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: No, I didn't.
MR. BLASIER: Let me show you--
MR. HARMON: Could we approach on this, your Honor?
THE COURT: All right. With the court reporter.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: We're over at sidebar. Mr. Harmon.
MR. HARMON: This is kind of where we're going to go with Mr. Yamauchi too. These proficiency tests, I think there's a 352 problem. I don't know if there's an offer of proof or if he just wants to go over the whole proficiency test. I understand from the Defense consultants the spin they want to put on these things, but they're either right or they're wrong, and I just wanted to alert you that we're going to spend an inordinate amount of time over the next two weeks if you allow them to go into every proficiency test without a specific offer of proof. I'm saying it's irrelevant I guess is the legal objection.
MR. BLASIER: I'm just going into one. The reason it's relevant is because they didn't get the right results. There's an allele there that's not supposed to be there. They're stating the result they got is right. In my view, it's misleading. This shows that, and that's the only one I'm going to cover.
THE COURT: All right. Objection overruled.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.
MR. BLASIER: Miss Montgomery, let me show you two pages of discovery, page 803, and ask if you recognize these as work sheets on a proficiency test that you did.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I do.
MR. BLASIER: And those are--that's just one proficiency test, is it not, that's--that was rehybridized twice or a second time?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. This is one proficiency test.
MR. BLASIER: So you're testing the same samples in both, both of those work sheets?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: But you're doing a different hybridization? Those represent two different hybridizations?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. And there are some different samples.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would like to have these marked.
THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson. 1172.
MR. BLASIER: 1172-A and B or--
THE COURT: Yeah. A and B.
(Deft's 1172-A and B for id = work sheets)
MR. BLASIER: I would like to put 1172-A on the elmo first.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Miss Montgomery, the two pages I showed you, one was numbered page 6 of 9 and the other was page 8 of 9. Do you recall that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I'd have to look at it again.
MR. BLASIER: And I want you to tell me which one of these you did first.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, actually, that's not my writing at the top of the page. My writing's at the bottom and I can not tell the whole--it hasn't been Xeroxed completely.
MR. BLASIER: Can you tell from your own notes?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, this is a proficiency. This isn't something that I brought to court with me today.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
MS. MONTGOMERY: But it appears that one says 14 of 22 and the other says 19 of and there's a 2. So--if I could see the original documents or a better copy, that would be even better. But just by looking at it, it appears that the 14 of 22, the other one's trying to say 19 of 22 maybe.
MR. BLASIER: Let me show you the rest of the document that those pages came from and see if that helps you.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yeah. It--it appears that this is--this second page is probably part of the same document. It has the same proficiency number and also has a date two days later. So this is the first one that has a date of the 18th of October and the second one would be the 20th of October.
MR. BLASIER: All right. For the record, she's referring to 1172-A as the first one and 1172-B as the second one.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. BLASIER: Let's look at 1172-A. Let me give you the rest of this packet in case you need to refer to it.
MS. MONTGOMERY: And do you also have the original or a copy of the photos that go with these?
MR. BLASIER: I don't believe we do. Now, this is the work sheet--what we have up on the elmo is the work sheet that describes what results you saw after you performed the test, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yeah. This multi media, I can't decide what to look at.
MR. BLASIER: Whatever's easiest.
MS. MONTGOMERY: The clarity is not very good on this. So maybe if I came down there, it would be easier for me to see.
MR. BLASIER: Sure.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: Can we pull it in a little bit to the 432-51? Right there. That's good.
MR. BLASIER: 432-51, that line refers to one of the samples that was provided in the proficiency test, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Actually that's dash S. That's an S.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. And that's one of the samples you were supposed to type and get a result, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And QC839 in the middle of the screen there toward the bottom, what's that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That's a quality control. What would be more helpful is if I had the whole file on this. It's difficult just to take this all out of context to actually see what the notes are prior to the samples being written on here because a lot of times, what you want to do--when you talk about sample, you can't write everything that pertains to that particular sample. So you write a certain section in that sample, and then in your actual--the body of your notes, you write a little more description.
MR. BLASIER: What you write in the little boxes there is what you see on the dots. Or I'm sorry--
MS. MONTGOMERY: I'm sorry. I'm talking about--
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry.
MS. MONTGOMERY: I'm talking about the sample lane.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, this is actually a DQ-Alpha proficiency test, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And what you write in the boxes there is what you see on the dots, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct. Now, you're over to the dots.
MR. BLASIER: Yeah. On QC839, do you see where it says there's a hint of a 1.3?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I see that.
MR. BLASIER: That's not the correct result for QC839, is it?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No. That must be the correct result because this goes through approval. We have this approval process where, first of all, a second reader reads the strips and then the results are given to a supervisor to review the whole case, and the QCs are unknown to us and the supervisor reviews the results of your QC. And if you--and they check to make sure those QCs are giving the proper results. If the QC doesn't give the proper results, then something needs to be done.
MR. BLASIER: The box under "Type," that's the type of that quality control sample; is it not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And that's indicated as a 1.1, 3, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Right.
MR. BLASIER: Nothing in there about a 1.3, is there?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Oh, no, because that's a hint. It's--
MR. BLASIER: What's the diff--what's a hint?
MS. MONTGOMERY: A hint is just an indication of some--I believe Gary Sims talked to you yesterday or the day--or a couple days ago about this. When you look at the DQ-Alpha strips where there are a series of the dots and next to the 1.3 in this case, if I document--if I wrote that that's a hint, then there was some outline or a hint of some activity seen at that dot. But it was significantly less than the C dot. So it was--it had to be documented, but it wasn't significant to the analysis. When--in our laboratories, things need to be C or greater before they're actually called.
MR. BLASIER: If this were a mixture, however, you interpret mixtures where you have dots less than the C dots as being alleles, don't you?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Dots less than the C dot?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MS. MONTGOMERY: If you see a C dot, then that would--you do report that out. As far as a C minus or a trace or a hint, you note it, but as far as any interpretation, one needs to be cautious about interpretation on that.
MR. BLASIER: You're not supposed to see anything at the 1.3 dot with a quality control sample that's a 1.1, 3, are you?
MR. HARMON: Objection. That's argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: Are you supposed to see anything in the 1.3 dot with the quality control sample that it's a 1.1 and a 3?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, if you--you shouldn't see a substantial amount of activity at that 1.3 if that's truly--if that is a 1.1, 3. It's one of the limitations of the system; at the 1.3, you could get cross-hybridization. And this is where sequence that's complimentary or to the 1.3 will actually cause some hybriding--or cause some of the 1.3 dot to show up. But this is just an artifact of the system and at such a low level, one wouldn't even interpret that result.
MR. BLASIER: So you can get 1.3 dots when there's nothing there?
MS. MONTGOMERY: When there's--
MR. HARMON: Objection. Vague as to "Dots," argumentative.
MR. BLASIER: When there's--
MR. BLASIER: Let me rephrase it.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: You can get a 1.3 dot when there's no DNA there?
MS. MONTGOMERY: It's not a dot that would be interpretable. As I stated, that's--that's a hint. It's not a C dot. The intensity is substantially less than that C, the C dot.
MR. BLASIER: What's the difference between a hint and a trace?
MS. MONTGOMERY: We have a--in our laboratory, we have a scale of progression on how to call these dots. An outline hint means there's a--you can see something on the strip, but it's just a small amount. A trace is a little more and then there's a C minus and then a C and then a C plus.
MR. BLASIER: What's a trace? Is a trace an indication of some DNA there?
MS. MONTGOMERY: A trace is a little more than a hint, but once again, it's not significant for the analysis. It just happens to be an artifact or a limitation of the sys--or not a limitation. An artifact of the system. A trace would not be interpreted in the results.
MR. BLASIER: What's the difference between a system that gives you artifacts and a system that has limitations that gives you an artifact?
MR. HARMON: Objection. That's argumentative, compound.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you indicated it wasn't a limitation of the system?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Right.
MR. BLASIER: Whose fault is it that you get dots at 1.3 when there's no DNA there?
MR. HARMON: Objection. That's argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: Are the 1.3 dots caused by limitations in the system or something else?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, it's caused by a little of both. And what happens--you know, these are not significant dots. They're hints and traces. They aren't--they would not be counted in your interpretation. But what happens is, if a--with slight variations in the typing, some trace amounts of 1.3 activity can be seen on the strips. And it's--I guess one could say it's a limitation as Mr. Blasier says, but also it's an artifact of the system. And if it was something--these dots are so faint and so weak that, you know, as I have said, it just wouldn't be counted in your interpretation.
MR. BLASIER: It could also be a minor component of a mixture that has a 1.3 and a small quantity in it, couldn't it?
MS. MONTGOMERY: It could be, but it wouldn't be interpreted at that level.
MR. BLASIER: And is there some sort of uniform scale within the forensic community by which you determine the difference between a hint and a trace?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No.
MR. BLASIER: Does it have anything to do with the results that you expect to get out of a test as to whether you're going to call it a hint or a trace or a C minus?
MR. HARMON: Objection. That's argumentative.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MONTGOMERY: No.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the positive control, the lane second from the bottom, that was supposed to be a 1.1, 4, correct? That's what the type was that was put in that lane, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That is a 1.1, 4.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you got a trace of a 1.3 in that lane, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And that's more than the hint in the quality control sample?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, it is. As I said, on our scale of progression, a trace is slightly greater than a hint.
MR. BLASIER: Now, are you supposed to get these kinds of traces and hints when you perform tests? Are they expected?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, they're not.
MR. BLASIER: So this is an unexpected result; is it not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: This is something that you--it's not unexpected. I think "Unexpected" is a bad word to use with it. It's something--as I said, it's just an artifact of the system, and by doing reanalysis, you could probably get rid of those hints and traces.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Let's talk about the reanalysis which is the page 2, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: This is 1172-B. Now, you did this one again, the one we just looked at, and the sheet that's on the elmo is the results of the second run or second hybridization on the same samples; is that correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. Some of the samples are the same.
MR. BLASIER: Why did you run it the second time?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I'd have to see the notes to know why.
MR. BLASIER: Is there anything in that packet there that tells you?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No.
MR. BLASIER: Well, what--ordinarily, what would be your reason for running a proficiency test a second time?
MS. MONTGOMERY: There could be various reasons. I think I'd need to see the actual--my actual notes to be able to explain why I reran this a second time.
MR. BLASIER: Would one reason be the hints and the traces that you got the first time?
MR. HARMON: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: If the results that you got on the first one were totally as expected, would you have any reason to run it a second time?
MR. HARMON: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, that's possible. You know, I would--I would need to see the actual--to speculate on this or it's best not to speculate. It's best to actually see my notes in this particular instance.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, these are your notes with respect to how you read the strips, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Right.
MR. BLASIER: Now, let's look at 432S1, the top lane. That's the first one. Now, would you agree that you found that there was a hint at 1.3 and a hint at 1.1 that was unexpected?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Once again, by saying "Unexpected," I think you're--you're putting more emphasis on it than you should. There was--I did notice hints in both of those samples. And once again, the hint is not significant to the results of that analysis.
MR. BLASIER: So these are hints that show up now in the same sample that didn't show up the first time you did it, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Could you put the first one back up?
MR. BLASIER: You've got the first one in your hand.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Oh, you're right. Yes. Yes.
MR. BLASIER: They did not show up the first time, did they?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, in 433S2, we've got a trace at 1.1 and a trace at 1.3 that don't conform to the genotype of the sample which is 1.2, 3, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And that didn't show up the first time you did that sample, did it?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: 434S3, we now have a trace at 1.1 that is not consistent with the type of that sample which is a 4, 4, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Right.
MR. BLASIER: Now, quality control sample 839, we have two hints that are inconsistent with the genotype of that quality control, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, no. They're not inconsistent with the genotype of that quality control. I have to keep emphasizing that a hint is not significant. A hint is just noting that something--you're seeing a little darkening in the dot and it's not significant to your interpretation. The results of that QC are 1.1, 3 and those were the correct results.
MR. BLASIER: Isn't one of the tests of whether a system like this is a reliable system, whether or not if you do the same samples two times, you're supposed to get the same results, aren't you?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. And as you can see in this case, the same results were obtained.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. You can resume your seat.
(The witness complies.)
MR. BLASIER: So is it fair to say that this one particular proficiency test that we've looked at is an example of one which has been scored in some fashion that you got the right answers?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. The right results were obtained from that proficiency.
MR. BLASIER: Who grades these?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Excuse me?
MR. BLASIER: Who grades these?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Grades them. The individuals review them. First of all, my--the--a supervisor in the laboratory would review the results, and then secondly, a--the outside agency that submitted the samples to us would review our results and then determine--send out a result whether we obtained the correct results or not.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know what a laminar flow hood is?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I do.
MR. BLASIER: And do you use that--performing any kind of PCR amplification, the various steps that you perform in that test, do you do them within a laminar flow hood?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. I do the set-up of the amplification in a laminar flow hood.
MR. BLASIER: Would you ever use a hood that is called a flume hood I believe that sucks air from the outside of the lab into the area of the hood and then out?
MR. HARMON: Objection. Irrelevant.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Laminar flow hood, is that something that's pretty standard in terms of your education as a criminalist that you're taught what that is and how to use it?
MR. HARMON: Objection. It's irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, it's--it's just a hood that has air flow and a window of air that separates the inside environment from the outside environment, and there's really not much training on it. You just turn the switch on to activate the hood.
MR. BLASIER: But you're taught what a laminar flow hood is, aren't you?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I don't recall being taught. It's just something that I'm aware of, something that I'm familiar with.
MR. BLASIER: The kits that you use to perform DQ-Alpha and D1S80 tests require that you do them in a laminar flow hood, don't they?
MR. HARMON: Objection. Vague as to "Require."
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: The kits that you use that are provided by Roche that produces the kits state that various steps should be done in a laminar flow hood?
MR. HARMON: Objection. That's still vague, "Various steps," your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MONTGOMERY: I'm not quite sure. I don't recall seeing that in there. If you could show me the section.
MR. BLASIER: I'll get that at the break. Have any of the proficiency tests that you've taken involved mixed bloodstains?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, I don't believe so.
MR. BLASIER: Most of the or many of the stains that you looked at in this case, you--your test results indicated could be mixed stains, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Some of them, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And so you've never undergone any kind of testing to see whether you're able to do mixed bloodstains accurately?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No. That's incorrect.
MR. BLASIER: What kind of testing have you undergone for that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I've--part of the validation process of the D1S80 marker, I looked at mixed--mixed samples, and these were both mixed--they're mixed DNA's. So not actually the mixed bloodstain together, but the DNA or an extraction process where the two DNA's were mixed together. And I looked at that during the validation process in use in our laboratory. And I believe that's the only--those are the mixed bloods that were examined. There are mixed samples that are examined also in the laboratory and this--sexual assault samples, you know, vaginal swabs where you'll have epithelial cells and then if there's sperm present also.
MR. BLASIER: But there are no proficiency tests that you've taken that involve mixed samples of blood, are there?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, you know, I was just looking at this as you were or as I was talking, and it's--one of the proficiencies I did was blood semen mix. And that was a cellmark proficiency. And so that's where some of the blood and semen was mixed together. It wasn't two bloodstains, but it was two different samples mixed together and one of them happened to be a bloodstain.
MR. BLASIER: Without getting into any detail, sexual assault samples are different than mixed blood samples, aren't they?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Right. But this--correct.
MR. BLASIER: You have other methods that you can use, a differential lysis to split them apart, can't you?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: But you can't do it with bloodstains?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Right.
MR. BLASIER: Incidentally, did you perform any kind of analysis on any of the stains that you looked at under the microscope to determine whether you could tell if there was a saliva component to any of these mixed stains?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No. As I stated earlier, Mr. Sims looked at all the evidence initially and I did the D1S80 or DQ-Alpha analysis on the samples after he examined the samples.
MR. BLASIER: So you have no way of determining whether any of the components of the mixtures you testified to are--have saliva contributions from a source as opposed to blood?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to ask you some questions about the victims' clothing with respect to the D1S80 results. Do you have that in mind?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. I'll--I'll pull up the notes.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Could we have slide--we need to have a number for slide presentation.
THE COURT: All right. Next in order will be 1173. 1173.
(Deft's 1173-A through I for id = slides)
MR. BLASIER: And could we have the fourth slide, which is d?
THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, 1173.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Now could we have slide e?
MR. BLASIER: Now, Miss Montgomery, you conducted tests on three items of clothing, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I conducted analysis on two items of clothing and Steve Myers in our laboratory examined Nicole Simpson's dress.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. And the two items that you looked at were the shirt and the pants of Ronald Goldman?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And the dress was looked at by Steve Myers, that was Nicole Brown Simpson's dress?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Actually the DNA was analyzed. The items were looked at by someone else.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. And there were certain D1S80 results that came out of that analysis of those three items, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I've indicated on my chart up there that I've--I just color-coded it so it's a little easier to understand.
MR. BLASIER: Could we have slide F.
MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that from your results, yours and Steve Myers' results, there were six stains looked at on Nicole Brown Simpson's dress, three of which indicated a contribution by--possibly by Ronald Goldman?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I'm referring to the report at this time.
MR. BLASIER: Sure.
(Brief pause.)
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. A total of six stains were examined and three of the stains had a weaker contribution of a 24 allele.
MR. BLASIER: Now, could we have slide g, please.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that there were nine stains examined from Ronald Goldman's jeans, five of which had an indication of an 18 allele which is consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, four of them had a weaker 18 allele. One of them had G6 from the left thigh area, had a possible trace 18. And that's what I had talked about earlier, where there was a darkening on the band, but it could not definitely be determined that it was a band.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. And can we have slide H.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that there were eight stains examined from Ronald Goldman's shirt and all eight of those stains showed an 18 allele consistent with Nicole Brown Simpson?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, could we have slide I, please.
MR. BLASIER: Now, to summarize, there were a total of 23 stains tested on these three items of clothing, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: You added up the numbers that you--
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Okay. Yes. I'll take your word for it.
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry. 16 of those stains--let's make that 15 since you said the one was just a trace--indicated mixtures containing possibly both victims?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, is it also accurate to say that of all of those 23 stains, O.J. Simpson is excluded?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that--
MR. BLASIER: Could we go back to slide h, please. That's okay.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that this is a fairly--withdraw. The shirt that was tested, these were stains that were taken from all over the shirt, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I'll have to look at the notes.
MR. BLASIER: Let me withdraw that one and I'll ask you another one. Did you do any of the cuttings on the shirt for these stains?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, I did not.
MR. BLASIER: And did you examine the shirt at all?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No.
MR. BLASIER: Ever? Did you see Gary Sims examining it at all?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, I don't recall looking--seeing it.
MR. BLASIER: There was a considerable amount of blood on the shirt; was there not? Do you know that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: From some of the photos I've seen, it appeared to be.
MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that one way that there could be such carry-over from one victim to the other would be if the clothes came into contact in some way?
MR. HARMON: Objection. Calls for speculation, argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Now, Miss Montgomery, can you tell us in your opinion, how would you get the kind of mixed stains on both sets of clothing in so many different stains?
MR. HARMON: Objection. It's argumentative, may call for speculation the way it's phrased.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Now, one of the stains on I believe it was the shirt was the substrate control; was it not? Actually, it wasn't a stain. It was a control.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct. There was a substrate control submitted or substrate control taken with that.
MR. BLASIER: And do you know who made the cutting for the substrate control?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, I do not.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the substrate control, we've had a lot of testimony about what they are. But just very briefly, that's supposed to be an area of the shirt where there's no apparent tape, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Right. It's best to take a substrate control that--close to the stain in question, but without any biological fluid that's detectable such as no blood present.
MR. BLASIER: And would you agree that that substrate control showed the presence of alleles?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I believe it did.
MR. BLASIER: And is that an indication that there can be enough blood or biological material in the sample to cause a result where you can't see it on the original sample?
MR. HARMON: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence if that's the case.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Umm, could you rephrase that?
MR. BLASIER: Yeah. There are two possible ways that could happen. One is, the controls failed, correct, if you get a reading on a substrate control that's supposed to be empty?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, the substrate control is to test what the background of that substrate is.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
MS. MONTGOMERY: So I wouldn't say it failed.
MR. BLASIER: Well, "Failed" probably was the wrong term. If it shows something, it indicates that there's DNA there?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And this particular control showed that there was DNA in an area of the shirt where there didn't appear to be any stain?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, it showed an 18 allele in a region that was called a control.
MR. BLASIER: Was that a yes?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, if it was taken as a control, then the individual wanted to see what the background of that material was, and it did show some activity in the background of that material.
MR. BLASIER: But by definition, that would have been an area that didn't have any apparent stain?
MR. HARMON: Objection. That's argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Substrate control, is that supposed to be an area that doesn't show any apparent stain?
MR. HARMON: Same objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. As I stated, the substrate control should be an area that's near the stain, but one that does not give you a presumptive test for blood or anything such as that.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I want to ask you some questions about the specific testing that you performed in this case. Do you have your notes with you?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I do. Excuse me.
MR. BLASIER: Could you refer to page 5 of your notes?
THE COURT: Excuse me. Mrs. Robertson.
MS. MONTGOMERY: I'm sorry. What page was that?
MR. BLASIER: 5.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Now, you on I believe it was August 6th of 1994, you started testing, and you started to test the reference samples to see what the types were, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Thank you. I believe the analysis began on August 4th of 1994.
MR. BLASIER: And you amplified--you tried to amplify Mr. Simpson's reference sample the first time and you got no results, did you?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And that was a sample that you assumed came from Mr. Simpson because it was in the reference file labeled Mr. Simpson, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, actually that was a tube. Gary Sims examined the bloodstains that were submitted pertaining to O.J. Simpson, Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown, and he took a portion of the bloodstain and put it into a centrifuge tube and then he gave me those tubes for the extraction process. And so the tube was labeled--I have it specifically--he labeled it with our case number, he labeled it with the evidence number and then he labeled it O.J. Simpson.
MR. BLASIER: Now, that was a sample that you expected to have bands show up, but nothing showed up, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. That's a sample, reference bloodstain from the individual.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you had to do that one over again, didn't you?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And that was because you got no bands the first time?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. There was inhibition in that sample. So there was no visible band on the D1S80 gel for O.J. Simpson's reference bloodstain.
MR. BLASIER: Now "Inhibition" is a term that I think we've heard it a couple of times. But that means that something happens with the DNA that the alleles don't amplify. Is that an accurate description?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. It's during the amplification process. Somehow, there's inhibition of the polymerase to--for the amplification of that specific allele.
MR. BLASIER: And that can occur in samples other than reference samples too, can't it?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Oh, yes.
MR. BLASIER: So in mixed samples, you can have inhibition, and some of the alleles that might be there don't show up?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That's unlikely. If you--when you have inhibition, the whole sample is inhibited. You don't just have inhibition of select alleles within an amplification.
MR. BLASIER: I thought you just said a question or so ago that you could have alleles that don't show up because of inhibition?
MR. HARMON: Objection. That's argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: So you're saying that if there's going to be any inhibition at all, all of the alleles are going to be inhibited?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. You would have inhibition of the sample, not inhibition of one particular allele, but inhibition of the alleles in general.
MR. BLASIER: Can you have partial inhibition in--question mark?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I've--I have not seen partial inhibition, no.
MR. BLASIER: You can have differences in the efficiency of the amplification; can you not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, the system has been optimized so you don't get any of this--what was the word you stated?
MR. BLASIER: Inhibition?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, the system has been optimized so you don't have some of the partial amplification of alleles.
MR. BLASIER: When you say it's been optimized, what do you mean?
MS. MONTGOMERY: It's been optimized both at the manufacturer and also through validation studies, an in-house evaluation of the system. And this, as I was talking about, the Twgdam requirement, this was one of the requirements that had to be addressed before D1S80 or any PCR marker can be used in the laboratory.
MR. BLASIER: You're not aware of the phenomenon where a minor component of a mixture might get lost in the amplification process and not show up in typing because of the relative quantities of the two contributors?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Oh, now you're talking a different thing. Now, what you're referring to is stoichiometric effect where if you have a minor component, that it's possible--depending on how much of that minor component is present, it's possible not to see the other contribution. But that would be at very low levels of DNA.
THE COURT: All right. Would you spell stoichiometric for the reporter?
MS. MONTGOMERY: S-T-O--I believe I need to write it down.
MR. BLASIER: S-T-O-C-H-I-O-M-E-T-R-I-C.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: I think.
THE COURT: We'll accept that.
MR. BLASIER: The test in this case, some of the minor components of the mixtures involved very small amounts of DNA, didn't they?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Small relative to the initial start--initial DNA, but not small as I was referring to just in your previous question.
MR. BLASIER: So the amounts that you used in this case, you would never expect to see an allele drop out in amplification?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, there was some samples where we amplified a small amount by DQ-Alpha and I believe it was--I'd have to look at my notes, but I believe it was 400 picograms that was amplified. But with D1S80, we--the smallest amount that was amplified I believe was 800, and typically we were amplifying well over one nanogram of DNA.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you also had a problem with one of your standards in the D1S80 tests that you performed in this case; did you not? I'm referring to page 28 and 29 of your notes.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. That's not--that does not have anything to do with the D1S80 system though, and what that is is a slot blot.
MR. BLASIER: Well, the slot blot--you used the slot blot to determine the quantity that you were then going to use for the D1S80 gels, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And one of the standards didn't work right, did it?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Right. On this one, one of the higher standards, it was a 40 nanogram, that was outside of the range that we were even comparing our samples to. These are the standards that are used for comparison with our unknown DNA's. And one of the 40 nanograms was--was out of balance compared to some of the other standards that were on the gel.
MR. BLASIER: And you had to discard that particular standard because of that; did you not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. I threw that standard away.
MR. BLASIER: Did you do the slot blot over again?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, I don't believe I did because the 40-nanogram standard was irrelevant on the results of the other samples that were on the gel because everything was at a lower level and it wasn't--the 40-nanogram standard wasn't used as a comparison for the unknown samples.
MR. BLASIER: So when something goes wrong with the test, you make some kind of an assessment that whether it really would affect your results or not in deciding whether you do something over again?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. One needs to--if something such as that where the 40-nanogram standard was less intense than the 20-nanogram standard, if something like that happens, one should troubleshoot it and determine what is happening. And if it appears that it had any bearing on--or any bearing on your results, then your analysis needs to be repeated. In this particular case, it was shown that the 40-nanogram standard was irrelevant because what I was looking at was low levels of DNA in the unknown samples. And so I was comparing at the lower levels, the lower-level standards as opposed to the 40-nanogram standards. So--and basically that 40-nanogram standard did not even need to be placed on that gel.
MR. BLASIER: So your answer is yes. Can we put that down as a yes?
MS. MONTGOMERY: You'd--actually you'd have to reask the question, please.
MR. BLASIER: You also had a problem--I'll pass on that. You also had a problem with the Rockingham glove, didn't you?
MR. HARMON: Objection. Vague as to "Problem."
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Refer you to page 46 of your notes. The first time you did it, you had a problem, didn't you?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Oh, yes. That gel was reanalyzed.
MR. BLASIER: And what happened was, the ladder was smeared and distorted and you had some crossover from one lane to another on the gel, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. And this demonstrates that when something is unacceptable in our laboratory, we do reanalysis of the samples. If there's ever any question, then we reanalyze samples.
MR. BLASIER: Now, let me refer you to page 62 of your notes. One of the standards that's used on these gels--and let me ask if we could have some photographs marked. Actually let me use one of the Prosecution's, exhibits 275-H.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Can we show that on the elmo, please?
MR. BLASIER: I just want to use this for illustrative purposes. The--if we count three lanes over from the left--
MS. MONTGOMERY: I'll need to come down there to get a look at it.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Three lanes over from the left is called the one-nanogram control lane; is it not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, it is.
MR. BLASIER: And that is a known sample that has genotype 1831, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. That's a--that's an additional standard that's placed on the gel. It's provided within the Roche kit. And as you can see, the first lane--if I had the little telestrator, I could--
MR. BLASIER: Well, I'll show you another picture. We can highlight the other picture.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: That is supposed to be--that's supposed to come up 1831 each time you do it, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, that's an additional control. The one--the control that must--
THE COURT: Excuse me. Miss Montgomery, the question was, is that what comes up.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Could you--I'm sorry. What--
MR. BLASIER: That one-nanogram control, that's one of the controls that you use and that's supposed to light up at 1831 if your test is being done properly?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes and no. That is a--an additional control, but the control in question that must respond properly is the first one in that--after the ladder, and that's the four-nanogram control of an 1831.
MR. BLASIER: And the bands on the one-nanogram control, should they be of equal intensity?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. They're--yes, they should. But the one--the one in question is actually the four-nanogram.
MR. BLASIER: No. The one I'm asking about is the one-nanogram.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Right.
MR. BLASIER: Should those be of equal intensity?
MS. MONTGOMERY: One would want them to be of equal intensity, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Well--you can resume your seat, please.
(The witness complies.)
MR. BLASIER: I believe you indicated on direct that your system has been optimized so bands with equal amounts of DNA will show up with equal intensity. Did I hear that right?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: Miss Montgomery, I showed you a series of pictures or I gave them to you at lunch for you to look at to see if they were accurate pictures of some of the films that we've already seen, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And did you agree that the packet I gave you was an accurate--these were accurate pictures of your films?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, they were.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I need to have these marked.
MR. BLASIER: Let me ask you just to look at these again just to satisfy yourself that they're the same.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier, I think these would be 1174. How many do you have?
MR. BLASIER: There are one, two, three, four--seven pictures.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Do we have photo no. 96? And this is--your Honor, what was the first number?
THE COURT: 1174.
(Deft's 1174 for id = photograph)
MR. BLASIER: Now, Miss Montgomery, this is the--this is just a picture of the film that you showed us that contains the Bronco samples, no. 30, 31 and 293, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And I'm going to highlight or I'm going to--actually I'm going to magnify the one-nanogram control lane.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Mr. Blasier, are we going to go through all of these at this time? Would it be easier if I just stayed down at the--
MR. BLASIER: Well, I think you should be able to see these on the monitor. Now, you agree that the lane there on the right is the one-nanogram control lane?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you can refer to page 70 of your notes. Would you agree that when you read this, you read the 18 band of that one-nanogram control as being brighter than the 31 band? It's a little difficult to see in the picture. That's why I referred you to your notes.
MS. MONTGOMERY: I'm--you said page 70 of my notes?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Could you show me the full scale of this?
MR. BLASIER: The picture?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yeah.
MR. BLASIER: Sure.
MS. MONTGOMERY: It's difficult looking at it out of context.
(Brief pause.)
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. That's not page 70 of my notes.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Do you have the page of your notes that shows your work sheet for items 30, 31 and 293? Let me show you my copy.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Actually, yes. It's page 44.
MR. BLASIER: Page 44?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that your notes indicate that the 18 is more intense than the 31?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No. I disagree with that.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
MS. MONTGOMERY: My notes don't indicate that at all.
MR. BLASIER: All right. Take a look at page 70 of your notes. Are you looking at your notes?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I am.
MR. BLASIER: That was--that's your run sheet from which samples?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Page 70, this is AG, analytical gel, 267, and this is a composite of many samples, quality control samples, positive controls from different amplification days and also two controls relating--two control samples relating to the Bronco, and those are DNA 17--DNA's our DOJ number--17, which is what, LAPD 30, and then also DNA 18 control, which is LAPD 31.
MR. BLASIER: So that's--is that a different run of the same samples that we showed in the last picture?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, the first picture you showed was actual samples that were taken. The samples that related to the controls of the Bronco, they were samples DNA 17 and DNA 18. Those were two Bronco samples. And then on the next gel, the one you're referring to now, AG 267, those are the controls that go with the Bronco samples on that previous gel.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. And those controls were done at a different time than the samples to which they belonged?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. There's only a limited space on a gel. You can't--sometimes you can't fit all the samples.
MR. BLASIER: Well, on many of these runs, you did put the control samples with the samples to which they belonged; did you not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. When--when there's enough space, I'll put as many samples as I can on the gel. But if there's not enough space, then you're limited with the number you can put on the gel and you'll have to put it on a different--a separate gel.
MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree on your run for the controls, page 70 of your notes, that you determined that the 18 band in your standard, one-nanogram standard band was greater than the 31 band?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Umm--no. The positive control that goes with those control samples functioned properly.
MR. BLASIER: My question was, did you note in your run sheet that 18 was brighter than 31?
MR. HARMON: Objection, vague as to which control.
MR. BLASIER: One-nanogram control lane.
THE COURT: That's fine.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Oh, okay. The one-nanogram control. Now, this pertains to a different amplification. This doesn't pertain to the controls that were put with the Bronco. And yeah, there was an 18, a weak 18, and the 31, there was a hint at the 31. There was a difference in the intensity of those alleles.
MR. BLASIER: And your four-nanogram control lane also had a difference in intensity; did they not--did it not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, it did. There was a gel problem on that region of the gel. That was the--the farther region of the gel, the last four lanes.
MR. BLASIER: That's not the way those controls are supposed to work, is it? They're supposed to be of equal intensity, aren't they?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. We've optimized the amplification so you get equal intensity of those alleles. This was a gel effect.
MR. BLASIER: Somehow this one didn't get optimized.
MS. MONTGOMERY: No. This was a gel effect. This isn't an amplification effect.
MR. BLASIER: So there are some effects on the gel that can cause there to be different intensities of bands in the same lane?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. I mean that was demonstrated on that particular sample, on those samples towards the further region of the gel, that there was a discrepancy between those alleles. And it's a gel art--or it's a gel polymerization problem.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you also indicated on your work sheet for that--those controls that your 31A allele was smeared and not well defined. Is that also--is that another manifestation of the gel problem?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I'm sorry. What--which sample?
MR. BLASIER: The same one we were looking at, page 70.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. And that gave you an indication that that--that region of the gel wasn't functioning properly.
MR. BLASIER: Now, let me refer you to page 62 of your notes. And that was the run for the positive controls for what? Actually those are sock samples; are they not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, they are.
MR. BLASIER: And you have both some controls and some of the evidence samples on that run, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And you had a problem on that run as well, did you not, with your 31 band?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Now--well, that wasn't a problem because on this run, four nanograms--no, that wasn't a problem.
MR. BLASIER: It didn't come out the way it was supposed to come out, did it?
MS. MONTGOMERY: The one-nanogram control had--the 31 band was darker than the 18 band, and that's for the one-nanogram control. The four-nanogram control gave equal intensity of the two alleles.
MR. BLASIER: The one-nanogram control was supposed to also give you bands of equal intensity, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, the one-nanogram control, you would like to have equal intensity of those two alleles, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And--
MS. MONTGOMERY: But there--
MR. BLASIER: Go ahead.
MS. MONTGOMERY: I'm sorry. There are situations where you don't get equal intensity of those two alleles. And that's why at lower levels of DNA amplification, you need to be cautious with your interpretation. That's why you strive to amplify more than a nanogram of DNA.
MR. BLASIER: Doesn't that mean that with small concentrations of DNA, you can't really make very precise assessments about band intensity vis-à-vis who the contributor was?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, you're saying with--when you have a low level of DNA, that it's difficult to tell which bands go to which bands? Is that what you're saying?
MR. BLASIER: You have to be much more cautious in terms of trying to determine who contributed what bands when you're talking about low levels of DNA?
MS. MONTGOMERY: If you're talking about very low levels of DNA, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, we've talked about the--your being unable to amplify Mr. Simpson's standard--or reference sample the first time, problems with the standard--the glove that you had to redo, the gel problems that you've had and the 31 control band that we've talked about. Is this number of problems typical for the D1S80 system?
MR. HARMON: Objection. That's argumentative, compound.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: Did you ordinarily have these types of problems with D1S80 or in this case, did you have more problems than usual?
MR. HARMON: Objection. "Problems" is argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: These kinds of things going wrong, is this typical of this system?
MR. HARMON: Same objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MONTGOMERY: With the amplification, that's a PCR phenomenon, the fact that the reference sample did not amplify. And as far as the other--the other things, the one-nanogram control is used or the one-nanogram standard is used as an additional control. The main control that we're concerned with is the four-nanogram, and we want to see equal intensity of those four-nanogram controls. The system, I have all the confidence in the system and with the results of the system. So if that answers your question.
MR. BLASIER: I move to strike all of that as nonresponsive.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: Was that a yes or a no? Are these the kinds of things that happen routinely with the D1S80 system?
MR. HARMON: Objection. It's argumentative, it's been asked and answered.
THE COURT: Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: The things we've just been talking about, are these typical of the D1S80 system?
MS. MONTGOMERY: They're not typical, no.
MR. BLASIER: So more things like we've described happened with respect to this case than you would expect to see in other D1S80 cases?
MR. HARMON: Objection. It's argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. You said it's not typical. Would you expect in D1S80 system on a particular case there to be more problems like this or less?
MR. HARMON: Objection. It's compound.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Over 20 gels were run in this particular case, which is more than most cases. And as far as the problems, there were no significant problems. There was reanalysis on a few of the gels, but nothing was significant to cause problems with this result. I--there were not more problems seen in this particular case than seen, you know, with D1S80 analysis and they weren't major problems.
MR. BLASIER: So when you said that this was not typical, you were indicating that in other cases, you're likely to see more types of things like this?
MR. HARMON: Objection. It's argumentative, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: Well, you said this wasn't typical, and I asked you, are there more things, problem areas let's call them, here than in a typical case. And I don't think you answered that. Could you answer that?
MR. HARMON: Objection. It's compound, it's argumentative, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MONTGOMERY: By typical doesn't mean--it's not routine that you see some of these phenomenons occurring. That's what I meant by it's not typical.
MR. BLASIER: So in ordinary cases, you don't see these kinds of things happen. Is that what you said?
MS. MONTGOMERY: In ordinary cases. Umm, I'm not quite sure what you mean.
MR. BLASIER: May we have photo 100, please? And this will be 1175?
THE COURT: 1175.
(Deft's 1175 for id = photograph)
MR. BLASIER: Now, Miss Montgomery, could you take a look at this and tell me which run this is? This is--I'll tell you. It's AG184, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And this was the run where you did samples from the Bundy drops, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, it was.
MR. BLASIER: Now, on this sample, you did both samples of those drops as well as some of the controls; did you not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And the writing at the top is--that just identifies what's in the lane below it, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. That's--actually that's Dr. Blake's writing and his photographs.
MR. BLASIER: But do you concur that he has properly labeled the lanes?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, he has.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the last two lanes over here--I've got the little arrow on it--the first one is DOJ 24. And what is that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: DOJ 24 as written here is what we call DNA 24. Dr. Blake tended to call our samples DOJ and in-house we called them DNA, and that relates to LAPD no. 50 control.
MR. BLASIER: Now, that's a substrate control for a Bundy drop, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I believe it is, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And that shouldn't have any lanes in it should it, any bands in it?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: What is that, Miss Montgomery?
MS. MONTGOMERY: It's not a band. That's--yeah. If you look at the--yes. If you look at the original gel, you can see that there's some blip or glitch. I'm not sure if it's actually cut out of the gel or not. That's right in between the two lanes, but it's not a band. It's definitely not a band.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that if that were a band, that means that your control, the substrate control showed the presence of DNA that shouldn't be there?
MR. HARMON: Objection. Calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Now, how do you tell the difference between something like that that looks like a band and something that is a very faint band?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, first of all--first of all, this is right in between two lanes, and samples are loaded into the lane and you would see distinct banding pattern within that well where they were loaded. As I'm holding up a gel to demonstrate for you, this is where the wells, where samples are loaded. Can you see this? And there's a separation between each--each--where your sample's loaded. That blip right in there (Indicating) is diffuse smearing blip in the gel, and it could either be--like I said, it could be just where the gel's been darkened right in that area, and when it was photoed, it was captured by that. But it's definitely not a band. It's not a distinct thickened blind.
MR. BLASIER: It's not something you expect to see, is it?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, you wouldn't expect to see it, but it's not anything that concerns me.
MR. BLASIER: It indicates that something is going on there that shouldn't be going on there; isn't that accurate?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No. I think that's inaccurate to say that.
MR. BLASIER: Now, we described this as having a band-like appearance. Would you concur with that? Looks like it could have been a band?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yeah. It has a--you know, there's some darkening in that region of the gel.
MR. BLASIER: And it's at an allele--I'm sorry--it's at a level on the ladder different from any of the people that you've tested in connection with this case?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And it's--I believe it's at a 15 allele, isn't it, if that is a band. That band-like appearance, is a band, it's a 15?
MR. HARMON: Objection. It's irrelevant, what it could be.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, if you--if you're saying it's a band, then that would be in between that 14 repeat and the 16 repeat. So that would be the 15 repeat.
MR. BLASIER: This might be a time.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take our break. Please remember all of my admonitions. We'll be in recess for 15 minutes.
(Recess.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court, out of the presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: Back on the record. Counsel, are you ready to proceed?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
THE COURT: All parties are present. Deputy Magnera, 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. Miss Montgomery, why don't you step forward.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect we have now been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. And Miss Renee Montgomery is on the witness stand undergoing cross-examination by Mr. Blasier. Mr. Blasier, you may continue with your cross-examination.
MR. BLASIER: Thank you, your Honor. Could we have picture 1175 up again?
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Miss Montgomery, I just want to clarify that the item--the band-like thing down here that we have been talking about corresponds to the lane at the top for the substrate control, does it not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: (No audible response.)
MR. BLASIER: 50C?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: For a Bundy drop?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct. I'm sorry. Actually you should also include that extraction blank in the second--or in the lane next to the ladder because since it is right in between those two lanes you need to address both those lanes.
MR. BLASIER: So it could be either one, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, I mean that little artifact is right in between the two.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the extraction blank shouldn't show anything either, should it?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Take it down.
MR. BLASIER: I want to ask you a couple of questions about the D1S80 system in general that you talked about on direct. You indicated that it was a discreet allele system, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And you indicated that it was--everybody matches some of the bands on the ladder?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, I don't believe I stated it that way. Umm--
MR. BLASIER: What did you state with respect to the ladder encompassing all the possible alleles?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Okay. The ladder is a composite ladder and that means that from the 14 allele and then the 15 through the 41 allele are present on that. There are alleles that are greater than the 41 and there are also--there is possibility that a 15--a 15 allele has been seen, but it is very rare, and so it is not added into the ladder.
MR. BLASIER: So there are alleles in this system that don't show up on this ladder, correct, because the ladder is too small?
MS. MONTGOMERY: There are some very rare alleles, like I said, greater than 41 and then also the 15 allele that are not on this ladder.
MR. BLASIER: And those are alleles that could be present in someone's DNA that would not show up in this system, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No. That is not correct. They are--they would not have a corresponding ladder allele to call them. If there were something greater than the top 41 allele, and you would see a band up there and I have seen bands greater than 41 and this is very rare and--so anything that is greater than 41 is called greater than 41 and it can't be lined up with any allele ladder. And it happens so infrequently that they have--the company doesn't feel it is necessary to have ladder alleles up in that region, which I agree with.
MR. BLASIER: But the point you indicated is that alleles don't run off the gel. There are alleles in this system that do run off the ladder in the sense that you can't--you can't measure them, correct, with the ladder?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct. I just stated that, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when you say a discreet allele system is a good analogy there, comparing a digital watch with an analog watch that goes around, a discrete allele system is like a digital watch, meaning that you are either at one second, two seconds, three seconds, you can't be in between? Is that what you mean by discreet allele?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That--you could use that analogy.
MR. BLASIER: And a clock, for instance, is more like an RFLP system where you can have alleles spread out from the top to the bottom of the gel. They are not going to be in discreet positions?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Or continuous. Or another analogy would be shoe size. When you go in to buy shoes, they have eight and a half, nine, nine and a half, but you might be in between that eight and a half and nine, so for RFLP that is how RFLP is addressed, whereas with D1S80 each person would fit perfectly into that.
MR. BLASIER: And that would be because that everybody who is a 25 has the same sequence of DNA at that location as anybody else that is at 25?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, they have the same number of repeats, so an individual that is a 25 would have 25 repeats or an individual that is a 25 would have 25 continuous repeats of that particular sequence. There can be subtle variation, but--and an individual that would be an 18 would have 18 continuous repeats of that region.
MR. BLASIER: Well, when you say there can be subtle variations, what you are saying is that there can be people who show up as a 25, for instance, that have a different sequence than someone else that shows up as a 25, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Oh, yes, that is possible. What we are looking at is length differences; we are not looking at sequence differences with this system.
MR. BLASIER: So two people that come up as a 25 would match in your system, but if they had a different sequence they are different people, aren't they?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, that's true.
MR. BLASIER: So your system does not have the ability, even though you call it a discreet allele system, to identify precisely the sequence in a particular band?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Right. We are looking at length differences.
MR. BLASIER: And unlike PCR and DQ-Alpha, which does identify specific sequences of DNA, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: So this in a sense is--this aspect of the system is closer to the RFLP system where you are just--you are estimating sequences in a sense, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, we are not estimating sequences. We are not not looking at the sequence. We are looking at length differences between individuals, how many repeats they have. It is a 16-base pair repeat, so an individual that is an 18 has 18 of these 16 base pair repeats and they would have a repeat sequence that is, say, this long, whereas an individual that is a 25 would have repeats sequences that are even longer. The same repeat sequence, the same number of repeats, but just a different length.
MR. BLASIER: The point is, different alleles would come up as the same, 25, 24, whatever and they would be different alleles, wouldn't they?
MS. MONTGOMERY: If there is a sequence difference between two individuals, they can run to the same position, but it is the length difference we are looking at, not the sequence difference.
MR. BLASIER: Now, there is also reports in the literature, B bands in the D1S80 system not lining up correctly with the ladder, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That is correct.
MR. BLASIER: And there have been reports in the literature of bands going to a place on the ladder that is different from what the true sequence is, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Going to a place on the ladder different than the true--
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Repeating your question to myself. There is--if there is a sequence difference, it is possible that there could be just a very subtle variation, but it will still line up with the ladder, the composite ladder allele that is adjacent to it, provided in the Roche kit.
MR. BLASIER: Well, the report--the literature indicates that there are situations where it is so far out of line with the ladder that it can be confused with the band above it?
MR. HARMON: Objection. It is argumentative and it is vague.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: Are you aware of the literature that talks about the mobility of bands being such that you can mistype which rung of the ladder you are on because the band size is somewhere in the middle?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. That was early on during the development of this system, and what happened is some of the laboratories were trying to use their conventional serology--
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm going to object as being nonresponsive at this point.
THE COURT: Sustained. Restate your question.
THE COURT: Mobility of bands.
MR. BLASIER: I think she answered. The first part of her answer--I'm satisfied with the first part.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, could--that was an explanation, your Honor.
THE COURT: No.
MR. HARMON: Could you read it back? I think you will see it is an explanation.
THE COURT: Counsel, you can cover that on redirect. Proceed.
MR. BLASIER: Now, this system also has a characteristic that if samples are degraded you can lose bands, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: You could lose your entire--you could get no results with degraded samples, yes.
MR. BLASIER: You can also selectively lose bands, can't you?
MS. MONTGOMERY: At very, very low levels. It is unusual to lose just--
MR. BLASIER: Is that a yes?
MR. HARMON: Objection, that is argumentative.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: You can lose--well, let me rephrase it. The ladder that is in the D1S80 system comprises fragment lengths that go from about, what, 300 base pairs up to a couple thousand maybe?
MS. MONTGOMERY: It ranges from a little under 400 base pairs up to over 800 base pairs.
MR. BLASIER: And when a sample degrades it generally starts to break down, the larger fragments get cut--get broken up first, there still may be shorter fragments while the degradation process is going on, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, it is a random act that is occurring, the degradation of DNA, and that is just cutting at various locations on the geno.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: So your understanding that when degradation occurs and DNA fragments are cut up, they are cut up randomly in the sense that--well, let me rephrase that. When you start chopping up the D.A.--the DNA you lose--
THE COURT: All right. Let's have it quiet in the courtroom, please.
MR. BLASIER: When you start chopping up, the DNA gets cut into successfully smaller pieces?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: If it fully degrades you may not see any bands at all correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: As it degrades further the bands that are longer, that represent longer sequences, you no longer can see, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: So you can lose the upper bands of a genotype? For instance, if somebody is an 18, 31 and the sample is degrading, you could lose the 31 and the person would appear to be an 18, 18, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, theoretically that's correct, but from all the method--all the research that has been done and all the studies that have been done, what has been demonstrated is when you get to the level of degradation you typically don't see any result, and if you do see result, you will see something just so faint that you wouldn't be confident even calling that a genotype.
MR. BLASIER: So are you saying that the kit has been developed to the extent that you would not see this particular phenomenon of the upper band disappearing?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, it is not the kit that has been developed to do that. It is just studies that have been done within laboratories to demonstrate whether this possibly can occur, and these are environmental abuse studies that have been done.
MR. BLASIER: You are familiar with the perk and Elmer AMP-FLP D1S80 kit manual, are you not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: The product insert?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I am.
MR. BLASIER: And that talks about one of the problems of this system being--one of the interpretation problems, that you may lose larger bands with a degraded sample, does it not?
MR. HARMON: Objection, that calls for hearsay.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Let me show you--let me ask you: Are you aware--let me show you.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with that kit insert?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I am.
MR. BLASIER: And is that what you have in your hand?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, it is.
MR. BLASIER: And do you rely on that in performing the tests that you perform?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. This was their amplification conditions are used in our laboratory for our analysis.
MR. BLASIER: Please look at page 18 section 8.3.1.
MS. MONTGOMERY: (Witness complies.)
MR. BLASIER: Have you ever read that section before?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I have.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that that says that you may lose larger bands if a sample is degraded?
MS. MONTGOMERY: What it states is that when you have a single-banded pattern that your results should be interpreted with caution. The--the company has also done some follow-up research in which they've published a paper in May of--
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I object. This is not responsive.
THE COURT: All right. Proceed.
MR. BLASIER: And wouldn't you agree that the kit insert also tells you that some alleles don't align up with the ladder, referring to 8.3.2 right below that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, that's true.
MR. BLASIER: And does that indicate that there are a couple of reasons why that might happen as well?
MR. HARMON: Objection. That calls for hearsay, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: Are you familiar with the section that I'm talking about, 8.3.2?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And that gives several reasons why you might have bands that don't line up the way they are supposed to with the ladder, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, and these are subtle shifts that they are referring to in this section.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the kit also is warranted for amplification of 2.5 nanograms of DNA or more, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. They state in here that they guarantee results with 2.5 nanograms of DNA.
MR. BLASIER: And many of the tests that you ran in this case were on amounts far less than that, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: (No audible response.)
MR. BLASIER: Or I should say components of mixtures?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. We amplified some samples down to one nanogram.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the D1S80 system is less informative than the RFLP system because it has fewer alleles? Would you agree with that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, we are looking at one region on the D1S80 system whereas with RFLP we are looking at various regions, as Dr. Cotton and Mr. Sims discussed.
MR. BLASIER: Let me break it down then. You are only looking at one location on the geno?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: One place in the DNA? With RFLP, with a single probe, you are also looking at one location in the DNA, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And with RFLP, however, you can have many different alleles, 60, 70, 80 different alleles for a given probe, can you not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Sure. Yes, you can.
MR. BLASIER: And in the D1S80 system you have a fewer number of possible alleles, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: So there is less variation among people in the D1S80 system than in the RFLP system because there is fewer possible alleles that you could find in people, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. By comparing D1S80 to RFLP profiles.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the 24 allele is extremely common, is it not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, the 24 allele is one of the more common alleles.
MR. BLASIER: In fact, over a third of the Caucasian population will have that, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: (No audible response.)
MR. BLASIER: Approximately?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. I believe approximately thirty percent will have, within their genotype, a 24 or an 18 allele.
MR. BLASIER: And that makes this system in this particular case where both Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman have 24 alleles, makes it less informative than if they had more rare alleles, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, with Mr. Goldman, he is a 24 homozygote. With Mr. Simpson you need to look at the other allele that goes along with that 24 allele.
MR. BLASIER: My question is when you have a 24 allele it is less--it is a less informative system than if you have a more rare allele, correct, because you can't narrow it down as far in terms of the potential contributors?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct. If you had two rare alleles, then it would be more informative, right.
MR. BLASIER: It would be better. And the 18 allele, Nicole Brown Simpson is an 18, 18 and that is always very common allele, is it not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct. By "Very common," as I just stated a few sentences back, that between the 18 and the 24 alleles, you will see this in one--that allele in approximately sixty percent of the population, either the 18 or the 24, but then you also look at the other allele that goes with the individual.
MR. BLASIER: In fact, well if we do that with 18, 18, that is actually a fairly common genotype, is it not, 6 percent of the population has it, Caucasian population?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I would have to refer to my notes for the exact frequency.
MR. BLASIER: Why don't you do that.
MS. MONTGOMERY: (Witness complies.)
(Brief pause.)
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, an 18, 18 occurs in approximately 6 percent of the Caucasian population.
MR. BLASIER: So of a hundred people you would expect there to be six people that would have that combination, Caucasians?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Approximately six out of a hundred.
MR. BLASIER: And that--because that allele is involved, that is much less informative than if you had a rare genotype?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. If you had a rarer one, then you would have less occurrence in the population.
MR. BLASIER: And the fact that Mr. Goldman shares an allele with Mr. Simpson makes it even less informative because there may be some difficulty in assessing who is responsible for the 24 allele? Would you agree with that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: You are talking about mixtures now?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MS. MONTGOMERY: And would it be--I'm sorry, could you repeat that?
MR. BLASIER: Because there is an allele in common, that makes it--that makes it more difficult for you to separate components of a mixture because there is one allele that two people have in common? Would you agree with that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: Let me ask you to refer to page 91 of your notes.
MS. MONTGOMERY: (Witness complies.)
MR. BLASIER: Do you have that in front of you?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I'm afraid I'm going to lose all of them.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: Now, do you and Mr. Sims and the other people in your lab use the same standards to decide whether something is a hint versus a trace versus a C minus versus a C?
MS. MONTGOMERY: As it pertains to D1S80?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. There is no standard technology as to hint, trace, for D1S80. So what happens is when someone is second reading the gel, they call it, and if they call it something different than the first analyst, then you document it in your notes. If they aren't calling it a hint, then you write what they are actually calling it.
MR. BLASIER: But the term hint and trace mean different things?
MS. MONTGOMERY: (No audible response.)
MR. BLASIER: Correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. A hint would be less than a trace.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. And everybody in your lab conforms to that standard?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Typically, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Is that a standard that is set out anywhere in any of the manuals?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, it is not.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that that has a certain subjective element to it? One examiner might call something a hint and another person might call the same thing a trace?
MR. HARMON: Objection, calls for speculation, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MONTGOMERY: It is possible. When you get down to those lower levels, umm, a hint would be--a hint uniformly throughout the laboratory by a DNA analyst--case work analyst is something that--there is a hint there. That is an indication that something is there, but you can't be confident that it is actually a band. A trace then uniformly through the lab is there is a band there. It is very, very weak band.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you--on page 91 of your notes, that is a run where you were looking at what types of samples?
MS. MONTGOMERY: (No audible response.)
MR. BLASIER: That is your dna-59.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Those are four stains from Mr. Goldman's jeans.
MR. BLASIER: Now, would you agree that on--in your lane no. 12 on your work notes you described that as a 24, 24 with a hint of an 18?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And the second reader scored it the same way, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, and also the supervisor who reviewed it scored it the same also.
MR. BLASIER: What did you report that as in your report?
MS. MONTGOMERY: (No audible response.)
MR. BLASIER: I ask you to refer to your report at page--I'm sorry, April 6, 1995, page 8 of 11.
MS. MONTGOMERY: That was reported out as a 24 homozygote with a possible trace 18 allele.
MR. BLASIER: What is the difference between a possible trace and a trace and a hint?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, a--there is a difference between actually writing your observations on your work sheet and doing your interpretation. Your work sheet is what you actually observed and then you--one needs to think about how they are going to word these reports, and with--I could have written in the report a hypothetical of an 18 allele. But a possible trace, the words sound more effective than a hint of an 18 allele, so the three of us that wrote this report, Mr. Sims, Mr. Myers and myself, discussed it and tried to come up with the correct wording that would adequately describe what we saw. And what we came up with was possible trace, and that is not saying that there is a trace of an 18. That is saying there is possibly a band there but we are not confident in calling it.
MR. BLASIER: When you say you want to do it more effectively, in other words, to put forward the Prosecution's case?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, not at all. To reflect what the evidence--to reflect what the evidence is. It doesn't matter if it helps the Prosecution or the Defense; we are just reporting the science.
MR. BLASIER: What changed between your reading of the actual film and when you wrote the report to cause you to change the way that was described?
MR. HARMON: Objection, argumentative, assumes facts not in evidence.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: Did something change in terms of your analysis of this particular test result? Did you read it again? Did something change?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No. To write a hint in a report, it just doesn't--what does a hint mean in a report? Umm, in the laboratory I know what a hint means and I am able to hopefully tell you what a hint means. But in a report, for someone just to pick this report up and be able to read it, whether it is the Prosecution or the Defense, we need to convey what we are trying to get across to them and by saying a possible trace, that conveys that we are not confident that a band exists there, and to just say a hint of an 18, to me it doesn't state it a effectively as saying a possible trace.
MR. BLASIER: Now, unlike RFLP technology, you don't use any kind of computer aids to determine whether there is a band there and whether it is a hint or a trace or possible trace, do you?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No. That is one of the great things about this system. We get to use the basics.
MR. BLASIER: You just look at it and you say looks like a trace to me or looks like a hint to this guy, right?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No. It is all based on one's experience also.
MR. BLASIER: And every analyst that looks at these things always comes up with the same terminology, hint, trace, possible trace?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well--
MR. HARMON: Objection, calls for speculation, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, I can't--outside of our laboratory, I'm not quite sure if people would put the same words to these. It is--in our laboratory it is pretty well-defined, and as you could see on this particular one, three different individuals read it and they all came up with the same word, hint, at 18.
MR. BLASIER: Have you ever done any studies where you have looked at different quantities of DNA in a mixture, for instance, to see if--to see what happens when you start reducing the quantity to determine at what point a band becomes an artifact?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I have done studies to demonstrate at which level or at what level you start losing a minor component.
MR. BLASIER: And have you published any opinion studies that show the differences in intensity of the bands between a hint and a trace and a C minus?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, I have not.
MR. BLASIER: And there is no scale that you use to do this, is there?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No. It is a scale that is made in our laboratory
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry?
MS. MONTGOMERY: It is made in our laboratory and it is just a scale, a progression, as I described earlier.
MR. BLASIER: Now, as a sample degrades--have you done any testing to determine what happens when a sample is degraded in terms of how it shows up, whether it shows up as a band or an artifact?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. I did some temperature studies in the laboratory to see what happened when various samples were subjected to various temperatures for differing amounts of time.
MR. BLASIER: It is not like a light switch, is it, where you--it is either there or it isn't there? There are gradiations of band intensities, are there not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That is true, yes.
MR. BLASIER: You must use your subjective judgment to decide whether something is really a band as opposed to an artifact, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, when one gets to the lower level where you are not sure if it is a band, then yes, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, when you read these things, did you know what genotypes the two victims and Mr. Simpson had?
MR. HARMON: Objection, "These things" as vague, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: All the evidence samples that you read, when you did that, did you know the genotypes of Mr. Simpson and the two victims?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I did.
MR. BLASIER: So you knew what results you expected to get, at least as to some of the contributors, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I didn't know what I expected to get, no.
MR. BLASIER: You knew what alleles were common to this case, did you not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I did.
MR. BLASIER: You knew these were evidence samples from this case, did you not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I did.
MR. BLASIER: You didn't have any kind of expectation in your mind that perhaps these evidence samples would produce these bands?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, no, because that is part of testing the evidence, is to show who can be excluded and who can't be excluded.
MR. BLASIER: Do you know--are you familiar with a term examiner bias?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I have heard that.
MR. BLASIER: What does that mean?
MS. MONTGOMERY: You know, I believe I have only heard it in the context of--let me back up. I--examiner bias I think would be an individual having some bias on their examination.
MR. BLASIER: Have you ever heard it used in the context of one who knows the results they are supposed to get and subconsciously getting the results that they think they are supposed to do, not through any trickery or lying or anything, but you see what you think you are going to see?
MS. MONTGOMERY: So someone could produce bands on the gel? Is that what you are stating?
MR. BLASIER: Someone might interpret one thing as an artifact or as a faint band, depending on what they expect to see?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I'm not aware of that happening, no.
MR. BLASIER: You are not aware of any studies that talk about that particular phenomena?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I haven't read any studies that address that, no.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the--you indicated that the range of size of the fragments in the D1S80 system was about 400 to 800 base pairs?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Roughly, yes.
MR. BLASIER: And the size of the fragments in the DQ-Alpha system are less than 400 base pairs, correct; it is about 240?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct, 242.
MR. BLASIER: So would you agree that in a degrading sample you would expect the D1S80 bands to disappear the DQ-Alpha allele from a particular piece of DNA?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. That is possible.
MR. BLASIER: So that if you had a mixed sample, let's say in the DQ-Alpha, you see evidence of a mixture, but you don't see any extra alleles in the D1S80 system, that might be explained by the fact that the sample is degraded?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. And one needs to also look at their yield gel to determine if degradation was occurring on that, if it is possible.
MR. BLASIER: You are aware that the Bundy drops in this case were severely degraded or are you aware of that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I believe some of the samples were degraded.
MR. BLASIER: And are you aware of the DQ-Alpha testing results on the steering wheel sample, that is item 29?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I am.
MR. BLASIER: And you are aware that there was a 4 allele which is inconsistent with a genotype of any of the three people in this case?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, there was a weaker 4 allele detected on the steering wheel sample.
MR. BLASIER: And the reason it was inconsistent is because there was no 1.3 to go along with that which would have been consistent with Ronald Goldman?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Right. There was a very low level amplification--or a low level amplification.
MR. BLASIER: Never tested the steering wheel, item no. 29, with a D1S80 system, did you?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, we didn't.
MR. BLASIER: There was no efforts made to try and find out what alleles might be present?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No. There wasn't enough DNA present to analyze it by the D1S80 system.
MR. BLASIER: And how do you know that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Because I remember discussing that issue with Gary Sims at the time that we were doing the analysis on those samples.
MR. BLASIER: How much DNA was present?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I will have to refer to Gary Sims' notes to tell you that.
MR. BLASIER: All right.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
THE COURT: Miss Montgomery, have you located that item in your notes?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: All right. Will you give counsel the page reference.
MS. MONTGOMERY: It is on Gary Sims page 40. There is another advantage to numbering pages, I guess.
MR. BLASIER: What page are you referring to?
THE COURT: Gary Sims 40.
MR. BLASIER: 36?
MS. MONTGOMERY: 40.
THE COURT: Gary Sims 40.
MR. BLASIER: 40?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Sorry.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier, do you want to compare your notes with Miss Montgomery's?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: The quantity was approximately .9, was it not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, it was.
THE COURT: .9 what? Nanograms?
MR. BLASIER: Nanograms?
THE COURT: Miss Montgomery, nanograms?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct. .9 nanograms.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, to be--two significant digits Gary wrote 2.86 nanograms.
MR. BLASIER: And you have performed D1S80 tests on amounts less than that, haven't you?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I have.
MR. BLASIER: So it wasn't a matter of there not being enough to test, was it?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No. It was a matter of there not being enough to test due to the fact that this sample was first used for DQ-Alpha, and after using a portion of it for the DQ-Alpha typing there wasn't enough sample left for D1S80 typing.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Could we have note 95, please.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: This will be--what are we up to?
THE COURT: This would be 1176. Mrs. Robertson, 1176? Yes. Defense 1176.
(Deft's 1176 for id = photograph)
MR. BLASIER: Miss Montgomery, could you look at the monitor and tell me if that appears to be a photograph of your run no. 297?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. Actually this analysis was done by Steve Myers at our laboratory.
MR. BLASIER: And this is--has samples from Nicole Brown Simpson's dress, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, it does.
MR. BLASIER: And the interpretation of this sample for samples G5 and G6 were an 18 allele stronger than a 24 allele?
MS. MONTGOMERY: You are referring to G3?
MR. BLASIER: No, G5 and 6. Let me highlight those at the top. You see G5 and G6?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And you agree that that is an accurate picture of that film for that particular run?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, it is, but once--once again, it is difficult to see the weaker components of this and you will actually have to look at the gels yourself.
MR. BLASIER: All right. Let me zoom in on G5 and 6. Would you agree that you cannot see any 24 allele at least on this picture?
MS. MONTGOMERY: (No audible response.)
MR. BLASIER: What you see is the 18's, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: There is nothing apparent here?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, this is all done with your computer. I mean, this isn't the actual sample and so I don't know--
MR. BLASIER: Would you look at your original sample and tell me if you agree that it is extremely faint?
MS. MONTGOMERY: (Witness complies.) it is a trace level of 24.
MR. BLASIER: So this is a trace--
MS. MONTGOMERY: But you--
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry.
MS. MONTGOMERY: But you can see it in here and when you do see a copy of it later on you will be able to see that it is a trace amount of a 24 allele.
MR. BLASIER: How much more is it than a hint?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, a hint, as I stated, is a--a hint is a possible. It is not a well-defined band. These trace, these are well-defined bands, they are just very faint, and as far as why you can't see it on your monitor, I can't explain that.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MS. MONTGOMERY: This is the actual copy.
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry, do you have the actual one there?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I do.
MR. BLASIER: Could we take a look at that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, but I would prefer that it not be, umm, put into evidence. Mr. Harmon has a copy of the blue copies.
MR. BLASIER: Well, let me use the blue copy. Is that adequate?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. Mr. Harmon has those copies, I believe.
THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson.
MR. BLASIER: Did we give that a number?
THE COURT: Yes, we did.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: This is run 297.
THE COURT: 297.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Can we put--this is exhibit 275-I. Can we put this on the elmo?
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: I don't think that is the right one.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Does it say AG297 on that, Mr. Harris?
(Brief pause.)
MR. HARRIS: Yes, it does, your Honor.
MS. MONTGOMERY: I believe it is just backwards or upside down.
MR. BLASIER: Oh, okay.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Now, the area of interest--now, the area of interest that we are looking at are the two lanes over toward the right between the two ladders, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And you are saying that there is something more than a hint, which is a band at 24?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And can we put arrows in that area, Mr. Harris.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: And can we print that out, please.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: And I would like to have that shown to the jury, please, if we could mark that printout.
THE COURT: All right. If you will hand--do you want to hand the blue copy--
MR. BLASIER: Maybe we could hand both at the same time.
THE COURT: All right.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: It takes about three minutes to print that out?
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Could we make the printout 1176, please.
THE COURT: 1177?
MR. BLASIER: 1177.
THE COURT: Or do you want to make the printout 1176-A?
MR. BLASIER: Whatever your pleasure is.
THE COURT: Well, do you want to keep them together?
MR. BLASIER: I think we just have one--that's fine.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. BLASIER: That is a good idea. 1176-A.
THE COURT: All right.
(Deft's 1176-A for id = photograph)
MR. BLASIER: Actually, your Honor, let's hold off on that and show another picture and we can do a couple of them at the same time, if that is okay.
THE COURT: Proceed.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Mr.--
THE COURT: I'm sorry.
MR. BLASIER: Could we have photo 92, please?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Could I see that blue copy?
MR. BLASIER: Sure.
(Brief pause.)
MS. MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, could this be marked as the next in order?
THE COURT: 1177.
MR. BLASIER: 1177.
(Deft's 1177 for id = photograph)
MR. BLASIER: Now, Miss Montgomery, the picture that we have put up now, 1177, contains the samples from Nicole Brown Simpson's fingernail scrapings, does it not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, it does.
MR. HARMON: I have an objection, your Honor. May we approach on this? It relates to what Miss Montgomery said a moment ago.
THE COURT: All right. With the court reporter, please.
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: Okay. We are over at the side bar. Mr. Harmon, what is--
MR. HARMON: Well, correct me if I am wrong. I am not a computer buff here, but what has happened is Blake has taken photos and those photos have been scanned into a computer and that is what we are projecting up there, and Miss Montgomery just pointed out on this, I guess the Blasier version of what that is, Mr. Fung--the computer is changing data and we are projecting things up there. I don't mind projecting the photo up there from the elmo, but we are--this thing--this stuff has been sieved through all these filters and those bands have nice ninety-degree angles on them and this is a function of the computer and it is not a function of the data that is there. So to force this witness and now this jury to show things that have been enhanced or fuzzed up by a computer, it is changing the data from which she--she made these readings, so I don't have any objection to the photos. But you look at that--at that last one, I don't know if it is 1176, those things look like nice ninety degree rectangles there and that is not what is on the original data and to--I mean, I guess I was asleep at the wheel when I didn't realize.
THE COURT: Well, then that--all right. That exhibit has come and gone then. We will take it up later.
MR. HARMON: We are on to another one here and I think that is very deceptive to use something that has been run through a computer to--to I don't want to use the term that comes to mind, but to confront a witness with something that is not what she saw and then have her--force her to pull out a copy. I don't think that is really fair and it is misleading and it is argumentative and it is time--
THE COURT: All right. We will take this up later. We are not dealing with it now so it has come and gone.
MS. CLARK: It is here again.
MR. HARMON: It is back again.
MR. BLASIER: I gave these to her at lunch and I also told her anytime she wants to pull out the original, that is fine, no problem, and we will pass the original and the photo to the jury. That is fine with me.
MR. HARMON: That is neither here nor there. You see, he just said there is a difference. Why have we been sitting here all afternoon?
THE COURT: Counsel, isn't it a little late for you to bring this up?
MR. HARMON: Judge, better late than never, second time this week, but you have to decide based on what we already know, not on how I screwed up last week.
THE COURT: Keep your voice down. So let's proceed.
MR. HARMON: Sure.
THE COURT: Lay a foundation.
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier, we will just have to hold on for a second.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier, you may continue.
MR. BLASIER: Thank you. Could we have 1177, please.
MR. BLASIER: Now, Miss Montgomery, this is one of the pictures that you looked at at lunch to compare with your original film, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. HARMON: Objection, it misstates the testimony. It is not one of the pictures, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: Well, this is a scanned image of the photograph that I have right here. Would you like to look at it.
MR. HARMON: Objection, it is irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: Would you like to look at the photograph that you looked at to assure yourself it is the same one?
MR. HARMON: Objection, that is irrelevant.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. MONTGOMERY: If you would like to hand that to me, sure.
(Brief pause.)
MS. MONTGOMERY: And yes, this is a photograph that you asked me to look at during lunchtime and it appears to be a photograph taken by Dr. Ed Blake of one of my D1S80 gels.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Does it appear substantially the same as the scanned photograph, the same photograph?
MR. HARMON: Objection. It is irrelevant whether it is substantially the same, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry. Does it appear to be the same on the screen as what you have in your hand?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, it has the same labeling and everything. I mean, this is a computer scan of the actual picture, so it appears similar. It is missing some of the--the side writing that is on these pictures.
MR. BLASIER: Does it look any different at all, other than the side writing, other than the scanned image being a little smaller?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, it looks very similar. I mean, it appears to be the same one scanned into a computer.
MR. BLASIER: You compared these photographs with your films during lunch, did you not?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I did.
MR. BLASIER: And you indicated to me after lunch that these appeared to be accurate representations of your films, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct. I mean, as I stated earlier, you need to actually see one of the blue copies to see some of the subtle or some of the less intense bands and I assume you will be seeing those later.
MR. BLASIER: And if any of these pictures that I show you--if something else is revealed on your copy, you tell me and we will show your copy as well, okay?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Okay.
MR. BLASIER: Now, this is the run that you did with the sample from the fingernail scrapings, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And the fingernail scrapings appear in these lanes, 45B, 46B and 45A1, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct. Those are the scrapings and the clippings.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Which is which, just so it is clear?
MS. MONTGOMERY: 45B--referring to my notes, 45B is the right scraping, 46B is the left scraping, and 45A-B1 is the right clipping.
MR. BLASIER: Now, let me back out of this and I want to highlight those three lanes. Now, would you agree that there appears to be something going on below the 18 allele, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: You know, you are focusing in on these and zooming them up. You need to look at the actual gel. We don't image our gels. We just do a hands-on look at the gel.
MR. HARMON: Objection, move to strike, and I would ask the Court to take that exhibit off the screen, your Honor.
THE COURT: No. Proceed.
MR. BLASIER: Let's look at your original of this one, okay?
(Brief pause.)
MS. MONTGOMERY: What was the gel number again? AG293?
MR. BLASIER: 293.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, this is my original. I have taped to the back a transparency with the labeling on it, but it is just a temporary removable item.
MR. BLASIER: And would you agree that the area that I have--that I have blown up here conforms to what is on your original in terms of this--these band-like items below 18?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, no. This is like taking a very close-up photograph and trying to ask the person what they see in the whole photograph. You need to look at the big picture. You can't just focus in like that.
MR. BLASIER: Well, look at the big picture.
MS. MONTGOMERY: It is inaccurate. By looking at this gel, there is just some silver precipitation in this region, and once again, you will be able to see these, and there is just, you know, a little darkening down here. It is not a band by any means.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that it looks like what we have up on the screen?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, this is a magnification.
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MS. MONTGOMERY: I mean, if I were to try to magnify this with my eyes, yes, but I think you need to look at the actual data and not magnify it up like that.
MR. BLASIER: Well, look at it--does it look like there is something going on below the 18 allele at the position of the 17 allele under 46B?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No. What you can see is if you look up at the gel, you could see a smearing from the first ladder all the way--I can't see it from here, but if you look at the first ladder and all the way over to past the second to the last ladder, you will see this dark smearing and that is just a little silver beam precipitation. That is just a smearing. It is during the staining process, and it is not by any means a band.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that neither Nicole Brown Simpson, Ronald Goldman or O.J. Simpson have a 17 allele in the D1S80 system?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I agree with that, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, this smearing that you are talking about that causes that activity in the 17 allele, is this something that went wrong with this test?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No.
MR. BLASIER: Is this kind of smearing, something that you typically see where you would have--call them band like appearances appear on the gels.
MR. HARMON: Objection, misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: Is this kind of smearing something that is typical for D1S80--the D1S80 system?
MS. MONTGOMERY: It is not--well, no, I don't typically see something like this, and it is just like I said, the silver is being precipitated and causing a nice flowing smear through that portion of the gel.
MR. BLASIER: Did you run this again to see whether that activity at allele 17 disappeared?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, I don't see any activity at allele 17.
MR. BLASIER: Did you run this again?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, I did not.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Well, we have the picture itself. Your Honor, I would ask that this particular photograph, as well as the last one, be circulated to the jury.
THE COURT: All right. At this time? All right.
MR. BLASIER: And--
THE COURT: 1177 and 1176 with the printout.
MR. BLASIER: And the last one we'll submit the blue copy as well.
THE COURT: All right. All right. Would you hand 1177--Mr. Blasier, would you hand 1177 to juror no. 7 and hand 1176 and the blue copy to juror no. 1.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Now, the--the photograph that is up here, she has been referring to her original which is different from the blue copy, and I'm wondering if the Court would like me to circulate her original with my photograph just so the jury could look at both?
THE COURT: May I see the original?
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Is this something a lay person can read by looking at it?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Oh, yes. These are--you want to try to avoid touching the gel because you don't want to leave your oils on it.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: All right. Then we ought to do this one set at a time.
MR. BLASIER: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, be careful how you handle the original gel, please.
MS. MONTGOMERY: If you could just handle them on the side. Just like photographs, if you touch the center, it can cause some residues.
MR. BLASIER: I will hand 275-I and our printout, which is 1176-A.
THE COURT: All right.
(The exhibits were passed amongst the jurors.)
THE COURT: And while the jury is looking at that, let me see counsel, without the reporter.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier, you wanted to give the jury also which exhibit?
MR. BLASIER: Her original and my photograph.
THE COURT: All right.
THE COURT: How about if we ask everybody to hold it by the tape.
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry?
(The exhibits were passed amongst the jurors.)
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, may I approach the witness?
(Discussion held off the record between Mr. Harmon and the witness.)
THE COURT: Mr. Harmon, why don't you step over here a second with Mr. Cochran.
MR. COCHRAN: Yes, your Honor.
(A conference was held at the bench, not reported.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: Mr. Blasier, would you rescue the first set from Deputy Russell.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.) (Discussion held off the record between the Deputy District Attorneys.)
MS. CLARK: Can we approach, please, your Honor?
(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)
THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar.
MR. HARMON: The problem that exists is when you are using systems to show that something is not there when it really is and you allow something that takes away data, you are really misleading the jury.
THE COURT: Show me what is--what is not where.
MR. COCHRAN: What is not where.
MR. HARMON: Well, the whole point of this is to question whether or not there is anything there.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. HARMON: Somehow Howard put the arrows because he is looking at this.
MR. BLASIER: No, because 24 is a marker lane.
MR. HARMON: How does he know?
MR. BLASIER: I told him. This is just to help them locate what to look for on here.
MR. HARMON: So you are saying that there is something faint here?
MR. HARMON: Sure.
THE COURT: Okay. Right there, (Indicating).
MR. HARMON: Right.
THE COURT: All right. Have you got that turned around right? Why don't you superimpose it.
MR. HARMON: You are right.
THE COURT: Turn it around.
MR. HARMON: I'm getting dizzy here.
(Brief pause.)
MR. HARMON: Ours is the photo from Blake's.
THE COURT: This is 297, 297.
MR. HARMON: I guess you really can't because they are different sizes, but it is right in here, (Indicating).
MR. HARMON: It is okay to just illustrate something that is there, but when you are trying to demonstrate that something is not there and you have the system that--
THE COURT: I don't know. I see something faint there, (Indicating).
MS. CLARK: Your Honor, the problem is really if you lay this over the top of this, they don't match up and this printout is such a distortion of what the original is, you have the original marked for evidence, why in the world would you allow a distortion like that? It is kind of like the People have a picture of a Defendant killing a victim and they took it and blew it up as big as they could because it gets so fuzzy it was indistinct. What is the value?
THE COURT: I assume on redirect examination you are going to go over there and I assume when they are offered into evidence you will make a 352 objection.
MR. HARMON: We just didn't want to waste a lot of time.
THE COURT: Okay, okay.
(Discussion held off the record.)
(Brief pause.)
(Pages 29044 through 29044, volume 152A, transcribed and sealed under separate cover.)
(The following proceedings were held in open court:)
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Blasier.
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I would like to show 275-B on the elmo.
THE COURT: People's 275-B.
MR. BLASIER: Miss Montgomery, this is the gel that shows 30, 31, 293 and 305. Do you have that in mind?
MS. MONTGOMERY: What AG number was that?
MR. BLASIER: 174.
THE COURT: What is the reference samples? 275-B is reference samples, correct?
MR. HARMON: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Now, do you see in the reference sample lane for Mr. Simpson there appears to be three bands, would you agree?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I will refer to my copy.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Can we zoom in on that a little bit more? Actually there appears to be four bands, I think. Would you agree there appears to be actually four bands in that reference lane?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. Those--that is a shadow band effect.
MR. BLASIER: That is not supposed to happen, is it?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, sometimes you see it in this center section of these acrylomite gels.
MR. BLASIER: That is not supposed to happen, is it?
MS. MONTGOMERY: It is not supposed to happen? Umm, to optimize you would prefer that it did not happen. It does happen on occasion, though.
MR. BLASIER: What do you mean to optimize you would prefer it not happen? You don't want it to happen, do you?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, you don't want it to happen.
MR. BLASIER: Something went wrong with this particular gel that caused it to happen?
MR. HARMON: Objection, that is argumentative and she didn't complete her answer.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Did something go wrong with this particular gel that caused these bands to show up?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, something didn't go wrong with the gel. What--sometimes we see these--these shadow bands in the inside region of the gel, just in the center section, and as you could see, it is isolated to this center section of the gel. If, umm--if it was an issue, the sample should be rerun. If there is a potential that these were mixed samples or something such as that, then you would want to rerun these. It doesn't change any of the results of the analysis on this gel.
MR. BLASIER: Isn't one of the shortcomings of this system is that that sometimes happens, that you get extra bands on that that are shadow bands?
MR. HARMON: Objection. That is argumentative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.
MR. BLASIER: Is that a characteristic of this system--let me ask you this: How frequently does this happen?
MS. MONTGOMERY: It depends on who is doing the analysis. Different people--this is a very techniquey system. Some individuals tend to see it a little more often than others. In our laboratory we have been able to minimize it, so we rarely see it any more.
MR. BLASIER: How often do you get it in tests that you conduct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I would say less than five percent of my gels would see them.
MR. BLASIER: Now, would you also agree that the band on Mr. Simpson's reference sample at 24 is uneven in the sense that it is not even the same intensity across the band?
MS. MONTGOMERY: (No audible response.)
MR. BLASIER: It appears to be kind of very bright on the left side of that band?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, there is the artifact, that little dot right on the end of the 24 band, but by looking at this copy, this copy also has that little dot, but it appears to be relatively equal intensity across the length of the well.
MR. BLASIER: That little dot is not supposed to be there either, is it?
MS. MONTGOMERY: You are saying not supposed to be there. The dot is not part of the sample, no.
MR. BLASIER: So it is not supposed to be there, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: One wouldn't want it to be there, no.
MR. BLASIER: Could we have photo no. 96 and I have an additional photo that will be marking as 1178.
THE COURT: All right.
(Deft's 1178 for id = photograph)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Could we have photo 1174 and 1178 side-by-side, please.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Does the photograph on the right appear to be your run 299?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, it does not.
MR. BLASIER: What run does that appear to be?
MS. MONTGOMERY: 24--294.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. And is it correct that these--the photo on the right has the samples 303 and 304 from the Bronco on them?
MS. MONTGOMERY: (No audible response.)
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry, it is the one on the left.
THE COURT: The one on the left what?
MR. BLASIER: On the left of the screen is the--the run that has samples 303 and 304?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And the one on the right is the run that has the samples for 30 and 31 from the Bronco and 293 from the carpeting in the Bronco?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Now, 303 and 304, you read those as containing very weak 18 allele, I believe; is that correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Once again I will look up my notes.
(Brief pause.)
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. For the two Bronco samples, dna-52 and dna-53, there was a weak 18 detected.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I'm going to try and blow up that area, and the area that we have indicated is approximately in here, (Indicating); is that correct?
MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I have the same objection that we lodged earlier. That is a distortion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. BLASIER: And here, (Indicating)?
MS. MONTGOMERY: (No audible response.)
MR. BLASIER: Have I circled the right areas?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. As you could see, the 18 allele is--the 18 ladder allele is--I'm sorry, yes, that is correct.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. And it is a very faint band, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, it is a weak band.
MR. BLASIER: Weak band. And it is a weak band on your original as well, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, it is a weak band.
MR. BLASIER: And that would indicate a very small amount of DNA being present, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, it is relative to the amount that is present in the whole sample, yes.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. And were you able to quantify the amount of DNA present that was contributed by the 18 allele?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No. What we do is a total quant to determine the total amount of DNA. We can't tell the difference between different alleles, contribution for the sample.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree that the band intensity of the 18 band that I have circled is about the same as the one nanogram standard, or maybe less, or just what is your assessment of the relative intensities?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I would say that is a--umm--
THE COURT: Pull the microphone closer.
MS. MONTGOMERY: I'm sorry. This is approximately equal to the one nanogram, slightly less, umm, than the one nanogram for dna-53.
MR. BLASIER: And the intensity of that is far less than the 24 allele and the 25 allele, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, yes, it is less than either the 24 or the 25 alleles.
MR. BLASIER: Now, samples 30 and 31 are on the right picture, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, they are.
MR. BLASIER: And you did not see any 18 alleles on those samples, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: For item 30 and 31, no, I did not see an 18 allele.
MR. BLASIER: And I'm going to circle the area where you would expect to see that. And would you agree that I have made little squiggles there about where the 18 band would be?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, the upper portion of that, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. And you indicated there was nothing there that you saw that could be a band?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: Could we have that printed, please.
MR. BLASIER: Now, I want you to assume for a minute that 30 and 303 came from the same general area.
MR. HARMON: Objection. That is an improper hypothetical, misstates the testimony.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: If you had a mixed stain that had alleles present in part of the stain that weren't present in another part of the stain--do you have that in mind?
MS. MONTGOMERY: So what you are saying is a bloodstain where one person is bleeding here and one person is bleeding here and some of one person's diffuse into another?
MR. BLASIER: No. Let's just stay you have a stain, a fairly relatively large stain, and you test one area of the stain and you find some alleles and you test another area of the stain and you find some additional alleles. Do you have that in mind?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: Would that be an indication--would one explanation be that those stains were put there at different times?
MR. HARMON: Objection, calls for speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. HARMON: Inadequate foundation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BLASIER: Would that be consistent with two different stains being put on that surface at different times?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I couldn't make a determination as to that, no.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. Could we have photo 90 back on.
MR. BLASIER: Now, you have no personal information about what happened between when sample 30 and 31 was collected and when sample 303 and 304 were collected, do you?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, I don't.
MR. BLASIER: Now, the appearance of the 18 allele on 303 and 304, the very faint band, would you agree that the children of O.J. Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson both would have an 18 allele?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, that is incorrect.
MR. BLASIER: Why is it incorrect?
MS. MONTGOMERY: You are saying they would or--
MR. BLASIER: They would have an 18 allele?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I'm sorry, you are correct. If the mother is an 18 homozygote, then the children will all have an 18 allele present.
MR. BLASIER: And there is a strong likelihood that those children might also have a 24 or a 25?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And that is because you inherit these alleles from your parents?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And if there were stains mixed in with a bloodstain that--from the children, you might expect to see some of the children's alleles in the stain, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: If you had individuals with the same type?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, that is possible.
MR. BLASIER: And you have no way of telling whether the 18 allele in samples 303 and 304 was put there or got into that sample at the same time as the 24, 25 alleles, do you?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, I don't.
MR. BLASIER: You have no way of aging how old the sample is from looking at the gel, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, some indication can be obtained by the--if a yield gel is done on a sample. You can obtain some information if degradation has occurred, but by looking at strictly the D1S80 results, no.
MR. BLASIER: But you might be able to tell if there is degradation but you can't tell how old the stain is, can you?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No.
MR. BLASIER: Could we have--I have two more photos, your Honor. One would be 11--
THE COURT: 1179 and 1180.
(Deft's 1179 for id = photograph)
(Deft's 1180 for id = photograph)
MR. BLASIER: 1179 and 1180. Could we have photo 97 and 98.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: Now, the photograph on the left, would you agree that that appears to be the gel with the samples from the glove, Bundy glove--I'm sorry, the Rockingham glove, G11, 12 and 13?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes.
MR. BLASIER: And the one on the right, which is photograph--which is exhibit 1180, appears to be stains G1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, that's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And would you agree that you interpreted those--the three stains, G10, 11 and 13, as having a weak 25 allele?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Once again I'm--I will refer to the report.
(Brief pause.)
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MS. MONTGOMERY: It is a weaker 25 allele; it is not a weak 25 allele.
MR. BLASIER: It is much less intensity than the other alleles on those lanes, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. It is less intense than the 24 allele.
MR. BLASIER: And let me circle 11 and 13. Have I got those about right?
THE COURT: Why don't you do the second one again. Encroach on the band itself.
MR. BLASIER: Let me circle both of them.
MR. BLASIER: Okay. And the 25 band is here, (Indicating), and here, (Indicating), for those two samples, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And the fact that it is so much less intense than the 24 band would indicate that if there was a contribution from a 24, 25 genotype, that that person's contribution is very, very small compared to other contributors?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. The 24, 25 or--if--the 25 is--well, the 25 is the minor component along with an 18 on those samples and the 24, 24 is the major contribution, so the minor contribution would be less than the major contribution.
MR. BLASIER: And the same is true over on the picture at the right of G10 with respect to the 25 allele, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That's correct, but in that situation there isn't an 18 allele present.
MR. BLASIER: But you call it a 25 that is much less intense than a 24, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I called a major type and a minor type--a major type and a minor allele in that particular sample.
MR. BLASIER: Can we print that, please. Save it and print it later. And could I have slide--first slide.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: The three stains from the glove, G10, 11 and 13, were the only stains on the glove where you found genotypes in the D1S80 system consistent with Mr. Simpson, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That's correct. Those are the only--those are the three areas where a 25 allele was detected along with the 24 allele.
MR. BLASIER: And this is 1173-A. Could we have B, please.
(Brief pause.)
MR. BLASIER: And the indication that you have on your paperwork is that those three stains all came from the wrist area of the Rockingham glove, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: That's correct.
MR. BLASIER: And--may we have the next slide, please.
MR. BLASIER: You tested a number of different stains from the rest of the Bundy glove--the Rockingham glove, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Correct.
MR. BLASIER: And isn't it accurate that you were able to exclude Mr. Simpson as a contributor to every stain that you looked at on that glove, other than G10, 11 and 13 in the wrist area?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. There was no 25 allele detected on the other stains.
MR. BLASIER: And there was--when you received this glove, do you know whether it was turned inside out?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I--Gary Sims did all the examination of the evidence in this case, so I don't recall.
MR. BLASIER: As a forensic specialist, if you got a glove as a piece of evidence and you wanted to turn it inside out, how do you do that?
MS. MONTGOMERY: (No audible response.)
MR. BLASIER: Do you have to handle the wrist area a lot to get it turned inside out?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Well, I think it is not just a forensic analyst, but how would an individual in general turn a glove inside out if it were out the opposite direction.
MR. BLASIER: Would you agree it would involve considerable manipulation of the wrist area of the glove?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I would.
MR. HARMON: Objection. That calls for speculation, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained. It is vague. (Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, this would be an appropriate time to break.
THE COURT: Finish.
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: Do you have any way of quantifying the amount of DNA attributable to the 25 allele in G10, 11 and 13?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No.
MR. BLASIER: Do you have any way of placing an upper limit on it?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes, I could, umm, by looking at the relative intensity of the 25 compared to the major contributor of a 24 homozygote, I could tell you the extremes that it could be and for the sensitivity of our system what we find is beyond 1 to 20, you can't see the minor components--you typically cannot see the minor contribution in a sample.
MR. BLASIER: But you have no way of quantifying how much DNA was present that caused the 25 allele to appear?
MS. MONTGOMERY: The exact amount? No.
MR. BLASIER: It could be a very small amount?
MR. HARMON: Objection, that calls for speculation.
THE COURT: It is vague. Sustained
(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)
MR. BLASIER: It could be below one nanogram, couldn't it?
MS. MONTGOMERY: The total DNA or of DNA on the--
MR. BLASIER: DNA on the gel?
MS. MONTGOMERY: On the gel. Well, in this case what I could do is compare the one nanogram standard, the 25 allele to the one nanogram standard, and would you like me to do that?
MR. BLASIER: Yes.
(Brief pause.)
MS. MONTGOMERY: That 25 allele is approximately equal intensity to the one nanogram control that is on the gel.
MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry, which sample were you looking at?
MS. MONTGOMERY: I'm looking at G11 and also G13.
MR. BLASIER: How about G10?
MS. MONTGOMERY: G10 is also approximately equal to the one nanogram standard.
MR. BLASIER: It is a much smaller amount compared to the other alleles on the gels, correct?
MS. MONTGOMERY: Yes. The other--the other band in those samples looks a little greater than the four nanogram standard.
MR. BLASIER: You have no way of telling from this test whether or not that 25 allele got on that glove at the same time as the other alleles on the glove, do you?
MS. MONTGOMERY: No, I don't.
MR. BLASIER: That's all I have.
THE COURT: All right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the afternoon. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. Don't discuss this case among yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't allow anybody to communicate with you, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. As far as the jury is concerned, we will stand in recess until 9:00 A.M. tomorrow morning. And Miss Montgomery, you are ordered to come back tomorrow morning at 8:45. All right. We will stand in recess. Thank you, counsel.
(At 4:40 P.M. an adjournment was taken until, Wednesday, May 24, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Department no. 103 Hon. Lance A. Ito, Judge
The People of the State of California,)
Plaintiff,)
vs.) no. BA097211)
Orenthal James Simpson,)
Defendant.)
Reporter's transcript of proceedings Tuesday, May 23, 1995
Volume 152 Pages 28813 through 29063, inclusive
(Pages 29044 through 29044, inclusive, sealed)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARANCES:
Janet M. Moxham, CSR #4588 Christine M. Olson, CSR #2378 official reporters
FOR THE PEOPLE: Gil Garcetti, District Attorney by: Marcia R. Clark, William W. Hodgman, Christopher A. Darden, Cheri A. Lewis, Rockne P. Harmon, George W. Clarke, Scott M. Gordon Lydia C. Bodin, Hank M. Goldberg, Alan Yochelson and Darrell S. Mavis, Brian R. Kelberg, and Kenneth E. Lynch, Deputies 18-000 Criminal Courts Building 210 West Temple Street Los Angeles, California 90012
FOR THE DEFENDANT: Robert L. Shapiro, Esquire Sara L. Caplan, Esquire 2121 Avenue of the Stars 19th floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., Esquire by: Carl E. Douglas, Esquire Shawn Snider Chapman, Esquire 4929 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90010 Gerald F. Uelmen, Esquire Robert Kardashian, Esquire Alan Dershowitz, Esquire F. Lee Bailey, Esquire Barry Scheck, Esquire Peter Neufeld, Esquire Robert D. Blasier, Esquire William C. Thompson, Esquire
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I N D E X
Index for volume 152 pages 28813 - 29063
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day date session page vol.
Tuesday May 23, 1995 A.M. 28813 152 P.M. 28924 152
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGEND: Ms. Clark-mc Mr. Hodgman-h Mr. Darden d Mr. Kahn-k Mr. Goldberg-gb Mr. Gordon-g Mr. Shapiro-s Mr. Cochran-c Mr. Douglas-cd Mr. Bailey-b Mr. Uelmen-u Mr. Scheck-bs Mr. Neufeld-n
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
PEOPLE'S witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
Montgomery, Renee 152 28817Rh 28910Bb (Resumed) 28928Bb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES
Witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.
Montgomery, Renee 152 28817Rh 28910Bb (Resumed) 28928Bb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBITS
PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.
275-A thru 275-R - 28851 152 duplicate D1S80 gels
275-C(1) - Photograph of 28870 152 D1S80 gel with 10 arrows (Computer printout)
275-D(1) - Photograph of 28873 152 D1S80 gel with 9 arrows (Computer printout)
275-E(1) - Photograph of 28884 152 D1S80 gel with 2 arrows (Computer printout)
275-F(1) - Photograph of 28893 152 D1S80 gel with 10 arrows (Computer printout)
275-G(1) - Photograph of 28897 152 D1S80 gel with 3 arrows (Computer printout)
275-H(1) - Photograph of 28900 152 D1S80 gel with 6 arrows (Computer printout)
275-S and 275-T - 28909 152 duplicate D1S80 gels
1172-A - 1-page document 28940 152 entitled "DQ-Alpha typing sheet"
1172-B - 1-page document 28940 152 entitled "DQ-Alpha typing sheet"
1173-A thru 1173-I - 28957 152 9 printouts from slide presentation entitled "D1S80 results - Rockingham glove"
1174 - Photograph of 28974 152 a D1S80 gel
1175 - Photograph of 28985 152 a D1S80 gel
1176 - Photograph of 29019 152 a D1S80 gel
1176-A - Photograph of 29025 152 a D1S80 gel with 3 arrows
1177 - Photograph of 29025 152 a D1S80 gel
1178 - Photograph of 29048 152 a D1S80 gel
1179 - Photograph of 29055 152 a D1S80 gel
1180 - Photograph of 29055 152 a D1S80 gel