Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)
(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)
(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Good morning, counsel.
MR. SCHECK: Good morning.
THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Blasier, Mr. Scheck. The People are represented by Mr. Darden and Mr. Harmon. The jury is not present. All right. Mr. Scheck, are you ready to proceed to a new area?
MR. SCHECK: Yes. Your Honor, are we--just before we do that, we did a chart last night summarizing the answers that Mr. Sims gave in terms of approximations based on the hypothetical, and I would like both Mr. Harmon and--it is going to take ten minutes to print out, but we can project it on the screen.
THE COURT: All right. Let's see it.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHECK: It shows the numbers that he gave and put on a chart.
MR. HARMON: Looks great to me, but I'm not sure what it is designed to represent. It would be helpful if we had some transcript references so we can confirm it. I don't think I'm as agreeable as Mr. Sims. I don't take their word for anything unless it is in there, your Honor, and a timely presentation of this. They had it calculated ahead of time. I don't think it is appropriate to present argumentative material in this way, somewhat like the redundancy. Kind of like doing your taxes yesterday, your Honor, and I think the information is in there, and if they want to have somebody else come in at a later point and explain how this graph was derived from Mr. Sims' explicit answers to these raw hypotheticals that were based on some wildly varying considerations, I think that would be appropriate. But right now on a Friday morning at five after 9:00 to present this graphic when they could have done this ahead of time, I don't think it is appropriate.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor--
THE COURT: What is the legal basis for your objection?
MR. HARMON: It is irrelevant, under 352, it is misleading. It is argumentative. It is cumulative, that is for sure. I think you intimated as much by your question to Mr. Scheck, "are you ready to move on?" and his answer was "yes," but that is not moving on, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, the--one first must get the answers from the witness. I think we established the basis of the hypothetical clearly enough through the witness, that these are the kind of calculations he makes based on the one simple assumption that we gave him with respect to random distribution of the biological specimens. The point is, is that this is complex material and until one gets the answers from the witness and lays everything out, I can't create a chart because it is not in evidence yesterday. All that I'm trying to do here, is this is--this is can be reviewed, but these are the numbers he gave yesterday.
They are just put in the form of a graph. Very clearly labeled approximations based on the Defense hypothetical. I think it is very hard for people, when you elicit over a thirty-minute period different amounts in this fashion, to absorb it just hearing it. They need one simple pictorial representation of exactly what the testimony was, and the difference between direct and cross is that I can't create this until I get the answers from the witness. Now that I've got the answers from the witness, this is an accurate summary in very simple terms of exactly what he said. They are perfectly free on redirect examination to challenge the assumptions in the hypothetical, but this is not non-argumentative and factual representation of what was said yesterday, so just so they can be seen.
THE COURT: As presentation as a piece of evidence, I'm going to sustain the objection. I find the numbers to be not to my recollection.
MR. SCHECK: Well--
THE COURT: If you want to remake the graph to conform with the precise numbers--also, I think that the gradations on it are not sufficiently precise.
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I--
MR. SCHECK: In other words, at the top it doesn't look like a 150 or something?
THE COURT: It doesn't look like a 150 to me.
MR. HARMON: Well, your Honor--
THE COURT: Let's have the jury, please.
MR. HARMON: There is a brief thing at side bar, if I could take it up. It relates to where we are right now. We can do this in two minutes at the side bar, your Honor.
THE COURT: Why do we have to do it at the side bar? We don't have the jury here.
MR. HARMON: Do you want me to do it right here?
THE COURT: Unless it is a secret.
MR. HARMON: I have no secrets, your Honor. I just--the Prosecution has reason to believe that the Defense visited the crime scene shortly after the crime, has removed part of stain 115, and I would like the Court to--I know there have been in camera discussions about discovery that was provided to you to review and that has been held back in--and I'm not here to quarrel about that, but I think if--
THE COURT: Refresh my recollection. Which stain is 115?
MR. HARMON: 115 is one of these rear gate stains. It is the one that is clearly seen--there was made a big deal at the time of processing. It is clearly seen on the June 13th photograph. It is the only one that is clearly visible in the series of photographs at the crime scene. And the reason there is reason to believe--you know because you have reviewed the discovery that they have provided to you, and you have seen the little bit of information that we have been provided by Defense experts like Dr. Baden and Dr. Lee. In fact, some of these things clearly have been chopped up and segments taken out of it, and if you look and compare the June 13th photograph with the July 3rd photograph--I would be happy to provide these to you--on July 3rd the stain on 115 that you can see on June 13th, it appears--and I'm only looking at this and we've had experts look at this from enhancements--that there is something missing in the July 3rd photograph that was not there on the June 13th photograph. And this Court is well aware of the authority of People versus Meredith that has been affirmed throughout this state, that is 29 Cal.3D 682 at 694, that if the Defense takes possession of physical evidence--I mean that is what this whole thing with the mystery knife was that was played out over many months--they have an affirmative obligation to turn that over. Now, I don't know that that happened, because so much has been withheld from us, but we know they were at the crime scene because we have these scanty notes to that effect. But I would like the Court very simply to assure itself, through in camera discussions or whatever, perhaps rereviewing that, that if they took that evidence, they have an affirmative obligation, and they had it the day they took it, if they took it--I don't know if they took it--but now is the time to start fessing up if they did, and it is clear the implications of that, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, do you want to address that issue?
MR. SCHECK: The photographs that the Prosecution took on two different days indicates that bloodstain 116, that is there on July 3rd, isn't there on June 13th? Now, everything he said has the fact that there is something on that rear gate.
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, the issue is, is the Defense in possession of any physical evidence from the crime scene at Bundy?
MR. SCHECK: Is the Defense in possession of any physical evidence? No, not to my knowledge. I--I have no idea what this man is talking about.
THE COURT: All right. Well, then I will ask Mr. Douglas to--because under Meredith if do you have possession of physical evidence, you are obligated to turn that over to the Court.
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, could the Court review--I mean, there are clear things that were chopped up out of order when--I can't remember the date, I think it was June 17th, when they visited the crime scene. They were clearly there. And I would like the Court to make its own inquiry and rereview that material, and I will clearly abide by that, but it is clear we do not have everything that was in those notes and the sequence of the chopping is very intriguing.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Douglas is the person in charge of the discovery matters for the Defense. Mr. Douglas, I will direct you to make an inquiry, search of your records, and report back to the Court on Monday.
MR. DOUGLAS: Yes, your Honor.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, we have a new chart just for a second.
THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jurors.
MR. SCHECK: Do you want to see the new chart?
THE COURT: No.
MR. HARMON: I have not seen it, your Honor.
MR. SCHECK: I think they just put the numbers in, so it is clear.
THE COURT: Let's proceed. 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, would you 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: All right. Good morning, Mr. Sims.
MR. SIMS: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Sims, you are reminded you are still under oath. And Mr. Scheck, you may continue with your cross-examination.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
THE JURY: Good morning.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. SCHECK
MR. SCHECK: Good morning, Mr. Sims. How are you this morning?
MR. SIMS: Good morning. I'm fine.
MR. SCHECK: We left off yesterday talking about the amounts of DNA in samples found at the Bundy crime scene, some from June 13th, some from July--one from July 3rd.
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, in terms of RFLP testing, your protocol indicates that would you like to have as much as 150 nanograms to do an RFLP test?
MR. SIMS: Well, we would like to have even more than that if we could get it. It makes the turn-around time a lot faster.
MR. SCHECK: But the statement in your protocol is that your--you are ideally looking for at least 150 nanograms?
MR. SIMS: No. I believe that--that misstates the protocol.
MR. SCHECK: You tell me.
MR. SIMS: Well, what we would like to have is at least 50, but if we had our druthers, we would like to put, say, about 400 on the gel.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. But it would be a fair statement that 50 nanograms is about as low as you like to go with an RFLP test?
MR. SIMS: With--with some of the newer probes we are even getting down into the 25 nanogram range. Dr. Budwole from the FBI has recently published an article in which one of the newer probes, dF5S110 was shown to be as sensitive as down to 25 nanograms, maybe even ten nanograms, so that sensitivities have been improved on some of the probes, but, yes, ideally we would like about 50 at minimum.
MR. SCHECK: Well, you recall discussing these issues in August?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I do.
MR. SCHECK: And in August did you indicate that 50 nanograms is about as low as we like to go with the RFLP procedures? In other words, the sensitivity is pretty weak below 50 nanograms?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, would you agree that in a drop of blood there is about a thousand nanograms of human DNA?
MR. SIMS: Yes. The recovery would be--in a drop of blood would be about a thousand nanograms, which is about a microgram of DNA, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And in a microliter of DNA you would have--expect to find about 20 nanograms?
THE COURT: Microliter of DNA.
MR. SCHECK: Microliter of blood, my apologies.
MR. SIMS: In a microliter of blood, yes, it would be about 20 nanograms.
MR. SCHECK: And a microliter of blood would produce a spot about the size of a pin head?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: So these Bundy drops at best, 52, has the human DNA equivalent to a pin head's worth of blood?
MR. HARMON: Objection, that is argumentative. It is vague.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Assuming that no. 52--that is the LAPD item number from which the RFLP was performed.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Is that right?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Assuming that that has on the order of 25 to 30 nanograms of human DNA--
MR. HARMON: Objection. That is an improper hypothetical, inconsistent with the testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Assuming it has something on the order of 31.5 nanograms of human DNA--
MR. HARMON: Same objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Well, you would agree that 20 nanograms would come from one microliter of blood?
MR. SIMS: One fresh microliter of blood, not necessarily a bloodstain.
MR. SCHECK: Right. One fresh microliter of blood?
MR. SIMS: Right.
MR. SCHECK: And that is the size of a pin head?
MR. SIMS: That is right, but now you are talking about a volume of blood, as opposed to if you were to spot about--I think I mentioned yesterday, if you were to look at a bloodstain of about a millimeter by a millimeter, which is about a pin head, you would usually recover about two nanograms, so it is the recovery is not always the same. I mean, it is one thing to talk about a stain and how much DNA you would get out of a stain versus if you were to look at the DNA in a volume of liquid blood.
MR. SCHECK: Right.
MR. SIMS: There is a difference.
MR. SCHECK: There is a difference, and the difference is--has to do with the DNA contents of the volume you are dealing with?
MR. SIMS: Well, it is--no. What I'm trying to distinguish a volume of liquid whole blood--
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
MR. SIMS: --and what you can extract out of that versus what you typically would get out of a bloodstain on a garment or something like that.
MR. SCHECK: But the point is, is that to the extent that you put an amount of--you extract DNA from an amount of blood, right?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: The amount of DNA you can get out of the amount of--the volume of blood is dependent on the number of cells within that volume of blood from which you can extract DNA?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And if you have blood with a comparatively high content of DNA per volume, you are going to get a bigger yield?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And so if you cross-contaminate a degraded sample with blood that has more DNA, you are going to get a bigger yield from the contaminant that has a greater amount of DNA in that volume of blood?
MR. HARMON: Objection. That misstates the testimony and it is compound.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: I'm not sure I understand that question.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Let's try it again. You have a degraded sample, okay?
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Well, let's do it this way: There are volumes of blood that have higher DNA content than other volumes of blood?
MR. SIMS: Yes. We saw that in this case, for example, with the reference sample.
MR. SCHECK: And so if there is a transfer of a volume of blood with a high natural content on to a sample where the DNA has been degraded to the point where it is not detectable--are you with me?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: --you are going to get a yield in terms of nanograms of DNA that might be, for example, higher than you would expect to find on a blood swatch that had been degraded?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I think I understand. I was following you well until the very end there. Are you saying that if you took a blood volume of liquid from a person that had a high level of DNA and then that got onto the degraded stain, then that would be higher than if you took a person that had a lower level of DNA to begin with and got that onto the stain?
MR. SCHECK: Going back to that whole discussion we had yesterday, remember the charts about some volumes of blood have higher DNA content than others?
MR. SIMS: Well, I think what you are saying is some people at different times their bloods are different. For example, you may have more white blood cells than I have. Is that what you are saying.
MR. SCHECK: No, no.
MR. SIMS: Okay. I'm lost.
MR. SCHECK: I'm talking about you agreed, I think you are saying, that you would expect to find, for example, in a reference tube, in the volume of blood in a reference tube, higher yield of DNA content from a volume than you would from a stain that had been picked up off a dirty substrate and put in a plastic bag and degraded for seven hours, right?
MR. SIMS: Oh, yes, yes. The answer to that is yes.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. So when you take blood from samples that have a higher DNA content, assume the blood has a higher DNA content, you cross-contaminate it onto something else that has virtually no DNA content or not a detectable DNA content, you are going to get the yield from the volume of blood that has the higher DNA content?
MR. HARMON: Objection, compound, and it is unintelligible.
THE COURT: Do you understand the question, Mr. Sims?
MR. SIMS: Actually that one I think I do.
THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.
MR. SIMS: I think the answer to that is yes.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you. Okay.
MR. SCHECK: You talked yesterday about substrate controls?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And Mr. Harmon asked you a lot of questions about that. Do you recall those?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I do.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And one purpose you talked about of a substrate control is to swatch a section near a stain in order to see if there is some cellular material near that stain?
MR. SIMS: Yes. In other words, if there may be some background DNA that may contribute to what you might see in a stain.
MR. SCHECK: Right. But you were suggesting that a substrate control could also serve another purpose in terms of being--giving us some information about the possibility of cross-contamination in the handling of samples?
MR. HARMON: Objection, it is argumentative what he was suggesting.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Were you asked a series of questions yesterday by Mr. Harmon and you gave answers indicating that you thought the substrate controls could be looked at to give us some information about the possibility of cross-contamination in the handling of samples?
MR. SIMS: Well, I--
MR. HARMON: Objection. I don't remember what the basis was, your Honor. That is misleading. That misstates his testimony of yesterday.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Well, I think it doesn't just give you some information. I think it gives you a great deal of information about how those samples were processed.
MR. SCHECK: All right. You were asked questions about--well, I forget how you were asked questions. Let's try it this way: You gave testimony that the substrate controls might give us information about whether or not laboratory criminalists, when they handled the swatches at the crime laboratory, cross-contaminated samples?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And that would include the point where the swatches were taken out of--were wet and taken out of the plastic bags with the test-tubes?
MR. SIMS: Yes. Assuming they went through the entire process.
MR. SCHECK: And it would include the portion of the process where the wet swatches were put into the test-tubes?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And it would include the part of the process where the next morning the swatches were taken out of the test-tubes with the pipette?
MR. SIMS: Yes, assuming they all went through the same possess.
MR. SCHECK: And it would include that part of the process where the swatches were then folded into the bindles?
MR. SIMS: Again, the same answer.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, looking at that portion of the process, your--the answers you gave yesterday to the questions were based specifically on the assumption that the substrate controls, I think these were your words, were systematically alternated between the specimen sample and the substrate controls?
MR. SIMS: I believe that was my understanding.
MR. SCHECK: You used the word "systematically alternated," correct?
THE COURT: Wait, wait, wait.
MR. SCHECK: I thought he finished.
THE COURT: You walked over his answer. He wasn't finished yet.
THE COURT: Also, Mr. Sims, take a breath before you start answering his questions.
MR. SIMS: All right.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you.
MR. SCHECK: And you--
MR. SIMS: Yes, I--my answer was that my understanding was that they were systematically taken in these steps.
MR. SCHECK: Well, let's put it another way. You were basing your answers on the assumption that the criminalist systematically alternated between handling the specimen, then the substrate control, then the series of specimen swatches, the substrate control, the series of specimen swatches, the substrate control, et cetera, right?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And the reason that that is--and that is the critical assumption to your notion that these substrate controls can tell us--give us information about cross-contamination?
MR. HARMON: Objection. That misstates his testimony, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. SCHECK: All right. The idea of a control giving you information about cross-contamination is that the control must be handled in parallel or in the same way that you handled the specimens.
MR. HARMON: Objection, that is vague. What context, your Honor?
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Well, my answer to that would be that whenever you are processing samples, whether it be stains, substrate controls, stains, one does look to the order of the processing, because if the inference is that something here cross-contaminated the next one, then it doesn't make sense that this one down here was cross-contaminated from something up here. Do you understand what I'm saying?
MR. SCHECK: Right. Oh, precisely, and that is the reason your--that is the reason that you are saying that one might be able to draw conclusions about cross-contamination, is because you are assuming that there was systematic alternation in the handling of the specimens? In other words, the substrate controls were handled in parallel in a systematic alternation with the specimens?
MR. HARMON: Objection. It is vague in terms of what is in parallel in what part of the process we are talking about.
THE COURT: Overruled. Do you understand the question?
MR. SIMS: I think I do. I think if you are talking about just the substrate controls, then the alternation is part of that. What I was talking about, too, though, is--is that you are looking at how things are processed and the idea of what could potentially get contaminated down the line.
MR. SCHECK: But your--
MR. SIMS: So that would be stain, stain, stain, too.
MR. SCHECK: But your answers yesterday, you used the word with respect to the questions, you are assuming that the substrate controls and the specimens were handled with a systematic alternation?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now--
MR. HARMON: Objection, your Honor. That is vague in terms of if there are different terms that have--
THE COURT: Overruled. We have asked that.
MR. SCHECK: Let's talk about--let's just talk about just, for example, a reagent control.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: The reagent control is the one where you are at the point of extraction in the PCR process?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you are putting into the tubes the different reagents that go into the PCR mix?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: So you have one tube, for example, that has the--maybe a specimen that has a swatch with blood on it?
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Is that what happens?
MR. SIMS: Yes. The only thing I think we mixed up on was when you mentioned the PCR mix. You are actually talking about the extraction now.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Yes. It is--
MR. SIMS: The extraction.
MR. SCHECK: I'm talking about the stuff you put into the tube.
MR. SIMS: Okay. This is now to get the DNA out of the samples?
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
MR. SIMS: So that is an extraction.
MR. SCHECK: Okay.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: But the reagent control is that you take a tube without any swatch in it and you put the reagents in it, right?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And when you do that, you do it in parallel with all the other specimens?
MR. SIMS: Well, you are actually doing it in sequence.
MR. SCHECK: In sequence, right?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: In other words, you are going to make sure that you are taking the reagents to make up this control from the same batch, same lots, the same time, as you are creating the reagents for the other tubes, right?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And that is what gives you some confidence that the control would work, because you are running that reagent control in parallel or handling in the same way that you are handling all the other specimens?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And that is what gives you the information about whether or not there may be some contaminant in the reagents that were used?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: So it would--it would be of no particular use if you took the reagents from a run you did in the afternoon and then used--and ran that one, that wouldn't tell you about whether you had contamination on a previous run, would it?
MR. SIMS: Well, I'm not sure I understand that, because aren't we talking about the same reagents?
MR. SCHECK: Well, that would be the question. Are we talking about the--let me--let me get it in another way.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: If the substrate controls here were not handled with systematic alternation--are you with me?
MR. SIMS: As far as the evidence processing now?
MR. SCHECK: As far as the handling of the evidence is concerned, all right?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And let's say that a series of specimen swatches were handled in a batch.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: And maybe a series of control swatches were handled in a batch.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: That would not be the kind of systematic alternation you were talking about yesterday?
MR. HARMON: Objection, improper hypothetical, misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: In other words, if the substrate controls were processed entirely differently from the swatches themselves? Is that what you are saying?
MR. SCHECK: Well, the--we don't need the word "entirely." let's just say some of them were handled in a batch together and a series of specimen items were handled in a batch together.
MR. HARMON: Objection. That is vague. Together with what?
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Does this--I guess what I'm confused on is do you mean now in the collection process also or are you talking about just in the laboratory or--
MR. SCHECK: I'm talk--let's just focus. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. Let's just focus on handling in the laboratory.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: And the substrate controls were not handled with systematic alternation as you discussed yesterday.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Would that not undermine the value of the substrate controls in terms of giving us any information about cross-contamination in the handling of the specimens?
MR. SIMS: I think it would--you would have to say you don't have as much information there, that is true.
MR. SCHECK: And in order to make sure that a substrate control is serving as more than just a control about what came from the substrate, but as a control about--a control that gives you information about cross-contamination, it would be a good thing if the criminalists involved understood that the substrate control would serve that function?
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, objection. It is irrelevant, beyond the scope of direct.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Because you are counting on the criminalists involved to carefully systematically alternate their handling of the specimen samples and the substrate controls?
MR. SIMS: Well, no. I'm counting on the criminalist to do everything that the criminalist does in a careful fashion. What you are asking me is can I make as much inference about how these things were handled retroactively given a particular nature? Yes. I mean, that is--I'm not counting on that as much as I'm counting on them handling it in a careful fashion all the way down.
MR. SCHECK: You are counting on them handling it in a careful fashion and doing systematic alternation. That was the way you answered the questions yesterday?
MR. SIMS: No. I'm saying if you are going to place that great reliance on those substrate controls, on the negative results from the substrate control, if you are going to use that as an inference that then these things were processed properly, then that is correct. On the other hand, just because that wasn't done, it doesn't mean they weren't done properly.
MR. SCHECK: Well, the--you would agree that to do this it would be useful to ensure that there really was systematic alternation in the handling of the substrate controls and the specimens if the criminalist performing that operation knew that it was important to systematically alternate?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And systematic alternation of the substrate controls as a check on cross-contamination should continue not just in the handling of the samples in the laboratory, but through the process where you extract the DNA?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And it should continue in the process of sending substrate controls of--of cutting up specimens and substrate controls and sending them to other laboratories?
MR. HARMON: Objection. That is argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. It goes beyond the scope of direct.
MR. SCHECK: Let's try this.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Which board is this, Mr. Scheck?
MR. SCHECK: That was my mistake. It is exhibit no. 177-C, "LAPD evidence disposition summary."
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, the Los Angeles Police Department sent you, DOJ, sample 47, the Bundy swatch on August 12th, 1994?
MR. SIMS: I believe that's correct, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And they sent you on August 12th, 1994, sample 48, another--some Bundy swatches, right?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And 49 on August 12th, `94, they sent you Bundy swatches, right?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And on August 12th they sent you no. 50, some Bundy swatches?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And they actually sent--now, 52 was at cellmark, right? You didn't get that on August 12th?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: But looking at this board you see these--these logos where that is the swatch with red, that represents the bloodstain swatches?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: They didn't send you the substrate controls until September 7, 1994, for sample 47, 48, 49 or 50?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: In fact, Mr. Sims, didn't you call the people at the Los Angeles Police Department and say, "send me the substrate controls because substrate controls ought to be handled with systematic alternation with the specimens as a protection against cross-contamination"?
MR. SIMS: I'm sure I didn't use those words, but I--as I recall, I'm--a little bit of history here. This case originally started out looking as an RFLP case because those swatches from the Bundy crime scene looked like very good bloodstains to work with in their appearance--
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, let me--I don't mean to--to be impolite to you at all, forgive me, but I think the answer is not responsive.
MR. HARMON: Motion to strike, your Honor. I object to the speech, your Honor.
MR. SCHECK: Move to strike his answer as nonresponsive.
THE COURT: Why don't you answer the question.
MR. SCHECK: My question is, sir, a very simple one. Did you ask the Los Angeles Police Department to send you the substrate controls in--after you had first received the specimen controls without the substrate controls?
MR. SIMS: I don't know if I asked the LAPD or if I put that request through Lisa Kahn of the District Attorney's office.
MR. SCHECK: So in other words, you put the request into the District Attorney's office to pass on to the LAPD to ask them to send you the substrate controls?
MR. SIMS: I may have done that, yes. I don't know if--I may have spoken to LAPD. I can't recall who I contacted.
MR. SCHECK: The point is, sir, you wanted the substrate controls, didn't you?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. SCHECK: And you wanted the substrate controls because when you were performing DNA analysis you were going to make sure to systematically alternate your handling of the substrate controls and the specimen items?
MR. SIMS: No, that is not true. The reason I wanted the substrate controls was because there was clearly a PCR issue and I wanted to make sure that we had negative substrate controls to make the proper interpretations of the bloodstains.
MR. SCHECK: When you got the substrate controls in September and you went through the rest of the analysis, you would treat the substrate control in parallel with the specimen when performing your DNA analysis?
MR. SIMS: Well, for most of this evidence I did, but I did some processing of those early samples without the substrate controls.
MR. SCHECK: Because you didn't have them?
MR. SIMS: Because I did not have them.
MR. SCHECK: And if you had them you would have processed the substrate controls in the same fashion that you processed the specimens?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I would.
MR. HARMON: Objection. "in the same fashion" is vague, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, talking about the issue of substrate controls, you performed analysis on Mr. Goldman's shirt?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. SCHECK: Actually I think I'm finished with this board.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Maybe while I'm playing with the board, could you maybe turn to your notes on that item.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
(Witness complies.)
MR. SCHECK: That would be LAPD item 81.
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you attempted to take a substrate control from the shirt?
MR. SIMS: Well to--
MR. SCHECK: To cut one, I should say?
MR. SIMS: The correction on that would be that LAPD submitted a substrate control along with cuttings from the shirt, so I tested the cuttings.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. So in other words, they cut an area which was labeled "substrate control" from the shirt; is that correct?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you performed a PCR analysis of that substrate control?
MR. SIMS: Actually that was performed by Renee Montgomery, but our laboratory did, yes, it was for D1S80 PCR marker.
MR. SCHECK: And you got a result of 18, 18 for that substrate control?
MR. SIMS: We characterized that as a trace of the 18 allele, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And that would be a genotype consistent with the DNA from Nicole Brown Simpson?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it would.
MR. SCHECK: And that is on Mr. Goldman's shirt?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And did you examine the substrate control itself, that cutting?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I believe I did.
MR. SCHECK: And did you see what appeared to be blood flakes on that shirt?
MR. SIMS: Yes. My notes on page 158 indicate that.
MR. SCHECK: So in other words, in the substrate control on Mr. Goldman's shirt you found flakes of blood which, using PCR typing, you were able to determined a result that was consistent on the D1S80 system with Nicole Brown Simpson?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, would that be consistent with--withdrawn. You talked about how substrate controls can be evidence of samples being cross-contaminated?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Would this finding you made on the substrate control be evidence that Mr. Goldman's shirt had been cross-contaminated with clothing from Nicole Brown Simpson?
MR. HARMON: Objection, calls for speculation; no foundation, improper hypothetical.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: The--can you repeat exactly what you were saying?
MR. SCHECK: Sure.
MR. SCHECK: Would this finding on the substrate control of Mr. Goldman's shirt be consistent with there having been a cross-contamination with this shirt and clothing of Nicole Brown Simpson that had her blood on it?
MR. SIMS: Would it be consistent with that? In other words, is that a possibility?
MR. SCHECK: Yeah.
MR. SIMS: Well, I would say that is one possibility, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Other possibilities are that Mr. Goldman's body was dragged across the crime scene into an area where it came into contact with blood from Nicole Brown Simpson?
MR. HARMON: Objection, improper hypothetical.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HARMON: Calls for speculation.
MR. SCHECK: On--you also got a control--did you--with respect to Nicole Brown Simpson's dress--
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: --did you receive a substrate control cuttings or did you make some?
MR. SIMS: On that particular item, I sampled--I did the sampling. I did not take a substrate control on that particular item because it was very bloody. The entire garment was--appeared to have blood and it would seem to be hard to find an area with absolutely no blood on it.
MR. SCHECK: But you did take three cuttings labeled G3, G5--G3, G5 and what would be the other one?
MR. SIMS: How about G6 maybe.
MR. SCHECK: Yeah. And these were cuttings from around the right shoulder area?
MR. SIMS: Yes, the right upper back.
MR. SCHECK: And you performed a D1S80 analysis on those cuttings, or Miss Montgomery did?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you got a finding of an 18 allele and a 24 allele?
MR. SIMS: We--on one of the cuttings, G3, it was an 18 allele with a weaker 24 allele, indicating a mixture. On G5 and G6 the type it was determined to be 18, 18 with a trace of the 24th allele.
MR. SCHECK: And that would--that mixture would be consistent with DNA typings of Nicole Brown Simpson, which for D1S80 are 18, 18?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And traces of--of DNA from Ronald Goldman whose type for the D1S80 system is 24, 24?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I have another question that I want to ask this witness, but before I do I think I need to seek some guidance from the Court.
THE COURT: All right. With the court reporter, please.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar. Where are you going with this?
MR. SCHECK: I have a question that I'm fearful night open a door, so I want to explain what the issues are and I'm going to seek a preliminary ruling from the Court to see whether I should go into this area or not. There were--I think there were two--there was a specimen taken from no. 11, the wire, at Rockingham.
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
MR. SCHECK: There was some specimen swatches that were labeled no. 11 specimen and then there were swatches taken from the wire that were labeled control. When Mr. Sims examined these, both of them appear to be grayish whitish swatches; however, he performed a--what they call an otolidine test which is another form of the presumptive blood test, and when he performed that presumptive blood test he got a positive finding for the swatch that was in the control bindle, but he got a negative finding for the swatch that was in the specimen bindle. The question that I want to ask him is simply was there--when he was examining the sample, the specimens, bindles from LAPD, was there an item where he had concerns that the control sample had been put in the specimen bindle and the specimen had been put in the control bindle. Now, there were no other tests that were done or could be done on these swatches to confirm whether or not it was blood.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Now, if I ask him those questions and he answers, yes, I had a concern and my concern was in no. 11 because the information I had was that there was--it was a concern that they had mixed up putting the specimen in the specimen bindle and the control in the--the specimen in the control bindle and vice versa, is that going to open the door to allowing them to ask or even having the witness say that they performed a presumptive test on the swatch indicating it was blood, even though there is no confirmatory tests on this blood.
THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.
MR. HARMON: Well, I don't think it will open a door, it will blow it off the hinges and knock off the dead bolt, but other than that, other than being beyond the scope of direct examination, it clearly allows us to go back to the positive phenolphthalein on the sink drain, that in spite of all the other door openings that they did before you refused to let us get into, so beyond the scope and blowing the door off the hinges are two things to keep in mind, your Honor.
MR. SCHECK: Certainly not beyond the scope on the issues of controls, but--and the ability to use them. My concern really was for the Court to make a ruling. I certainly expected Mr. Harmon to say it would open the door. My concern is whether the Court believes it would open the door. I would propose to ask the witness just the question did you have reason to believe that there was a mispackaging of control specimens with respect to one item and which one was it? No. 11?
THE COURT: All right. The problem, though, is first of all, that that opens up I think legitimately going into what was done--the Prosecution would be entitled to explain what actual testing was done on that particular swatch and what the results were, which I think we all agree are not really relevant to the circumstances of this particular case, so looking at the totality of the case here, the probative value of what you are offering and the consumption of the time that would be taken up by the Prosecution then explaining what this is, I'm going to sustain the objection under 352. Also notice and give you caution that if you go into it, that then we are going to get into what the presumptive testing was, not necessarily the bathroom stain--I mean the bedroom--bathroom drain, but certainly on the wire itself.
MR. COCHRAN: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. So incidentally just on, you know--thank you. I just wanted to make sure.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHECK: The other thing, just to--please don't hold me completely to this, but just to in terms--I knew you mentioned undue consumption of time. I think I have a pretty firm grasp on how long this witness is going to take me in fear of his vacation. I will be with him this morning and I think I will be with him probably Monday morning, maybe not the whole morning, but Monday morning. That is my best estimate.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Then that is it, so just to give you a sense.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Yes, yes. We--I do want--we have another chart.
MR. COCHRAN: Modified.
MR. SCHECK: Modified chart.
THE COURT: Well, maybe at the break.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. When are we breaking? At 10:30?
THE COURT: Yes, and only for ten minutes.
(Brief pause.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Mr. Scheck, you may proceed.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, you discussed yesterday a study by the Federal Bureau of Investigation concerning efforts to induce cross-contamination in the handling of samples?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: I think at one point you talked about how this FBI study, they had FBI agents coughing over samples?
MR. SIMS: Well, I don't know that they were FBI agents. I think they were actually laboratory people that were not necessarily agents, but yes.
MR. SCHECK: Laboratory people working for the FBI?
MR. SIMS: Well, I--I believe that work was done mainly by Dr. Comey who is an employee of the FBI, and I think it was a woman by the name of Pamela Fish who I believe is with the Chicago Police Department. I think those are the two that did those experiments.
MR. SCHECK: Now, is there--to your knowledge there is no such thing as a standardized cough by either FBI employees or employees of the Chicago Police Department?
MR. SIMS: No, not that I am aware of.
MR. SCHECK: But there is a difference between a cough and a sneeze, isn't there?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And a sneeze is more likely--forgive my bringing up the details of this, but to--to give you an effluent or a spray than a cough?
MR. SIMS: It could, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And to your knowledge they didn't even--they did not sneeze on any samples?
MR. SIMS: To my knowledge I don't recall that being in the table, no. I think it was more of a cough.
MR. SCHECK: Now, there was discussion in that study of saliva?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And they did find that saliva, mixed with blood, that actually the amount of DNA that you will get from the saliva mixture is two times the amount that you would get from the blood?
MR. SIMS: I don't recall it being two times, but yes, the saliva could make a big contribution.
MR. SCHECK: And scientifically that makes sense to you, doesn't it, because saliva, in terms of its volume, has a higher concentration of DNA than blood?
MR. SIMS: Well, I think saliva can have a lot of DNA in it because of the cells that line the mouth, but there is a tremendous variation, just as there is from cough to cough, from spit to spit.
MR. SCHECK: Well, in general, no matter who--if you compare somebody's spit to somebody's blood, right, in equal volumes, you are going to find more DNA in the spit than the blood?
MR. SIMS: You may well find more, but again, it varies.
MR. SCHECK: Well, in blood, the DNA comes from the white cells?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And the--but over fifty percent of the cellular material in blood is red cells?
MR. SIMS: Yes, something like that--what did you say? Yes, well over fifty percent.
MR. SCHECK: Well over fifty percent?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And the red cells do not have a nucleus?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: So they don't have DNA in them?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And the DNA in the blood comes from the white cells?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And that is about one percent of the cellular material in blood?
MR. SIMS: Something like that, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And just to illustrate it, the kind of things you do in the laboratory, there is something called a centrifuge?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And so you would take like a test-tube of blood and you would spin it around?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And what would happen is that the cellular material would go to the bottom of the tube?
MR. SIMS: Well, the red cells tend to sediment and then the white cells tend to form a layer on top.
MR. SCHECK: Right. So you see a sediment of the red cells at the bottom of the tube?
MR. SIMS: Yes, and occupying a lot of the tube at that point.
MR. SCHECK: And then there is a thin film that I think people in your line of work call a buffy coat?
MR. SIMS: Yes. That is called the buffy coat.
MR. SCHECK: And that is where you will have the white blood cells?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: There is some sort of yellowish material that is the serum, the platelets?
MR. SIMS: Yes, the serum is the plasma.
MR. SCHECK: Let's take a centrifuge tube and spin it around with saliva.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: And at the bottom of that you would see a sediment of the epithelial cells, right?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: The epithelial cells are the cells from skin?
MR. SIMS: Also they are the ones that line the mouth.
MR. SCHECK: The inside of the mouth?
MR. SIMS: Right. They are different from the ones that would be on your epidermis, for example.
MR. SCHECK: Right. And the epithelial cells that you get from the saliva, if you looked at the bottom of the test-tube, that would be what you would see at the bottom?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And so if you were to just take a volume of blood and a volume of saliva, typically, right?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Spin it around in those tubes, right?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: You look at that buffy coat which would be the amount of the white cells or the amount of DNA you could get out of that volume of blood, right?
MR. SIMS: Right.
MR. SCHECK: And typically compare it to the other two where you would have the cells from--the epithelial cells from the saliva, right?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: In the same volumes, you would expect to see more DNA from the epithelia cells than the saliva, typically?
MR. SIMS: Well, the problem with--with saliva is it is not like blood. Blood tends to be more typical in that when you draw it out of the arm, people's blood tend to all look alike. Their DNA might vary, but they tend to look alike. But saliva varies because we take saliva from suspects and victims in sexual assault cases, so you look at these things and you see a lot of variations, but there can be--to make this short, there can be a significant amount of epithelial cells in saliva.
MR. SCHECK: Right. So to get back to our FBI study--right?
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: --you would be more likely to find epithelial cells from the effluent of a sneeze, wouldn't you, than a cough?
MR. SIMS: Well, if--if--I mean, you have to remember some people, when they cough, they really hack a lot, and so they may be producing a lot of phlegm.
MR. SCHECK: Well, all right. Well, let's--getting to the bottom line here, in terms of this FBI study, you think it might have been a reasonable idea, instead of having some undefined kind of coughing, to have somebody sneeze?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Objection, it is irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled. The answer will stand. Proceed.
MR. SIMS: Yes, I think--
MR. SCHECK: Now--
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: --talking again about the FBI study, bottom line here, the samples involved in that study, right, the--the samples that they were looking at in terms of trying to see whether they were cross-contamination did not involve degraded samples, did it?
MR. SIMS: That's correct. That is my understanding.
MR. SCHECK: And the discussion that we have been having here has to do with the possibility of cross-contamination of one set of samples that are degraded?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you gave some testimony about false positives versus--
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: --versus false negatives?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you were asked is it your opinion that a typing error in the from process is more likely to result in a false exclusion than an inclusion?
MR. SIMS: Generally, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Well, that was the question you were asked yesterday, if you recall?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, your experience is in forensic DNA typing?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And I take it that your answer was based on your experience in forensic DNA typing?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And when you are doing forensic DNA typing, typically that involves a case where you will get a result, a DNA result, and then it will be introduced in court with respect--and maybe against somebody who is accused?
MR. SIMS: Or it may well give a result that exonerates some person.
MR. SCHECK: It can happen. But when it is being used for purposes of incrimination, it is used for--let's put it this way: Talking about false positives and false negatives?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: There are many situations where you will have what we would characterize as a positive result, that is, there is a consistency between DNA typing found on some sample and a person that is accused and that would be called, let's say, a, quote, positive result?
MR. SIMS: Yes, you could use it in that context.
MR. SCHECK: And you had that in mind when you are answering the false positive question yesterday?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, in a--when you are using PCR typing for purposes of making a diagnosis in a clinical test--
MR. HARMON: Objection, no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: You were asked yesterday in this connection about--you made reference to an article by Mr.--Dr. Sensabaugh concerning, umm, false positive rates and PCR typing?
MR. HARMON: Objection. That misstates the testimony. There was no such testimony on rates, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Do you know what the false positive rates are for PCR typing in clinical medicine?
MR. SIMS: No.
MR. SCHECK: Do you know--you were asked questions comparing forensic typing in DNA typing in forensics and clinical medicine yesterday by Mr. Harmon?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And let's just talk about what you do know with respect to the use of forensic typing in clinical medicine.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Do you know if PCR typing in clinical medicine is used to do a diagnosis of, let's say, some--you know what a pap smear is?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. A situation where you--an analysis might be done on a pap smear to see whether or not somebody might have a tumor that is either malignant or benign?
MR. HARMON: Objection, irrelevant, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: In--when PCR typing is used as a screening device in clinical medicine, do you know if it is used in situations to make an assessment as to whether or not somebody, umm--where you will make a prediction based on the typing result as to whether or not somebody has, let's say, a certain genetic disease?
MR. HARMON: Objection. It is irrelevant, beyond the scope, no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Do you know if in clinical medicine, using PCR typing, one can make a comparison of what the DNA typing result is and compare it later to whether or not the typing result accurately predicted the outcome?
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. Foundation. Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Do you know--I'm asking him if he knows.
THE COURT: It is beyond the scope as well, counsel.
MR. SCHECK: In a--using forensic DNA typing in the context of a criminal case, the only way that you can find out if you had a false positive is if some other evidence emerges afterwards which would indicate that the DNA typing was incorrect?
MR. HARMON: Objection. It is argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Well, you are aware of the CACLD studies?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And in the first round of CACLD studies two laboratories, cellmark, forensic sciences associates, got false positives?
MR. HARMON: Objection, beyond the scope, no foundation, calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Do you know if cellmark and forensic sciences associates--
THE COURT: Counsel, I'm staining the objection on a hearsay basis at this point.
MR. SCHECK: All right.
MR. SCHECK: Have you read the results, the report of the CACLD study?
MR. HARMON: Objection. It is irrelevant, beyond the scope.
MR. SCHECK: Just first question.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: No.
MR. SCHECK: Have you read reports of that study?
MR. SIMS: I have read some information about that study, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. And the information that you have read about that study, do you rely upon it?
MR. HARMON: Objection. It is relied on what for what reason?
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Have you relied upon it in forming your opinion about the reliability of forensic DNA typing?
THE COURT: Still vague, counsel, relied on what? What article specifically?
MR. SCHECK: Have you relied on the literature you have read concerning the CACLD studies?
THE COURT: Still sustained. We are not identifying what it is that we are referring to.
MR. SCHECK: What is it that you have read with respect to the CACLD studies?
MR. SIMS: Well, for example, Dr. Blake--
MR. HARMON: Objection. That may call for hearsay. That does call for hearsay, your Honor.
THE COURT: No. What he has read regarding the CACLD study is not hearsay. Overruled.
MR. SCHECK: You may answer.
MR. SIMS: I know, for example, that Dr. Blake mentioned it in the case work article, the experience he had and why it was better--why he found it was better to shift to the reverse dot-blot.
THE COURT: Excuse me. The only question is what have you read with regards to the CACLD study? Dr. Blake's article. We have established that.
MR. SCHECK: What else have you read?
MR. SIMS: I think--I think there is a mention of the CACLD study in the NRC report and I think there is a mention of it in I recall reading something about it I think in Dr. Thompson's article.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. In what you've read, would you rely upon these articles that you've read in terms of their accuracy in reporting what occurred in the CACLD study.
MR. HARMON: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Would you rely upon what you've read in terms of forming your opinion--
THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. The way you are phrasing the question, it is never going to work.
MR. SCHECK: Oh, okay. Then I have to find another way.
THE COURT: I guess so. This doesn't look particularly fruitful here. The jury has already heard about the CACLD study and has also heard testimony from cellmark.
MR. SCHECK: Right.
THE COURT: So let's proceed.
MR. SCHECK: To your knowledge, in proficiency tests performed by the CACLD, were there more false positives than false negatives?
MR. HARMON: Objection, calls for hearsay. It is beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SIMS: I don't recall--
MR. SCHECK: You can't answer.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SIMS: I'm sorry.
MR. SCHECK: Umm, Mr. Sims, let's discuss for a few minutes the fingernails.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you told us that you had considerable experience in conventional serology?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And how many years was that?
MR. SIMS: Well, in conventional serology I--I actually started doing conventional serology back in 1976, so I guess I did that for about fourteen years, something like that.
MR. SCHECK: And have you worked with the EAP system?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I have.
MR. SCHECK: And I believe you have told us that--well, withdrawn. And the EAP system looks at enzymes within the red blood cells?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it does.
MR. SCHECK: And forensic DNA testing with DQ-Alpha or polymarkers would be looking at nucleated cells, correct?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And I think you have already told us that in terms of blood, only one percent of blood contains the white cells that has the nuclear DNA?
MR. SIMS: Something like that. I know that figure a little differently from my knowledge, but it is on that order.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh.
MR. SIMS: Blood is mostly red cells, that is the point, and very few white cells by comparison.
MR. SCHECK: When you opened the package--packages that contained the fingernail scrapings--you received the packages that contained the fingernail scrapings and the clippings?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you opened them up and you looked at them when you received them at the lab?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. SCHECK: And at that time you were aware that Mr. Matheson had conducted EAP testing and conventional serology testing on scrapings?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I was aware of that.
MR. SCHECK: And were you aware of his results, reported results?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I believe I was aware of that result.
MR. SCHECK: And after looking at those packages, did you then close them up without conducting any testing on them and send them back to LAPD?
MR. SIMS: Well, I did close them up, but I didn't send them back at that point.
MR. SCHECK: You closed them up and you didn't perform any testing?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And did you have any discussions with Mr. Matheson after you closed up the packages?
MR. SIMS: I think I did. I'm not positive of that, but I think I did talk to Mr. Matheson about the fingernail scrapings.
MR. SCHECK: And did you suggest that a second EAP test should be run?
MR. HARMON: Objection, calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Well, Mr. Sims, have--are you aware of literature that documents a degradation pattern for the EAP system?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And in that literature have you ever--in that literature is there any degradation pattern that shows that a BA can degrade into a two-banded b pattern?
MR. SIMS: Most of the literature that I am familiar with talks about what generally happens, although I do recall reading in the literature a citation for I think it was in the--one of the British laboratories where they saw a BA being mistyped as a B, and that--I have seen that in the literature. Not as part of a study, but as some--an observation.
MR. SCHECK: Could you answer my question?
MR. SIMS: Well, yes, I have seen that in literature.
MR. SCHECK: Have you seen in the literature any documentation of a degradation pattern where a BA degrades into a two-banded b pattern?
MR. SIMS: I--I don't recall seeing that, unless there may have been something in one of Dr. Grunbaum's papers, but I can't cite it offhand.
MR. SCHECK: And Dr. Sensabaugh is the person that has done, would you agree, the most extensive work in examining the EAP system?
MR. SIMS: I would say that Dr. Sensabaugh knows more about EAP than just about anybody.
MR. SCHECK: And in his published articles have you ever seen anything that documents a degradation pattern where a BA degrades into a two-banded b pattern? Anything he has written?
MR. SIMS: No, I can't recall seeing that.
MR. SCHECK: In your own experience, in all the years that you have performed conventional serology, have you ever seen a BA degrade into a two-banded b pattern?
MR. SIMS: Well, the problem with the EAP marker--I mean, I can recall generating a lot of inconclusive results with EAP, because it can be a difficult marker, but--
MR. SCHECK: But my question, sir--
MR. HARMON: Well, your Honor--
THE COURT: Let him finish his answer.
MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry. Are you finished?
MR. SIMS: Well, I think--I think in order to do that you have to be assured of what the type is to begin with, if you understand what I'm saying. In other words, if I have a stain, I have to be sure of the type to begin with. You would have to do it as a research project.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, I'm just talking about your experience now in typing. Have you personally ever seen a BA degrade into a two-banded b pattern? Have you ever seen that? Yes or no?
MR. SIMS: Where I knew that it was a BA?
MR. SCHECK: Degrade into a two-banded b pattern?
MR. SIMS: I can't recall seeing that, no.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, I would like to discuss with you PCR carry-over contamination.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Now--your Honor, I'm going to start this, but it is going to take more than ten minutes.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: This, your Honor, is exhibit 1133, Defense 1133.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Now, Mr. Sims, in the PCR amplification process, whether you are using the DQ-Alpha system, the polymarker system or the D1S80 system, in terms of basic principles, would it be fair to say that what is happening is one is starting with a certain amount of genetic material?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And then what happens is that in the PCR amplification process itself there is a--what are known as cycles?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Could you explain that for us, how that works and how a piece of starting material, umm, is amplified up into many larger fragments? Many more fragments, I'm sorry?
MR. SIMS: More fragments, right; not larger. The--this is the PCR process, and I won't go into great detail with this, but what you are doing is you are starting with a certain amount of what we call template DNA. In other words, that is the DNA that you extracted from the stain. And then you are doing what is called amplifying a particular segment of that DNA, a very small, relatively small portion of that DNA, and you are using that then to--that repetitive or--or you are making additional copies of a particular area, then you are making copies from copies and copies from copies and so on and so on. And that is why you see what we call this expedential expansion of the number of fragments that you get.
MR. SCHECK: Now, let us assume that the starting material here, all right, contains DNA for--let's pick the DQ-Alpha system, all right?
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: And in the DQ-Alpha system you have a series of different alleles?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And they are about how many base pairs long for the most part?
MR. SIMS: About 240 base pairs, the area of interest.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Let's assume, for purposes of this, that in this starting material we are talking about DNA that has the genotype 1.3, 1.3 for the DQ-Alpha system.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: So in other words, would it be pair to say that when you begin making the copies from that starting material that with each different cycle you are producing more and more fragments that are about, what, 269 base pairs long?
MR. SIMS: About 240.
MR. SCHECK: 240 base pairs long that are little copies of that 1.3 allele?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And as the cycles go on, you are producing--what is this number at the end, after 32 cycles?
MR. SIMS: It looks like you've got 4 billion 290 million fragments.
MR. SCHECK: Fragments?
MR. SIMS: Fragments.
MR. SCHECK: 290 million fragments of that 1.3 allele?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: That is 240 base pairs long?
MR. SIMS: Base pairs long, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And when you do that amplification on one of these little microfuge tubes, after you put it in that thermocycler machine, you are going to get inside that tube 4 billion 290 million fragments of 1.3?
MR. SIMS: Well, again it depends on your starting material, but that is the idea. That is proper.
MR. SCHECK: And a single amplification could contain something on the order of a trillion copies of an amplified target sequence?
MR. SIMS: I don't think at our levels that we get up to a trillion copies. I think maybe a billion is sort of the neighborhood.
MR. SCHECK: A billion copies. When we talk about the amplified target sequence here, we are talking about that 1.3?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And would you agree that that is a staggering number of molecules?
MR. SIMS: Well, no, it is not really a staggering number of molecules, I mean, if you look at the air, think how many molecules are in the air, and that sort of thing. It is not a staggering number of molecules; it is just a large number.
MR. SCHECK: Pretty large number, right?
MR. SIMS: But not in terms of molecules.
MR. SCHECK: Well, it is enough to cover many square miles of land if you just took them out of the tube and spread them out?
MR. SIMS: Maybe in a string or something like that, I suppose there could be something like that, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And with the contents of that reaction with these 4 billion 290 million fragments, it is certainly, if it got out of that tube, could cover a lot of square footage in a laboratory?
MR. SIMS: Yes, there could be some significant number of copies, that is true.
MR. SCHECK: And in a DNA laboratory, when you are doing these PCR tests, you are amplifying up in the tubes these billions of fragments again and again and again?
MR. SIMS: Well, you are--for example, if you did several samples, yes, each tube would contain those--that large number of fragments, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And if some of these fragments--are these fragments one of these fragments, is it visible to the naked eye?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it would be.
MR. SCHECK: One of those fragments?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: How small would it be?
MR. SIMS: You couldn't see it. You would--you couldn't see it. I mean, it is extremely tiny. I mean we are talking about things on the atomic--well, it is not an atom obviously, but several atoms. You can't see it.
MR. SCHECK: When you said it is visible to the naked eye, are you talking about seeing it under the microscope?
MR. SIMS: No, you couldn't see it under the microscope.
MR. SCHECK: So you couldn't see it?
MR. SIMS: No, you couldn't see it.
MR. SCHECK: With that, not being able to visibly see it, your Honor, we will move on.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we will take a brief ten-minute recess. Please remember all of my admonitions. Don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. Also, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. As far as the jury is concerned, we will stand in recess until nine o'clock. All right. Mr. Sims, you can step down. Monday morning, 8:45.
MR. SIMS: Yes, your Honor.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.
MR. SCHECK: Yes. We have another chart I just showed Mr. Harmon.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: My proposal is just to show him this, that is the numbers he testified to, and introduce it and move on.
THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.
MR. HARMON: You know, the one that jumps out as being grossly perverted is 52. Robin Cotton, as I recall, said 25 to 60. So--I mean--
MR. SCHECK: Just his answers to my hypothetical based on his--
MR. HARMON: You know, remember, mine are better late than never yesterday, your Honor. That hypothetical was based on a lot of things that have no resemblance to reality, including 52. I mean, that is the state of the record with respect to cellmark. So--and that points out why these argumentative distortions of what's been presented here--they may be great for Mr. Cochran's closing argument, but even at that point, I think you'd look at them with a dim view, and I hope you would anyway.
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, this is--this is just a straightforward clear simple graphic of what the testimony was yesterday based on--
THE COURT: Aren't computers wonderful?
MR. SCHECK: They are.
THE COURT: All right. I'll overrule the previous objections. However, I anticipate five or six rather pointed questions from Mr. Harmon regarding the underlying assumptions.
MR. SCHECK: I do too.
THE COURT: All right. Okay. Let's proceed. Let's have the jury, please.
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, could I just comment? If you have those questions about the legitimacy of the assumptions, then why don't you defer on letting the jury see this rather than seeing it, and then let me straighten it out next Wednesday or Thursday. That I thought we were keeping them from being misled.
THE COURT: Well, counsel, you know, in looking at all of this, the issue is whether or not it would be misleading. Under the hypothetical that Mr. Scheck--and with his assumptions, it was an appropriate hypothetical question. However, I suspect that you will be able to come back and counter some of those assumptions. And I have already instructed the jury regarding the assumptions made on hypothetical questions. Let's proceed.
MR. HARMON: Could you instruct them again, your Honor, before we actually show them a manifestation of a--
THE COURT: I'm not going to pinpoint instructions for either party at any particular time.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Why don't you be seated. Mr. Sims, why don't you go ahead and take your seat. All right. Let the record reflect that we've been rejoined now by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Sims is again on the witness stand. And, Mr. Scheck, you may continue with your cross-examination.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, to move back to our discussion of PCR carry-over contamination, now, referring you again to the chart that's--
THE COURT: 1133.
MR. SCHECK: --1133, now, these 4 billion 290 million fragments that are produced by an amplification, is the term that is sometimes used to describe a single one of those fragments an amplicon fragment?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I've seen that term in the literature.
MR. SCHECK: And sometimes it's just referred to as an amplicon?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And under the discussion we were having of this cy--32 cycles of one fragment, we were assuming it was the starting material--
THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Scheck.
MR. SCHECK: Sorry?
THE COURT: Excuse me just a second. All right. Proceed.
MR. SCHECK: We were assuming the starting material here was a 1.3, 1.3.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: And so that would mean that the 4 billion 290 million amplicon fragments were these 1.3, 1.3 fragments from the DQ-Alpha system.
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And just as we broke, you indicated to us that one of those fragments is invisible.
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And if a number of these invisible fragments were to get from one of these tubes into another tube, that could cause what's known as PCR carry-over contamination?
MR. HARMON: Objection. Vague as to a number.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Well, again, it would depend on the number.
MR. SCHECK: How many of these amplicon fragments, these 1.3 fragments would it take to--when it transferred to another tube where it shouldn't be to create one of those little 1.3 dots on a DQ-Alpha strip?
MR. SIMS: Well, it's not just to create the dot. It's actually to get a typeable result. Is that what you mean? To get a typeable result, we'd need about a hundred of them, something like that.
MR. SCHECK: 100?
MR. SIMS: 100, yes.
MR. SCHECK: 1--only 100 out of those 4 billion 290 million fragments being transferred to another tube would cause a 1.3 contaminant on a strip?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And have you ever heard the term "exquisite sensitivity" applied to the PCR technique?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I have.
MR. SCHECK: And by "exquisite sensitivity," it is meant that the ability of the PCR process to amplify up very small amounts of starting material means that it is a very sensitive form of testing?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it is.
MR. SCHECK: And by sensitivity, we're talking about the ability to detect small amounts of, in this case, DNA?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: If one takes one of those microfuge tubes with the top and pops it up and gets a small aerosol, gets on a glove, gets on the rim of another tube and then gets into a second tube and only 100 of those fragments gets into that second tube, that can cause a PCR carry-over contamination which would create one of those typeable 1.3 dots lighting up on the strip?
MR. SIMS: Well, no. That by itself wouldn't cause that. That's--you're--the way you phrased that, that's not what you're talking about.
MR. SCHECK: It gets into the tube and then you amplify it up and then you see the dot on the strip?
MR. SIMS: In other words, if--if some of that amplified product, that number of copies we talked about got back into another tube and then that got amplified, then that's correct, yes. But you have to amplify what you got in the tube.
MR. SCHECK: Amplified second?
MR. SIMS: That's right.
MR. SCHECK: Now, because these amplified products, it only takes 100 of them I think you said--
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: --to create a contaminant typing result.
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: PCR laboratories, whether doing forensic typing or typing for clinical medicine, have to be very, very concerned about carry-over contamination.
MR. SIMS: You have to be very concerned about that, yes.
MR. SCHECK: You have to take very strict precautions to make sure that amplified product, these fragments are not accidentally spread around?
MR. SIMS: You have to take strict precautions, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you need to take strict precautions because only 100 of these invisible fragments can cause that contaminant?
MR. SIMS: Yes. In other words, 100 of those fragments all landing in the same place, the same tube as you mentioned, yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, in your--amplified fragments, these invisible amplified fragments can get on people's shoes?
MR. SIMS: I--I suppose they could if there was some on the floor, for example, and you stepped in it.
MR. SCHECK: And you could carry them to another section of the laboratory if one isn't careful?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I suppose that could happen.
MR. SCHECK: And it can get on clothing?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And if you carry that to another part of the laboratory, then touch your clothing and put your hand down on a surface, that can spread the amplicons?
MR. SIMS: Yes. That could spread them out, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And then that spread of the amplicons can somehow get on an analyst's hands or clothing and then start getting into reagents?
MR. SIMS: It's somewhat of a circuitous route, but I suppose theoretically, all that could happen.
MR. SCHECK: Well, isn't that in your understanding of the literature in this area more than a theoretical problem?
MR. SIMS: Well, most--most of the concern has come about, for example, in the way instrumentations such as pipettes are used or that sort of thing, but that is part of the issue, is you want to isolate the PCR product. There's no doubt about that.
MR. SCHECK: No doubt about it?
MR. SIMS: No doubt about that.
MR. SCHECK: And that's why in your laboratory's--withdrawn. Now, once one gets PCR carry-over contamination in a laboratory, it is hard to pinpoint exactly where it came from?
MR. SIMS: In other words, if one saw a--a large amount of it, in other words, a large number of samples that were contaminated, is that what you're saying? Yes, it could be difficult to isolate that.
MR. SCHECK: And in the literature on PCR typing, there has been much written about measures that could be taken in laboratories to prevent carry-over or amplicon contamination as it's called?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: One precaution that has been suggested is the use of an enzyme known as U-N-G?
MR. SIMS: Ung, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Actually, I think it stands for--this may be more information than we need--Uracil N-Glycolase.
THE COURT: You want to spell that?
MR. SCHECK: Sure.
MR. SIMS: Or is it glycol's maybe?
MR. SCHECK: Uracil, U-R-A-C-I-L, new word, capital N dash, G-L-Y-C-O-L-A-S-E. Yes?
MR. SIMS: I believe that's right, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Typically--otherwise know as U-N-G?
MR. SIMS: Ung.
MR. SCHECK: And this is an enzyme that can be put into the PCR process that can prevent--can be used to prevent amplification of carry-over amplicons from the previous amplification run?
MR. SIMS: Yes. That's one approach that was proposed sometime back. I--nobody's adopted it in forensic use because we haven't found the need for it.
MR. SCHECK: Well, nobody in the forensic laboratories has adopted it?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: But in PCR typing, for purposes of clinical diagnosis, this is a widely-used technique, isn't it?
MR. HARMON: Objection. It's irrelevant, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Do you know if u-n-g is used in clinical laboratories as a precaution against PCR carry-over contamination?
MR. HARMON: Objection. Calls for hearsay, speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Are you familiar with the section concerning PCR carry-over contamination in the NRC report?
MR. HARMON: Objection. It's irrelevant.
MR. SCHECK: Call your attention to page 67.
MR. HARMON: Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled. Are you familiar with that?
MR. SIMS: I've read it.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Do you rely upon the recommended--on that section of the--
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, objection.
MR. SCHECK: Rephrase the question.
MR. SCHECK: Do you rely on the section of the NRC report that discusses--
MR. HARMON: Objection.
MR. SCHECK: --PCR carry-over contamination in formulating your opinions about PCR typing?
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I object, hearsay, to the form of the question.
THE COURT: Well, counsel, if you are talking at the same time, I can't hear the question, I can't hear the objection at the same time. Restate the question.
MR. SCHECK: Do you rely on the section of the national academy of sciences report concerning PCR carry-over contamination?
MR. SIMS: No.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. SCHECK: Is this--is Dr. George Sensabaugh one of the authors of this NRC report?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I believe he was one of the authors of the report.
MR. SCHECK: Is that the same Dr. George Sensabaugh that was the author of those articles or a number of the articles that Mr. Harmon referred you to on direct examination?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now--so you don't use u-n-g as a precaution against PCR carry-over contamination in your laboratory?
MR. SIMS: That's correct. We found no need for it.
MR. SCHECK: Now, ultraviolet light can be used to--as a precaution against PCR carry-over contamination?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Literally, if you expose the DNA to ultraviolet light, it does something that they call cross-link it?
MR. SIMS: Yes. You get cross-linking, dimming, dimmers, that sort of thing.
MR. SCHECK: And in simple terms, what that means is, if you expose the amplicons to ultraviolet light, you will sort of deactivate them to the point where they can't be amplified up as carry-over contamination?
MR. SIMS: That's the basic idea, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And so ultraviolet light can be used as a way of--sort of as a precaution against PCR carry-over contamination getting on surfaces?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And I think you indicated that when you take notes in your forensic typing, you do it as the work is performed?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: So you would be there with your paper, your note--your notes, the paper on which you make your notes as you are performing some of these functions?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And as a precaution, do you take the pages of your notes and put it in some machine to expose them to ultraviolet light?
MR. SIMS: Well, what I do is, I take the pages that have been in the PCR room, that's our product room, I expose those in a device called a straddle linker, which it zaps them basically with this ultraviolet light, and then I do that both sides of the paper before I remove it from that room.
MR. SCHECK: And the reason that you--so you literally take the pieces of paper that you bring into that PCR product room, and then you put it in--what did you call it? A contraption?
MR. SIMS: The device is called a straddle linker.
MR. SCHECK: Right. You put it in there, you expose both sides of the paper to the ultraviolet light, right?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: So that's to make sure that the paper that you're carrying out of that PCR product room doesn't contain any of these amplicons?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: That's the--
MR. SIMS: That's to--
MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry?
MR. SIMS: Well, yes. That's to, again, expose it to the UV light. It's a protective device.
MR. SCHECK: That's how careful one has to be?
MR. SIMS: That's--we are probably overboard on that matter, but I--we think it's a good idea because that paper may have been, for example, on a lab bench in the PCR room.
MR. SCHECK: When you say "overboard," you're talking in terms of comparing forensic DNA laboratories, right? You're comparing yourself to other forensic DNA laboratories?
MR. SIMS: Yes. That's all I know about.
MR. SCHECK: Right. You don't know very much about what clinical laboratories do in terms of trying to prevent PCR carry-over contamination?
MR. SIMS: I don't know a great deal about that, that's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And would it be fair to say that the PCR typing process has been used in clinical laboratories far longer than it has been in forensic laboratories?
MR. HARMON: Objection. Calls for hearsay, no foundation, it's irrelevant.
THE COURT: Do you know the answer to that question?
MR. SIMS: No.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. SCHECK: Is it fair to say that most of the forensic laboratories that you've been referring to for your knowledge are laboratories that are connected with law enforcement?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: So basically what's happening--I think you even described it on direct--is that law enforcement, police crime laboratories have been taking a PCR technology that was first introduced in clinical medicine, the first application, and then research and transferring it into the crime laboratory?
MR. HARMON: Objection. Calls for hearsay, no foundation, speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Well, I--I don't think--you said first. Now, I know Dr. Blake, who is a forensic analyst, was using this stuff in 1985 or -6. I mean, he was in the same building as the Cedus Company that developed it. So I don't know that you can actually say that clinical medicine people were using it before Dr. Blake was.
MR. SCHECK: Well--
MR. SIMS: I'm--I'm struggling with that one.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. Well, you know Dr. Kary Mullis?
MR. SIMS: I don't know him personally.
MR. SCHECK: You know who he is?
MR. SIMS: I know who he is.
MR. SCHECK: He invented PCR technique.
MR. SIMS: Yes. I believe his name is on the patent along with some other people.
MR. SCHECK: He won the Nobel Prize?
MR. SIMS: He won the Nobel Prize.
MR. SCHECK: Now, in your laboratory, you--at the end of the PCR typing process, you go into something that you call a what room?
MR. SIMS: Product room.
MR. SCHECK: Product room. And that's where these tubes are amplified up?
MR. SIMS: Yes. That's where the amplification and typing takes place.
MR. SCHECK: And that's where you do your PCR product gel?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And it's in your protocol that you never, never take PCR product out of that room?
MR. SIMS: Well, we never process it away from that room. That's correct. We would not do that.
MR. SCHECK: And that's because of this danger of carry-over contamination?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: Every tool in that PCR product room is a dedicated tool?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it is.
MR. SCHECK: You don't take a pen that you would use in that room out of the room, do you?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: You don't take the lab coat out of that room?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: You don't take any gloves out of that room?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: You don't take any tubes out of that room?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And you would never in your laboratory take the PCR tubes out of that room, put it in a car, drive it for a mile, bring it into another laboratory and then in another room in a laboratory, perform a PCR product gel, would you?
MR. HARMON: Objection. No foundation, calls for speculation, it's irrelevant, beyond the scope.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. SCHECK: Would you ever take tubes out of your PCR product room and perform what's known as a PCR product gel in another room in your laboratory?
MR. HARMON: Objection. It's vague in terms of what another room is.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: No. It would always be contained in the PCR product room because of the way our lab is set up.
MR. SCHECK: And that's because it's a one-way work flow?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And that's what's recommended by--in forensic laboratories and any other laboratory that you know of that does PCR typing; that you should have a one-way work flow and the PCR product should not leave that last room?
MR. SIMS: That--that's the basic idea, yes. In other words, you work on a sample, you extract it, then you move into the PCR room for the final step.
MR. SCHECK: And could you just tell the jury what a PCR product gel is?
MR. SIMS: A PCR product gel is another one of these mini gels I think Dr. Cotton may have referred to. It's sort of like a yield gel, but it just tells you whether or not you got PCR product out of your amplification. In other words, it evaluates whether or not the--this amplification process was a success, because if it was a success, you'll see a band for the DNA size fragment we mentioned, about 240 base pairs, on your gel.
MR. SCHECK: And to perform a PCR product gel, bottom line, you would be taking some tubes that contained these amplicon fragments. You would have to be using that, be using amplified product?
MR. SIMS: Yes. Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Mr. Sims, let's discuss the glove.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: And in preparation for that, I would ask you to turn to I guess it's page 69 of your notes while I search for one of the glove boards.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Watch out there, guys.
MR. SCHECK: This is no. 272-A.
THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. We're missing the other board that goes with this.
MR. SCHECK: Oh, I don't need it.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: For my purposes now. Well, I wouldn't mind using it, but--
THE COURT: No. That was our agreement.
MR. SCHECK: Oh. The two of them would always be done together. You're absolutely right, your Honor. It's just a question of logistics. But I--thank you.
THE COURT: Deal's a deal.
MR. SCHECK: So I guess that means another easel.
THE COURT: Yes.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: And while we're doing that, let me show Mr. Harmon some photographs so that he has--
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: While they're searching for this board, I'll show the witness these photos.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. SCHECK: Tell you what. I'm sorry.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.
MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. SCHECK: Have you examined those photographs?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, let's just--you began your examination of the glove on October 15th?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I believe that's--yes, that's correct.
MR. SCHECK: What I would like to do with you now is just go over what you did and how long it took you to do it, to cut from the glove four samples. I believe they are G1, G2, G3 and G4, okay?
MR. SIMS: Okay. But when you say "cut," I mean I'm also spending a lot of time documenting, photographing and Dr. Blake is taking photographs too. So--
MR. SCHECK: That's right.
MR. SIMS: --it's not right to just say how long did I take to cut.
MR. SCHECK: No, no. I'm going to take you through it step by step.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Starting at page 69 of your notes.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: On October 15th at about 3:15, you began an examination of this glove which you received on September 7th?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And you photographed it and you made a diagram?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And this took you--and at that time, the glove was turned inside out as reflected on the top left-hand photograph in People's exhibit 272-A?
MR. SIMS: Yes. It was inside out.
MR. SCHECK: That's how it was when you received it?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you then on--you--and when you were examining the glove on October 15th, you also did some presumptive testing on different areas of the glove?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And could you tell us exactly what that is and how you did it?
MR. SIMS: Okay. The presumptive blood testing is with a--it's a color test, a reagent that when--in this case, I used orthotolidine. And what one first does is take a swab and then touch lightly the area of interest where you think there's blood, and then you take that swab now and drop sequentially reagents upon it, the orthotolidine followed by the hydrogen peroxide. And since blood has the--what's called a peroxidase like activity associated with it, if there's blood there, it will turn the reagent blue. You'll see a nice blue color.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Sims, would you spell orthotolidine for the court reporter?
MR. SIMS: Yes. O-R-T-H-O dash T-O-L-I-D-I-N-E.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. SCHECK: And the purpose of going over the--the--the glove with this orthotolidine test and looking for all areas that you might think was blood, was to identify all the areas that you could see on the inside surface of the glove that you thought would be relevant for purposes of DNA testing?
MR. SIMS: Well, I--that's right, except I would probably take out the word "all." I'm not sure I--there's a lot of blood on that glove. So--but those are the areas I focused on.
MR. SCHECK: And to do this, it took you about two and a half hours?
MR. HARMON: Objection. It's vague as to what "this" is, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase.
MR. SCHECK: The examination, documentation and presumptive testing of the surface of the glove took you--all those activities that you've described on October 15th took you about and a half hours, or you tell me how long it took.
MR. SIMS: That's approximately correct, yes. All those--all the activities of that day took about that much time.
MR. SCHECK: Then on October 16th, the next day, you made some cuttings?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: You cut G1 from I guess it's the pointer finger?
MR. SIMS: The index finger, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And G2?
MR. SIMS: Yes. That's on the side of the middle finger.
MR. SCHECK: And G3?
MR. SIMS: That's from the ring finger.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And G4?
MR. SIMS: Yes. That was now down into the--towards the middle of the hand.
MR. SCHECK: So in other words, you were taking cuttings from the index finger; is that right?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And the inside of the middle finger?
MR. SIMS: Yes. That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: And then from something that would be equivalent on if you would turn the glove, you know, out again, right, the inside of--what do you call this finger--the--ring finger?
MR. SIMS: Ring finger.
MR. SCHECK: --ring finger?
MR. SIMS: Ring finger.
MR. SCHECK: Ring finger, right?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Looking for blood in those areas?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Then you also looked at an area that was even middle of the palm, right?
MR. SIMS: I think we're now talking--
MR. SCHECK: G4.
MR. SIMS: G4 is actually I think the back of the hand because it's inside out. If you look--
MR. SCHECK: Inside out on the back of the hand?
THE COURT: Excuse me. Mr. Scheck, you keep talking over Mr. Sims.
MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry.
MR. SIMS: May I step down, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MR. SCHECK: Yeah, please.
THE COURT: Why don't you grab a pointer.
MR. SIMS: G4 is on the back of the hand. It's hard to think because it's inside out. You have to think about it. This notch here is what we call the palm or surface. In other words, that's the surface, the palm of the--and then this--G4 then is on the back of the hand.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, to do these four--to do these four cuttings, right?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Between each cutting in your notes, you indicated that you went through the procedure before where you cleaned your instruments with water and alcohol and flamed them.
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And under each of the cuttings, you put a new one of those chem-wipes?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. SCHECK: All right. When you handled each one of those cuttings?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And you changed gloves between each one of the cuttings or cleaned or put on--washed your gloves?
MR. SIMS: Now, that--I don't recall in this particular examination that I did that each time. I'm--I'm--I'm not sure I did that each time because this was all one item.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. You might have?
MR. SIMS: Well, I might have, but--
MR. HARMON: Objection. Calls for speculation, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Now, how long did it take you to do those four cuttings? About five hours and 40 minutes?
MR. SIMS: No. I think--I think there's a follow-up. This was--this was a Sunday afternoon and I think there was still follow-up time. There were additional samples taken and additional documentation that Sunday.
MR. SCHECK: Well, I'm just curious if you could, to the best of your recollection, using your notes, how long do you think it took you to do the cuttings for those four samples?
MR. SIMS: Oh, those four samples?
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. And the documentation and your usual procedures.
MR. SIMS: Probably an hour, something like that at least. Maybe an hour and 15 minutes. Something like that. Maybe am hour and a half. I'm not sure.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. And did there come a point where you proceeded on October 17th with the organic extraction or your extraction process on those samples?
MR. SIMS: Let me check my notes on that. Which page were you referring to?
MR. SCHECK: Well, page 72.
MR. SIMS: Yes. Page 72, this would now be October 16th. This is when I began the extraction of those samples.
MR. SCHECK: About how long did that take you?
MR. SIMS: The first--well, the first portion that--that night was fairly quick because I just had at that point had all my tubes set up and I just had to add a couple reagents to those tubes, and then that went overnight. The extraction process takes overnight. You let this to get this DNA out, you have to--and with our procedure, you have to go overnight. So then we begin now with the 17th because the 16th--
MR. SCHECK: How long? How long?
MR. SIMS: Well, that would probably take about half an hour, something like that, on the 16th.
MR. SCHECK: The organic extraction?
MR. SIMS: The start of the organic extraction on the 16th would take about half an hour.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And how long would it take you to finish the organic extraction on the next day, page 77?
MR. SIMS: This goes from 72 I guess over to page 75. I would say I spent probably, oh, half a day at least. I work--I work very slowly, but something like a half day, maybe four or five hours, something like that.
MR. SCHECK: And then did there come a point when you did an amplification of these G1, G2, G3 and G4?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: How long did that take?
MR. SIMS: This would now be after the yield gel?
MR. SCHECK: Yeah. Page--you do a yield gel. How long did that take?
MR. SIMS: Excuse me. Well, the yield gel runs for about an hour.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh.
MR. SIMS: This was a--this was a pretty long day. Let's see. I--I--yeah. I have Dr. Blake coming over around 2100 hours. So that would be what, around 9:00 o'clock I guess. I'm running the yield gel during that time. I think it's not been till about the 18th--I have Blake departed 12:00 A.M. that would be midnight. And I think that the actual set-up then starts on the 18th. That would probably take about an hour and a half, something like that. There was some calculations based on the yield gel made and then there was some laying out of the--what we were going to amplify. So that would take about an hour and a half, something like that.
MR. SCHECK: And finally, when you do your amplification run and you get your typing results, about how long did that part of the process take for these four samples?
MR. SIMS: The--the typing, usually about half a day. I'd say about four hours it takes to do the typing. And then if the product gel is run, that's another hour or so.
MR. SCHECK: Now, I heard you say that you work slowly you said?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I do.
MR. SCHECK: Well, you work carefully?
MR. SIMS: Well, yes, I'm very careful. I think I'm very careful.
MR. SCHECK: Nothing wrong with that, is there?
MR. SIMS: Well, from a production standpoint, it's not--I don't think--I don't think it's all that good. But in terms of getting the right result, I think it's important to take one's time to do a good job.
MR. SCHECK: Yes. Now, looking at all your results on 272-A, which is the picture of the glove, and 272-B, would it be fair to say that the predominant source of DNA on this glove, whether it be through RFLP typing or PCR base typing, is consistent with Ronald Goldman?
MR. SIMS: Well, I can only address those issues--those places where I sampled. You have to remember there's a lot of blood on this glove.
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
MR. SIMS: And from the areas that I sampled, I mean, there's a great deal of mixing going on, but--but overall, from the areas that I sampled, I would say yes, Mr. Goldman's types were predominant in those areas.
MR. SCHECK: Whether you're looking at the band intensities in RFLP or the dot intensities in PCR or the band intensities in D1S80, it would be your conclusion that his DNA was the predominant source on this glove in most of the areas?
MR. HARMON: Objection. That misstates the testimony, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And each of the areas would take it--would you agree that Mr. Goldman's--that DNA consistent with Mr. Goldman's type, different typing procedures, was the predominant source?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, you found no trace of DNA consistent with Mr. Simpson in G1, the index finger?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: You found no trace of DNA consistent with Mr. Simpson in G2, the middle finger?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: You found no trace of Mr. Goldman's--Mr. Simpson's DNA consistent with Mr. Simpson in the ring finger?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: You found no trace of DNA consistent with Mr. Simpson in G4, the back of the hand?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: At G14, the bottom of the glove, you found no trace of DNA consistent with Mr. Simpson?
MR. SIMS: That's correct.
MR. SCHECK: All right. The three areas where you found traces of DNA on the D1S80 system that were consistent with Mr. Simpson were G10, G11 and G13?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now, turning first to G10, you extracted a total of 44 nanograms of DNA?
MR. SIMS: I'll check that (Brief pause.)
MR. SIMS: That's--actually there was a little more than that because this was now available after the quantitation. So it was a little over 44 nanograms, yes.
MR. SCHECK: And looking at band intensities on the D1S80 system, would you say that the proportion--let me ask you, how would you estimate the proportion of DNA within that area that contributed to the 25 allele? Would you say it would be something on the order of 20 percent?
MR. SIMS: Maybe something along those lines. I would defer that though to Renee Montgomery, who is a D1S80 specialist.
MR. SCHECK: Well, from your examination of that, would you--your opinion say about 20 percent?
MR. SIMS: Something in that ballpark, yes.
MR. SCHECK: So if we use that estimate, then that would mean it's about eight nanograms of DNA would be consistent with the contribution of the 25 allele?
MR. SIMS: Yes. Something like that. It may be less than that also, but it's down there.
MR. SCHECK: Maybe less than eight?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: Now looking at G11, extracted there 18.5 nanograms?
MR. SIMS: Excuse me one moment while I look at my notes.
THE COURT: Take your time.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SIMS: G11--I'm sorry. And you said how much?
MR. SCHECK: 18.5.
MR. SIMS: Yes. That was again what was available after the quantitation. So there was more along the lines of about 20, something like that.
MR. SCHECK: Okay. And what would be your estimate of the proportion of DNA that would be attributable to the 25 allele?
MR. SIMS: On that--on that particular one, I don't remember because I haven't looked at that gel in a long time. So I don't have an independent recollection other than that it was a weaker contribution than the 24 allele. I do independently remember that first one we mentioned, but I don't recall the intensity on g--on G-11, these last two because I don't recall that particular gel.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. But your assessment here is that this would be consistent with the three-way mixture?
MR. SIMS: On G11?
MR. SCHECK: Yeah.
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. So that would mean that if you assumed that the mixture on the D1S80 system was a--was between an 18, 18, 25--and a--24, 25 and a 24, 24, all right?
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: And the 25 band in that D1S80 is comparatively faint, isn't it?
MR. SIMS: Yes. It's noticeably weaker.
MR. SCHECK: All right. So would you say that something on the order of at--at most a third could be attributed to the 25 allele?
MR. SIMS: Well, again, as I mentioned, I don't recall this particular gel. And so I think I'd be speculating to say what that contribution would be.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And turning to G13, you got 40.5 nanograms?
MR. SIMS: Yes. Again, that would be available after the quantitation. So it would be a little higher than that to start with.
MR. SCHECK: And do you have a recollection of--and again, this was a three-way mixture, could be a three-way mixture?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it could be.
MR. SCHECK: And that the predominant--withdrawn. And that the 25 allele was comparatively faint?
MR. SIMS: Yes. Again, it was weaker than the 24 noticeably.
MR. SCHECK: And what proportion do you believe of that mixture would be attributable to the 25 allele?
MR. SIMS: Well, I think again, I'd have to give the same answer because I think those two samples were run on the same gel that I don't recall the intensity patterns.
MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. But again--all right. So you wouldn't want to speculate that it would be at most a third?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I would--
MR. HARMON: Objection. That calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now--
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I'd like to mark some photographs right now. Next in order--
THE COURT: I believe 1161.
MR. SCHECK: Yes. Actually what I would like to do is--I made an error.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, is this going to be a series of photographs?
MR. SCHECK: Yes. Actually, what I'd like to do, your Honor, with your permission--I've shown these to the witness--is--they are photographs that are contained inside plastic and there are markings that are illustrative of them, and I would like to show them to the witness. So that the exhibit would be the photograph inside the plastic with the marking.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harmon. Have you looked at the markings?
MR. HARMON: Well, I do have a problem with the markings without a foundation, your Honor.
THE COURT: Let me see counsel without the reporter.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Mr. Scheck.
MR. SCHECK: Yes. Show you--what is this next in order is?
THE COURT: This is 1161.
(Deft's 1161 for id = photograph)
MR. SCHECK: Photograph in plastic with markings on it that we'll call 1161.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Do you recognize that?
MR. SIMS: Well, this appears to be the same glove that I looked at and I would--I'm pretty sure that's Dr. Blake's writing on that photograph to label it.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Does that appear to you to be the cut-out area that you and Dr. Blake identified as being the sample removed from the back of the wrist by the Los Angeles Police Department before you received the glove? And please check it against your diagram.
MR. SIMS: That--that looks very similar to it.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, I show you 11--
MR. SIMS: Well, I just wanted to finish by saying, the assumption was made that that cut was caused--was not caused, but it was made by the LAPD. I don't know that independently.
MR. SCHECK: But you received the glove--
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I object to that, move to strike that. That calls for speculation, your Honor. There's no foundation for that right now.
THE COURT: Sustained. The jury is to disregard that last answer.
MR. SCHECK: You received the glove from the Los Angeles Police Department?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And when you received it, there was that cut-out?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And to the best of your knowledge, in looking over the records of this case, no other agency performed any testing or made any cut-outs of the glove before you received it?
MR. HARMON: Objection. Calls for speculation, hearsay, no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Let me show you what's--
MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I'll remove LAPD photos?
THE COURT: Well, I think we can--when we put it on the elmo, we can delete the commentary.
MR. SCHECK: All right.
THE COURT: Or you can just use the photograph itself as 1161 without the comment on it.
(Deft's 1162 for id = photograph)
MR. SCHECK: All right. Show you what's 1162. Does this photograph--these two photographs in the plastic reflect cut-outs, one, two, three, four, five cut-outs that you observed on the glove prior to your removing anything from it?
MR. HARMON: Objection, your Honor. Calls for speculation, there were cut-outs.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Now, again, I do have my own photographs of this item too, but against my drawings within my notes, that appears to be consistent. Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And ask be marked 1163.
(Deft's 1163 for id = photograph)
MR. SCHECK: Does that appear to be a--a photograph of the cut-out you made of G10?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it does.
MR. SCHECK: All right. That would be the wrist at the "v" cut-out of the area G10?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And I'll show you what I would ask to be marked 1164.
(Deft's 1164-A for id = photograph)
MR. SCHECK: And this would be a plastic page with two photographs. And would that--does that reflect swabs that you made at the area designated G11 and G12?
MR. SIMS: Yes. These were taken by Dr. Blake. I'm holding the forceps and this is--he wanted to document exactly where we were getting the samples from. So this is him taking a picture of me sampling them.
MR. SCHECK: And finally, on the other side of 1164, I'll call it 1164-B.
THE COURT: No. Just--yeah. 1164-B.
(Deft's 1164-B for id = photograph)
MR. SCHECK: There's another two photographs, one of G13 and another of G10, correct?
MR. SIMS: Yes. And also, G14 is on the filter paper.
MR. SCHECK: Right. And that again is you taking the cut-out; is that right?
MR. SIMS: Yes. I was just going to review it against my notes.
MR. SCHECK: Please.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, would you mark the front of that 1164-A so that Mrs. Robertson doesn't spend time looking for--
MR. SCHECK: No, no.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. SCHECK: Okay.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. SCHECK: So the--let's look at 164-D.
THE COURT: Why don't you lower it down.
MR. SCHECK: Would you mind if I--
THE COURT: Let's just lower it down.
(Brief pause.)
MR. SCHECK: Okay. Can you put that up?
MR. SCHECK: We seem to be getting some reflection, but can you--Mr. Sims, if you--look at the lower photograph of 1164-B. Do you see something, initials "CY"?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And those--
THE COURT: Excuse me. Mr. Scheck, perhaps if we took that out of the plastic. Is that possible? Because the reflection appears to be off the plastic surface.
MR. SCHECK: Well, I understand. The problem is, if we take it out of the plastic, then you lose the markings that indicate where everything is. And I won't be with this long, your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, it's not particularly helpful if the glare is there though.
MR. SCHECK: I understand.
MR. SCHECK: Can you--all right. Looking at this section, do you see the initials "CY"?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And that is--that was there before you received the glove?
MR. SIMS: Yes, it must have been because it was there when I opened it.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And in the area just below where you took G14--well, in that lower area of the glove, all right?
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Where there's some cut-outs that you saw before you cut anything on the glove.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Is that true?
MR. SIMS: Yeah. There was--there was that--that prior cutting near G14. Is that--
MR. SCHECK: Yes.
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And the swab that you took on G11, the swab you took on G13 and the cutting you made in G10 are all in that lower area of the glove where you see those initials, some on the front, the swabbings on the outside surface of the glove, the cutting on the inside of the glove?
MR. SIMS: Yes. They're all down in that general area.
MR. SCHECK: And do you know if those initials "CY" stand for Collin Yamauchi, an analyst at the Los Angeles Police Department?
MR. HARMON: Objection. Calls for hearsay, speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Do you have any knowledge of whether or not someone from the Los Angeles Police Department prior to you receiving the glove did manipulations, put on initials, did cut-outs and handled that glove on the morning of June 14th?
MR. HARMON: Objection. Calls for hearsay and speculation. No foundation.
THE COURT: Do you know anything about that?
MR. SIMS: Well, it was my understanding there was some examination of the glove.
THE COURT: Do you know when it was done?
MR. SIMS: I--I believe it was in June. I'm not sure.
THE COURT: Do you have any personal knowledge about any of this?
MR. SIMS: No.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MR. SCHECK: All right. Thank you. Now, Mr. Sims, would the--would it be fair to say that the traces of DNA consistent with the 25 allele in G10, G11 and G13 are all certainly 8 nanograms or less?
MR. SIMS: Well, again, I would defer on that question because I haven't evaluated all those mixtures.
MR. SCHECK: So in other words, to get a more precise proportion, other than the one you said--you said--I think you testified that G10 would be 8 nanograms at most, maybe less?
MR. SIMS: Yeah. Down in that neighborhood.
MR. SCHECK: All right. And you're deferring us to Miss Montgomery with respect to getting a calculation on the other two?
MR. SIMS: Yes. And also, to give you a better idea on that G10 one as well.
MR. SCHECK: Now, let us turn to the sock.
MR. SIMS: Okay.
MR. SCHECK: Every stain that you cut and sampled from that sock, you could see with the naked eye?
MR. SIMS: Under the proper lighting conditions, I could, yes. That's true.
MR. SCHECK: In other words, you could see it with your naked eye, the reddish stain, without the stereomicroscope, every stain that you cut with appropriate lighting?
MR. SIMS: With appropriate lighting, I think that is true.
MR. SCHECK: And a trained forensic scientist with appropriate lighting--withdrawn. Trained forensic scientists will examine pieces of evidence with appropriate lighting.
MR. HARMON: Objection. It's vague. Appropriate for what?
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Excuse me. I mean, it depends obviously on the type of examination that's being performed. It's hard for me to comment on that. It's sort of a general question.
MR. SCHECK: Well, you have told us about your--you sit on a board that certifies criminalists; do you not?
MR. SIMS: Well, that's beyond what my duties were, but that was part of my duty was to work on the examination, for example.
MR. SCHECK: All right. In your opinion as an expert in criminalistics, are criminalists trained to perform careful visual examination as an appropriate lighting of garments such as a sock that might contain bloodstains?
MR. HARMON: Objection. Beyond the scope of direct.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. SIMS: Well, again, it would depend on the type of examination. Sometimes criminalists will screen items very quickly, just take a quick look to see if there's grossly anything noticeable. And then other times, if you're going to do a thorough examination, then I think you're right, that you would want to make sure you have the appropriate lighting.
MR. SCHECK: And when you're trying to examine an item for purposes of determining how much blood would be on it for purposes of DNA testing, you would want to examine that item with some care?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And when you receive these socks, one of the stains I'm not talking about the larger cut-out area at the ankle, just one of the stains, the first one you saw at the top, you saw that right away with the naked eye, the one near the arrow?
MR. SIMS: Yes. That did catch my eye.
MR. SCHECK: You didn't need a stereomicroscope to see that. You just saw that stain?
MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.
MR. SCHECK: And the cut-out on the sock in the ankle area, the cut-out is about three-quarters of an inch?
MR. SIMS: Approximately, yes.
MR. SCHECK: Would be about the length of my little finger to the joint?
MR. SIMS: Something like that.
MR. SCHECK: And in the area adjoining the cut-out, you could see with your naked eye not under the stereomicroscope a section of reddish material?
MR. SIMS: My initial exam was under the stereomike and I said, "some reddish still here." I don't think--I think that was pretty subtle though around that particular stain.
MR. SCHECK: We're only--but we're--could you?
MR. SIMS: Are you talking about the cut-out area now?
MR. SCHECK: Talking about there's a cut-out area, correct?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And then that--that we just described as being about three-quarters of an inch?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And that's material from the sock that's already in a tube?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: That has Mr. And Mrs.--that has Mr. Simpson's initials on it?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And that material had reddish stains on it when you took it out of the tube that were visible to the naked eye?
MR. HARMON: Objection. That calls for speculation. Misstates his testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: When--did you ever take those cuttings out of the tube?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And when you looked at those cuttings, could you see reddish material with your naked eye?
MR. SIMS: Well, again, my examination notes are, "stereomike exam, reddish staining." that was the--I mean, I--I think if you looked real hard at them, you could probably pick up that there was a little bit of reddish associated with them. But my observation was that I took them over to the microscope right away because I wanted to see if there really was a lot of blood there.
MR. SCHECK: At no point did you ever look at those cut-outs to see whether you could see a reddish stain?
MR. HARMON: Objection. It's vague.
THE COURT: Sustained. How?
MR. SCHECK: This material on the sock is of a synthetic nature?
MR. SIMS: That's what I indicated in my notes, but that was just a gross observation. I didn't actually characterize the fibers.
MR. SCHECK: It's a smooth fabric?
MR. SIMS: Yes.
MR. SCHECK: And the area where--the areas where there is blood on it, the fabric crinkles, it's a little stiffer?
MR. SIMS: It tends to pucker a little bit, yes. I think that's what I noted on some of these.
MR. SCHECK: So that's a smooth synthetic sock, and the area where you observed blood, the stained areas, crinkled and puckered?
MR. HARMON: Objection. Misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. SCHECK: Is it true that in the areas where you observed red stains with your naked eye without the use of a stereomicroscope, you noticed that the fabric of the sock had crinkled and puckered?
MR. HARMON: Objection. Stains, misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. SCHECK: The areas of the socks where you observed blood, the naked eye, the fabric, your observation, those areas crinkled and puckered?
MR. SIMS: In some of those areas, yes, I notic