Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Good morning, counsel. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Blasier, Mr. Neufeld, Mr. Scheck. The People are represented by Mr. Darden and Mr. Harmon. The jury is not present. Counsel, is there anything we need to take up before we invite the jurors in?

MR. SCHECK: I just want to ask, I spoke to Mr. Harmon about indicating to us when he was going to introduce frequencies so that instead of objecting in front of the jury, or just working out the groundrules as to what this witness can and cannot testify to. Particularly since Dr. Weir is coming, what databases he is going to be using or not using, I want to work it out at the side bar.

THE COURT: All right. But I take it we are going to go through more autorads this morning?

MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor. At best we will get to the statistics before lunch, so at best--

THE COURT: At best. I think at best as well.

MR. HARMON: I do, too.

MR. SCHECK: One last thing, and that is in a friendly way I would request that Mr. Harmon not bring up teaching with this witness and his personal--there were some references--I didn't object to it at the time--but I thought that those were inappropriate.

THE COURT: Not particularly relevant at this point.

MR. SCHECK: I think it is vouching and it should be--

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harmon, I'm going to direct you to let me know when you move into the statistics part, the analysis part of the evidence.

MR. HARMON: Presenting statistics?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor. Your Honor, I have--I am a little confused on where we are with 47 and 50 right now because there is some more foundation I can lay with Mr. Sims and I don't want to violate--it is kind of fuzzy where we are with it and I would like you to remind me where we went yesterday so--

THE COURT: What do you have left to do? I thought we were doing probes.

MR. HARMON: Well, we were, but because I thought it was clear where we were before yesterday, I--Mr. Sims hasn't carefully described what was on the bindles when he received them, and I intend to--to have him do that as a matter of the chain of custody of these items.

THE COURT: What was on it when he received it?

MR. HARMON: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HARMON: I mean, you know, then--anybody can subtract what is on there now, so--

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HARMON: And I want him--I will be very careful with this, but as a matter of the chain of custody, I intend to, with the Court's permission, to elicit what was on--what was on those bindles when he received them and then I intend to show him the board, 47, 50, and ask him, not what Mr. Scheck doesn't want me to ask him, but are those the bindles that he received and leave it at that.

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: If he directs him to say which initials were on it when he received it and puts them away and doesn't do any French pastry or any schtick, you know, that is what your ruling was.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Let's proceed.

MR. HARMON: So I can show him the board?

THE COURT: You can show him the board.

MR. HARMON: Limit it to that?

THE COURT: Correct.

THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jurors.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

THE COURT: And let me see Mr. Darden and Mr. Cochran without the court reporter, please.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: Mr. Sims, would you please resume the witness stand.

Gary Sims, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: All right. Good morning, Mr. Sims.

MR. SIMS: Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Sims, you are reminded that you are still under oath. And Mr. Harmon, you may continue with your direct examination.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. HARMON

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, I want to back up to a couple of items, before we resume, where we ended yesterday. I believe in describing your evidence processing and how you open things, did you carefully note any names, initials, any descriptive terms that were on specific items when you received them and opened them for the first time?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I did. I photographed those and I also wrote down what the information on the envelopes and bindles was.

MR. HARMON: So you have photos of the items which show all the descriptive names and dates and initials?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And you also noted them in your lengthy notes?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.

MR. HARMON: If you would, I would like you to refer to your notes, if you need to, to remember the exact descriptions concerning item 47, which was one of the drops from the Bundy walkway.

MR. SIMS: Yes. That was one of the early items that we looked at, yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And when you first opened and examined and noted the descriptions that were on both the coin envelopes and the bindles, what was on them?

MR. SIMS: On item no. 47, that was a sealed envelope. The seal had the name "c. Yamauchi, G8880 8/11/94," and then on the front of the envelope was "94-0817"--I'm sorry, "94-0817431," the initials "C.Y." and then "G8880."

MR. HARMON: Anything else?

MR. SIMS: There was also then--for that particular item there was--it was circled with a "b" and then "item no. 47".

MR. HARMON: Anything else written on either the coin envelope or the bindle?

MR. SIMS: No. I believe that is all--on the coin envelope that would be it. Now, when you actually get to the bindle--

MR. HARMON: Right. Would you--

MR. SIMS: --which is inside the sealed envelope--

MR. HARMON: Sure. Would you describe what writing you saw on the bindle.

MR. SIMS: Yes. This is now on the bindle which is inside the coin envelope for item no. 47. It said, "to DOJ, 8/11/94 C.Y. G8880" and on the back of the bindle it said the sign for number, the symbol for number "112," which is 112 and it looked like the initials "D.F." and then "C.Y. G8880."

MR. HARMON: Is that it?

MR. SIMS: That's it, and then I put my own initials, case number and date on the bindle.

MR. HARMON: What did you put on them?

MR. SIMS: I put on--the bindles and the coin envelopes would have my case number, which is DNA-0040-94, the date that I received it or the date that I actually examined it in the case of the bindle, and then also my initials "G.A.S."

MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't we shift to item 50, one of the other Bundy walk drops and the same questions. What writing did you see on the coin envelope and the bindle?

MR. SIMS: Yes. Again there was a sealed envelope. On the seal it said "c. Yamauchi, G8880, SID, 8/11/94." on the front envelope "94-0817431 C.Y. G8880," and then for this--now, this is item no. 50, it said--there was an "e" with a circle around it, "item no. 50."

MR. HARMON: Okay. And you also took a picture of that item?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.

MR. HARMON: And you wrote--did you write the same things on item 50 that you wrote on 47?

MR. SIMS: Yes. I would write our case number, our initials and our date. The only difference would be that I also put our DNA item numbers that are different for those two items on those.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Those--the correlation between the LAPD item numbers and your DNA lab numbers are reflected in your chain of custody records?

MR. SIMS: Yes. Yes, they are.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, we are going to put People's exhibit no. 210 up on the easel there. I would like you to look at photographs that purport to reflect items 47 and 50. And the only question I want to ask you, and I would like you to consider when you look at it, is are the items in the photographs that purport to be 47 and 50 the same items which you received in the DOJ lab and processed in the way that you've described? Okay?

MR. SIMS: I understand.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SIMS: I recognize the items by the writing that I placed on.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, when you say the items, you are referring to there are two photos in the column labeled "item 47.". Do you recognize--what do you recognize in the two photos that--one over the other, in "item 47" column on People's 210 for identification?

MR. SIMS: I recognize that--I recognize the initial writing that I mentioned earlier. For example, the "94-0817431" and "item no. 47" with the "d" circled around it. I recognize my case number "DNA-0040-94."

THE COURT: Mr. Sims, you are going to have to turn a little more toward the jury. They are having a hard time hearing you.

MR. SIMS: I recognize my case number DNA-0040-94. I recognize the date and my initials and then our DNA item number in this case, it was DNA 5 and I also recognize the "C.Y. G8880," et cetera.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't we shift to item--strike that. When you seal these packages, do you use a specific color tape?

MR. SIMS: Yes. We use--for the outside of the items we use a whitish tape that has red lettering.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's shift to item 50, if you would.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Do you recognize the items that are in the two photographs under item 50 on People's 210 for identification?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I do. I recognize the writing that I mentioned earlier, such as 94-08-17431, the no. 50 with the "e" circled, my case number, my date and my initials and the item number, and then I also see some of that information again on the bindles. You can see it in one of the photos.

MR. HARMON: And do you see item 50 with the same white tape with red lettering?

MR. SIMS: Yes. The coin envelope I did seal with that. The bindles I would just use scotch tape because it is much easier to work with.

MR. HARMON: You pointed to the top of the photograph in item 50. There is white tape with red lettering. Is that the tape you sealed it with?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it is.

MR. HARMON: Okay. You can resume your seat.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, at this point I want to mark some more autorads that relate to some of the exhibits that we showed yesterday. With respect to yesterday, we marked as People's exhibit 270-A through C the three autorads from analytical membrane 625. Today I would like to mark additional autorads for that same membrane AM625 and I will--and if--to make sense, I would like to start with 270-D and I will describe the a number for the record so we can keep track of these.

THE COURT: All right. That is appropriate.

MR. HARMON: There are five additional autorads for AM625. I would like to have marked as 270-D the autorad labeled A11. As 270-E, the autorad labeled A24. As 270-F, the autorad labeled A15. And as 270-G, the autorad labeled A22. As 270-H, the autorad labeled A24.

THE COURT: All right.

(Peo's 270-D for id = autorad)

(Peo's 270-E for id = autorad)

(Peo's 270-F for id = autorad)

(Peo's 270-G for id = autorad)

(Peo's 270-H for id = autorad)

MR. HARMON: And then additionally, with respect to the membrane that we were discussing when we broke yesterday, that series was marked 271-A through C, the first ones that we were in the process of showing, today I would like to add as 271-D the autorad labeled A19--A18, I'm sorry, and as 271-E, the autorad labeled A19.

THE COURT: All right.

(Peo's 271-D for id = autorad)

(Peo's 271-E for id = autorad)

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: And that was for membrane 626?

MR. HARMON: 626.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could we get--we didn't capture the photograph of A16 when we broke yesterday, which is 271-A, so could we get that back up on the board.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, I'm going to ask you to recreate--

MR. SCHECK: To save time, I would stipulate to them putting the arrows in as we did yesterday.

MR. HARMON: Could we do that on the break, set it up on the break and capture that on the break?

THE COURT: Yes, please.

MR. HARMON: So we will come back to A16 during the break. Could I have 271-B, which is A17.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, why don't you come back up here and if you would address your answers to the jury.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, yesterday you had described A16, which is the autorad for the probe D1S7, and today we have A17 which is the autorad for D2S44 for the membrane AM626 and could you just describe again the samples that are up there and we will go through them and I will have you mark them as best you can.

MR. SIMS: Okay. Just to reorient you again, in lane 1 this is one of the ladders, the size standards that we mentioned.

MR. HARMON: Could you get a different color for that. That won't show up really well.

MR. SIMS: Is that better?

MR. HARMON: Sure.

MR. SIMS: Again, this is lane 1. This is the size standard. Lane 2 is the K562. That is the national standard that we use. Lane 3 is the quality control, the blind sample. Lane 4 is another size standard. Lane 5 and the next two lanes now I will talk about, these are the reference bloodstains from Nicole Brown, and then next we have the reference bloodstain from Ronald Goldman.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And is it easy to distinguish between Miss Brown and Mr. Goldman at their--by their reference sample?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it is.

MR. HARMON: You don't need a computer to do that?

MR. SIMS: No, you don't.

MR. HARMON: What conclusions could you reach between the comparison of the evidence stains G1, G2 and G4 on the glove, no. 9, and the two reference samples?

MR. SIMS: Well, the key on this particular autorad is--is to see that if you first start with G1--

MR. HARMON: Yes.

MR. SIMS: --start with G1, that particular sample and it is hard to see, but I believe there is a band down in this area, (Indicating). It is hard to see on the--on this display, but the bands that we see in G1, there are four bands. I will just go slowly through them; 1, 2, 3 and then 4 I believe is down there, (Indicating), and that pattern is composite--that pattern is consistent with a mixture of the samples of Nicole Brown and also Ronald Goldman. In other words, those four bands are consistent with that mixture pattern.

MR. HARMON: Okay. What about G2? What did you observe in trying to compare G2 with any of the reference stains?

MR. SIMS: In looking at G2 again one can see four bands, and this gets pretty subtle and we may later want to look--we may later want to look at the light box to see it better.

MR. HARMON: So you can actually see what you are describing there better on the light box?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I can.

MR. HARMON: Okay.

MR. SIMS: But I believe you can still see four bands in this particular pattern; 1, 2, 3, 4, and what is of interest to me is that now this--this middle set, these are the two bands in the middle here, now they are starting to get weaker, but you will notice that the band up here is still quite strong, (Indicating), and the band out here is reasonably strong, (Indicating). It is the ones in the middle that are starting to get weaker. And those bands are consistent with the pattern--they match the pattern of Nicole Brown.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, let's just pause and talk about G1 and G2 and their relationship to one another. What is your explanation for the fact that that two-banded pattern appears to be fading and the other two bands seem to be staying there?

MR. SIMS: I think--I think what we are seeing is that the DNA contribution from one of the individuals is maintaining itself at a certain level where we are getting less DNA from the second contributor.

MR. HARMON: Is that because there is less DNA there?

MR. SIMS: I think there is less DNA there from the second contributor, yes.

MR. HARMON: Why don't we move to G4 then and explain how that fits in with what you just provided us.

MR. SIMS: G4 again can--the trend continues in G4. You can see a band up here, (Indicating). I think you can see a band down there, (Indicating), and again we will look at these I think on the light box to see it a little more clearly and now these have almost faded out entirely.

MR. HARMON: When you say "these," you are pointing the arrow to the two-banded pattern that is consistent with Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: Yes. Those are the two bands that are--that are consistent with Nicole Brown. They are fairly close to each other.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And I believe you mentioned this yesterday as the explanation for why the Defendant's reference blood is not on this gel and that is because he was excluded as a source of any of these stains on the basis of PCR typing?

MR. SIMS: That's correct. In other words, we looked at--we did additional tests prior so we had that information.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. And this is glove no. 9?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it is.

MR. HARMON: Okay. From Rockingham?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: The additional PCR tests were done on DNA that was extracted from these very stains?

MR. SIMS: Yes. It is the same DNA.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, let's--we are not going--I'm not going to ask you to mark this one because we have marked the first one for demonstration purposes. Why don't we move on to a 25 which has been marked 271-C. Okay. Everything is in the same relative position because these samples are all from the same gel; is that right?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Why don't we just jump over to the reference samples. Can you easily distinguish between Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman at this marker which is the D5S110?

MR. SIMS: Yes. This is D5S110.

MR. HARMON: You don't need a computer to do that?

MR. SIMS: No. One can clearly see the difference in the banding patterns for Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And as far as the stained glove G1, the no. 9 glove from Rockingham, what can you say about the pattern that you see there?

MR. SIMS: Well, again we see this four-banded pattern; 1, 2, 3, four bands, (Indicating), and again this--at this level the mixture appears fairly equal. In other words, all the bands are fairly close in intensity.

MR. HARMON: On the stain G1?

MR. SIMS: On the stain G1. And furthermore, again the four bands are consistent with a mixture of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, and I think you can--

MR. HARMON: You can't exclude other possible mixtures as the source of that four-banded pattern?

MR. SIMS: No, not--not just on the basis of this four-banded pattern, no.

MR. HARMON: You can't pair up any two of the bands in that four-banded pattern scientifically; is that true?

MR. SIMS: That's true. For example, just looking at this G1 pattern, these two bands, for example, could be from one person and these two bands could be from a second person. That would just be one example of the ways a pattern like that could break down.

MR. HARMON: Okay. But now as you move on to the stains G2 and G4, is what you see in those stains or on this autorad, does that help you pair up the banding patterns that you see?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it does, and I think this autorad is--is a very good demonstration of what I was talking about earlier. If you look at the G2 pattern now, you can see two bands, I will stop for a second there, (Indicating), and there, (Indicating), that are consistent with the bands seen in Mr. Goldman's pattern and those bands are fairly similar in intensity to the pattern in G1. You can see the intensities, comparing the G1 and G2 lanes you can see the intensity for those two bands are pretty close. But now when I go to these bands that are weaker in G2, here and here, (Indicating), one can see that those bands are consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson's profile and it is interesting to me that they are now weaker. In other words, it appears that those two bands have gotten weaker while these other two bands have maintained a fairly similar level of intensity.

MR. HARMON: And the other two bands that you refer to are ones that are--that appear to match Mr. Goldman?

MR. SIMS: Yes, they appear to match Mr. Goldman's bands.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't you discuss G4 then in the same context and what the implications of the pattern that you see there are.

MR. SIMS: G4 I think again the trend continues and we are not looking at a pattern like this. I think it is very informative to look across those samples because I think you do gain information about interpretations by studying those patterns and how they check across the sample. And in G4 again we see bands in this position, (Indicating), and this position, (Indicating), that visually match the band from Mr. Goldman. They are of similar intensity now all the way across. Slight variation there, but it is pretty close, I think you will see, whereas now those last two bands in G4, the weaker band here, (Indicating), and the weaker band here, (Indicating), those visually match the bands of Nicole Brown and they faded out quite a bit. And you can see in this position, if you look across the band, you can see the fading and I think here you can see the fading, (Indicating), and the relative intensities I believe are very informative in this case because now this tells me that these--the bands in G4 that are in this position, (Indicating), and this position, (Indicating), tend to be associated with Mr.--

MR. HARMON: So you described from top to bottom the top one and then the third one down?

MR. SIMS: Yes, the top one and the third one down, one would tend to associate those now with Mr. Goldman, whereas the ones in the second and fourth position, one would now tend to associate with Nicole Brown.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And without addressing the PCR test results, which we will address shortly, in reflecting back to the stain from the glove no. 9 from Rockingham that was labeled G3 on the previous membrane, what sorts of conclusions can you draw from your RFLP analysis alone of stains G1, G2, G3 and G4 from glove no. 9 that was found at Rockingham?

MR. SIMS: The conclusion I would draw was, first of all, that the G3 one that we looked at earlier was--that pattern was consistent only with Mr. Goldman's banding pattern, and that therefore he could be the source of that DNA. And then looking at G1, 2 and 4 we can also see Mr. Goldman's pattern and also I think we can pick out separately that Nicole Brown Simpson's pattern is there also.

MR. HARMON: Okay. So at this point, based on your RFLP results, on G1, G2, G3 and G4, you have identified Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman as possible sources of those stains, either singly as in G3 or in combination, in a mixture, in G1, G2 and G4?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, you also--and we just had them mark--did a couple of other probes for this same membrane; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes, we did.

MR. HARMON: And were there actually a couple of probes or a couple of autorads that were produced for this membrane that were not used in your ultimate opinion?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: And why was that?

MR. SIMS: There was one probe for which we had a problem with the hybridization and I rejected the data. I would not use it.

MR. HARMON: Did those results tend to exclude what you have already concluded and described for the jury here?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: A technical problem?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And the other autorad?

MR. SIMS: The other autorad, as I recall, the locus on that--can I refer to my notes?

MR. HARMON: Sure.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SIMS: Yes. On the other locus that we mentioned that I haven't mentioned yet was our D4S139 locus and in that locus the two individuals tend to share a band or they have a very close band so you don't see these four-banded pattern in the mixture.

MR. HARMON: Did those results in any way undermine the conclusions you have already related to the jury?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: Okay. We will show the remaining autorads to the jury in a little bit. Okay. Mr. Sims, why don't you go back up to your seat.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, in reviewing all the tests that were done in this case, both the RFLP and the PCR and in discussing the results with your colleagues at the Department of Justice, is it your opinion that all the tests that were done in this case were performed properly?

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

MR. HARMON: In accordance with the scientific literature?

MR. SCHECK: Hearsay, irrelevant, discussions with--

THE COURT: Overruled, but why don't you rephrase the question as it is leading.

MR. HARMON: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, do you have an opinion about--which is based on the scientific literature, protocols in your lab and whatever user guides were provided to you, about whether or not the tests were performed properly and in accord with that information?

MR. SCHECK: Objection to the form of this question with respect to unnamed literature.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: If he wants to state his opinion, that is fine.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Yes. All of the results that we reported would meet those criteria.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Your Honor, at this time I would like to--actually we haven't resolved a couple of the boards, but I can do the Rockingham board now and then--

THE COURT: Let's proceed with that.

MR. HARMON: Could we have the Rockingham board.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. HARMON: 120.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon, this is People's 120, this particular board?

MR. HARMON: Yes, it is, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HARMON: That is the Rockingham exterior photo board. And then we want to display People's exhibit 261 for identification, which Dr. Cotton has already testified about, the Rockingham result board.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, was one of the stains which the Department of Justice performed DNA analyses on in this case what was--what has been described as item no. 6 from the Rockingham trail?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And what sorts of tests were performed on item no. 6 by the Department of Justice?

MR. SIMS: On item no. 6, which is from the Rockingham trail, that was our item number DNA-4, LAPD no. 6, PCR-based tests, DQ-Alpha and D1S80 were performed.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And were similar PCR tests, DQ-Alpha and D1S80 performed on reference samples from the Defendant, Miss Brown and Mr. Goldman?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And would you look at the top of People's 261 for identification and see if the chart, which describes the reference sample typing results, if that reflects the typing results of the Defendant, Miss Brown and Mr. Goldman.

MR. SIMS: Yes. I believe it does, although I will quickly check the notes just for accuracy.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SIMS: Yes. Those reflect our results.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And were you successful in obtaining PCR results from item no. 6 from the Rockingham driveway?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. What were those results?

MR. SIMS: From the Rockingham driveway?

MR. HARMON: Yes.

MR. SIMS: Item no. 6, the DQ-Alpha type was 1.1, 1.2, the D1S80 type was 24, 25.

MR. HARMON: And were those results consistent--

MR. SCHECK: Excuse me, your Honor. I have a matter with respect to D1S80 results. May we approach?

THE COURT: All right. With the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: We are over at the side bar. Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: Yes. There has been no foundation whatsoever laid for D1S80 results with respect to the technology, with respect to its foundation, with respect in particular to this witness' expertise and knowledge for reporting these results. The testimony has been that he is the lead analyst in the case, but the person who performed the D1S80 tests and has the requisite specialized knowledge is Miss Montgomery. So there has been no explanation and no foundation laid as to the D1S80 system whatsoever through this witness or any other witness, so at this time it seems to me the wrong witness and there is a lack of foundation and I object to that result coming in.

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon, do you think you have an adequate foundation?

MR. HARMON: Yes, I do. I mean, we could call in the guys that stripped the membranes, too, and spend the next couple of months doing that. If you recall, Robin Cotton didn't actually do any of this.

THE COURT: No, no, I'm not worried about the comparison. Have you laid a foundation for Mr. Sims to testify to the D1S80?

MR. HARMON: Yes, I have. Robin Cotton has explained the technology. We even discussed DQ-Alpha with him. I could spend half a day discussing DQ-Alpha generically with him if that is what Mr. Scheck wants.

THE COURT: That is not the objection. The objection is to the D1S80.

MR. HARMON: D1S80 is in the same category. We have explained it sufficiently for him to describe the results. I will have Renee testify. I mean, if that is the problem, if they want to hear from Renee--

THE COURT: Is Miss Montgomery going to testify?

MR. HARMON: Absolutely, absolutely.

THE COURT: I will overrule the objection subject to a motion to strike.

MR. HARMON: No question.

MR. SCHECK: That be made clear that--there is--at the present time there is no foundation and my concern--

THE COURT: I--I understand.

MR. SCHECK: But what I'm asking for is an instruction to the jury that the D1S80 result is being taken subject to connection through the testimony of another witness because right now there is no foundation. And what I'm fearful of, if you take a look at the D1S80--

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. SCHECK: --results, they look like RFLP results in the sense that they have banding--you know, they have marker lanes and bands on them, but it is a different system with different principles. If the Court recalls, at the time that this witness testified at the griffin hearing, this laboratory had not even reported out a D1S80 result, as of August, so it seems to me that there is a 352 problem in terms of conflating (sic) the two systems just by their appearances and the foundation of the two systems is different. And I am afraid by letting it in in this fashion is a chance of spill-over prejudice. So what I would ask the Court to do is instruct the jury that the D1S80 result is being taken now subject to connection, explain what the subject to connection is to be connected up with another witness; not this witness.

THE COURT: All right. The objection is overruled subject to a motion to strike.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Mr. Harmon, proceed.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, what were the results that you obtained on your PCR analysis of the item no. 6, the Rockingham driveway drop?

MR. SIMS: This is item no. 6?

MR. HARMON: Uh-huh.

MR. SIMS: The PCR results were as follows: The DQ-Alpha type was 1.1, 1.2, the D1S80 type was 24, 25.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Those were consistent with Mr. Simpson?

MR. SIMS: Yes, they were.

MR. HARMON: Could you approach People's exhibit 261 and remove the two covers that reflect those results.

MR. SIMS: Do you want me to stand over here?

MR. HARMON: Just remove them and let the jury see them. We just want to make sure they are what you just described for us. Do the PCR results appear to reflect the results you obtained?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And under the "not excluded" column those are consistent with Mr. Simpson?

MR. SIMS: Yes, they are.

MR. HARMON: Does that mean he is a possible source of those stains?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it does.

MR. HARMON: We will discuss statistics in a little bit on that. Okay. You can have a seat again.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I had wanted to discuss the glove and the socks results and we never finally resolved those boards. I'm sorry, I hadn't thought of it before we started this morning.

THE COURT: All right. Let me ask jury to step back into the jury room briefly.

(The jury exits the courtroom and the following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: Let's have it quiet, please. All the jurors have withdrawn from the courtroom. Mr. Harmon, which board are we talking about?

MR. HARMON: Umm, the boards in question are the glove photo board, no. 9 photo board that we have not yet marked.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HARMON: And then the glove results board which have not been marked.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HARMON: And there were some--Mr. Scheck had expressed some concerns about the way we have presented the information there, so can we start with the glove photo board, put it up there.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. There was going to be used in conjunction with the results board.

MR. HARMON: Yes, which we will show you next. It might make sense to look at them both together since they will be displayed together. Could you do that for us?

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, any comment?

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, it is the same objection we made before and I think that--I think the difficulty for the Court at this point in time is that to be consistent in the results that have been made with the previous boards, if I were in your position, umm, at this point, and in the interests of moving on, I might be inclined not to be consistent in the rulings. But the point is, is that these objections were made known to them a long time ago with the boards and they have done nothing to conform them. The problem here is the 352 problem and the argumentative problem that the Court has been dealing with with respect to boards and has been consistent and very, very strict in the rulings. If you look at the Rockingham blood result board, what they are trying to indicate here is that for various different stains, G10, for example, G9, that that is Mr. Goldman's blood. For G12 that that is Mr. Goldman and Miss Nicole Brown Simpson's blood, even with respect to the mixtures, umm, they are making assertions that these are the mixtures of the blood of these various different individuals, as opposed to--as opposed to, umm, simply stating that they are markers and markers that have different frequencies and dramatically different frequencies. Some of these, umm, results that are reflected in the "g" numbers on the Rockingham glove result boards, umm, are RFLP test results, umm, which concededly will have frequencies which are much rarer, dramatically rarer than the mixture--the--the D1S80 results with respect to Mr. Simpson on the glove, which is extremely common, and then when the aggregate frequency comes in with respect to the mixture, necessarily extraordinarily common. So it seems to me that it gets extremely misleading and it is a terrible 352 problem. We have tried to be very careful in not, umm, mixing up people with respect to these results. I pointed out to them just the other day that it is going to be--umm, the prejudice of the glove result board, umm, is compounded by the fact that they are giving "g" numbers. You know, if they want to say, well, we won't mislead the jury because we are giving statistics and not excluded results on the result board, umm, it is going to be very hard to link them up because they are having even different numbers. Now, they knew that this was a problem, they knew what the Court's rulings had been on the previous boards. They made absolutely no effort to conform. This has been pending, you know, really for--umm, ever since we dealt with the first board with Mr. Clarke. They knew exactly what the problem was, exactly what the rulings had been, exactly how they should be conformed and they just didn't bother. And so now the Court is confronted with a situation where we all want to move on with this testimony, we all want to get through this. And they think they can, you know, slide it past and the Court won't be consistent with its rulings and I just urge you to be consistent in your rulings.

THE COURT: So your objection is that the names of the individuals that are not excluded should be taken off of the Rockingham glove blood results and that the items number G1 through 13 should remain--excuse me--G1 through 14 should remain to indicate where on the glove the samples were taken?

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HARMON: My turn?

MR. SCHECK: Thank you.

THE COURT: Just so I understand your objection.

MR. SCHECK: In fact, your solution was better than the one I proposed the other day, which is not uncommon when it comes to the boards.

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I promise you that I will never show one board without the other board. If I could hinge them together to ensure that that will never happen, even when I'm not here, I would do that, but our easel couldn't hold it. Here is the problem. We have the same names over there that we have here, and if the jury is going to see them all together, how argumentative is it to have--is it to have the same names there that we have here? For example, G13, you want, I can uncover G13 and you see it says it is consistent with a mixture of Ronald Goldman, Nicole Brown and Orenthal Simpson. That is what we have over there. That is the same mixtures we have on G11. So while it may be devastating to see the same thing in two places, how can it be prejudicial if I assure you to the best of my human ability that they will never be seen separately?

MR. SCHECK: If the Court--the frequencies are all different, the statistical significance, even assuming all this comes in, is all different. The mixture numbers aren't even here. The rarity of these mixtures and the significance one can draw with them, which is the essence of understanding DNA evidence, is all different and this board is purposely designed to say this is whose blood it is and this kind of mixture form, and that is argumentative with respect to these results.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. SCHECK: They should just get rid of the names.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. HARMON: Should I say something, your Honor? They are going to be seen together. There is nothing different here. What they are doing is it is the same whipsaw that forced us to calculate mixtures when virtually everything is shaded there, and we will do that later, and I--you heard how we just explained just the RFLP results and what he can say and what he can't say about it. There--and given the eloquence and the credentials of Mr. Scheck and Mr. Neufeld, there is no question that if I overstate the significance of anything, we will be humiliated and the commentators will have a heyday with us overstepping.

THE COURT: Your first mistake is to listen to the commentators.

MR. HARMON: I didn't say I did.

THE COURT: Much less to--since they don't know what they are talking about either. All right. Here is the problem, though. We do have various different results because we have different tests. This board gives the impression that these are results, not results that--not non-exclusions, which is what these really are. I agree with you, it will be very helpful. It is helpful to me to look at this exhibit. It has great probative value telling me where these samples were taken on the glove. This is the first time that I can now picture where the samples were taken and it allows the finder of fact to think more clearly as to how that blood got where it is.

MR. HARMON: Could we have a "not excluded" patch? Would that help to--do we have a "not excluded" patch? We have a lot of them so--

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. HARMON: We have a "not excluded" patch. You see, this board started out with a possible source. Now we can say possible source, but we can't put it on the board, so we have been forced to put "not excluded" on the column there, so to get a little symmetry here let's put "not excluded" on this board.

THE COURT: Have you got a non-excluded?

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. HARMON: You know what, if we can--if we can get--I will defer until after the lunch hour if a "not excluded" patch will suffice on the top of the board and we--we had "possible source" on it and just got rid of it because of the anxiety that that created.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

THE COURT: All right. Let me see it with a "non-excluded" after the lunch hour. All right. Let's proceed.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, could--just in--that is not going to solve the problem with respect to the mixtures and the different probabilities. My suggestion is that--is the one that the Court raised and could they also prepare something that, umm, would take this board in conjunction with the result board which I think would be a far more accurate and not confusing way. I mean, whereas you would see, in connection with the result board, exactly which location is referred to in terms of the different patterns, the "not excluded" and the frequencies, so they would be linked up, but does not, umm, make the confusing and argumentative kind of assertions here. So if you could ask for the--I would ask that they prepare a back-up system of patches just in case.

THE COURT: All right. I'm going to direct the Prosecution to prepare a "not excluded" addition to the Rockingham glove blood results board and when we mark these for identification purposes they will be to whatever it is, A and B, so that they are always part of the same exhibit. All right. That is the order. Let's proceed. Let's have the jury, please. Take the glove photograph down.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, we could take a "not excluded" patch--

THE COURT: Let's proceed.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, maybe we could take one off the Rockingham board right now and put it up and we will make sure that that doesn't ever get shown to the jury.

THE COURT: Is it removable, Mr. Fairtlough?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Yes, your Honor, it is.

THE COURT: Let me see it.

(Brief pause.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Proceed, Mr. Harmon.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor--

THE COURT: Let's proceed.

MR. HARMON: Can we proceed with that as we--

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, at this point I would like to have marked as People's next in order--

THE COURT: 272.

MR. HARMON: --272, a photo board showing item no. 9.

THE COURT: No, not the photo board. The agreement was after lunch that was going to be taken care of.

MR. HARMON: Oh, I misunderstood. I thought we would do that now.

THE COURT: No. That wasn't done. Let's proceed.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And we didn't address the sock board either, which is--

THE COURT: Well, move on.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Moving right on to exhibit no. 172, the Bronco photo board--your Honor, what time does the Court intend to break today?

THE COURT: 10:30.

MR. HARMON: 10:30. Okay.

MR. HARMON: And could we show that in conjunction with the Bronco results board, which has been marked as exhibit 260.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, while the photo board is being found, did the Department of Justice perform DNA analysis on LAPD item no. 24, which was marked as your no. 15?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And did your department or your laboratory also perform DNA analysis on item no. 29 from the Bronco steering wheel, which you marked as DOJ 16?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And did your department perform DNA analysis on item no. 30, LAPD item no. 30 from the center console of the Bronco, which you marked as DOJ DNA 17?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And did your lab perform analyses on item no. 31 from the Bronco center console, which is your no. 18?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And did your laboratory perform analyses on item no. 34 from the Bronco driver's sidewall which you marked as item 20?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And did your department perform DNA analysis on item 293 from the carpet driver's side which you marked as your no. 29?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And did your department perform DNA testing on item 303 from the center console which you marked as DOJ 52?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Did your department, your laboratory, perform DNA testing on item 304 from the center console which us marked as DNA 53?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And finally, from the Bronco, did your lab perform analysis on item 305 from the center console, which you marked as item 30?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's go back to the top then. Item number--I'm sorry--24, which you marked as DNA 15, what sorts of tests did you perform on that sample?

MR. SIMS: The tests--the test that was performed was DQ-Alpha typing, PCR DQ-Alpha typing.

MR. HARMON: That is the only test you performed?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: What result did you obtain?

MR. SIMS: The type was 1.1, 1.2.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Is that result consistent with the known type of Mr. Simpson, the Defendant in this case?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it is.

MR. HARMON: Would you step to the board and remove the covers on item 24, your no. 15. Can you reach it?

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

THE COURT: Mr. Fairtlough.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And that reflects DQ-Alpha 1.1, 1.2?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it does.

MR. HARMON: Was the Defendant excluded as a possible source of that stain?

MR. SIMS: No, he was not.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove that column.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. And item no. 29, did you perform DNA testing on that sample?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: What results did you obtain?

MR. SIMS: And again when you are saying "me," that is our laboratory.

MR. HARMON: The laboratory, sure.

MR. SIMS: On item no. 29--I'm sorry--this is--

MR. HARMON: Item no. 29, your no. 16?

MR. SIMS: Yes, yes, okay. That test was the DQ-Alpha test.

MR. HARMON: And what were the results?

MR. SIMS: The result was that we found mainly what we considered to be a 1.1, 1.2 with a weaker 4 allele.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you remove the cover.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Are the results accurately depicted on 260, the exhibit board?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And let's just talk about--this is one of the samples you sent extracted DNA to Cellmark from; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And as far as--the only test in common that you and Cellmark performed, if the chart is correct, is the DQ-Alpha testing; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: And you have described a weaker 4. What is the significance of seeing a 1.1, 1.2 weaker 4?

MR. SIMS: With the weaker 4 allele--well, first of all, by my interpretation, I saw the 1.1, 1.2, which is consistent with the Defendant's own type, which is 1.1, 1.2. I noted the weaker 4 allele. And in my interpretation, because there was so little DNA in this sample, I was hesitant to make much of a conclusion of that weaker 4 as to who could be the source.

MR. HARMON: Is this one of the ones you struggled with in terms of how to describe the significance or the conclusions of your results?

MR. SIMS: Absolutely. It is a difficult interpretation.

MR. HARMON: And it is clearly a mixture?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And what is the significance of the low amount of DNA with respect to being able to draw a conclusion on this sample alone?

MR. SIMS: On this sample alone my concern was with that very low level of DNA to begin with, and given that it is a mixture, I would be concerned that we may not detect one of the weaker alleles in a mixture.

MR. HARMON: Now, when you say there was a low level of DNA to begin with, you performed some sort of quantitative analysis of the DNA?

MR. SIMS: Yes, we did.

MR. HARMON: And when you performed that sort of quantitative analysis, are you--is that a quanitation of the total amount of DNA that is in the mixture?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: But not the relative contradictions of the different sources?

MR. SIMS: That's correct. In other words, we just knew the total DNA but we wouldn't know the breakdown of the mixture from that procedure.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And is this one that you actually--it was difficult for you to describe in terms of what your conclusion was about who was excluded and who was not excluded?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And is your--I'm going to ask you to describe it to the best of your ability the way you described your conclusion in your report. Do you have your report memorized in terms of how you concluded who was excluded and who was not on this stain?

MR. SIMS: I--I don't have it memorized, but I have my report in front of me.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would it help to just read it over and do the best you can with that?

MR. SIMS: yes. (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: How did you describe your conclusions in terms of comparing your results with the reference samples in this case?

MR. SIMS: Well, the main point I made again was that I saw this particular combination of 1.1, 1.2 as being the major component of this--of this pattern. And so I--from that I concluded that Mr. Simpson could not be excluded as a possible source of that sample.

MR. HARMON: And is that clear, that that was not--you did not exclude him on this stain?

MR. SIMS: Yes, that is--that is correct.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Where did you go from there?

MR. SIMS: Well, where I went from there was I saw this 4 by itself. I did not see Mr. Goldman's type in full which was the 1.3, 4, but I was hesitant to make an absolute exclusion of Mr. Goldman on that basis.

MR. HARMON: Why?

MR. SIMS: Well, what this kind of result tells me is that this is probably a good sample for additional testing, which is one reason we sent it to Cellmark because this information was just limited to my conclusion of Mr. Goldman. You know, at the same time I want to point out that I think is--I don't think it is proper for me to stand here and say, oh, yes, that 4 came from Mr. Goldman. That is not the kind of point I'm trying to make at all. The point I want to make is that when you are talking about absolute exclusions we said that we could not make a clear-cut exclusion of Mr. Goldman on that sample. I'm not suggesting for one moment that he is the source of that 4.

MR. HARMON: So you can't exclude him?

MR. SIMS: I could not make what I called a clear-cut exclusion.

MR. HARMON: But you are not saying he is included either?

MR. SIMS: That is exactly right. I think that would be very prejudicial.

MR. HARMON: For that matter, can you tell us how many people could produce the combination of types that you see in your results?

MR. SIMS: With just the major--major type--

MR. HARMON: How many people--can you actually put a limit on how many people total could have contributed to that mixture?

MR. SIMS: Well, it would be very difficult with interpreting that very weak 4 and not knowing what else may be there in the components.

MR. HARMON: I guess my question is not clear. What is the maximum number of people that could have contributed the mixed results that you obtained, you alone obtained on that sample?

MR. SIMS: Well, the maximum number, if you start thinking of all the different possibilities, that would certainly add up. I mean, you could have two people, for example, that are of the same type to contribute to a mixture.

MR. HARMON: Let me just give you a general question. Without knowing the types of this group, could you exclude like the starting line-up of the L.A. Lakers?

MR. SIMS: If I knew their types.

MR. HARMON: But just by the number of them?

MR. SIMS: No. It would be very difficult to make that kind of determination, but again, I can only speak to what I see. I can't--

MR. HARMON: Sure. Are your results necessarily inconsistent with Cellmark's conclusion in any way?

MR. SIMS: Oh, not at all. For example, if one wanted to say that Nicole Brown could be there because her 1.1 allele is present and she is a 1.1, 1.1, then certainly that is a possible combination.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And given the way you've questioned it, do you feel there is any point to put Mr. Goldman's name in the "not excluded" column?

MR. SIMS: I think this is sort of an asterisk situation. I don't feel comfortable putting him there. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable putting him as a possible source. I think that would be incorrect.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's move on to item no. 30 from the center console, no. 17.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: What results did the lab obtain on your analysis of no. 17?

MR. SIMS: In that--on that particular sample we did 27 different PCR systems. We did the--the DQ-Alpha typing and will D1S80 typing.

MR. HARMON: What were those results?

MR. SIMS: The results were DQ-Alpha, the no. 30, was 1.1, 1.2, the D1S80 type was 24, 25.

MR. HARMON: Were those results consistent with Mr. Simpson, the Defendant?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove those two covers from item no. 30.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. The board 260 accurately depicts the results that you just described?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Let's move to item no. 31 from the center console, your no. 18. What sort of test did the lab perform on those?

MR. SIMS: The lab performed DQ-Alpha and D1S80 tests.

MR. HARMON: What were the results?

MR. SIMS: The results were as follows: on the DQ-Alpha test we determined that there was mainly 1.1, 1.2 and we also saw what we considered to be a weaker application with 1.3 and 4 alleles.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And the--how were you able to determine this stronger-weaker conclusion?

MR. SIMS: When one is looking at one of these typing strips, one can see that there is a stronger contradiction, a stronger dot for particular types than for some of the other dots, and it is analogous to the process I was showing you on the RFLP. It is a different typing system, obviously, but it is the same idea about picking out what goes--what two alleles might go together because they are stronger and what two alleles or dots might go together because they are weaker.

MR. HARMON: So sometimes you can sort them out by the relative strengths of these things?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And sometimes you can't?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: And would that same general provision apply whether it is RFLP or PCR?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Why don't you remove the strip covering the results for 31.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: As well as the "not excluded" category.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: So would you describe--you have listed in the "not excluded" category the Defendant in this case. Why did you include him in what you saw in the mixture as a result that you saw from item no. 31, the center console?

MR. SIMS: We included the Defendant because his types are present in the sample, 1.1, 1.2 for the DQ-Alpha and also 24, 25 for the D1S80.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And the weaker 1.3, 4, who is that consistent with?

MR. SIMS: That is consistent with Ronald Goldman.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And let's talk about Mr. Goldman's D1S80 type and Renee Montgomery will be testifying next and demonstrating some of these results.

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. The jury is to disregard that last comment.

MR. HARMON: Sorry.

MR. HARMON: Umm, how can you sort out, from looking at the reference types of Mr. Simpson, the Defendant, and Mr. Goldman, it appears they have something in common with D1S80; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes, they do. They both share the 24 allele.

MR. HARMON: Okay. So how can you determine that if you see a 24, 25, as you did in this case, is there anything about the results that help you sort out the mixture?

MR. SIMS: In some cases there are. There are clear distinctions. It varies from sample to sample, however.

MR. HARMON: Okay. So let me make sure I understand or we have explained this--you have explained this to the jury. The results from 31, are they are clearly a mixture?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And they are clearly a mixture that is consistent in the stronger regard on DQ-Alpha with the Defendant?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And then the weaker 1.3, 1.4 (sic), could that have come from the Defendant in this case?

MR. SIMS: The weaker 1.3, 4 could not have come from the Defendant.

MR. HARMON: And it is consistent with Mr. Goldman?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it is.

MR. HARMON: Let's just stop for a second and talk about inheriting patterns from parents. Is this mixtures stain--could this mixture stain that we are talking about, item 31, be consistent with an offspring of the Defendant and Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: No, not--if you look at, for example, the DQ-Alpha types for the Defendant and also for Nicole Brown, their children would be either 1.1, 1.1 and looking up here now, (Indicating), or 1.1, 1.2.

MR. HARMON: And that is because an offspring would have to inherit a 1.1 from Nicole?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And would have to inherit either a 1.1 or a 1.2 from the Defendant?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: That is just DQ-Alpha?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And now D1S80?

MR. SIMS: With regard--

MR. HARMON: What combination of types could an offspring have of the Defendant and Miss Brown?

MR. SIMS: Well, again with the idea that one comes from the mother and one from the father, the D1S80 types for the offspring of Nicole Brown and the Defendant would be 18, 24 or 18, 25.

MR. HARMON: Okay. So the D1S80 type alone that you obtain from item 31, the console, that alone could not be from an offspring of the Defendant, Mr. Simpson, and Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: And the DQ-Alpha mixture alone could not be consistent with an offspring of the same two people?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's move to item no. 34, the driver's sidewall in the photograph--

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: --down at the lower left-hand column, your no. 20. What sorts of tests did you perform on that stain?

MR. SIMS: That was just DQ-Alpha typing.

MR. HARMON: And what results did you obtain?

MR. SIMS: The type was 1.1, 1.2 for no. 34.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you remove the covers from that one.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And the possible or the not excluded, who did you not exclude?

MR. SIMS: Mr. Simpson, the Defendant.

MR. HARMON: And so that result is consistent with him?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: He is a possible source?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Now, that is the same result that you obtained on item 24, the instrument panel; is that right?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Now, why didn't you do any more tests on those two items?

MR. SIMS: As I recall, there was very limited DNA in those samples.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And taken at face value, given your--what you just told us about the hereditary nature of those samples, that result could be consistent with an offspring of the Defendant, Mr. Simpson, and Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Let's move on to item no. 293, the carpet on the driver's side. This is in the photo at the bottom in the middle with the pointer.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: What sort of tests did you perform on that sample?

MR. SIMS: We performed DQ-Alpha and D1S80 tests.

MR. HARMON: And what were the results of those tests?

MR. SIMS: The results were as follows: For DQ-Alpha the type was a 1.1, 1.1. We noted that there was a possible trace of 1.2 present. For D1S80 the result was 18, 18.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And is that--other than the possible trace that you've described, whom are those results consistent with from among the three reference types in this case?

MR. SIMS: Nicole Brown.

MR. HARMON: Would you remove the cover on those results and the "not excluded" column.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Could those--we are going to move that up momentarily.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Do those results, the combination of the DQ-Alpha and the D1S80 types, could those have come from an offspring, a child of the Defendant and Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: For the same reasons you've described?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: What is this possible trace 1.2 in there? What does that mean?

MR. SIMS: Well, when one performs this kind of testing, one can get, especially with these 1 types, what we call these 1 subtypes, one sometimes sees very faint dots and you can't always be sure if those very faint dots are attributable to an actual type or if they may be an artifact from the typing process.

MR. HARMON: So in the context of this case could you say that based on the total of your PCR results, that Mr. Simpson's type could also be in there because he is a 1.1, 1.2?

MR. SIMS: You could not exclude him on that basis if there was some of his DNA present; however, we find no evidence of his DNA in the D1S80 type.

MR. HARMON: And is the D1S80 test, based on your review of the literature and your use of these protocols, is that as equally sensitive--

MR. SCHECK: Objection to this witness--

THE COURT: Sustained, foundation.

MR. HARMON: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Do you feel, based on your observations, your review of the data in this case--I notice we don't have the Defendant's name in that "not excluded" column--are you saying that it is your opinion that he could be included in that stain, based on all the results?

MR. SIMS: I think there is a possibility of that, although not seeing his type on the D1S80, I wouldn't have that information.

MR. SCHECK: Move to strike the last part of the answer.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: And Mr. Goldman is excluded or not included as the result of these tests; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: We do not find his type so he is excluded.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And item no. 303, the center console stain, which is in the lower right-hand photograph on the board, exhibit no. 172, what sorts of tests did you perform on item 303?

MR. SIMS: We performed DQ-Alpha and D1S80 tests on that sample.

MR. HARMON: And what were the results of those tests?

MR. SIMS: The results were as follows: For the DQ-Alpha, 1--DQ-Alpha 1.1 allele was present, possible 1.2 allele present. 1.3 and 4 alleles were also present, indicating a mixture.

MR. HARMON: Would you remove that under "PCR results."

MR. SIMS: Would you like me to state the--

MR. HARMON: And the D1S80. Sure. I'm sorry.

MR. SIMS: The D1S80 results were mainly the 24 and 25 alleles along with a weaker 18 allele, again indicating a mixture.

MR. HARMON: Okay. So clearly it is a mixture?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Would you remove their cover from the PCR results.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: From among the three reference samples that were provided to you in this case, whom could you not exclude?

MR. SIMS: All--all three of the individuals, the three principals, the two victims and the Defendant, are consistent with being part of that mixture.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove the cover from the "not excluded" column. Does that mean, at least as far as the three reference samples that were provided to you in this case, that the Defendant, Mr. Goldman, and Ms. Brown, were--are possible sources of the stain on 303?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Is there anything about--just focusing on DQ-Alpha, the relative intensity of the DQ-Alpha results--that help you sort out the relative strengths of this things?

MR. SIMS: No. On this particular sample with the DQ-Alpha, the intensities were all very similar.

MR. HARMON: So this is one where the relative intensities don't help you?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Unlike the glove RFLP results?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And unlike 29, the steering wheel?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Umm, now you are not saying they are the only three people who could have contributed that mixture, are you?

MR. SIMS: That's correct, I'm not saying that.

MR. HARMON: And without knowing the starting line-up of the San Antonio Spurs, you can't exclude them as being the possible contributors of that?

MR. SCHECK: Move to strike that and I take a strong exception to naming certain basketball teams--

THE COURT: Speaking--

MR. SCHECK: --and not others.

MR. HARMON: I will get to the Knicks next.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. HARMON: Can he answer that, your Honor?

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. HARMON: Could you answer that?

MR. SIMS: Yes. I could not exclude the San Antonio spurs.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Just the starting line-up?

MR. SIMS: The starting line-up.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's move to 304, the center console stain, your no. 53.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: What sorts of tests did you perform on those stains?

MR. SIMS: Again it was DQ-Alpha and D1S80 typing.

MR. HARMON: And what results did you obtain?

MR. SIMS: The results are--to make it simple, the results were the same for three--I'm sorry, for 52 and 53, gave the same results with DQ-Alpha and D1S80.

MR. HARMON: So could you remove that cover from that column.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And the same as far as possible sources?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't you remove that.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And would you characterize them the same? In other words, you cannot exclude the three people that are listed in the "not excluded" column as possible sources of that mixture?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Let me ask you just a general question about 303 and 304. When you say it is a mixture, are you saying that the types that you see in 303 and 304 in total are more than you would expect to see from a drop of blood from the Defendant in this case?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: He could not be the sole source of stain 303 and 304?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: And you can't tell us, for example, if these things were--these different mixtures were deposited on top of one another at different times?

MR. SIMS: I couldn't tell that.

MR. HARMON: You can just tell us what was there at the time you tested it?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's move to 305, the center console, which again is in that photo in the lower right-hand corner. What test did you submit stain 305 to?

MR. SIMS: That was the DQ-Alpha typing and also the D1S80 typing.

MR. HARMON: What results did you obtain?

MR. SIMS: For that particular sample 305 the DQ-Alpha was 1.1, possible 1.2 and then weaker 1.3 and 4 alleles, indicating again a mixture.

MR. HARMON: And then how about D1S80?

MR. SIMS: D1S80, mainly 24 and 25 alleles with weaker 18 allele, again indicating a mixture.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, would you--why don't you remove the covers from that.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Now, how would you compare--it looks like you have described 305 somewhat differently than 303 and 304; is that true?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And what can you tell us about why you've described them differently?

MR. SIMS: They were--they were described differently because in this particular case with 305 one now sees that the 1.3 and the 4 alleles are weaker than the 1.1 and the possible 1.2.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And you have already described that Mr. Goldman's type, DQ-Alpha type, is 1.3, 4; is that true?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: And when--is this somewhat like the RFLP mixtures, when you can see things stronger and thing weaker than others, that helps you pair types up?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading and no foundation.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. HARMON: Does it help you pair types up in the DQ-Alpha marker when you see some dots stronger than others?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And is that the basis for your describing 1.3, 4 as weaker?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And is it fair--would it be fair to say that 303, 304 and 305 produced consistent results between and among one another?

MR. SIMS: Yes. Overall they are consistent, those three.

MR. HARMON: Is there anything inconsistent between or among any of those three stains?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: No. There is nothing inconsistent other than the weaker 1.3, 4 on 305, but otherwise they are very similar patterns.

MR. HARMON: Would this be a good break time, Judge?

THE COURT: Yes. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to take our break for the morning session. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case--don't discuss the case among 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. We will stand in recess for fifteen. And let me see counsel for both sides, please.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(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. Let's have the jury.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I have "not excluded" tags on both boards. I've shown Mr. Scheck during the break. I'm just trying to move things along here, Judge.

THE COURT: Do you have anything bigger than that?

MR. HARMON: How about if I yell, "it's not excluded, that's all it means," every time we show this. I wish--

THE COURT: Let me see it.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MR. SCHECK: The big problem, your Honor, is with the glove or with respect to the mixtures because at this point, there's a serious 352 problem. They're not putting in frequencies, and we all know that the frequencies are vastly different there. And I think it can be depicted in a way that makes it very clear to the jury which spot they're talking about on the result board corresponding to which thing on the glove without the argumentative kind of statement as to attribution and be done very clearly if they just eliminate the names.

THE COURT: The Court's ruling stands.

MR. SCHECK: Which is--I didn't know you made a ruling.

THE COURT: Yes. I directed them to put the "not excluded" on both boards.

MR. HARMON: So I can use those boards now, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. Let's have the jurors, please. With the direction it also be used with the result board.

MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor. I'll put the result board up first.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Mr. Sims, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. The record should reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Harmon, you may continue with your direct examination of Mr. Sims.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, I want to go back to item no. 6 that you tested from the stain at Rockingham. Was there a substrate control you tested along with that?

MR. SIMS: Yes, there was. There was a substrate control that was tested in I believe D1S80.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Does it matter in terms of testing the substrate control for the presence of any biological material on it whether you test it with the DQ-Alpha marker or the D1S80 marker?

MR. SIMS: Well, either test is capable of detecting very low levels of human DNA. So by that criteria, we didn't detect anything in the substrate control for that item that would indicate there was some human contamination.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And the same with respect to the Bronco stains that you tested. I'm not going to put the board back up there, but would you please describe which of the stains from the Bronco that your lab tested that also tested substrate controls.

MR. SIMS: Yes. For those particular samples, wherever we presented a DQ-Alpha or a D1S80 result, we also tested in that particular system the substrate control; and in all cases, those were--those were all negative.

MR. HARMON: So every item that was on the Bronco result board, which was exhibit 260, you also tested a substrate control. Is that what you're saying?

MR. SIMS: That's correct. In each one of the systems that we tested, whether it be DQ-Alpha and/or D1S80.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Fine. Let's move on if you would--

MR. HARMON: And I would like to have marked as People's next in order a board described as "the glove no. 9 results board." and may that be 272?

THE COURT: 272.

MR. HARMON: The glove results.

THE COURT: Yes, and?

MR. HARMON: And then 273 for the glove photo board.

THE COURT: How about 272-A and b?

MR. HARMON: Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot, your Honor. 272-A and 272-B.

(Peo's 272-A and B for id = boards)

THE COURT: I think we need it up a little, Mr. Fairtlough.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, have you had a chance to see 272-B, which is the photo board that has photos of the glove inside and out?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I have.

MR. HARMON: And are the photos on 272-B, are they actual photos that you took?

MR. SIMS: Yes, they are.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And on 272-B, which is the photo board, there are numbers G1, G2, G3, et cetera. Do they correspond to your item number?

MR. SIMS: Yes. They are--red lines point to the approximate locations where I sampled those stains with those designations.

MR. HARMON: And actually your item number, the main number that you assign to the glove from Rockingham was what number?

MR. SIMS: That was DNA 13, which is LAPD no. 9.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And then the g numbers are the numbers you assigned to individual stains that you collected?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And if you'd look at 272-A, the result board, are those items under the column entitled "Cellmark/DOJ number," the g numbers?

MR. SIMS: Yes, they are.

MR. HARMON: And all the results that you obtained are represented by the numbers that are listed there, G1, G2, G3, G4, G9, G10, G11, G12, G13 and G14?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's step back just for a moment and talk about your examination of the glove, just for a couple of questions. And if you would, it probably would be better, step up to the board here, and if you'd use the long pointer so all the jurors can see.

(The witness complies.)

THE COURT: Mr. Sims, right there.

MR. HARMON: And let's start with the back of the hand inside photo. Could you just in numerical order describe what the substance is or what the material is that those stains were removed from?

MR. SIMS: The substance that the stains were removed from is this material that forms the inside lining of the gloves.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, as far as the stains on the inside of the glove, did you make any attempt to correlate the location of those stains to stitching or seams on the outside of the glove?

MR. SIMS: Well, I noted that the gloves were stitched especially along the fingers. We don't see it here, but along the back of the hand, there's stitching and there's also stitching along this thumb area down here (Indicating). I think there were also some holes in the glove when I received it. But those are various locations where--the main thing was the stitching. That's what I was interested in.

MR. HARMON: And what if anything is the relationship of the stitching to where you found stains on the inside of the glove, if you can generalize?

MR. SIMS: Yes. In general, particularly when we're talking about the fingers and out towards the--it was the finger areas, that's where the stitching is, and I made the determination that that--that the vast quantity of blood from the outside could have followed that stitching sort of waking up into the inside. That was my--what appeared to have happened to me.

MR. HARMON: Now, were you provided a substrate control for any or all of the stains in this case?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: For the glove. I'm sorry.

MR. SIMS: No. The problem with the glove is that there's so much blood all over it, that it would be very difficult to find an area that didn't have traces of blood on it.

MR. HARMON: And would that be unusual with an item that was as heavily covered with blood as this glove was on the outside to not have a substrate control?

MR. SIMS: That would not be unusual.

MR. HARMON: And does the failure to have a substrate control in the results that you're going to be describing in a moment, does that in any way in your opinion undermine the results that you're going to be presenting?

MR. SIMS: No, I don't think so. And I think in particular, with that sort of situation, what I did was to look at some multiple areas to try to see if certain types would be reproduced consistently or in different areas so that it wasn't just a one-shot determination.

MR. HARMON: And how might that address the failure to have a substrate control, testing from diverse areas on the same item?

MR. SIMS: Well, by looking at diverse areas and seeing diverse results, that would give an indication of what the different mixture patterns, for example, might be.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't we--you can have a seat up there.

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Why don't we start out from item no. 9, the right-hand glove from Rockingham. Would you please--

THE COURT: We need Mr. Sims, because of his voice, to turn and face the jury.

MR. HARMON: Sure.

THE COURT: And he also keeps blocking juror no. 7. So why don't you stand on this side of the--

MR. HARMON: So if you'll stand over here.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Would you describe what sort of tests were performed on G1? I think you've already described generally the RFLP results. We showed them on AM626. Is that--is that the results that correspond to G1?

MR. SIMS: Yes. What we saw on G1.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove the cover of the RFLP column, please?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, you've already described those RFLP results as being possibly a mixture; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And what PCR results did you obtain from that mixture stain?

MR. SIMS: From that mixture stain, the results were that we had DQ-Alpha and D1S80 results.

MR. HARMON: And what--specifically what results did you produce for the analysis of the stain at G1?

MR. SIMS: For DQ-Alpha, 1.1, possible 1.2, 1.3 and four alleles indicating a mixture.

MR. HARMON: Okay. When you say "indicating a mixture," why is that an indication of a mixture?

MR. SIMS: Because, again, there were more than two alleles.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove that cover?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And does that accurately describe what you've just told us?

MR. SIMS: It also includes the D1S80 results which I didn't state, but the--

MR. HARMON: Okay. What were they?

MR. SIMS: 18 and 24 alleles were detected.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And you've described that the RFLP results were consistent with a mixture of two people, Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. What can you tell us about the PCR results?

MR. SIMS: The PCR results would also be consistent with a mixture of those two individuals.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove under the "not excluded column" the cover of that?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And is it true that the PCR results in essence do not exclude Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: As well--as well as a whole bunch of other possibilities?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Moving on to G2, you've already described on AM626, we've seen three autorads showing RFLP mixture results from that. Is that the sum total of the RFLP results that you obtained in this case?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Three or how many?

MR. SIMS: I'm sorry. There were four actually.

MR. HARMON: All right. Would you remove the cover of the RFLP result column for G2 which you've previously described and shown to the jury?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And there's actually one more autorad that shows a similar result?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: That there was a mixture?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And the mixture was consistent with whom?

MR. SIMS: The mixture was consistent with Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman.

MR. HARMON: And what PCR tests did you submit that stain to?

MR. SIMS: That was tested for D1S80 and DQ-Alpha.

MR. HARMON: And what results did you obtain?

MR. SIMS: The results were as follows for DQ-Alpha: 1.1, possible 1.2, 1.3 and four alleles, again indicating a mixture, and D1S80, 18 and 24 alleles.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you remove the cover for the PCR results for G2?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Does what's described there accurately depict your results?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And are those results consistent and corroborative of the RFLP results?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: In what way?

MR. SIMS: Well, again, they're consistent with a mixture of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman.

MR. HARMON: Do they help you say anything else?

MR. SIMS: Well, there are only certain possibilities. Yes. That's all I can say with regards to those principles--

MR. HARMON: Okay. Are you saying that Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman could have produced the mixtures that were seen in G2?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: As well as a number of other possibilities?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Can you remove the "not excluded" column?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Now, let's just talk about G1 and G2 together for a moment. Do the known types of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman account for all of the RFLP and PCR results that you've described so far?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: In other words, there's nothing in there that's foreign or extraneous to a mixture of those people?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Is that correct? Okay. G3, you've previously described your RFLP results; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.

MR. HARMON: And how many actual probes or genetic markers did you test G3 for?

MR. SIMS: I want to just review to make sure I've got that correct.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SIMS: Eight.

MR. HARMON: I'm sorry?

MR. SIMS: Eight.

MR. HARMON: Eight? And what was your conclusion just based on the RFLP results?

MR. SIMS: Just on the RFLP results?

MR. HARMON: Yes.

MR. SIMS: Well, that--that provided very strong evidence that that was Ronald Goldman's blood on the glove, the RFLP alone.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could you remove the cover there?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. We'll come back to what you've described as very strong evidence in a little bit. Did you perform PCR testing on that stain?

MR. SIMS: On that particular stain? Yes.

MR. HARMON: What tests did you submit that stain to?

MR. SIMS: DQ-Alpha and D1S80.

MR. HARMON: What results did you obtain?

MR. SIMS: For DQ-Alpha, 1.3, 4, possible 1.2 and possible trace of the 1.1 allele.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could you remove the cover, and we'll talk about that, make sure it reflects what you've just told us?

(The witness complies.)

MR. SIMS: And again, the D1S80 type is 24, 24.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, you've got possible 1.2 and possible trace 1.1 in there. Can you tell us why you've used those terms to describe what you saw?

MR. SIMS: Yes. One of the limitations of the DQ-Alpha typing system is that the 1.2 allele cannot always be determined in a mixture because there's no unique probe for that 1.2 allele as that test is performed. So one has to--by looking at the pattern of dots, one has to make an inference that it may be there. And if it may be there, then we would say possible 1.2.

MR. HARMON: Is that in all mixtures or just certain mixture of types?

MR. SIMS: Just certain mixtures.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Go ahead. Let's talk about the 1.1.

MR. SIMS: The 1.1 is also a situation where with this particular typing system, you can sometimes see a weak signal at the 1.1 dot because of a phenomenon that's called DX-Alpha. It's a--not to get overly technical, but one has to know that sometimes you can see a weak signal at that 1.1 dot even though there's not a 1.1 present.

MR. HARMON: Is this phenomenon described in scientific literature?

MR. SIMS: Yes. It's well described in the scientific literature. It's part of the user guide that comes with the kit, and anybody that's using this should be aware of that.

MR. HARMON: Now, before we talk about the "not excluded" column, you're not saying that it's possible that Mr. Simpson's blood is in there, are you?

MR. SIMS: I--I would not make that conclusion based on those results.

MR. HARMON: Even though there's a possible 1.--or a possible 1.2 and a possible trace 1.1?

MR. SIMS: Well, I--I--I do not see his D1S80 type there. So I wouldn't make that inference that--

MR. HARMON: Okay. Before we undercover the "not excluded," what about Nicole Brown? What could you say--you're not saying that she's not excluded as a result of these tests, are you?

MR. SIMS: I--again, I don't see her 18 there. So there's no evidence for there. Is it possible, for example, that she or Mr. Simpson could be making a very minute contribution to this? Yes, it's possible, but I--

MR. HARMON: That's not your opinion?

MR. SIMS: No. I see no evidence of that and I don't think that could be stated.

MR. HARMON: Could you--

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Move to strike "possibility" from the record.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove the "not excluded"?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: So is it your opinion that Mr. Goldman could be--the strong evidence of Mr. Goldman could be the source of the stain on area G3?

MR. SCHECK: Move to strike the term "strong evidence."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. We'll move on to G4 then. You've previously described G4 and shown some autorads on AM626. Do you recall that?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And the jury got to see three of the autorads. How many autorads, genetic marker tests did you actually submit this stain to?

MR. SIMS: Umm, one of--at this point, it's probably a good idea to make a correction. There were four probes originally on G1, G2 and G4. But as you'll recall, we added the D5 later, which I think is one we showed. So these are actually now five including G4. Those should all actually be five.

MR. HARMON: Okay. We'll get a patch sometime during the day for G1, G2 and G4.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: So why don't we talk about, just summarize your observations about G4. You've described it as a mixture?

MR. SIMS: Yes. With the RFLP.

MR. HARMON: And--with the RFLP. What sorts of PCR tests did you subject G4 to?

MR. SIMS: G4 was subjected to DQ-Alpha and DS180 typing.

MR. HARMON: And what were your results?

MR. SIMS: The results were that for DQ-Alpha, 1.1, possible 1.2, 1.3 and four alleles, mixture indicated.

MR. HARMON: Okay. So clearly it's a mixture?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And that--that's corroborative of what you saw with the RFLP results; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove the cover from the PCR results on G4?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Now, is the result from G4 any different from the result on G2, the PCR results?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Yes, it is?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And could you describe what it is that's different about G4 from G2?

MR. SIMS: The clear difference that was seen here (Indicating) was that for G4, the 18 allele and DS180 was weaker than the 24 allele.

MR. HARMON: What's the significance of that?

MR. SIMS: Well, the significance--

MR. SCHECK: Move to strike for this witness, objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: I'll withdraw--I'll withdraw the question.

MR. HARMON: Anything about the DQ-Alpha results?

MR. SIMS: The DQ-Alpha--

MR. HARMON: That's different--

MR. SIMS: --results were reported in the same fashion. No. They were reported in the same fashion.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And are your PCR results corroborative of the mixture that you've already described and demonstrated to the jury from G4, from glove no. 9 at Rockingham?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: How?

MR. SIMS: Well, again, the RFLP results and the PCR results are consistent with the mixture of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove the "not excluded" column?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Now, you've got Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown listed there. Does that mean they're the possible source?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And when you say "a possible source," there are many other possibilities; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes. There are many other possibilities.

MR. HARMON: On the other hand, is all of the data that you observed in the RFLP results and the PCR results on G4, is that all accounted for when one combines the types of Mr. Goldman and Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: So there's nothing foreign to either of--well, either Ronald Goldman or Nicole Brown in any of the stains that we've discussed to this point, G1, G2, G3 and G4; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. HARMON: Let's talk about G9, okay? That is not one of the stains that was subjected to RFLP typing; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: What sort of tests did you subject G9 to?

MR. SIMS: G9 was tested for DQ-Alpha and D1S80, PCR markers.

MR. HARMON: And what results were obtained?

MR. SIMS: For G9, DQ-Alpha was 1.3, 4, possible 1.2 with possible trace, 1.1.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove that cover from that column of PCR results, please?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Now, are these results different than--the PCR results in G9, are they in any way different than the results from, say, G4?

MR. SIMS: Well, they're different in that we do not detect the 18 allele, for example, in--in--in G9 which we did detect in G4. Also, the--there is a difference with regards to the 1.1 allele. It is--it was determined to be clearly present in G4, but now it's dropped down to the category of possible trace in G9.

MR. HARMON: Okay. So just move up one notch then. Are the results that you obtained from G9 from the glove at Rockingham, are they consistent with the results, just the PCR results that you obtained from G3?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. The possible 1.2 that you've already described the explanation for?

MR. SIMS: Right.

MR. HARMON: And a possible trace 1.1; is that right?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Now, you're not saying that it is your opinion that based on those possibilities, that Mr. Simpson is not excluded, are you?

MR. SIMS: Can you rephrase that? That had a lot of negatives.

MR. HARMON: Couple of negatives in there, huh? Are you saying that Mr. Simpson is not excluded as a result of your analysis on G9, the glove?

MR. SIMS: Well, I find no evidence, for example, of these 25 alleles. So I--I wouldn't say he's in that category.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And from among the three reference types in this case, whom have you not excluded as the source of G9?

MR. SIMS: That would be Ronald Goldman.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove that cover?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: So G9 is not a mixture?

MR. SIMS: Well, there's no clear mixture there. Is it possible that there's some traces that are causing a mixture? Yes. But it's not what we would call a clear-cut mixture.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And everything that you see concretely, could that be accounted for from the typing that you performed on Mr. Goldman's reference sample?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Let's move on to G10 then. No RFLP results on G10?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: What sorts of tests did you subject that stain to?

MR. SIMS: That was subjected to PCR test, DQ-Alpha and D1S80.

MR. HARMON: And what results did you obtain?

MR. SIMS: For DQ-Alpha, 1.3, 4, possible 1.2 and then weaker 1.1 allele, indicating a mixture. For D1S80, 24 allele and then a weaker 25 allele, again indicating a mixture.

MR. HARMON: So we got something new in the mix here, huh?

MR. SIMS: That's--that's correct. This is where we first found the 25 allele.

MR. HARMON: And the 25 allele from among the three reference types in this case, is there anyone that has the 25 allele at the D1S80 locus?

MR. SIMS: The Defendant has the 25 allele.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you uncover the results from G10?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And do those--are those results accurately described for G10 on our result board?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Now, let's talk about DQ-Alpha. Is there anything about your observations of the DQ-Alpha results that helps you sort out how many people are involved here?

MR. SIMS: Well, it's still difficult to say exactly how many. But one notices that there's information there about the 1.1 allele being weaker than the 1.3, 4 alleles.

MR. HARMON: And what's the significance of that?

MR. SIMS: Well, that gives us some information as to whether or not which alleles might go with the other alleles.

MR. HARMON: And whom were you able to exclude from among the three reference types in this case as a possible source of what you saw in stain G10?

MR. SIMS: We were able to exclude Nicole Brown because we didn't find her 18 allele on the D1S80.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you remove that cover?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: So you were able to exclude Miss Brown as a possible source for the mixture that you saw there?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. You were not able to exclude Mr. Goldberg?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: You were not able to exclude the Defendant?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Now, is all of the data, all of the types that you observed in the DQ-Alpha results and the D1S80 results consistent with a mixture of Mr. Goldman and Mr. Simpson?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it is consistent with a mixture of those two individuals.

MR. HARMON: So there are no alleles that are unaccounted for from what--if you mix Mr. Goldman's blood and Mr. Simpson's blood?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Move to strike.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Are there any alleles unaccounted for in your results when you compare the mixture results you obtained with a combination of the types of Mr. Goldman and Mr. Simpson?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: And is--is this stain different than every other stain you've described to this point, G1, G2, G3, G4 and G9?

MR. SCHECK: Objection to the term "stain."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Yes, it is different in that the key finding is the 25 allele on D1S80.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's move on to G11. No RFLP testing done on this stain?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: What sorts of tests did you perform on this stain?

MR. SIMS: The only test that was performed was the D1S80 test.

MR. HARMON: And why was that?

MR. SIMS: We haven't performed any DQ-Alpha type yet on this series.

MR. HARMON: Okay. What were the results of the D1S80 testing on G11?

MR. SIMS: On G11? The finding was the 24 allele and then weaker 25 and 18 alleles, again indicating a mixture because there's three alleles.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you remove that cover from the stain at G11?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And is what's on the board accurately describe the results of your D1S80 testing on G11?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And whom were you able to exclude--or I'm sorry. Withdraw that. From among the three reference types in this case, whom were you not able to exclude as a possible source of the D1S80 mixture that's on the board?

MR. SIMS: I could not exclude any of the three individuals, the Defendant, Nicole Brown or Mr. Goldman.

MR. HARMON: And why is that?

MR. SIMS: Because this pattern is consistent with their types. In other words, their D1S80 types, those alleles, which would be 18, 24 and 25 all found in that stain.

MR. HARMON: And if one were to mix Nicole Brown's blood sample with Ronald Goldman's blood sample--

MR. SCHECK: Objection to this question, sample, blood.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: If one were to combine the types of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman for the D1S80 marker, what would the combined types be?

MR. SIMS: If you combined just those two individuals?

MR. HARMON: Sure.

MR. SIMS: You would see the 18 allele and the 24 allele.

MR. HARMON: You would not see the 25 allele?

MR. SIMS: That's correct. It's foreign to both of them.

MR. HARMON: So the 25 allele could not have come from Ronald Goldman?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: The 25 allele could not have come from Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: And could you remove the cover of the "not excluded" column that describes your conclusions?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Now, you're not saying, are you, that the D1S80 results could only have come from a combination of those three people, are you?

MR. SIMS: I'm not saying that, no.

MR. HARMON: Are those results consistent with a mixture of those three people?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Let's move on to G12, if you would.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: No RFLP testing on that stain?

MR. SIMS: No. Only D1S80 testing.

MR. HARMON: And what sorts of D1--of testing--of D1S80 testing was done? I'm sorry.

MR. SIMS: It was just D1S80.

MR. HARMON: Okay. What results did you obtain?

MR. SIMS: That was a 24 allele and then a weaker 18 allele, indicating a mixture.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could you remove that cover?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Now, the 25 allele or marker for the D1S80 genetic marker is not in G12; is that true?

MR. SIMS: That's correct. The 25 allele is not present in that sample.

MR. HARMON: Could you step over to the photo board here, and let's talk about where the relationship of the G10 to G11 and G12. And we'll do this again with G13 and G14. It's a dark object. I'd like you to start out with G10 and then describe exactly where it is and what kind of surface it's on.

MR. SIMS: G10 is on the inside lining of the glove. This would be towards the thumb down near the wrist watch. It's--the arrow--the red line is very close to it. It's actually a little bit closer in now where I'm pointing now, and it's in that general area. This was a--this small area of bloodstain that I--that I detected in that particular area (Indicating). And that's G10. Then G11 is now on the outside of the glove. This is now the palm or surface of the glove. G11 is here to the side of this wrist notch that I discussed earlier (Indicating). That's G11. And then G12 is on the--excuse me--the outside palm or surface also near the wrist notch (Indicating). Then G13 is along this stitched border of the wrist notch area (Indicating). And finally, G14 is on the inside back surface near the--near the wrist (Indicating).

MR. HARMON: I'm sorry. G14?

MR. SIMS: Is--did I--I'm sorry. It's on the inside lining.

MR. HARMON: Inside. Right.

MR. SIMS: That would be the back of the hand.

MR. HARMON: Right.

MR. SIMS: Near the wrist.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't we go back up to the board there, the result board, Mr. Sims. The G12, you only found 24 and in 18, were you able to exclude anybody from among the three reference types in this case from the two victims and Mr. Simpson, the Defendant?

MR. SIMS: We were able to exclude Mr. Simpson because we did not find his 25 allele on this particular sample, G12.

MR. HARMON: And whom are you not able to exclude?

MR. SIMS: We were not able to exclude Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown.

MR. HARMON: could you remove that cover?

(Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: G13, you did not perform any RFLP test on that stain?

MR. SIMS: That's correct. Only D1S80.

MR. HARMON: And what were the D1S80 results from G13?

MR. SIMS: The D1S80 results where the 24 allele was present along with weaker 25 and 18 alleles.

MR. HARMON: So the 25 allele is there again; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: And from among the three people, the two victims, Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, and the Defendant, who's the only one that has the 25 allele?

MR. SIMS: That is the Defendant.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove the cover for that?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And were you able to--from among the three types that were provided to you in this case, the two victims and the Defendant, were you able to exclude any of those people, the three people as a possible source of that mixture stain?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove that cover, please?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Now, is it fair to say that every stain that had the 25 allele in it, G10, G11 and G13, was in close proximity to that notch on the wrist?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Could you step back to the board and just go G10, G11 and G13?

MR. SIMS: G10 again, as I mentioned earlier, is a little closer to the notch than the red line shows. G11 is on the outside near the notch area, and then G13 is along that stitch along the notch, along the palm or surface near the wrist (Indicating).

MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't we finish with G14 from the Rockingham glove, no. 9. What--no RFLP tests were done on that stain?

MR. SIMS: On G14, no RFLP. Only D1S80.

MR. HARMON: Only D1S80? What results did you obtain?

MR. SIMS: The results were as follows: The type was determined to be basically a 24, 24 with a possible trace of the 18 allele.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And would you remove the cover from that board?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And the 25 is not in that stain or you did not detect it; is that right?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Were you able to exclude, based on that, Mr. Simpson, the Defendant as a possible source of that stain?

MR. SIMS: We did not detect the 25 alleles. So we were able to exclude him on that.

MR. HARMON: And are those results consistent with a mixture of the two victims?

MR. SIMS: Well, the way we phrase that was that it is--certainly the 24, 24 by itself was consistent with Ronald Goldman's D1S80 type. We noted that it was poss--there was a possible contribution from Nicole Brown on the 18 allele, the basis of the 18 allele.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't we move on to the sock testing results.

MR. HARMON: I would like to--or the sock result board has previously been marked as exhibit 262, and we should have 262-A then for the sock photo board then.

(Peo's 262-A for id = sock photo board)

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, if you want to stand up and take a stretch while we're waiting to locate the exhibit, go ahead. Mr. Fairtlough, did we check the hall?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: It was between two boards, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, would you step up to the photo board that we've marked as 262-A and just examine the photo board and make sure we've got things accurately labeled?

(The witness complies.)

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And we--the board depicts two photos of sock a; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And then one photo of sock b?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And for consistency, sock a is the one that had the cut out that Greg Matheson sent you?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And the substrate control?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And you performed additional sampling and testing on stains from sock b?

MR. SIMS: Yes. As well as sock a.

MR. HARMON: As well as sock A. And are there still a number of these minute areas that you detected blood that have never been tested?

MR. SIMS: Well, they've never been tested by me since I sent them back in November.

MR. HARMON: Okay. That you have never tested?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't we start out with 42A1. 42 is your designation for LAPD item 13 which were obtained from Mr. Simpson's home?

MR. SIMS: Yes. 42 is our designation.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And the A1, what does that specify?

MR. SIMS: That specifies the cut-out stain that we received from Mr. Matheson.

MR. HARMON: In the little tube you described yesterday?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't you step up to the result board, 262, if you would.

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And you described yesterday and we showed just a few of the RFLP autorad results for 42A1. How many actual RFLP autorads or genetic marker tests were performed on 42A1, the cutting that Greg Matheson sent you from the socks, no. 13?

MR. SIMS: In our laboratory, we have now looked at it at 11 genetic marker--11 loci.

MR. HARMON: 11 loci--11 probes?

MR. SIMS: 11 probes.

MR. HARMON: 11 genetic markers?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you remove the cover from that?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And yesterday, you described I believe that the sock--that sock stain, 13A1 or your 42A1, was actually run on two different gels or two different sets of RFLP tests; is that right?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And the sum total of different probes or different genetic markers from those two tests is 11.

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Did you subject DNA, extracted DNA from that same stain to PCR testing?

MR. SIMS: Yes. The PCR testing on that particular sample was done by Steve Myers in our laboratory.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And what sorts of tests were performed?

MR. SIMS: That was DQ-Alpha and D1S80 tests.

MR. HARMON: And what results were obtained?

MR. SIMS: The results that were obtained were a DQ-Alpha type 1.1 and a D1S80 type 18, 18.

MR. HARMON: And whom are those PCR results consistent with?

MR. SIMS: Those would be consistent with Nicole Brown.

MR. HARMON: And not consistent with Ronald Goldman?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: And the Defendant?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: It's not consistent with him?

MR. SIMS: Not consistent with the Defendant.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove the "not excluded" cover?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And this is a stain that you sent extracted DNA to the--to Cellmark diagnostics; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: How many--if we assume that the Cellmark results are accurately depicted on that chart, how many different separate genetic marker tests were performed on stain 13A which Greg Matheson cut out from the socks, 13?

MR. SIMS: Now, this is just with DNA markers?

MR. HARMON: DNA markers.

MR. SIMS: Excuse me. The five here, we would subtract two from I believe because Cellmark looks at two probes that--uses two probes that we use. So that's 14.

MR. HARMON: Could you explain that again to the jury a little bit?

MR. SIMS: Yeah. The--Cellmark uses a different enzyme for restriction than we do, that they look at two of the same probes that we do. So there is some correlation in those results. I don't know off hand exactly what that correlation is, but those are not entirely independent results obviously.

MR. HARMON: So we'll throw them out. We won't count them.

MR. SIMS: For our purposes of what we're talking about now, I would throw those out.

MR. HARMON: Okay. How many genetic marker tests were performed aside from conventional serology?

MR. SIMS: We would now have 11 plus the three, which would be 14. The DQ-Alpha would be 15. D1S80 would be 16, and then I believe we had five for the poly-marker. So that's now I believe 21.

MR. HARMON: 21 genetic marker tests?

MR. SIMS: 21 genetic marker tests.

MR. HARMON: Now, if the chart is correct, you obtained the same DQ-Alpha results as Cellmark did on the same DNA?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's move on to the stain that you have designated 42A2, which is from sock 13A. Could you come over here and show us--could you use that long pointer?

MR. SIMS: 40?

MR. HARMON: 42A2.

MR. SIMS: 42A2 is now on the upper part of the sock. It's opposite of where the LAPD--the opposite side from the LAPD cut out. So it's up here (Indicating).

MR. HARMON: Okay. What sorts of tests did you subject that stain to?

MR. SIMS: 42A2 was subjected to DQ-Alpha and D1S80 typing.

MR. HARMON: What results did you obtain?

MR. SIMS: The DQ-Alpha type was 1.1, 1.2, the D1S80 type was 24, 25.

MR. HARMON: And whom are those results consistent with from among the reference types in this case?

MR. SIMS: Those would be consistent with the Defendant, Mr. Simpson.

MR. HARMON: And are they inconsistent with Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Are they inconsistent with Ronald Goldman?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Any question about that?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could you remove the--from the "not excluded" column the cover?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: So are you saying that Mr. Simpson could be the source of that stain?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Not that he is the source of that stain?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: And Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman are not the source of that stain?

MR. SIMS: They would be excluded.

MR. HARMON: 42A3 from sock 13A?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Could you show us where that is?

MR. SIMS: Yes. This is now on the same side as the LAPD cut out, which is where I'm pointing to the LAPD cut out. You move up the sock, and 42A3 is up in this region (Indicating). It's in the general area, but on the opposite side of 42A2. So--yes. It's on the opposite side.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And what sort of tests did you perform on that?

MR. SIMS: The tests that were performed were DQ-Alpha and D1S80 and I'm currently performing an RFLP analysis on that stain.

MR. HARMON: On that same stain?

MR. SIMS: On that same stain.

MR. HARMON: What results did you obtain from that stain?

MR. SIMS: The PCR results were DQ-Alpha type 1.1, 1.2. D1S80 results were 24, 25.

MR. HARMON: And whom are those results consistent with from among the reference types?

MR. SIMS: Again, that would be consistent with the Defendant's types.

MR. HARMON: Inconsistent with Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And inconsistent with Ronald Goldman?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: No question about that?

MR. SIMS: No question.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove the "not excluded" cover?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: So you mentioned you were performing additional tests. Those tests could not change whose excluded, could they?

MR. SIMS: Well, for example, if those tests excluded the Defendant, they would change that. But they're not going to change the results with regard to Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman.

MR. HARMON: Right. 42A4, the stain which is on sock 13A, the toe region, could you show us where that is?

MR. SIMS: Yes. I don't think we mentioned this one yesterday when we were looking at the video, but this is down in the upper toe area of the sock a (Indicating).

MR. HARMON: Okay. And what sorts of tests did you perform on that stain?

MR. SIMS: That was subjected to PCR test, DQ-Alpha and D1S80.

MR. HARMON: What results?

MR. SIMS: The results were DQ-Alpha type 1.1, 1.2. D1S80 results were 24, 25.

MR. HARMON: And those are the same results you obtained on 42A2 and 42A3; are they not?

MR. SIMS: Yes, they are.

MR. HARMON: Could you uncover the PCR results?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And could you uncover whom you did not exclude from the three reference samples provided to you?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And Nicole Brown is excluded?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Ronald Goldman is excluded?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: No question about whether those two--the two victims in this case are excluded?

MR. SIMS: No question.

MR. HARMON: 42B1--now, we've moved over to sock 13B. Would you show us where that is on the photo board?

MR. SIMS: Yes. 42B1 is in this area where I showed there was--on the video, there were a lot of additional stains (Indicating).

MR. HARMON: Could you - let's talk about that for a moment. When you say there are a lot of additional stains in the area of 42B1, could you elaborate for a moment?

MR. SIMS: Well, the elaboration would be that when looking at that into the stereomicroscope, there are a number of other stains in that particular area that I examined.

MR. HARMON: And how do they compare in size with the stain that you've analyzed as 42B1?

MR. SIMS: Generally--generally they're smaller.

MR. HARMON: Can you quantify about how many there are?

MR. SIMS: I'd have to look at my notes again, but I think they were in the neighborhood of 10 on that side, something like that.

MR. HARMON: Could you--let's be accurate. Would you do that?

(Witness complies.)

MR. SIMS: From my notes, I count about 12 areas.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And--and--

MR. SCHECK: Can I see?

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: While you're at it, we're going to talk about your results in 42B2. What's the relationship of 42B1, 42B2 and these other 12 tiny little stains?

MR. SIMS: Well, they're all in that same general area, and some of them are significantly smaller than 42B1 and 42B2.

MR. HARMON: When you say general area, can you give us a--why don't you show us up on the photo board 262-A.

MR. SIMS: The general area I'm talking about--it's somewhat hard to see because those logo marks give me my math point and they don't show up very well in the photograph. But it's basically down in--I'll sort of mark the lower boundaries--down this part of the sock up to about here (Indicating).

MR. HARMON: So if we drew a band around the sock from--that's kind of bordered by B1 and B2 on that side of the sock that's shown in the photo, is that the general area they were in?

MR. SIMS: Well, I would go up about--yes, about as far up as B2. That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Okay.

MR. SIMS: So somewhere in this general area (Indicating).

MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't we talk about the type tests you performed on 42B1 on sock 13B near the ankle.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: What tests did you do?

MR. SIMS: The tests that were performed on 42B1 were the PCR test, DQ-Alpha and DS180.

MR. HARMON: What were your results?

MR. SIMS: For DQ-Alpha, the type was a 1.1, 1.1. There's a possible trace of the 1.2 allele. Then on the D1S80, it was 18, 18.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could you uncover those from the result board?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's talk about this possible trace of 1.2. You've described that previously with some of your other results. How--what does that mean in the context of this case? Are you telling us this is a mixture?

MR. SIMS: No. I can't say for sure that that's a mixture. I can not decide between two possibilities. One is that there really is a trace of that 1.2 allele present from some other individual. The second possibility is that this is showing up as a weak, a very faint dot in the typing system.

MR. HARMON: Now, if there were really a trace of a 1.2 in there, would you--or strike that. I'll come to that in a second. From among the three reference types in this case, were you able to exclude anyone as the possible source of 42B1?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Who?

MR. SIMS: I was able to exclude Ronald Goldman and I felt also that we could exclude the Defendant based on the fact that we didn't find his 24, 25 on the D1S80.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, you're saying you can exclude him even though there's a possible trace of the 1.2 in there?

MR. SIMS: Well, I'd have to feel more secure about there being a definite 1.2 before I would make a statement that he--

MR. HARMON: Okay. So would you remove the cover from the "not excluded" column?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And I believe you mentioned that part of the reason you feel comfortable excluding Mr. Simpson is that you didn't see anything of his in the D1S80 genetic marker?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Setting aside the possible trace 1.2 for a moment, is everything that you saw in 42B1 consistent with the genetic marker test results for Nicole Brown's reference sample?

MR. SIMS: Yes. That DQ-Alpha type is 1.1, 1.1 and the D1S80 type is 18, 18.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's move on. And we still have--

MR. HARMON: We're getting a patch, your Honor. We have a misnumbering here.

MR. HARMON: It's described--it's your 42B1 and it's actually--the chart has sock 13A and it's actually 13B. Jonathan is getting us a B label for that.

MR. HARMON: Can we proceed for the moment?

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. HARMON: And that's also near the ankle. You've already shown us where that was. What sorts of tests did you subject this stain to?

MR. SIMS: Again, that was subjected to DQ-Alpha and D1S80 typing.

MR. HARMON: What results did you obtain?

MR. SIMS: The results were the same as for B1. In other words, B1 and B2 gave the same results. DQ-Alpha type would be 1.1, 1.1 with possible trace 1.2. The D1S80 type was 18, 18.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you remove the results from the PCR results and would you remove the "not excluded"?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Whom are you not able to exclude?

MR. SIMS: That would be Nicole Brown. Again, I was not able to exclude her.

MR. HARMON: And in spite of the possible trace 1.2, the same explanation; you feel that there's no reason to include Mr. Simpson in those results?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Was there a substrate control that was submitted to you or that you cut out to conduct testing in this case?

MR. SIMS: Yes. There were substrate controls taken from the socks.

MR. HARMON: How many different substrate controls did you take?

MR. SIMS: The substrate controls that I took were, first of all, the LAPD cut out. I used that one. And then I used one for 42A2. In that general area, I cut one out near stain 42A2, which I used to serve as a control in that upper area of the socks. So it served as a control for both A2 and A3. And then also, for 42A4, there was a substrate control area. That was the one down towards the toe. And then finally, for 42B1, I took one control for that general area to cover both stain B-1 and stain B2.

MR. HARMON: And you processed those substrate controls just as you processed the evidence stains that you just described?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And what--generally speaking, can you make a categorical statement about the results of your processing the substrate controls of the socks?

MR. SIMS: Yes. They all gave negative results on the PCR typing tests.

MR. HARMON: Now, was there one that behaved a little bit differently than the others?

MR. SIMS: Yes. On--I believe it was 42A4 in the upper toe region--the toe region, that control.

MR. HARMON: What was their--now, you already told us it produced no typing results.

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: And is that--is that critical, that it produced no typing results?

MR. SIMS: Well, it's not critical when you're talking about an item of clothing that it's negative. If it's negative, you can make an inference from that. But if it's--if there was some background, that would not be totally unexpected in this kind of a sample.

MR. HARMON: Okay. I guess what I'm saying is, it didn't produce a type; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: And is that what you're looking for when you're typing substrate controls? If it does not produce a type, that's a significant result?

MR. SIMS: Yes. If it doesn't produce a type, then it gives you confidence in the typing results for the bloodstains.

MR. HARMON: What was it about the control that was a little bit different than the other controls?

MR. SIMS: For that particular sample, there was some DNA depicted on a yield gel. It was just a yield gel.

MR. HARMON: I know we went through this before. Could you just give us about a 90 second on why that doesn't undermine any of the results in this case?

MR. SCHECK: Well, objection to the form.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. HARMON: Does that--does that DNA on the yield gel undermine your confidence in any of the results in this case?

MR. SIMS: No, it doesn't. I don't know whether or not, for example, that DNA might be of non-human origin. There may be some bacteria or fungus there or something like that. And the point is that it did not produce a PCR result as far as type. So we saw something on the yield gel that was DNA, but it did not produce a typing result.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I was going to move to Bundy now. Do you want to do that or wait?

THE COURT: Well, let's take a--since we'll have to change boards, let's take the opportunity to take a--

MR. HARMON: We are going to patch the board right now.

THE COURT: Yes, please. Ladies and gentlemen, please remember all of my admonitions to you; do not discuss the case amongst yourselves, do not form--can we have it quiet, please? Do not form any opinions about the case, do not conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We'll stand in recess until 1:00 o'clock. And, Mr. Sims, you can step down. Thank you.

(At 11:58 A.M., the noon recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 1995 1:03 P.M.

Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)

(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: Back on the record on the Simpson case, all parties are again present. Mr. Harmon, do you have your witness with his--do you have Mr. Fairtlough with all our exhibit boards that are next up?

MR. HARMON: Yes. Do you want us to put them up now?

THE COURT: I want to make sure you are ready to go.

MR. HARMON: We are ready to go and we did mark or capture autorad A16 which is exhibit 271-A and we should mark that 271-A(1).

THE COURT: So marked.

MR. HARMON: Thank you.

(Peo's 271-A(1) for id = autorad/photograph)

THE COURT: All right.

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

MR. HARMON: The Bundy board has already been referred to, the result board, and the photo board has already been testified about.

MR. SCHECK: Nothing--

THE COURT: Nothing new, all right.

MR. HARMON: The--all right. Let's have the jury.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: And Mr. Harmon, well take our break at 2:15.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Your Honor, after we do the Bundy boards, we are going to bring in the light box.

THE COURT: The monster?

MR. HARMON: The monster.

THE COURT: All right.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Are you going to suggest a jury parade by the box?

MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor. Because of the number of autorads, we will have to do them in three different sets.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HARMON: I think we are organized to do that, so--

THE COURT: All right. We will make sure there is no extraneous--we may have to move the cart there and a few other things.

MR. HARMON: Our slogans can't be seen there?

(Brief pause.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Let the record reflect we have been joined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Sims, would you resume the witness stand, please.

Gary Sims, the witness on the stand at the time of the noon recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: Good afternoon again, Mr. Sims.

MR. SIMS: Good afternoon, your Honor.

THE COURT: You are reminded, sir, you are still under oath. And Mr. Harmon, you may continue with your direct examination.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. HARMON

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, let's move on to the testing that you performed on stains that were collected from the Bundy crime scene, if you will, and I would like to display exhibit 165, the photo board. Will that one work over here or do we need it--okay. And then the exhibit result board, exhibit 259.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Fairtlough. I think, actually 1492, it is touching the screen. Can you pull it out just a little?

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Fairtlough.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, did your laboratory perform DNA testing on numerous items that were collected at the Bundy crime scene?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Starting at the top, did your laboratory perform any DNA testing on item no. 47, which was associated with the Bundy walkway, the stain closest to the victims in this case?

MR. SIMS: Yes. We performed PCR, DQ-Alpha and D1S80 tests.

MR. HARMON: And what were the results of those tests?

MR. SIMS: The results for DQ-Alpha were 1.1, 1.2; for D1S80, 24, 25.

MR. HARMON: And are those results consistent with any of the three reference samples in this case that were provided to you?

MR. SIMS: Yes, they are.

MR. HARMON: And whom are they consistent with?

MR. SIMS: They are consistent with the Defendant, Mr. Simpson.

MR. HARMON: Are they inconsistent with Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Are they inconsistent with Ronald Goldman?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Is there any question about their inconsistency with Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: There is no question.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could you, if you can, reach up there and remove the cover for--I don't think so.

MR. SIMS: I think we need the Lakers to do this one.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Fairtlough, let's leave it there, and 1492, as we progress, we will move it up.

MR. HARMON: Is that the same 25 allele with the D1S80 genetic marker that you observed on the stains, those three stains, near the notch area of the glove that was recovered at Rockingham?

MR. SIMS: Yes. They both have the 25 allele.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor--excuse me, your Honor. Logistically it would be better, I would stipulate, why doesn't he just pull all the matches he is going to pull off the board, then put it up so that there is no problem with the jury and we don't have to go through that.

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon, any objection?

MR. HARMON: Pull them all off, Mr. Sims.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

THE COURT: All right. Let's parade it back up.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, if our chart, if our result chart is correct, exhibit 259 Cellmark obtained as DQ-Alpha type 1.1, 1.2 and polymarker inclusion which described Mr. Simpson, the Defendant, as the possible source of this stain. Are your results corroborative of those results?

MR. SIMS: Yes, they are consistent.

MR. HARMON: And you obtained the same DQ-Alpha result as they did?

MR. SIMS: Yes, we did.

MR. HARMON: Now, is this one of the stains where one or the other of the labs extracted the DNA and shared it with the other lab?

MR. SIMS: No. We sampled separate swatches or separate swatch material.

MR. HARMON: Okay. So your results were produced from a swatch?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's move to no. 48. You performed DQ-Alpha, D1S80 testing on item no. 48 from the Bundy walkway, the next one down the walkway; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes, we did.

MR. HARMON: Same result as item 47?

MR. SIMS: Yes. Again the DQ-Alpha type was 1.1, 1.2 and the D1S80 type was 24, 25.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Moving--and again, that result is corroborative of the Cellmark results?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it is. We obtained the same DQ-Alpha.

MR. HARMON: And it is identical with 47?

MR. SIMS: It is the same result.

MR. HARMON: Item no. 49, the next one down the walkway, it is in the lower photograph on the left-hand corner of exhibit 165. What results did you--I'm sorry, that is a Cellmark result.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Let's move down to item no. 50, the next one after 49, along the Bundy walkway, which is depicted in the upper left-hand, second one from the left on the photo board. What results did you obtain from that stain?

MR. SIMS: Our laboratory detected DQ-Alpha type 1.1, 1.2; the D1S80 type was 24, 25.

MR. HARMON: And that is the same result that you obtained on 48 and 47?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it is.

MR. HARMON: And did you obtain the same DQ-Alpha as Cellmark obtained on different swatches?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And did your results from item no. 50, along the Bundy walkway, did they exclude the two victims in this case?

MR. SIMS: Yes, they did exclude the two victims.

MR. HARMON: As did the results this item 48, did they exclude the two victims in this case?

MR. SIMS: Yes, they did.

MR. HARMON: Moving down, farther down the farthest stain along the walkway, item no. 52, which is in the photograph that I'm pointing to here, what sort of testing did you do on that stain?

MR. SIMS: On that stain we tested for DQ-Alpha and D1S80.

MR. HARMON: You obtained the same results as did you on 50 and 48 and 47?

MR. SIMS: Yes, we did.

MR. HARMON: And whom were you able to exclude?

MR. SIMS: We were able to excluded the two victims in this case.

MR. HARMON: And whom were you able--were you not able to exclude?

MR. SIMS: We were not able to exclude the Defendant.

MR. HARMON: And moving along to at a later point, you have already described how you sampled items from the nail kit from Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's just reflect back on the items that you sampled and describe--because the numbering system sometimes gets confusing--could you relate your item numbers to the LAPD item numbers which are 84 and 84B?

MR. SIMS: Yes. Our item number was 46B for their item no. 84A which is the left hand material, and then our no. 45A was the--45 was our number for their no. 84B, the right hand material.

MR. HARMON: And just to get a little more descriptive here, 45A-1B--

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: --is that the blood that was closely associated with whatever that was that you thought might very well have been tissue?

MR. SIMS: Yes. That is that blood next to that area.

MR. HARMON: And that you determined was not tissue?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: And go on to the next item and just so we can relate it to what you observed or what you examined.

MR. SIMS: Yes. That would be which item now?

MR. HARMON: Well, 45B is the scrapings from the right hand?

MR. SIMS: Yes, 45B, those are the right hand scrapings.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Did you obtain--I'm sorry, go ahead. Did you obtain the same results from all three items, all three stains that you tested from the nail clippings from the left hand, the nail scrapings from the right hand, and the nail clippings from the right hand?

MR. SIMS: Yes. Those were tested for D1S80 by Renee Montgomery and she obtained the same result for all three samples.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Will you describe whether or not any of the three reference types that were provided to you were excluded as the possible source of that stain?

MR. SIMS: Yes. Two of the reference samples were excluded. That would be the reference sample from Ronald Goldman and from the Defendant, Mr. Simpson.

MR. HARMON: So you were not able to exclude Nicole Brown as the source of the scrapings that were in the bindle from either the left hand; is that right?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Or the right hand?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Is that correct--or the item that you have described as 45A-1B, which is from the right hand clippings; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Are your results from the three items, from the nail clippings and scrapings from the left hand and the right hand, are they corroborative of the results that are listed for Cellmark on the result board?

MR. SIMS: Yes. They are consistent in that Nicole Brown would not be excluded as the source of those items.

MR. HARMON: And how many genetic markers, if you combine the Cellmark testing on the three items from the nail clippings and scrapings with the D1S80 marker, how many genetic markers were tested in order to try to demonstrate that Nicole Brown could not be the source of what was under her fingernails or on her fingernail?

MR. SCHECK: I would object to the word "combine."

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: How many genetic markers if you counted, if Cellmark's description, if the description of their result is accurate, how many markers, genetic markers were tested in order to determine whether Nicole Brown could or could not be the source of the blood under her fingernails or on her fingernails in one instance?

MR. SIMS: There would be a total of seven genetic markers because there would be five from polymarker, DQ-Alpha would make six and D1S80 would make seven.

MR. HARMON: Okay. The last three items on the result board, 115, 116 and 117. They are described as being on the rear gate at Bundy?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And those are reflected in the photographs labeled 115, 116 and 117. What sorts of tests did you subject those three stains to?

MR. SIMS: May I refer to my notes?

MR. HARMON: Sure.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.) Those three samples from the rear gate have been subjected to three PCR tests and we are also currently running an RFLP test on one of them.

MR. HARMON: What were the results of the PCR test on those samples?

MR. SIMS: (No audible response.)

MR. HARMON: Strike that. Preliminarily, did you get the same results for the PCR tests that you subjected those three samples to?

MR. SIMS: Yes, all three gave the same results.

MR. HARMON: What are those results?

MR. SIMS: The results are that the DQ-Alpha type was 1.1, 1.2. The D1S80 type was 24, 25.

MR. HARMON: And why don't you remove those covers, Mr. Sims.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Go ahead. Are those results consistent with not being from Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: Yes. By those results we would exclude Nicole Brown.

MR. HARMON: And would you also exclude Ronald Goldman?

MR. SIMS: Yes, we would also exclude Ronald Goldman.

MR. HARMON: And from among the three reference samples provided to you, were you able to exclude the Defendant in this case?

MR. SIMS: No, we could not.

MR. HARMON: Now, I have asked you this before, but I want to ask you this again. Are those DQ-Alpha and D1S80 results together consistent with being from an offspring, a child of Nicole Brown and the Defendant?

MR. SIMS: No, they are not.

MR. HARMON: They could not be from a child of Nicole Brown and the Defendant?

MR. SIMS: No, they could not.

MR. HARMON: Let's go back to the top again, and if you would, I would like to ask you a general question about all the stains that you have described. Were substrate controls tested, submitted to the same process that the evidence stains were, on items that are on this board from the Bundy crime scene?

MR. SIMS: By that you mean 47, 48, 50 and 52, as well as the lower items?

MR. HARMON: Yes. Let's separate out the nail clippings first.

MR. SIMS: Okay. For those items, 47, 48, 50 and 52, along with 115, 116 and 117, we also tested substrate controls in both of the PCR systems.

MR. HARMON: And did all of those controls test clean or not produce any sort of DNA type in any of the tests?

MR. SIMS: They were all negative.

MR. HARMON: They were all negative. What about the nail clippings which are described as 84 and B, the three samples that you actually tested, was it possible to obtain a substrate control?

MR. SIMS: There would not be what we would consider a substrate control for those types of samples.

MR. HARMON: Why is that?

MR. SIMS: Well, because this is material from under the fingernails and one does not obtain a clean area from that kind of sample, and particularly in a case like this where all the ones we saw had some blood associated with them.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, does that in any way, the absence of a substrate control for the nail clip items, does that in any way undermine your confidence in the results that you have just presented to the jury?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, this would be a point to move the light box in, if that would be okay.

THE COURT: All right.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, with the Court's permission, I would like Mr. Sims to display on the light box exhibits 269-A through i.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And at the same time, so that the jury may orient themselves, display on the elmo 269-C, one which is one of those--it is the first autorad that we actually displayed that we have--

THE COURT: With the arrows.

MR. HARMON: --marked with the arrows.

THE COURT: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Do you need Mr. Sims to step down?

MR. HARMON: Yes, please.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, for the record, just so it is clear, these are copies; not the originals.

MR. HARMON: We can substitute the originals.

THE COURT: Let's proceed.

MR. HARMON: Okay. We are just waiting to get 269-C(1). Jonathan, why don't you get 270-A(1) and 271-A(1) as well.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. So we can put up on the elmo 269-C(1). Have we have got everything?

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, we are going to project 269-C(1) and I just want you to tell the jury what is on there and we will display it as you put the arrows on it so they can correlate the samples, if you would. Okay. Now, this is one of several autorads and the arrows point to the match between which samples?

MR. SIMS: The samples that match are the Nicole Brown reference sample and the sock 13A stain sample.

MR. HARMON: And the complete set of autorads shows the complete set of genetic marker tests that were done on this gel that so the match between the sock and Nicole Brown; is that right?

MR. SIMS: Yes. This is--you will recall this is all involving the sock. The sock also appears on some additional--on one additional gel, that would be a second set of autorads.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, this would be the point that we can all step back and let the jury come through.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, starting with juror no. 1 and take your time, as much time as you need.

(The jurors view the exhibits.)

THE COURT: And Miss Clark, Mr. Cochran, approach, please.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

(The jurors continue to view the exhibits.)

THE COURT: All right. The record should reflect that all the jury members have had the opportunity to view the autorads with regards to LAPD item 13A.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, next I would like to--to remove exhibit 269-A through I from the light box and place 270-A through h on the light box, and then 270-A(1) on the elmo.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, after you finish putting them up there, if you could just briefly describe the samples that are on there to get the jury oriented to your autorads that we put up there.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SIMS: For this gel or membrane I again put the three reference samples on this particular gel. There is also an additional lane that has the sock, the same stain that you saw on the previous set, and now I have also added stain G3 from the glove to this particular gel, so there is some duplication of the sock as far as some of the loci that were examined.

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. HARMON: Can we have the jury view the autorads, your Honor?

THE COURT: All right. Juror no. 1.

(The jurors view the exhibits.)

THE COURT: All right. The record should reflect that all the jurors have had the opportunity to review that exhibit as well as each of the autorads. Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Finally, if we remove 270, the 270 series, a through h, and place the 271-A through--I can't remember where we ended up with that one, your Honor. Is that e? A through e.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: And can we put on the elmo 271-A(1)?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: And Mr. Sims, could you look up at the projection screen there and just get the jury oriented. Let's talk about the red arrows. What do those show a match between?

MR. SIMS: The red arrows show a match between the reference sample from Nicole Brown and two of the bands in the lane which has "glove G1 stain."

MR. HARMON: The green arrows, what do they show?

MR. SIMS: The green arrows show the match between the band for Mr. Goldman's reference sample and two of the other two bands in the glove G1 stain.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. HARMON: Could we have the jury view those autorads, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

(The jurors view the exhibits.)

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, while the jury is looking could I approach with Mr. Harmon for a second?

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar.

MR. SCHECK: There is a seven-probe match on item no. 117 from the gate, and I am aware of it, and I asked Mr. Harmon today, and previously I indicated to him that I certainly have no objection to him bringing this out in his testimony right now, rather than calling this witness back.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. HARMON: I am kind of shocked to hear this acquiescence because if you recall--no, if you recall, I said I wasn't going to present it and I'm not prepared, so I am--

THE COURT: Hold on.

MR. HARMON: --I am not prepared to do that today.

MR. SCHECK: Well, as a matter of fact, what I requested with respect to these samples before when we had the issue arise, since this testimony is ongoing during the course of the proceedings and we had this problem with reporting the results of 115 and 116 before they were done, at that time I requested of the Court that we have reports of the results as they came in. Now, it seems to me that he doesn't want to bring it out, I intend to bring it out. I don't want something coming out later that makes it look like there is something more there. I want to go into an inquiry as to--

THE COURT: Well, we probably--

MR. SCHECK: 115, 116, 117. I want to go into the status and I'm giving him fair notice.

THE COURT: We probably won't finish with him.

MR. HARMON: I think we noticed to have some discussion on this, because this is the most bizarre, insincere--there is something else going on here, Judge, and you know that and I know that.

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon, hold on. He offered to let you put there in now. If you want to do it, do it. If you want the evening to think about it, fine.

MR. HARMON: No. We don't have the autorads, but this idea that he is going to elicit the RFLP results at this point when it is beyond the scope of direct examination--

THE COURT: Well, let's see how far you get with your direct today.

MR. HARMON: I haven't reviewed his notes. I mean, I'm very meticulous with this, and if you want to review back, Judge--

THE COURT: Rock, it is just an offer. Think about it.

MR. HARMON: It is not an offer, your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, I would encourage you to think about it simply so that we can move this along.

MR. HARMON: I understand. The amount of time--

MR. SCHECK: I would expect to be finished today.

MR. HARMON: The amount of time it will take today to present it is the same amount of time that it will take in a few weeks. There is something else going on here and you know that and I know that.

THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on. Putting all that aside--

MR. HARMON: Okay.

THE COURT: How much--

MR. HARMON: It is hard to, though.

THE COURT: Putting all that aside, how much more do you have with this guy?

MR. HARMON: This is a four o'clock day?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. HARMON: I want to talk about contamination, degradation and I'm going to try to pick it up, but the logistics of these things will slow things down. We are pretty much beyond all of these displays, now so depending on how many objections there are.

THE COURT: Have there been many?

MR. HARMON: Continue that and I can--so I'm going to try to do it this afternoon. We've got the statistics. If I have to do a broad going back to his credentials--that is one way we can acquiesce and speed things up. Let him calculate across the lanes and that will really speed things up.

THE COURT: Oh, get Dr. Weir in here.

MR. HARMON: He is coming. He is coming for sure. No question he is coming.

THE COURT: Okay. Thanks for the offer.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

(The jurors continue to view the exhibits.)

THE COURT: And Mr. Cochran and Miss Clark.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

(The jurors continue to view the exhibits.)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. The record should reflect all the jurors have had the opportunity to review the third set of autorads. Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: Yes. Can we move that out? Is it still plugged in?

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harmon, you may continue.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, I want to ask you a question about the consistency of certain results and specifically I want to ask you about stains in which you did PCR typing and produced results, DQ-Alpha, 1.1, 1.2 and D1S80 24, 25?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Is it true that as a result of your testing you achieved those same results which are consistent with Mr. Simpson on item no. 6 from Rockingham?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Item no. 42A2 which is sock 13A?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, this is asked and answered four times now, so if we to get to another point.

THE COURT: We have heard this and we have seen it on the result board.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Is it true that you produced the same results for DQ-Alpha 1.1, 1.2, on items from Rockingham, from Mr. Simpson's sock, from Mr. Simpson's Bronco--

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, this is--

MR. HARMON: From the Bundy crime scene?

MR. SCHECK: It is leading and it is getting kind of--

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. We have heard this.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, as a forensic scientist, what is the impact or what is the implication of duplicate testing by separate labs? What issues does that address?

MR. SIMS: Well, duplicate testing is important in a way that it--it provides a control in case any mistake might be made by one laboratory, then by having a second laboratory do the same operations that would be a check on the consistency of the operations and the process.

MR. HARMON: All right. Anything else if the duplicate testing is of the same sample, in terms of conclusions, that one could draw from the same testing?

MR. SIMS: Yes. In other words, one would look then to make the same conclusions as to who might be included or excluded as a source.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And have you--well, we will come back to that. Mr. Sims, can you think of any scientific reason the tests that your lab subjected the variety of stains that were given to you would produce correct results on stains at the Rockingham address but incorrect results on the Bundy stains and the Bronco stains?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, objection, objection.

THE COURT: What is the objection?

MR. SCHECK: Leading, speculative, vague, not specific.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, what scientific reason, if any, can you produce that would explain why your results might be correct on stains from Rockingham but incorrect from stains that were collected at Bundy and the Bronco?

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

THE COURT: Do you understand the question?

MR. SIMS: I think I do, although there is some question about scientific reasoning.

THE COURT: Why don't you rephrase the question.

MR. HARMON: Is there any scientific reason why your tests would work on stains from Mr. Simpson's house but not on stains from the crime scene and his Bronco?

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, objection to "tests working" as being vague--

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

THE COURT: Why don't you just narrow it down to one and the other. It is also compound.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, and listen very carefully, if you will, what scientific reason, if any, is there that your test would produce reliable results on stains from Mr. Simpson's house but unreliable results from Bundy?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, is there any scientific reason why--that you can think of why your tests would work correctly on stains from Mr. Simpson's house but incorrectly on stains from his car?

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, now, there are some other results that we have not discussed; is that true?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I believe that's correct.

MR. HARMON: Now, among the other items that were submitted to you was an item described as LAPD no. 113 which was a hair?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And I think you actually alluded to it this morning. There was no DNA that was extracted from that hair?

MR. SIMS: That's correct. That test was performed by Steve Myers and he obtained no DNA. He detected no human DNA in that sample.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, in addition to all the results that you've presented here, were specific items of clothing submitted to you or cuttings from clothing submitted to you for testing?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And specifically was a pair of jeans that was identified as LAPD item no. 19, Ronald Goldman's jeans, was that submitted to you for DNA testing?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it was.

MR. HARMON: And were tests performed on those stains?

MR. SIMS: Now again the number was?

MR. HARMON: 79, your 59?

MR. SIMS: Yes, that's correct, item no. 79, which is our DNA 59, that was a pair of pants.

MR. HARMON: And how many separate stains were tested from that item?

MR. SIMS: Nine.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And item no. 81, LAPD item no. 81, which was identified as Ronald Goldman's shirt, was that also subjected to DNA testing?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And how many items, how many specific stains were tested?

MR. SIMS: Excuse me. We received eight stains plus one control, substrate control area.

MR. HARMON: And those were all tested?

MR. SIMS: Yes, all of those were tested.

MR. HARMON: And additionally, item no. 86, which was identified as Nicole Brown Simpson's dress, was that also submitted to your lab for testing?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it was.

MR. HARMON: And how many separate stains were tested?

MR. SIMS: Six.

MR. HARMON: Okay. As a result--what were you attempting to look for? What was the laboratory attempting to look for when those items of clothing were tested?

MR. SCHECK: I think that is--calls for speculation, leading as far as the results.

THE COURT: It is compound. Why don't you rephrase it as to the individual items, what tests were performed.

MR. HARMON: You have reviewed all the results?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I have.

MR. HARMON: Were any results produced from the testing of those items that were foreign to either of the victims in this case, Ronald Goldman or Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: No. All of the results that we obtained from those various items that you mentioned of clothing were consistent with either victim or a combination thereof.

MR. HARMON: When you say a combination, you mean a mixture?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, we have seen all the boards and you have described the consistency of results and now I would like to begin addressing how you would communicate to the jury the significance of the consistency or the matches between the reference stains and the evidence stains in this case, okay?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor--

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, yesterday you described your career for us in great detail and I asked you about your experience in conventional serology and you described how many times you testified. Of all of those times that you testified did you provide, when it was appropriate, the statistical estimate or some sort of frequency data to assist the jury in appreciating how important or unimportant the conventional serology results were?

MR. SIMS: Yes, most of the time. Not always; but most of the time.

MR. HARMON: When you say "most," why did you not present it in some cases?

MR. SIMS: Well, sometimes it was maybe just an exclusion or something like this and type was not--there was no need for a frequency estimate.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, in those times how--did you actually conduct your own population frequency studies in the conventional serology field that you relied on when you testified?

MR. SIMS: No, I did not.

MR. HARMON: Okay. What sources of information were available to you when you testified as an expert in forensic serology to provide these frequency estimates to assist juries?

MR. SIMS: I would--in those cases I would look at both published and unpublished data.

MR. HARMON: And when you say "published," where would these things be published?

MR. SIMS: For example, in the journal of forensic sciences.

MR. HARMON: That is a journal that continues to exist today?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it does.

MR. HARMON: What other sources of information did you rely on?

MR. SIMS: I would sometimes look at frequencies put together by various laboratories that had gathered data.

MR. HARMON: For example, are you familiar with how the Los Angeles Police Department compiles their conventional serology data?

MR. SIMS: Yes. I have some information about that. I believe they take a general population database.

MR. HARMON: And is that something that they publish somewhere?

MR. SIMS: I have never seen it published.

MR. HARMON: So was it unusual, in your conventional serology career, for you to rely on unpublished data as well as published data?

MR. SIMS: No. Most of it was published, but I would rely on--on other data also.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And in trying to describe to the jury the significance of your conventional serology results, did you rely on the product rule?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.

MR. HARMON: Could you briefly explain the product rule to the jury?

MR. SIMS: The product rule describes the process whereby one looks at the various types in each of the genetic marker systems and then multiplies the frequency found in a particular system or times the frequency of a particular type in the next system et cetera, down the line. That is the product rule.

MR. HARMON: And that is in a vacuum, but you had individual genetic markers in the conventional serology days that you inserted into the product rule?

MR. SIMS: Yes. For example, the ABO type and PGM type.

MR. HARMON: EAP type?

MR. SIMS: EAP type.

MR. HARMON: And the studies, both published and unpublished, justified the use of the product rule in the conventional serology context?

MR. SIMS: Yes. In particular, the published studies.

MR. HARMON: Okay. I know we went into your background quite extensively yesterday, but do those same principles generally apply in the DNA context, the product rule, multiplying individual markers or individual frequencies together?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, no foundation with respect to DNA through this witness, certainly on not what has been--

THE COURT: I am not asking you to argue any further, Mr. Scheck. I am thinking.

MR. HARMON: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the Court's ruling.

THE COURT: I haven't ruled yet; I am thinking about it.

MR. HARMON: That is why I didn't hear it.

THE COURT: In the eight seconds the trial Court has to think about these things. Overruled. Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, could we have a side bar?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Could I hear the question again?

MR. HARMON: I will try and get it exactly the way--that is consistent with the ruling. Are the same principles that you relied on in conventional serology, the use of the product rule, fundamental to the estimation of population frequencies in the DNA context?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Are you familiar--what is there in your--is an appreciation for statistics also helpful in applying the product rule, both in the conventional serology and the DNA context?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, vague as to--

THE COURT: Sustained, "appreciation."

MR. HARMON: Do you have any training or education in the field of statistics that contributes to your ability to use the product rule in the conventional serology context?

MR. SCHECK: Objection to that linkage as compound.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Yes. I have taken a formal course in statistics.

MR. HARMON: And could you describe that course and how it lends itself to the use of the product rule for frequency estimates and we are just in conventional serology and then we will move up to DNA.

MR. SIMS: Well, at that basic level of statistics one is dealing with probabilities and that sort of thing. It is very basic statistics. I have also had, as part of my forensic education, discussions and learning in the application of statistics to population genetics issues.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, so the statistics class was when and where?

MR. SIMS: That was at the University of California at Berkeley.

MR. HARMON: And when was that?

MR. SIMS: 1973.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And population genetics classes and education that lend themselves to calculating frequency estimates in the DNA context, could you please--could you outline what those classes have been.

MR. SCHECK: Objection as to anything in 1973 with respect to DNA.

THE COURT: Overruled. He said in terms of conventional serology.

MR. SCHECK: I think he just said DNA.

THE COURT: No, this question is a different question.

MR. SIMS: Well, for the conventional serology, that was part of my education while I was an undergraduate at UC Berkeley as part of our forensic biology training. Subsequent to that now, as I mentioned, I reenrolled in the master's program and certainly those issues have come up in suggestions as part of our formal training and also I have taken a one-week course from Dr. Bruce weir that dealt with population genetics and the statistics issues with regards to forensic questions.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I notice it is 2:15. Do you want to--

THE COURT: I'm sorry, we need to change court reporters. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't communicate with anybody or conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. Stand in recess until 2:30. And Mr. Sims, you can step down.

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: Good afternoon again, counsel. Mr. Scheck, you wanted to elaborate on one of your--

MR. SCHECK: Yes, your Honor. I wanted to try to get to the bottom of the qualifications issue because I had asked for a sidebar. It's the kind of thing that one likes to resolve as a lawyer outside the presence of the jury so that it goes smoothly. We really have two arguments with respect to Mr. Sims and the statistics. The first one is that, we don't believe that taking a one-week course with Dr. Weir on population genetics constitutes sufficient expertise in that area to offer these statistics. And the issue here is that an expert, of course, can rely upon other data that's generally relied upon by experts in the field as a basis for expert testimony. No problem with that in terms of the database. The issue is, you first have to be an expert in that field in order to rely upon the data.

So our first argument is that he is certainly an expert in criminalistics and in the process of forensic DNA typing, but he doesn't have sufficient expertise in the issue of--on the area of population genetics to offer these statistics. And frankly, whatever expertise, and it's conceivably greater, he had in training and conventional serology just is--is not really relevant to this determination as the fierce litigation over statistics and DNA typing and then the actual research council report itself attests to that fact. The second issue, to anticipate where we're going, is that if he is qualified for the limited purposes of offering frequencies from the databases using the systems at issue, that we have received from the Department of Justice in discovery in terms of our specific requests for the basis of their statistical estimates with respect to RFLP, they indicate that they rely upon the FBI database as the way that they get frequencies. With respect to DQ-Alpha, it's Dr.--the worldwide database compiled by Dr. Blake and Helmeth and others. And then with respect to D1S80, we have a letter from the Department of Justice indicating--attaching an article from the FBI, which includes a database based on individuals from which the FBI calculated D1S80 frequencies. So if he's going to testify to frequencies, it seems to us that just as a pure discovery matter, he should be limited to the sources they indicated they were going to be using as their databases. To have him then look at everybody else's database or other articles and start opining on that I think would be way beyond the scope. Finally, Mr. Harmon just produced another board that I'm going to object to with respect to concordance of Cellmark and DOJ results for different item numbers. And all that they list here are the various different probes and systems. And I think that this is plainly cumulative, argumentative and it's--under 352, it's misleading. We're striving in the use of these boards and in the rulings of the Court to try to indicate to the jury what the statistical significance of the evidence is and what it isn't, and here it seems to me it's just not adding anything. In fact, it's going to be confusing to issue--the issue to say, well, we have different genetic systems here and there was a concordance and then there's an implication about multiplying those and what you can determine from that and probabilities, and it seems to me that, my lord, it's more than covered by the board they already have where all of these results are there. And so here, instead of having the genetic marker system and the statistics, you just have the genetic marker system without any further elaboration. It seems to me cumulative, argumentative and more prejudicial than probative under 352. So those are my arguments. A, he's not qualified to rely on this data. So he shouldn't give the numbers. B, they should be limited to the databases they told us they were going to use in discovery and, C, my objection to the board.

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: Well, I'm somewhat shocked because I know in chambers two days ago, Mr. Scheck--and unfortunately, this wasn't recorded--it's my recollection said, "Oh, Gary can do all this. There's no problem. We're not going to object to that. " and I understand things change from day to day, but I hope People's word doesn't change day to day without some prior notice to sort of expedite things. I haven't finished trying to qualify him yet. So I appreciate what the objections are, but we'll take as long as it takes to convince you that he's qualified, and it won't take as long as it will take to convince Mr. Scheck that he's qualified because we'll never get to that point.

One does not need to be an expert in the field of population genetics to express an opinion about the statistical significance of a match in DNA typing. Prior to this date, eight other judges in this state--and I can't vouch for those other judges, but Mr. Sims is batting a thousand on his ability to qualify and express terms--the statistical significance of the results that he's produced. And I'm sure when the Court considers his qualifications and reads the sections concerning expert testimony, which I just happen to have here, the Court will realize that an expert is merely someone who has a specialized knowledge that will assist the jury in understanding the evidence to be presented. I--of course, I'm paraphrasing it. In that context and once the Court considers that he is qualified, then he may provide opinion testimony. And the opinion testimony must be of a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming an opinion upon which the subject to which his testimony relates.

THE COURT: All right. Is Mr. Scheck correct in his assumption that the various databases on which Mr. Sims bases his opinions are those that Mr. Scheck mentioned?

MR. HARMON: Let me double-check with Mr. Sims. He's partially correct, but that's still--I don't think that addresses what Mr. Scheck clearly has in mind, and that is a discussion that we had a little while ago about how inappropriate it would be for Robin Cotton to multiply her PCR results from the same piece of evidence--

THE COURT: Well, no. We're getting off to other--

MR. HARMON: Well, no. He hasn't addressed that. And I'm sure if I qualify Mr. Sims and that's the type of material that he may reasonably rely on, he won't object when we multiply the PCR markers of Cellmark by the PCR markers of DOJ. So let me just make one last check with Mr. Sims as far as the statistics that relate to the test results that he produced. But we should address the cross lab multiplication because that's coming right after that, your Honor. I mean they're intermixed within the stains, and so now is the time--now is the time to flush that out.

THE COURT: All right.

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

MR. HARMON: We have provided discovery to the Defense for all of the data that they have relied on. And, you know, one of the primary ones is Dr. Blake's world study, which by the way, is not published. It's in a nice bound cover, but it's not published. It's disseminated. So at least as far as the results by the Department of Justice lab, we have provided discovery to the Defense for all of the data that we intend to rely on in producing the frequency estimates for their test results. That doesn't include the Cellmark results.

THE COURT: All right. What about the--

MR. SCHECK: Excuse me, your Honor. That's--

THE COURT: No. No. No.

MR. SCHECK: That's not in answer to your question.

THE COURT: What about the additional board? Why isn't this completely redundant?

MR. HARMON: You know, it's under the topic of redundancy, but it relates to the question--it's illustrative--if I had it before the break, I would have put it up or having shown it to Mr. Scheck, it just illustrates graphically the answer to the question that I asked him, you know, shortly after the autorad show. I don't think it's redundant because it specifically shows which of those items do address the improbability or impossibility of lab error. So I don't agree that it's redundant in that context. It shows the redundance in scientific context.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. HARMON: Could you give me two questions on that board, your Honor? Two questions?

THE COURT: Did I?

MR. HARMON: Could you give me two questions on with board?

THE COURT: And they are? If you have to read them--

MR. HARMON: I don't have them. I'm trying to remember that original question that I asked.

MR. SCHECK: I remember.

MS. CLARK: I don't think he wants to ruin the suspense, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: I'll try to do it in one, your Honor. Does this exhibit demonstrate the redundancy of duplicate testing by separate labs which minimizes the possibility of laboratory error.

THE COURT: All right. I'm going to sustain the objection under a 352 basis. All of this information is on the results board. It's redundant. I don't like the word "concordance" in this context. I think it's argumentative. You can use that during argument. It's a nice exhibit. I would. But for these purposes, I'm going to sustain the objection. All right.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, could I just answer factually just to see if I'm clear on this? But, number one, maybe Mr. Sims can enlighten us, but in terms of his eight court appearances, by my count, one of them would be the Griffen hearing where no statistics were testified to. And I'm not altogether sure that he can tell us whether statistics were admitted in the other court appearances. I think some of them might have even been cases where ultimately the PCR cases were not admitted. Moffett? Moffett?

MR. SIMS: I didn't testify.

MR. SCHECK: You didn't testify or-- but in any event, I'm not sure statistics were in all of them. So inquiry could be made with respect to the PCR statistics. The other thing is that I take it that Mr. Harmon is answering yes to the Court's question did I accurately state the databases that are going to be relied upon. I mean, that's all I'm trying to ascertain.

THE COURT: I took that as a yes as well.

MR. SCHECK: And then finally, is there anything else that Mr. Harmon--before the Court rules--that can be made by way of an offer of proof outside the hearing of the jury with respect to his qualifications so that I can deal with it now and we don't have to go through it all in front of the jury and I don't have to stand up and object. That's the purpose of this motion in limine.

THE COURT: Well, the problem is, the plaintiff is entitled to establish the qualifications of their witness before the final fact.

MR. SCHECK: I'm not arguing with that. I'm just saying, if he can make an offer of proof as to what else there is that qualifies Mr. Sims, then I can make my objection, and if the Court is going to rule against me and it's preserved, then I don't have to stand up like a pop-in jay and jump up and all the rest of it. That's the point of doing this now.

THE COURT: All right. Any other comment, Mr. Harmon?

MR. HARMON: Just my offer of proof is, he's eminently qualified, and I suggest that you rule on that and then he won't have to jump up and down.

THE COURT: All right. That's very helpful.

MR. HARMON: Otherwise--no.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Luckily, the appellate courts and the legislature give wide discretion to the trial court in ruling upon whether or not somebody qualifies as an expert witness. Here, Mr. Sims has many years of technical experience in the field of forensic sciences--science and is familiar with and actually has hands-on experience with the actual testing technique itself, and I'm convinced also that the databases that have been suggested are reliable for these purposes. I'm also convinced that the amount of training that he has had gives him an amount of expertise in the area that is beyond that of the order layperson. So I find him qualified for these purposes. All right. And, Mr. Scheck, if you want, at the point in time when the opinion is offered, you can make your foundational objection for the record if you want.

MR. SCHECK: Actually, what I would prefer to do is just make it now and ask for it to continue. The only other thing to be raised is, there is--saying that he's qualified to recite what the frequencies would be if you plug in the FBI data to the alleles and the DQ-Alpha and the D1S80 is one thing. To then, as Mr. Harmon has indicated he intends to do, have this witness testify that it is appropriate and he can multiply the DQ-Alpha frequencies and the poly-marker frequencies against the D1S80 frequencies, I think that is beyond the expertise of this witness.

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon. Since we'll get to that shortly I'm sure.

MR. HARMON: Sure. I mean we need to throw Cellmark into the picture too because that's the next extension to that. It's the same product rule. It's the same statistical manipulation. He has testified to the product rule in the PCR cases. I'm not sure--the distinction that Mr. Scheck tried to make is interesting, but totally irrelevant. It matters little that the evidence was excluded as the result of some admissibility hearing. What matters is, that's a different issue than whether he was qualified to present and express--

THE COURT: No. We're beyond that issue. The issue is, is Mr. Sims qualified to not only give frequencies of the testing that he did, but also combine the results with the testing that Cellmark did and then come up with an additional product rule.

MR. HARMON: Sure. So we're focused on that.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. HARMON: That's the last point.

THE COURT: In case you didn't hear, I ruled in your favor on the other matter.

MR. HARMON: How do I miss that? And I think that's very helpful because that gets to section 804 of the evidence code. Opinion--I mean if you combine 801, what the opinion testimony of the expert may be based on, 801(B) with 804, where an opinion where it's appropriate can be based on the hearsay statement of another expert as long as it's described that way, that's the rule of law in California. So there are two steps to it. Mr. Sims, if I'm ever allowed to get him back on the stand, will explain that it is appropriate for him to rely on data. He's already expressed it in the conventional serology area where--this is unpublished data.

I mean, the Blake stuff is unpublished. It's in a nice little cover, but it's not published. It's the compilation of things that are derived from other areas, and it's in exactly the same category as the data that was provided by Robin Cotton to Mr. Sims. Same category, same standing. So the real question I think that you have to address is contained in 801 and 804; is Mr. Sims telling you the truth when he tells you these are the kinds of things that experts can rely on.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, a foundational matter. The--it's one thing to rule, as the Court has, that it's okay for Mr. Sims to say that within the various markers in the FBI database, the different RFLP markers, there's a sufficient scientific basis to assume independence and multiply those--multiply a cross loci and multiply within a locus. Again, with respect to DQ-Alpha, there is published data by Helmeth, et al, and Dr. Blake just added some more. But again, that's just dealing with the independence of the markers within the DQ-Alpha system and across each of those--across those various alleles and similarly with respect to D1S80, which is one publication.

The issue as to whether or not for these systems, one can assume that each of them is independent of the other, particularly when some of these markers are on the same chromosomes as each other between those systems I think is clearly beyond this witness' expertise. So it seems to me that in terms of the Court's discretion, to allow them this change multiplication at this point in time through this witness when you have Dr. Weir coming in terms of whether or not this can be done at all is an extremely serious foundational issue. I think it's just carrying this way too far and presents a real problem. So I think it's--in terms of the Court's previous ruling--it's one thing to say that he can plug in the numbers and compute the frequencies within the systems. It's quite another to say that he has sufficient expertise in terms of population genetics or assumptions of independence to multiply these marker systems against each other.

MR. HARMON: Can I have one more try, your Honor, now that I understand--

THE COURT: Hold on.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. HARMON: Final comment. Now that I see--I thought it was whether he couldn't rely on the data. Now that I see clearly what Mr. Scheck's objection is, the answer is very simple. It's the same product rule, number one. Number two, the FBI article, which Mr. Sims has in his briefcase--Mr. Scheck has trivialized that it's just one article, how many do you need--demonstrates the--if that's not something that they waived when they waived their hearing way back in January, and I contend that it is. The FBI article, which Mr. Sims can be glad to demonstrate, shows the statistical independence which then justifies the use of the same old product rule to multiply these frequencies. So I thought we were going on whether he could rely on the data, not on whether they were significantly independent, which I believe is something they waived five months ago. So if you'd like to see the article or hear testimony from Mr. Sims, if that's the only issue, the article clearly addresses it. There's nothing else in the scientific horizon to the contrary.

THE COURT: When do you anticipate getting to this particular issue, multiplying--attempting to multiply the DOJ results with the Cellmark results?

MR. HARMON: Pretty soon.

THE COURT: All right. And I take it your offer of proof is the FBI database on this?

MR. HARMON: Well, the FBI article demonstrates the independence of the D1S80 data-- I mean, let's focus on the question. And if the question is, has anybody demonstrated the statistical independence of DQ-Alpha data from D1S80 data from poly-marker data, which are the only markers that we want to multiply, yes, the answer is, the FBI article demonstrates that statistical independence that justifies the use of the product rule.

THE COURT: How long is this article?

MR. SIMS: It's about I think five or six or seven pages, something like that.

MR. HARMON: It will just take you a couple minutes, Judge, to read that over.

THE COURT: All right. Let me see it. Although better this than the six-week DNA hearing.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: While we are waiting for Mr. Sims to retrieve that article, Miss Clark and Mr. Cochran or Mr. Shapiro, have we reviewed those reports?

MR. COCHRAN: Yes.

THE COURT: Are there some sensitive matters there?

MR. COCHRAN: We have some post-it's we'd like to show you I think on both sides.

THE COURT: All right. Would you have Mr. Golob come out, please?

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, may we put this on the glove board? Is that big enough?

THE COURT: Better.

(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, this may only be five pages, but it's the kind of thing you can't read in two minutes, at least not me. Let's proceed with what you have, Mr. Harmon, and you can present the--we will stop at the point where you want to combine the results with Cellmark's results, and we'll quit there for the day, because I'll need to read this. And, Mr. Scheck, if you have any competing articles or any additional articles in the area, I would like to see them.

MR. SCHECK: When you say competing articles--

THE COURT: Anything that disputes this--having not read it, I don't know what it says.

MR. SCHECK: No, no. You've read I trust a lot that disputes it previously. The issue is, this article is the first that's emerged in the literature even reporting on this question. So it sets the cutting edge. I mean D1S80--you know, we didn't have a hearing, but D1S80 is not exactly a frequent character, as a frequent marker system in proceedings anywhere. So that's our problem here. I think that--

THE COURT: All right. No. Mr. Scheck, all I'm doing is inviting you to provide me with any other information you have.

MR. SCHECK: Well, the Court's done extensive reading I trust already, you know, with respect to the fundamentals of this. All I'm saying is that this article just came out. Undoubtedly, there are general responses, as you know, to this and to the size of the database and the rest of it, but it's too new for there even to be published responses at this stage.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Mr. Harmon, we're clear, we'll get up to that point where you want to combine the poly-markers and the other Cellmark DQ-Alpha results and we'll quit there.

MR. HARMON: Just, it would appear that the--the socks may be that point. And I may even try to skip that. I know we want to take advantage of the time. So I'll do the best I can to work around since that's a discreet board.

THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jury, please.

(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Mr. Sims, would you resume the witness stand, please. And let the record reflect we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. And, Mr. Harmon, you may continue with your direct examination.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, yesterday you testified that you have qualified as an expert in the field of forensic DNA typing eight times; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And all of those cases involve PCR typing of one sort or another?

MR. SIMS: Yes. I believe most of them did. There may have been one that did not.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And what about how often or how frequently among those eight cases did you testify about RFLP?

MR. SIMS: I believe that was in seven of the eight I discussed RFLP.

MR. HARMON: And in each of those cases which involved RFLP typing, were you qualified to express an opinion about the frequency estimate of the significance of the matches?

MR. SIMS: Well, in those cases in which that came up, yes, I was qualified to do that.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And do you keep abreast of the scientific literature in the area of forensic DNA typing as it relates to the frequency estimates?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I do.

MR. HARMON: Have you reviewed numerous scientific articles which address the frequency estimates which are designed to express significance of these matches?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: Among those articles, are there actually articles in which frequency data, the raw data is actually published?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And are there other sources of frequency data which are made available to forensic DNA typing experts?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: What kinds of--or what are those other sources?

MR. SIMS: Well, for example, there are exchanges such as the California association of criminalists, one may exchange data, present it and then exchange it in that fashion.

MR. HARMON: And what's the purpose of that exchange of data?

MR. SIMS: Well, it's a--it's a professional exchange of information so that--that--for example, a compilation of data may be transferred from one individual who has put such a compilation together to the rest of the forensic community so that they can use it.

MR. HARMON: And is there also a massive compilation of RFLP data that's available through the federal government?

MR. SIMS: Yes. There is a very large set of data now that is available through the federal government.

MR. HARMON: In a very brief description, could you tell us what that data consists of?

MR. SIMS: That data is a compilation of actually worldwide RFLP data. It encompasses I believe four volumes in a government publication. It's a worldwide study.

MR. HARMON: Not to get too technical here, but does it include data produced from the restriction enzyme HAE-3, which you use?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it does.

MR. HARMON: And data produced by the restriction enzyme that Cellmark uses, hin-F1?

MR. SIMS: Yes. There is a volume dedicated to the HIN-F enzyme as I recall.

MR. HARMON: And more specifically, do you have a compilation of data that was compiled by Dr. Edward Blake and others?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I do.

MR. HARMON: And is that additionally one source of PCR data information that you use?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And what sources is that data derived from?

MR. SIMS: Well, there's a large number--there are a large number of sources for that data. Most of it is published data. Some it has been presented, that sort of thing.

MR. HARMON: And that's the same Dr. Blake that took all the pictures in this case?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it is.

MR. HARMON: Have you compiled population frequency estimates for the testing that your lab conducted in this case?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And are you prepared, if we go in ascending numerical order, to write those frequency estimates on the board for us?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I can do that.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Can we start out with the Rockingham board, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Exhibit 261.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, I'm going to ask you to write these things up in a minute. I want you to explain where the data was derived from for the DQ-Alpha frequencies that you're about to put up there and what source the data for the D1S80 frequency was from.

MR. SIMS: Yes. The--the DQ-Alpha frequencies are derived from a worldwide's or the worldwide compilation of Dr. Edward Blake's that was put together in 1994 by Dr. Blake. The--and that would encover--that would cover the three different groups that I will mention, which are the African American, the Caucasian and the Hispanic data. Then the D1S80 data arrives from--derives from two sources. The African American and Caucasian D1S80 is from the FBI and then the Hispanic D1S80 data was derived from the Orange County Sheriff's Department database.

MR. HARMON: What I'd like you to do--we're--I only want to put a range of numbers up there. Could you please describe for the jury the frequency of the combined type that you produced from DQ-Alpha in this case and in all three of those groups?

MR. SIMS: This would be just DQ-Alpha--

MR. HARMON: Just--and I'm not asking you to write it. I just want you to articulate it for us and then--

MR. SIMS: Okay. For a particular type?

MR. HARMON: For DQ-Alpha 1.1 and 1.2.

MR. SIMS: Okay. Would you like the range?

MR. HARMON: The three groups and then the range.

MR. SIMS: Okay. The three groups would be the African American group, the--and would you like a figure for that?

MR. HARMON: Sure.

MR. SIMS: The African American group for the 1.1, 1.2 would be about 1 in 12. The figure for the Caucasian group would be 1 in 18 and the figure for the Hispanic group from--would be 1 in 40.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And I'd like to ask you the same question about the frequencies for those same groups for the D1S80 type that you found, 24, 25.

MR. SIMS: Okay. 24, 25? Excuse me. For the African American database--this is just D1S80 type 24, 25. African American would be about 1 in 47 or 1 in 48 one might round it to. For the Caucasian, it would be about 1 in 29 and for the Hispanic, it would be about 1 in 36.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And if you would, I'd like you to--strike that. Is it appropriate based on your review of the scientific literature to multiply the combined frequencies of the DQ-Alpha type by the D1S80 type?

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

THE COURT: What's the nature of the objection?

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, it's the issue that you haven't decided. No, no, no.

THE COURT: Wait. DQ-Alpha--

MR. SCHECK: Multiplying DQ-Alpha against DS180. That's what you just told him you were going to decide.

THE COURT: No. That was Cellmark's results versus--

MR. SCHECK: No, no, no.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: That's the article that you're about to read, your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes, I know. I understand. Proceed. Overruled.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: Is it appropriate to do so?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I believe it is.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And what I'd like you to do if you would is among--or describe the combined frequency of the DQ-Alpha type 1.1, 1.2 and D1S80 type 24, 25 in those three groups again.

MR. SIMS: In those three groups?

MR. HARMON: Yes.

MR. SIMS: For the--for the African American data, it would be about 1 in--1 in 572--or I'm sorry--about 1 in 570 I would round that to. For the Caucasian group, it would be about 1 in 520 and for the Hispanic group, it would be about 1 in 1400.

MR. HARMON: Okay. What I would like you to do now is-- would it be appropriate to give the jury an appreciation to describe the range of those three groups from just the more common to the rarest?

MR. SCHECK: Objection to the word "appropriate."

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Would you please write, as Dr. Cotton did, the more common type to the less common type and leaving out the one in the middle?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

(Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could we move on to the glove board, the results board, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. HARMON: That would be 272-A.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. HARMON: As well as could we have B up there, the photo board?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: I have a few questions that--while we're--

THE COURT: Go ahead.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, let's talk about--you described very well the mixtures and the significance of the observations on some of these mixtures. But is there some difficulty in expressing some sort of frequency estimate when one has mixtures of the kinds that you described?

MR. SIMS: Yes. That raises certain issues.

MR. HARMON: And what are those issues? Well, those issues are about who could have contributed which of the particular alleles in question.

MR. HARMON: And are there assumptions involved in deciding how these mixtures should be calculated?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And have you calculated frequency estimates for the mixtures and the results that you produced in this case and included them in your report?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: Why not?

MR. SIMS: Well, the--the mixtures are subject to certain assumptions.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, excuse me. I'm sorry. I would object to this testimony. I think the Court's ruled on this.

THE COURT: On a foundational basis at this point?

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Is there a scientific basis for your decision not to calculate mixture estimates in your report?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Again, foundational grounds.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: What if any basis is there for your decision not to calculate frequencies for the mixtures that you've found--

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, objection. Ask for a sidebar on this.

THE COURT: Overruled on the request for a sidebar. Objection sustained.

MR. HARMON: Is it a simple proposition for you to calculate the frequencies for any of the mixtures that you found in the glove?

MR. SCHECK: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer that question.

MR. SIMS: Well, any of the--any of the mixtures are not quite simple when we talk about this glove. There are some assumptions and underlying data and evaluation of data that is made. It's not just a simple matter of looking at the numbers.

MR. HARMON: And do you feel that the way you have described the data, either RFLP or PCR, explains the significance or lack thereof of the mixtures?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: He shouldn't go on.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, if you look on the right-hand column under "frequency"--and check this if you will--do those shaded areas in the right-hand column all represent stains for which mixtures were detected by you in your testing?

MR. SIMS: Yes, they do.

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, let's start out with G3, which is--you've already described that for the jury. That is not a mixture in your opinion; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: On G3, the calculation was based--for the RFLP was based on the finding that there was no indication of a mixture in the RFLP pattern. I could not exclude the possibility of some trace mixture based on just the PCR results. So I don't--I don't have a particular calculation for the PCR, for example, for the possible 1.2.

MR. HARMON: And if you did, based on what you observed there, which you don't feel is really there, would you have to include Mr. Simpson as the source of that stain?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Objection. Speculative on what he will do if he had something which he says he doesn't.

THE COURT: Sustained. The objection is speculation, counsel.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, let's talk about the significance of the eight probe RFLP match that matches Ronald Goldman's known reference type. Have you been--have you calculated the frequency for that eight probe match among the three major groups?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I have.

MR. HARMON: And what are those groups again?

MR. SIMS: Well, if we can back up for a minute.

MR. HARMON: Sure.

MR. SIMS: The calculation is actually based on six of the loci. There are two--the additional loci that I did not include in the statistics for.

MR. HARMON: And why was that?

MR. SIMS: Well, at the time, we didn't have ready access to those other databases.

MR. HARMON: Okay. So those are genetic marker tests that you conducted, but they did not contribute to the frequency estimate; is that true?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you please describe in the three groups that you used in describing the frequencies in stain no. 6 at Rockingham the frequency estimate for that stain G3 from the glove, no. 9, at Rockingham?

MR. SIMS: Yes. This was based on the six RFLP loci, D1S7, D2S44, D4S139, DS1510, D10S28 and D17S79.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And what are the frequencies in the respective groups for a match between samples that you found at six genetic markers?

MR. SIMS: The profile detected in bloodstain G3 occurs in approximately 1 in 2.1 billion Caucasians, 1 in 41 billion African Americans and 1 in 1.2 billion Hispanics.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could you go up to the board--I know we didn't leave you much room--and write the more common frequency and the less common frequency.

(Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Just to make it really clear, those other two probes, did they exclude Mr. Goldman as the source of that?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: They continued to show that he matched that stain?

MR. SIMS: Yes. He matched those loci.

MR. HARMON: And you just don't have data from which to derive a frequency estimate?

MR. SIMS: I don't have it readily available.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's talk about the PCR results if you will. Have you calculated the combined frequency for the DQ-Alpha and D1S80 results that you obtained on G3?

MR. SIMS: Well, I did not calculate that based on the possible 1.2 because that was the mixture possibility. So I don't have that figure.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Even though you don't think it's a mixture?

MR. SIMS: Well, again, when we're talking about a mixture, as far as the RFLP pattern, you can clearly see that there is one person's DNA across those loci. When we talk about the PCR, we have to--we have to consider the possibility that there may be some traces of DNA from another individual contributing to the overall pattern. But that's just because of the relative sensitivity of the PCR as opposed to the RFLP.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And looking on the chart, the next one that appears to be not a mixture is one that you've described as consistent with Ronald Goldman?

MR. SIMS: Well, again, that's--that's based on the DQ-Alpha 1.3, 4. Again, there was a possible 1.2 in that and then the 24, 24 on the D1S80, but I did not calculate a PCR for that.

MR. HARMON: Do you feel that's a mixture?

MR. SIMS: Well, on G9 in particular, that particular sample I believe was actually a piece of tissue from my examination and the way that sample tested, its appearance and also its behavior in the extraction process. Now, if there was possibly some traces of blood from another individual adhering to that, we know that there is a great deal of mixing going on on this glove. So I couldn't exclude that as an absolute possibility.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And the others--let's look on the chart and make sure. The others are clearly mixtures?

MR. SIMS: Yes. The others are clearly mixtures.

MR. HARMON: Could we have the Bronco board at this time, your Honor, the Bronco result board and the Bronco photo board? The photo board is exhibit 172 and the result board is exhibit 260.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, while he's setting up the photo board, could you look at that and let's focus on the top, LAPD item 24 from the Bronco instrument panel. You obtained a DQ-Alpha 1.1, 1.2 in that stain?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And would you calculate the frequencies in the three major groups and then please write on the board the more common and the least common?

MR. SIMS: Yes. The frequencies are as follows: The African American frequency for DQ-Alpha type 1.1, 1.2 is about 1 in 12, the Caucasian is about 1 in 18 and the Hispanic is about 1 in 40.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could you step up to the board and write to the lowest and the highest, please?

(Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: While you're still up there, would you focus on LAPD item 30, which is your item 17? That is not a mixture; is that true?

MR. SIMS: I'm sorry. The item number was?

MR. HARMON: 30, the one you have your hand on, the center console item?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: That is not a mixture?

MR. SIMS: Yes. There was no indication that that was a mixture.

MR. HARMON: And is that the same frequency that you found over at Rockingham on no. 6?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Same types?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Would you write that up there? Do you recall what it is?

MR. SIMS: Yes I do. I'll put it on the board.

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And why don't you stay there. 34, in the driver's side wall, that's the DQ-Alpha 1.1, 1.2, the same result you got on 24 up at the top?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Same range of frequencies then?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Would you write that up there, please.

(Witness complies.)

(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. And with respect to 293 from the Bronco carpet, driver's side, how would you address that? Is that a mixture or not?

MR. SIMS: I would characterize that particular bloodstain as being from a type 1.1, 1.1 individual. I couldn't rule out the possibility that there was a trace 1.2, but it was clearly at the trace level. So the actually type of the stain would be 1.1, 1.1. The D1S80 type would be 18, 18.

MR. HARMON: It's not a mixture?

MR. SIMS: It does not indicate to be a mixture based on what we can say about that particular type.

MR. HARMON: Okay. That's a new one now. That's the one that's consistent with Nicole Brown. What is the frequency of those combined types in the three major groups as you have calculated for Mr. Simpson?

MR. SIMS: For those--excuse me--those three racial groups, the African American would be about 1 in 8900, the Caucasian would be about 1 in 990 and the Hispanic would be intermediate. That would be about 1 in 1300.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could you write the ranges of those combined frequencies on the board as you have with the other frequency estimates?

MR. SIMS: Yes

(Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. And then the next three stains are clearly mixtures in your opinion, 303, 304 and 305?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Those will be addressed later.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I could do some of the Bundy now if you'd like. Could we have the Bundy board result board, 259, and the photo board, 165?

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, while Mr. Fairtlough is finding that other board, let me ask you just a few general questions. Specifically with respect to the PCR data, within that Dr. Blake's world study, that compilation, are there actually many other groups other than the three groups from which you've calculated your statistics?

MR. SIMS: Yes, there are other groups.

MR. HARMON: And so if one were interested in a specific Asian group, for example, could one rely on that to demonstrate a difference in frequency?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Relevancy.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Yes. One could, for example, look at Asian data. One could look at native American data.

MR. HARMON: And are--in addition to Dr. Blake's published or disseminated study, are there also frequency studies with these PCR markers emerging from all around the world?

MR. SIMS: Yes, there are.

MR. SCHECK: Objection. 1054.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: Are the range--what are the ranges that you've calculated here attempting to communicate?

MR. SIMS: Well, the purpose of putting up this type of data is twofold. One, it shows us that there is variation among the various population groups. That's a known fact. And then the second thing is to get an idea of how--if you look at this broad group of people, how these frequency estimates are generally uncommon no matter what group you look at.

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Move to strike on the previously stated grounds with respect to this witness.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: And is the number or at least the range of numbers designed to assist them in deciding how common or uncommon it is?

MR. SIMS: Yes. That's exactly why we've done this. And I've taken a similar approach when I was doing the conventional serology. It gives an idea of what the range is.

MR. HARMON: I just want to focus on three samples on here, ones which only your laboratory tested, items 115, 116 and 117. You've already described that those results are consistent with Mr. Simpson across all three of those stains; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And you've already calculated that frequency when you addressed the Rockingham no. 6 stain. Is it the same frequency from the Rockingham no. 6 stain?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it is.

MR. HARMON: Would you please write that range of frequencies up on the board?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I have a couple other areas I can cover before we finish up.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, reflecting back on the Bronco console mixture results that you obtained, 303, 304, 305--

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: --are those mixture results consistent with the wearer of no. 9, the right-handed glove wiping along the passenger side of the console?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, do you have a clear--do you have your results in front of you?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I do.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you look at your results and look at the mixture results for no. 9, the glove at Rockingham?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Are the Bronco console mixture results 303 through 305 consistent with having come from the mixture results on no. 9, the Rockingham glove?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, do the Bronco console results, 303, 304 and 305 show the same relevant mixtures as any of the stains on item no. 9, the Rockingham right-handed glove?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Again, foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question?

MR. HARMON: Could I--I haven't asked for a question to be read back yet. Could I do it this time, your Honor?

THE COURT: "Mr. Sims, did the Bronco console results, 303, 304 and 305 show the same mixtures as any of the stains on either item 9, the Rockingham right-handed glove?"

MR. SCHECK: The Court is reading it I take it? Are you reading it?

THE COURT: Item nine.

MR. SCHECK: I think the actual question had to do with relative intensity. So--

THE COURT: That's why I left out the relevant.

MR. SCHECK: Oh. You mean you asked a new question.

MR. SIMS: When one talks--

THE COURT: Yes, I did. I asked I thought a better question.

MR. HARMON: It was much better, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. SIMS: The answer to that is yes, to the Judge's question.

MR. HARMON: Thank you. Are the PCR results that you obtained on the right-handed glove, area G10 and G11 and G13, are those consistent with a person with a type 25 allele depositing blood while removing that right-handed glove at the notch?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. No foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, just a little foundational question. Each of those stains that I mentioned from the glove all have a 25 allele?

MR. SIMS: That's correct. That would be G10, G11 and G13.

MR. HARMON: And that's one that Mr. Simpson has and neither victims in this case have; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: That's correct. Mr. Simpson has that allele, the two victims do not.

MR. HARMON: Are the mixture results surrounding the notch on glove no. 9 that was found at Rockingham consistent with having been removed--with the glove having been removed by Mr. Simpson?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained. That's really calling for speculation at this point.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I think this might be a good time to break. I want to finish up those statistics tomorrow before we move on.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, there's a legal issue that I need to resolve before we move on to the remainder of Mr. Sims testimony, and it will take me some time to resolve. So we'll break early as far as the jury is concerned today. Please remember all of my admonitions; do not discuss the case amongst yourselves, do not form any opinions about the case, do not conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We'll see you tomorrow morning at 9:00 o'clock. All right. Mr. Sims, you can step down.

MR. SIMS: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Tomorrow morning, 8:45. All right. After we've cleared the jury, I want to see two representatives of counsel with regards to that one other issue, and then we'll break for the day. And, Mr. Sims, let me give you back a copy of your article. All right. We'll stand in recess.

(At 3:40 P.M., an adjournment was taken until, Thursday, May 18, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge

The People of the State of California,)

Plaintiff,)

Vs.) no. BA097211)

Orenthal James Simpson,)

Defendant.)

Reporter's transcript of proceedings Wednesday, May 17, 1995

Volume 148 pages 27875 through 28089, inclusive

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPEARANCES:

Janet M. Moxham, CSR #4588 Christine M. Olson, CSR #2378 official reporters

FOR THE PEOPLE: Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012

FOR THE DEFENDANT: Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I N D E X

Index for volume 148 pages 27875 - 28089

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day date session page vol.

Wednesday May 17, 1995 A.M. 27875 148 P.M. 28001 148

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEGEND: Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden d Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX of witnesses

PEOPLE'S witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.

Sims, Gary 148 (Resumed) 27880rh (Resumed) 28005rh

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALPHABETICAL INDEX of witnesses

Witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.

Sims, Gary 148 (Resumed) 27880rh (Resumed) 28005rh

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXHIBITS

PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

270-D - Autorad - A11 27886 148

270-E - Autorad - A14 27886 148

270-F - Autorad - A15 27886 148

270-G - Autorad - A22 27886 148

270-H - Autorad - A24 27886 148

271-D - Autorad - A18 27887 148

271-E - Autorad - A19 27887 148

272-A - Posterboard 27949 148 entitled "Rockingham glove blood results"

272-B - Posterboard 27949 148 entitled (Results of DNA analysis: Rockingham glove"

262-A - Posterboard 27980 148 entitled "Rockingham socks LAPD #13 blood results"

271-A(1) - Autorad - A16 28002 148 photograph with 9 arrows