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

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

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

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

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Neufeld, People represented by Mr. Darden and Mr. Harmon. Mr. Neufeld, where is Mr. Scheck?

MR. NEUFELD: Could we just have two more minutes, your Honor?

THE COURT: Okay. Anything we can take up? Any other procedural matters or do we--I guess we need Mr. Scheck for all of our other discussions.

MR. HARMON: There's one board we had showed Mr. Scheck the other day that I don't know if you looked at it. It's a report or a board that shows RFLP results only. And if you'd like, I can show it to you, and then Mr. Scheck, if there's an objection, can articulate it.

THE COURT: There is or if there is?

MR. HARMON: If there is one. I'm sure there won't be, but--

THE COURT: No, you don't need that, Mr. Fairtlough. You can just show it to me. Aha.

MR. NEUFELD: At least the jury's not here.

THE COURT: You want to show Mr. Scheck there?

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I do have an objection as to this board. I mean, I think it's cumulative at this point. All these results are already up and on those boards, and to put them up again and again like this I think becomes unduly confusing. It makes--I mean it's hard to keep track of all the results, and if you create another board with the same results yet again, it begins to seem like there's more than there is. So I think this is a 352 problem.

THE COURT: All right. The title of this board is "results of RFLP DNA analysis" and it purports to collect--Mr. Harmon, is this all the RFLP?

MR. HARMON: Except we've got 117 covered up because that hasn't been recorded yet and those probes are still accumulating. That's why we have it covered up.

THE COURT: And this is all the RFLP testing?

MR. HARMON: That have been presented to the jury, yes, your Honor. And the context in which--once we--once you rule on the statistical questions that we tell have to resolve, I intend to discuss degradation, contamination, cross-contamination for a short period of time and then discuss this case with Mr. Sims as if it were an RFLP case only and evaluate the evidence in the context of no concern for cross-contamination because of the exquisite sensitivity of PCR. You've heard the slogans all along here, but that's the context that I intend to show this board to Mr. Sims very briefly. If Mr.--I mean, it is also--

THE COURT: Why don't you address Mr. Scheck's two direct objections; one, that it's redundant, and, two, that it has a tendency to be misleading because it seems to say that there are additional results, more than what's already on the board that we have. That's how I understand Mr. Scheck's objection.

MR. SCHECK: And the third one of course is no statistics, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: Well, it's hard to imagine how it would seem to say that there are additional results when--if that's a concern of his, I will make it clear as a foundational question for Mr. Sims that these do not represent additional results. These represent--well, we can dispense with that if that's the concern. You know, the term "redundancy," as we discussed yesterday, may have a legal implication to you, but in the scientific context and some of the articles, we will--the scientific articles by Dr. Edward Blake, the question of redundancy in repeat analyses has a very positive implication that disabuses one of the notions that the Defense has cleverly planted in this case. So "redundancy" is a very powerful word in the scientific context and especially in this case.

THE COURT: All right. Well, don't you address my concern, Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: Excuse me, your Honor?

THE COURT: Why don't you address my concern.

MR. HARMON: It is not redundant in the scientific context and, therefore, it should not be considered as redundant in the legal context. It is a powerful scientific redundancy that--we can--if you want to put a time limit on it, I can do it in three and a half minutes. If I overstep that, I'll be happy for you to pull the plug on me, but I think it is a powerful point. That in the scientific context, that redundancy addresses all of these improbable hypothetical--

THE COURT: You're still not addressing my concern, that it's cumulative, that we already have these results on other exhibits.

MR. HARMON: Well, this case is cumulative, your Honor. It is. I mean, that's the point of it. This case is cumulative, and the fact that we have produced an accumulation of scientific results shouldn't preclude us from demonstrating the scientific redundancy. It's not irrelevant. It's not cumulative.

THE COURT: Well, how are you going to use this?

MR. HARMON: I will ask--I will address it after--you know, maybe the best thing to do is try to address it in the next break after you hear Mr. Sims' testimony and his extensive reliance on the publications of Dr. Blake to address this very point. Maybe that's the best thing. Let me try to lay a foundation for it. And at that point, if you want to put a time limit or a number limit on my questions, I'll be happy to--it's not going to take a lot of time, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. You're not going to get to this before 10:30?

MR. HARMON: I will avoid that point. Even if we do, I'll move on and then ask you to reconsider at that point.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: All right.

THE COURT: All right. We also had the issue regarding the articles that you wanted the Court to consider. Mr. Harmon, do you have any other comment?

MR. HARMON: No, your Honor. Those articles speak for themselves and they clarify the concerns that Mr. Scheck had yesterday.

MR. SCHECK: I don't think they are. The one concern I had is that they already elicited testimony where they were able to multiply the D1S80 against the DQ-Alpha.

THE COURT: Well, I assume this is for the purposes of any motion to strike or any further remedies you might seek if it's not--if the conclusions that Mr. Sims reached are not supported in the scientific literature.

MR. SCHECK: No. I think that the nature of the objection was that--had to do with the level of his expertise to rely on that particular document. That is--that is different than compiling a database. In other words, if you compile a database and you do a study from one particular system, that's one thing. But to claim he has the expertise to say that you can do a chain multiplication between systems is quite another. And that one suggestion in that publication most recently based on that data, I don't think he has the expertise to draw that additional inference. And if anyone were to do that, it would probably be a qualified population geneticist or biostatistician, whom they're going to be calling. So it seems to me that it really is--I understand the Court's previous ruling about these systems in place and plugging in the numbers from the database as within this witness' expertise because of the way the systems were produced and established. But I think that this is just an inference beyond which he--it's really fair for him to comment at this point.

MR. HARMON: It sounds like we're relitigating what was conceded now, that he's not supposed to be able to multiply. I mean, if you recall the events of yesterday, we pinpointed it during the break. And so you've already deemed him qualified to do that, and now the question that I perceive and I know the record bears me out on this is, his sole remaining objection was the independence of these markers. And those articles specifically address that. And so the sole question that--the burning question of yesterday was, could he multiply the Cellmark markers by the D1S80 markers, and that question was based on Mr. Scheck's representations that they may not be independent, not that Mr. Sims was not qualified. I appreciate why it's painful to hear this stuff, but that was the issue yesterday, and I think that's the only issue that we addressed in those articles and the articles are clear.

MR. SCHECK: My point is this. He's not qualified to make the assessment based on this one article recently produced in this context. I understood the Court's previous rulings, looking at all this literature and all the foundation and all the cases, was that if--and the foundation that was laid, is that if you have a system which they created a database, there's been a number of publications and studies and he is a user essentially of the database and the system that's presented to him, can say, "I've scored this band," or, "I've recognized this allele and I go to some published table and I can generate numbers based on that published table," that that was a sufficient foundation in the way the Court's ruling, and his expertise is sufficient to do that. When you're now asking to conduct the chain multiplication of different marker systems, I don't think that this is an adequate foundation in terms of this witness' expertise to evaluate this literature and say it's okay to do this additional chain multiplication. And I think it's evident from the way the numbers rapidly escalate, that it's no small matter to say that, let's do a chain multiplication of frequencies on the order of 1 in 10 for DQ-Alpha, then we'll multiply them on a chain multiplication against D1S80 and poly-markers, and all of a sudden, you're looking at much rarer frequencies than you started with. So that that is a leap that I don't think this witness is within the foundational perimeters this Court has set out is qualified to make.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. All right. The objection will be overruled. And, Mrs. Robertson, let me ask you to mark these articles that were submitted to the Court as Court's exhibit.

THE CLERK: 12.

THE COURT: All right.

(Court's 12 for id = documents)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Darden.

MR. DARDEN: Can we approach without the reporter for just a moment?

THE COURT: Do we have to do it now?

MR. DARDEN: I'm curious.

THE COURT: You're curious?

MR. DARDEN: Yeah.

THE COURT: I'm curious about a lot of things. Do we have to do this right now rather than take up jury time?

MR. DARDEN: Whatever you like.

THE COURT: Does it have something to do with Mr. Harmon's presentation?

MR. DARDEN: No, it doesn't.

THE COURT: Okay. Let's have the jury. We'll take it up at the break.

MS. CLARK: May I ask the Court when we are going to be able to be heard on the most recently filed motion?

THE COURT: Not now.

MS. CLARK: I knew that.

THE COURT: Today, 4:30?

MS. CLARK: Okay or tomorrow.

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

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

THE JURY: Good morning.

THE COURT: Counsel, for your information, Mrs. Robertson advises me that the two buzzes this morning which--on the Court's buzzer system indicates the jury has a question. The jury wanted to bring to the Court's attention the fact that an article in a publication regarding this case had slipped through the sensors and that they--one of the jurors had seen it and immediately brought that to the attention of the Court. And good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for your diligence in this matter. All right. Mr. Sims, would you please resume the witness stand, please, Gary Sims, the witness on the stand at the time of the evening adjournment, resumed the stand and testified further as follows: THE COURT: We'll isolate what it is and show it to counsel at the break. Good morning, Mr. Sims.

MR. SIMS: Good morning.

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

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. HARMON

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, before we complete the calculations for some of the frequencies that we hadn't gotten to yesterday, are you familiar with a--through the world--FBI world population study a large amount of HAE 3, the restriction enzyme you use, population data that could be searched for the profiles that were produced in this case?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, your Honor. 1054, beyond the scope of what we had agreed to with respect to this witness.

THE COURT: Let me see counsel with the Court reporter.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. We're over at the sidebar. What's your 1054 objection?

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, this is precisely what I was worried about. And that is the worldwide--so-called study, worldwide study of the FBI where they went around and they collected frequency data from different laboratories from different parts of the world with different kinds of marker systems is not--was not turned over in discovery and was not part of the calculation that this witness made with respect to these frequencies, was not part of the offer that Mr. Harmon made when I pinned him down as to which databases he was relying upon and not relying upon. So it goes beyond the scope of what he said he was going to do and what they specifically indicated in discovery when they turned over databases to us when we specifically asked what databases they were relying upon.

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: That was the only question I was going to ask.

THE COURT: Is he familiar with it?

MR. HARMON: Sure. And his presentation is not going to be based on it. It may be depending on the extent of cross-examination, but we've never had any intention of presenting that. I just wanted to--

MR. SCHECK: No, no, no. Then it should be struck because the implication in here is that he's relying on it if he's familiar with the world-wide study, and that's more prejudicial than probative.

THE COURT: All right. Objection is overruled, if that's all it is, is he familiar with it.

MR. HARMON: Could we--I want to read that back.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, do you recall the question I asked?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Are you familiar with that study in the context that I described it in the question?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Could we have the sock photo board and the sock result board? The photo board is 262-A and the result board is 262.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Fairtlough, is it possible to raise the second exhibit?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: A little bit, your Honor, but not much.

THE COURT: All right. Why don't you raise it as high as you can.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, while we're waiting, we're just going to go in the order that the stains--the numerical order that they're listed there and initially discuss the significance of the 11-probe RFLP match that--on DOJ 42A-1, sock 13, the Greg Matheson cut-out stain. Okay?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: How did you approach your calculations to this 11-probe or 11-genetic marker match between Nicole Brown and the cut-out that Greg Matheson made from sock A?

MR. SIMS: The approach that I used was to go to the bin tables, those are the tables that list the frequencies for these RFLP bins or alleles within the bins, and I made a determination based on six loci.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And what significance--so when you say "six loci," you mean six probes?

MR. SIMS: Six probes.

MR. HARMON: Six genetic markers?

MR. SIMS: Six genetic markers.

MR. HARMON: What significance do those other five probes that you did not use in your calculations have in--giving the jury some appreciation for how common or rare this match is?

MR. SIMS: Yes. The idea is that these additional systems are also highly polymorphic. They have great powers of exclusion. And so I looked at those additional loci to check the results of the sock against the reference sample.

MR. HARMON: In normal English, could you tell us what "highly polymorphic" means?

MR. SIMS: It means that--that if you were to take two individuals at random, there would be a very good likelihood that you would be able to separate them based on this type of analysis. Any one of those probes is very strong for that purpose.

MR. HARMON: People are pretty different from one another?

MR. SIMS: Yes, they are.

MR. HARMON: As you demonstrated on all of the autorads when it was easy to distinguish from among the three reference sources?

MR. SCHECK: Leading, argumentative. Let's get to--

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Could you--just the way we approached the other statistics, could you describe from among the three major population groups that you've used in your calculations the frequency estimate for those three groups and the match between Nicole Brown's reference blood and Greg Matheson's cut-out stain on the sock?

MR. SIMS: Yes. For those--the six loci that I looked at, these are RFLP loci D1S7, D2S44, D4S139, D5S110, D10S28 and D17S79, the profile detected in stain 42-A(1) occurs in approximately 1 in 21 billion Caucasians, 1 in 41 billion African Americans and 1 in 7.7 billion Hispanics, again indicating that this profile is a rare event and pointing out that these are for unrelated individuals.

MR. HARMON: Now, is there any way to express to the jury what impact those other probes that do--those other genetic markers that have not played a role in your calculations have on describing how common or rare the pattern of Nicole Brown's blood is when you look at it and see it in the sock?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Would you please relate to the jury in your opinion the impact on those numbers that you've just communicated to the jury in helping them evaluate how common or rare that pattern is?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: I'm going to sustain an objection to that question because I think the statistic itself speaks for itself, how common or rare.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: Do each of those additional tests narrow down the possibilities?

MR. SIMS: Certainly.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, specific objection to "these probes," these--

THE COURT: Which are we talking about, the six or the five?

MR. HARMON: Do each--

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: I'll rephrase it. Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HARMON: Do each of the additional genetic markers that do not play a role in those calculations that you've just presented to the jury, do they have an impact on those calculations?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Yes, they do.

MR. HARMON: And just in general terms, could you explain that to the jury?

MR. SIMS: Well, as I started to say earlier, these tests are very good at distinguishing between individuals. And so what we're looking at is more and more genetic markers, more and more places on the chromosomes where we see whether or not a given stain and a given reference sample match. And the more of those that one looks at, the rarer the profile must become.

MR. HARMON: And--okay. In addition to those 11 genetic markers, your laboratory performed PCR tests on that same stain; is that right?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And the results you've already described, DQ-Alpha, 1.1, 1.1, D1S80, 18?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: What I would like you--have you been provided data based on Cellmark's analysis of extracted DNA from the very same stain that you extracted which demonstrates the commonness or uncommonness of the PCR results in this case?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And in--have you also considered the population data that you have for the PCR markers that your laboratory used in testing the exact same DNA in this case?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Is it possible for an expert to calculate the combined frequency of the poly-marker inclusion, those five genetic markers, the DQ-Alpha inclusion by Cellmark, your DQ-Alpha inclusion and your D1S80 inclusion so that you could describe to the jury the commonness or rarity of the match between those PCR markers and this stain that Greg Matheson cut out from that sock?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Have you done that?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I have.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you please then describe to the jury in the same way that we have--I forgot to have you write up the RFLP results. So when we do the PCR results, let's do the RFLP statistics too. Could you please express to the jury the calculation for the frequencies between--and the PCR markers matches between Cellmark and the Department of Justice?

MR. SIMS: Yes. Would you like me to step to the board?

MR. HARMON: If you'd just describe that, and then I'll ask you to write in both of those slots there. We've got a patch for one of those boards.

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon, let me ask a clarification question.

MR. HARMON: Sure.

THE COURT: You mentioned DQ-Alpha twice--

MR. HARMON: Right. Well, I was--

THE COURT: --for both labs. I assume we're only calculating this once.

MR. HARMON: That's correct. I was going to ask that after we got it up there, and I'll clarify that in a moment if I could.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HARMON: Do you want to go up there and write up--why don't you write out the RFLP if there's enough room for that. And I've got a cover for the PCR.

(The witness complies.)

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, while we're doing that, can we approach for just a second on a related issue?

THE COURT: Yeah, with the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: We are over at sidebar.

MR. SCHECK: I'm assuming, as the Court picked up, the poly-marker and DQ-Alpha. There's nothing about--

THE COURT: You caused this problem, you guys.

MR. COCHRAN: No. Rock did.

MR. HARMON: Maybe I can have misconduct added to my tab here.

MR. SCHECK: I want to note for the record Patrick Ewing is a great player.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: The point is, DQ-Alpha and poly-marker have the same system. I assume that he has disaggregated the DQ-Alpha. In other words, that's number one. Number two, this is my objection. Is that Mr. Harmon asked a series of questions of this witness about six probes that were duplicative of the Cellmark probes, a whole series of questions about how those six probes were discriminated among people and further differentiated and further made these things more rare. That was the basis of my relevancy objection, your Honor, because he asked a whole series of questions to make it seem as though those six probes were somehow--that were not--they can't be included in the calculation because the duplicatives were somewhat added to the rareness here. And my whole problem with that form of presentation and the charts and everything that he's doing here is that it's calculated to unduly confuse the jury as to how much it really is and isn't. Now, it's a limited relevance with respect to the sock I agree. But I get very concerned when it's--you know, the whole cumulative effect, and I just wanted to put on the record that I thought that whole line of questions was a clear 352 violation and was unduly confusing.

THE COURT: All right. Noted. Thank you.

MR. COCHRAN: Can we show it to the client?

THE COURT: Yes, sure.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Mr. Harmon--excuse me. Mr. Sims, have you completed your writing?

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I wanted the record to reflect that we have a patch to put over Cellmark's PCR calculations, a magnetic patch, because these will represent, as Mr. Sims described, a different calculation.

THE COURT: All right. And pursuant to our discussions, you'll clarify this question?

MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HARMON: May the record reflect on exhibit 262, I'm putting a patch over Cellmark's PCR calculations to allow Mr. Sims an opportunity to present the cumulative calculations that he's just described.

MR. HARMON: Could you write up the cumulative calculations in the PCR markers between your laboratory and Cellmark? And then we'll clarify.

THE COURT: Well, let's have a clarification before we write it.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Sure.

MR. HARMON: Now, your laboratory did the same--one of the same markers that Cellmark did, DQ-Alpha; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: You didn't count that twice in the multiplication, did you?

MR. SIMS: No, I did not.

MR. HARMON: That would not be proper?

MR. SIMS: That would be very wrong.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Is that clear, your Honor?

THE COURT: Is there any other overlap with any of the other probes that we--

MR. HARMON: Oh, in the RFLP context?

THE COURT: No. In the PCR context.

MR. HARMON: Is there any other overlap between any of the other PCR markers?

MR. SIMS: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HARMON: So--and this is purely the cumulative frequency of the combined PCR test results between your laboratory and Cellmark on the Greg Matheson cut out from sock no. 13?

MR. SIMS: Yes. This would be for the five poly-marker tests plus DQ-Alpha plus D1S80.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you write the more common frequency and then two, the less common frequency or at least the common frequency from among these three groups?

(Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. And you've got 1 in 50,000 to 1 in 6 million. What--what groups do those represent and then what is the other group? I guess we haven't explained that to the jury.

MR. SIMS: The 1 in 50,000 figure comes from the Caucasian data, the 1 in 6 million comes from the African American data, and then finally, I calculated an Hispanic figure, and that was 1 in 150,000.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, why don't you stay up there. While you're there, we're going to go through the other sock stains starting with your number 42A on sock 13A in the leg area. What is the frequency for the DQ-Alpha D1S80 match which is consistent with the Defendant and the same three groups?

MR. SIMS: Same three groups?

MR. HARMON: Yes, please.

MR. SIMS: For the African American group, it would be about 1 in 570, for the Caucasian group, about 1 in 520 and for the Hispanic group, about 1 in 1400.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could you write the least common from among those three to the most common?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Or the most common to the least common, please.

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. And would that frequency be the same for the next sock, 42-A(3) from sock 13A, the leg area? It's the same results. Would that be the same frequency?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it would.

MR. HARMON: 1 in 520 to 1 in 1400?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Would you write that down, please?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And would the next stain produce the same results, would produce the same sort of frequency estimate?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Same range, 1 in 520 to 1 in 1400?

MR. SIMS: Yes. This would be 42-A(4)?

MR. HARMON: 42-A(4), yes.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Would you write that down, please.

(Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Now, the next two stains, 42-B(1) and 42-B(2), produce the same results; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: 42--

MR. HARMON: 42-B(1) and 42-B(2), those are your numbers?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: From--this is the other sock now, the one with all the tiny dots on?

MR. SIMS: This is the other sock, yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Did you calculate a frequency for the results in that sock?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And what is the--what is the range of frequencies, and describe the groups that those frequencies come from.

MR. SIMS: Okay. This would be for the DQ-Alpha type 1.1, 1.1 with the D1S80 type 18, 18. The frequencies would range as follows: I'll give the three groups. The African American calculation was 1 in 8900, the Hispanic calculation is 1 in 1300 and the Caucasian calculation is 1 in 990.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could you write from the most common to the least common, please?

(Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could we move on to the Bundy photo board and the Bundy result board, photo board exhibit 165 and the Bundy result board, 259?

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, we're going to shift gears and talk about the combined PCR frequencies for several items that you discussed yesterday. Those are item 47--these are LAPD items. And the first four are from the Bundy walkway, 47, 48, 50 and 52; and then after that, we'll--I'll ask you to do your calculations for the combined frequencies between your lab and Cellmark on the three nail items from Nicole Brown. Okay?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Could we lower that down because we're going to start at the top? Is that okay, your Honor? And we'll move it up as we can.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, let's start at the top, item no. 47 on the Bundy walkway, the first drop that you analyzed close by--closest to the victims. Did you calculate a combined frequency for Cellmark's poly-marker results and DQ-Alpha results which included Mr. Simpson as a possible source of that and your DQ-Alpha D1S80 results?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And in doing so again, did you not use the DQ-Alpha results twice?

MR. SIMS: I did not use the DQ-Alpha results twice.

MR. HARMON: Because that would be improper?

MR. SIMS: That would be improper.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could you express to the jury what the combined frequency based on those calcu--your calculations for the three groups that we've been using consistently here?

MR. SIMS: Yes. The figures are as follows: For the Caucasian group, it would be 1 in 1.8 million, for the African American group, 1 in 240,000, and for the Hispanic group, 1 in 2.2 million.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Your Honor, may the record reflect I'm going to put a cover over Robin Cotton's calculations?

MR. HARMON: And, Mr. Sims, why don't you write down, as we have, from the most common to the least common among the three groups that you've just described.

THE COURT: Actually, what you might do is allow him to write on the covers and then put it up.

MR. HARMON: Good idea. Thank you.

MR. HARMON: Would that--

MR. SIMS: Sure.

MR. HARMON: Go ahead and--you want to do that one down here?

MR. SIMS: Sure.

(Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't you put it up there and move on to 48. Okay. And 48, the results are the same as in 47, are they?

MR. SIMS: Yes, they are.

MR. HARMON: 1 in 240,000 to 1 in 2.2 million?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Would you write that on the patch and can we put the patch on the board, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Wrong. No. That's right. I'm sorry. Item no. 50, that's another item that you and Cellmark both tested for the same PCR markers as 47 and 48? That's another Bundy walk stain?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Same results, same calculations?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Would you write that down on the patch, and when you're done, put the patch up on item no. 50?

(Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. We need a little patch on one of our patches, your Honor, if I could have a moment.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. And would you look at the result chart. And item no. 52 is not a lot of space over there. The--did you produce the same PCR cross-lab multiplication for 52 that you produced for 50, 48 and 47?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And what are those numbers?

MR. SIMS: Again, that range would be 1 in 240,000 to 1 in 2.2 million.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And that doesn't change the RFLP result or estimate that Robin Cotton is working there, right?

MR. SIMS: No. Those RFLP results are a separate calculation.

MR. HARMON: I'll move on--if I can come back to that when we've got the patch ready, your Honor, I'll move on to items--the 84 group of items.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, you've described to the jury the results of your testing and on items 84 of the three items yesterday from Nicole Brown's nail scrapings from both hands and nail clippings. Did you perform calculations for the combined frequencies of the results that Cellmark produced on that for their testing for poly-marker and DQ-Alpha which included Nicole Brown and then combine them with your D1S80 results?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And what are the results of your calculations? What are the frequency estimates for those three groups?

MR. SIMS: Excuse me. This would be, for now, the poly-marker--five poly-marker loci, DQ-Alpha and then D1S80.

MR. HARMON: Correct.

MR. SIMS: And the results would be, for the Caucasian group, 1 in 50,000, for the African American group, 1 in 6 million, and for the Hispanic group, 1 in 150,000.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Okay. I'm handing you the patch for item 84A. Would you write down those combined frequencies and put them over in the right hand column?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

(Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And are these calculations the same for all three items, the scrapings from the left hand, the clippings from the right hand and the scrapings from the right hand?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't I give you the three separate patches so you can put the number down all at the same time.

(Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. Can you place the patch over on 84A to the right over the--it's your DOJ DNA 46B. And then the other two patches are a little bit smaller. Would you put them over your 45-A(1)(B) from the right-hand clippings?

(Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And then your 45B, the right-hand scrapings.

(Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, you can go back to your seat. Oh, no. We still have 52. Okay. Mr. Sims, we've got some patches on patches. Could you write down the PCR combined frequency for item 52, that drop out on the driveway, just the PCR testing that was done between DOJ and Cellmark on that stain?

(Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. Thanks, Mr. Sims. Mr. Sims, I'd like to shift gears if I can and talk about the possible effects of contamination on PCR versus RFLP. Okay?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: You've already told us that you relied on the--

MR. HARMON: Can we take those boards down, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Thank you.

MR. HARMON: You've already told us that you rely on the scientific literature regularly in forming opinions?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I do.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, may we approach for a minute. I think--

THE COURT: No. Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: I think you're going to get into an area that we approached on beforehand.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. HARMON: Well, I don't think we are, but--

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: What journals do you read, scientific journals?

MR. SIMS: Well, I read a variety of them. In the forensic literature, I read the journal of forensic sciences, the journal of forensic science society, the American journal of human genetics. There's a variety of other journals that relate to DNA testing and also to the forensic use of DNA testing.

MR. HARMON: And how frequently do those journals come out, average?

MR. SIMS: Well, some of them are monthly, some of them are six times a year.

MR. HARMON: And is this a rapidly evolving area?

MR. SIMS: Very rapidly.

MR. HARMON: In what sense?

MR. SIMS: Well, the technology in--DNA technology is keeping--is evolving at a very incredible rate. It's--to me, it's much like computer technology. It's rapidly evolving. And what happens is, the advances that come about in molecular biology and genetics are then transferred to the forensic level. And so we're all evolving very rapidly.

MR. HARMON: Okay. I'm going--we're going to go through some of the articles, and I want to ask you initially whether you've read and relied upon them, which is the key word, in forming any of the opinions that you're about to express, okay?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, may we approach for a minute on this?

THE COURT: Have you shared these items with Mr. Scheck?

MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor.

MR. SCHECK: And that's why.

THE COURT: Let me see counsel at sidebar with the reporter.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. We are over at the sidebar. Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: Yes. I would like an offer of proof as to where this line of testimony is going, the articles that Mr. Harmon has just given me from Dr. Blake, and I would like to know the rulings in advance so that we can work out the groundrules about what can and cannot be said in this connection so that I don't have to get up and, you know, object continually. I would like to know what the rulings are in advance.

THE COURT: What are you guarding against? A constant implication that, is this the same Dr. Blake who was observing all this testing, that type of question?

MR. SCHECK: Yes. We had an agreement that when he was beginning to get into this area, we would have a discussion about the perimeters of what could or could not be done.

THE COURT: Rock, where are we going with this?

MR. HARMON: Scientists rely on this. And while I understand their chagrin in trying to explain why he's off the witness list and why he's--and why he may not come in here, he's the leading scientist in this area.

THE COURT: I understand. We all understand that. What area are you going to question him on?

MR. HARMON: Contamination issue, degradation. These are all simply addressed in these articles, and I think we're entitled--we're clearly entitled to have an expert rely on scientific literature and articulate the basis for his opinion and how he's relied on it.

THE COURT: Why isn't that hearsay on direct examination?

MR. HARMON: I can get you 801 and 804. I mean, Judge--I mean 801 especially.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: And then I think 804 even makes it clearer, that while one may not appreciate--while they may try to trivialize his opinion is based on it, the fact is that he has based his opinion on scientific literature.

MR. SCHECK: I have no objection to him saying he bases his opinion on scientific literature and expressing his opinion, going into all these details. But what I object to is that there are many authors to this article and continually mentioning this particular author to try to raise the implication that Dr. Blake approved of all the testing not in his laboratory--that's the issue in this case--but the LAPD. So I mean if he wants to elicit that there's other articles in the field and get into specifics, that's what I really want an offer of proof as to what he's going to bring out. You know, I have no problem with him saying he bases his opinion on all this and indicating what those articles are.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. SCHECK: You know, the subject matter. I just think it's a 352 problem at the very least here to continually say, well, it's--

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon, what I'm going to tell you is off limits is this question, is this the same Dr. Blake who observed--

MR. HARMON: I'll read all the authors' names in. Yeah.

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

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, I'm going to read off the names and titles of several articles and ask you if you've read and considered them, and then we'll go through them in certain areas, okay?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Have you read an article by Comey and Budowle entitled validation studies on the analysis of the HLA DQ-Alpha locus using the polymerase chain reaction?

MR. SIMS: Is that November `91 Journal of Forensic Sciences?

MR. HARMON: Yes, it is.

MR. SIMS: Yes, I've read that.

MR. HARMON: And Budowle is b-u-d-o-w-l-e? Have you also read and relied upon--and the subjects we'll be discussing soon--a chapter in a book entitled PCR technology, principles and applications for DNA amplification, Henry Erlich, editor, chapter 17, the title is applications of PCR to the analysis of biological evidence?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I have.

MR. HARMON: The authors are Cecelia Beroldingen, B-E-R-O-L-D-I-N-G-E-N, Edward Blake, Russell Higuchi, h-I-g-u-c-h-i, George Sensabaugh, s-e-n-s-a-b-a-u-g-h, and Henry Erlich?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Have you also read and relied upon an article in the journal of forensic science entitled polymerase chain reaction amplification and human leukocyte, L-E-U-K-O-C-Y-T-E, antigen oligonucleotide, O-L-I-G-O-N-U-C-L-E-O-T-I-D-E, typing on biological evidence samples casework experience?

MR. SIMS: Is that the one where Blake is the lead author?

MR. HARMON: It's--the authors are Edward Blake, Jennifer Mihalovich, M-I-H-A-L-O-V-I-C-H, Russ Higuchi, Shawn Walsh and Henry Erlich.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Have you also read and relied upon--and the testimony we'll be presenting soon--an article entitled analysis of genetic markers in forensic DNA samples using the polymerase chain reaction in analytical chemistry, 1991, the authors are Rebecca Reynolds, George Sensabaugh and Edward Blake.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Have you read and relied upon a chapter in forensic science handbook, volume 3, by Richard Safferstein, 1993, entitled DNA analysis in biological evidence: Applications of the polymerase chain reaction by George Sensabaugh and Edward Blake?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Have you also read and relied upon an article entitled or chapter entitled applications of the polymerase chain reaction in forensic science, the authors of which are Russell Higuchi and Edward Blake, and that's in the Vanbury report, no. 32?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I have.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, are you--let's focus on PCR for a moment. Is it your opinion that a typing error in the PCR process is more likely to result in a false exclusion than an inclusion?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And have you read and considered and relied upon the casework article for that proposition?

MR. SIMS: Yes, as well as my own understanding.

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

MR. HARMON: Could you explain the basis for your opinion that a typing error in the PCR process is more likely to result in a false exclusion than an inclusion?

MR. SIMS: Yes. The basis for that is that if one obtains a result that is a false positive, then that sort of result would be more likely to say--to exclude somebody than to include somebody in most instances.

MR. HARMON: Could you be a little more descriptive of how that might occur during the PCR typing process?

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I would object, that this is vague and without foundation at this point.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Well, for example, if one were to test a given bloodstain against a particular individual, particular individual may--his or her type may occur, say, in 1 in 10 or something like that, maybe 1 in 20 with a DQ-Alpha, for example. And so if you're generating at random wrong results, then it's unlikely that it would match that particular individual. It's more likely that it would match--the type would be--match somebody else.

MR. SCHECK: Motion to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, is it your opinion that the application of PCR technology in the forensic context is in any way different than it is in the diagnostic context?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. No foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, is it your opinion that any of the properties of forensic DNA samples are unique--or strike that. Is it your opinion that any of the properties of the kinds of forensic samples that your lab encounters are unique to forensic science or different than clinical setting?

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

THE COURT: Foundation. Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims--

THE COURT: Ask him some questions about his familiarity with it.

MR. HARMON: Sure.

MR. HARMON: Are you familiar in a general context with the kinds of--or have you read the casework article?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would it help to refresh your recollection--is that discussed, the uniqueness or the difference of forensic samples, in the casework article, the lead author of which is Edward Blake?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Foundation as to this witness' expertise to review that point.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Your question again, please?

MR. HARMON: The question about whether forensic samples are different than clinical samples.

MR. SCHECK: That's my objection, "clinical."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: Is it discussed in that article?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I believe it is, as I recall.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would it help to refresh your recollection if you reviewed--I can direct you to a page in that article, if you would.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Page 721. Can I show it to--be on page 721, if you would read the paragraph at the bottom.

MR. SCHECK: My objection is--

THE COURT: I know--what's your objection? What's the legal grounds?

MR. SCHECK: No foundation for this witness--

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: Wait--can I state it?

THE COURT: Overruled. Sit down.

MR. SCHECK: Well, all right.

MR. SIMS: Yes. Excuse me. What Dr. Blake and the other--

THE COURT: No. No. The question is, does that refresh your recollection as to whether or not there's any correlation between the medical diagnostic application or the forensic application.

MR. SIMS: Yes, it does refresh my memory.

THE COURT: Next question.

MR. HARMON: And do you have an opinion on that subject?

MR. SIMS: Yes I do.

MR. SCHECK: Objection as to his opinion.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: Can I also have which page you're referring to?

MR. HARMON: 721.

MR. SCHECK: Of which article?

MR. HARMON: Towards the bottom--the casework article.

MR. SCHECK: Is that which one? 721?

MR. HARMON: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. HARMON: Oh, I'm sorry, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: Do you have an opinion on that subject?

MR. SIMS: Yes. The point of this is that forensic samples may be mixtures. They may be degraded, but these kinds of samples are also encountered by clinical workers using PCR technology.

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Move to strike this answer, this witness' answer about what's found in clinical technology.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: And is your opinion based on having your recollection refreshed by reading the bottom of page 721 of Dr. Blake's casework article?

MR. SIMS: Well, I already had some opinion on that, but specifically with regards to the article, yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, just as an aside, have you read the NRC report that came out three years ago?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I have.

MR. HARMON: Have you relied on the NRC report in any way for any of the opinions you've expressed to this moment?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: And do you intend to rely on the NRC report in any way for any of the opinions that you will express for the next several moments?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: Could I have my book back? Could you define as best you can the term "contamination" in the crime scene forensic DNA context so the jury can appreciate the discussion we're going to have?

MR. SIMS: Yes. There are a variety of ways of looking at contamination. One would be fundamentally, for example, at a crime scene where you may have mixtures of bodily fluids, blood from two different individuals could land together, that sort of thing, or end up in a garment situation. That would be one form of contamination. Another form of contamination would be the concern one would have in the laboratory. In other words, if somebody is mishandling samples, then that could lead potentially to contamination as one DNA is transferred to another DNA. And then finally, the type of contamination that we are most worried about with PCR and that we have to take special precautions for is what is called PCR product contamination; and that's because this process of PCR, as Dr. Cotton explained, generates large numbers of these DNA segments that are of a particular short length that are considered to be PCR product now. And by generating those large numbers, you want to make sure that that material doesn't in any way contaminate your original source material or your extracted DNA.

MR. HARMON: And do you have an opinion about whether or not, generally speaking, there are adequate ways to control against those three areas of contamination?

MR. SCHECK: Objection to the form of the question.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: I think it's--there's two responses here. One is that there are ways to control for the contamination. There are also ways of monitoring for that contamination. And both--both of those are important aspects with regards to contamination, both the monitoring as well as the precautions.

MR. HARMON: And I want to direct your attention to the chapter by Sensabaugh and Blake in the Safferstein article. Is the subject of those areas of contamination, which you've just described for the jury, is that discussed in that article?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it is.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Do you remember the entire discussion that occurs on pages 441 and 442 of that subject?

MR. SIMS: I haven't memorized it, but I have a good knowledge of what they say.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would it help to refresh your recollection to review that?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. Have you had a chance to review that?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And so what is your opinion specifically about the kinds of controls that can safeguard against those forms of contamination?

MR. SIMS: My opinion about the types of controls?

MR. HARMON: Sure.

MR. SIMS: Well, they basically--their words basically mirror the things that I was talking about where they--for example, they mention maintaining clean work areas, using gloves, changing gloves, that sort of thing. And then also, they stress which controls should be run. They--they draw an analogy to the types of precautions that would be taken in an infectious disease situation or laboratory handling infectious materials.

MR. HARMON: And do you have an opinion based on your review of that article that should contamination occur, it can be recognized?

MR. SIMS: Yes. In most cases, it can.

MR. HARMON: And is that based on the article as well?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: In context--well--

MR. HARMON: I want to shift to another article that I've described earlier, PCR technology, chapter 17 by Beroldinger, Blake, Higuchi, Sensabaugh and Erlich. Do you have an opinion about whether or not the most likely avenue for chance introduction of foreign DNA is during sample preparation?

MR. SIMS: I would agree with that.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And do you have an opin--or is it your opinion that common sense precautions can safeguard against that?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And do you recall whether or not that subject is discussed in the article I just described, this chapter 17?

MR. SIMS: Yes. That chapter has a good discussion of the contamination issue.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And do you agree that the presence of a contaminant is often readily apparent?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Is it also your opinion that appropriate controls should be used that would indicate these situations of contamination?

MR. SIMS: Absolutely.

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: What opinion do you have if any about whether or not appropriate controls should be used that would indicate these situations of contamination?

MR. SIMS: The opinion I have is that those controls should be always be run to monitor for contamination.

MR. HARMON: And what opinion if any do you have about whether or not negative controls, including extraction reagent blanks and unstained substrate controls when possible, should be run for each batch of DNA isolations?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Compound.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: I agree with that, and that's what we do in my laboratory.

MR. HARMON: And what opinion do you have about whether or not the absence of a PCR product in these control reactions attest to the validity of the typing results derived from the evidence samples?

MR. SIMS: I would agree with that.

MR. HARMON: Do you have an opinion about whether or not it is desirable to have some form of redundant sample analysis in a given case?

MR. SIMS: I would agree it's desirable.

MR. HARMON: And generally speaking, do you recall whether or not those subjects are discussed in chapter 17 that I've been referring to?

MR. SIMS: Yes. I know that chapter quite well.

MR. HARMON: Okay. But do you have it memorized?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: Would it help to refresh your recollection? I'll direct you to page 215--

THE COURT: He hasn't indicated that his memory needs to be refreshed as to anything so far.

MR. HARMON: Do you remember whether or not those questions I just asked you specifically are addressed the way I reiter--the way I asked you?

MR. SIMS: I believe those are in there, but it would refresh my memory to be sure that they're in there.

MR. HARMON: 215, 216.

THE COURT: This is really not an appropriate way to refresh someone's recollection. I don't believe it to be necessary at this point. Proceed.

MR. HARMON: And it's your recollection those are discussed in chapter 17 that I just--

MR. SIMS: Yes.

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

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, let's talk about the validation study that we discussed at the very beginning by Comey and Budowle.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Do you have that one clear in your mind? You remember it was 19--November `91?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Could--and I just want you to focus for a moment on the kind--was there a sample handling part of that study that's published and described in detail?

MR. SIMS: Yes. There was a--that was a major part of that article or an important part of that article.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And do you rely on that in the way you perform your PCR analyses?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Does it help you in deciding what safeguards to take against in-lab contamination or sample preparation contamination to rely on that?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it does.

MR. HARMON: And what is your opinion about sample-to-sample contamination in the laboratory? Is it possible for that to occur?

MR. SIMS: Is it possible?

MR. HARMON: Yes.

MR. SIMS: Yes, it is.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And the opinion you've expressed is actually based on where that was demonstrated in that article; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Vague as to samples, what kind of laboratory.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. HARMON: Okay. What--let's just open it up. What kinds of samples were handled in that case and what sorts of conclusions were drawn from the possibilities of sample handling error?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Vague, foundation as to which case.

THE COURT: Compound.

MR. HARMON: Do you have an opinion about the kinds of sample handling errors that can occur that can allow samples to cross-contaminate one another?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Vague.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And is that opinion based on the sample handling portion of the casework article?

MR. SIMS: Well, and also our own experience in the laboratory with PCR and the experience of many other people using PCR.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's focus on the article and what your opinion is based on having read the article. What sorts of sample handling errors is it your opinion can produce sample-to-sample contamination?

MR. SIMS: The sorts of concerns would be, for example, in that article, they mentioned two wet bloodstains being brought into contact with each other. That would be one example. There are other instances. They attempted to deliberately contaminate certain stains in those articles and they had difficulty doing that with bloodstains of sufficient quality and quantity of DNA. They also did some samples where they looked at saliva and blood and that sort of thing and how that might affect the contamination issue. I think the last thing they--or one of the other things they looked at was whether or not cutting with scissors, cutting a bloodstain, whether or not those scissors would transfer contamination.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's focus on--there's actually a table that describes--in the Comey article that describes their efforts to force samples to contaminate one another. Is that--

MR. SIMS: Yes. They list several scenarios in that table.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And from--based on having read that article alone, what sorts of sample-to-sample contamination were they able to induce?

MR. SIMS: As I recall, they were able to induce it when blood stains were brought into contact with each other, actually touching each other. They were able to induce it with mixtures of saliva and blood, for example.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's start--let's take those one at a time. When you say touching one another, are you referring to the dried stains that were stored together?

MR. SIMS: Well, I think they had a low level--detectable low level contaminant when dry. It was more of a problem when they're wet and touching each other, which one would obviously expect.

MR. HARMON: Okay. When you say touching, do you mean stored?

MR. SIMS: Stored together, yes.

MR. HARMON: In other words, put together and kept together?

MR. SIMS: That's my understanding.

MR. HARMON: Would it help to refresh your recollection if you looked at page 1639 of the article?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And let's just talk about the--in that sample handling study, the two top categories, dried stains stored together and wet stains stored together.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: What were the results of those attempts to force cross-contamination?

MR. SIMS: Well, what they did was, they took--they took blood from two different sources, dried stains from two different sources and tried the--tested one, then tested the other to see which one may have contaminated the other. And with one of those, they saw no exchange. With the other one, they saw that there was a trace contaminant of one of the alleles onto the other stain.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And does the article describe how long they were actually stored together?

MR. SIMS: I don't recall them actually mentioning the time. I think it just mentions that they were stored together.

MR. HARMON: And you mentioned also--give us a general idea of what sorts of other experiments, sample handling experiments the study was based on where they tried to force cross-contamination between samples that were ultimately typed using the PCR DQ-Alpha system.

MR. SIMS: Yes. For example, they looked at the effects of perspiration. They didn't find any contamination from that. They also looked at small one-microliter bloodstains that they were handling, and they did not find any contamination from that. They had a small one-microliter bloodstain that they coughed over for one minute, and that produced no contamination. And then--by that, I mean, they know the type of the bloodstain. They know the type of the cougher. And so they look to see whether or not the cougher's type ends up on the bloodstain. They also did an experiment where they took small one-microliter bloodstains and scratched their head for 30 seconds to shed their dandruff over it to see if that would cause a contamination problem, and it did not. Then they also did some experiments where they actually mixed blood and saliva, and there, as one would expect, you could get a contamination. You would see the types from the blood and the saliva.

MR. HARMON: Okay. I think you used the word "transfer" or "evidence transfer." what--or "trace transfer" in this discussion. What do you mean by that?

MR. SIMS: Well, what I'm talking about is whether or not small contributions of contamination would show up in a bloodstain.

MR. HARMON: And based on that study, the only two areas of trace transfer where wet stains stored together for some period of time--

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Based on that study, were the only instances of--

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Leading.

MR. HARMON: --typeable DNA evidence transfer--

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: But the scissors, contaminated scissors, what was that again?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Yes. The bloodstain was cut with scissors and the contamination was not detected. In other words, I--as I read the article, two stains in a row were--were cut with these scissors and the scissors, after cutting the first stain, the first stains type did not show up in the second.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, let's shift a little bit here and let's talk about substrate controls in the context of the Comey article and in the context of the work that you did in this case. Okay?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Could you define a substrate control in the context of the kinds of samples that you typed in this case?

MR. SIMS: Yes. A substrate control--for example, if we talk about blood drops on the sidewalk, one would want to collect the bloodstain and then to collect and sample an area, an unstained area where there was no blood detected nearby the bloodstain. That's a substrate control. So you're testing that particular substrate and you're testing it very close to where the bloodstain is.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And then processing it as if it were a stain?

MR. SIMS: Yes. And then it goes through the entire process and you look to see if there's any type showing up in that substrate control.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And I believe a little while ago, relying on one of the Blake, Sensabaugh articles, you define three areas of sample cross-contamination?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And it's my recollection sample mixing in the field?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Contamination by investigators or by lab personnel?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: What were those three categories again?

MR. SIMS: I mentioned the contamination in the field. In other words, mixed samples occurring in the field. I mentioned contamination occurring in the laboratory as these samples are either processed or extracted, and then finally I mentioned PCR product contamination.

MR. HARMON: And that's after the PCR is amplified?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's talk about the field sample mix-up. And what I want to do is discuss the implications of having substrate controls collected systematically in the field. Okay?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: And the question is, if--if a criminalist systematically alternated between substrate controls and stains in the evidence collection process, what effect if any does the presence or the availability of the substrate control have as a safeguard against sample mix-up?

MR. SIMS: It's an important safeguard because it shows to me--if the--if the substrate controls turn out to be negative, it shows to me that there is no cross-contamination from sample to sample. Because of the alternating structure of that collection process, one has a stain, then a substrate control that should turn up negative, then another stain, then another substrate control. So that monitors that between each one of those stains, you've got one of these substrate controls. And if that shows negative, then that indicates that you're unlikely to have contaminated the bloodstains on either side of that control.

MR. HARMON: Okay. What effect--let's focus on the same context as the safeguard against sample mix-up in the field. What effect does just simply collecting one stain at a time with its substrate control have as a safeguard against sample mix-up in the field?

MR. SIMS: Yes. I think that's an important safeguard because it means you're focused on one particular event and you're not likely then to be handling too many samples at once. You're just keeping track of one item at a time.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's move to the next category that you described, and that is contamination by investigators or laboratory personnel.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Okay? What effect does the presence of substrate controls which type clean, do not produce a type, have as a safeguard against contamination by investigators or laboratory personnel?

MR. SIMS: Well, those are very important because you have to remember that if those are negative, in other words, they have no DNA, they're even more vulnerable to this contamination showing up than would a good bloodstain be. In other words, a good bloodstain be--a good bloodstain might have so much DNA that you may not even see a trace amount of contamination with this PCR testing. But these substrate controls, if they're negative to begin with, they have no DNA, they're certainly going to be more vulnerable to showing any traces of contamination. So that's why they're important.

MR. HARMON: Okay. As long as they test clean?

MR. SIMS: As long as they test clean.

MR. HARMON: As they did in this case?

MR. SIMS: As all of the ones that we tested were negative, yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay.

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon, we need to take our break at this point. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, please remember all of my admonitions to you; do not discuss this case amongst yourselves, don't 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. And we'll be in recess for 15.

(Recess.)

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

THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Counsel, two matters before we get started. The newspaper article that the jurors brought to the Court's attention appeared in a little blurb column regarding counsel's comments regarding various basketball teams, and I find this to be no harm, no foul, but I think it speaks to the diligence and the integrity of our jurors, so I will convey to them the Court's compliments. I take it there is no other comment or objection on behalf of the parties?

MR. COCHRAN: Your Honor, may I just make one inquiry? Have there been any other articles at any other times?

THE COURT: No. The first time it has happened that one slipped by. Secondly, I received over the break two notes from jurors and they are indicating that there are individuals, regular--regular attendees, meaning the media persons, and they give me seat numbers, who are constantly talking in the courtroom and who are causing them to have difficulty hearing the testimony, and they have given me the seat numbers of the persons who--in the last session who were talking constantly and disturbing them. And I am going to have Miss Hayslett identify the two individuals and those persons will be banned from further attendance in the courtroom. All right. Let's have the jury, please.

(Brief pause.)

(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. Good morning again, sir.

MR. SIMS: Good morning.

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: In discussing the subject of--the second subject of cross-contamination of samples and when substrate controls were involved, we covered contamination by investigators and lab personnel; is that right?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And if--if the stains and the substrate controls were alternated systematically would that provide a safeguard against cross-contamination?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it would.

MR. HARMON: And let's reflect back on the Comey article, too, and remember the contaminated scissors?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, asked and answered, leading.

THE COURT: Overruled. I assume this is foundational.

MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor, for injecting substrate controls in there.

THE COURT: Please.

MR. HARMON: If one were to use--if a forensic scientist were to use contaminated scissors that were contaminated with a quantity of DNA and alternate between substrate controls and evidence stains, would that provide any kind of a safeguard against cross-contamination of samples?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it would, because again the scissors would be used on a bloodstain and then if there was any contamination, that should then be transferred, if it were--if was contamination it would be transferred to this substrate control which would very likely show that contamination and then that would be monitored before one would proceed then to the next bloodstain. So if that substrate control in the middle turns up clean, that indicates that there was no contamination detected.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let me just clarify a point about the Comey article. Have you had a chance to look at it again during the break?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: If you would, the two areas where there was cross-contamination between stains, could you tell us more about how--what kind of contact, if any, those stains had, both the wet and the dry?

MR. SIMS: Well, the article indicates that the two stains were actually touching each other. They were actually stored together in a way that they were touching each other and that is the important point, is that they are in physical contact.

MR. HARMON: Let's shift to the third area and that is contamination within the laboratory. We've already discussed contamination by lab personnel in sample preparation and I think you talked about contamination by amplified product?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Now, you previously discussed the concept of negative controls as a safeguard against contamination about PCR product?

MR. SIMS: Yes, yes.

MR. HARMON: Do--in addition to negative controls, and assuming they test clean, what are the implications of having substrate controls processed through the entire PCR process as a safeguard against contamination in the laboratory by amplified PCR product?

MR. SIMS: Yes. Those--again, those substrate controls, if they had no DNA on them to begin with, would be most vulnerable to showing any contamination, whether it occurred from this handling effects, whether there was something in the laboratory, whether there was any PCR product contamination. And because they are treated in the same manner, they go through the entire process and so this is an important control on the entire process; not just the collection, not just the extraction of the DNA, but all the way through the typing.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Umm--strike that. You have--actually, when you opened up all of the evidence if this case, have you documented the condition of the actual substrate controls that you previously enumerated when you talked about the results in this case?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And do the substrate controls, are they all uniform in appearance for all the samples, all the substrate controls that you tested in this case?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: Is there a range in how they appear?

MR. SIMS: Yes, there is.

MR. HARMON: And when you sample those substrate controls, let's assume they are not uniform, some are discolored--some part are discolored, some appear clean?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. HARMON: In this case, if you saw a substrate control that parts of it were cleaner than others, what part did you sample to process through the entire PCR process?

MR. SCHECK: Objection here is foundational with respect to making something hypothetical as opposed to specific.

THE COURT: Is the objection that it assumes facts that aren't in evidence yet?

MR. SCHECK: All right. Sure.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Did you sample all the substrate controls that you said you sampled in this case?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay?

THE COURT: I think you asked him did he document, at the time of receipt, the substrate controls. I guess the question would be did he notice any differences between the substrates at that point.

MR. HARMON: I think I have asked a different question. I think I have moved on.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HARMON: I haven't finished that area. Thank you, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: When you sampled the substrate controls, if one part of any of the control was dirtier, appeared dirtier than the other, which part did you sample?

MR. SCHECK: Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Specific--

THE COURT: Were there any such?

MR. SIMS: Yes, there were, your Honor.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. HARMON: And when you encountered such a substrate control, what did you do?

MR. SIMS: Took the dirtier or what appeared to be the dirtier area in this case, as I can recall.

MR. HARMON: Why was that?

MR. SIMS: Well, I figured that probably received more of the environment. For example, if it was a sidewalk, it probably got better contact than maybe the other area of the substrate control.

MR. HARMON: And what would that--if that had happened, why would sampling the dirtier part of it have been important to you?

MR. SIMS: Well, that--that tells me that that is most likely the area that was most heavily--for example, may have some dirt or whatever is on that substrate that I got a good area to test, in other words.

MR. HARMON: Okay. I'm going to direct your attention to just a couple of these substrate controls and see if you can describe how they appeared to you when you first observed them. Okay?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: The substrate control for LAPD item 52, the drop out in the driveway at Bundy, do you recall--do you have an independent recollection of how that appeared when you observed it and ultimately sampled it?

MR. SIMS: That one in particular I believe I do have an independent recollection of.

MR. HARMON: And what--what is that?

MR. SIMS: Well, my independent recollection was that it was sort of pinkish.

MR. HARMON: Is that the only one that was pinkish that you recall?

MR. SIMS: That is the only one I recall was pinkish.

MR. HARMON: In fact, were most of them absent of any coloration or--

MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Were most of them, did they appear clean to the naked eye?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, still heeding.

THE COURT: Still leading.

MR. HARMON: How did most of them appear to the naked eye?

MR. SIMS: Most of them appeared as pieces of white fabric.

MR. HARMON: Is that unusual?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.

MR. HARMON: If you would, let's talk about substrate control 48, 48C. If you like I can direct your attention to a page in your notes. Do you recall how that appeared when you examined it?

MR. SIMS: Not without looking at my notes.

MR. HARMON: Would it help to refresh your recollection if you look at page 48 of your notes?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. What is your recollection of how 48 appeared?

MR. SIMS: The 48 control was our item number dna-22. I noted there was some dark debris specks associated with a cloth and I took those also for the extraction process.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Do you recall what the control for item 50 looked like, the substrate control for item 50, which is farther back along the Bundy walkway?

MR. SIMS: Again I would have to look at my notes.

MR. HARMON: Would it help? It is on the same page there, 48.

MR. SIMS: Yes. I noted that it was a piece of whitish cloth with some brownish staining. I thought it may be some soiling.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And let's just shift to some others that look differently, for example, item 29 control, that is from the steering wheel of the Bronco.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Could you--would it help--do you remember what it looked like?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: Would it help to refresh your recollection if you looked at your notes on page 21?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. How did that appear?

MR. SIMS: That was generally just an irregularly-shaped piece of white cloth.

MR. HARMON: Is that unusual to see a substrate control that looked like that?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And do you have actually detailed notes of each and every other substrate control that you observed?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And photographs of them as well?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And this is before you sampled them?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, let's move on, if you will. I would like to discuss the--the subject of degradation of DNA and cross-contamination, if you will.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Okay. I want to give you a hypothetical and ask you some questions about the hypothetical. The hypothetical is that all of the Bundy walkway stains were collected and they were packaged in plastic bags and substrate controls were collected systematically alternating between the substrate control and the evidence stain. They were packaged in plastic bags, they were put in a truck for several hours and they were brought back to the Los Angeles laboratory. They were put in this same box with items that were collected from Mr. Simpson's residence, that were also collected systematically with substrate controls. For starters, is it possible--

MR. SCHECK: I'm going to object to this hypothetical in that form. I think it misstates the evidence and is compound.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: We've already described the Comey article and you have described how at least based on studies it is possible to cross-contaminate samples; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And you have described the conditions under which cross-contamination can occur?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Now, in that study none of those samples were degraded; is that right?

MR. SIMS: In my understanding in that study is that those were good quality bloodstains, yes.

MR. HARMON: Now, do you have an opinion about whether or not, just the co-existence of those--and I'm sorry, let me withdraw that question. Let's assume that there were stains from Mr. Simpson's residence which in fact were from him contained his DNA, okay?

MR. SIMS: (No audible response.)

MR. HARMON: Is it possible, scientifically possible, in your opinion, for those stains, merely by their co-existence in a room, for them to cross-contaminate one another?

MR. SCHECK: Objection at this time.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. HARMON: These stains from two residences are collected along with their systematic substrate controls.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: They are brought into a room where they remain for a period of time. They are not in contact with one another. Okay so far?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Is it possible, based on that information alone, for those stains to have cross-contaminated one another?

MR. SCHECK: My--I don't know about the rules on hypothetical in terms of--but--

THE COURT: Speaking objection.

MR. SCHECK: All right.

THE COURT: Is the objection foundation?

MR. SCHECK: (Nods head up and down.)

THE COURT: Assumes facts that aren't in evidence?

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. That objection is overruled.

MR. HARMON: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: You may answer that question.

MR. SIMS: The question is how were those stains packaged at this point?

MR. HARMON: They were initially left in plastic bags. I will--well, actually let's start off. They are in a box together.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: They are in coin envelopes that are folded over and they are in plastic bags in those coin envelopes that are folded over. Is it possible for those samples to cross-contaminate one another?

MR. SIMS: No. I would say no.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's move to the evidence room. Moving that box where you don't believe cross-contamination was possible, into the evidence room, is it possible for those stains to have cross-contaminated one another and not cross-contaminated the substrate controls?

MR. SCHECK: Foundational objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. You need some additional facts now that we are in the evidence processing room.

MR. HARMON: Excuse me, your Honor?

THE COURT: You need some additional facts now that we are in the evidence processing room. It is also vague as to what state--

MR. SCHECK: There are a lot of facts.

THE COURT: I have sustained the objection, counsel.

MR. HARMON: Okay. You have told us it is not possible, given that they are packaged up in a box in the truck?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Does moving that box into a room and leaving it on the table, is it possible for those stains to have cross-contaminated one another?

MR. SCHECK: Objection--

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: --to that testimony.

MR. SIMS: Under those conditions, no.

MR. HARMON: Now, let's assume that those stains are now processed for drying and that--

MR. SCHECK: Objection, move to strike, vague on processing.

THE COURT: Overruled. He hasn't finished the question.

MR. SCHECK: All right.

THE COURT: I assume that that is next.

MR. HARMON: The processing for drying systematically alternates between the substrate controls and the evidence stains and that--

MR. SCHECK: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: If one were to systematically alternate between the substrate controls and the evidence stains--

MR. SCHECK: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: --and that the substrate controls ultimately were processed along with those stains and produced no typeable results, do you--is it your opinion that those samples were cross-contaminated at that point?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, speculative, assumes fact not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: I would say there is certainly no evidence for that and that I think those substrate controls would then provide a way of monitoring to show that that did not occur.

MR. HARMON: Let me add to that hypothetical, that a known reference tube of Mr. Simpson's blood was kept in that room in a black plastic garbage bag. Okay?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Add to the hypothetical you just answered. Is it possible for those samples to have been contaminated by that reference tube in the black plastic bag without contaminating the substrate controls?

MR. SIMS: No. I would follow that up, that in other words, you wouldn't get blood out of the plastic bag to begin with. That is the main point there.

MR. HARMON: Now, let me add to that. Let's accumulate to the next question. Let's assume that each and every stain that you tested along the Bundy walkway was degraded to the point where you were unable to type with any of the PCR methods. Okay?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Just add that to the hypothetical that I just asked you. Is it possible for cross-contamination to have occurred in that setting without cross-contaminating the substrate controls?

MR. SIMS: Well, again I would give the same answer, that the substrate controls provide evidence that that did not occur.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, let's move on. Are you familiar with how the Los Angeles Police Department processes evidence stains in substrate controls for drying?

MR. SIMS: I have some information on that, yes.

MR. HARMON: And let's assume--or is that information, that they use the tube drying method?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And place them back in the coin envelope?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And place the coin envelopes in a box?

MR. SIMS: That's my understanding, that it is box so that they can now air dry--that the tubes can now air dry.

MR. HARMON: Place the box up on a metal shelf up on the wall?

MR. SIMS: Well, this is my general understanding. I don't--I have never seen the actual room.

MR. HARMON: Let's talk about the qualities of DNA. Now, we've got everything drying up in the tubes and assume it is dried overnight.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Have you seen photographs of what DNA looks like microscope--powerful microscopic photographs?

MR. SIMS: Well, there are--yes, very are very powerful microscopes you can see the motion of DNA, for example.

MR. HARMON: Now, can DNA fly?

MR. SIMS: I don't think so.

MR. HARMON: I mean, there are no scientific studies that have shown that, are there?

MR. SIMS: No, I don't think it has wings.

MR. HARMON: How about if it is from a bird, can it fly?

MR. SIMS: I don't think that makes any difference.

MR. HARMON: Does the DNA of an athletic person that is in a stain have any athletic prowess, more than a dead person?

MR. SCHECK: Well, I--

THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained. Sustained. The jury is to disregard the tenor of that question.

MR. HARMON: Are you aware of any scientific studies that show that DNA can come to life at night?

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Is it possible for the sample to have been cross-contaminated up on the shelf in the box in the coin envelopes in those tubes?

MR. SIMS: Again I would answer that the substrate controls provide the monitor to ensure that this didn't occur.

MR. HARMON: Now, I believe you discussed, and I'm getting close to the end here, Mr. Sims, I believe you discussed--I think you--in discussing some of your sample processing, you mentioned you bleach your rulers; is that right?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And I think you also said what do you to wipe your tools with when you are doing evidence processing?

MR. SIMS: I--I do three things. I do a water washdown under the tap, then I wipe it with a chem wipe, than I do an ethanol rinse and wipe that off, and finally I flame them over a bunsen burner flame, very hot flame.

MR. HARMON: What kind of tools are we talking about?

MR. SIMS: Generally that would be a pair of scissors, small scissors and an forceps, like a tweezers.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Do they have serrated surfaces on them?

MR. SIMS: Actually they are fairly smooth and sharp.

MR. HARMON: Why is that?

MR. SIMS: So they cut well.

MR. HARMON: Is there an aversion to using things with serrated edges or surfaces in processing evidence?

MR. SIMS: Well, it gives you more surface that you have to worry about.

MR. HARMON: Why do you flame your tools?

MR. SIMS: The reason I flame my tools is to remove absolutely any possibility that somehow in some way some minute trace could be carried over from sample to sample.

MR. HARMON: Have you always done that?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: Do you feel that you cross-contaminated any samples before you started flaming your tools?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. SCHECK: Objection, foundation, relevance.

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection. Why don't you ask some foundational questions regarding that.

MR. HARMON: Are you aware of any cross-contamination between samples that you induced by not flaming your tools?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: Let's--let's talk about not flaming your tools and inject substrate controls into that process. What safeguard do the existence or the availability of substrate controls to type all the way through the process--what impact do they have on detecting cross-contamination, if it occurs?

MR. SIMS: Well, again, they are a safeguard because if one were to cut the stain, wipe the scissors, for example, then those scissors would be next to a substrate control and again that substrate control is very vulnerable, and if anything is going to get contaminated, it is the substrate control.

MR. HARMON: Why is that?

MR. SIMS: Because it should have no DNA to begin with. I mean it could--you could have a substrate control that had DNA to begin with, but assuming there is no DNA to begin with, whatever you put down is now its DNA, so in other words whatever type now shows up could be it has become that type.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And let's take--stay on the same topic and not talk about flaming tools, but talk about just wiping tools with water.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: You have a three-step wiping process. If one were to just wipe with water and systematically alternate between an evidence stain and a substrate control, what safeguard does that substrate control provide in ensuring that no cross-contamination has occurred?

MR. SIMS: Again, it should provide a safeguard in that it should then monitor for any contamination.

MR. HARMON: And if the substrate controls test clean, as they did in this case, what assurance or what do you conclude from the possibility that the cross-contamination did not occur in this case?

MR. SIMS: Again, it is another piece of evidence that you are not contaminating those samples.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, my next to the last subject here, in your conventional serology expertise have you testified about the genetic marker EAP?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I have.

MR. HARMON: How many times?

MR. SIMS: I couldn't give a number on EAP in particular, but it was a commonly used enzyme in the days that I did conventional serology.

MR. HARMON: And are you familiar with the scientific literature on that subject?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I am. I have--I used to be much more familiar with it than I am now, but yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. If you could describe the marker EAP and what a forensic scientists should be aware of in that context, what would be your brief statement of the use of EAP?

MR. SIMS: Well, I think one has to be very careful in interpreting EAP band patterns. It is subject to certain--it is an unusual marker in that it is--there are certain intensities as well as band positional things that we have to take into account. I think Mr. Matheson probably went into that in great detail, but it is unusual in that the intensities are an important part of the interpretation and the relative instabilities of certain bands.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Have you reviewed Mr. Matheson's records on this subject?

MR. SIMS: I have reviewed some of his records, yes.

MR. HARMON: And do you have those records with you?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I do.

MR. HARMON: Could I see them?

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, do you want to take a look?

MR. SCHECK: Oh, yeah.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Could we have these items marked as exhibit next in order, your Honor?

THE COURT: All right. People's 273.

(Peo's 273 for id = records)

MR. HARMON: There is actually two items, your Honor. I will describe them. Mr. Matheson's analyzed evidence report dated October 18, and I will count the pages--

MR. SCHECK: Is anything being put in that wasn't previously put in when Mr. Matheson testified?

MR. HARMON: No. They are the same items. We can refer to them. Maybe Mr. Scheck can confirm they are the same items. I don't have to mark them.

MR. SCHECK: All right.

MR. HARMON: Maybe we can refer to those prior.

THE COURT: If it is already marked--

MR. HARMON: It is. I just hadn't shown the exact exhibits to Mr. Sims, so--

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

MR. SCHECK: I would prefer that we use the exhibits that were previously introduced through the prior witness.

THE COURT: Previously marked.

MR. SCHECK: For foundational matters.

MR. HARMON: Sure. One of the exhibits is an electrophoretogram marked 224-A.

THE COURT: You are withdrawing 273 at this point?

MR. HARMON: Yes, I am, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

(Peo's 273 for id = withdrawn)

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

MR. HARMON: We are going to have to mark Mr. Matheson's report because it is more complete than the exhibit that was marked, your Honor. I will count the pages.

THE COURT: All right. So we can keep them clear, why don't we make the additional report an addenda to the original exhibit.

MR. HARMON: Okay.

THE COURT: Miss Martinez, do you have the designation of that report?

MS. MARTINEZ: One moment, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: This item is 23 pages, your Honor. Do you want me to go ahead, your Honor?

MS. MARTINEZ: Your Honor, People's 218.

THE COURT: All right. 218. Then the additional report will be 218-A, the more complete report.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

(Peo's 218-A for id = report)

MR. SCHECK: Can we just look at what is new? Just marking for identification?

THE COURT: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: That is all right.

MR. HARMON: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, have you reviewed Mr. Matheson's analyzed evidence report, and specifically with respect to items 84A and B, some typing that Mr. Sims did on some fingernail kits?

MR. SIMS: That Mr. Matheson did.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Matheson, sorry.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Have you reviewed the electrophoretogram which is a picture of the gel that he ran those on?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay.

THE COURT: Referring to People's 223-A. Electrophoretogram.

MR. HARMON: 224-A.

THE COURT: 224-A. Got it. Thank you.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, I want to give you a hypothetical--

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

MR. HARMON: I'm going to put the nail board up there, your Honor.

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

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, why don't you start with my hypothetical, and when the board is up there I'm going to ask you to look at the board. Okay?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Oh, here we have it.

(Brief pause.)

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Your Honor, I think we need to cut the feed for this board.

THE COURT: Yes. I'm going to direct the photographers not to take any photographs of this board. Thank you. Proceed.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, have you had a chance to study the pictures along the bottom of that board? You have already described how those are photographs, the top five photographs. Have you had a chance to see the three along the bottom of Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: No. I just saw them for the first time the other day.

MR. HARMON: Have you had an adequate chance to look at them?

MR. SIMS: I would like a moment.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Sure.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Could we raise it a little bit, your Honor? It is a little bit low for the jurors on the end.

THE COURT: All right.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, you have had a chance to look at Nicole Brown Simpson's hands and the blood on them, have you?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. This is People's exhibit which? I forget. Which one is this? Mr. Sims, could you tell me what the evidence tag says on the corner?

MR. SIMS: 220.

THE COURT: 220, thank you.

MR. HARMON: You have had a chance to look at these three photos, Mr. Sims?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. I'm going to ask you a question, a hypothetical question, which--and I would like you to consider the following things before I ask you the question. Okay? You have considered the photographs, the three photographs of Nicole Brown Simpson's body and hands on 220. All right?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Also, I would like you to consider the fact that you observed no tissue in the nail scrapings for--when you saw them and you processed them for PCR typing in this case. Okay?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: I would like you to consider that your PCR results were consistent with the type of Nicole Brown.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: I would like you to consider that Cellmark's PCR results were consistent with the types of Nicole Brown.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: I would like you to consider that the three separate samples which were typed by you and Cellmark all produced consistent results. Okay?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: I would like you to consider the sensitivity differences between the PCR typing method and the conventional serology marker typing for EAP. Okay?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: I would like you to consider that Greg Matheson saw no tissue when he sampled from the nail scrapings before you.

MR. SCHECK: Objection, foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained as to that last point.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, there is testimony.

THE COURT: Sustained the objection as to that point.

MR. HARMON: Could we approach?

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. HARMON: That Greg Matheson saw no tissue in the nail scrapings--

THE COURT: Same ruling.

MR. HARMON: Excuse me, your Honor.

THE COURT: Same ruling. I'm sustaining the objection to that aspect. Continue.

MR. HARMON: Could we search the transcript?

THE COURT: Proceed, counsel.

MR. HARMON: Is the--if Greg Matheson saw no tissue--

THE COURT: Same question; same objection; same ruling.

MR. HARMON: If Greg Matheson only sampled blood when he sampled the nail scraping kits--okay?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: And--

MR. HARMON: Objection, no foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: And finally, what you know about the EAP marker and specifically the BA pattern, okay, we have all those things that I want you to consider--

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Okay.--the question is would you, as a forensic serologist, exclude Nicole Brown as the source of the blood under her fingernails and on her fingernails based on Greg Matheson's report and the electrophoretogram that you reviewed?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, foundation as to blood, source of what blood.

THE COURT: I think the question is clear to the jury. Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Given all those considerations, my answer would be no.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Matheson, are you part of some conspiracy to frame the Defendant in this case?

MR. SIMS: My name is Sims, and no, I'm not.

MR. HARMON: Sims, I'm sorry. You are conspiring, Mr. Sims? You are not.

MR. SCHECK: We will stipulate to that.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Thank you. No further questions.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, do you want to begin now?

MR. SCHECK: Well, your Honor, we have some things that we haven't shown.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we will take a brief break to we organize our exhibits here, so I will ask you to step back in the jury room, please, and this should only take about five or ten minutes.

(The jury was excused and the following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Counsel, we are still in session. All right. Mr. Scheck, you have some items you want to show counsel?

MR. SCHECK: Yeah. I have some fairly simple power point slides, brief ones, and would the Court--give the Court a copy.

THE COURT: All right. Why don't we do this: Mr. Sims, you can step down. Mr. Scheck, Mr. Harmon, why don't you both confer over these. Anything else that you are going to use with Mr. Sims?

MR. SCHECK: Yeah. And then--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: There are photographs of typing strips that they have and we have.

THE COURT: Well, show them to Mr. Harmon so that he can make sure that we are talking about the same things here. Anything else?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I thought that--I know Mr. Sims is looking at it, but that is not exactly how this is done.

THE COURT: All right. Why don't you have a seat, Mr. Sims.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

(Brief pause.)

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

MR. COCHRAN: Judge, Judge, may we approach, Chris and I?

THE COURT: Yes.

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

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: Barry, rock.

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

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

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

(Brief pause.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. All right. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, good afternoon again--or good morning. I'm going to take our break for the noon hour at this time with regards to the jurors. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted, and do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. And as far as the jury is concerned, we will stand in recess until one o'clock. All right. Have a nice lunch. All right. Let me see counsel over at the side bar with the court reporter, please, Mr. Scheck.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: Okay. I take it--we are over at the side. Mr. Harmon, I take it you have had no objection to any of the photographs that Mr. Sims and Mr. Scheck have presented?

MR. HARMON: They are handsome photographs. I couldn't object to them.

THE COURT: Okay. I have before me a--two pages of miniaturized--I take it these are boards. Are these going to be--

MR. SCHECK: Slides.

THE COURT: Video presentations that are no. 1-A through 8-H. And these are boards which say, for example, 1-A says "cross-contamination factors." 2-B says "degradation." 3-C says "high DNA content versus low DNA content." no. 4-D says "different scenes" and has various graphics, an automobile and then two residences. There is a 5-E, has an exploding thermometer, plus the--

MR. HARMON: That is what?

MR. SCHECK: That is a--the same logo that was used in a previous recitation of a test-tube.

THE COURT: Well, that is--I thought you were talking about high temperature and degradation.

MR. SCHECK: No, no, no. That is a reference sample tube.

THE COURT: Well, 6-F says "suspect reference samples" and then has the international symbols for man and woman. 7-G is just a series of numbers. 8-H has "aerosols, paper, gloves, instruments" and then 9-J combines many of these aspects. Mr. Scheck, I have a problem with the thermometer.

MR. SCHECK: Umm--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I will make it clear that that is a blood vial and that was a logo that was used previously in one of our exhibits for the blood vial.

THE COURT: Well, my concern, too, is that we don't have an exploding blood vial or a spewing blood vial. That is beyond the scope here.

MR. SCHECK: Well, the--the way this question is going to be formed has to do with the testimony--well, first of all, the--the questions of the witness will have to do with statements in his protocol and in the AMP-FLP type user guide and in the other publications about reference samples and test-tubes and their proximity to evidence samples and rules about not combining them. Also, there is testimony in the case with respect to Greg Matheson testified that opening the tops of reference tubes should be done with chem wipes because they have sprays that come when you open the top of the reference tube, and he testified to that when he was talking about the amount of blood.

THE COURT: Let me ask, rock, what are your--

MR. HARMON: Well, this is entertaining, but it is argument. Can we borrow a phrase that we were talking about a while ago? It is also redundant argument. The words are fine, although I think that is still argument. Up there on the chart, something that actually illustrates the phenomena, that is okay, the degradation, but 3-C, that looks like the scales of justice and we don't talk about justice, because it is hard to talk about, but that just looks like the scales of justice. That is a symbol of something that has no place on this chart. There is a place for it, but it is not on this chart. Everybody knows what a house and a truck and a house look like, but the point I'm making, all these together is that you can jumble them until they are together in 9-J and it looks like a Sunday morning cartoon thing and says whose name is this spelled out by and the symbols, and I wrote in on 6-E should put "hombres" and "mujeres" because that looks like the bathroom signs, so it is misleading because we don't want people to think that is what they have to do here. It is just a suspect reference sample. The tube, I agree with you, the whole thing is just as argumentative as the boards that I put forth that you kept out. I don't really disagree with you, that you kept these out, but this is just argument that words can illustrate, but I don't know. Maybe there is danger if you connect the dots on those it will spell guilty. On 9-J there is probably something cryptic in here that we are not aware of, but I think words and clear non-argumentative symbols are what is appropriate to this by the jury, but not the stuff that you all combine together. That is 9-J is clearly argumentative. It is just a compilation of things that may or may not have any application to this case. And this would be beautiful argument material, just like our boards that were used for that point, but at this point I think that dazzling people with these slides, which may or may not be a basis for this testimony, you know, this--we might be having this discussion at a later point when they say I'm going to have a witness who is going to say all these things happened, but this is cross-examination of our witnesses, and these symbols are going to be up there whether or not Gary Sims admits that they are factors to consider, and I think that changes the picture completely.

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

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: These are all taken right out of his protocol and the guides as precautions, and all that these symbols are, are visual aids, just like the blood drops on their board, et cetera. If we already used most of these in previous displays--the only ones that we haven't are the houses and the car and the man and the woman which I think in a piece of paper--and there are certain limitations one has in terms of clip art, but I think that these all roughly approximate what it is, and I will ask questions with respect to the blood vial indicating exactly what is at issue. Those are the DQ-Alpha strips--pictures of it I'm not going to introduce--these are just the strips, the pictures that Dr. Blake took.

THE COURT: Okay. I'm going to sustain the objection to 5-E, the exploding thermometer.

MR. SCHECK: Can we--

THE COURT: I don't think that is--

MR. SCHECK: Can we try to--we have certain limitations to our clip art.

THE COURT: Well, life in the big city.

MR. SCHECK: We will try to change that one maybe to just--

THE COURT: If it is just a test-tube, that is one thing, but--

MR. NEUFELD: We have a test-tube.

THE COURT: That is a spin on the evidence.

MR. SCHECK: We have a test-tube and we will substitute that.

THE COURT: Let me see it when we come back.

MR. HARMON: Judge, could we--this has happened consistently. Can we get a disk copy of this and can we also get a color copy? We asked Howard and he said it would take some time and I notice he is gone.

MR. HARRIS: It has already started to print.

MR. SCHECK: We will just change the blood vial.

MR. HARMON: Then I have no objection to the strips because they are DOJ record.

MR. SCHECK: I would actually make a request that we--your Honor, I would like them to produce copies of Mr. Sims' strips of the same photographs. If you recall, this actually happened during DNA discovery where we gave them more than they gave us in terms of proficiency. I think 3000 pages worth.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. SCHECK: But the point is, is that we were forced to rely on Dr. Blake's photographs of these strips. Now some of the interpretations of these strips are going to come into issue and I want to see their photographs of the same strips, so that I'm not put in a position--

THE COURT: All right. Does Sims have them with him? Mr. Sims?

MR. SIMS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you have the photographs of the PCR strips in this case?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I do have those with me.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. SCHECK: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Judge, now the only problem is, you know, he has got everything. He has got hundreds of things and so it is nice to have notice because he has got to eat lunch; too. We have everything, but the timing of how we get it, it gets complicated, and that is why a courtesy notice--

MR. SCHECK: I did.

THE COURT: Well, if it is not too much trouble, see if you've got the photos for the PCR strips for here.

MR. HARMON: For which?

MR. SCHECK: The ones--

MR. HARMON: Can I talk to them about them?

MR. SCHECK: I just want to get just these copies.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Have them down here when we come back.

THE COURT: All right. We will stand in recess.

MR. HARMON: Okay.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

(At 11:55 A.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; THURSDAY, MAY 18, 1995 1:00 P.M.

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

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

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

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

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

THE COURT: All right, counsel. Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry. We have substituted the--a test tube for the exploding blood vial.

THE COURT: No. The thermometer, bursting thermometer.

MR. SCHECK: Thermometer.

THE COURT: Mr. Harris, do you have that?

MR. HARRIS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Let me see it. Let's have it quiet in the courtroom, please.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Any other comment?

MR. HARMON: Other than the ones that we made before, that they're argumentative in total, your Honor, none.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. All right. Objection's overruled given the modification.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Harris has agreed to give us a copy of that on disk so that we can use it too.

THE COURT: Yes. All right. Anything else?

MR. HARMON: A couple points, your Honor. I'd like--it appears that the electrophoretogram that we showed is a similar photograph taken at a different time than the one that Mr. Sims looked at. So I would like to mark the one that he presented as the one he reviewed. They're photos of the same thing, but they're different photos. And just to--because this is what he viewed, I'd like to have that marked.

THE COURT: All right. That would be 273.

(Peo's 273 for id = electrophoretogram)

MR. HARMON: And then the only other point that I have, your Honor--I don't want to reask the question, but depending on cross-examination, I have to. In fact, Mr. Matheson said he didn't see any tissue when he sampled it on page 25403 and 25404. So I think the point was made in my question to Mr. Sims, but--

THE COURT: I think you got the point there was--he tested only for blood or tested only blood particles there. I'll look at that over the recess if you'll give me the--

MR. HARMON: I have a copy of those pages.

THE COURT: All right. I think we've cleared it up, but I don't think--

MR. HARMON: I think the question, approximately had the same material, but--

THE COURT: Is that a pun? Never mind.

MR. SCHECK: There's one question that I know I'm going to ask that--maybe pretty soon where I'll need some guidance from the Court about how to ask it.

THE COURT: And what might that question be?

MR. SCHECK: Well, the--when I get to the issues of discussing--well, can I approach and do that without the--

THE COURT: What's the general topic?

MR. SCHECK: General topic is handling samples from two different crime scenes, and I want to find a way--the police and the crime laboratory personnel or certainly police, probably the crime laboratory personnel, had certain knowledge in this case with respect to what Mr. Sims said about the blood at Rockingham prior to handling and conducting an analysis of samples. And I know that I want to ask this question--

THE COURT: Sounds like a touchy area.

MR. SCHECK: That's why I'm bringing it to your attention.

THE COURT: Why don't you ask to approach when you get to that point then.

MR. SCHECK: All right. It will be pretty soon, but--

THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jurors, 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. The record should reflect we've been rejoined 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 lunch recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: All right. Good afternoon again, Mr. Sims.

MR. SIMS: Good afternoon, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sir, you are reminded you are still under oath. And, Mr. Scheck, you may commence your cross-examination.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK

MR. SCHECK: Good afternoon, Mr. Sims. How are you, sir?

MR. SIMS: Fine. Good afternoon to you.

MR. SCHECK: Pleasure to see you. Mr. Sims, the socks you're aware in this case were first collected by the Los Angeles Police Department on June 13th?

MR. SIMS: That's my understanding, yes.

MR. SCHECK: And they were cut and tested by--for--with conventional serology by Greg Matheson on September 21st?

MR. SIMS: That's my understanding, yes.

MR. SCHECK: And they were sent to you on September 26th?

MR. SIMS: I believe that's the correct date.

MR. SCHECK: And the fingernail scrapings and clippings, items 84, you received from the Los Angeles Police Department after they'd been tested by Greg Matheson?

MR. SIMS: Yes. That's my understanding.

MR. SCHECK: And you received one set of Bronco swatches that were collected on June 14th?

MR. SIMS: Well, I believe we received several sets from the Bronco. Is there a specific item number?

MR. SCHECK: Well, set of items number in the 20's through 31, weren't those all collected on June 14th by Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola?

MR. HARMON: Objection. Calls for hearsay.

MR. SCHECK: Just looking from your records of the labelings on the bindles and coin envelopes, you got one set of samples that indicated they were first collected on June 14th?

MR. HARMON: Same objections. Hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained. Why don't you rephrase the question.

MR. SCHECK: Right. Did you receive a set of samples that had notations on them indicating they were collected on June 14th from the Bronco?

MR. SIMS: I don't recall the date of June 14th being on those samples.

MR. SCHECK: On the coin envelopes.

MR. SIMS: I don't recall that being on the coin envelopes because I--no, I don't. I don't. Is there a specific item number? I'll look it up.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Why don't we take a look at, for example, item no. 31.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SIMS: Okay. That's on my notes, page 23, the initial examination.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Let's try it this way, Mr. Sims. You received swatches from the Bronco that had LAPD item numbers in--with two digits?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: From the 20's into the 30's?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Then you received a second set that had three digits in terms of their item numbers in the 300's?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. And do your notes reflect that those two sets of swatches were collected at different times?

MR. HARMON: Objection. Calls for hearsay, speculation, no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: You received items 115, 116 and 117, swatches from the rear gate?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And from examining the coin envelopes and bindles, are you aware that those were collected on July 3rd?

MR. HARMON: Objection. Calls for hearsay, speculation, no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: From your records, do you have information that the glove from Rockingham, the right-hand glove, item no. 9, was examined, handled and cut by Collin Yamauchi of the Los Angeles Police Department on June 14th?

MR. HARMON: Objection. Hearsay, speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Do you see initials on the glove?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Did you see in the packaging from the glove an indication that Mr. Yamauchi had handled those on June 14th?

MR. HARMON: Objection. Calls for hearsay, speculation, no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Items 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52 your reco--are swatches from Bundy?

MR. SIMS: That's my understanding, yes.

MR. SCHECK: And on the coin envelopes that you received, there was a date associated with those items of June 13th?

MR. SIMS: I--excuse me. I don't believe that date was on those coin envelopes.

MR. SCHECK: Oh. With respect to the biological material that you tested on any of the items that you've testified here about today and the last few days, you do not know how any of the biological material got on those items, do you?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. SCHECK: And you have no idea when the biological material got on those items, do you, from your own personal knowledge?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. SCHECK: And there is no test that you can conduct on a specimen containing the biological material to tell you if it was there when it was--biological material was there when it was first collected or whether it got there through cross-contamination?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: Now, once a specimen like a swatch has been cross-contaminated such that the biological material on it, all right--withdrawn. Once a swatch has been cross-contaminated with biological material and it's received at your laboratory and you test it, you're going to get typing results that reflect the cross-contaminant?

MR. HARMON: Objection. That's vague.

THE COURT: Why don't you rephrase the question.

MR. SCHECK: All right. If you receive a swatch that contains biological material from a cross-contamination, if you do your job correctly and don't contaminate it yourself in the laboratory, you should get the--in your DNA typing results, the genotypes from the biological material of the cross-contaminant?

MR. HARMON: Objection. That's vague as to amounts.

THE COURT: Why don't you rephrase the question.

MR. SCHECK: You have a swatch that contains biological evidence.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: Sufficient to get a DNA typing result.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: That biological material came from a cross-contamination. Are you with me?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. If you do not do anything to contaminate the sample in your laboratory, when you perform a DNA test, you should get in your typing results the genotypes associated with that biological material that came from the cross-contamination?

MR. SIMS: Yes, as long as there was enough from the contamination to get a typing result.

MR. SCHECK: Right.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: If you had a sufficient biological material there to get a PCR typing result, you'd find it?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Same with RFLP?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, if the cross-contaminant on that swatch after you tested it and did nothing to contaminate it were then given to a second laboratory, they should still get the same result you got assuming that they did not in their own laboratory analysis contaminate the sample?

MR. SIMS: That's true.

MR. SCHECK: And if we gave it to a fourth and a fifth laboratory, as long as there was still enough material to test, they should all get the same result?

MR. SIMS: Well, now you're assuming that the