Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)
(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)
(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Good morning, counsel. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. The Defendant is again present with his counsel, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Scheck, Mr. Blasier, People represented by Mr. Harmon and Mr. Darden. The jury is not present. Counsel, is there anything we need to take up before we invite the jurors to rejoin us? Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: Very briefly, your Honor. With Miss Montgomery, the final product in the D1S80 test is an x-ray, and we were not provided with copies of those x-rays. What we have is our photographs. So when Mr. Harmon is done with his direct, I would like a little bit of time so that Miss Montgomery can review our photographs to assure herself that they're the same.
THE COURT: All right. And how long do you think that will take?
MR. BLASIER: I don't think too long. There are only about six or seven of them that I'm going to refer to.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jurors, please.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect we've now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good morning.
THE COURT: All right. Good morning, Mr. Harmon.
MR. HARMON: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, as you recollect, we took a break in the redirect examination of Gary Sims so he could attend to some family business up north; and the Prosecution will take another witness out of order so that we can proceed in an orderly manner with the trial. Mr. Harmon, do you have another witness available?
MR. HARMON: Yes, I do. Renee Montgomery, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Miss Montgomery, would you come forward, please.
Renee Montgomery, called as a witness by the People, out of order, was sworn and testified as follows:
THE CLERK: Raise your right hand, please. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this Court, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I do.
THE CLERK: Please have a seat on the witness stand and state and spell your first and last names for the record.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Renee Montgomery, R-E-N-E-E, Montgomery, M-O-N-T-G-O-M-E-R-Y.
THE CLERK: Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.
MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
THE COURT: Good morning.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARMON
MR. HARMON: Miss Montgomery, who do you work for?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I work for the State of California, Department of Justice at the Modesto or excuse me--I'm sorry--at the Berkeley DNA laboratory.
MR. HARMON: And how long have you worked there?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Over two and a half years.
MR. HARMON: Okay. What is your present assignment there?
MS. MONTGOMERY: My present assignment is casework analysis and also lead analyst in the development of new methods such as STR's for use in casework.
MR. HARMON: Okay. We'll talk about that in a little bit after we discuss your education and background that have contributed to being in the position you're in, okay?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Okay.
MR. HARMON: Where did you--do you have a college degree?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I do. I have a bachelor of science in environmental toxicology from the University of California at Davis. I graduated in June of 1988.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And can you describe just generally the field of environmental toxicology and whatever scientific courses you took to achieve that degree?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Sure. Environmental toxicology is the study of toxicants in the environment and how they react with the body and also how they react in the environment. This course work included extensive instrumental analysis and also courses in chemistry and biology and anatomy.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And after you got your degree, what was your first employment?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I began work in--at the end of the summer in 1988 at the Modesto criminalistics laboratory.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And we'll talk about that in a bit, but let's focus on courses you've taken which have contributed to the position that you're in right now. Did you take any courses in pursuit of your undergraduate degree that relate in any way to forensic DNA typing that you've performed for the DOJ lab?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. After graduation, I began taking courses in extending my education, and the majority of my course work, well, the ones that are relevant to DNA analysis, began in 1992. And the first course was a genetics course through California State University at Hayward, and this was a one-quarter unit in--with--under the topic of genetics. I then took a--
MR. HARMON: Could we just--give us a little description, if you would, of the course and how it might relate to the testimony that I'm going to be eliciting from you.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm going to object. I think the question was about undergraduate courses, and I think she's talking about after graduation.
THE COURT: Why don't you rephrase the question.
MR. HARMON: Sure.
MR. HARMON: Have we moved from undergraduate to graduate courses?
MS. MONTGOMERY: We moved from undergraduate to post-graduation courses.
MR. HARMON: Okay. So the genetics course that you took is a graduate course?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No. That's a post-graduation course.
MR. HARMON: A post-graduation course?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Exactly. After I graduated from college, it's a course that I took after I had already obtained a degree, bachelor of science.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Could you briefly describe that course?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. It was the study of genetics, the study--part of the course involved DNA and how DNA functioned in the body and also molecular biology.
MR. HARMON: Was there actually any hands-on work in that course?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No.
MR. HARMON: What was the next course that you took that contributes to the area of expertise that I'll be asking you to testify about?
MS. MONTGOMERY: The next course I took was a two-semester course in molecular biology, and this was through the University of California at Berkeley and their extension program, and this began in winter semester of 1992 and it continued through I believe it was May of 1993; and it was a two-semester course and it involved molecular biology going into DNA, RNA and the function of it in the body.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Was any of that work hands-on work?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No.
MR. HARMON: What was the next course--or strike that. You say it was a two-semester course?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: How many credits or how many hours did you actually go to class every week?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I believe it was two--two nights a week for three hours, and it was four units per semester. So a total of eight units.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And what was the next course then?
MS. MONTGOMERY: The next course, I was sent to the FBI academy in Quantico, Virginia for a four-week course in forensic DNA technology both in classroom training and laboratory training; and this was a six-unit graduate level course. That's it.
MR. HARMON: When was that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That was in the month of June, 1993.
MR. HARMON: And would you describe the kind of work that that course consisted of?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. That focused on DNA analysis as it pertained to forensic--forensic analysis.
MR. HARMON: Could you please expand on that a little bit more?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Sure. We went into both RFLP and PCR techniques, and it was both the practical application and also the theoretical application behind RFLP and PCR. We did in-lab practice testing of samples and also some unknown samples by both RFLP and the PCR methods.
MR. HARMON: And how many hours a day did that course consist of?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That was in excess of eight hours per day.
MR. HARMON: Over how long a period of time?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Four weeks, but not Saturday and Sunday.
MR. HARMON: And how many credits was that course good for?
MS. MONTGOMERY: It was six units of graduate level through the University of Virginia.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And what was the next course that you took that contributed to your expertise in forensic DNA typing?
MS. MONTGOMERY: The next course was in the fall of 1993, and this was a course, statistics for biologists, and it was a one-semester course through UC Berkeley extension.
MR. HARMON: Can you describe what that course consisted of?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That course was on the basics of statistics and particularly how it related to scientific research, developing studies to be used in both a clinical environment and pharmaceutical environments.
MR. HARMON: And how does that relate to the area of forensic DNA typing?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, it helped me understand more--understand the papers, the literature on statistics and how statistics are used for DNA analysis.
MR. HARMON: And then what was the next course that you took, the next additional course that you took?
MS. MONTGOMERY: The next course--I'll need to refer to my CV.
MR. HARMON: Sure.
THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, do you have a copy of that?
MR. BLASIER: I do not.
THE COURT: Mr. Harmon, do you have a copy you can show to Mr. Blasier?
MR. HARMON: Sure.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Do you have any extra copies of that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier, why don't you approach the witness and get an extra copy.
MS. MONTGOMERY: This is actually a copy that was discovered by the Defense.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harmon.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Have you had a chance to look at it or do you need--
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I have. And the next course, it's not on Mr. Blasier's copy, it was a DNA sequencing course through the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley, and that was in the summer of 1994.
MR. HARMON: What did that consist of?
MS. MONTGOMERY: It was DNA sequencing. It went through both the PCR extraction techniques and also sequencing of DNA.
MR. HARMON: Okay. In addition to those courses that you've described, is there something called the California criminalistics institute?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Have you taken courses through them which relate to any areas of expertise in the field of criminalistics?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I have.
MR. HARMON: Could you describe what or tell us what those courses are, just briefly describe them?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Okay. As the courses that pertain to DNA analysis, what were a one-week course through the California criminalistics institute and it was all on PCR analysis. And this course was--it was one week, eight hours a day, and it was taught by some of the more prominent members of the forensic community such as Dr. Edward Blake, Dr. Becky Reynolds and Dr. George Sensabaugh. And this course was both a practical, meaning we did laboratory work, and also a theoretical course.
MR. HARMON: And how many hours did that course consist of?
MS. MONTGOMERY: It was a 40-hour course.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Over how long a period of time?
MS. MONTGOMERY: One week.
MR. HARMON: One week? And what was the next course that you took through the California criminalistics institute?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, that was the most recent course that I took. Prior to that, I took extensive courses in the area of general criminalistics, and I'll need to refer to a sheet. The list is quite long. And these ranged from techniques for conventional serology such as basic microscopy, and this was a one-week course in the use of the microscope as it pertains to forensic work, and also zone electrophoresis which is a technique used for genetic markers such as enzymes. I also took a sexual assault evidence course, and this was a course that was devoted to extraction techniques for sexual assault cases, examining evidence that pertains to sexual assault cases and also the analysis of evidence for sexual assault cases. Would you like me to continue on this list?
MR. HARMON: Would you, please. Sure.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Okay. I took a course on analysis of low explosives, and that was in April of 1992. That was just prior to transferring to the DNA laboratory, and that was a course taught by ATF, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and that was through the California criminalistics institute also, and a course in analysis of clan lab evidence. And this is analysis of samples for clandestine laboratory, meaning drug laboratories where individuals are making PCP or methamphetamine or some other type of illegal drug. I took an arson accelerant course in 1991, and that was the--also, there was some individuals from ATF, alcohol, tobacco and firearms at that course, and that was on analyzing samples that had been involved in arsons and detecting for petroleum distillates, gasoline and other substances. In 1990, I took a course in basic serology, and that was just looking at--doing presumptive tests on various fluids, blood, saliva and determining its origin and also doing genetic analysis or looking at markers such as enzyme markers. In--going back a ways now, in 1989, I took a course in crime scene investigation, and that was a one-week course and up in--taught in eureka by some of the more well-known individuals in the crime scene investigation reconstruction field such as Jerry Chisum and Joe Reynerson. In 1989, I also took a firearm safety course. And doing general criminalistics, it's important that the criminalist knows the basics of firearms so if evidence comes into the laboratory, they will be cautious and they won't be hurt with the guns by any way. And that was just a three-day course that taught the basics of firearm examination. And that looks like the extent of my general criminalistics course work through the California criminalistics institute.
MR. HARMON: Okay. You mentioned that in 1988, you were hired as a criminalist. Could you describe the--your assignments during the years that you worked at the Modesto criminalistics laboratory starting in 1988?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. I started in 1988 shortly after graduation and I was at the Modesto criminalistics laboratory. That's--this is a laboratory that's located in the central valley of northern California. I worked there for three years and the--my primary duty was crime scene investigation and reconstruction, blood alcohol analysis and drug analysis. I also did some basic serology at that time. So through the course of those three years, those were my predominant duties.
MR. HARMON: And when you say basic serology, do you mean conventional serology such as ABO typing, EAP, PGM typing?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. At the Modesto crime lab, the majori--the tests that were done were primarily presumptive tests and also some ABO testing.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And then did you move to Stockton at some point in 1991?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. In--at the end of the summer in 1991, I transferred to the Stockton laboratory. And at that time, my primary duty was doing conventional serology. And also as part of the rotation basis, crime scene investigation had to be done at that laboratory also, and also clandestine laboratory investigation.
MR. HARMON: And are both the Modesto lab and the Stockton labs, are they part of the Department of Justice, the State Department of Justice?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, they are.
MR. HARMON: And then in 1992, you moved over to the DOJ DNA lab?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. At the end of the summer or I believe it was August of 1992, I transferred to the DNA laboratory in Berkeley.
MR. HARMON: And starting with your initial assignment there, could you please describe the evolution of your role there from when you first started in 1992 until the present?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. When I first began with the Department of Justice at the Berkeley laboratory, I was assigned to their conventional serology program and in getting the protocols in place and then also doing analysis of samples that--from the convicted offender program. We--the conventional serology program or protocols were put into place, and just as aside, the laboratory decided not to continue on with conventional serology, but to focus with DNA analysis at that laboratory and to allow the satellite laboratories to do all the conventional serology, but to have the Berkeley DNA laboratory focus only on DNA analysis. So initially I was--I compiled the standard operating procedures for the laboratory along with another individual, Donna Dowden, at the laboratory, and I also did 290 analysis. And 290 analysis are samples from the convicted offender felon program. And these are samples when convicted offenders are released from prison, a blood sample is taken from them, and these samples are analyzed and then put into a database in the laboratory. So I did that for the first, oh, approximately a year that I was at the DNA laboratory.
MR. HARMON: Can I just stop you for a second? When you said you did that, what kind of tests did you submit those samples to?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That was RFLP analysis and PCR DQ-Alpha analysis.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And then after that, what was your next assignment?
MS. MONTGOMERY: After that, two individuals, myself and Richard Showalter, were assigned to the development and in-house evaluation of a new marker called D1S80, and that began in June of 1994. Richard began the process in June of 1994.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't we stop that for a second. We'll come back to that in a minute. Have you given presentations at various meetings in the area of forensic DNA typing?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I have.
MR. HARMON: Could you describe or name the presentations and the groups and just briefly describe the nature of what your presentation was?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. Referring to my CV once again, in February of 1993, I gave a presentation at the Modesto memorial hospital, and this was for a trauma symposium. The title of my lecture was "DNA, the latest crime-solving tool." And this was to--it was approximately an hour presentation in which I talked about analysis of samples by RFLP and PCR and how it pertained to--how it related to some of the trauma nurses and the trauma doctors, the evidence that they had collected.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And then what was the next presentation?
MS. MONTGOMERY: The next presentation was in Santa Rosa, and that was--the FBI put on a crime scene investigation course. It was in 1993, and I was asked to talk about DNA and biological evidence collection.
MR. HARMON: And then next after that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: The next several presentations were through the California association of criminalists--criminalistics, and they were--one was a DNA study group in San Diego, California; and that was in October of 1993 and it was on the validation of D1S80. And then in 1994 at the CAC seminar in northern California, I gave a presentation on PCR typing casework and in court work or courtroom considerations. And in that talk, I talked about both the validation studies that have been conducted on D1S80 and also some of the recent cases at that time that we had done in which D1S80 used in conjunction with DQ-Alpha gave valuable information.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, have you ever testified as an expert witness in the field of forensic DNA PCR typing?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I have.
MR. HARMON: How many times?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Two times.
MR. HARMON: And how long ago was the earliest one?
MS. MONTGOMERY: The first one was in--it was the latter end of last year, and the second one was in Marin County approximately a month ago.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And have you ever testified as an expert in the field of forensic serology in your career?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I have.
MR. HARMON: How many times?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Approximately five times.
MR. HARMON: And in--have you ever testified as an expert in the field of blood alcohol and controlled substances?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I have.
MR. HARMON: How many times?
MS. MONTGOMERY: The combination of the two, approximately 50 times.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's get back to the evolution of the forensic DNA PCR marker D1S80 in the laboratory. I think you mentioned that--or strike that. When did the lab first begin its implementation of that PCR marker D1S80?
MS. MONTGOMERY: We first began using D1S80 for our casework in April of 1994. That was after approximately eight months of method development and evaluating the technology.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, when you say "After eight months of method development and implementing the technology," is this something that the DOJ lab itself invented or put together?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, it's not.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Had there already been published articles in the peer review scientific literature about the PCR marker D1S80?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, there was.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And just before the DOJ lab began this implementation and evaluation of it, could you kind of turn back the clock and tell us what kinds of scientific literature was out there already in existence at the time that DOJ began its implementation?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, originally it was--in 1988, an individual by the name of Dr. Nokamura discovered the location of D1S80, and that was published in a journal article. At that time, the--the laboratory, I believe it was salt lake city, continued examining that particular region, and in 1990, an individual by the name of Dr. Kasai published the sequence for D1S80.
THE COURT: All right. Miss Montgomery, could you spell that for me, please, Dr.--
MS. MONTGOMERY: Kasai?
THE COURT: Kasai.
MS. MONTGOMERY: K-A-S-A-I.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
MR. HARMON: Okay. That's initially. What other sorts of literature was out there in existence already at the time that the DOJ began its implementation of that marker?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, the Europeans were using D1S80 long before the United States began using it for casework. An individual in Holland by the name of Sajantila, I believe that's how you pronounce the name, S-A-J-A-N-T-I-L-A, published some articles on the technique of visualizing D1S80 and also on the PCR technique. And he also published the first paper on casework analysis of D1S80's use for casework analysis. Dr. Budowle of the FBI had published some articles also on D1S80 use, and then there are various other articles that were published prior to DOJ using the technique.
MR. HARMON: So is there a distinction between a laboratory implementing a marker that's already been validated in the peer review--published peer review literature? You see the--you understand the question?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Could you restate the question?
MR. HARMON: Sure. When you implement something, do you implement something that has never been invented before?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No. The D1S80 was examined by a lot of other laboratories and there was published information out there. And the way the Department of Justice, we looked at the literature compiled some of the literature and then did our own evaluation of the technique. And also at the time that we were doing our evaluation of D1S80, we were looking at the Roche--it's a company that--a commercially--a commercial company that manufactures the D1S80 kit, they also had a written protocol for the use of D1S80. So what we did is, we looked at all this information, evaluated various techniques and then came up with a method using the same PCR technique and so we could use D1S80 and examine it using various conditions.
MR. HARMON: Now, was the laboratory already using the PCR marker DQ-Alpha at the time D1S80 was introduced?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. Our laboratory was.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And do you know Dr. Ed Blake? You mentioned him.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I do.
MR. HARMON: To your knowledge, is his laboratory doing D1S80 work now?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained. The jury is to disregard that. Proceed.
MR. HARMON: Are you familiar with an article, peer review article in the journal of forensic science generally known as the casework article where Dr. Blake is one of the authors?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I am.
MR. HARMON: Is the PCR marker D1S80 discussed in that article?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I would need to review that article.
MR. HARMON: Okay. We'll do that at the break. How many cases have you actually worked on where you've used the marker D1S80?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I personally have worked on over 20 cases in which I used D1S80.
MR. HARMON: You mentioned that Roche--the company Roche. Is this a commercial product that's available through Roche, D1S80 marker?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. The primers are available through Roche.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And what else has Roche put together to assist people that want to use this marker?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, Roche has the full kit. Roche is the company that also puts out the DQ-Alpha kits. And with the D1S80, they have a similar kit in which they have all the reagents that are necessary for the amplification process available in this kit that can be purchased from them.
MR. HARMON: And this is the same company that puts out the DQ-Alpha kit?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And the same company that puts out the polymarker kit?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And are they also--people from--scientists from Roche, are they also some of the authors of articles that are out there about the D1S80 marker?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Have you been subjected to proficiency testing in your career at the DOJ lab in the area of forensic DNA typing?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I have.
MR. HARMON: Could you please describe the nature, types and results of the proficiency tests which you've taken?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. Our laboratory has a quality assurance manual that states the frequency that proficiency tests must be given to analysts. And for our casework analysts, you have to do two proficiencies per year. And to date, I have done five proficiency tests and--which dealt with over 20--I believe that it's 20 samples.
MR. HARMON: Can you describe some of the--the nature of some of the samples that have been in those proficiency tests?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. They're both bloodstains and sexual assault samples, meaning there's--such as the vaginal swab that has both sperm and--male contribution sperm and also the female contribution epithelial cells. So I've done both the bloodstain analysis comparison and also the sexual assault comparisons.
MR. HARMON: Have you made any mistakes in any of those proficiency tests?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, I have not.
MR. HARMON: Does that mean it's not possible for you to make a mistake?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, it doesn't.
MR. HARMON: I believe you mentioned standard operating procedures. Does your laboratory, the DOJ laboratory have written protocols for all the different kinds of DNA tests that it performs?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, we do.
MR. HARMON: And do you follow those protocols when you perform the tests?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Did you follow those written protocols when you performed the tests on the evidence in this case?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I did.
MR. HARMON: Are those written protocols based on the scientific literature that you've described that was in existence before the DOJ lab began investigating the D1S80 marker?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. Our--as--the D1S80 protocol is based on the scientific literature, but that protocol was written specifically for D1S80 in our laboratory, but it compiled the literature from the outside.
MR. HARMON: Now, in performing the PCR D1S80 tests, Mr. Sims has just generally described the sorts of positive and negative controls that are involved in DQ-Alpha tests. Are there also positive and negative controls when you perform the D1S80 test?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, there are.
MR. HARMON: And did you listen to Mr. Sims' testimony?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Parts of it.
MR. HARMON: Parts of it? Could you just briefly describe let's say the role of negative controls in the D1S80 testing process?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. By negative controls, there are two types of negative controls. One is the negative amplification control. And that's a sample in which it's used during your setup of the amplification and either distilled water or a buffer is added to the reaction mix, the cocktail as we also call it, instead of any DNA. And this should respond negatively. This should respond negatively when tested by the D1S80 system. Another type of negative control is an extraction blank. And this is a sample that's taken through the full extraction process. And that's to demonstrate whether there's any contaminant in your reagents. And so that also should respond negatively.
MR. HARMON: When you say "Respond negatively," could you explain to the jury what you mean by that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. By responding negatively, meaning no results are obtained. And you'll see with some of the D1S80 gels--you'll see when I show the D1S80 gels that when you run the sample, if no bands are visible, then that's responding negatively. If there is a response in a negative control, a negative amplification control or a reagent blank, then that analysis needs to be repeated.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And could you briefly describe the role and the significance of positive controls in this case?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. A positive control is provided in the D1S80 kit. And this is a control of a known type. The sample is put through the amplification process and it needs to respond properly for D1S80. And in this particular case, you'll see on some of the gels, it's an 1831, meaning there's two bands that are present, and these two bands need to be present in the proper locations for the samples to be--for the gel to be acceptable.
MR. HARMON: Could you tell us what you mean by that, why they have to be in that position for the gel to be acceptable?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, it's testing both the amplification and the typing process. And if these bands aren't present, then it shows that there was some--some problem with your amplification or your typing.
MR. HARMON: Did you also test substrate controls that were provided to you in this case?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I did.
MR. HARMON: And what was the purpose in testing those substrate controls that were provided to you?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Substrate controls are important to show you what the background of the area being tested is. In this case, substrate controls also served as negative controls. There are a few instances where there was some activity in a substrate control. But in general, these all responded negatively for the amplification process at D1S80.
MR. HARMON: Could you explain what you mean by those few instances?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I believe one of them was addressed by Mr. Sims yesterday or the day before, and that is a control that he had detected blood on, substrate control on a garment that he had detected blood on. And so that responded with a faint reaction in the D1S80 sample.
MR. HARMON: And that was from item no. 81, Mr. Goldman's shirt?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, it was.
MR. HARMON: Okay. What other instance were you referring to when you mentioned that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I believe--
MR. HARMON: If you need to look at your notes--
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yeah. I need to refer to my notes.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
(Brief pause.)
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. Mr. Goldman's shirt was the only one that had some activity in it.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And Mr. Sims addressed that when he testified several days ago?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, he did.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Just generally speaking, could you describe your role in relation to Mr. Sims in this case? What was the official relationship and how did you get samples from him?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Gary Sims was assigned this case. He was in charge of the case, and he went through the majority of the extractions and documentation of all the samples. I was assigned to this case because of my experience with D1S80. So there are a few samples that I did the extraction on, the extraction and the analysis on. But predominantly, Mr. Sims handed--we consulted over how many sample should be amplified and then I amplified the sample for D1S80 and analyzed it and did the interpretation on that.
MR. HARMON: Okay. So the closest--or strike that. You never actually physically examined and sampled any item of evidence that was sent to the lab?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No. All the evidence went through Gary Sims.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And then he would provide you with whatever it was agreed upon you needed to do your test?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. I want to ask you if the number items--I'm going to ask you if these are all items that you processed and achieved D1S80 results on and then we'll show some of them, okay?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Okay.
MR. HARMON: So--did you achieve D1S80 results on the following samples in this case: Item no. 6 from the Rockingham residence?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Item 9, G19 is the right-hand glove from Rockingham. Stain G1?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: G2?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: G3?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: G4?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: G9?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. HARMON: G10?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: G11?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: G12?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: G13?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: G14?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Now, we'll shift items to item 13, the pair of socks from Mr. Simpson's bedroom. Did you obtain results from stain 13A1?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Results were obtained. That work was done by Steve Myers.
MR. HARMON: 13A2?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: 13A3?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: 13A4?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Shifting to the other sock, 13B1?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: 13B2?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And now shifting to the white Bronco, Mr. Simpson's Bronco, did you obtain results from item 30?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: 31?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Staying with the Bronco, 293?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: From the carpet, 303, 304, 305 from the passenger side of the console?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And then did you also obtain results--did the laboratory also obtain results from the following items from the Bundy residence? These are drops along the walkway. 47, the one closest to the victims?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: 48 on the Bundy walk?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: 50 on the Bundy walk?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: 52 out in the driveway at Bundy?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Did you also obtain results from clothing items from the two victims in this case, Mr. Goldman's jeans, item 79?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Mr. Goldman's shirt, which you mentioned to--mentioned a couple minutes ago, no. 81?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: No. 86, Nicole Brown's dress?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. And that work was done by Steve Myers.
MR. HARMON: Steve Myers? Did you also produce results from three items from the nail clippings and scrapings from Nicole Brown, generally item 84?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And did you also produce results from Bundy, the three stains on the rear gate, 115, 116 and 117?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And again, just to lump these together in categories, some of those results produced mixtures; is that correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That's right.
MR. HARMON: Where you could tell they were mixtures?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. HARMON: And we'll show some of them in a couple of minutes, but were the mixtures for items 9, G1, the glove again, the right-hand glove from Rockingham?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. That was a mixture.
MR. HARMON: 9, G2?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That also was a mixture.
MR. HARMON: 9, G4?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. That was a mixture.
MR. HARMON: 9, G10?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That also was a mixture.
MR. HARMON: 9, G11?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. That was a mixture.
MR. HARMON: 9, G12?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. That was a mixture.
MR. HARMON: 9, G13?
MS. MONTGOMERY: A mixture.
MR. HARMON: 9, G14?
MS. MONTGOMERY: And also a mixture.
MR. HARMON: And shifting to Mr. Simpson's white Bronco, did you obtain results that you determined to be mixtures from item 31 on the console?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. That was a mixture.
MR. HARMON: Item 303 from the passenger side of the console in the white Bronco?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. That was a mixture also.
MR. HARMON: 304 from the same side of the console in the white Bronco?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And 305, was that also a mixture from the white Bronco?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, it was.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
MR. HARMON: Now, your Honor, at this time, I would request to have marked a series of films.
MR. HARMON: Miss Montgomery, what do you call these films just so we don't confuse the jury with autorads? What are they called?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, I call them duplicate copies of the D1S80 gels.
MR. HARMON: Could you describe the final product and how we end up with a piece of film from that product? And what I would like you to do is just to distinguish between these films and autorads, which this jury has seen quite a few of.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Okay. The actual--the final product, the similar film is used to get a duplicate of the gel. To just show you an original gel, that--an original gel is placed onto a nylon--oh, it's--well, actually it's a plastic piece of material and it's dried down. And then to make copies for court, because we don't want our originals to be submitted to court, we would like to keep them with the files, to make copies of it, we just use duplicating film and we expose it to light and then put it through a film processing apparatus or machine to get a duplicate copy.
MR. HARMON: And is that what I have, these films that are produced from the gel that was dried down?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, it is.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Your Honor, I have a total of 18 of them. I would like to have them marked as 275-A through R. I think that's the right number.
THE COURT: So marked, 275-A through R.
(Peo's 275-A through R for id - films)
MR. HARMON: And I don't intend to show all of these. I intend to show a through h, and I've got them separated out. I'm not sure how--perhaps I can just describe each one for the record and then we'll give it the right letter then, your Honor?
THE COURT: All right.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And I've shown some of them to counsel. I think I showed you this one yesterday.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: How are we going to do these, Mr. Harmon?
MR. HARMON: Excuse me, your Honor? On the elmo.
THE COURT: On the elmo?
MR. HARMON: Yes.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. HARMON: In fact, we're going to use the telestrator a little bit too. So, Miss Montgomery, why don't you come down here.
THE COURT: All right. Miss Montgomery, would you keep your voice up while you're down there, please?
MR. HARMON: And, Miss Montgomery, even though I'm behind you, talk to the jury so they can hear you better than I can, okay?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Okay.
(Brief pause.)
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, the first copy that I would like to put on the elmo is just an illustrative film which Miss Montgomery has nothing to do with the casework in this case. So may that be 275-A?
THE COURT: 275-A.
(Brief pause.)
MR. HARMON: Okay. Miss Montgomery--
MS. MONTGOMERY: Could you shift it so it's--so the sample's at the top. Whoops. There we go. And do you think--thanks.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Miss Montgomery, can we get the jury oriented to what all those markings are and then describe the significance of 275-A?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. This is a D1S80 gel. And for orientation purposes--let's see. Ah, there we go. Okay. The origin is here (Indicating). And this is where--it's up at the top. You can't see on this particular gel, but that's where the samples are loaded. And they're distinct wells, separated. Each sample is separated. This (Indicating)--the ones with the multiple banding patterns, these are ladders and these are made by the company. They're provided within the kit and they range from a 14 allele down here--whoops. There we go. Hold on. 14 allele or a 14 band all the way up to a 41. And the way--the way I like to look at D1S80 is the marriage of PCR and RFLP. And by saying "The marriage of PCR and RFLP," it's using a PCR base system, but it's looking at repetitive regions or repetitive sequences of DNA within the geno much like Dr. Cotton described with the RFLP process. So these are repeat sequences ranging from 14 repeat units all the way up to 41 repeat units. And what the company did is, they made some of the alleles bolder so it's--for ease of picking out the alleles. And the ones they made bolder were the 18 allele, which is 18 repeat units, and that's right here (Indicating), the 24 and then also the 31 and the 34 repeat units.
MR. HARMON: Is it true that everybody matches some allele or some band in that ladder?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. This is termed a "Discreet allele system," meaning that unlike the RFLP process, with this process, you could use the ladder, the 14 to 41, as a ruler or a reference point and then just look at your evidence sample or your unknown sample and match up the band to the corresponding ladder lane. So--for example, this--oh, let's see. That (Indicating)--
MR. HARMON: Sample 1, you've just identified--
MS. MONTGOMERY: The sample right there with the--this is moving. That is considered an 18 allele. And if you look at this one (Indicating)--
MR. HARMON: In sample 2, you've put an arrow?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yeah. Sample 2, that's a 24 allele or 24 repeat.
MR. HARMON: Now, are some of these more common than others?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, some of them are. And what the company did--let me put that down. What the company did is, the ones that they made darker are the ones that tend to be more commonly seen in the population. So as you can see on this gel (Indicating), the--I'll just make lines. Whoa. Okay. Let's not do the line. The 18 allele, the one right here (Indicating), is seen in three of the samples, and that's a total of what, 13 samples.
MR. HARMON: Now, who are those people, samples 1 through 12?
MS. MONTGOMERY: These are just individuals that were taken from our convicted offender database. They're individuals that have been released from--from prison and their samples were run--their DNA was extracted and then they were run on the D1S80 system. But then if you also look back to Mr. Harmon's question, if you look at this (Indicating), the 24, you can see that there are four individuals out of the 13. I'm saying 13 individuals because I'm looking at the positive control also. It would be 14 individuals. Four of these have a 24 allele. But by looking at the second allele, you can differentiate between all 12 of these individuals.
MR. HARMON: So they share one band or frequently in common, but they're different with the other band quite frequently?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And among these 12 people, they're totally different?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. HARMON: So let me put that another way. From among these randomly selected 12 people, do any of the 12 share the same two bands?
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would object to the "Randomly selected." There's no foundation that that occurred.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. Of these 12 individuals, none of them are the same type. But it's not unusual for individuals to be--there are instances where individuals are the same type.
MR. HARMON: Why don't we just start from left to right just so the jury can get a sense for how you can look at that and describe which type is there starting with sample 1.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Okay. Sample 1, if we count 14--I guess I should go back to talk about the ladder. It goes from 14 repeats all the way up to 41 repeats, but the 15 repeat's missing. So we go from 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, so on. 24, this one's bold again. So sample no. 1 would be an 18, 25. Sample no. 2 would be a 24, 25. Sample no. 3 would be a 24 homozygote, meaning they have--that individual only has a single banding pattern.
MR. HARMON: Why is that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: What they inherited from their parents was the same allele, 24 allele from both the mother and the father.
MR. HARMON: All right.
MS. MONTGOMERY: And then this one--you know, we could continue on with this.
MR. HARMON: Would you do that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Okay. This one is a 22, 26. And then this one--sample no. 5 is a single-banded pattern, a homozygote.
MR. HARMON: Could you just give us a little better explanation? Why is there just one band there?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, there's just one band visualized because both of the bands--the individual is a 24 comma--or not in this case. But this case, the individual is a 28, a 28, 28. And so both of the bands are running into the same location. So all you're seeing is a single-banded pattern on that individual.
MR. HARMON: And how can you tell there are really two bands there?
MS. MONTGOMERY: You're--this has since been optimized. So you would see the banding pat--equal intensity of the two alleles that are present or the two bands that are present on an individual. This is a reference bloodstain, and a single band is observed. And in this system, it hasn't been found that any of the samples run off the gel or anything such as that. So if you see a single-banded pattern, you can assign that a genotype or what you're observing and the type of the actual sample.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't you move to sample 6.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Sample 6 would be--once again, I have to--you know, I have to get my orientation and count from the 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. So this would be a 28 and this would be a 34 (Indicating). And you could see that 34 band's a little more intense than the other bands. And that once again is for ease of--so you can quickly call or you can readily identify types without having to count from the very bottom up to the top.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And then sample 7?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Sample 7 is a 20 because 18, 19, 20, and then a 28. And you can see three individuals, no. 5, 6 and 7, all share the same allele.
MR. HARMON: But not any other allele?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's go to sample 8. How would you type that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: The sample no. 8 is--once again, here's an 18 allele and 22 (Indicating).
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harmon, I think we get the point.
MR. HARMON: Good. Okay. Then we can move on.
MR. HARMON: Why don't we move on to 275-B, which--you assign numbers to each of these gels when you run them; is that right?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. HARMON: And let's move to AG148. Do you recognize that number?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. The number sounds familiar.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Could we put 275-B, which we'll identify as gel AG148.
MR. HARMON: Now, what's the purpose of this first gel, the--or strike that. Are those labels normally on your gels, the O.J. Simpson, R. Goldman, N. Brown labels?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No. Those labels were placed on the gel for--to identify what sample is in that particular lane.
MR. HARMON: And why did you just run--is there any evidence run on this gel, 275-B?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No.
MR. HARMON: Why did you run just the three reference samples without any evidence on them?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, for two reasons. First of all, this gel was--these samples were run prior to any evidence coming into the laboratory. The only evidence that we had obtained were these three samples. And as I stated earlier, Gary Sims had examined the reference samples and placed a portion into a tube, and then I extracted these samples and analyzed them for D1S80.
MR. HARMON: Why did you do that just on the reference samples?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, for two reasons. First of all, the L.A. District Attorney's office asked me to see if we could differentiate between these three individuals.
MR. HARMON: Why was that important?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That was important to determine whether this--the evidence was sent to our laboratory for D1S80 analysis. If we couldn't distinguish between these three individuals, then it wouldn't offer any more information. At that time, they wanted to know if these three individuals could be differentiated.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Could you briefly describe the layout of this gel? You've already pointed out the ladders. Are there six ladders on this gel?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Seven.
MR. HARMON: There's seven? There's one. What else, starting from left to right inside the left-hand ladder, is in each lane?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Okay. I should have stated on the last gel. What we have--we have a convention--conventional way of setting up these gels. And first is to, after your first ladder, is to place the positive amplification control. And this is the--once again, the amplification control that's provided in the D1S80 kit. And the amplification control is an 18, 31. And the next lane on this gel is a negative amplification, a negative amplification blank, and this produced no results. And then a ladder, and this is a QC sample (Indicating), and I believe Mr. Sims went into the explanation of what a QC sample was. And this is run--
THE COURT: Excuse me. Does that mean quality control?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. QC stands for quality control sample.
MR. HARMON: And the next lane over?
MS. MONTGOMERY: And the next lane over is an extraction blank. And this provided no banding pattern.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And then we've got a lane labeled "O.J. Simpson"?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: After the ladder?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. HARMON: That's from Mr. Simpson's known reference blood?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, it is.
MR. HARMON: And what type was Mr. Simpson with the D1S80 marker?
MS. MONTGOMERY: He's a 24, 25, and you can see there's the 24 (Indicating)--well--24, 25.
MR. HARMON: And then Mr. Goldman, what type did he produce?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Mr. Goldman is a single-banded pattern, a 24 homozygote.
MR. HARMON: Okay. That means he inherited the same size band from his mother and his father?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. HARMON: Could you move that or could we maybe rotate it 90 degrees and come up from--
MS. MONTGOMERY: Sure.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, that's Mr. Goldman? He's a 24. So by coincidence, he shares one of these bands with Mr. Simpson?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct. And as I stated, the 24 allele is one of the more common alleles.
MR. HARMON: Are there population studies that continue to be produced that compile the frequency of all these bands with the D1S80 system?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And I believe you just said 24. Is that the most common allele?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yeah. It's one of the more common alleles that is seen.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And when you typed Nicole Brown's known blood sample, what type did she produce?
MS. MONTGOMERY: She came out an 18 homozygote, which is one of the other more common alleles that is seen. The 18 and 24 alleles are the most common alleles that are seen in the population.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, let's just stop here for a second and I want to ask you, is it necessary to run these reference samples again with all the other tests that you performed on the evidence in this case?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, it's not.
MR. HARMON: Why not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: If you know the results of the individuals, you don't need to run them on each subsequent gel that's run. There's a limitation on the number of samples that can be run on each--on each gel, and that's 20 samples or 20 lanes. And that doesn't include all the controls or the ladders. So to run them once is sufficient for the analysis.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Could we--
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. HARMON: Could we move on to 275-C, your Honor, which--
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. HARMON: 275-C, which is AG168.
MR. HARMON: Do you recognize that number, AG168?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. The number is familiar.
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I would like to at the same time I do this because of that samples that are on there to have the jury be able to see the photo boards from Bundy and Rockingham, those are exhibits 120 and 165, so we can see the relationship with these items. Could we do that?
MR. BLASIER: I have no objection to that. May I request that any time we put arrows on something, we print it out? Apparently that last one didn't get printed out.
MR. HARMON: I didn't intend for it, but from now on, I will. Sure.
THE COURT: All right. And at the break, we'll reproduce that other one on 275-B.
MR. BLASIER: Thank you.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
THE COURT: Mr. Fairtlough.
MR. HARMON: Okay. While Mr. Fairtlough is getting those boards out, essentially you have the same generic layout of the gel. This is a different gel than 148, the one we just saw; is that correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. HARMON: And I notice you have lanes labeled with Mr. Simpson's name on it, Mr. Goldman's name on it and Nicole Brown's name on it. Why did you include them on this gel?
MS. MONTGOMERY: They were included on this gel because I had extra room on the gel to run their samples again. And I--for the analysis. And it's also good, you know, just to--for the first gel, I wanted to see all the samples placed together.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And did Mr. Simpson's reference type produce the same type as we just saw on 275-B, exhibit 275-B?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, it did.
MR. HARMON: And did Mr. Goldman's produce the same type as we saw in 275-B?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And, Miss Brown's, did her blood sample also produce the same type as 275-C?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, it did.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, if we could just--
MS. MONTGOMERY: Actually this gel is--some of the samples are fainter. So I'll need to get my glasses.
MR. HARMON: Sure. Could we lower it? There we go. Miss Montgomery, let's start out with the stain that was labeled Rockingham no. 6 that's displayed on the Rockingham exhibit board, and it's been identified as--individually as photo 120-C. What type did that produce in the D1S80 system?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That's a 24, 25. And--
MR. HARMON: Go ahead.
MS. MONTGOMERY: As you can see, there's the 24 allele and there's--whoops--there's the 25 allele (Indicating).
MR. HARMON: And that's consistent with Mr. Simpson?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And--
MS. MONTGOMERY: Actually I think it would be clearer to put the arrows this way (Indicating).
MR. HARMON: Well--
MS. MONTGOMERY: Is that clearer?
MR. HARMON: Well, you're not going to be able to do it across the board though.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Okay.
MR. HARMON: Well, can we get it coming in straight from the top?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. Okay.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, which allele is that from the top?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That's the 25.
MR. HARMON: Would you mark that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: (Witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: In fact, let's--just to make it easier then, why don't we just go all the way across either the top or the bottom. The other band is a 24?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct. These are--these bands that I'm pointing to are 24's (Indicating).
MR. HARMON: Okay. And the top bands are 25's? Could you mark all of those, please.
MS. MONTGOMERY: (Witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: Could we go over to Mr. Simpson's reference type and show us how they correspond?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. This is the 25, and there's the 24 allele (Indicating).
MR. HARMON: So you got the same results from the stain in Mr. Simpson's driveway with a D1S80 marker as you did with 47, the drop closest to the victims, 48 next down the walkway and 50, the next one down the walkway?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. HARMON: And those results were inconsistent with Mr. Goldman and Miss Brown?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Assuming a single source, yes. It's inconsistent with Mr. Goldman and Nicole Brown can be eliminated because her 18 band isn't seen in the bottom region of any of those samples.
MR. HARMON: There was no--was there any indication of a mixture in any of those stains?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, there wasn't. By looking at the DQ-Alpha results also, there's no indication of a mixture on that--on those particular samples.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't we--can we capture that one? And that will be--
THE COURT: That will be People's 275-C(1).
MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.
(Peo's 275-C(1) for id = printout)
THE COURT: All right. Are we done with the Rockingham exhibit?
MR. HARMON: Let me make sure. Yes, we are.
THE COURT: With regards to this? All right. Mr. Fairtlough, how about if we change places so the jurors can see the Bundy exhibit because it's too low with the use of the screen.
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Yes, your Honor. I will need to shift easels.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I have an objection and I think we need to approach.
THE COURT: All right. With the court reporter, please.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: All right. We're over at the sidebar. Mr. Blasier, you had an objection?
MR. BLASIER: Yes. I thought we had objected and agreed that that term "Bundy trail" could not be used.
THE COURT: The slide has "Bundy trail" on it?
MR. BLASIER: Yes. Three times.
MS. CLARK: What's wrong with "Bundy trail"?
MR. BLASIER: The Judge ruled it was not a proper term to use in connection with these samples.
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. CLARK: You did?
THE COURT: Walkway as opposed to--Bundy walk on these things. How many more of these films do you have?
MR. HARMON: If I can check--I think that's the last one. So if you want--
THE COURT: All right.
MR. HARMON: I don't know how we fix this one.
THE COURT: All right. Well, unfortunately, it's been up there for quite awhile now. So at this time, I don't know that there's much more we can do about it.
MR. COCHRAN: Perhaps it should be modified at the break.
THE COURT: Yes. I'll ask them--I don't know. I'll ask them to reletter that if possible. Thank you.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: And, Mr. Harmon, 10:30. All right. Madam reporter, you set?
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harmon.
MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor. Could we have the Bronco photo and result board up there next?
THE COURT: I'm sorry, Mr. Harmon. Are you going to do the Bundy--
MR. HARMON: Oh. Item 48, 47 and 50. Could we change boards now, Mr. Fairtlough, to the Bronco photo and result board, exhibits 172 and 260? And I'd like to have marked as 275-D, copy of gel AG174.
THE COURT: 275-D as in David?
MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor.
MR. HARMON: While we're getting the board set up, could you describe the samples that are on 275-D, which is your AG174?
(Peo's 275-D(1) for id = photograph)
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. These are, once again, the reference samples from three individuals, O.J. Simpson being a 24, 25, Ronald Goldman being a 24 homozygote and Nicole Brown being an 18, 18, an 18 homozygote.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And now, do we lose a little fidelity when we project these copies up on the screen?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, we do.
MR. HARMON: Okay. How do you visualize these things when you're looking for them for the first time to interpret them and write the report?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I look at the actual gel after it's been dried down and I do my interpretation based on--or I write the results that I see at the time on a run sheet and then also a second reader reads those gels. That can be done at a different--or later date though. These are blue copies. And first of all, the blue copy is--represents what the actual gel--what was present on the actual gel. But when you project it up here, you tend to lose--it's not as sharp and it's not as dark. But I think when you see these printouts, you'll be able to see it.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And you have the three reference samples run again?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: They produce the same results?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Item no. 30, which was taken from the Bronco center console, could you tell us what results you obtained from that sample?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. A 24 allele and a 25 allele. And you can see it right (Indicating).
MR. HARMON: And you're marking them with the pink arrows?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
MS. MONTGOMERY: (Witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: They're red arrows?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Red arrows.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And what about Bronco 31, the other center console sample that was provided to you? What results or what bands did you see there?
MS. MONTGOMERY: On D1S80, a 24 band and also the 25.
MR. HARMON: Now, what conclusion can you reach on the 24, 25 with respect to the possibility there's a mixture there?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, the interpretation had to be based also on the results of the DQ-Alpha. And by looking at the DQ-Alpha results in conjunction with these D1S80 results, it was determined it was a mixture. By just looking at the D1S80 results alone, mixture can't be determined.
MR. HARMON: Okay. But if there were a mixture of Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldberg, would it look just like what you see in 31, the console stain?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. Neither of them could be eliminated from these samples.
MR. HARMON: Because they share a 24 allele?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't you move on to Bronco 293, which was from the driver's side carpet? Can you tell us what results you obtained from that sample?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Okay. On this sample, there's a single-banded pattern, and it's an 18.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And who was that consistent with? Could we make that 18 a different color if you would?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Sure (Witness complies).
MR. HARMON: We've now switched over to green?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Green.
MR. HARMON: And you're going to put a green arrow by the 18 allele?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And who is that consistent with?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That's consistent with Nicole Brown.
MR. HARMON: And is it inconsistent with Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldberg?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, it is.
MR. HARMON: Could you put a green arrow over there by Nicole Brown's single-banded pattern from her reference sample?
MS. MONTGOMERY: (Witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: And 305, could you first describe what's in 305? And then we'll try to mark it.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Okay. 305 is a mixture and there are three bands present, the 24, the 25 and an 18.
MR. HARMON: Okay.
MS. MONTGOMERY: And--
MR. HARMON: I'm sorry.
MS. MONTGOMERY: It's slightly difficult to see that 18 from here. But when you see the actual blue copy, you'll be able to visualize it.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Could you put a green arrow down by the 18 in sample 305, the Bronco sample 305?
MS. MONTGOMERY: (Witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: And then--and then--and then let's go back--let's go back to the red 24, 25 bands that you saw.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Okay. And there's a 24 and the 25 (Indicating).
MR. HARMON: Okay. And you've marked 24 and 25. Now, you said we know that's a mixture. How do you know that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: You know it's a mixture because there are more than two bands present. There are three bands present in that sample, a 24, a 25 and also the 18. And also, the relative intensities of the band. The 18 allele's much weaker than the 24 and 25 alleles.
MR. HARMON: And what's the significance of that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: It shows that the 18 is a minor contribution in that sample.
MR. HARMON: Could you explain a little bit better what that means?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. It means the amount of the 18 allele is less than the amount of the 24 allele or the 25 allele.
MR. HARMON: And is there something about the way this whole kit is designed that will help you when you see something faint like that interpret it?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yeah. Both the kit and also the in-laboratory evaluation that the Department of Justice did for D1S80, we optimize the system so when you have a neat bloodstain, meaning a--or DNA, a sample from one individual, that you'll get equal intensity of the two--the two bands. So in this case, what you could see is, there's not equal intensity of those bands and there's a weaker component down there at the 18.
MR. HARMON: And are the results that you produced for 305 based on D1S80 alone, are they consistent with a mixture from the three reference samples in this case, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Brown and--Mr. Goldman and Miss Brown?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. None--those--neither or none of those individuals can be excluded as a possible source of the DNA in the Bronco stain, no. 305.
MR. HARMON: And the DQ-Alpha results also contribute more information to that mixture; is that true?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And that they're still consistent with that mixture?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I can move to another one or I can stop now.
THE COURT: All right. Tell you what. Let's take our break five minutes early because we'll have to do another set of exhibits here. Ladies and gentlemen, please remember all of my admonitions; don't discuss this 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 anyone to communicate with you with regard to the case. And we'll take a break for about 15 minutes. All right. We'll stand in recess.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harmon, back on the record. Do you want to get your exhibits out?
MR. HARMON: Excuse me, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you want to get the next set of exhibits up.
MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor, the sock photo board.
THE COURT: All right. Do you have them available?
MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jurors, please.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Why don't you just hold them down there, Mr. Clarke, just until we are ready to go.
(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. The record should reflect we have now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. All parties are again present. All right. Mr. Harmon, you may continue with your direct examination.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: All right. Let's proceed.
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, at this time I would like to have marked as 275-E, for identification, gel number AG2-44 and I will give it to Mr. Fairtlough.
THE COURT: All right. 275-E.
(Brief pause.)
MR. HARMON: And we have displayed for the jury People's 262 and 260-A which are respectively the socks results board and the sock photo board.
MR. HARMON: Now, Miss Montgomery, could you please describe, skipping over the positive and negative control--could you please describe the samples which are of interest to us in this case.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. These are two samples from the sock. Umm, two different locations. And you could see them--the first one described as b-1 is a single-banded 18 and the second one described as B2 its a single-banded pattern also and that is an 18, 18.
MR. HARMON: That is consistent with Nicole Brown?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes it is.
MR. HARMON: And it is inconsistent with the Defendant, Mr. Simpson?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Inconsistent with Mr. Goldman?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Now, we are just showing some of the film in this case for the jury's edification; is that correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Right.
MR. HARMON: The result board actually lists other D1S80 results which were produced in this case. Are those in this package of film that we have as well?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, they are.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Okay. Why don't we move on to 275-F, which is gel AG62-65. Could we have the glove result and photo boards, which are People's exhibit 272-A and B.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. We will mark the printout from 275-E as 275-E(1).
(Peo's 275-E(1) for id = photograph)
MR. HARMON: Miss Montgomery, could you, while we are getting the board set up, could you please describe the samples that were on this gel that produced the copy of the film which we have labeled 275-F?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. This is DNA extracted from four different locations on the glove and G11--G11 is a mixture and this is--
MR. HARMON: How can you tell it is a mixture?
MS. MONTGOMERY: There are--you need to see the original or the copy that is going to be printed out. From here it is a little difficult to see the minor contributions, but what you would see is the major banding of a 24 and so that is a major type of a 24, 24 and then you can also see a weaker 25 allele and on this one there is also a weaker 18 allele.
MR. HARMON: Could we just use some--let's stay with 18. Could we use a different color or let's sort these out by color. The 18 allele, could you put an arrow to the left of it and then we will change colors and go up to 24 and 25, so could you get it real close there. So you have got a green arrow next to the stain 9G11. That represents the 18 allele?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Now, from the three reference samples who is that consistent with?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That is consistent with Nicole Brown. She can't be eliminated as a contributor of that weaker 18 allele.
MR. HARMON: How do you know that is a mixture?
MS. MONTGOMERY: You can tell it is a mixture for two reasons: First of all, because there are three bands present in the sample. And secondly, because of the relative intensity of the banding pattern. As I stated, that 24 is more intense than either the 18 or the 25. In this sample it appears the 18 and 25 are relatively equal intensity to each other, but yet that 24 is much stronger.
MR. HARMON: So what does that mean?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That means that there is more than one individual that could have contributed to that sample.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And from among the three individuals could you mark the 24 and 25 alleles using different colored arrows, please, to the left. So you are putting a red arrow by--to the left of--
MS. MONTGOMERY: Would you like a different.
MR. HARMON: --the 24 allele and could you use a different color for the 25 allele.
MS. MONTGOMERY: (Witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: Now, considering the three reference samples that were provided to you in this case that you didn't run on this gel, what--what can you say about the--whether or not those three--three reference types could be contained in the stain at 9G11?
MS. MONTGOMERY: None of the individuals, none of the three reference samples, O.J. Simpson, Nicole Brown or Ronald Goldman, could be excluded as a source of this sample.
MR. HARMON: And let me ask you that same question about those three people and what is the significance about the weakness of the bands with respect to the 24 allele? Can you say anything more about how these things line up in terms of intensity?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, you also can--D1S80 was--I mean, DQ-Alpha was done on these samples also and by using both the DQ-Alpha results and the D1S80 results you can sort this out a little further, and--
MR. HARMON: I don't think DQ-Alpha was done on this sample, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I'm sorry, you are right. DQ-Alpha was not done on this sample.
MR. HARMON: So can you say anything more about the relative intensities in terms of the combinations of the three reference samples in this case?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I can say who could be the major contributor of the sample and who could be the minor contributor, and I can say of those three individuals none of them could be eliminated as a source of this bloodstain.
MR. HARMON: What could be the type of the major contributor in this case, based on your observations on this stain?
MS. MONTGOMERY: By looking at lane G11, glove 9, lane G11, the major contributor is a 24 homozygote and then the minor components are an 18 allele and a 25 allele.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And from among the three reference types is any one of them a 24 homozygote?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Who is that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Ronald Goldman.
MR. HARMON: And is the 25 allele unique to one of the three reference samples in this case?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Who is that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: 24, 25 is the type of O.J. Simpson.
MR. HARMON: So from among those three people, Nicole Brown, Ronald Goldman and Mr. Simpson, Mr. Simpson is the only one that has a 25 allele?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Of those three individuals, that's correct.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And the population frequency data actually describes how many other people might have the 25 allele?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That's correct.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's move on to G12. Could you describe, before you put any arrows on it, describe the band that you are able to see on the original and the blue copy that appear in 9G12 if you will?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. G12 is also a mixture and from here I'm having a difficult time seeing that--the minor contributor, but the minor type, if you--when you look at the gel you will see an 18 band in the 18 region. Umm, so in this sample the major contributor is a 24 homozygote and the minor contributor has an 18 allele present.
MR. HARMON: And are those two types consistent with the two victims in this case, Mr. Goldman and Miss Brown?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, they.
MR. HARMON: When you say, "Major contributor, minor contributor," are you saying that it is a mixture of those two types?
MS. MONTGOMERY: By major and minor I am able to say what the major type is. As far as the minor components, what I can say is an 18 allele is the minor component but that 18 could be an 18 homozygote or it could be a 18, 24.
MR. HARMON: So it could be just a one-banded 18 pattern which would be consistent with Nicole Brown?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. HARMON: Or there might be another 24 band that is hidden under the 24 band? Is that what you are saying?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That's right, or it could be an 18, 24.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Can we try to get some arrows in that--let's keep green with the 18, if you will.
MS. MONTGOMERY: (Witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: Can we get that green?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Green.
MR. HARMON: And then keep the red with the 24 allele.
MS. MONTGOMERY: (Witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's move over to G13. Will you describe what you see there and then we will discuss it.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. G13 is similar to G11. The interpretation is the same on that sample where it is a mixture, there is more than one band present. There is a major type and there are minor alleles. The major type is a 24, 24 and the minor alleles are an 18 and a 25. And once again, you need to see the printed out copy.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, let's look back on G11. The results that you have described for G13, are they essentially the same results as you have seen in G11?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: Are they different in any way?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Umm, the 25 and the 18 are slightly weaker in G13, but in general the same pattern--the same pattern is seen in G13 as G11.
MR. HARMON: And would you--strike that. So the comments that you made about G11 would apply to G13 as well?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. HARMON: Could we, using the same colors that we used in G11, could we try to get some arrows in there to show where those bands are.
MS. MONTGOMERY: (Witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: Okay. You have marked with a red arrow the 24 allele?
MS. MONTGOMERY: This is getting a bit messy.
MR. HARMON: Now, you have got the pink arrow on the 25 allele in G13. And then you have marked the 18 allele with the green arrow?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Right.
MR. HARMON: Once again, in this sample from among the three reference types that were provided to you, Mr. Simpson is the only one that has that 25 allele; is that correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That's correct.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's move over to G14, if you will, and describe what you observed in G14.
MS. MONTGOMERY: G14--G14 has a major contribution of a 24 homozygote and in the 18 region there is what I call a possible 18. There wasn't a clear distinct band in that region so I wasn't confident to call it a band.
MR. HARMON: Can you show us where that is with an arrow?
MS. MONTGOMERY: (Witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: Is there something that is more readily apparent if you actually look at the original and look the copy?
MS. MONTGOMERY: From here I can't see anything in that region. When you look at the original gel or the copy of the gel, what you could see is a darkening in that region, but as I stated, it is not clearly defined and I would not call it definitely an 18 band being present.
MR. HARMON: Okay. What do you see there in that lane for G14?
MS. MONTGOMERY: There is a major--there is a 24 allele present, so the mayor source of the sample is a 24 homozygote.
MR. HARMON: And I believe Mr. Sims described, because of that possible trace 18, that one could not exclude Nicole Brown?
MS. MONTGOMERY: If that is a band, then no, Nicole Brown could not be eliminated, but as I was saying, I don't feel confident calling it a band, so if it is a band, then she can't be excluded, but since I won't call that a definite band, then that is--
MR. HARMON: So from among the three reference types who would--
MR. BLASIER: Objection. I don't think she was finished.
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. MONTGOMERY: So that was--so this one I am able to say what the major type is on the sample. As far as minor contributor, I am unable to say anything about it.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Because you are not sure there is one?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Exactly.
MR. HARMON: Okay. So let's look at what you do see there. Who is not excluded as the source of this stain on G14?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I could not eliminate Ronald Goldman as being a possible source since he is a 24 homozygote and the pattern that is seen in G14 is 24, 24.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Could we capture that, your Honor, and mark that 275-F(1).
THE COURT: Yes.
(Peo's 275-F(1) for id = photograph)
MR. HARMON: I would like to move on--I'm going to display the nail board, your Honor, with those photos at the bottom, the nail kit and the other photos.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. HARMON: And as well as the Bundy result board. The nail board is People's exhibit 220 and the Bundy result board is 259.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. HARMON: And at the same time I would like to have marked as 275-G for identification gel a G293.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Mr. Fairtlough, let me see 220 before you get it up there. Just briefly.
MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Yes, your Honor.
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, do you want to see those photos? That is the one--
THE COURT: I just want to make sure my recollection is--yeah. Mr. Bancroft, would you avoid 220, please.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. HARMON: Okay. While Mr. Fairtlough is getting the board set up, could you describe the samples of interest that were provided to you for D1S80 typing in this case?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. These were extracted samples from the fingernail scrapings of Nicole Simpson--Nicole Brown.
MR. HARMON: Scrapings and clippings?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. HARMON: And as soon as we get the board up there, we can relate the items, because it doesn't seem like we have enough room there. Why don't we slide the--could you justify in parenthesis and describe the items so the jury can correlate them. What is your 45B number which is labeled fingernail--fingernail 84 and then in parenthesis 45B? What is that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yeah. I will have to look at my notes for that.
(Brief pause.)
MS. MONTGOMERY: 45B is the right hand fingernail scrapings.
MR. HARMON: What is 46B, your 46B?
MS. MONTGOMERY: 46B is the left hand fingernail scrapings.
MR. HARMON: And what is 45A-1B represent?
MS. MONTGOMERY: 45A is the right fingernail clippings. 1B refers to nearby blood on the same nail.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And would you describe, starting from left to right, 45B, what results did you obtain with the D1S80 marker when you typed your no. 45B?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Those were all single-banded patterns of 18 homozygotes.
MR. HARMON: That is consistent with Nicole Brown?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, it is.
MR. HARMON: Could we use--I think we have been using green for the 18 allele. Could you put an arrow for each of the three sample that gave you the sale result, the 18 allele?
MS. MONTGOMERY: (Witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: Okay. Is there any question in your mind that they are the same result for all three of those samples?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No.
MR. HARMON: Okay. May we capture that, your Honor, as 275-G(1)?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Peo's 275-G(1) for id = photograph)
MR. HARMON: And the last--if--board and results, if we can keep the Bundy result board up there and put the Bundy photo board, which is People's exhibit 165 up there, at the same time I would like to have marked as People's 275-H for identification gel a G295.
(Brief pause.)
MR. HARMON: Now, Miss Montgomery, what I would like to talk about is items 115, 116 and 117 so as not to confuse them with photo I.d. Numbers which are in the upper left-hand corner and then just down below it, the items from the rear gate at Bundy.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Okay.
MR. HARMON: And you performed D1S80 typing on those samples as well?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I did.
MR. HARMON: And could you please describe your results and then I will ask you to mark them, if you will.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. These all came back 24, 25, and as you can see--
MR. HARMON: We are using red for 24, 25. Why don't you mark 115.
MS. MONTGOMERY: (Witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, have we marked 275-H on the record?
THE COURT: Yes, a G295.
MR. HARMON: Thank you.
MR. HARMON: So that is a 24, 25?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, it is.
MR. HARMON: Okay. And would you move over to 116 and describe the results that you obtained on 116.
MS. MONTGOMERY: On 116 it is also a 24, 25.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you put arrows that show where those bands are.
MS. MONTGOMERY: (Witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: Okay. And on the 117, the rear gate stain, could you describe the results and put arrows to show where they are.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, the same results were obtained with sample 117 and that is a 24 allele and a 25. (Witness complies.)
MR. HARMON: Okay. Are those results--strike that. Is 115 consistent with Mr. Simpson's D1S80 type?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, it is.
MR. HARMON: Is 116 consistent with Mr. Simpson's D1S80 type?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, it is.
MR. HARMON: Is 117 consistent with Mr. Simpson's D1S80 type?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, it is.
MR. HARMON: Are those three types, three results, 115, 116, 117, are they consistent with one another?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, they are.
MR. HARMON: Are all three of those results inconsistent with having come from Ronald Goldman alone?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, yes, because by using--by looking at the D1S80 results and also by looking at the DQ-Alpha results, there is no indication that a mixture is present here and so on this the type of the individual will be a 24, 25.
MR. HARMON: And Nicole Brown excluded as a source of those stains?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. There was no 18 allele detected on any of these stains.
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, could we capture that as 275-H(1)?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Peo's 275-H(1) for id = photograph)
MR. HARMON: Now, did anything happen in the course of your testing on all the samples that you have tested in this case that undermines your confidence in the results that both you and Mr. Sims have been presenting?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No.
MR. HARMON: And as I mentioned, there are a number of other films that have not been shown to the jury?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That's correct.
MR. HARMON: Okay. Thanks, Miss Montgomery. I have no further questions, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take a brief recess to recycle the exhibits and allow Mr. Blasier some opportunity to look at some items. I will ask you just to step back into the jury room and we will buzz you out in probably about ten or fifteen minutes. All right. Thank you.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Back on the record. All parties are again present. Counsel, anything we need to take up before we have the jurors rejoin us?
MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor. The Defense has just provided us with some things that they would like to use on cross-examination.
THE COURT: All right. I have what appears to be a color print of this. Mr. Harmon, do you have any particulars--I mean some of these are just demonstrative clip art.
MR. HARMON: Selectively demonstrative, which I think we have typically called argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. How about the summary of results chart?
MR. HARMON: Well, 23 total stains tested, that is accurate. 16 stains show carry-over. I haven't heard anybody--
THE COURT: What does that indicate, Mr. Blasier?
MR. BLASIER: Mixtures.
MR. HARMON: Well--
THE COURT: All right. And no matches to the Defendant.
MR. HARMON: Well, the carry-over means something kind of sinister in this case.
MR. BLASIER: Change it to mixtures. That is real easy.
THE COURT: We talked about carry-over contamination in the context of Mr. Scheck's cross-examination so that would carry an implication as not accurate in this context.
MR. HARMON: I think the no matches to the Defendant is argumentative. They either do or they don't, and I mean if we take the--the rationale that they forced us to try to put things on our result boards, why don't we put who they could be from then. I think that would be fair and consistent, your Honor, to put what it is, not what it is not, because they--
THE COURT: Then what do you suggest?
MR. HARMON: Well, that is where it gets a little convoluted because there are all sorts of mixture or single stains. To say what it is not doesn't mean anything. To say what it is provides the proper context for it. I can go down the list if you like.
THE COURT: It is your record, counsel.
MR. HARMON: I think it is argumentative to say that there are no matches, or however they want to describe it, because that ignores what it is. They can clearly say that in argument, but this is not the point to start reaching your argument, your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, let me ask you a question: Is this dealing just with the clothing?
MR. BLASIER: Just the clothing, yes.
THE COURT: Just the clothing.
MR. BLASIER: We can change that to "O.J.S. excluded." I mean this is from their test results.
MR. HARMON: Well, I thought--I thought this wasn't the time for argument in your exhibits. I mean, that is what the Court has consistently ruled.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. HARMON: When we had to modified almost every one of our boards and a statement is a statement, and argument about what it is not is an argument.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: This is their results. He is excluded from all the stains on the clothing. That is all it says.
THE COURT: Do you agree with that? With regard to the clothing, not the glove; the clothing.
MR. HARMON: Sure. But how you say it--we have results. The results say who they could be from.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MR. HARMON: I am assuming this is in the context of the series of slides, it is the last slide and it is the summary of the sum total of stains that were tested, but it is still argumentative. That is in fact the final outcome of this process, but to say--
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier, I'm going to direct you to add summary of results re clothing, victim's clothing, that the term "Carry-over" be changed to mixture, "Mixtures," plural, and you can put "Defendant excluded."
MR. BLASIER: I can.
THE COURT: Yes. All right. With regards to the D1S80 results Rockingham glove, Mr. Harmon, do you have any objections to this?
MR. HARMON: It is going to be worded--that is supposed to point out where the stains are? You see, since this is in a sequence of slides, it is hard to appreciate--
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
MR. HARMON: --what it is supposed to demonstrate. Would you like--
THE COURT: All right. My concern, Mr. Blasier, is with the second glove slide, where you have "No genotypes consistent with O.J.S.," and that does not appear to be correct from the evidence that is here.
MR. BLASIER: I think the only stain that has alleles consistent with Mr. Simpson are in the wrist area, those three, G10, 11 and 13. They are mixtures consistent with Mr. Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson--
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
MR. BLASIER: --in the body of the glove, but nothing consistent with Mr. Simpson.
THE COURT: Is the idea that you are trying to convey here that the wrist area is the only area that you have something consistent with and for remainder of the glove it is not consistent?
MR. BLASIER: Correct. All the tests done on the rest of the glove he is excluded.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: All right. Any other comment?
MR. HARMON: Well, it would be nice if we had overnight to look at these so we don't have to struggle with them now, your Honor.
MR. BLASIER: Cross-examination.
MR. HARMON: I know it is cross-examination, but he had them yesterday. I mean, we could avoid this stuff, so--you know, this says it all. This is a photograph of the gloves. One of them is on the inside and the others are on the outside and this just has a circle around the cuff of the glove, your Honor.
MR. BLASIER: That is as simple as I could make it. Every time I put more stuff on that I get objected to.
MR. HARMON: It may be simple, but it is not accurate. Sometimes they deviate.
MR. BLASIER: How is it inaccurate?
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harris, can you make these corrections?
MR. HARRIS: Yes, your Honor, right now.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. BLASIER: On the last slide, rather than "Defendant excluded" can we say "O.J.S. excluded"?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. HARMON: I mean it is just one side of the glove, your Honor. There is two sides to it.
THE COURT: I understand.
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: All right. Any other comment?
(Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
THE COURT: Mr. Harmon?
MR. HARMON: Just that it oversimplifies something and it is misleading. We have actual photographs of it that actually depict where they are. And to force somebody to say, yeah, that is right when it is not, I don't think we do anybody a service with that.
THE COURT: All right. All right. With the corrections ordered by the Court, the other objections will be overruled.
MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor.
MR. COCHRAN: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Let's have the jurors, please.
(Brief pause.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Miss Montgomery, would you please resume the witness stand.
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, we had two additional films that should be included in the--
THE COURT: Hold on just a second.
MR. HARMON: Sorry.
THE COURT: Good morning again, Miss Montgomery. You are reminded you are still under oath. And Mr. Harmon I'm sorry, I thought you had completed your direct examination.
MR. HARMON: We noticed there were two additional films so we should go up to t then, 275-T.
THE COURT: All right. 275-T. Mrs. Robertson do you have that?
(Peo's 275-S & 275-T for id = film)
THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: You may commence your cross-examination.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER
MR. BLASIER: Miss Montgomery, good morning.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Good morning, Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: Good morning.
THE JURY: Good morning.
MR. BLASIER: Miss Montgomery, when Mr. Harmon was asking you questions about various stains, he was describing the locations where those stains were purportedly obtained from. Do you remember that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you have no personal knowledge if those descriptions were accurate, do you?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No. As I stated, I--Mr. Sims looked at the samples that came into the lab and then I did the analysis for D1S80.
MR. BLASIER: Of course he doesn't have any personal knowledge either, does he? He was not out at the scene collecting evidence?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, he was not.
MR. BLASIER: And nobody from the Department of Justice to your knowledge was out there actually collecting and preserving evidence, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And so you have no way of personally verifying that the evidence was collected properly or processed properly before it came to your lab; is that correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I was not at the crime scene, no.
MR. BLASIER: So basically you take what is sent to you and you can account for what happens once you get it, but you can't really say a whole lot about what might have happened to it before?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. I want to ask you a couple of questions about your notes. Your notes were provided to us in discovery, were they not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, they were.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you write your notes in ink?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I do.
MR. BLASIER: And all of your pages are numbered sequentially, are they not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, they are.
MR. BLASIER: You number those as you go along, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I do.
MR. BLASIER: And when you are done with a block of pages, you go back and actually put page 2 of 70, page 3 of 70, page 4 of 70, do you not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, when I go back, since I number them at the time I'm making the notes, what I do is I go back and I count how many total pages. You know, in this case there was over a hundred pages just for my analysis, and so I will just write "Of" or "Slash" with the total on the bottom.
MR. BLASIER: And that is so that you can ensure in your own mind that you are accounting for all of your work papers, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And anybody else that is looking at your work papers can tell how many pages there are supposed to be, how many pages there are?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Right.
MR. BLASIER: And your handwriting is pretty easy to read, is it not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I find it easy to read.
MR. BLASIER: When you make a correction, you don't erase anything, you line it out, you put your initials on it, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Right.
MR. BLASIER: And that is all standard laboratory procedures at the Department of Justice, is it not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, it is.
MR. BLASIER: Those are just good techniques that you have learned as a criminalist, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, actually I learned them prior to being a criminalist, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And in fact you don't even leave any space at the bottom of a page, you draw a box or an "X" if you finished something and there is still room on the page, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I like to try to do that. There are occasions when I don't. It is just to let me know that nothing else has been written on that page at that time.
MR. BLASIER: And is it accurate to say that one of the reasons for all of these safeguards that you use is so nobody can come in and change your notes or add something without you knowing about it?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, no. I think it is more for--first of all, the numbering is so I know how many pages there are and the order of my notes and also then when I get into court, so I can easily refer to a certain page and see the sequence of events, and as far as crossing out, it is just so I am aware that nothing else was written on that page that day and just ending the page.
MR. BLASIER: Is it accurate that one of the ideas of doing your notes as thoroughly as you do is that at some point in the future when you may get called to court you want to be able to sit down and reconstruct everything important that you did on a particular case?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And furthermore, another important reason for doing it that way is that if for some reason you had changed employment or changed professions or something like that, another analyst could sit down with your notes and basically reconstruct everything you did on a particular test?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that it is not good procedure for you, if you get called into court, to have to say you don't remember something because you didn't write it down?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, it depends on what that is.
MR. BLASIER: Any important steps that you do in a particular test, if you say I don't remember because I didn't write it down, that is not very effective on your part, isn't it?
MR. HARMON: Objection, it is irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Miss Montgomery, I want to ask you just a few questions about your background. Mr. Harmon asked you about undergraduate courses that related to DNA and I didn't think you said any. Was I accurate in that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. I think I jumped right into post-graduation courses. I didn't discuss the courses that I took as an undergraduate, but some of those courses were biochemistry in which DNA was discussed. Also in my environmental toxicology courses DNA was discussed in several of those courses.
MR. BLASIER: In what context?
MS. MONTGOMERY: In the context of, umm, like mode of action, how chemicals reacted on humans or animals, and so it was discussed on how the DNA was affected by certain chemicals in the environment or that were produced by chemical companies.
MR. BLASIER: Did anything in your undergraduate background cover forensic applications of DNA technology?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you indicated in--now, did any of your graduate courses involve forensic applications of DNA technology?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, as far as graduate courses, there was only--well, actually two of the courses I took post graduation I received graduate units for. The others were under--upper division courses but not graduate courses. And the ones that I obtained graduate units were the FBI academy class, through the University of Virginia, and that was six units of graduate course and that was the forensic application of DNA technology and also the laboratory course. And then also one unit of graduate--one unit of graduate level units was given in the DNA sequencing course through the University of Northern Colorado.
MR. BLASIER: Now, your genetics course in 1992 at Cal State Hayward, that didn't deal with forensic applications of DNA technology, did it?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No.
MR. BLASIER: Umm, how about your two semesters in molecular biology at Berkeley, `92 and `93, did that deal with forensic applications of DNA technology at all?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I'm not quite sure if it went over--the instructor of the course had an interest in forensics and application of DNA technology to forensics, but I don't recall if he actually had a lecture on it or not.
MR. BLASIER: Now, that particular course, I think you indicated that there was no hands-on work in that course?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Your training at Quantico, did that involve any study or applications or case work dealing with D1S80?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I believe they talked about AMP-FLPS, the amplified fragment length polymorphisms, in the PCR section, but the course was not devoted to D1S80 analysis, but they did talk about the PCR technique.
MR. BLASIER: But specifically it related to D1S80. That wasn't really a focus of that course, was it?
MS. MONTGOMERY: It was not the focus of the course.
MR. BLASIER: Did you have any hands-on work at all at the Quantico course?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I had hands-on.
MR. BLASIER: Any involving D1S80?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No.
MR. BLASIER: Any involving DQ-Alpha?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And how much hands-on work did you have there?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Half of the course was devoted to the laboratory aspect of DNA analysis and the other half was devoted to lectures, so, oh, approximately two weeks, maybe a little less than two weeks in total of that four weeks was devoted to the laboratory aspect of DNA analysis.
MR. BLASIER: And approximately how many individual tests did you do at that time, just approximately?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Oh, I don't recall.
MR. BLASIER: More than three?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, I can't imagine it was more than three.
MR. BLASIER: Now, your statistics course in the fall of `93 at Berkeley, did that have anything to do with the forensic applications of DNA technology?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, but that instructor was also interested in the application of forensics and how statistics was applied to forensic issues and so he would discuss in passing just some of the forensic applications and how statistics related to that.
MR. BLASIER: And how about your course in DNA sequencing in the summer of `94 at the University of Colorado, was this dealing with forensic applications of DNA technology?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, the instructor of that course was Dr. Steve Lee and he is a researcher at our laboratory and so he did discuss forensic applications, but the focus of the class was DNA sequencing, just in general.
MR. BLASIER: Is it fair to say that--that all of your background, with the exception of the Quantico training course and what you have talked about with the California criminalistics institute, didn't really focus on forensic applications of DNA technology to any great extent?
MS. MONTGOMERY: My classroom--my formal classroom training?
MR. BLASIER: And these courses that we have talked about in Colorado, Berkeley?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. As far as the formal classroom training, the credited or I guess I should say credited, not formal, those involve just the theory, but then the courses that I took that weren't credited, such as the course through the California Criminalistic Institute on PCR, that was devoted to DNA analysis and its forensic aspects.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you listed some of the courses that you took under general criminalistics, and I wrote those down as basic microscopy, zone electrophoresis, sexual assault, low explosives, clandestine labs, arson investigations and basic serology. Was that--that is a pretty complete list?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. I--I believe that is the extent.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that all of those, with the exception of perhaps zone electrophoresis, deal with things other than forensic applications of DNA technology?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And your 1989 course in crime scene investigations that you took in eureka, did that have anything to do with DNA technology?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, it was a crime scene investigation course, so reconstruction and collection of evidence.
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I'm done.
MR. BLASIER: And your firearms safety course in `89, that didn't have anything to do with DNA, did it?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have any publications that deal with DNA technology?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, I don't.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when you went to work at Modesto in 1988, that was an--that was an arm of the Department of Justice?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. Modesto is a satellite laboratory, it is a full service criminalistic laboratory.
MR. BLASIER: And you were there for three years?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Right.
MR. BLASIER: Did you do anything relating to forensic applications of DNA technology during that three years?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, not hands-on. At that time I was interested in DNA--the use of DNA in forensics and so I would keep up-to-date on what was going on in the DNA field.
MR. BLASIER: But you had no practical experience at all?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when you went to Stockton in 1991, again you were doing things other than DNA--forensic applications of DNA technology, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: So that didn't provide you with any relevant experience to what you are doing now?
MS. MONTGOMERY: (No audible response.)
MR. BLASIER: Relative--
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, as far as DNA analysis, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, finally, in 1992 you moved to the DNA lab in Berkeley?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Right.
MR. BLASIER: When you moved there, did you go there with the intention of working in forensic DNA technology areas?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I did. The field was changing from conventional serology to DNA analysis, and since I was very interested in DNA analysis from early on, I decided the best place to gain more experience and to actually work with the technology was at the Berkeley laboratory.
MR. BLASIER: And at what point did you get assigned--you were put in charge of setting up the D1S80 program?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Two individuals; myself and Richard Showalter were--worked together in the development of a system, the D1S80 system.
MR. BLASIER: And had--when was that about, approximately?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That was--I believe Richard started it in June--the summer of `94, so I think he began around June with the technique and then when I got back from the FBI academy I worked with him and we worked together in the development of that system.
MR. BLASIER: When you were assigned that responsibility, had you ever done a D1S80 test?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Done a--
MR. BLASIER: D1S80 test?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, I had not.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, perhaps this might be a good time.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our break for the lunch recess. Please remember all my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case among yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We will stand in recess until 1:00 P.M. all right. Miss Montgomery, you may step down. You are ordered to return at 1:00 P.M.
(At 12:04 P.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:00 P.M. of the same day.)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, MAY 23, 1995 1:00 P.M.
Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)
(Janet M. Moxham, CSR no. 4855, official reporter.)
(Christine M. Olson, CSR no. 2378, official reporter.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson case. All parties are again present. All right. Miss Montgomery is with us. Mr. Blasier, we are ready to proceed?
MR. BLASIER: Yes, your Honor.
MR. SCHECK: Just one note. The next witness, who I hope will be coming up soon, Mr. Yamauchi, they just showed us some boards, and I also have some objections to putting in typing results where there's no C dot or inconclusive, and I wanted to make a time with the Court maybe at the end of the day or whenever we could take up these matters.
THE COURT: I have the feeling we're going to finish with Miss Montgomery today.
MR. SCHECK: Yes, we should. That's why I was hoping we could take up those other matters and perhaps we can finish up all these witnesses this week.
THE COURT: Good. Let's have the jurors, please.
(The following proceedings were held in open court, in the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. The record should reflect that we've now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
THE JURY: Good afternoon. All right. Miss Montgomery, would you resume the witness stand, please.
Renee Montgomery, the witness on the stand at the time of the lunch recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
THE COURT: All right. Good afternoon, Miss Montgomery.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: You are reminded, ma'am, you are still under oath. And, Mr. Blasier, you may continue with your cross-examination.
MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon, folks.
THE JURY: Good afternoon.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. BLASIER
MR. BLASIER: Miss Montgomery.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: When we broke for lunch, we were talking about your level of experience with the D1S80 system. When the program started at DOJ, was there anyone at DOJ that had any experience at all with D1S80?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. Dr. Nora Rudin had looked at some of the gel systems, I believe it was back in 1990, and that was for a brief period. And at that time, our lab decided to focus on other things. And so the project was dropped. She--Dr. Nora Rudin was a researcher at our laboratory.
MR. BLASIER: And that's the extent of the experience of everybody in your lab with D1S80 prior to when you started--when you were in charge of the program, setting it up?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the period of time from when you started to set up this program until it was actually implemented in casework was eight months?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, it was. We started in--well, actually, it was a little over eight months. We started, like I said, in June of `94 and then began casework in April--or June of `93 and then began casework in April of `94.
MR. BLASIER: Is there any requirement at all that a new marker system such as D1S80 or a new technique have any kind of government approval at all to assure that it's a valid system?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Government approval?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, but there are guidelines that are set up that must be met. And some of these are--well, actually these guidelines are addressed under Twgdam, and Twgdam's a technical working group on DNA analysis and methods. And they set up criteria that must be addressed--
THE COURT: Excuse me. Miss Montgomery, the actual question was regarding government.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: There is no government approval process required at all, is there?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, there's not.
MR. BLASIER: And you're aware that with clinical testing involving new DNA techniques, they require extensive governmental regulation and approval by the FDA?
MR. HARMON: Objection. It's irrelevant, insufficient foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: But there's no such approval process like that required for a new system such as D1S80?
MR. HARMON: "No such approval" is vague, no foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: You indicated Twgdam, that there are guidelines that you must follow. Twgdam is a voluntary program, isn't it?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I believe--well, in our laboratory, it's not a voluntary program. It's something that must be followed--the guidelines have to be followed, first of all, for accreditation purposes and also because our laboratory believes in these--in Twgdam guidelines.
MR. BLASIER: There's no enforcement mechanism, however, is there, if you don't follow the guidelines? Are you aware of any?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I'm not aware of any.
MR. BLASIER: And Twgdam is a voluntary--you can run your lab without complying with Twgdam, can't you?
MR. HARMON: Objection. Argumentative, your Honor.
MS. MONTGOMERY: I'm not quite sure.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: So you're not sure whether Twgdam is mandatory or not in terms of you being governed by someone other than yourselves?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, I'm not.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the D1S80 system is really the newest system compared to DQ-Alpha, polymarkers and RFLP; is it not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, compared to those three, yes. But there are other techniques that are being looked at at this time.
MR. BLASIER: There are other techniques that are even newer than D1S80, aren't there?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I'm sorry. Not techniques. I mean markers, because the technique in general is a PCR technique. But it's actually the marker that's--that's the new part of it.
MR. BLASIER: Well, but this is--you described it as a marriage between RFLP and PCR. It's a different system than just PCR and just RFLP, isn't it?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct. It's incorporating the two techniques into one.
MR. BLASIER: And just as it might have the strengths of both systems, it also has the weaknesses of both systems put together?
MR. HARMON: Objection. No foundation, assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Any indication that it works any better than PCR, DQ-Alpha or any better than RFLP?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, I believe that all three of these systems are equally reliable and can give reproducible results. I don't see any of them as being better than the other as far as obtaining results. The difference is, as Dr. Cotton and Mr. Sims stated, is with the RFLP, that you can--you need larger amounts of samples and et cetera.
MR. BLASIER: You're aware of the areas of PCR technology where there can be problems such as contamination; are you not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. We're always concerned with contamination.
MR. BLASIER: And that applies with D1S80; does it not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, it does.
MR. BLASIER: Because it is a PCR process, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: So it has all of the potential problems that DQ-Alpha testing has; does it not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct. As far as sensitivity and contamination, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, with respect to the RFLP half of it, does it have some of the limitations that RFLP has with respect to the size of a sample that you need?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, it doesn't. And I guess I need to clarify how I meant by incorporating both RFLP and PCR. By incorporating the RFLP, you know, by the marriagement, it's the--we're looking at these repetitive sequences. And so just to clarify that issue, that's how it's similar to the RFLP process. As far as your question, you--I'm sorry. Could you restate your question?
MR. BLASIER: I think you answered it. Now, as being responsible for setting up this program, you're required or responsible for reviewing all of the relevant literature pertaining to D1S80; are you not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. I reviewed the literature.
MR. BLASIER: And did you spend a considerable amount of time doing that to make sure that you understood the technology?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And do you still keep up with that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I do.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree with--that with respect to D1S80, there's much, much less literature on it than there is, for instance, RFLP?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, that's true.
MR. BLASIER: And there's much, much less literature than there is with PCR, DQ-Alpha, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: It has been used in casework much less than PCR, DQ-Alpha and RFLP, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. DQ-Alpha's been around since 1986 or so.
MR. BLASIER: And during the course of your work at DOJ, you've only worked on 20 cases I believe. Is that what you said approximately?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. Approximately 20 cases. Each case involves more than just one sample though.
MR. BLASIER: And how many cases does your lab approximately handle in a year?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Hmm.
THE COURT: Counsel, you want to--are you talking DNA cases?
MR. BLASIER: DNA cases.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, our laboratory's not known for quick turn-around time. We tend to be a bit slow at doing cases. So each analyst does approximately two cases a month. That's what we strive for. And in our lab currently, we only have four, I'd say four and a half individuals doing cases. So in the past year, I--this would just be a guess, but, you know, let's say probably around--
MR. BLASIER: A hundred?
MS. MONTGOMERY: --80 to a hundred cases.
MR. BLASIER: And so the--in the 20 cases that you've worked on, does that--is that all of the D1S80 cases?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, it's not.
MR. BLASIER: Would it be fair to say that the D1S80 cases are a relatively small percentage of the total cases that DOJ handles with DNA testing?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, anytime there's a small amount of sample, both the DQ-Alpha and the D1S80 system would be used unless the individual is excluded on one of the systems. Then the other system wouldn't be used at that time. So anytime we have the capability of using both systems, both systems will be used. If it's an RFLP case, then typically we only do the RFLP and we don't do the PCR typing.
MR. BLASIER: Now, cellmark doesn't do D1S80, do they?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, they don't.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Now, as of August of last year, had Department of Justice reported or testified about any D1S80 results in any case anywhere?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: How many approximately?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, I know of one case, and that's the case that I did in I believe it was the summer of last year in `94. I don't recall if any other cases were--if any of the other analysts have testified to D1S80--
MR. BLASIER: So all you can recall--
MS. MONTGOMERY: --at this time.
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry?
MS. MONTGOMERY: And so at this time, all I can recall is the one case that I've done.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you were asked some questions about proficiency testing, and I think you indicated that you had been involved in five proficiency tests?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: All D1S80?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Actually if I can review a document--
MR. BLASIER: Sure.
MS. MONTGOMERY: --answer that for you.
(Brief pause.)
MS. MONTGOMERY: And I believe this is the document that you've obtained on discovery.
MR. BLASIER: And how many of those proficiency tests involve D1S80?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Four of the five involve D1S80.
MR. BLASIER: And you indicated that you got those all right?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And what does that mean? Does that mean that you got the type that was expected that you'd get?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. That means that the results that were reported out by the laboratory were the expected results.
MR. BLASIER: Now, are these blind tests? Do you know you're being tested?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, we know we're being tested.
MR. BLASIER: And who prepares the samples?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Prepares them for--to send out to our laboratory?
MR. BLASIER: Yeah. Are those prepared in-house?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No. These proficiencies are prepared externally. We subscribe to two systems. One is CTS and another one is cellmark, and we also have in-house proficiencies that have to be done too.
MR. BLASIER: But these far are--the four that related to D1S80, were they externally provided or internally provided?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. These were internally provided.
MR. BLASIER: But you knew you were being tested?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: Did you know what the results were supposed to be?
MS. MONTGOMERY: N