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