
MR. HARMON: And can you give us an idea of how many other days you had like this where Dr. Blake performed the functions that you've just described?
MR. SIMS: It would be very hard for me to give an estimate. It seems like most of September and October would be my answer to that.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
MR. SIMS: But there was a lot of activity in September and October. There were days that were very similar to this and also, there was activity in January, for example.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, I think you also mentioned that he would periodically come by and review results and take photographs of those?
MR. SIMS: Yes. Because the process was that we would do this initial documentation with Dr. Blake always present, and then we would--after we'd put together a series of samples, then we would proceed on our own to do the extractions, the valuation, the DNA that Dr. Cotton talked about. We'd also do the typing phases, and then Dr. Blake would generally come by to review our results. And so some days, we would, you know, do the results review and also do this additional sampling. So there's a lot of back and forth with that.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. HARMON: Was--was Dr. Blake ever present for any of the intermediary or intermediate steps? Dr. Cotton eloquently described the whole processes for the jury. Was Dr. Blake ever present to view or photograph any of the other intermediate steps in either the RFLP process or PCR process?
MR. SIMS: Well, I--I can recall, for example, Dr. Blake was present sometimes at the time that we would do DQ-Alpha strip readings, for example.
MR. HARMON: And that's a result?
MR. SIMS: That's a typing result.
MR. HARMON: And that's at the end of the line?
MR. SIMS: Oh, I see what you mean by intermediary. Uh, I don't recall those particular instances, no.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's talk, if you will, about specific items. You actually received, instead of, as cellmark has described through Robin Cotton obtaining samples, you actually received some entire items to view and process; is that right?
MR. SIMS: Yes. That's correct. In other words, items of clothing, for example, that sort of thing.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Were you--did you receive a pair of socks that were found on Mr. Simpson's master bedroom that have been identified as item 13?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Objection as to where they're found.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. HARMON: Did you receive a pair of socks which have been described as item 13?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And when did you receive them and what else did you receive in conjunction with those socks?
MR. SIMS: Excuse me. Those socks were received on September 26th, 1994.
MR. HARMON: And would you describe what else you received that was associated or sent along with those socks?
MR. SIMS: On that particular shipment of evidence?
MR. HARMON: Yes.
MR. SIMS: Yes. We also received item no. 45--excuse me--45, item no. 51, item no. 84, which consisted of the left and right hand fingernail samples of Nicole Brown. We also received item no. 115, 116, 117, which were associated with the rear gate at the Bundy crime scene.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's focus on the package that had 13, the socks in them. Was there anything else that was sent along with those socks?
MR. SIMS: The socks were inside a sealed letter envelope, and along with those socks were two tubes, plastic tubes with caps that contained cut outs that had information that indicated they were made by Greg Matheson.
MR. HARMON: And were there numbers on those tubes in any way?
MR. SIMS: Yes. And I can provide you with that.
MR. HARMON: Sure.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SIMS: Yes. One--there were two tubes and two socks. One tube was labeled "13A GBM" and the other two was labeled "13A control GBM."
MR. HARMON: And when you--I'm jumping a bit. When you examined the socks, 13, the two socks, did you notice two holes in the socks?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. HARMON: And when you say they were labeled, did you have some sort of communication with Mr. Matheson about those socks that--that caused you to select the samples to test?
MR. SIMS: Excuse me. Yes. As I recall--and I can't recall the exact date, but I was aware that he had obtained some conventional serology results that were consistent with Nicole Brown on that particular item.
MR. HARMON: And when you say "that particular item," you mean the cut out labeled "13A GBM"?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And the control is a substrate control?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Was--were you provided or had--before you received those, had you been provided with any other information about any other possible blood-stained areas on those socks?
MR. SIMS: No.
MR. HARMON: Had you been told that there were other areas?
MR. SIMS: No.
MR. HARMON: So you had absolutely no information?
MR. SIMS: Yes. To the best of my recollection, I didn't have any information about that.
MR. HARMON: Okay. So you had two socks, there was two holes. Were the holes in the same sock?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. So one sock with no holes and one sock with two holes?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And based on the communication with Mr. Matheson, did he describe this--the control as being from an unstained area of the sock?
MR. SIMS: I don't recall him talking about the control. It was more that I found it when I opened it up as I recall.
MR. HARMON: And was it labeled "control"?
MR. SIMS: Yes. The tube was labeled "control."
MR. HARMON: So two socks, two tubes, one with a stain allegedly and one with a substrate control?
MR. SIMS: That's my understanding, yes.
MR. HARMON: How did you go about evaluating those socks just based on the two holes and the two tubes? What did you do?
MR. SIMS: Well, obviously the initial focus of the examination was in the cut-out material because there was already genetic information, genetic typing information developed. So we pursued that particular line. But also, I noticed, as I was looking at the socks, that there were some other markings on them, and also, I noticed, as I spent some time looking at these socks, that there were other stains of particular interest.
MR. HARMON: Well, why don't we start from the beginning then. You first--first thing, other than the holes that you've described, you noticed some other markings on there?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And what were those markings? How did they appear to you?
MR. SIMS: The--the markings that I saw--one was a--I think was just the size of the sock. It was a--it was 10 to 13, like the size of the sock that was imprinted. The sock--the socks, each side on the inside at the top, it looked like the initials "SB" maybe and also "CY" were present. There was an arrow pointing to that area where the cut out had been made near the ankle and that arrow also had a "13a" with it in white.
MR. HARMON: Is that where the hole was?
MR. SIMS: Yes. And there was also near this control--what appeared to be the control area, there was a "c," a marking for "c."
MR. HARMON: And there's a hole there, right?
MR. SIMS: Yes. Then it appeared there was--the "13a" was marked on the heel of that--that same sock. And then finally on this same sock, there was a--an arrow, a white arrow pointing to a stain up near the top.
MR. HARMON: Did the numbers on the tube correspond to the holes in the socks? In other words--
MR. SIMS: I--I'm sorry.
MR. HARMON: Go ahead. In other words, there was a "13A GBM" and there's a white mark with a hole in it?
MR. SIMS: Yes. This--this is--and "C" standing for control. I mean, that's pretty standard nomenclature in this business. So I was quite confident that that was the control area.
MR. HARMON: Okay. So you have a tube that has a "c" on it and a mark with a hole and a "c"?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And then a tube with "13A GBM" and a white mark with a hole "13A GBM"?
MR. SIMS: The hole said 13--it appeared to say "13a" next to the arrow.
MR. HARMON: 13a. Okay. Now, when you noticed those markings, did you notice initially--let's take this very slowly as things unfolded to you. When was the first time you noticed any possible stained areas in the visualization, your examination of these socks?
MR. SIMS: The--my attention was called to that other stain I mentioned up towards the top by the arrow. Certainly that caught my eye. And then at that point, after there was some initial photography and Dr. Blake photoed also, my notes here--this is on page 51 of my notes. "note: Saw additional spots of interest on the side with 42a-1 stain, stereomike." in other words, I'm looking at it now under the stereomicroscope, which is a low-power magnification, but very effective. "these are reddish, about 13 to 15 centimeters from the top." and I have a note that I considered that maybe these were spatter stains or something along those lines.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's back up a minute. You see the white marks with the holes. Then you see some other marks, is that correct, white marks?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Could you see any other stain--or strike that. Were you looking with your naked eye at that point?
MR. SIMS: Excuse me. At that point, I was looking under the stereomicroscope, but I was also taking advantage of the illumination that's very bright and oblique provided by that microscope. So you're sort of looking at it with a naked eye under a good lighting and you're also looking at it under the stereomicroscope.
MR. HARMON: Did you--before you used the microscope, did you just eyeball it first?
MR. SIMS: Yes. And that's--that's when I--I noted that other stain up near the top, the side opposite the cutting.
MR. HARMON: The one that had the mark?
MR. SIMS: Yes. It just had a little arrow, but no cutting.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, let's stay with the eyeball. When your--your direction was atten--or your attention was focused because of the arrow; is that correct?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And at that point, before you got the microscope out, could you see any other areas that you thought might be bloodstained with your naked eye?
MR. SIMS: I--I don't recall noticing any until we got over to the stereomicroscope and set up with the illumination.
MR. HARMON: And is that the normal course for--as a forensic scientist, visual examination leading to other more sophisticated exams?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. So why don't you take us through that then. You're looking with the stereomicroscope. Could you please describe what you saw?
MR. SIMS: Okay. Under the--the stereomicroscope, I noted that there were some additional stains up towards the top that were on the same side as the sock as where that cutting had been made by Matheson, and I thought that was very interesting.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Did--and did you then attempt to start identifying those stains or assigning numbers to them?
MR. SIMS: Now, the only--on that particular night--this was now October 4th--the only--the only numbers that I assigned were that I would call that--that first stain a1, and I--it has our DNA number of 42 associated with it. So it's 42a1. But the key is that it's a1. And then on the opposite side, the one that had the arrow pointing to it, I called that one a2. But none of these other ones--I'm sorry. On the other sock, there was also an area that--that had been outlined, and that was what we called 42B1. So that was on the other sock now.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And so this completes at least your assigning numbers or identifying stains as of October 4th?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Did you conduct a subsequent examination of those socks?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. HARMON: When was that?
MR. SIMS: Well, the next--I--I just wanted to review the--that day also just to make sure because there--part of that was the--as I mentioned, the photography, but also the individual cut-out stain was laid out and documented because that came in four separate little pieces from Matheson's tube. And so that was all documented and measured. And at that point, I actually took three of those four for my extraction. So I took three of the four to do my testing with.
MR. HARMON: On October 4th?
MR. SIMS: On October 4th.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's stay on the 4th for just a second. Is this the date that you looked at 13a1 under the stereomicroscope?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Could you give the jury an idea of what this stereomicroscope is? And you mentioned some special lighting too. Give us an idea of how that helps you look at things.
MR. SIMS: Yes. It's a--it's not like a high-powered microscope. It's more about, oh, 10 times to about 40 times magnification. So it's--it's very good. It's much more than a magnifying glass obviously, but it's not like looking for an individual blood cell or something like that. I mean it's an intermediate there. But it's also very useful to get an idea of where you might see a bloodstain and how it stains the fabric. In other words, you can see the reddish area, for example, here against a black background. And so this particular setup that we have has lighting from the sides. That's called oblique lighting and it kind of--it's like providing a spotlight on the particular item. It illuminates it brightly. And so that just allows you to see things much more clearly and with a good contrast than you can with just the naked eye.
MR. HARMON: Tell us what you saw when you looked at 13a, the cutting that Greg Matheson sent you.
MR. SIMS: Well, on that--excuse me. I looked at those particular cuttings under the stereomicroscope exam. I noticed there was reddish staining, looked like there was some--I noted it looked like it was through and through, the soaking, it--it's somewhat powdery on the other side. And that--that's basically what I saw. In other words, it looked like--like it was a bloodstain to me, but that's just an examination.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, you mentioned something powdery on the other side. Could--did you actually dislodge some of those particles?
MR. SIMS: Well, what happens is, the particular pieces start to shed. The fibrils that make up the sock start to shed. And so some of those actually would come off on to the filter paper that we had placed on the--placed the cuttings on.
MR. HARMON: And now, this stuff is pretty dry at this point, right, the stain?
MR. SIMS: Oh, yes. It's dry.
MR. HARMON: Now, if particles like that--or strike that. You needed the stereomicroscope to be able to visualize these particles; is that true?
MR. SIMS: To see them at that level, yes. I mean, you could see that they were reddish without it. But keep in mind, during this particular sock, you're talking about a dark substance on a dark substrate. And so it's pretty hard to see it without looking at it with some kind of lighting or other--
MR. HARMON: So if those socks had been sitting on a carpet and dried somewhere and those--what do you call them? Fibrils?
MR. SCHECK: Objection.
MR. HARMON: Is that what you call them?
THE COURT: Basis?
MR. SCHECK: Foundation, compound, speculative.
THE COURT: Carpet's irrelevant.
MR. HARMON: What are they called? Fibrils?
MR. SIMS: Well, the fibrils are associated with the cutting. In other words, once you make the cutting, then the fabric can tend to start to come apart.
MR. HARMON: Okay. If--if those little particles had come off a sock wherever it had been deposited, would you need the stereomicroscope to see them?
MR. SIMS: If you had a good pair of eyes, you could probably see them, yeah. You could see them with the eye.
MR. HARMON: But you would have to be looking for them?
MR. SIMS: Yeah, unless they were on a white piece of paper maybe.
MR. HARMON: Let's move on to the next date that you examined those socks, if you would.
MR. SIMS: Okay. The--the next involvement was on October 5th. And with that, there was actually measurements of the--excuse me--the control sample and sampling of the control sample that Matheson had cut out. And at that time, I noted that the measurements that I made for this cutting are very close to the estimate from the previous cutting on the sock. In other words, I looked at those measurements for this piece of cloth, and they were very similar to what I saw for the hole on the sock.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Keep describing your examination of those socks, if you would.
MR. SIMS: Okay. Again, we're just looking at the control cut out. Under stereomicroscope, no reddish staining was seen. I decided to use--since Matheson had made that cut out, I decided to use that as a substrate control because it was--it was in reasonable proximity to the stain area.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't we talk about substrate controls. Is it always possible to obtain one?
MR. SIMS: No. Some items are, for example, just so heavily bloodstained that it's not practical.
MR. HARMON: We'll talk about item no. 9, the glove from Rockingham, but is that one where you were not able to--
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: --you were not able to get a substrate control?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And does that necessarily--the absence of a substrate control, does that undermine or totally do in any results that are produced from any DNA testing?
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Leading and vague.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. HARMON: What impact on results, DNA typing results is there if one does not have a substrate control?
MR. SIMS: Well, with a substrate control showing no types, it gives you confidence that the particular types you're getting on a stain near by it are from the stained material itself and not associated with the substrate.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And we'll spend some time with substrate controls probably this afternoon. Why don't you keep describing your examination of the socks on the 5th.
MR. SIMS: Okay. The--again, I looked at that under the stereomicroscope. I didn't notice any reddish staining. A presumptive blood test was run on these little fibrils that came off. And again, I had done that previously for the stained fibrils, and that was a positive test. This one gave a negative test. Resealed the item up. And then--then it's on October 10th now that we start to do the actual extraction of--for the DNA content of that particular sample.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And by now, have you identified all the stains that you ultimately tested in this--
MR. SIMS: No.
MR. HARMON: --in this case?
MR. SIMS: No. Again, we were focused on that sock blood--on this particular bloodstain.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't we jump ahead before we go through the process and describe how you later identified other stains on those socks.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. HARMON: What date was that?
MR. SIMS: We now go to the 25th of October.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, could you just give me the page number?
MR. SIMS: Yes. Page 91.
THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.
MR. HARMON: Why don't you describe the stains you identified on that later date.
MR. SIMS: At--at that particular point, there was some examination of the--of the sock again. No--no numbers were actually assigned, any addition--no additional numbers were assigned at that particular point. That was just an examination of the socks.
MR. HARMON: Now, why didn't you find these new stains the last time?
MR. SIMS: The--the thing that's interesting about these socks is that the more time you spend with them, you do--and you really study them under the stereomicroscope, you really do see a lot of stains on there. There's a large number of small stains on there, and it's--it's only when you get under the stereomicroscope that you can really appreciate how much there is.
MR. HARMON: So are you telling us that the stains that you identified on this later date you were not aware of the first time around?
MR. SIMS: The first time around, I saw there were some other areas of interest, but I specifically focused on that one that I mentioned. But it was clear that there was a lot to look at on this sock.
MR. HARMON: Okay. In the course of your examination of these socks, did you have a videotape taken under infrared lighting conditions to--that demonstrated where stains were that were not apparent to you?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. HARMON: What date was that?
MR. SIMS: The actual videotaping was done on October 27th, 1994 with the assistance of Dusty Clark from the Bureau of Forensic Services, latent prints section.
MR. HARMON: Now, at that point--let's stop the clock at that point. If you would, would you please identify by your lettering or your numbering system the stains you were able to see before you did the video?
MR. SIMS: Some of the--some of the stains--excuse me--I actually noted, but I didn't assign numbers to until I actually sampled them. In other words, I make drawings, and I say, "look over here. There's something there, there's something there, there's something there," but I didn't actually assign numbers to them. So sometimes I notice things and it's only when I go to sample it later that I have to give it a number.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
MR. SIMS: It's a somewhat complicated process.
MR. HARMON: Were you able to see stains in the video that you were not aware of?
MR. SIMS: I think--I think the answer to that is no. I think most of those stains I had seen without the assistance of the video. The video is just a way to try to capture that information, to document it.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
MR. SIMS: It's--the contrast is the key there.
MR. HARMON: Okay. To just go back for a second, you mentioned these presumptive tests that you performed. The negative presumptive test was on the substrate control; is that right?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. HARMON: And positive presumptive tests were on stains that were ultimately tested?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Your Honor, could I show People's exhibits 214-A and b on the elmo? They've previously been marked. They're photos of the socks.
THE COURT: All right. Proceed.
(Brief pause.)
MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, do you recognize those photos?
MR. SIMS: Shall I look at this monitor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SIMS: Yes, I sure do. Those are my photographs.
MR. HARMON: Those are your photos?
MR. SIMS: Yes, they are.
MR. HARMON: And are those two separate photos, one of each of the two socks?
MR. SIMS: Yes. It's--needs a little focus I think on the writing. Can you get that a little sharper for my--
MR. HARMON: Now, did you--
MR. SIMS: Yes. I can see those now.
MR. HARMON: Can you see them? For record-keeping purposes, did you identify one of those socks as sock a?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Is that the one that had the two cut outs?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And sock b is the other one?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And 214--
MR. HARMON: Which one is on the left?
MR. HARMON: Okay. The one that just moved there, that would be the 214-B, which sock is that a photo of?
MR. SIMS: That's sock b.
THE COURT: That's the sock that's to the left of the display.
MR. HARMON: The sock to the left, and that's People's exhibit 214-B. And by default 214-A is sock 13a?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And is that writing that's in those photos, is that writing that you placed on--when you took those pictures?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it is.
MR. HARMON: And what is that writing attempt to depict?
MR. SIMS: It's an attempt to depict the relative locations of the particular stains that we actually sampled in this sock. It's not all the stains, but it's the ones that we typed.
MR. HARMON: So--and we'll go through that after lunch. These are actually what became stains that you processed for DNA typing in this case?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. If you could, I'd like you to think, Mr. Sims, thinking about putting those socks on. I don't mean I'm going to ask you to put those on. But if you put one sock on one foot and one sock on the other foot--I know there's two answers to this--the first way you put them on, where would--would the stains all be on one side or the other of these socks? And maybe you ought to come out here and demonstrate to the jury what we're talking about.
(The witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: Let me ask you a preliminary question. You can't tell which one of those is the left sock and which one is the right sock; is that right?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. HARMON: So let's just assume you put one on your left--either one on your left foot and either one on your right foot. Then we'll reverse them in a second.
MR. SIMS: The key--the key point is that the stain that's on the a sock, the Matheson cut out is now being compared to those stains marked B1 and b2 which are on this surface of this sock. And the point is, is that given that the socks go in this direction to the toes, that those socks would--those stains would either be both on the outside or both on the inside (Indicating).
MR. HARMON: Depending on which foot you put the sock on?
MR. SIMS: That's right.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen--unfortunately, I think people in the back row didn't see the demonstration by Mr. Sims. So if you folks want to stand up, you're welcome to do so.
MR. SIMS: Okay. Again, we're talking about that Matheson cut-out stain and we're talking about those stains B1 and b2. And the point is, is that given the orientation of the sock and where the toe would line, you would either have those stains both on the outside or both on the inside (Indicating).
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Matheson--excuse me. Mr. Harmon, I think at this point, we'll take our break for the noon hour. Ladies and gentlemen, please remember all of my admonitions to you; do not discuss the case amongst yourselves, do not form any opinions about the case, do not allow anybody to communicate with you, do not conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. We'll stand in recess until 1:00 P.M. and, Mr. Sims, you may step down. All right. Thank you. We'll be in recess. (At 12:00 P.M., the noon recess was taken until 1:00 P.M. of the same day.)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, MAY 16, 1995 1:01 P.M.
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. All parties are again present. Anything we need to take up?
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I would like to cover that board, 47, 50 and 78 with Mr. Sims. I'm going to be moving through the evidence processing this afternoon and on to bigger and better things, and you know, I don't want to miss the opportunity to do something you have afforded me the opportunity to do.
MR. SCHECK: What is to be done is really the question?
THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.
MR. HARMON: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: What are you going to approach with this witness now at this time with regard to the board?
MR. HARMON: I just want him to look at it and identify handwriting and dates that were not on them when he sent those items back to LAPD in October.
MR. SCHECK: This is--
THE COURT: He can testify to what he did when he packaged it up and sent it back to LAPD. What else is there is not really germane at this point. And what is this device that is here on the table here?
MR. SCHECK: Which device?
MR. HARRIS: Still video.
THE COURT: All right. Why don't we move that.
MR. NEUFELD: I will get it.
THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jury, please.
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, how am I going to tell the jury that they had this evidence and consumed part of it in testing?
THE COURT: They will get that. All he can tell us is he can tell us what he had, what he packaged up and sent back.
MR. HARMON: Can he identify the package and that it is different?
THE COURT: Yes, he can identify the package. He can identify what he did.
MR. HARMON: Can I ask him what he didn't do, put those other names and dates on?
THE COURT: No. Let's proceed.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
(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. Mr. Sims, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Gary Sims, the witness on the stand at the time of the noon recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: Let the record 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: Mr. Gary Sims is again on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Harmon. Good afternoon, Mr. Sims.
MR. SIMS: Good afternoon, your Honor.
THE COURT: You are reminded, sir, you are still under oath. And Mr. Harmon, you may continue with your direct examination.
MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. HARMON
MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, I think I was a little confused on what a fibril is. I would like to mark as People's next in order a photograph supplied by Mr. Sims that shows some black cut-out material which we know are fibrils now in the background. May that be--
THE COURT: People's 266.
(Peo's 266 for id = photograph)
MR. HARMON: 266. And may I put that on the elmo, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes. Have you shown to it counsel?
MR. HARMON: Yes, I have.
MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, do you recognize People's 266 for identification?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I do. That is a photograph that I took on October 4th, 1994.
MR. HARMON: Okay. You were--we were talking about fibrils. Can you describe where these fibrils are in that white background in the photograph?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I need a moment on--do I use this device?
MR. HARMON: Sure. Go ahead.
MR. SIMS: What I'm--what I'm--what I'm describing is there is some very fine traces--
MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, why don't you try this.
MR. SIMS: Okay. Come out?
MR. HARMON: Yeah.
(Brief pause.)
MR. HARMON: Do you want to put it on the podium here?
(Brief pause.)
MR. SIMS: We were talking about fibrils and what I'm referring to are these little fine pieces of fiber. And most of you have probably seen from common experience when you cut a piece of cloth, especially this cloth, this weave, some of the little fibrils actually come off from the cloth, so these are the four swatches that were present in that tube from Greg Matheson that was submitted along with the sock. Now, that 42 is my number. 13 is the LAPD number. The tube is called 13a and what I'm talking about when I say "fibrils" are these little minute pieces that are present and they come about when you cut the fabric.
MR. HARMON: Okay. You also described some minute particles of blood?
MR. SIMS: Yes. The particles are generally associated with these particular fibrils.
MR. HARMON: What causes the particles to come off?
MR. SIMS: Well, the particles are usually adhering. That is the blood that is adhering to the actual fiber on the fibrils.
MR. HARMON: To the fibrils?
MR. SIMS: To the fibrils, yes.
MR. HARMON: So is it the cutting of the fabric that causes the blood particles to come off?
MR. SCHECK: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. HARMON: What is it that caused the tiny blood particles to come off with the fibrils?
MR. SIMS: Well, the blood is adhering to the fibrils and some of it also powders itself so that is the combination of material down in here, (Indicating), and this is on a white piece of filter paper in the laboratory so that you can clearly see it.
MR. HARMON: When--this morning when you said that should be obvious on the white background is the combination of the fibrils with the cut fabric and the blood particles?
MR. SIMS: Yes. What I'm saying is once you cut this fibril, you have it on a white background, you can see these particles and you wouldn't really see them until you start cutting the fabric.
MR. HARMON: Okay. You can go back up and resume your. Seat?
MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)
THE COURT: Mr. Harmon, how do you feel the resolution is on the big screen?
MR. HARMON: Well, I can see it with these glasses on. I'm not sure how the jury--
THE COURT: All right. I was going to give you the option to pass the actual photograph through the jury.
MR. HARMON: That will be fine, your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. HARMON: Can I hand this to juror no. 1?
THE COURT: Hand that to juror no. 1. since we are looking at very fine particles on the photograph.
(The exhibit was passed amongst the jury.)
THE COURT: All right. Deputy Smith, would you return that to Mr. Harmon, please.
(Brief pause.)
MR. HARMON: Now, Mr. Sims, before the break we had discussed a little bit about this infrared video that you had taken of the socks 13 to try to identify possible bloodstains. Why is it that you resorted to infrared lighting to try to find these stains or identify these stains?
MR. SCHECK: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Well, the video was not so much for the finding them. That to me is much more--much better done through the stereomicroscope, that type of examination. The point of this was for the documentation of showing exactly where those stains were and using the contrast enhancement from the IR photography.
MR. HARMON: Okay. We will show that tape in a moment, but what I would like you to do is think back to the point where you were visualizing--where you were visually examining the socks and what I would like you to explain is how many stains are visible on the video, the infrared video that we will be marking, that were not apparent to you in your initial visual examination?
MR. SIMS: Umm, there were several.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Could we have marked as People's next in order People's 267, infrared video of item 13, the socks, your Honor?
THE COURT: People's 267.
(Peo's 267 for id = infrared video)
MR. HARMON: We have given copies of that to the Defense. Can we show that right now?
MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, I know it is quite lengthy. Will you stop it at the appropriate time when it depicts enough of what you saw there?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Is that okay?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
THE COURT: How long is this video, Mr. Harmon?
MR. SIMS: About fifteen minutes.
MR. HARMON: Would you like me to sing?
MR. SCHECK: I would object to that.
THE COURT: Yes. Sustained. Sustained.
MR. HARMON: I would, too.
MR. SCHECK: Ask him to be sanctioned for it.
MR. HARMON: I'm sorry. We agree. I'm sorry.
THE COURT: Let's see the videotape.
MR. SIMS: Your Honor, can I point out one thing as we are going to show this videotape?
THE COURT: What is that, Mr. Sims?
MR. SIMS: I just want to point out that this is not a test for blood, per say. What we are doing is using it as a contrast.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harmon.
MR. HARMON: Could we start that.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Sims, you can either look at the small monitor or watch the large monitor.
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, could we dim the lights?
THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, cut one bank, would you please.
(At 1:15 P.M., People's exhibit 267, a videotape, was played.)
MR. SIMS: In the upper portion of the video one can now see one of the stains where there was an arrow. Now we are sort of moving along. The first part of this is just sort of a run-through.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, may I ask, if the witness knows, he identify which of the two socks by number this is.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SIMS: This should be 42--number A, sock A.
(The videotape continues playing.)
MR. SIMS: There is an area down there near my thumb that is of interest.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
(The videotape continues playing.)
MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, if you see an area that you ultimately identified or tested as a bloodstain, could you please point that out to us.
(The videotape continues playing.)
MR. SIMS: That--yeah. This is--this is the next part. If we stop right here.
MR. SCHECK: Is this the next sock?
THE COURT: Mr. Sims, which sock is this?
MR. SIMS: This is still a, sock a.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SIMS: So if we stop right here, this is on the side that is actually the same side as which the LAPD cut out was on. This is up near towards--up near the top of the sock. And I did additional testing on this stain near the top there that I identified as stain a3.
MR. HARMON: Okay. We actually have photos that show exactly where those stains are that we will get to in a little while; is that correct?
MR. SIMS: Yes. And one can see that there are three areas of interest in this particular area.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
MR. SIMS: Three stains of interest.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Do you want to start--
MR. HARMON: Can we start it again?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
(The videotape continues playing.)
MR. SIMS: Now, we can just start to see the LAPD area, cut-out area of that stain.
MR. HARMON: Can we stop it there.
MR. HARMON: The kind of rectangular area?
MR. SIMS: Yes, the rectangular area.
THE COURT: Back it up just slightly.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SIMS: That--can you rewind that just slightly?
(Brief pause.)
MR. SIMS: If you rewind that just slightly we can show where the--there. I think right in the middle now you can see the LAPD cut-out and you can see their arrow down at the bottom of the screen there and it being like 13a is what their arrow is designated with.
MR. HARMON: It looks like there is a darkened area around the cut-out?
MR. SIMS: Yes. There is still some staining around the periphery of that cut-out. You can see that under stereomicroscopy.
MR. HARMON: Even after all of your testing?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I didn't do any testing, other than examining that particular area.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
(The videotape continues playing.)
MR. SIMS: Those are some areas that are not associated as bloodstains. They may be some soiled deposits, that sort of thing.
MR. HARMON: Those darkened areas?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
(The videotape continues playing.)
MR. SIMS: And there is the control, the control by LAPD that we just passed by.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
(The videotape continues playing.)
MR. SIMS: Again now we are moving up toward the top of the sock and looking at those stains in that area. There is one sort of near the top now, sort of has a teardrop shape going to the left of the screen. That was one that I designated a3.
(The videotape continues playing.)
MR. HARMON: Are we switching over to the other sock now?
MR. SIMS: (No audible response.) No this is now the same sock--if you stop it right there, it is the opposite side, so this is still sock a, but this is that other stain that LAPD apparently had drawn the arrow to that I mentioned earlier on. This is stain a2 so this is also up near the top. It is in the same area as this a3 generally, but it is on the opposite side of the sock.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
MR. HARMON: Can we start it again?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
(The videotape continues playing.)
MR. HARMON: Now what are we looking at?
MR. SIMS: This is again the LAPD cut-out so this would be the opposite side.
MR. HARMON: This is still sock a?
MR. SIMS: Still sock a.
MR. HARMON: And you did not cut any further around the cut-out that Greg Matheson made?
MR. SIMS: That's correct. And again moving up now, you can see a3 has come into the picture and there is two other areas associated with that general area there, two other stains I should say.
(The videotape continues playing.)
MR. SIMS: And that is just telling you that the first minutes of this were all 42a. This is telling you what you just saw as opposed to what you are going to see. So now we are going to move on to the B sock.
(The videotape continues playing.)
MR. SIMS: As you move down into the center of this that you pick up the stain--excuse me--that I call B1. There we can start to see one of the stains in the middle and then you can see another stain toward the upper left there, another little stain. And this--this is an area that has a lot of very small stains associated with it.
MR. HARMON: About how many?
MR. SIMS: I would have to count them, but I think maybe ten or so, something like that, but actually I have detailed notes about that also. You can see on the--if you go back--can we rewind just a little bit, please?
(Brief pause.)
MR. SIMS: That is good. It is hard to see, but this 42B1 stain had been outlined somewhat by LAPD and sometimes on this you can pick up the outline.
(The videotape continues playing.)
MR. SIMS: There is a darkened area down at the bottom. That doesn't look like blood at all, that little dark spot.
MR. HARMON: Even though it looks pretty dark there?
MR. SIMS: Yes, that is--that is not.
MR. HARMON: Are those socks black or navy blue?
MR. SIMS: I described them as black.
MR. HARMON: Could they be navy blue?
MR. SIMS: Well, sometimes I grab the wrong ones out of the drawer, but I think they are black. You can see now there is some other little stains showing up in this area that are just little dark patches. The one--the one that is on the far right now, that is the one that is designated as b2, that is stain b2, so we've got B1 and b2 in this general area. Now we are moving in for a close-up. The one on the upper right there is B1. B2 has now gone out of the picture a little bit.
(The videotape continues playing.)
MR. SIMS: Yeah. There is b2 now right in the middle. It is sort of a flattened oval right in the middle toward the bottom there. You will notice there are some other darkened areas around that.
(The videotape continues playing.)
MR. SIMS: On these socks there is a very distinctive logo that I noticed that is in the fabric and that is seen real well now in the middle. That gives you a nice reference point for each one of these little areas.
(The videotape continues playing.)
MR. HARMON: Do you know what that logo is, Mr. Sims?
MR. SIMS: Umm, I have never seen that brand logo before. That is just my tag right there, (Indicating), says it is 42b.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Up to this point have we seen all the stains that are visible on b?
MR. SIMS: Yes. There is--just briefly, I think there is an examination now of the opposite side of this.
(The videotape continues playing.)
MR. SIMS: Again there is b2, B1 up on the upper left.
(The videotape continues playing.)
MR. SIMS: This is again that area with B1 and b2.
(The videotape continues playing.)
MR. SIMS: At the time we were, of course, interested in this stain, as I mentioned, it turned out not to be a bloodstain.
MR. HARMON: How did you make that determination?
MR. SIMS: That examination was done under the stereomicroscope, I believe.
MR. HARMON: Okay. So have we seen everything now on sock b?
MR. SIMS: You've probably seen enough. There is--there is a little more maybe on the opposite side of the sock b if we want to just look at this briefly.
(The videotape continues playing.)
MR. SIMS: The staining in this particular side--on this particular side is much more subtle than it was on the other side of sock b.
MR. HARMON: How many small stains in total were there on sock b?
MR. SIMS: On sock b?
MR. HARMON: Uh-huh.
MR. SIMS: Umm--we can probably stop the video now if you want.
(At 1:32 P.M. the playing of the videotape concludes.)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. SIMS: I count about 19, something like that, that I saw.
THE COURT: That is on sock b?
MR. SIMS: Yes, that is approximately.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. HARMON: Let's talk about sock a for a second. Of the stains that you identified and numbered on sock a, how many of them actually appeared visible from the inside of the sock?
MR. SIMS: From the inside of the sock?
MR. HARMON: Did you examine them from the inside at all?
MR. SIMS: I--I peeled back a little bit around the top, as I recall, but I never totally reflexed the sock.
MR. HARMON: So you can't add anything to that?
MR. SIMS: I don't really think I can add anything to do other than did--I did photograph, I recall, the area under the LAPD cut-out, for example.
MR. HARMON: Uh-huh.
MR. SIMS: And I did look around in the areas where I cut.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Of the areas that you cut, why don't you describe whether or not the blood soaked through to the other side.
MR. SCHECK: If the witness is going to refer to a page in his notes, Mr. Sims, just give me an indication.
THE COURT: Which page?
MR. SIMS: I am still looking, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SIMS: On page 115, this is with regards to the LAPD cut-out area, stain a1. I made a note that: "under the stereomicroscope the area below the other side of the sock, the inner surface, showing relatively few specks of reddish brown" what I call "powdering and no indication seen of soaking through to other side." I made a photograph of that. "still some good quantity of staining around margins of 42a1."
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. SIMS: I made a similar notation on--with regards to stain 42a2. Now, that is on the opposite side up near the top. This is page 113. "stereo review cut site" and stereo review means stereomicroscope, "still good reddish brown on the edges. Note some powdering on surface below. Considered, too, if any wicking if wet, just see reddish brown beads." that is all I say about that.
MR. SCHECK: Can I--
THE COURT: Certainly. Mr. Sims, if you will show Mr. Scheck where in your notes you found that. (Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harmon.
MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, maybe I can cut this a little bit short. Was there--let's focus on 13a where the cut-out was from.
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Was there any corresponding stain on the opposite side of the sock from where the cut-out was made from 13a1?
MR. SIMS: There was--there was nothing that I noted that made it look like it had soaked through to that side, no.
MR. HARMON: When I say--I mean to the other side of the sock?
MR. SIMS: Oh, I don't recall seeing anything in that area, no. Certainly nothing that corresponded with that large stain.
MR. HARMON: Well, would you please--do you want to examine your--when we looked at that video, did it look like there was a stain on the opposite side?
MR. SCHECK: Objection, your Honor. The video speaks for itself.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: I'm sorry, your question was?
MR. HARMON: Imagine the sock a is flat.
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And the area where 13a1 was cut out from was located.
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Was there any stain on the opposite side, the opposite wall of the sock in the same location which correspond to 42a1?
MR. SIMS: When you say opposite side, you mean the opposite outer surface?
MR. HARMON: Right.
MR. SIMS: Yes. I did not detect anything in that particular area, no.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Okay. Well, we are going to have the photos up in a little bit. Why don't we move on to another item that you examined, the Rockingham glove, LAPD item 9.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. HARMON: When was it that you first got that glove?
MR. SIMS: This is item no. 9?
MR. HARMON: Yes.
MR. SIMS: No. 9?
MR. HARMON: Uh-huh.
MR. SIMS: That was received on September 7, 1994.
MR. HARMON: And when did you begin to process that glove?
MR. SIMS: The processing--processing of the glove began on October 15 of 1994.
MR. HARMON: And over how long a period did your examination of that glove take?
MR. SIMS: Umm, over about a month.
MR. HARMON: Essentially were there two major periods of investigation and sampling of that glove?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Rather than break them down into separate periods, let's just describe the condition of the glove when it first came into your possession.
MR. SIMS: Yes. It was in a sealed condition by the--it had an LAPD seal on it. It was presented to us. When I removed it from the envelope it was inside out.
THE COURT: Mr. Sims, which page of your notes are you referring to?
MR. SIMS: I'm on now page 69.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. HARMON: It was inside out?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it was inside out.
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, may I have marked as People's next in order, four photographs. May they be 268-A and b, which are photographs of the glove inside out.
THE COURT: Yes, 268-A and b.
(Peo's 268-A for id = photograph)
(Peo's 268-B for id = photograph)
MR. HARMON: I have already shown them to counsel. And 268-C and d, of the glove right side out.
THE COURT: All right. C and d.
(Peo's 268-C for id = photograph)
(Peo's 268-D for id = photograph)
MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, did you--the photographs that I'm about to show ones that you took yourself?
MR. SIMS: Yes, they are.
MR. HARMON: May I put that on the elmo, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
(Brief pause.)
MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, do you recognize that as a photograph you took from the inside of the glove from Rockingham, LAPD item no. 9?
MR. SIMS: I recognize that as that--yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Perhaps side-by-side, may we put 268-B, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Brief pause.)
MR. HARMON: Now, are those both sides of the inside of that glove as it was inside out?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it is, and you have to remember now this is inside out. It is a right-hand glove. The easiest thing to notice where the thumb position is and then also if you look at that little notch on the right side to the lower right near the initials "C.Y.," that is what I would call the palmer surface.
MR. HARMON: So the glove, if worn on the right hand, the notch would be by your palm--by the inside of your wrist?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Not the back of your hand?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. HARMON: Okay. How did you go about trying to sample this glove when it was presented to you inside out as it was?
MR. SIMS: Well, I figured since it was inside out, I might as well start with it inside out. The other thing that was interesting was that I--I thought it would perhaps be easier to sample and get results from this sort of material that is on the inside, this lining surface, rather than the leather that is associated with the outer surface.
MR. HARMON: Why is that?
MR. SIMS: Well, in general leather can cause problems and also I figured that if there was any kind of soil or contamination of that sort on the outside, that it would be less likely to have that on the inside.
MR. HARMON: Okay. When you say leather can cause problems, can you give a little more of an explanation than that?
MR. SIMS: Yes. Leather as a substrate or a surface on which a bloodstain is deposited sometimes is a difficult material to work with because it causes problems with the test, not that it gives you a wrong result, but just that you can't get a result. In other words, you can't get one of these PCR amplifications to occur or you can't get your restriction enzyme to restrict if you are doing PCR.
MR. HARMON: Okay. So what did you see when you began examining the inside of the glove?
MR. SIMS: I saw a lot of reddish staining all over the inside of the glove.
MR. HARMON: Did you sample the inside of that glove?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. HARMON: How many areas did you sample the inside of that glove from?
MR. SIMS: The--the areas that I actually--first of all, I tested several areas using a presumptive blood test. Not all of those areas were actually sampled for additional analysis.
MR. HARMON: So now all the areas that gave you presumptive positives were sampled for analysis?
MR. SIMS: That's correct, and what I did is I assigned a number like a g1, g2-2, et cetera, to these various stains that I tested in any fashion.
MR. HARMON: And how many areas from the inside of the glove did you sample for testing?
MR. SIMS: It is--the first examination it went g1 up to g8.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. SIMS: So eight.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Of all the stains that you sampled did you ultimately test every one of them?
MR. SIMS: No.
MR. HARMON: Why not?
MR. SIMS: Well, some of them--when we are saying sampling, I mean doing any kind of a test on, such as a presumptive test, the ones I actually cut out I did tests, yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Of the ones that gave the presumptive positive results, why didn't you test them?
MR. SIMS: Umm, I wanted to take what I thought might be a representative sampling. There is sill a lot of material on that glove that I never got to, obviously, but--
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, at some point then did you turn the glove right side out and examine the outside of the glove?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, may I put 268-C and d on the elmo at this point?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SIMS: The one--
MR. HARMON: Go ahead.
MR. SIMS: The one other point I wanted to make is that I believe that before we actually turned it inside--right side out, there were two additional stains or two additional samples in the notch area that were investigated.
MR. HARMON: When you say "the notch area," is that on the lining or the leather part?
MR. SIMS: This would be on the lining. I'm sorry, the lining part, yes, when it is still inside out.
MR. HARMON: When it is still inside out?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Then you turned it right side out?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And sampled the outside?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And actually did you do these examinations and samplings in two different groups?
MR. SIMS: Yes, although the first--I mentioned the eight plus the two, that is a total of ten when it is still inside out and it is later that it is turned right side out, okay?
MR. HARMON: How many samplings did you make of the glove on the outside?
MR. SIMS: On the outside there were four in this latter set, but one of them was actually still back on the inside, down in that wrist area.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Were you operating under some kind of time constraints at that point?
MR. SIMS: Not--not in the latter stages, but in the October 15th and 16th sampling, yes, we were operating under time constraints.
MR. HARMON: What was that?
MR. SIMS: Well, we were looking at a possible cut off of any testing.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Was Dr. Blake present during the samplings of these items as he was during the other items you have already described?
MR. SIMS: Yes, he was.
MR. HARMON: Took his own photos?
MR. SIMS: Yes, he did.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, may we approach?
THE COURT: No. Proceed.
MR. SCHECK: I have an objection.
THE COURT: Noted. Proceed.
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I'm going to be moving to the nail board that has some photos of Nicole on it, exhibit no. 220. I wanted to move on to--
THE COURT: All right.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. HARMON: This is the one with the nail scrapings and clippings on it.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Fairtlough, let's move the easel over here.
(Brief pause.)
MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, you received items 84-A and b, LAPD items at some point?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. HARMON: What date was that?
MR. SIMS: That was on September 26, 1994.
MR. HARMON: And you gave them, as you have with all of these, your own item numbers?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. HARMON: If you would, I would like you to take a look at People's exhibit 220 for identification, specifically the top five photos. I would like you to look at them and see if those are photos that you took during your examination and sampling of these items, that is, the 84-A and b?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I took the fingernail scrapings and clippings photographs. I obviously did not take the crime scene photographs at the bottom there.
MR. HARMON: Why don't we just break them down by right-hand clippings, left-hand clippings, if you would, or perhaps why don't we just start out by listing what you called the right-hand clippings and the right-hand scrapings and the left-hand clippings and the left-hand scrapings.
MR. SIMS: Okay. The right-hand clippings, which are actually where the Coroner takes these clippings and actually clips off the ends of the nails, that is 45-A by my numbering system, and then the right-hand scrapings are 45-B and that is actually where a wooden stick is used to scrape under the nails to collect those deposits, those outer deposits under the fingernails. And then on the left side you can see the left-hand fingernail clippings. I had designated those as 46-A. Again you can see the cut-off nails. There is actually six pieces of fingernail in there, and then the left-hand fingernail scrapings debris with the wooden stick, that is 46-B by my designation.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Using the LAPD conventional numbers, 84-A and b, if you will, did you examine 84-A, the clippings?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. HARMON: And that is actually your 46?
MR. SIMS: That's right.
MR. HARMON: Is that correct?
MR. SIMS: That's right.
MR. HARMON: Will you describe what you observed when you opened those sealed packages and examined them.
MR. SIMS: Okay. This--this is for our--it might be easier also if we refer to left and right.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't we do left-hand clippings then.
MR. SIMS: All right. This is on page 154 of my notes.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.
MR. SIMS: The--starting with the left hand, which is actually opposite of the way I started, but I will look at the left here. I noted that on these clippings that there was what I felt was significantly less blood than on the right-hand clippings. You can see in the photograph. I--
MR. HARMON: And does the photograph actually depict the nail clippings and fragments that were in that package?
MR. SIMS: Yes, that photograph does. They are placed--this blue container is what we call a little plastic weigh boat. They are put in this weigh boat so that they can be photographed in that manner and documented in that fashion.
MR. HARMON: Now, there are actually six fragments in that little blue tray?
MR. SIMS: Yes. Four of these are all fingernail tips and there are two other fragments. I did not go back and try to fit them all together.
MR. HARMON: Okay. I believe you just said you noticed there was less blood in the clippings from the left hand than there was in the right hand?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I think that is--
MR. HARMON: Okay. We will talk about the right hand in a second. How about the description?
MR. SIMS: Okay. The left-hand fingernail scrapings I noted that the bindle contained a portion of a wooden stick along with some small particulate debris. You can see small particulate debris, those little dots along the bottom of that, along the fold of the bindle right there, (Indicating).
MR. HARMON: And did you actually end up sampling the scrapings, that little particulate debris?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did. I later did that actual sampling. The other thing I wanted to point out was that on this left-hand fingernail scrapings, one doesn't see the type of wiping marks that you do see on the--the right-hand fingernail scrapings. You will notice the bindle here is fairly clean as far as my wipe marks, whereas there are wipe marks present on the right-hand fingernail scrapings. I noted that.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's shift to the right hand, if you will. Let's start with the right-hand clippings.
MR. SIMS: Can I make one more comment on the--
MR. HARMON: Sure. Do you have another comment about the left hand?
MR. SIMS: Well, the left hand, the comment I wanted to make was I looked at those under the stereomicroscope. It looked to me like there were some blood particles and some debris and I noticed some whitish pieces that looked like these nails. I don't know much about fingernails, but I think this is a French manicure or something like that.
MR. SCHECK: Move to strike this interesting observation.
THE COURT: All right. The jury is to disregard Mr. Sims' comments about French manicure.
MR. SIMS: Yes, that is fine, your Honor. I just noted that there were some particles that may have been from this material, this nail-like material.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's move over to the right hand, if you would, and let's describe your initial examination of those clippings.
MR. SIMS: My first observation was that--excuse me--there are five fingernail clippings. It looked like there was blood on all five of them and I placed them in a weigh boat and I numbered them, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, just to--so I could describe what I was doing with them. Again I noticed these--the whitish tips.
MR. HARMON: Anything else attract your attention when you examined those clippings?
MR. SIMS: I noted that there was a possible hair associated with those. It was about two centimeters long.
MR. HARMON: And where was that?
MR. SIMS: That was just associated with the clippings.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And anything else with respect to the right-hand clippings?
MR. SIMS: Of particular interest there was what I thought might be a piece of tissue on the long--on the largest nail on the inside surface.
MR. HARMON: Now, can you--I'm sorry.
MR. SIMS: Well, when I'm looking at this type of evidence what I'm really keying on is to try to see if there is anything that looks like tissue. Frequently in this type of case you see blood. It is not unusual--this kind of a homicide it is not unusual to see blood under fingernails. But what I'm really keying on is looking for something foreign and that is why I would be looking for tissue.
MR. HARMON: Why would tissue be of interest?
MR. SIMS: Tissue would be of interest because if one is scratched by, nails and I have had this done to me by my big sister when I was older--when I was younger, you get some of the skin actually reflected off as you scrape it and so some of this epidermis comes off and some of the dermis can actually come off onto the fingernails and that is where it can get trapped underneath.
MR. HARMON: So at one point you saw something that you thought was tissue on the right-hand clippings?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I just called it "possible tissue." I just noted that it was suspicious and I thought it deserved further attention.
MR. HARMON: Now, is that--in your examination of either set of clippings, is that the only item, the only particle that you thought might be tissue that you observed?
MR. SIMS: Yes, yes. That was the only thing that caught--caught my eye.
MR. HARMON: And could you point out which nail clip it was that you thought there might be tissue?
MR. SIMS: Yes. It was the one designated no. 1.
MR. HARMON: So the upper--actually in the--
MR. SIMS: The largest.
MR. HARMON: The largest one at the top?
MR. SIMS: At the top, yes, (Indicating).
MR. HARMON: What did you do to pursue the possibility that that might be tissue?
MR. SIMS: I removed that particular sample and I actually extracted it and I also--I did another very simple test which was just to poke at it and it turns out to be sort of a hard material. Suggests to go me that it probably wasn't tissue; it was more likely this nail-like substance, but I also extracted it as if there might be DNA in there of sufficient or significant quantity, because if it is tissue, it should be loaded with DNA.
MR. HARMON: So is it well-known to you that tissue has significantly more DNA than blood does?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it does, because the tissue cells are generally nucleated, especially if you get into the dermal layers, that is, what you are really looking at, whereas blood the DNA comes only from the white cells which are not the major component of blood.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And so you determined to your satisfaction that it was not tissue?
MR. SIMS: Yes. Through my testing I determined that I--I didn't believe it was tissue.
MR. HARMON: Based on your examination of these clippings, as you have described them so far, because you found no tissue, did you observe any evidence that Nicole Brown scratched anyone?
MR. SCHECK: Objection, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HARMON: Did you number that possible tissue? Did you assign a sample number to it?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. HARMON: What item number was that?
MR. SIMS: That was 45a-1a.
MR. HARMON: And then because at that point you thought there might be tissue there, did you identify some nearby blood that you ultimately tested through this process?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I--what I wanted to do was to test some of the blood that was nearby that--you know, very close in proximity, so I took some of that also and that was designated 45a-1b.
MR. HARMON: As a forensic scientist what is the significance to you in a homicide like this where blood is under the fingernail to not finding any tissue under the nails of the victim?
MR. SCHECK: Objection, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: I would have to say that if there is no evidence found of that sort of type, of that tissue type, then there is just no evidence of that. I can't say that something didn't happen, but there is no evidence of it.
MR. HARMON: Okay. So we've identified 45a-1a, these are your numbers, as the possible tissue and 45a-1b as the blood near that possible tissue?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And now, what about the right-hand scrapings? Would you please explain to the jury what you noted when you examined the package and contents of the right-hand scrapings?
MR. SIMS: Umm, the right-hand scrapings I noted that there was this wiping that I mentioned earlier on the bindle.
MR. HARMON: Would that suggest to you that that material was wet when it was wiped on there?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Go ahead.
MR. SIMS: I looked again under the stereomicroscope at this particular area. I didn't find anything that looked like tissue to me at that point and that was where I left the first part of this examination.
MR. HARMON: How would you compare, just to your visual examination, the relative amounts of the scraping possible blood particles of the right hand versus the left hand?
MR. SIMS: Well, there was more of this sort of loose debris in the left-hand, but there is more material, if you take into account the wipes on the right-hand perhaps.
MR. HARMON: Now, ultimately how many samples did you cause to be subjected to the PCR/dna typing process that you will describe soon? How many of these samples?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I took a total of four samples for extraction. One of these was some of this material, (Indicating). Another one was some of this material.
MR. HARMON: You are talking about the right-hand fingernail scrapings?
MR. SIMS: Right-hand fingernail scrapings, the left-hand fingernail clippings, the possible tissue from up here, (Indicating), and then the nearby blood from up here, (Indicating), and then after that extraction and evaluation I actually didn't do anything more with that possible tissue because in my opinion it wasn't tissue, so there were three I believe that were pursued.
MR. HARMON: Okay. We will talk about the typing in a little while, but at some point, after your typing on these samples was completed, did you send extracted DNA from those three samples to cellmark diagnostics?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. HARMON: Why didn't you test every nail clipping?
MR. SIMS: Well, I--I didn't think that would be particularly productive. It is a great deal of work to do. That was the main reason. Certainly it is still there if anybody wants to test it.
MR. HARMON: So whatever you did not sample, whatever is visible in those pictures is there for anyone to test in regard to this case?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. We are done with that board.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harmon. Proceed.
MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. HARMON: Before we actually describe your testing procedures, I would like to go over the samples which were in your possession from which you removed samples for testing and what remained of those items for anyone, including the Defense in this case, to test. Is that okay?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, this morning we went through ten items that were never tested by you?
MR. SIMS: Yes, that's correct.
MR. HARMON: And were those all sent back to the Los Angeles Police Department?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: You didn't sample them?
MR. SIMS: That's correct. I--those I didn't even open the envelopes.
MR. HARMON: Now, just to step back from that for a second, whenever you returned items to the Los Angeles Police Department did you always seal them before you sent them back?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did. I did. In fact, I seal things at the end of my examinations.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And then if they were put in a larger package that would be sealed, too?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And in that same regard, whenever you sent things to the FBI or to cellmark, were they always in a sealed condition?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't we go through starting with the lowest numbers, and if you would describe how much of each item--if you can, I may need to--if you want, I direct you to a page number, what is the lowest number that you tested.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I would object to this recitation.
THE COURT: Let me see counsel at the side bar.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar. Mr. Harmon, my recollection is Mr. Sims testified that he had something on the order of 61 items sent to DOJ. Are you proposing to go through each one of these 61?
MR. HARMON: Real fast. I've got a list, yeah.
MR. SCHECK: I believe he has already testified that he--in each instance where he sampled an item, that he cut it and preserved it for Defense testing, and I think that this is cumulative at this point and it is again another effort to try to draw the implication.
THE COURT: I don't think we need to go through each one of these 61 items.
MR. HARMON: Can I do it by deduction? Which ones was there nothing left? Real easy, only four or five.
THE COURT: Are there any that you completed consumed in the testing?
MR. HARMON: Sure.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. HARMON: I need to have him give the gross figure and then everybody can subtract.
THE COURT: I don't want to sit here through 61 items.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
MR. COCHRAN: Unrelated matter. When we were over near the bench, and I'm sure it is not intentional, if Miss Clark whispers something to talk, they are so close to the jury, and I ask them to be mindful.
THE COURT: I notice.
MR. COCHRAN: It is real close. The jurors try to look ahead, but I bet if you ask them they can see you guys talking or whispering. Marcia is talking to you. And so as a matter of form, I think that maybe we should change that procedure. Maybe we should move back from the jurors or whisper in each other's ears.
THE COURT: Move on the opposite side, but I also noticed the same thing with Mr. Neufeld, so whispering--
MS. CLARK: And Mr. Neufeld's whisper is a great deal louder than mine.
THE COURT: Yes, he does. I can hear him right now.
MR. COCHRAN: I am trying to point out something and I think we all want to be mindful of that. This is not a criticism.
MR. HARMON: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Let's proceed. Mr. Harmon, we will take a break at 2:30.
MR. HARMON: What time?
MR. COCHRAN: 2:30.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, what is total number of items, including substrate controls, that your lab tested in any way?
MR. SIMS: This would be the number of items that we actually extracted. Something like 108 samples, including the substrate controls.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And--rather than go item by item on what was conserved, to speed things up, can you tell us of those items, how many of those items were actually totally consumed in the testing?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I can tell you that. I need a moment to count, but I can tell you that fairly quick.
THE COURT: I think we need to know which ones, not just the number.
MR. HARMON: When you give us the number, if you could identify the items, too.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SIMS: The items that--these are the ones where we consumed the sample. This would be item no. 113, which relates to a hair.
MR. SCHECK: Are these your numbers or LAPD numbers?
MR. SIMS: These are LAPD numbers. Okay. So that was item no. 113 which relates to a hair. Item no. 115, I think that is one of the rear gate bloodstains. Item no. 116, a second rear gate bloodstain. I believe that is it. I think even on the glove and the sock there were still some traces I know in those general areas that we sampled. There was one area on the glove that we thought was tissue that that was consumed.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And that proved not to be tissue; is that true?
MR. SIMS: On the glove it indicated to me that it was tissue.
MR. HARMON: I'm sorry. In addition to--these are actually the swatch items or the initial evidence items. In addition to those items, was there--is there also extracted DNA left over from many of these items?
MR. SIMS: Well, yes. Most of those items there are--there is extracted DNA and for example, when I mentioned 115 and 116, those are those rear gate samples, there is extracted DNA from those left over. I think we mentioned the hair--the hair we haven't talked about earlier, but that work was done by Stephen Meyers in our laboratory and he did not detect any DNA in that extract, so that extract still remains. We didn't do my typing of that sample.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And as an example of what one can do with extracted DNA, is that what you sent to cellmark for their analyses on 13a1, the cutting from the sock?
MR. SIMS: That would be an example of that sort of approach.
MR. HARMON: And 29, the steering wheel stain?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And 84, the three nail kit items?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: So is it possible to--to do additional testing with that extracted DNA if one were to try to confirm results?
MR. SIMS: Certainly.
MR. HARMON: And in addition to extracted DNA, is there also something--the jury has heard from Dr. Cotton on these processes--amplified DNA that is as a result of the PCR process after DNA is amplified?
MR. SIMS: Yes. On most--almost all of these samples, in fact, there should be amplified DNA left over that is now residing in our PCR product room.
MR. HARMON: And as a forensic scientist do you feel that the best check on your analytical reliability is reanalysis of the evidence?
MR. SCHECK: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HARMON: Do you feel that it is possible--
MR. SCHECK: Objection again.
THE COURT: Sustained. Why don't you rephrase the question.
MR. HARMON: Sure. What could be done with you--as a forensic scientist you have got considerable experience before you worked for DOJ. What could one do with remaining swatch, let's say, from the same item.
MR. SCHECK: Object to this whole line of questioning.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. HARMON: What could one do with a remaining swatch, some extracted DNA and some amplified DNA?
MR. SCHECK: Objection, not specific.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Well, let's--
THE COURT: You can answer the question?
MR. SIMS: Let's work backward. With the amplified DNA one has the PCR product already to go, so one could actually test that. To me that is probably not the most useful. Then the next approach would be to look at the extracted DNA and one could take that DNA and either run it through the same types of tests that we ran in our laboratory or run it in an additional genetic marker DNA test to gain more genetic information about a particular sample. Then one takes a further step back to the actual raw sample, the raw swatch itself, and certainly one can do one's own extraction and work on that material.
MR. HARMON: And is that just your opinion or have you relied on the opinions of others in the forensic science field?
MR. SCHECK: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HARMON: Have you relied on any published literature in that?
MR. SCHECK: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. Let's move on in this area. You have established that it is available for other corroboration.
(Brief pause.)
MR. HARMON: All right. Mr. Sims, we have covered how you sample and evaluated some but not all of the items. I would like you to explain your problem solving approach. Your lab provides both RFLP and PCR services; is that true?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And for example, when this case was submitted to you with the first batch of stains, what was your initial plan to--what sort of test did you want to perform on those stains?
MR. SIMS: Well, initially we thought this might be an RFLP case all the way and our initial involvement in this case was very limited. If you would like I can go into a little bit of that history.
MR. HARMON: That is okay. Is that okay, your Honor? Go ahead.
THE COURT: No, I don't want to hear history; I want to hear facts.
THE COURT: All right. The initial testing plan was RFLP. Apparently that didn't happen.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
MR. SIMS: Yes. Initially we were planning to look at a very few number of samples to do RFLP testing in this particular case. As it turned out, some of those initial samples turned out to be in a degraded state and not suitable for RFLP analysis and in particular that would be the Bundy drops that--that we looked at in that initial series.
MR. HARMON: So is it fair to say that RFLP would have been the preferred approach if there was enough DNA and it was intact?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I think so, because the RFLP test is more discriminating. You have a much better chance of excluding somebody who is not really the source of those samples.
MR. HARMON: And at what point do--do these samples actually flow through the same possess in the beginning and then branch out, depending on how much DNA and how intact it is?
MR. SIMS: Yes. What we do is we do the initial extraction of the sample and then we evaluate to see whether or not we should proceed with the RFLP or the PCR approach.
MR. HARMON: Do you use the same extraction technique for both methods?
MR. SIMS: Yes. In our laboratory we do. The type of extraction we do is designed so that we can use that DNA either for PCR or for RFLP, which is different than some laboratory's approach.
MR. HARMON: For example, cellmark, do you know what they do with PCR?
MR. SIMS: I don't have a real clear idea on what they are doing. They may do chelex type extractions. I think LAPD does chelex extractions also.
MR. HARMON: All right. So at some point you reach a fork in the road and choose RFLP or PCR?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Do you have written protocols in your laboratory for performing RFLP in your lab?
MR. SIMS: Yes, we do.
MR. HARMON: Are those protocols based on the scientific literature?
MR. SIMS: Yes, they are.
MR. HARMON: Are there a number of ways to perform RFLP analyses?
MR. SIMS: There are variations on the theme. I mean, it is basically the same--the same process but different laboratories use, for example, different restriction enzymes. That is the enzyme that shoots in at a specific site. And also different laboratories use different probes to look at different sites of genetic variation in the DNA.
MR. HARMON: Okay. If you will, can we just compare the system that you have with the system in place at the FBI. Are you familiar with that?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I am.
MR. HARMON: And how does your system compare with the FBI's system?
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I think there is a relevancy problem on this.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HARMON: Can I make--there is--it relates back to databases, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Let me see counsel at the side bar with the court reporter.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: We are over at the side bar. What is the relevance of comparison?
MR. HARMON: Well, briefly, they have used the same restriction enzyme and data can be interchanged between the two and we have already had a reference to that much earlier on on compatibility of databases. That is one of the articles that Mr. Sims talked about of his qualifications.
MR. SCHECK: I have no objection to him saying that they used the same restriction enzyme. I have a lot of problem if he is going to be qualified an as a population geneticist to talk about the appropriateness of using different databases. I don't think he is qualified to do that.
MR. HARMON: That wasn't the question. Are they compatible systems?
THE COURT: All right. The objection is overruled.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Proceed.
MR. HARMON: Very briefly, Mr. Sims, what is the compatibility or the similarity of the system in place at DOJ lab versus the FBI and many other labs in this country?
MR. SIMS: The main point is that we use the same restriction enzyme which is called hae-3, h-a-e-3, and also that we use the same probes, there is a battery of probes that overlap, and we have exchanged samples with the FBI to show that our data is compatible with their data.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And if you would, would you contrast the system that you use and the FBI and many other labs with Cellmark's because the jury has heard quite a bit of Cellmark's approach to RFLP.
MR. SIMS: Yes. The main difference is that they are using a different restriction enzyme for their analysis and I believe it is hin-f1 is their restriction enzyme and what it basically does is it gives larger DNA restriction fragments, so their stuff tends to band higher up on these gels that we look at. And I believe two of the probes that we use are the same probes as ours and I think there are three different ones that they also use, but it is the same fundamental process.
MR. HARMON: Now, cellmark has described--Robin Cotton described a cocktail probe which is a mixture of their single locus probes. Do you or the FBI use that same sort of cocktail?
MR. SIMS: We do not and I do not believe the FBI does.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Do you have controls built into your RFLP testing to measure how well the test has been performed in any given test?
MR. SIMS: Yes, we do.
MR. HARMON: Could you briefly describe the types of controls, specifically in the RFLP process, that you have and what their function is.
MR. SIMS: Yes. There are two main controls that we run on the RFLP on any particular autorad that you see. One will be what is called a k562 standard. That is a--a DNA--cell-cultured DNA that is run almost--not in every lab in the nation, but a lot of laboratories in the nation use that as a standard control. We know where the value should be for the two bands or sometimes one band that is produced by that particular standard. And so that provides us important information. It tells us that the probing was working correctly. And the sizing information is also checked that way. The second control that I--and I mentioned this a little bit earlier--was that we always run on an RFLP gel. We always run one of these quality control samples. That is a sample that is unknown to the analyst, and then the analyst goes through and determines what the band sizes are for that particular sample and then submits that data for review, so that is blind to the analyst.
MR. HARMON: Okay. That is--I think you mentioned the supervisor actually looks at what the true values are?
MR. SIMS: Right.
MR. HARMON: And what is--and if there is a discrepancy between the two, what happens?
MR. SIMS: If there is a discrepancy between the two, we have never had one that I know of where we have mixed up anything. We have--I know in my case I had one particular sample where one band, a very high band, was slightly off because of a gel problem and then we rejected that entire data and I reran the entire experiment.
MR. HARMON: Okay. If you would, let's talk about how your PCR process works as opposed to the RFLP process. Just give us a little overview. What sort of markers do you use for PCR and DOJ lab?
MR. SIMS: Yes. The markers that we use for PCR, first off, would be the DQ-Alpha marker and that is the one that has been in most--perhaps the most widespread use in forensic science. It has got a fairly long history now of usage. Then the other--
MR. HARMON: Do you know when that was first used in this country?
MR. SIMS: The first case that I am aware of that that was used in was--it was Dr. Blake who pioneered the use of PCR in forensic science and that would be in 1986, I believe it is People versus Pestinikis, I think it is a Pennsylvania case. I may be wrong on the state.
MR. HARMON: So you have the DQ-Alpha marker?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And Robin Cotton described the type of process that that entails. Do you have an additional PCR marker?
MR. SIMS: Yes. The other PCR marker that we have on line is called D1S80.
MR. HARMON: Can you just briefly compare, contrast the method of testing of DQ-Alpha with D1S80?
MR. SIMS: Yes. The DQ-Alpha involves looking at a particular genetic locus that has variation in the DNA sequence and we can detect that in this typing procedure that we use, so we are actually looking at a little bit of variation in the sequence to detect that polymorphism or different form. On the other hand, the D1S80 is what is called a length polymorphism. It is somewhat like the RFLP procedure in that the different people have different lengths of this repeated sequence of DNA, but it is detected in a completely different manner than the DQ-Alpha is.
MR. HARMON: The jury has heard a great deal of testimony about substrate controls which we will discuss in a little while. Do you normally process substrate controls through the RFLP process?
MR. SIMS: No. Unless one saw that there was a substantial amount of DNA on the substrate control that could be succeeded to RFLP, one would not. They are really for the PCR.
MR. HARMON: Could you expand on that just a bit more.
MR. SIMS: Yes. The--the importance to me of the substrate controls is that that provides not only a way of evaluating the substrate, that the stain is on, whether it be a sidewalk or whether it be a garment or that sort of thing, but it also provides a way of evaluating how a sample is treated through the entire extraction and testing process. I mean, beginning with the scene, taking it all the way through the initial laboratory examination and then following it up with the--with the actual testing and typing procedure. And with PCR one is always on guard for contamination and that is one way of testing to see whether or not there is some contamination.
MR. HARMON: Okay. We will discuss that in a bit. So the substrate controls, if you have them in a given case, are processed through the PCR process from start to finish?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And but not normally in the RFLP process?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. HARMON: Can you give us any idea of how frequently you do not see substrate controls in cases?
MR. SCHECK: Objection--
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: We generally get them--we generally ask for them from our submitting laboratories, for example, the Bureau of Forensic Services field laboratories will submit substrate controls to us, but at times in my experience with certain types of evidence, one cannot always get a substrate control.
MR. HARMON: So they are great if you have them?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Are there a variety of what is to extract DNA? I think you mentioned the chelex extraction process?
MR. SIMS: Yes. There are a variety of ways to do it. Some of them are just modifications of a theme, but there are different approaches and people have looked at different ways of doing it.
MR. HARMON: Which extraction procedure do you use in the DOJ lab?
MR. SIMS: We use what's called an organic extraction. We actually place the sample into a buffer that contains a soap solution and also an enzyme that chews up protein and that combination loosens up the DNA and gives you what hopefully will be free DNA, because you have to remember that DNA in the cell has protein wrapped around it, and so you have to free the DNA so that you can work with it and that is what the extraction process it.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Do you have a separate written protocol that describes the PCR process, the DQ-Alpha from start to finish?
MR. SIMS: Yes, we do.
MR. HARMON: And yet another separate one for the PCR D1S80 process from start to finish?
MR. SIMS: Yes, we do.
MR. HARMON: Are they based on the scientific literature?
MR. SIMS: Yes, they are.
MR. HARMON: Are these also commercially produced kits that enable you to do these tests?
MR. SIMS: Yes. The DQ-Alpha and the D1S80 are commercially available kits and we use those.
MR. HARMON: Are the protocols that you use ones that you have drafted yourselves?
MR. SIMS: Yes. We look at the protocols that are in existence in the scientific literature and we make some slight modifications of those.
MR. HARMON: Do the manufacturers of these products provide something in addition or something called a user guide?
MR. SIMS: Yes. They provide a user guide that explains some of the parameters of the kits and how they are used.
MR. HARMON: Would this be a good time, Judge?
THE COURT: Perfect. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take a 15-Minute recess. Please remember all my admonitions to you and we'll resume in fifteen minutes. And Mr. Sims, you can step down.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record. Mr. Scheck. The jury is not present.
MR. SCHECK: Yes, your Honor. I made an objection maybe a beat late with respect to the answer that the witness gave on time constraints and asked to approach. Do you recall that question and answer?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And I didn't want to draw more attention to it than had already been done, but the problem I have here is that what Mr. Harmon has done is, he's--we--the Defense made a number of motions in this case both before Judge Kennedy and yourself for splits of the evidence and splits early before there was extensive processing by laboratories. Those motions were denied. Additional motions were made with respect to the pacing of the testing. By bringing out the questioning in the way that he's done and continually pushing with objections sustained, this whole issue of access and everything else, he puts us in the position now where we have to go into something that I thought we all agreed under 352 is really not for the jury--is a big problem for all of us, and that is to explain to the jury that the Defense asked for half the samples. The Defense on a number of occasions asked for portions of the samples early, that these requests were denied, that the testing process has gone in all the way through the trial, that there's been limited access, all kinds of things like that which I thought that we were going to keep out of bounds. And by asking that question about the time constraint in that fashion, he begins to open the door to this problem, puts us in a dilemma.
THE COURT: Uh-huh. What do you propose?
MR. SCHECK: Well, I'd have to give that my thought. My real proposal is, is probably some kind of an instruction from the Court with respect--some general instruction on this issue. But I would again urge that they not be allowed to go back into this whole issue of--I mean, how many times can we do it now, you know, scathing on the edge? I think enough is enough and I think--and he really went over the line there by implicating all these issues of time constraints and explaining all that to the jury.
THE COURT: Well, it was one question and answer.
MR. SCHECK: I understand that. And I tried not to bring undue attention to it and I did ask for a sidebar, but this is my concern. And I articulated it at the beginning and asked that before these kinds of things came up, that the Prosecutor indicate to us he was getting into this area, and I have a--this abiding concern.
THE COURT: Mr. Harmon, any necessary response?
MR. HARMON: Well, they're always necessary responses to Mr. Scheck. You know, how much longer do we have to pretend that those requests for splits were sincere when they never took advantage of them when we were done with it.
THE COURT: No, no. Mr. Harmon, that's not the issue.
MR. HARMON: Well, it is, because if we're going to instruct them on anything--
THE COURT: Mr. Harmon, no. Mr. Harmon, thank you. That's enough. The only issue there was the issue of timing and what kind of time constraints were there. That's really irrelevant at this point. So let's avoid the topic in the future. All right. Let's have the jury.
MR. SCHECK: It's not just that. It's this whole question of reanalysis and retesting and--
THE COURT: I understand that, counsel. I understand. I've indicated to Mr. Harmon I think it's irrelevant, the timing issues, under 3--it's also undue consumption of the Court's time to get into who got to do what when.
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
THE COURT: And I indicated we're not going into that.
MR. SCHECK: Well, if we go into this reanalysis issue again--
THE COURT: All right. And I've given Mr. Harmon fair warning now, we're not going into that. Let's have the jurors.
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, give me fair warning about what? He's talking about the potential for reanalysis.
THE COURT: No. I'm talking about--no. I--we're not going into the timing of who had access to what when.
MR. HARMON: We're done with that.
THE COURT: Good.
MR. HARMON: Yeah.
THE COURT: Let's have the jurors.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Sims, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. The record should reflect that we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Sims is again on the witness stand undergoing direct examination. And, counsel, we're going to break today at 4:00 o'clock. All right. Proceed.
MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, just back up, a point I may not have clarified. When you opened items--let's say it had bindles in them and there were initials and letters and dates on them. You noted those in your report?
MR. SIMS: I noted those in my laboratory notes, yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
MR. SIMS: And some of those are noted also in the actual lab report.
MR. HARMON: On RFLP, why don't you use a cocktail like cellmark does?
MR. SIMS: Well, the cocktail is a useful approach because it gives a very quick answer towards exclusion, for example, and--and that's--that's a very reasonable thing to do. We just have not adopted that approach. We haven't adopted it in the sense that we haven't evaluated that cocktail fully, asked if we were taking all our probes in all our conditions to see how it would look. So we just don't use it.
MR. HARMON: Now, is your lab also investigating or in the process of implementing other PCR markers other than DQ-Alpha and D1S80?
MR. SIMS: Yes, we are.
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained. Let's move on.
MR. HARMON: When your lab performs the PCR process, do you use the requisite positive controls or negative controls?
MR. SIMS: Yes, we do.
MR. HARMON: And you also--I believe you said you process the substrate controls in the PCR process as if it was a stain item?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And in addition to telling you whether or not there's biological material on the substrate closely associated with the stain, do those substrate controls perform a function, a trouble-shooting function when they're typed through the whole PCR process?
MR. SIMS: Yes. They--if they come up negative, then that shows that you're not picking up any contamination through the entire process, and that would be from the point of collection all the way through the analysis, the typing.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And would you--would you classify then in that context the substrate controls as a negative control?
MR. SIMS: Well, I generally think of a negative control as something where there--we know in advance there's nothing, and the substrate control, you don't specifically know that. But I think for our purposes, you can think of that as a negative control, but it doesn't always come up negative because some substrates have material on them.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's talk about how the Department of Justice reviews all the data in a case like this, a complex case where many samples are typed and what sort of process is involved in reviewing all the data and writing the report. How many people were actually involved hands on in the actual work in this case?
MR. SIMS: Of the casework analysts, there were three of us.
MR. HARMON: And who were they?
MR. SIMS: That would be myself, Renee Montgomery and Steve Myers.
MR. HARMON: And Renee Montgomery, does he have--does she have some specific expertise in one of these areas?
MR. SIMS: Yes, she does. She is the person who did almost all the D1S80 work in this case.
MR. HARMON: In this case. And Mr. Myers, what role did he play in this case?
MR. SIMS: Well, Mr. Myers has special expertise in the extraction and evaluation of DNA from hair samples. So he performed that analysis. He also did some DQ-Alpha and D1S80 typing.
MR. HARMON: And who actually then participated in the report writing process?
MR. SIMS: That would be the three of us. I was the main author. Then I reviewed it and got suggestions and input from Montgomery and Myers, and then finally, that entire package is reviewed by the Supervising Criminalist, Ken Consack.
MR. HARMON: And when you say you reviewed things, did you review things such as the DQ-Alpha typing strips?
MR. SIMS: Yes. In other words, we look at the overall results.
MR. HARMON: Jointly?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: We're going to get to some autorads in just a moment, but I want to ask you a couple of categorical questions about positive controls throughout the entire PCR process. Did the positive controls type the way they should have through all the samples that were tested in this case?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I believe they did.
MR. HARMON: And similarly with the negative controls?
MR. SIMS: Yes. That would be the extraction blanks and also--which is an extraction reagent blank, and also the negative amplification controls. Those were all negative.
MR. HARMON: When you say they were negative, there was no DNA typing produced as a result of putting them through the whole process?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. HARMON: And the substrate controls, the same question with respect to the substrate controls. Did each and every one of the substrate controls produce no typing result in this case?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And we'll actually--we'll enumerate them at a later point. You've written two reports in this case; is that correct?
MR. SIMS: Actually three. The--
MR. HARMON: Or three.
MR. SIMS: The first report was a very brief one in last August for the Griffen hearing.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And then actually two reports with substantive results in them?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And the material you're going to testify about now is a combination of the results that are reflected in both of those reports?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. How many different RFLP gels did you run within those two reports?
MR. SIMS: Three.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And do you have those numbered in some way?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I do.
MR. HARMON: And what numbers were they?
MR. SIMS: The numbers that we give them are--it's a sequential number. It starts with the letters am for analytical membrane, and in this case, the numbers are am616, am625 and am626.
MR. HARMON: And we'll put some of those autorads up in just a moment, some of those films, but what samples were on am616? I assume that's the earliest of the three?
MR. SIMS: Yes. Those would be the three reference samples and also the extract of the sock, bloodstain 42a. That's the LAPD Matheson cut out.
MR. HARMON: That's the cut out, GBM 13 or 13a?
MR. SIMS: Yes. 13a.
MR. HARMON: And so you had Nicole Brown reference sample?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: You had Ronald Goldman's reference sample?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And you had the Defendant's reference sample?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And then you had DNA that you extracted from the little tube that was cut out from the sock, 13a?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Is that correct?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And you did not do substrate controls because this is an RFLP run?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. HARMON: But were you able to successfully compare the pattern in DOJ 42 or GBM 13a, the cut out from sock 13 with any of the three known samples in this case?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I was.
MR. HARMON: How many different probative--in other words, where you were matching or trying to match samples--how many different probative autorads or probes did you use in producing these results?
MR. SIMS: 11.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, we have spent some time, considerable time going over this case, haven't we?
MR. SIMS: Yes, we have.
MR. HARMON: How long would you say?
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Relevance.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Well, I think you and I were meeting about once a week since around the start of the new year.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And we've reviewed all these autorads?
MR. SIMS: Yes, we have.
MR. HARMON: And are some clearer than others?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I would say some of them are more--are clearer than others.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And we've selected at least a few to show initially; is that correct?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And the better ones?
MR. SIMS: I think so.
MR. HARMON: And at a later point, we'll show all of them to the jury?
MR. SIMS: Sure.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Your Honor, at this time, I'd request to have marked as People's next in order--should be People's 269.
THE COURT: 269.
MR. HARMON: And if my count is correct, it's a through i.
THE COURT: All right. 269-A through I. Are these autorads?
MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Proceed.
(Peo's 269-A through I for id = autorads)
(Brief pause.)
MR. HARMON: I'm going to need to correlate numbers because we can't write on here, your Honor.
THE COURT: You need some post-it's or something similar?
MR. HARMON: There are numbers on here. If we can, I'll correlate the numbers on here with the exhibit numbers.
(Brief pause.)
MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, can you check--I want to make sure we have these grouped correctly--which autorads by the a numbers which you've labeled on relate to am616? I've got a1 through 9 and a20 and 21?
MR. SIMS: I believe it's easier for me just to look at them because I don't have that separate listing.
MR. HARMON: Sure. I'll hand you what's labeled a1 through 9.
MR. SIMS: This--this entire stack is am616.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And we've skipped a20 because that's not a probative one in this case.
MR. SIMS: I'd have to check a--
MR. HARMON: That's the--
THE COURT: Wait. Excuse me. Mr. Sims and Mr. Harmon, you both have a habit of talking at the same time. Let Mr. Harmon finish asking his question before you start to answer. And, Mr. Harmon, let him finish answering before you start asking the next question, please.
MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. HARMON: Now, does that represent the complete set of probative autorads for this case?
MR. SCHECK: Object to the term "probative."
MR. HARMON: For am616. I'm sorry.
MR. SCHECK: Why don't we just put the autorads for the sock up. Let's just do it.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. SIMS: I believe this is the entire set for 616.
MR. HARMON: And just to correlate them, your Honor, 269-A would be a1, b would be a2, c would be a3, d would be a4, e would be a5, f would be a6, g would be a7, h would be a8 and I would be a9.
MR. HARMON: Are you with me, Mr. Sims? We're going a1 through a9. Okay. Could we--Mr. Sims, I'm going--we're going to start with a couple of the ones that we selected that have--that are better clarity. If we could pick--
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, move to strike, his leading characterization.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question. The jury is to disregard the characterization.
MR. HARMON: If you would, would you put up the one that's labeled a2, 269-C or we'll give that to Jonathan to put up on the elmo, if we could, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes. Mr. Sims, you can step down.
(The witness complies.)
THE COURT: All right. This is 269-C.
(Brief pause.)
MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, would you get us oriented on what we're seeing there? Describe those things that look like hash marks if you would, and then we'll do the actual reference samples and the stain in a minute, okay?
MR. SIMS: Okay. This--this is an autoradiogram. It's an x-ray film that has the DNA patterns for this particular probing developed on it. The--what Mr. Harmon described as hash marks, we also call those ladders sometimes. You see that in those four lanes. And those are the molecular size standards. In other words, those are the knowns. Those are like the molecular ruler that you're placing on this--on this gel along with the samples so that you can make measurements of the sizes of the bands in the lanes, in the sample lanes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Could you--from now on when we're--those are very clear, but could you use the point maker when you're going to point out other things?
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's start in the left-hand lane inside that left-hand ladder if you would and just point to that and tell me--tell us what that sample is.
MR. SIMS: This particular lane, which has two bands, this is the upper band and then there's the lower band (Indicating), that is the k562 that I spoke of earlier. That's a--a standard that's used nationwide in laboratories, and we know what the particular sizes of that particular sample are so that we can use that as a quality control measure.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And the next lane to the right of that, that symbol band, what is that?
MR. SIMS: There's actually two bands here and one of them is weaker on this particular copy than it is on the original. But this is the quality control sample. You can see a band part here and then there's a weaker band down in this particular region (Indicating) that appears on this--on this autorad. That's--that's pretty subtle on this--on this overhead, but there is a band in that particular area. And that--those two--that--I'm sorry. That particular--particular lane represents the quality control sample that I mentioned earlier. In other words, I don't know what the right results are for that particular sample. It went through the entire extraction process. I run it out on this gel. I make sizings of it, and then I submit those results in a blind fashion.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And that's the QC sample that the supervisor peaks at the list to make sure you got it right?
MR. SIMS: That's correct. And I believe in this case, it was QC806, but I don't recall exactly the number.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, jump over--there's one ladder and then there are the three reference samples; is that correct?
MR. SIMS: That's correct. The three reference samples are in a row. I'll just I guess point out where the bands are. The first sample is from Nicole Brown's reference bloodstain extract. The next one is from Ronald Goldman's reference bloodstain extract and then the next one is from Mr. Simpson, the Defendant's reference bloodstain extract. So those are the--those are the three reference samples that are on this gel.
MR. HARMON: Now, is this fairly typical, when you have three unrelated people, to have three patterns so different from one another?
MR. SIMS: This is very--
MR. SCHECK: Objection.
THE COURT: Hold on. What's the objection?
MR. SCHECK: Objection in terms of relevancy and foundation as to what's fairly typical.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: It's--it is very typical because these probes have what is called a high degree of discriminating power and people tend to be different. For example, in this class that I'm taking in my Berkeley program week, I took I think--
THE COURT: All right. No. We've answered--we've answered the question.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
THE COURT: Next question.
MR. HARMON: Have you recently discussed this in your class in Berkeley?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
THE COURT: Hearsay. Sustained. Let's move on.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. HARMON: Okay. So all three of those samples visually to you are clearly different than one another?
MR. SIMS: Yes, they are.
MR. HARMON: Is that true?
MR. SIMS: Yes, they are.
MR. HARMON: And Robin Cotton described the first step in the evaluation process as a visual examination. Visually when you saw this autorad, what opinion did you reach with respect to the consistency between Nicole Brown and the sock, stain 13a?
MR. SIMS: I reached the conclusion that there was a visual match.
MR. HARMON: And let's just talk specifics about this autorad, and we can generalize with the next once. Do you also do computer sizing in your laboratory?
MR. SIMS: Yes, we do.
MR. HARMON: And based on the computer sizing in this case, did your computer and do you agree that those two samples are consistent from having come from the same source?
MR. SIMS: Yes, they are.
MR. HARMON: The two samples are Nicole Brown and the sock, 13a?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And they're inconsistent with having come from Ronald Goldman; is that true?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. HARMON: And inconsistent with having come from the Defendant?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. HARMON: Is that true?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And then on the right-hand side, there's another ladder.
MR. SIMS: That's correct. On the outer flank there.
MR. HARMON: Now, this is from am616 and I believe you said there are nine separate autorads that compare these samples; is that right?
MR. SIMS: Yes, for this particular gel.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Could we take a look at a5 now? I'm sorry. Could we--
MR. HARMON: Would you just put arrows by the sock, 13a, the two-banded pattern and the pattern of Nicole Brown.
(The witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: And--and may we capture that, your Honor, and move on?
MR. SIMS: Let me redo that. Whoops.
(The witness does so.)
MR. HARMON: Okay. You've actually identified two bands. Are those each two-banded patterns?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And which probe is that from?
MR. SIMS: I would--I would have to look at the actual autorad to know because I don't--I don't have all the patterns memorized on the k1 system.
MR. HARMON: May that be--
MR. SIMS: That looks like d2s44. But it's all labeled. I mean, as I do them, I label them as they come off because it's at the bottom of the autorad.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Can we take a look at the autorad for d5s110 which is labeled a5? Your Honor, may we mark the print of autorad a3 for d2s44 269-C1?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Peo's 269-C1 for id = print of a3)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harmon, which autorad is this?
MR. HARMON: This is the autorad labeled a5 which represents the probe d5s110.
THE COURT: And this is in your sequence 269--
MR. HARMON: This is 269-E.
THE COURT: E. Thank you.
MR. HARMON: Now, Mr. Sims, this is--Robin Cotton explained how a membrane is probed and then stripped off, another film is put on. This is another film representing the DNA for this probe that comes from the same membranes; is that true.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I don't mind getting through this, but maybe the witness could testify.
THE COURT: Yes. Leading.
MR. HARMON: Sure. Are all of the samples in the same relative positions on this autorad as they were on 269-C?
MR. SIMS: Yes, they are. They're just--this is just a--hitting it with another probe.
MR. HARMON: Hitting the same membrane with another probe?
MR. SIMS: That's correct. You strip off the old probe, then you hit it with a new probe and you develop a new film.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And so the ladders are in their relative position?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And inside the left-hand ladder, that's k562?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And to the right of that, is that the QC?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And then once again in the middle, the same three reference samples in the same relative positions?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Now, can you simply look at that visually and determine that these three unrelated people, Miss Brown, Mr. Goldman and Mr. Simpson are dramatically different than one another at this probe?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I think they are. I think it's clear.
MR. HARMON: And visually, were you able to determine whether or not Miss Brown could be the source of the stain on the sock at 13a?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I declared that a visual match.
MR. HARMON: And that Mr. Goldman was not the source of that blood?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I concluded that.
MR. HARMON: And Mr. Simpson was not the source of that blood?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Could you mark arrows on the Nicole Brown pattern that you've determined is consistent with the sock stain, 13a, and also the sock stain?
(The witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: And did you follow up your visual examination with a computer sizing of those stains?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. HARMON: And did the computer sizing determine that those two samples appeared to match one other another?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it did.
MR. HARMON: May we capture that at--
THE COURT: E1.
MR. HARMON: E1, your Honor?
THE COURT: 269-E1.
MR. HARMON: 269-E1?
(Peo's 269-E1 for id = print)
MR. HARMON: Okay. Next, may we look at the probe labeled a6 which is for the probe d6s132?
MR. HARMON: Now, each of these probes is a different marker; is that right?
MR. SIMS: That's correct. We're looking at a different area of the DNA.
MR. HARMON: And 269-F, the autorad labeled a6, that's another film from the same membrane as the previous two films were from; is that right?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And the ladders are in the same position?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: The k562 is in that first lane inside there?
MR. SIMS: Yes. It would actually be lane no. 2.
MR. HARMON: Sure. And the QC is to the right of that?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And there's another ladder?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And then once again, the three reference samples in this case are in the same relative positions?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And visually, can you distinguish Nicole Brown from Ronald Goldman from the Defendant in this case?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And were you able to make a visual determination whether Nicole Brown could be the source of the stain on the sock, 13a?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did make that determination.
MR. HARMON: And were you able to exclude Ronald Goldman as the source of that stain?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And were you able to exclude the Defendant as a source of that stain?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Could you put arrows on the Nicole Brown pattern that you feel matches the sock--the stain on the sock?
(The witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: May we capture that, your Honor, and may that be 269-F1?
THE COURT: F1.
(Peo's 269-F1 for id = print)
MR. HARMON: Now, Mr. Sims, for purposes of illustrating this to the jury, those labels up on the top, those are not actually labels that you produce as part of the laboratory testing; is that true?
MR. SIMS: That's correct. Those are for court display.
MR. HARMON: Excuse me?
MR. SIMS: Those are for court display at the top.
MR. HARMON: And is that just another transparency that's put over them?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Do you actually make records of what samples is in which lane?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And is that labeling, is that actually a piece of transparency that's put over the autorad?
MR. SIMS: The labeling at the top?
MR. HARMON: Yes.
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: A full sheet of it?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And I believe you've already mentioned there are six other different RFLP probes or genetic markers for this membrane; is that correct?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And we will show them on the light box so the jury can see them with the Court's permission probably tomorrow. But to summarize your conclusions or your findings with respect to those other six RFLP probes or genetic markers--
MR. SCHECK: Could the witness--and could he ask him a question instead of--
THE COURT: Actually, are you done with him down here?
MR. HARMON: I'm just going to finish this and start with the next series, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. HARMON: Did you--
THE COURT: But--
MR. HARMON: I'll withdraw my question, your Honor.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. HARMON: Did you reach a similar conclusion with the next six RFLP probes or genetic markers similar to the one that you reached with the three that you've demonstrated so far?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And the conclusion was what with respect to those two stains?
MR. SIMS: That Nicole Brown could be the source of that sock on 13a.
MR. HARMON: The stain on the sock, 13a?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And I believe you mentioned that there--the next membrane is labeled am625.
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Is that correct?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And how many autorads are represented or how many autorads did you produce with respect to that membrane?
MR. SIMS: I'd have to check my notes on that.
MR. HARMON: Would you do that? Let me move on.
(The witness complies.)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. SIMS: There were eight probes on am625.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And would you please list those probes for us or let me ask you a foundational question. We're using the term "probes" and we keep using these letters "d." can you explain what the "d" and the numbers and letters following that mean?
MR. SIMS: Yes. Actually--actually when we're using these terms "d," that describes what is called a locus, and that is the location of where this particular segment is found on the various chromosomes. The probes have names like YNH24, MS1, that sort of thing that usually describe who found them and what order they found them. It's a more personalized thing. The formal locus is the "d." that stands for DNA. We talked about d2s44. "2" means it's on chromosome no. 2. "s" means it's a single locus probe. So in other words, there's only one point in all the geno where this would light up, where the bands would show that variation. And then finally, the "44" is just a number on which it's registered. It's a sequential type of number for the mapping of chromosomes.
MR. HARMON: You mentioned these things are discovered. Are the discovery description of these things published in the scientific literature?
MR. SIMS: Yes. This is a process that goes on before the forensic people even get to them.
MR. HARMON: And how and why does a lab such as yours select the different probes to use in casework?
MR. SIMS: The basis for the selection is that we want--we want probes that are of good strength, good quality, good purity. But most important, we want them that are--that show this tremendous amount of variation. In other words, we're looking at probes that have high degrees of discrimination. And that is that they are capable of distinguishing two individuals. And in fact, most of these probes have the capability of excluding about, oh, 95 percent of two indivi--95 percent of the time, two individuals would be shown to be different by these probes.
MR. SCHECK: Objection. No foundation for this witness.
THE COURT: Sustained. Answer is stricken. Jury is to disregard it. No foundation for that.
MR. HARMON: Is this something that you keep abreast of in the scientific literature, reading about the probes that you use in your casework?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: For example, are you familiar with the specifics or the qualities or characteristics of the probes that you've described so far?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And if you could generalize, what are the characteristics in terms of differences between and among people?
MR. SCHECK: Again, your Honor, I think this is foundational in the area of population genetics, beyond this witness' expertise.
THE COURT: Sustained. You need some additional foundation.
MR. HARMON: How many articles do you think you've read that describe the different characteristics of the probes that are used in these case--in this case?
MR. SIMS: Several. I don't know the exact number.
MR. HARMON: And from reviewing the scientific literature, are you familiar with the characteristics of the different probes that are used in forensic work?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: As of--without being specific to the probes that you use in the case, what characteristics are desirable for use in forensics?
MR. SIMS: The desirable characteristic is one that shows--is capable of distinguishing among individuals. In other words, these--a good probe would be a probe that can show a great deal of variation, large differences in band patterns across the population. So that means that two people randomly selected would tend to be distinguished by this particular test.
MR. SCHECK: Objection as to--now he's testifying.
THE COURT: Excuse me. Objection, foundation.
MR. SCHECK: My apologies. Foundation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. HARMON: And based on your review of the literature, your familiarity with the probes that are used in these cases, is it also desirable that most of these probes produce two banding patterns?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it is. That is--that's called the degree of heterozygosity, how often you see two bands.
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, at this point, I would like to have marked as--
MR. HARMON: Well, I guess we never got to you listing the probes that are on membrane am625.
MR. SIMS: On the--yes.
MR. HARMON: Would you do that by a number as well as d number?
MR. SIMS: Again--again, I would have to look at the a number because those relate to discovery numbers.
(Brief pause.)
MR. HARMON: Are you ready?
MR. SIMS: Can I come down?
MR. HARMON: Sure.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and the witness.)
MR. HARMON: On am625.
MR. SIMS: On am625, the loci that were examined were d1s7, d2s44, d4s139, d10s28, d17s79, D7S467, d5s110 and d17s26.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And was each of these probes selected because--
THE COURT: All right. Does Mr. Sims need to do be there because his voice--
MR. HARMON: No. I'm sorry.
THE COURT: --doesn't carry well with his back turned.
MR. HARMON: Go ahead.
(The witness retakes the witness stand.)
MR. HARMON: Were these probes selected because they identify a spot on the chromosomes where people differ from one another?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: The way you've described the literature recommends?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Objection. Move to strike that.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. HARMON: May the next group of probes or autorads, specifically a10, a12 and A13 be marked as 270-A, b and c?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Peo's 270-A, b and c for id = probes)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. HARMON: Okay. Are we ready with a10, which would be?
THE COURT: 270.
MR. HARMON: 270-A. Thank you, your Honor.
MR. HARMON: Now, what samples were on this gel that produced this autorad?
MR. SIMS: This particular autorad or this particular gel, am625, again has the three reference samples on it of brown, Goldman and Simpson. Then it has--it's a repeat analysis or not a repeat, but an additional analysis of the same sock bloodstain, 13a,. And then finally it's got a sample on there from the glove that we talked about earlier, and that particu--in particular, that was stain g3, and that was from the inside surface, back of the ring finger.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And we'll show a board probably tomorrow that shows the exact locations of that, but where was that stain, g3?
MR. SIMS: It was on the inside surface of the glove on the back of the ring finger.
MR. HARMON: When you say "inside surface," you mean the inside, inside out?
MR. SIMS: That lining, yes.
MR. HARMON: The lining. And so could you hold up your hand and show the jury as if you were pointing at it from the outside?
(The witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: Okay. You've got your right hand up, your ring finger between the first and second knuckle?
MR. SIMS: Yes. Somewhere up in that area.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, let's go left to right again, and describe what's in the respective lanes, if you would. On the left-hand side is what?
MR. SIMS: On the very far left, we start with one of these size markers again. That's the ladder. Then lane no. 2 is a k562 sample. Then lane number 3 is another quality control sample, another QC sample. Then we get into another--in lane 4, we see another one of the ladder--
MR. HARMON: Could you come back over here, Mr. Sims?
MR. SIMS: Sure.
(The witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: Okay. Just--if you could just point to the ladder first on the left-hand side.
(The witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: Okay. That left ladder, then the two-banded pattern?
MR. SIMS: This pattern right here, this lane no. 2 is from the k562. Then in this lane, we see another quality control sample (Indicating).
MR. HARMON: Okay.
MR. SIMS: Then another one of these size marker ladders (Indicating).
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, in the middle again, you have the three reference samples; is that right?
MR. SIMS: Yes. We have brown, Goldman and Simpson in those three lanes.
MR. HARMON: These are the same reference samples that were on the first gel for am616; is that right?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And once again, visually, can you distinguish Miss Brown from Mr. Goldman from the Defendant?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I can, from this autorad.
MR. HARMON: You don't need the computer to do that?
MR. SIMS: No.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, to the right of the three reference stains or the reference sources in this case is what?
MR. SIMS: Well, there's one more size marker lane.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
MR. SIMS: And then the next lane is the sock stain again, the same stain that was on am616, the same extract in fact.
MR. HARMON: Okay. The same extract. That's from the same cutting that Greg Matheson sent you?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And it's part of the same extracted DNA?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SIMS: And is this an example of what one could do if one retested extracted DNA?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: That's what you did?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And let's focus on that. And if you would, I'm going to ask you to change colors when we get to the next stain. But visually, did you compare Nicole Brown with the stain on the sock, 13a?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I did a comparison, a visual comparison of that sample there in lane 13a with Nicole Brown.
MR. HARMON: And did you determine that the bands matched?
MR. SIMS: Yes. They visually matched.
MR. HARMON: And once again, Mr. Goldman was not the source of that stain?
MR. SIMS: Yes. That's true.
MR. HARMON: And the Defendant was not the source of that stain?
MR. SIMS: Yes. That's true.
MR. HARMON: Could you put arrows that show the comparison between Nicole Brown and the stain on the sock?
(The witness complies.)
THE COURT: Mr. Harmon, do you want to consider maybe putting the arrows the other direction and on the other side of the lane?
MR. HARMON: Or how are we going to fit all this in, Mr. Sims?
MR. SIMS: I think--
THE COURT: Actually, turn the arrows the other way and put them on the other side of the lane.
MR. HARMON: On the Nicole Brown lane?
MR. HARMON: Yeah. Could you try that.
(The witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: Okay. And did you follow up your visual examination with the computer sizing of those stains, of the stain and the reference sample?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Did you determine that those two samples appeared to match?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, you have this stain on the ring finger from what you've identified as glove g3. Visually, were you able to determine that those--that that stain appeared to match one of the reference samples?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it does.
MR. HARMON: And which one is that?
MR. SIMS: That would be the sample from Goldman.
MR. HARMON: From Ronald Goldman?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And did you follow that up with a computer sizing?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. HARMON: And did that confirm that those two samples appeared to match?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it did.
MR. HARMON: Could you change colors and put arrows to show the corresponding bands between Ronald Goldman and the glove, g3?
MR. SIMS: Do you want the arrows to go the opposite?
MR. HARMON: Whichever fits.
(The witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: You've put some pink arrows. And those--and those reflect the correspondence between Ronald Goldman's pattern for that marker and the pattern from the glove stain; is that correct?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: I'm sorry. And that's the glove no. 9. That's the only glove you got?
MR. SIMS: Yes. That right-hand glove is no. 9.
MR. HARMON: You never got the glove from Bundy, no. 37?
MR. SIMS: That's correct. We never received that other glove.
MR. HARMON: Can we capture that, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes. And, gentlemen, you're both talking over the ends of each other again. All right.
MR. HARMON: And could we put on the projector the autorad a12 for the probe d4s139?
THE COURT: Yes. That will be 270-B.
MR. HARMON: 270-B, your Honor.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Everything is in the same relative position, Mr. Sims?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And once again, you have the k562 sample?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Inside the left ladder?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: To the right of that is what?
MR. SIMS: And to the right of that then would be the quality control sample.
MR. HARMON: And to the right of that is what?
MR. SIMS: A size marker.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And then again, the three reference samples?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: In the same relative positions?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And visually, can you distinguish Nicole Brown from Ronald Goldman from the Defendant in this case based on these results from d4s139?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: You don't need the computer to do that?
MR. SIMS: No. The eyeball is sufficient.
MR. HARMON: And once again, to the right of the three reference stains is what?
MR. SIMS: That again is the sock extract stain.
MR. HARMON: Well, first, there's a ladder and then the sock?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I'm sorry. The ladder and then the sock.
MR. HARMON: And that's the same stain--that's from the same stain that Greg Matheson cut out and sent you?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And were you able to visually determine whether or not that stain matched any of the three reference samples?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And what did you determine visually?
MR. SIMS: I determined visually that it matched the sample from Nicole Brown.
MR. HARMON: Could you put arrows that depict that, please?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
(The witness complies.)
THE COURT: I would suggest we reposition those last two since it appears the arrows are obscuring the actual bands.
(The witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now--and did you follow up the visual comparison with a computer sizing?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Did that again determine that Miss Brown's reference blood seem to match the stain from the sock, 13a?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And again, did you compare the stain from the glove no. 9 from Rockingham, the stain designated by you g3 with the reference samples?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. HARMON: And were you able to compare--determine visually whether any of the three reference samples could be the source of the stain in glove g3?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Glove no. 9?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I--
MR. HARMON: With the sample?
MR. SIMS: That glove sample matched the pattern for Ronald Goldman.
MR. HARMON: Could you put arrows to that effect?
MR. SIMS: Can I come at it at an angle?
MR. HARMON: Sure. We can try top to bottom.
(The witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, you've got some pink arrows on a diagonal?
MR. SIMS: Yes. Those are for the Goldman sample.
MR. HARMON: And did you follow up that visual comparison with a computer sizing?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. HARMON: And once again, did you determine that Ronald Goldman's reference sample appeared to match the stain from glove no. 9 labeled g3?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Can we capture that?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. HARMON: May that be 270-B1, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Peo's 270-B1 for id = print)
MR. HARMON: And may we have A13, the autorad A13, which is for the probe D7S467? It's been labeled 270-C? Okay. Now, these lanes are all in the same relative positions, the samples are?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Why don't you go through them from left to right.
MR. SIMS: Again, lane no. 1 is the size marker lane. Lane no. 2 is the k562 standard. Lane no. 3 is the quality control sample. Lane number 4 is the size marker lane. Then the next lane is the brown sample, the next one is the Goldman reference sample, the next one is the Simpson reference sample. Then the next one is another size marker. Then we have the sock, 13a stain again, the same stain we've been talking about, then the size marker, then the glove, g3, and then the--finally another size marker.
MR. HARMON: And let's go back to the three reference samples. Again, is it easy for you to distinguish visually from among the three reference samples that those are from three different people?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: You don't need a computer to do that?
MR. SIMS: No.
MR. HARMON: And to move over to the stain from the sock, 13a, visually, were you able to determine whether one of the reference samples matched or appeared to match the stain?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Which one?
MR. SIMS: That would be the reference sample from Nicole Brown.
MR. HARMON: And could you put arrows on the bands from the stain sock or sock stain 13a and Nicole Brown's pattern?
(The witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: Okay. And similarly, did you compare the stain from glove no. 9 from Rockingham that you designated g3, with the three reference samples?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. HARMON: And visually, did you determine that one of those reference samples matched the stain from the glove?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. HARMON: Which one?
MR. SIMS: That would be the sample from Ronald Goldman.
MR. HARMON: Did you follow that up with a computer sizing?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. HARMON: Did that continue to demonstrate that those two samples appeared to match?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it did.
MR. HARMON: Could you put arrows on that, please?
(The witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: May we capture that, your Honor, and mark that 270-C1?
THE COURT: C1. Yes
(Peo's 270-C1 for id = print)
MR. HARMON: Okay. Don't sit down yet, Mr. Sims. I just have a general question. You have this--the sock stain on both of these autorads; is that correct?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: So you ran part of the same DNA on two separate RFLP runs?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Now, initially, you mentioned that there is a match between Nicole Brown and the sock stain, 13a, with 11 probes. Is that what you said?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, how--the first series just showed nine probes. Can you explain if there were nine on the first series, am616, and then I believe eight in the second series, where the additional two probes came from?
MR. SIMS: Well, there is--there is some overlap of some of the probes, and then there are two additional probes on 625.
MR. HARMON: Okay. So you have 9 on the first membrane?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: 616 and some overlap and two additional ones on the second run?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And the third membrane, I believe you described it as am626?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: What samples were placed on that membrane to run or on that gel rather?
MR. SIMS: Yes. Those--those samples included three additional stains from the glove as well as the reference samples from Nicole Brown and also Ronald Goldman.
MR. HARMON: Could you designate or give us the number that you assigned to those stains? And if you would, just turn to the jury and show us where on your hand the respective stains came from.
MR. SIMS: Yes. I can do--
MR. HARMON: Just point that out.
MR. SIMS: These stains are designated g1, g2 and g4 (Indicating). Keep in mind, g3 was the one we just saw. So this is g1, g2 and g4 now. This is all on the glove. G1 is the inside surface of the glove. Again, we're working with the glove turned inside out. The back of the index finger--I'm sorry. Back of the index finger, that's g1. G2 is the side of the middle finger and then g4 is on the back of the hand. It's in this general area on the back of the hand.
MR. HARMON: On the inside or outside?
MR. SIMS: That's again on the inside surface.
MR. HARMON: So when we say "inside," you mean the lining?
MR. SIMS: The lining.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And in the positions you've pointed out?
MR. SIMS: Yes. And again, we'll--I believe there's a poster that will actually show these a little more clearly on the glove itself.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And, Mr. Sims, if you would, when you answer my questions, try not to look at me and address them to the jury.
MR. HARMON: At this point, I'd like to have marked as--
THE COURT: 271.
MR. HARMON: 271. Right now, simply three autorads from am626. They're labeled a16, a17 and a25.
(Peo's 271-A, b and c for id = three autorads)
MR. HARMON: And a16 represents the probe d1s7, a17 represents the probe d2s44 and a25 represents the probe d5s110. Can we have a16 up, please?
MR. HARMON: And if you could, if you could get us oriented. If you start from the left and use the point maker, Mr. Sims.
MR. SIMS: Yes. This--this particular gel, am626, represents these additional glove stains compared to brown and Goldman's references. The other point I wanted to make about this particular gel is, we're using less DNA than on the earlier--than on the earlier gel. So this is now about a hundred nanograms, something in that neighborhood, that was applied for these samples.
MR. HARMON: Is that why the bands in the right-hand columns that appear to be the evidence stains appear to be fainter?
MR. SIMS: That's--that's one particular reason, yes. The other--the other point is that these involve actual mixture samples. And as I go through these, perhaps we can talk about the different mixtures that we see.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Starting on the left-hand side, we have the ladder?
MR. SIMS: Yes. Starting on the left-hand side, lane no. 1 again is the ladder. Lane no. 2 is the k562, lane no. 3 is the quality control sample, lane no. 4 is the ladder again, the size standard. Then we have the Nicole Brown reference sample, then the Ronald Goldman reference sample, then another size ladder, and now we have the three stains from the glove, g1, then g2, then g4 and then finally another size marker.
MR. HARMON: Now, why didn't you have the Defendant's reference sample on this gel?
MR. SIMS: Because he had already been excluded using the PCR tests.
MR. HARMON: And we'll talk about that in a while. But any tests that exclude somebody at one marker absent some other explanation is excluded for other markers?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Now, looking at the two reference samples between Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, can you easily distinguish between the two people?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: You don't need a computer to do that?
MR. SIMS: No.
MR. HARMON: Now, moving over to the glove, no. 9, the Rockingham stain labeled by you g1.
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: How many bands are in that pattern?
MR. SIMS: There are four bands in that g1 pattern.
MR. HARMON: Could you identify those bands or just point to them? We're going to label them in a minute. So let's not label them. If you just point out from top to bottom.
MR. SIMS: One. One, two, three, four (Indicating).
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, Dr. Cotton mentioned that we inherit one of these bands from our mother and one of our bands from our father; is that correct?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: What's the significance of seeing more than two bands in a pattern like this?
MR. SIMS: Well, if you see four bands, that indicates that it's from more than one individual. It's a mixture of samples.
MR. HARMON: It indicates that it's a mixture?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Because there are more than two bands?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And if you would, were you able to compare Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown with the four-banded mixture stain, and it's labeled g1 from the glove, no. 9?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And what were the results of your comparison?
MR. SIMS: The visual comparison was that--that those two combined could produce the band pattern seen in g1. In other words, g1 could be a mixture of those two individuals' samples.
MR. HARMON: If you would--hopefully it will fit--could you identify the pairs of bands that match up between--let's start with Nicole Brown--between g1 and Nicole Brown.
(The witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: Okay. And what can you say about the remaining two bands in that four-banded pattern when you compare them with Ronald Goldman?
MR. SIMS: Those remaining two bands are consistent with Goldman's pattern.
MR. HARMON: Are you going to be able to fit that in? Let's change colors if you would.
MR. SIMS: I--excuse me. I might want to come at it from an angle.
MR. HARMON: From the bottom?
MR. SIMS: Maybe from the diagonal.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
(The witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: Now, is there anything about the nature of that four-banded pattern in the lane g1 or in the stain g1 that alone that helps you sort out whether or not those two reference samples in fact match or came from that--or the stain came from a mixture of those two, the two reference samples?
MR. SIMS: No. In that--in that lane by itself, it would be very difficult to determine what went with what.
MR. HARMON: Why is that?
MR. SIMS: Because they're relatively equal in intensity.
MR. HARMON: And if the intensities were different, what would that help you do?
MR. SIMS: If the intensities were different, you could begin to see--you might see that one pattern tended to go with one individual whereas the other two bands tended to go with the other--the second individual.
MR. HARMON: But as it stands now, because there are no intensity differences between or among any of the four bands in g1, you're unable to say anything simply on that alone--that basis?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I think if you look at that g1 lane by itself, it would be very difficult to say too much.
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, do you want me to keep going?
THE COURT: No. This would a good point. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the afternoon. Please remember all of my admonitions to you; do not discuss this case amongst yourselves, do not form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. And we'll stand in recess as far as the jury is concerned until tomorrow morning at 9:00 o'clock. Thank you.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Back on the record. Mr. Scheck, you had a comment?
MR. SCHECK: Yes. Actually, just a request for scheduling verification. That is, we now understand because of the issue of population frequencies, Dr. Weir is going to be testifying. And since we don't live here, we have to make scheduling plans. And DNA is pretty dense. We want to know if the--what the witness schedule is. I believe it's Mr. Sims, they indicated perhaps Miss Montgomery, then Mr. Yamauchi, now I take it Dr. Weir. Are there any other witnesses so we can make our travel plans accordingly? And is that the order?
MR. HARMON: I'm not clear when Dr. Weir will testify, so I'm not sure. I guess how long they'll cross-examine--
THE COURT: No. Not when. What's the order?
MR. HARMON: Well, Sims, Montgomery, Yamauchi.
MR. SCHECK: And then Dr. Weir.
MR. HARMON: That's still up in the air. I mean I travel too. So I understand that. Not quite as far as these gentlemen do, but I travel too and--
THE COURT: It's interesting trying a case with all out-of-town lawyers.
MR. HARMON: I feel like an Angelino now.
MR. COCHRAN: No, no, no, no, no.
MR. SCHECK: He was the one that elicited all that stuff about northern and southern California.
MR. HARMON: It is not clear and that's all the part of the case that Mr. Clarke--
THE COURT: But your plan now is for to continue with Mr. Sims, then Renee Montgomery, then Mr. Yamauchi and then perhaps Dr. Cotton again or Dr. Weir?
MR. HARMON: Or perhaps not.
THE COURT: Or perhaps not.
MR. SCHECK: Well, wait a second.
MR. HARMON: If I knew, I would tell you.
THE COURT: All right. Well, they've indicated that--they know they have to bring in somebody for these numbers and for the population genetics.
MR. SCHECK: We have--Mr. Harmon indicated to me that he's not going to put in any numbers now for these mixtures that he's going to elicit through Mr. Sims. And we have an objection to that in terms of eliciting the match testimony with respect to these mixtures without stating frequency through this witness at this time.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harmon, any response to that?
MR. HARMON: I mean we're in the same complex dilemma that was created by their objection that we do this. We'll do this. But, you know, it's not unlike--if you look at it, Robin Cotton was going to testify to all the PCR multiplication and they didn't want that because there was no evidence of it yet. And we don't have the evidence of the frequency mixtures because it's a very complex approach and the first few tries haven't met with satisfaction. So we want to do this right.
MR. SCHECK: We have what they handed us this morning with respect to the aggregate on DQ-Alpha and poly-marker frequencies that Dr. Cotton produced, was fine with us. And it seems to--
THE COURT: But I accept that the RFLP calculation is a little more complicated.
MR. SCHECK: Well, frankly it's just a question of the band frequencies. I think what the Court's going to see is that if it's just an aggregation of frequencies, it's very easy. If one comes up with likelihood ratios and tries to jack up the numbers with a different kind of method, it can become more complicated and that's really what's going on here. And I think that clear enough, but I wanted to put that on the record so it's clear and, you know, I guess we'll deal with it tomorrow as it arises.
THE COURT: But your question was regarding scheduling, and I think we have at least an idea as to what we will be doing for the next couple of weeks.
MR. SCHECK: Well, let's hope it's not that long.
THE COURT: All right. Any other scheduling things we need to take up? All right. We'll be in recess.
(At 4:10 P.M., an adjournment was taken until, Wednesday, May 17, 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 Tuesday, May 16, 1995
Volume 147 Pages 27613 through 27874, 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 147 pages 27613 - 27874
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day date session page vol.
Tuesday May 16, 1995 A.M. 27613 147 P.M. 27479 147
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
PEOPLE'S Witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
Sims, Gary 27627rh 147 (Resumed) 27748rh
-----------------------------------------------------
ALPHABETICAL INDEX of witnesses
Witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
Sims, Gary 27627rh 147 (Resumed) 27748rh
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBITS
PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
265 - 18-Page report 27668 147 Chain of custody records
265-A - 1-Page document 27690 147 From chain of custody records
266 - photograph of 27748 147 Fibrils from socks
267 - infrared videotape 27753 147
268-A - photograph of 27771 147 Glove (Top - inside out)
268-B - photograph of 27771 147 Glove (Bottom - inside out)
268-C - photograph of 27771 147 Glove (Top - right side out)
268-D - photograph of 27771 147 Glove (Bottom - right side out)
269-A - autorad - a1 27826 147
269-B - autorad - a2 27826 147
269-C - autorad - a3 27826 147
269-D - autorad - a4 27826 147
269-E - autorad - a5 27826 147
269-F - autorad - a6 27826 147
269-G - autorad - a7 27826 147
269-H - autorad - a8 27826 147
269-I - autorad - a9 27826 147
269-C(1) - autorad - a3 27836 147 with 3 arrows
269-E(1) - autorad - a5 27838 147 with 5 arrows
269-F(1) - autorad - a6 27840 147 with 5 arrows
270-A - autorad - a10 27849 147
270-B - autorad - a12 27849 147
270-C - autorad - A13 27849 147
270-A(1) - autorad - a10 147 (Not marked on with 9 arrows the record)
270-B(1) - autorad - a12 27860 147 with 8 arrows
270-C(1) - autorad - A13 27862 147 with 8 arrows
271-A - autorad - a16 27865 147
271-B - autorad - a17 27865 147
271-C - autorad - a25 27865 147