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

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

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

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

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

THE COURT: All right. Good morning, counsel. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. Mr. Simpson is again present before the Court with his counsel, Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Blasier, Mr. Scheck. The People are represented by Miss Clark, Mr. Darden and Mr. Harmon, also Miss Lewis. The jury is not present. Counsel, one issue I want to take up before we resume with the jury, and that is this--the objection concerning the absence of a C dot on some of the LAPD PCR results. I have received the letter brief filed by the Prosecution. I didn't receive anything from the Defense this morning. Mr. Harmon, I will hear from you first. Good morning, counsel.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor. Perhaps we should start with Miss Cotton's testimony. The distinction that is made, and I am not a scientist, but this is consistent with Dr. Cotton's testimony, consistent with the user guide, is the control dot is important because things that are more intense than the control dot on the DQ-Alpha strips mean that that is a type or types that are present. If the C dot is absent, it doesn't mean that dots which are there are not present; it just means that one cannot say that there are not other mixtures there, and that is the distinction between a reportable result and reporting what you see. When those dots light up--the Defense really can't have it both ways. They made a big deal about dots lighting up, suggesting that things are there. Now we have dots lighting up and they don't want the jury to hear that dots lit up because there is no C dot there. So I'm suggesting that there is a factual inconsistency with the position that the Defense has taken. We pointed out that there are already two such results--

THE COURT: The problem there was that their objection was late in coming was the problem.

MR. HARMON: That was the initial problem, but you--in rereading it, it would appear that you considered the substance of the objection as well. I mean, we've had to patch boards at the last minute, your Honor, so--but the user guide makes the distinction between typeable results. Umm, I mean the key is that there are--I can tell you what the--there are--

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon, forgive me for interrupting you.

MR. HARMON: Sure.

THE COURT: But let me redirect you to where we need to go here.

MR. HARMON: Sure.

THE COURT: The issue is what is the relevance of a result without a C dot control.

MR. HARMON: The relevance are--the relevance of these results, and I can--I mean, there are some differences in what the results are. The relevance are when those dots light up, that means there is some biological material that caused them to light up.

THE COURT: Well, more specifically, aren't--

MR. HARMON: Sure.

THE COURT: Can't we assume that it is amplified DNA that is causing that--

MR. HARMON: We can because that is where you--in the hybridization process that is what you would have.

THE COURT: Doesn't the lack of a C dot indicate that there is insufficient amplified product for a reliable result?

MR. HARMON: What do you mean by "reliable"?

THE COURT: Well, I mean that is what the guide says.

MR. HARMON: That is the key, and this is what I was just telling you, your Honor. It means that that biological material--there is biological material that produced those types that caused those dots to light up. It also means there could be other biological material present there that could help you interpret what is there, but what is there is there. And I think to be concrete, I think you need to appreciate what these results are where the stains are from.

THE COURT: All right. What are they and what do they--

MR. HARMON: Item 47.

THE COURT: A Bundy stain.

MR. HARMON: One of the Bundy stains. And you know what the results are that other labs have produced from those. They are a 1.1, 1.2. They are consistent with Mr. Simpson. Well, Mr. Yamauchi, his results were 1.1, 1.2 and no C dot and those results mean that there is some biological material that Mr. Yamauchi typed that produced the 1.1, 1.2. It doesn't mean there is not something else there. It just means that at least there was enough biological material to light up those two dots, and in the context of that--of this case that is a very significant observation. There is no question that it could mean a number of other things. That has never been a limitation on presenting any form of physical evidence analysis, except maybe I should back off that. We have had some limitations put on our positive phenolphthalein testing but for different reasons. That is the significance of--that is a result that has been consistently produced throughout this, the testing in this case. I think it gets a little more interesting when we switch over to item 42, which we know was a sample that was taken from the pool of blood that Nicole Brown was found in, and presumably that is her. Mr. Yamauchi's results were a 1.1, 1.1 with a C dot very faint. Now, what that suggests is, is that--and it suggests a lot of things and a lot of things that are much more critical at this point in the case with all this cross-contamination and everything else that the Defense has floated for weeks. What that suggests, is no. 1, he typed it right and what that suggests is in the sequence of events that these things were handled in, this systematic cross-contamination that the Defense has--has been continually suggesting, that suggests is that this stain that was processed right after the--in the sequence right after the Bundy stains, and before the Defendant's reference sample, was not cross-contaminated, and we know all the substrate controls were not cross-contaminated. So the fact that there was no 1.2 suggests that there was--that is a very important control that was never meant to be a control against this phenomena, so we have two different results with weak or no C dots that mean very important things, but they don't mean that these are the only types.

THE COURT: Are these the only two non-c dot results that you want to offer?

MR. HARMON: That is--yes. Let me make sure.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: So you are saying it is relevant because it is consistent with the other results, it is indicia of the lack of contamination and it is not misleading because it can be explained to the jury so that they can give to it the weight to which it is entitled?

MR. HARMON: If you--

THE COURT: That is your argument?

MR. HARMON: That was my argument and that was always my intention of not saying it any more strongly than that, and if I do, Mr. Scheck will cross-examine on that point. That is what it means, that is all it means, and it means something very powerful in the context of this case at this point.

THE COURT: Shouldn't I be very concerned about the user's guide that says don't use this if there is no C dot?

MR. HARMON: That is not what it says, your Honor. I appreciate that--

THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Harmon. Why don't you do this. Why don't you give me that page out of the user's guide. I think we should have a photocopy of that in the record so the record is clear as to what I considered in making this ruling.

MR. HARMON: Sure. And--

THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson, would you photocopy this page for me, please.

MR. HARMON: I mean, I think you have to read it very clearly when it says: "An accurate determination of the type cannot be made since there is a possibility that other probe signals are also below the threshold of detection." This is the way this will be presented, that this is what I saw, but here are the other possibilities, and you know, in the context of this cross-contamination, umm, there is no question that caution that has to be made when that is presented

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Harmon's argument is scientific nonsense. And it is going to confuse the jury and it fails to abide by even the most fundamental foundational requirements of reliability. The user's guide, your Honor, is a kit that is put out by the company that manufactures this product and stands to make a profit off it and should not necessarily be regarded as anything more than a minimum. But it is evident, from even the user's guide, that when the intensity--when there is no C dot that means that an accurate determination of type cannot be made, since there could very well be other signals present. And I mean this is the fundamental control of the strip. Mr. Sims' testimony at 28709. "Question: Just to digress for a second, if you saw Mr. Simpson's type a stain and you were unable to see a C dot there, how would you report that?

He answered: "In our laboratory we would not consider that a typeable result. We would note the types but we would not consider it to be a reportable result." I mean, when he says "We would note it," I mean, in other words, he is not going to throw away the data and say that that never happened, but they wouldn't report it in Court and they don't record it as a typeable result, and I don't think that there is anything more fundamental to this system. And if this isn't a foundational objection to the reliability of the evidence that ought to be sustained, then I suppose we can give the jury anything as far as this system is concerned, and to try to start raising inferences about whether there is or isn't contamination or there is or isn't reports--typeable results there that are consistent with something else, when the fundamental control on the strip fails and you can't make an accurate determination of type, that is not the kind of stuff that should be put before this jury, which lord knows is going to have enough trouble sorting through what they have in a proceeding where we didn't have an admissibility hearing. I mean, I think a lot of this is not adequately validated to go before a jury, but you know, you said, we couldn't litigate it.

THE COURT: That is after you waived it.

MR. SCHECK: No, no, you ruled. You ruled. I mean, you know, we have to live with this, and I think it is tough enough for these people, but this--this is ridiculous.

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon, any other comment?

MR. HARMON: Sure. Rather than guess about what Gary thinks, he is sitting right here. I asked him if I adequately articulated it and he said I did. If you would like to hear from him what he thinks about it, you know, I don't pretend to speak for the entire scientific community. I do the best I can, but Gary is sitting right here, and rather than make a mistake about what he feels on this, why don't we hear from him.

THE COURT: No, I'm not inclined to hold a hearing at this point, counsel. All right. The foundational objection as to the results with lack of C dot will be sustained. Neither party may inquire of that. All right. Let's have the jurors.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, how can I address--can I ask him if they were inconclusive?

THE COURT: Yes, you can. You can ask him if he was typed and you can ask him specifically that there was a C dot failure and it is not a typeable result. All right. Let's proceed. Miss Clark?

MS. CLARK: This--

THE COURT: I've got one points and authority--I'm sorry, hold the jury. Hold the jury.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: I forgot about this. I did get one set of points and authorities on the 356 issue.

MS. CLARK: From the Prosecution, your Honor?

MR. COCHRAN: Ours is coming momentarily, your Honor, so I think you said last night, but we wouldn't be ready to argue until nine o'clock so they will be in momentarily, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. I also got an anonymous phone message on my voice mail this morning suggesting that I suggest to you that you look up the Greek derivation of one of the adjectives you used yesterday.

MR. COCHRAN: I did that last night. I looked in my dictionary last night, your Honor, and it was the term as I understand it, applies to both male and female, and so that was my understanding, but we will discuss that.

THE COURT: All right. Well, just a word of caution.

MS. CLARK: It doesn't matter, your Honor. It is a personal attack that I thought all counsel was going to refrain from.

THE COURT: Counsel, I'm cautioning him, so I don't think you need to add anything to it.

MS. CLARK: I wanted to indicate to the Court that we gave a transcript to the Court.

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. CLARK: It was incomplete and it is--

MS. LEWIS: On its way.

MS. CLARK: --on its way.

THE COURT: Okay. All right.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, just one other question. We are going to finish with Mr. Yamauchi first?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And Mr. Sims is here. Is he assured that we will go through and he will be done tomorrow at noon, otherwise if--I don't know what Mr.--

THE COURT: Let's see how far we get.

MR. SCHECK: I don't know how much further we are going to get, but--particularly if we are going to argue that other issue. I'm beginning to get resigned.

THE COURT: Which other issue?

MR. SCHECK: The door opening issue.

THE COURT: Let's assume that you get a positive ruling. That won't be presented with these witnesses.

MR. SCHECK: Oh, no. I have some questions in regard to that in terms of this witness, his knowledge and things that are in those reports, absolutely.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, Mr. Scheck is seriously misinformed as to what this witness knows and could be inquired about.

MR. SCHECK: I don't want to have this colloquy.

THE COURT: I guess we will find out. All right. Let's have the jurors.

MS. CLARK: Mr. Scheck is not going to be inquiring until the Court rules?

THE COURT: He can inquire as to the state of Mr. Yamauchi's knowledge as of June 14th.

MS. CLARK: Right.

THE COURT: I mean, that has clearly been brought before the jury with the last several questions and answers.

MS. CLARK: Sure. All right.

THE COURT: The other matter, who knows.

MS. CLARK: Yes.

(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. Let the record reflect that all the jurors have now rejoined us. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

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

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

THE COURT: All right. The record should reflect Mr. Collin Yamauchi is again on the witness stand undergoing direct examination by Mr. Harmon. Good morning, Mr. Yamauchi.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Good morning.

THE COURT: Sir, you are reminded that you are still under oath. And Mr. Harmon, you may conclude your direct examination.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. HARMON

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi, I want to go back over a couple of details that we were in the process and you discussed yesterday and you may want to refer to your notes. We talked about your sketching out and counting out the number of swatches. Do you recall that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Do you remember how many swatches were contained in each of the items?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Of the ones that I analyzed?

MR. HARMON: Yes.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I have clear notes that I sketched out.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you--would you look at those notes, because I'm going to ask you how many of each of those.

THE COURT: Which page in your notes is this when you find it, Mr. Yamauchi?

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: May I look, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. I just asked him to tell us what page he is referring to.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: I see it is the same page we saw yesterday.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed, Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Starting in the order that you processed, these are the ones along the Bundy walkway, 52, how many swatches were in the coin envelope, or I'm sorry, the bindle for the stain envelope or the stain?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Two.

MR. HARMON: How many swatches were in the substrate control?

MR. YAMAUCHI: One.

MR. HARMON: And in 49, the next one in along the walkway, how many stain swatches were in this bindle?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Six.

MR. HARMON: How many swatches were in the substrate control?

MR. YAMAUCHI: One.

MR. HARMON: And item 50, how many swatches were in the stain?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Four.

MR. HARMON: And how many swatches were in the substrate control bindle?

MR. YAMAUCHI: One.

MR. HARMON: Now, do these swatches vary in size?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, they do.

MR. HARMON: And your sketches actually reflect the different sizes or the relative differences?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Very approximate.

MR. HARMON: Okay. 48, how many swatches were in the stain bindle?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Two.

MR. HARMON: And how many swatches were in the substrate control bindle?

MR. YAMAUCHI: There was one.

MR. HARMON: 47, how many swatches were in the stain bindle?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Eight.

MR. HARMON: How many swatches were in the substrate control?

MR. YAMAUCHI: One.

MR. HARMON: And 41, how swatches were in the stain bindle?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Four.

MR. HARMON: And how many swatches were in the substrate control bindle?

MR. YAMAUCHI: One.

MR. HARMON: 42, how many swatches were in the stain bindle?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Six.

MR. HARMON: And how many swatches were in the substrate control bindle?

MR. YAMAUCHI: One.

MR. HARMON: Okay. I want to go back to the first DQ-Alpha run that you testified about, the results that you produced, and one of the stains and substrate controls that we did not discuss yesterday was 47 and the 47 substrate control. Do you recall that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Did you, as a result of the PCR DQ-Alpha testing in this case, did you produce typeable results from that substrate control, a reportable result?

MR. YAMAUCHI: On item no. 47?

MR. HARMON: Yes. Maybe you ought to start out with did you get a C dot on that stain or on that strip?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, let me refer to that particular note.

MR. HARMON: Sure.

(Brief pause.)

MR. YAMAUCHI: No C dot.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And as a result of not having a C dot are you able to report a result, typeable result from that strip?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No, I don't report one out.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And what about the substrate control, was that processed in the sequence that you described yesterday?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And did that produce a typeable result?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

MR. HARMON: And let's shift to another stain that was in that sequence, item 42 that was processed, that was one of the potential reference samples that was provided to you?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Did that produce a typeable result?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No, it did not.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Is that because of another thing with the C dot?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. Once again, the C dot was very weak.

MR. HARMON: And when you see whatever you saw in that, how do you report that? As inconclusive?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Was the substrate control for 42 also processed in the sequence of events?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, it was.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Did you produce a typeable result on that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

MR. HARMON: Okay. What does it mean when you don't get a C dot?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, the C dot is something that the manufacturer had to design, because after all, they are the ones that are making these strips and balancing out the correct amounts of components in them so that we can interpret this and give results and make conclusions on them. So they have designed and balanced the C dot in there to help us have an indication of where the reliability is. Now, if we know there is a C dot and it is distinct, then we can reliably make--draw conclusions as to the results we get and that is why they have this developed within their system, to help us, the analysts, make these decisions.

MR. HARMON: Okay. I believe when we closed yesterday you described some of the records that you kept in this first DQ-Alpha run, and one of the items that you had described was the DNA electrophoresis record, the product gel?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And also a three-page document that is called "Serology case work summary sheet"?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Serology--yes.

MR. HARMON: And just to go back or touch bases on where we left off yesterday, you had described the three-page serology case work summary sheet as a summary sheet of information derived from other records?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And did you make some sort of misnumbering error when you filled out the summary sheet?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I did.

MR. HARMON: And can you describe that error, please.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, we take our records by assigning number runs to each of the major steps in our analysis, and then in order, so that later on if we are asked questions or we need to access some information, we take these number runs and we put them all on to one reference sheet. And in that reference sheet, I didn't catch this before, but I made an error and I wrote down 60 instead of the actual 61 run which is written on my sheets that I keep--keep with my analysis.

MR. HARMON: Okay. In a moment I will have these marked. May I have marked as, excuse me, your Honor, People's 282 for identification a three-page document that is entitled "Serology case work summary sheet" and the next line says "DNA analysis."

THE COURT: All right. So marked, 282.

(Peo's 282 for id = work sheet)

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. HARMON: And then as People's exhibit 283, a sheet entitled "DNA electrophoresis record product gel, it is page l-175. May I write those numbers on the face of those, your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. HARMON: Thank you.

(Peo's 283 for id = DNA record product gel)

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I have an entireties okay.

THE COURT: I'm sorry?

MR. SCHECK: Entireties objection.

THE COURT: 356 objection?

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

THE COURT: That is what that is.

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Overruled. I mean, you are the adverse party.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi, let's--I just want to show you what has been marked as 282 for identification. Is this the summary sheet that you made that numbering error on?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Showing you 38. 283 for identification, is this the sheet that had the actual numbers that you wrote when you did the work in this case?

MR. YAMAUCHI: The product gel?

MR. HARMON: The amplification number, yeah. Does that have the correct numbers on it?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Oh, yes, down this amp tube row, that would be the correct number, but there is another sheet for the amplification itself that has the number on it.

MR. HARMON: Does 283 have the correct number as well?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, it does.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could we put 283 on the elmo, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi, could you refer to the column that has the correct number on it on 283.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Where it says "Amp tube," down that row, that would show the series--the amplification series 61.

MR. HARMON: And when you say amplification series, can you tell us what those numbers mean and why they are in that sequence?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Sure. Certainly. We--in order to organize our work, the extraction process gets a particular number. In this case the extraction would have been the extraction no. 84 and that follows the list of all those numbers down. And then in the amplification, the part that I talked about where we are putting the thing in the tubes, the actual machine, the thermocycler, that gets another number assigned to it for each amplification that is done. In this particular case amplification no. 61 was the one that was assigned.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Under the column item number where it has "84-184-2," are those the correct numbers?

MR. YAMAUCHI: For the extraction, yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Can we put just the first sheet of exhibit 282 up there, your Honor. This is the serology case work summary sheet.

THE COURT: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Yamauchi, can you direct us to the column with you made the numbering mistake?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Okay. That would be under--I'm going to look at my own copy.

MR. HARMON: Sure.

MR. YAMAUCHI: (Witness complies.) Where it says "Amp number" that series, that 60 dash should all indicate 61.

MR. HARMON: Okay. So you made a numerical mistake?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: When did you--when did you actually fill out the serology case work summary sheet that we are looking at here?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Usually this particular sheet or set of sheets for the sample is filled out after the analysis is completed. It is used, as I said before, as something to give us a quick reference.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Does the sheet on the left-hand column--can you move that over a little bit where it says "EX" and the number sign--does that have the correct numbers for the individual items?

MR. YAMAUCHI: For the extraction, yes, it does.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And have you--does--does this misnumbering mistake in any way undermine the results that you have described to this jury?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, calls for a conclusion.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: No, it doesn't. Like I said before, this is just a sheet that we make afterwards to reference the information, to give us an easier time in looking up stuff.

MR. HARMON: And is there actually some other case that has amplification no. 60-1 down the line?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, there is.

MR. HARMON: And have you actually looked to see if there is such another case?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And is it different than this case?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Thanks, Mr. Yamauchi.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Yamauchi, you told us yesterday you went home or you checked out shortly after eight o'clock at night on June 14th. Do you recall about what time you got to work on the 15th?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Probably around 7:00 to 7:30, somewhere in there.

MR. HARMON: Okay. When you went home that night did you have any idea whether or not there was going to be additional work for you to do on this case on June 15th?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No, I wasn't.

MR. HARMON: Okay. When you got in, did you learn otherwise?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. What was your first contact on June 15th, the next day, with respect to this case?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I believe I talked to Mr. Matheson.

MR. HARMON: Where did you have that conversation?

MR. YAMAUCHI: That would be in serology.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Do you recall if anybody else was there?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, eventually Philip Vannatter.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And where did you meet Mr. Vannatter or Detective Vannatter?

MR. YAMAUCHI: As I recall it was in serology also.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Matheson about this case?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. What conversation did you have?

MR. YAMAUCHI: To the best of my recollection it had to do with, "Yes, well, Dennis has some more samples for you and Detective Vannatter has some exemplars."

MR. HARMON: When you say "Exemplars," you mean reference samples?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I do.

MR. HARMON: Did you get those reference samples from Detective Vannatter?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Can you describe the condition they were in when he gave them to you?

MR. YAMAUCHI: In the regular Coroner's sample they would be in the purple-cap tubes in gray envelopes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Did they have Coroner's numbers on them?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I will have to refer to my notes.

MR. HARMON: Sure. Did you write that sort of information down in your notes?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Umm, most likely I did. I will have to check.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you do that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: (Witness complies.) actually, according to my notes--I said they were in gray envelopes. According to my notes they were in a manila envelope and contained one purple-cap tube, "Brown, Simpson, Nicole, 94-05136" and that is what was on the tube.

MR. HARMON: Okay. That was Nicole Brown Simpson's reference sample?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Right. And then another sample, one purple-cap tube, "Goldman, Ronald, 94-05135."

MR. HARMON: Other than receiving the tubes from Detective Vannatter, did you have any other conversation with him?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Nothing that stands out in my mind.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Did you do anything with those tubes in the analyzed evidence envelopes?

MR. YAMAUCHI: They were used to make the same exemplar swatch cards.

MR. HARMON: And where did you do that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: In the serology unit.

MR. HARMON: And why did you do it in the serology unit?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, generally speaking, that is where I'm used to doing my work.

MR. HARMON: Is that where you were when you received them?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, it was.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Did you prepare those fitzco cards again?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Did you prepare them in the same manner that you prepared Mr. Simpson's fitzco card the day before?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. HARMON: How did you prepare them in comparison with how you prepared Mr. Simpson's reference card the day before?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Basically the same technique was used.

MR. HARMON: You wore gloves?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Did you change gloves between preparation of each of the fitzco cards?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, objection, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: What did do you with respect to your gloves between preparing each of the fitzco cards?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, as I explained earlier, when you are dealing with blood tubes, it--it is highly likely you are going to get blood on them, so I changed my gloves between doing these blood tube exemplars.

MR. HARMON: And yesterday you described putting a chem-wipe over the top of the tube when you--

MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: --when you took the cap off. Do you remember that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Did you do that with both of these?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: Were the gray analyzed envelopes sealed when they were given to you?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Approach the side bar with the reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar. Counsel, do you have a case cite in California Evidentiary Law that states that that question, or the one before it, posed by Mr. Harmon is a leading question under the laws of evidence here in California?

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I think a leading question is a question that suggests the answer, and I think that ordinarily, and I think the Court has noted that it has been my conduct during the course of this trial that on areas that are foundational and that are not of in dispute or not of great importance, I don't make objections to leading and permit the kind of foundational leading that one would ordinarily expect. The fact is that the way that this analyst handled the reference tubes and what he knew to be the correct procedures I think is an important issue, and I think that what is going on here is that Mr. Harmon is asking questions that suggest answers that he did it the same way he did the other one, et cetera, instead of asking the witness how did you do it, which would be the non-leading way of doing it. He doesn't ask the witness the non-leading form of the question in what I consider an important area because he is afraid the witness won't on his own do it correctly, so that is the only--I mean, I understand the Court's concern that I seem to be objecting when he is saying, well, did you do it the same way you did it before, et cetera.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. SCHECK: But in this particular area with this witness on this issue it seems to me that the form of these questions are ones which are suggesting an answer.

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: Well, I mean when you say "Did you," there is two possibilities, yes or no, so you know, I'm just trying to move this along and get to the results to give Barry the floor so he can do whatever he wants with Mr. Yamauchi, but it is clear that those are ambivalent questions, ambiguous questions.

THE COURT: These aren't close.

MR. HARMON: Thanks.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

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

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi, what sort of instrument or tool did you use to draw the blood from the tubes in preparation of the fitzco cards?

MR. YAMAUCHI: The pipette-man that I described yesterday.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And did you change the tips as you described yesterday?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Of course.

MR. HARMON: What did you do with those cards after you put the blood on them?

MR. YAMAUCHI: They were laid out to dry along the edge of the hood system I have at the edge of my work station.

MR. HARMON: And what kind of hood is that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I'm not sure.

MR. HARMON: Did you, before--let's talk about one of these samples at a time. Did Nicole Brown Simpson's reference sample, which you've described as Coroner's no. 94-05136, was that ultimately assigned an evidence item number?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, it was.

MR. HARMON: What was that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Item no. 59.

MR. HARMON: And the same question with respect to Ronald Goldman's reference sample, what item was that given?

MR. YAMAUCHI: That would be item no. 60.

MR. HARMON: When you first observed Nicole Brown Simpson's reference sample, which was item no. 59, did you make any specific notation of how much blood was in there?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No. I--I would have noted whether or not it is an ample amount.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Have you ever noted how much blood, I mean, recorded how much blood was in a reference sample that was provided to you, when you first saw it, in your career?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Something accurate, no.

MR. HARMON: Okay. The same question with respect to Ronald Goldman's reference sample. Did you make any notation of how much blood was in that tube before you drew any to prepare the fitzco card?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Once again, I wrote "Ample" down indicating to me that scientifically there was enough there for us to do our analyses.

MR. HARMON: Okay. How much blood did you withdraw from item no. 59, the reference sample from Nicole Brown?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, I don't have it in my notes, but once again, going by what my normal procedure is, I would have probably drawn up approximately one ml.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And as you described yesterday with Mr. Simpson's reference sample, when you prepared the fitzco card, do you have a specific notation in there as to how much you put on the card for the one for Nicole Brown?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No, but once again, it is approximately 200 microliters or so.

MR. HARMON: Do you recall if there was any--any of the blood left in the pipette tip when you disposed of it?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I don't recall. If there was, once again, my practice is not to put that back into the tube, but to dispose of the tip with the excess blood.

MR. HARMON: All right. And how much--do you have a specific recollection of how much you put on the reference--on the fitzco card for Mr. Goldman?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Once again, approximately one ml would be my standard practice.

MR. HARMON: And same question about the tip. Do you specifically recall whether there was anything left in that disposable tip?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No, I do not.

MR. HARMON: And did you follow your practice, and if there was, not put it back in the tube?

MR. YAMAUCHI: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Now, just to jump ahead for a second. When these cards are dry are they handled or stored in any different way--in any way different than the tubes are?

MR. YAMAUCHI: They are--well, they have a separate pouch that--that is made by the manufacturer that actually stores these--these blood swatches, and in them they have a desiccant. That is something that allows things to stay dry, kind of like you might find in a pack of vitamins, it is very similar, and that is stuck in along with the blood swatch in this foil-lined envelope and that is how that is stored.

MR. HARMON: Where does it end up?

MR. YAMAUCHI: That would be frozen.

MR. HARMON: What about the tubes, where are the tubes or how are the tubes stored?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, the tubes, after the analysis and everything, it is eventually frozen, too.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And when you were finished making your preparations for the fitzco card, what did you do with those tubes?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Finished--

MR. HARMON: You made the fitzco card, you have the tubes. What did you do with those tubes?

MR. YAMAUCHI: The--I would have been doing extracts? Is that what you mean?

MR. HARMON: No. Where did the tubes end up?

MR. YAMAUCHI: You mean after I was done with the extract and everything?

MR. HARMON: After you made the filter cards?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, I would have made the filter cards before I went to go sample the tubes and then put the evidence into the tubes, so they wouldn't have been--there wouldn't have been tubes yet.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Do you recall giving those tubes to Mr. Fung at any point?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Would it help to refresh your recollection to look at your those with regard to what you did with those tubes that morning?

THE COURT: When you said "Tubes" are we talking tubes, vials? What we are talking about.

MR. HARMON: The vial of blood, 59 and 60?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I'm sorry. I understand now. I thought you were referring to the microcentrifuge tubes. Okay. The vials of blood were taken over to Mr. Fung.

MR. HARMON: Do you have a specific notation in your records about that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I do.

MR. HARMON: Do you recall what time it was you gave them to Mr. Fung?

MR. YAMAUCHI: About 9:25 on the 15th of June.

MR. HARMON: And where did you give--where were you when you gave those tubes or the reference vials to him?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I gave them to him in the evidence processing room.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, the--does the evidence processing room have a similar log that records when you put your badge up to the censor?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. Our access cards are recorded somewhere in the lab through a computer system.

MR. HARMON: At some time soon after you gave those reference samples that were in the tubes to Mr. Fung, did you have a conversation with him about other evidence items that he had collected?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading as to--

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Did you have any conversation with Dennis Fung soon after you gave him those reference samples?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Did you talk to Dennis Fung at any time after you gave him the reference samples?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. When was that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, sometime after that we would have discussed what the evidence items were that he would have had for me to sample.

MR. SCHECK: Objection, move to strike; speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: And which items did you discuss with Mr. Fung?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Did you process the items that you discussed with Mr. Fung?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading. Assumes a fact not in evidence.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: What items did you process after your conversation with Mr. Fung?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No. 33, no. 23, no. 25, no. 31, no. 34, no. 12 and no. 14.

MR. HARMON: And why did you process those items?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Because it was discussed with Dennis Fung and he--that was his suggestion--

MR. SCHECK: Motion, move to strike any hearsay that might follow from this conversation.

THE COURT: Overruled. It is not hearsay. Offered for a limited purpose only, to explain the conduct after that was said. Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: Up to this time, what he may say next.

THE COURT: Proceed. Ask your next question.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: So you processed 33, 23, 25, 31, 34, 12 and 14?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And how many of those had substrate controls along with them?

MR. YAMAUCHI: 33 did not, 23 did have a control, 25 had two control swatches, 31 had one control swatch, 34 had one control swatch, 12 had one control swatch and 14 had one control swatch.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Yamauchi, let's go back then and talk about how many swatches, excuse me, were within each of the stain items in those various same samples--you made the same kind of notation and record about the sampling process as you did on the run that you did on the 14th?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And if it would help to look at your notes to refresh your recollection, let's take them item by item, describe the number of swatches. May I supplement that with one more thing and describe how much you removed for your own sampling?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Okay. On 33, that was--that was something that was removed from a shoeprint on a piece of carpet by Dennis Fung and was kind of a glump of material and I used that piece of sample for my analysis.

MR. HARMON: That is the one with no substrate control?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Next sample?

MR. YAMAUCHI: And then no. 23 there were two what appears to be small cloth swatches and I used one of those for my analysis. And on no. 25 there is a test-tube with cloth swatches in it and I have here written "Carpet fibers" with two groups of material and one of those was sampled for analysis. And then on 31 there is test-tube with cloth swatches, and there was one swatch in it, and I sampled half of that for analysis. On 34, again test-tube with cloth swatches, and there was one swatch in it, and I sampled that for analysis. And on no. 12, in a paper bindle, there is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8--8 pieces and I sampled one of those pieces for analysis. And on no. 14 there is one small piece of swatch or some type of transfer material and I used that entire sample up for analysis.

MR. HARMON: Now, you have described--just in describing those items, you have described some of them were in tubes?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And some of them were in paper bindles?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, are you familiar with the drying process that Mr. Fung uses to dry wet swatches?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I understand how it works.

MR. HARMON: And based on your familiarity with his drying process, what is the significance of seeing those things in the tubes that morning?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, Mr. Fung tends to dry his swatches in test-tubes, and that would have been the stage at which this would have taken place.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And then what about the two that were in the bindles already, 12 and 14?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Those would--

MR. SCHECK: I think--did he say tubes? I'm sorry. Did you mean--

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. HARMON: You have described no. 12, the substrate, the stain and substrate control, and 14, the stain and substrate control, as having been in bindles. What is the significance of that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Okay. Then I would assume he took the tubes.

MR. SCHECK: Excuse me. Motion to strike what he assumes.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: What is the significance of the fact that they are already in bindles?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: "Significance" doesn't. What point in the process is this?

MR. YAMAUCHI: They would have been dried and placed into the bindles.

MR. SCHECK: Motion to strike as to what would have happened.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: Now, did you sample the stains and substrate control in the same manner that you sampled the stains and substrate control on June 14th?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: What manner did you sample the stains and substrate controls that you just described; 33, 23, 23 control, 25, 25 control, 31, 31 control, 34, 34 control, 12, 12 control, 14, 14 control?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I would have utilized the same handling proceedings and techniques that I did on the previous day.

MR. HARMON: Same precautions?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Same reasons?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Did you have more than one coin envelope at a time during the sampling process on June 15th?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: You did ever open more than one coin envelope at a time?

MR. YAMAUCHI: You said "Never."

MR. HARMON: I said ever. Let's get it--

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

MR. HARMON: Okay. After you sampled all of these items in the manner that you sampled the items the day before, what did you do with them?

MR. YAMAUCHI: The--after the sampling was done, the rack of microcentrifuge tubes would have been carried back to the serology unit for further analysis.

MR. HARMON: Now, when--strike that. Did you take any samples from 59 and 60, the two fitzco--strike that. Did you take any cuttings for the PCR processing for the two fitzco cards that you've described you made earlier that morning?

MR. SCHECK: Object to this form of question as leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I did.

MR. HARMON: And when did do you that in the sequence of events?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I would have sampled those after I got back to the serology unit.

MR. HARMON: Will you describe the manner in which you sampled those two cards?

MR. YAMAUCHI: It would have been done in the same fashion as I had described for the day before for the other sample card.

MR. HARMON: Using the same safeguards?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: At some point, after sampling the two fitzco cards from 59 and 60, did you begin the PCR process?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I would have done the extraction, yes.

MR. HARMON: In the same manner you described yesterday concerning the run that you did on June 14th?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: In what order did you perform the extraction on these samples?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Again, in reference to my extraction record, I have listed item no. 23, red stain and then control, item no. 25, red stain and then control, item no. 31, red stain and then control, item no. 33, red stain, item no. 34, red stain, item no. 34 control, item no. 12, red stain, item no. 12 control, item no. 14, red stain, item no. 14 control, and then blood exemplar, Coroner's blood exemplar, brown, Nicole--or brown, Simpson Nicole, and then again blood exemplar from the Coroner as Goldman, Ronald, and then there would be that positive control standard, blood standard, followed by the negative control cloth control.

MR. HARMON: Now, why do you have the cuttings from the fitzco cards at the end of the line as you did in this case?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, that--that was kind of the order that everything took place and for some reason I tend to keep my--my exemplars grouped at the end.

MR. HARMON: Did you use the chelex extraction process once again?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I did.

MR. HARMON: And how long did it take? About the same length of time as it took the day before?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And after you performed the extraction process, what did you do next with regard to these samples?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, after the extraction process I would have taken the extracts over to PAB where our other amplification lab is held at.

MR. HARMON: Perform the amplification there in the manner you performed the amplifications the day before?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I did.

MR. HARMON: Same safeguards?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. After you performed the amplification, what did you do?

MR. YAMAUCHI: After doing the amplification, then the next step would be the hybridization.

MR. HARMON: Same manner you did the day before?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I just have a standing objection.

THE COURT: Noted.

MR. HARMON: Did you produce results from some of the samples that you processed on June 15th in the manner you have just described?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Before we discuss the typing results on the stains, did you produce any typing results from any of the substrate controls that you processed along with the stains in this case; 23 substrate control, 25 substrate control, 31 substrate control, 34 substrate control, 12 control and 14 control?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

MR. HARMON: Did any of the other negative controls that you've described yesterday produce any typing results?

MR. YAMAUCHI: The negative controls, no.

MR. HARMON: Did--did the positive control perform the way it should have performed in this case?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. It was as expected.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi, I would like to talk about the results now, if we can.

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

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I would like to display for the jury at this time the Bronco photo and result boards which are respectively People's 172 and People's 260.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi, while we are getting set up with that, to move things along, can you tell the jury what typing result you produced from item no. 23 from the Bronco?

MR. YAMAUCHI: 1.1, 1.2.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi, could you step down and I'm going to ask you to look up on our result board for the Bronco automobile, People's 260 for identification. And you got a 1.1, 1.2 in your typing?

MR. YAMAUCHI: In no. 23?

MR. HARMON: No. 23. Would you remove the cover under "PCR results" for item no. 23. Do you see it up there?

MR. YAMAUCHI: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Is that the result that you obtained from the Bronco, the driver's door interior?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And from among the three reference samples that you typed, two on the 15th, Mr. Simpson on the 14th, whom is that result consistent with?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Mr. Simpson.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could you remove the cover under the "Not excluded."

MR. YAMAUCHI: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. Did you produce any typing results from item no. 25, the driver's side carpet fiber?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I did.

MR. HARMON: What result was that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: 1.1, 1.2.

MR. HARMON: Could you remove the cover over 1.1, 1.2.

MR. YAMAUCHI: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And is that also consistent with Mr. Simpson?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, it is.

MR. HARMON: And both of those results are inconsistent with Mr. Goldman and Nicole Brown?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. For this DQ-Alpha system.

MR. HARMON: Sure. Could you remove the cover from over the "Not excluded" column.

MR. YAMAUCHI: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And did you produce any typing results from item 31?

MR. YAMAUCHI: 31 is inconclusive.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And in what regard?

MR. YAMAUCHI: It contained what appeared to be somewhat of a mixture--

MR. SCHECK: Motion to strike, your Honor, inconclusive, if he is going to go beyond the Court's ruling.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, maybe we do need to approach.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HARMON: Out of caution.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: All right. We are over at the side bar. What is his answer going to be on this, Mr. Harmon?

MR. HARMON: Well, this is why I was very clear before we started, but I think we should talk about this. There is a C dot there. There is a 1.1, 1.2 that is more intense than the C dot. There is a 1.3, 4 that is less intense. It is a mixture and it is consistent with the same results that DOJ produced on it, but it is a totally different category and this is why I don't mind talking about it now, if you want to look at the user guide, but there is a C dot there and it is a mixture and it is a mixture that could be consistent with a whole bunch of other things.

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: Well, this analyst in this laboratory called it an inconclusive and by definition not a reportable result and a result from which they can draw conclusions, and they weren't going to over it, so it seems to me that they shouldn't be putting inconclusives was up there when he says it is inconclusive and it is not even up on their board. So to be bringing up this data now seems to be improper and bad foundation by admission of the analyst himself.

MR. HARMON: Before he got cut off he just said it was a mixture and he was going to tell you what the dots were a mixture of, so I mean, you know, I'm happy that he can speak for the whole scientific community, but he doesn't speak for them. This is evidence. There is a clear 1.1, 1.2. I think we have got to stop pretending that things aren't there just because they don't want them to be. If the stuff--the fact that it is not on the board, none of these things are on the board. We are putting them up there as they come across, so unless he can refer to something in the user guide, if that is what we are operating on, let him show you where it is in the user guide, otherwise let's get moving.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, we broached this subject at one point with Mr. Matheson where he--the point here is that where at least he puts in caveats here this lab called it inconclusive, they didn't report out a result based on their readings at the time, and so I don't understand how once it is an inconclusive and to the point where they couldn't even put it up on their board, they didn't put any notations on it, that it is now proper, relevant evidence with foundation for this jury. It doesn't make any sense.

MR. HARMON: This is just like the EAP where you can describe the data and let the jury understand the significance. That if Mr. Scheck wants to cross-examine or bring in other scientists like Blake, let him have at it.

THE COURT: All right. The objection is overruled.

MR. HARMON: Thank you.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Mr. Harmon, 10:30.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi, you had described that--is there a difference between reporting a typeable result and describing the observations that you made in the context of this PCR DQ-Alpha kit?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, the science of it all, whatever comes up on the strips is there, and scientifically everything has significance, but once again, the control dot is there for a specific reason and that is to aid in interpretation of these dots, and so that is kind of a--kind of a paradox and I would put that on the legal end.

MR. HARMON: Okay. You described before--a few minutes ago that what you observed on 31 was a mixture; is that correct?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: What did you actually see that led you to conclusion on item 31, the center console stain, that it was a mixture?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, let me finish what I was about to say.

MR. HARMON: Oh, sure.

THE COURT: No, no, no.

MR. HARMON: No.

THE COURT: Ask the question. The questions have to be responsive.

MR. HARMON: Sure.

MR. HARMON: What did you see, and then I will ask you to explain it, what did you see on your strip results, your typing results, that led you to conclude that it was a mixture?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Okay. It is written out 1.1, 1.2 with weak 1.3, 4, and there is a side note, "1.3 very weak."

MR. HARMON: Okay. And are those results consistent with a mixture of the blood from Mr. Simpson, the Defendant, in this case, and Ronald Goldman.

MR. SCHECK: Objection, move to strike.

THE COURT: Sustained, foundation.

MR. HARMON: From among the three reference samples in this case, are those results consistent with a mixture of any of the two reference samples?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, move to strike.

THE COURT: Foundation.

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

MR. HARMON: If you would look up at the board there, if one were to mix the reference sample of Mr. Simpson with the reference sample of Mr. Goldman, what sort of mixture would you produce?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Again, moving back into that C dot, and the reason why this was made inconclusive is because we saw some dots that were below the level of that C dot--

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Move to strike as nonresponsive.

THE COURT: The jury is to disregard the last answer. Mr. Yamauchi, please answer specifically the question that is posed to you by the attorney. The question was what do you get if you mixed Ronald Goldman's reference sample with Mr. Simpson's reference sample? What result would you get?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, your Honor, part of this has to do with the levels that the blood would be mixed at like if one is a higher concentration.

THE COURT: All right. The jury is to disregard that. And ask a different question, Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: If you were to mix whole blood reference samples from Mr. Goldman and Mr. Simpson, what mixture results would show up on a DQ-Alpha strip?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Okay. If you were to mix those two blood samples, I would expect to see the represented alleles from both parties.

MR. HARMON: And what would they be?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, Mr. Simpson is 1.1, 1.2, and Mr. Goldman is--sorry, I just have to look this up to be sure--a 1.3, 1.4.

MR. HARMON: All right. Now--

THE COURT: Let's move on.

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

MR. HARMON: Did you say 1.3, 4 or 1.3--

MR. YAMAUCHI: I'm sorry, 1.3, 4.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Yamauchi. Item no. 33, which is on the carpet from the Bronco, were you able to produce my typeable results from that stain?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No results.

MR. HARMON: Item no. 34, on the driver's side, the wall on the outside of the--or the inside of the car, but to the out--toward the left side.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Item no. 34 is a 1.1, 1.2.

MR. HARMON: If you would, Mr. Yamauchi, could you put this cover to--just above or below the DOJ results on item 34.

MR. YAMAUCHI: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And would it appear to you your lab--you got the same results that DOJ did?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Item 12--your Honor, at this point I would like to put up exhibit 120 and the photo board for Rockingham or the rule board for Rockingham, exhibit 261.

THE COURT: All right.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I have a correction. The interior photo board is the one we were looking for. That is exhibit 169.

THE COURT: All right.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi, let's talk about the type results that you obtained from item 12, which was inside Mr. Simpson's house on the wooden floor. What DQ-Alpha result did you get?

MR. YAMAUCHI: On no. 12, 1.1, 1.2.

MR. HARMON: That is consistent with Mr. Simpson?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, it is, for the DQ-Alpha system.

MR. HARMON: And item 14 here from the master bathroom floor, what result did you get there?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Will 1.1, 1.2.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And lastly, in this series of tests, we mentioned yesterday what type you produced when you typed Mr. Goldman's reference sample from that fitzco card. Was--did you detect something in Mr. Goldman's blood about--that was somewhat inconsistent with the ultimate typing result?

MR. YAMAUCHI: You mean--have would it help to look at your notes on that?

(Brief pause.)

MR. YAMAUCHI: Observations straight from the strip 1.3, 4, and I also note a very faint 1.1.

MR. HARMON: And is that--this very faint 1.1, is that something you are familiar with that is described in the user guide and scientific literature with respect to the DQ-Alpha system?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. HARMON: Have you read about a typing result of the type that you saw in Mr. Goldman's reference sample in either the user guide or any of the scientific literature?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, still leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, the user guide refers to what's known as cross-hybridization which in the 1 allele, and I don't want to get too complex, but basically what happens is on these particular 1 dots, quite often they are so similar that when you have enough DNA there, they will somewhat to a certain extent cross and hybridize with the wrong point, but it only leaves a very, very faint dot that is much less than the C dot and that is another function of the C got, to give us information like that.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Are you familiar with the term DX Activity?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. Yes, I am.

MR. HARMON: Does that have any relation to because observed, in Mr. Goldman's reference sample--

MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: What if anything does DX Activity have to do with what you observed in Mr. Goldman's reference sample?

MR. YAMAUCHI: DX is also another phenomenon and what that is is the DQ-Alpha is called a locus and what DX is is another locus from another gene that is very similar to DQ-Alpha and some people, but not all, may have this, and if they do, occasionally it can show up and it does hybridize to that 1.1 dot to a very slight extent, also again showing the significance of the C dot so that we can interpret our strips, because if these things show up, they are generally very, very low inactivity and they would be well beneath the level of the C dot.

MR. HARMON: Okay. I forgot to have you remove the covers for item 14 from the master bathroom floor. Would you remove the cover for the PCR results, 1.1, 1.2.

MR. YAMAUCHI: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And also the "Not excluded" column.

MR. YAMAUCHI: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. You can have s seat again, Mr. Yamauchi.

MR. YAMAUCHI: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi, did you calculate a frequency for the occurrence of the 1.1, 1.2 DQ-Alpha allele?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, approximate general population frequency.

MR. HARMON: When you say "Approximate general population frequency," what is that information based from or derived from?

MR. YAMAUCHI: It is derived from known studies from the FBI, some from people at Roche and other reputable statistics, and that is approximated and weighted along with the general population for the county and specifically the city of Los Angeles.

MR. HARMON: And what approximate percentage of the population--of the overall population that has a 1.1, 1.2 allele?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Approximately 1 in 15 people.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could we--do you have a marker up there and we've got some--will you come up here and I would like you to mark that frequency on the Rockingham results board. Right behind the board there.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Pardon me?

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon, I'm a little leery of the dry erase markers, the permanence of them.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Why don't you write it up in the "Frequency" column.

MR. YAMAUCHI: (Witness complies.) for this one right here, right, (Indicating).

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you, just to complete the balance here, would you put this LAPD item no. 12 result up on item no. 12 on the Rockingham result board.

MR. YAMAUCHI: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: And that is a result that is consistent with what is reported up there from Cellmark, a 1.1, 1.2 for the DQ-Alpha marker?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, it is.

MR. HARMON: Okay. You can have a seat now, Mr. Yamauchi.

MR. YAMAUCHI: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Just one last topic here before the--

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

MR. HARMON: Before the break.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi, when did you perform the product gels in this case with respect to when you did the hybridization that produced the typing strips?

MR. YAMAUCHI: The product gel was performed afterwards.

MR. HARMON: When you say "Afterward," could you give us the dates when you ran the product gels for both of the PCR DQ-Alpha runs that you have just described to the jury?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Okay. Referring to my notes. The 61 series is dated 6/16/94.

MR. HARMON: Now, the 61 series was the run that was made on which date?

MR. YAMAUCHI: The amplification was done on the 14th.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And then with regard to the amplification that was done on the 15th, when did you do the product gel on that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: That is dated the 17th.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Thank you. Would this be a good time, your Honor?

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to take our recess for the morning. Please remember my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case among yourselves, form any opinions about the case, have any contact with anybody with regard to the case or conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. And we will be in recess for fifteen. All right.

(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. Let's have the jurors, please.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, just one housekeeping matter. I did not write the frequencies on the Bronco board. With the Court's permission, can we do that out of the presence of the jury? They are the same results.

THE COURT: 1 in 15.

MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, any objection?

MR. SCHECK: No. As a matter of fact, Mr. Harmon will tell you, I asked him to do it.

THE COURT: All right. Sometime later today then we will clean that up. All right. Let's have the jury, please.

(Brief pause.)

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

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. The record should reflect we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Yamauchi, would you resume the witness stand, please. And Mr. Harmon, about how much do you have left?

MR. HARMON: 35 minutes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi, I just want to make a point clear. When you took a sampling from all of the evidence items that you've described as having sampled for your PCR DQ-Alpha test in this case, did you consume all of whatever you sampled in the testing process?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Not on every item. Most of the items I just used portions of.

MR. HARMON: Okay. My question was vague then. The portions that you took, the portions that you took for your samplings, were those consumed in the testing process by you?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, they were.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And--and whenever, as you've described them, once you took them and processed them in the way that you've described to this jury, none of those samplings or the cuttings that you made remained?

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. HARMON: Once you remove those items from the bindles and consumed them in testing, did those samples cease to exist?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No, they don't cease to exist. They are in the extracts.

MR. HARMON: Okay. But did they ever--did those extracts ever get sent out to any other laboratory?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No, they did not.

MR. HARMON: Did you prepare what's known as a Los Angeles Police Department analyzed evidence report describing the samples that you tested in this case?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And do you have that in front of you, Mr. Fung--or Mr. Yamauchi?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I do.

MR. HARMON: What date did you file that report on?

MR. SCHECK: Can I see what he has?

THE COURT: The analyzed evidence report. What is the date on it?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Okay. The date I started was the 14th and the date that I finished was the 17th.

MR. HARMON: What's the purpose of that report?

MR. YAMAUCHI: To reflect the results of my testing and impart conclusions and so on and so forth.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And have you detected any errors that you made in that--in the compilation of that report?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, specifics in my notes say that no. 49 is six pieces when I first received it.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Then in your report how did you describe it?

MR. YAMAUCHI: It is listed as five.

MR. HARMON: And do you remember what condition those swatches were in when you first observed them?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. Well, yes, I do, on that particular one.

MR. HARMON: Well, could you describe that, please.

MR. YAMAUCHI: There was two swatches stuck together and a number of other loose swatches.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Did you actually receive all the items that you've listed on your analyzed evidence report on the same date?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: No, I did not.

MR. HARMON: And does the report suggest that you did?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No. It collectively includes the--the time frame from when I started it to when I finished.

MR. HARMON: And you've already described to the jury when you received those items?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, and it is in my notes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Yamauchi, did you obtain the reference samples from Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman and the Defendant on June 25th for some testing purpose?

MR. YAMAUCHI: (No audible response.)

MR. HARMON: Would it help to refresh your recollection to look at your notes for June 25th?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, please.

MR. HARMON: Okay.

MR. YAMAUCHI: (Witness complies.) yes, that's correct.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. HARMON: And what was the purpose that you took possession of those--the three items, the Defendant's reference tube, the reference tube from Nicole Brown and reference tube from Ronald Goldman?

MR. YAMAUCHI: To do conventional analysis on the reference samples.

MR. HARMON: And do you actually have detailed notes of what you did with those samples on that date?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I do.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's start out with the sample from Nicole Brown. What was the purpose that you took that tube that day?

MR. YAMAUCHI: That day it was taken out of property or ECU to do conventional analysis, as I previously stated.

MR. HARMON: Were those items all sealed?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, they were.

MR. HARMON: In preparation for the testing that you were--that was about to be performed, what actions did you take with regard to Nicole Brown Simpson's reference sample?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, some blood was removed from that tube to do an ABO analysis.

MR. HARMON: How much did you remove from Nicole Brown Simpson's reference tube?

MR. YAMAUCHI: In my notes I have listed approximately three-fourths of an ml or a milliliter.

MR. HARMON: And when you say "Approximately," can you give us a range on how much you withdrew?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, it--I guess it would be between a half ml and an ml.

MR. HARMON: And use the same pipette-man?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I do.

MR. HARMON: When you withdraw it from the tube, what are you actually doing with it once it is in the pipette-man?

MR. YAMAUCHI: It is being transferred to another microcentrifuge tube.

MR. HARMON: How much can they hold in terms of liquid volume?

MR. YAMAUCHI: They can hold up to about one and a half ml's.

MR. HARMON: Do you recall whether you filled this one up all the way?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No, I don't.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Do you recall whether there was any left in the pipette-man, the disposable tip?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I'm not sure, but if there was, once again, I would throw away that along with the tip.

MR. HARMON: Did you make any--

MR. SCHECK: Objection, move to strike.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: How much did you take from Mr. Goldman's reference tube?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Approximately a half an ml.

MR. HARMON: Why did you take less from Mr. Goldman's reference tube than Nicole Brown Simpson's reference tube?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, the way the pipette-man works is you press it and I usually have it set on one ml, that is the full volume that it can take up, and when you stick it into the blood vial, you allow your thumb to go up to pull in whatever you consider a suffer amount or what I considered a sufficient amount, and once I got to there, I stopped, put the tube in the rack, and then opened up my--my microcentrifuge and deposited it, so I don't always suck up the full volume that I potentially can in my pipette-man.

MR. HARMON: And is there any reason to be precise in withdrawing blood in terms of the scientific tests that are about to be performed?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, you need enough to do the ABO testing, and what I have listed there is sufficient.

MR. HARMON: How much do you need?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, approximately a half an ml or so to get a good separation of the blood.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And how much blood do you recall withdrawing from the Defendant's reference tube?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I wrote three-quarters of an ml, approximately that.

MR. SCHECK: Let the record reflect--I'm sorry. Are you finished? The record reflect the witness was just looking at his--

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. HARMON: How accurate is three-quarters of an ml?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Once again, it is just an approximation.

MR. HARMON: Do you recall whether you filled up the microcentrifuge tube that you put Mr. Simpson's blood all the way?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No, I don't.

MR. HARMON: Make any notation of how much you put in there?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

MR. HARMON: Let's shift, if you will, to July 20th, 1994. I want to ask you some questions about item no. 78, Ronald Goldman's shoes.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Did you do some processing of Mr. Goldman's shoes on July 20, 1994?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. I did an initial search to see what types of evidence would be on that item.

MR. SCHECK: Excuse me, your Honor. He is looking at a note. May I approach?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: And ultimately did you swatch either of the shoes, Mr. Goldman's shoes, and in an attempt to remove some apparent evidentiary items?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I did.

MR. HARMON: Can you describe which shoe you swatched?

THE COURT: Excuse me. Mr. Scheck, you are standing between the witness--

MR. SCHECK: I know. I'm sorry. I just--

MR. HARMON: Can you describe which shoe that you swatched and what you did?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Okay. It was the left shoe and what I did was I did that preliminary screening test that I described earlier, the phenolphthalein test, and it came up positive in this particular area and there was a notable stain there, and that was transferred to a cotton cloth swatch.

MR. HARMON: Okay. How much swatches?

MR. YAMAUCHI: There are two in all.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Can you describe their relative or respective sizes?

MR. YAMAUCHI: One was approximately four times the size of the other.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And did those swatches receive item numbers assigned to them at some point?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, one of them was booked as item no. 174. That would be the smaller one. The other one was sent off to Cellmark.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Was there a substrate control that you removed from 78, the bottom of that left shoe?

MR. YAMAUCHI: On that shoe I could not find an area near that stain, particular stain that was, umm--that would indicate there wasn't any blood there. In other words, that phenolphthalein test that I was telling you about came up positive in all the areas I checked near that stain, so I decided not to collect a control.

MR. HARMON: Does that happen occasionally?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, it does.

MR. HARMON: I want to shift to July 27th. Did you examine item no. 97, the underwear that Nicole Brown was wearing?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No. 87?

MR. HARMON: I believe it is 87.

THE COURT: Did you say 97 or 87?

MR. HARMON: I said 87.

THE COURT: I heard 97.

THE REPORTER: So did i.

THE COURT: Have you figured 87 or 97?

MR. HARMON: I said 87.

THE COURT: All right. 87.

MR. HARMON: Did you find your notes?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: 87?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. July 27?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Will you describe what you were looking for and what sorts of tests you performed in that regard?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I did an acid phos--excuse me--acid phosphatase test and what that is a preliminary screening test for the presence of semen.

MR. HARMON: And will you describe how you actually performed that test on an item such as the panties that were item no. 87?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, we do what's called an AP map and what that involves is you take a piece of filter paper and you moisten that and allow the stain or the target area on the panties, or whatever item you are looking at, to transfer some of its components into the wet filter paper. Once that transfer is done, you take the filter paper aside and then you add the proper chemicals for this test. A purple color after approximately thirty seconds is indicative of the presence of semen.

MR. HARMON: And what results did you obtain when you processed item 87, Nicole Brown Simpson's underwear?

MR. YAMAUCHI: All the AP tests were negative and semen was not detected.

MR. HARMON: How many areas did you try to sample?

MR. YAMAUCHI: There were basically three areas.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's shift or August 4th, 1994, if you will. Did you examine item 13, a pair of socks that were found in Mr. Simpson's residence in the master bedroom?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, may I have the plastic bag containing the socks marked as People's 284 for identification?

THE COURT: All right. People's 284.

(Peo's 284 for id = bag w/ socks)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi, I'm going to ask you to open these. We will get you some gloves. And do you want to put some paper out there? You tell me.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Please.

MR. HARMON: Okay.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Do you need some paper?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Do we have some paper?

MR. HARMON: I don't know.

THE COURT: I think Mrs. Robertson is getting some.

MR. HARMON: We can use our pads here, your Honor.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Why don't you use one of the paper pad items.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: I'm sorry.

MR. HARMON: Will you please open People's exhibit 284 which contains item 13, the socks.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Okay. There is a plastic bag containing a white envelope. I am cutting into the plastic bag. I'm removing the white envelope.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi, before you open that, let me just ask you a couple of general questions. You've described the tests you performed on the panties. Did you, during the course of time from June 13th or June 14th to August 4th--were there also numerous other items? You described Ronald Goldman's shoes that you examined during that time sequence?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: How was a decision made about what to examine and when to examine it?

MR. YAMAUCHI: All the work that I did was through my supervisor, Greg Matheson.

MR. HARMON: And how were those assignments communicated to you?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Via Mr. Matheson.

MR. HARMON: Okay. For example, were they communicated to you separately or all at once?

MR. YAMAUCHI: All at different points and times.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't you go ahead and open up the paper envelope which contains item 13, the socks. Should we mark that separately, your Honor?

THE COURT: No, envelope and contents is fine.

MR. HARMON: Okay.

(Brief pause.)

MR. YAMAUCHI: Okay. I'm now cutting into the white envelope. I'm removing a brown paper bag.

MR. HARMON: Do you need some more room? Do you want us to move those--

THE COURT: Mr. Yamauchi, why don't you put your notebook up on the ledge here.

MR. YAMAUCHI: All right.

THE COURT: Let's move that paper over because there is a false end there.

(Brief pause.)

MR. YAMAUCHI: The latest seal on the envelope is a red seal. Appears to be Greg Matheson's initials and a signature and a serial number b8927. Under "Division," "Sid." "Date," it appears to be "4/21/95." I'm breaking the seal, red seal that I just described. Inside the brown paper bag is a white envelope. I have opened the white envelope and I'm removing a pair of black socks, dark navy blue, black.

MR. HARMON: Is it hard to tell whether they are navy blue or black?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, for me it is.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Yamauchi, I will ask you about your exam in a second. What were you asked to do with regard to item 13, the two navy blue or black socks that you've just opened up in court?

MR. SCHECK: Objection as to time.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question. It is vague.

MR. HARMON: When did you receive the assignment from Mr. Matheson to look at these socks?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I don't have that information with me.

MR. HARMON: Okay.

MR. YAMAUCHI: It would have to be prior to the date that I analyzed it, along with some other items.

MR. HARMON: Okay. What other items were you asked to look at?

MR. YAMAUCHI: You know, at this time I don't have independent recollection of the grouping of items that were asked of me to analyze. Mr. Matheson might have notes as to what date he asked me and when he actually assigned myself and Sue Johnson or Sue Brockbank this task of looking through the items.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Well, what other items did you look at? You've talked about 87 and 78. 87 is Nicole Brown Simpson's panties and 78 are Ronald Goldman's shoes. What other items had you already look at before you looked at the socks on August 4th?

MR. SCHECK: Objection as to the time.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, there was a dress, a shirt, pants, socks. There were numerous items.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And were those all items that you looked at over a period of time before you looked at the socks?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, vague as to times.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And when Mr. Matheson gave you this assignment, did he tell you which order to look at these items in?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No, he didn't.

MR. HARMON: It was left up to you?

MR. YAMAUCHI: When we--when we had time with our other case work and stuff.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Looking at dark navy blue or black items like that, have you tried to look at an item like that, that is so dark to detect the presence of blood, in the past?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I have.

MR. HARMON: And what are the general steps that you use when you are trying to look to detect the possibility of blood on an item of that sort?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, first and foremost, when examining evidence, you want to take a good visual look at it, and that just simply means taking it, holding it up under a good light, observing all sides and angles of it and trying to see if there are any types of discolorations or anything that could possibly be a stain, and that would be the first step.

MR. HARMON: Is that the step you took with respect to the socks in this case, item 13?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And when you did hold them up in the way you just described, did you notice anything?

MR. YAMAUCHI: There were a couple areas of discoloration.

MR. HARMON: Do you have to refer to your notes to--that you made contemporaneous with this exam?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

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

MR. YAMAUCHI: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, shortly may we have the jury have an opportunity to view them? I'm not sure what the best place for that is, but maybe you can think about that while I go ahead with the next series of questions.

THE COURT: Well, if I'm thinking about that, how am I going to listen to the testimony? Proceed.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And can you tell one of those socks from the other by any sort of lettering or numbering, as you sit there today?

MR. YAMAUCHI: They have what appears to be different individual's markings on the socks.

MR. HARMON: And those markings were not on there when you examined them on August 4th?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you hold up, just pick either of those socks, if you would, and just show the jury how you examined them visually?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, I can't pick up and show them. What I did was I laid them out flat and I carefully looked at--looked them over. I could hold it up to you, to the jury like this, (Indicating).

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

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, could we move this down in front of the jury? We will put the pad of paper up on top of the cart.

THE COURT: I'm just wondering the quality of the view for everybody. All right. Let's move it down there and let's make sure everybody gets a close look. All right. Mr. Yamauchi, would you--actually, Mr. Harmon, would you come and grab the packaging materials first.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. And Mr. Yamauchi, would you transfer the socks on the paper, please.

MR. YAMAUCHI: (Witness complies.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Yamauchi, why don't you remove the envelope from underneath the socks there so it lies flat.

MR. YAMAUCHI: (Witness complies.)

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi, would you just pick up whichever of those socks you feel and show the jury how you examined them?

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, this is all on August 4th?

MR. HARMON: On August the 4th?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, I laid them out flat, just like this, and I tried to take a good careful look at it and note any discolorations for a phenolphtalein test, and again that is that preliminary blood screening test I talked about earlier.

MR. HARMON: Initially when you laid them out, did you notice any discolored areas?

MR. YAMAUCHI: On one of the socks there was something towards the tow area that seemed like a discoloration and on the other sock I noticed something in the ankle area.

MR. HARMON: What did it look like?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Just looked like some light discoloration or difference in color between the rest of the sock.

MR. HARMON: At that point did it look reddish in any way?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I really wouldn't say reddish. It just seemed like a very subtle discoloration.

MR. HARMON: And are those the only two areas of either of those socks that you noticed when you looked at them visually the first time?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, to tell you the truth, what I did was I noticed those areas and then I did the phenolphthalein tests. They came up positive. I asked my supervisor. I told him, "I got two positive spots on them. Should I do anything else with it?" And he said, "No, that's it, close it up and we will decide what to do with it," I guess talk about it at administrative levels and stuff.

MR. HARMON: Now, were those two positive phenolphthalein results on the same sock or different socks?

MR. YAMAUCHI: One was on one sock and one was on the other.

MR. HARMON: Did you mark the socks in any way?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I may have initialed it, but on something like this--well, actually, I initialed the sock on the inside up here, (Indicating), but I didn't mark the areas that I phenolphthalein tested.

MR. HARMON: Okay. You said "Up here" somewhere. Could you point to it so we can describe for the record what you have pointed to?

MR. YAMAUCHI: My initials "C.Y."

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. Could we get you all to move back a little. Thank you.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Right here, my initials "C.Y."

MR. HARMON: Is there a tag in that sock and that has the "C.Y." And you just showed the jury?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No, it is in a white pen. It is not real visible.

MR. HARMON: May the record reflect that is inside the top of the sock, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, may I request that we just designate the socks. They have other markings on them.

THE COURT: Yes. Can we tell which one of the socks?

MR. SCHECK: A and b or whatever.

MR. HARMON: The sock that you just referred to with the "C.Y." Inside the top, what is that down there towards the heel? There is some lettering down there.

MR. YAMAUCHI: There is a "B" and then something that is--I can't interpret.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's look to the--did you mark the other sock as well?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, I'm not exactly sure that those are my initials. One of the problems with this is when you've got a dark surface, we have this white pen that we write with and it is often very difficult to get legible in certain instances. And to explain the "C.Y." Here, usually I put my serial number after that, but in this case I just marked "C.Y." And tried to--not to put as much markings or anything on the socks as possible because I would want to leave all the areas available for further analysis.

MR. SCHECK: Excuse me, your Honor. In terms of what he has just been pointing to in markings, I think that what he pointed to as a "B" is no. 13, not a "B" and he was then pointing to initials on both different socks. And what I would request is that we designate one sock a, one sock b, and then for the record note what he just did, otherwise we won't be able to reconstruct this.

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon. Your record.

MR. HARMON: One sock has "C.Y." In it and the other one has something unintelligible in it.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. HARMON: Did you identify the two areas that you have conducted the phenolphthalein tests on in any way?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, in my notes I have approximations on one to help my recollection later on, so I knew it was from the ankle, and the other one I noted somewhere in the toe area.

MR. HARMON: The sock--I'm sorry.

MR. YAMAUCHI: But I don't believe I marked the sock up, and I don't see anything on the sock in those particular areas.

MR. HARMON: Now, what I would like you to do, Mr. Yamauchi, is look very carefully and perhaps hold up the sock that you have your clear initials in and look at all those little holes in there, if you would, both sides.

MR. YAMAUCHI: (Witness complies.)

THE COURT: Any juror who needs to stand up, feel free to do so, if you want to get a better look.

MR. HARMON: Were those--were those holes in the sock when you examined them on August 4th?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No, they were not.

MR. HARMON: And when you conducted your examination on August 4th did you notice any discoloration in any of those areas that have been cut out from that sock?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, I indicated before I marked that to the ankle area of one and on the toe area of another there were discolorations.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, when we are concluded with this what I will have the witness do is move to each part of the jury box and display the sock for you.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I would ask that the witness indicate which of these two socks he just testified about.

THE COURT: I think Mr. Harmon characterized it in his question. Counsel, would you step back, please. Thank you.

MR. SCHECK: He was pointing at socks and the record--

THE COURT: Counsel, if you listen to the question, it was directed to the one with his initials in it. Proceed.

MR. HARMON: Now, the sock with "C.Y." Up inside, the one that has it clearly in there, how many cut-out areas do you see if that sock?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I count 8.

MR. HARMON: Did you notice any signs of discoloration in any of those areas on the sock when you examined it on August 4th?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, there is one down toward the toe area where there is a slight discoloration of this particular sock.

MR. HARMON: Does that appear to be the sock that you conducted the phenolphthalein testing on and in the toe area?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I think that is consistent with my notes. There would be some discoloration down toward the toe area.

MR. HARMON: Where the other seven areas where there are no holes in them, did you notice any discolorations in those areas?

MR. YAMAUCHI: (No audible response.)

MR. HARMON: I'm talking about on August 4th?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's move on to the sock, if you will, the one that does not have the clear G.Y. inside.

MR. YAMAUCHI: C.Y.

MR. HARMON: C.Y. Were those cut areas in that sock on August 4th when you examined it?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No, they were not.

MR. HARMON: How many cut areas are there now?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I count five.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Did you notice any discoloration in any of the areas where the cuttings or where there are cut-out areas on the sock that we are focusing on when you examined it on August 4th?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I see a discoloration in the ankle area and there is a cutting on the edge of that and some initials.

MR. HARMON: Whose initials do you see there?

MR. YAMAUCHI: It appears to be D something D, D.W.D. Or D.L.D. I'm not sure.

MR. HARMON: Does that appear to be--does that sock appear to be the sock where you did the positive phenolphthalein in the ankle area?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, that discoloration is consistent with my notes, yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Okay.

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

MR. HARMON: I have finished my questioning, your Honor.

THE COURT: Are you done with the questions with that--with the sock?

MR. HARMON: With this item, yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Yamauchi, with Mr. Harmon's assistance would you move the cart down to the end of the jury box there.

MR. YAMAUCHI: (Witness complies.)

THE COURT: All right. If you would just pick up each one of the socks and display it to the jury, each side.

MR. YAMAUCHI: (Witness complies.)

THE COURT: All right. The jurors in the back row, hold on just a second.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, respectfully, may I make the suggestion when he holds them up that he indicates which of the designations he is holding up?

THE COURT: Yes. Mr. Yamauchi--would you tell us which one you are holding up each time you pick it up. Mr. Yamauchi, would you tell us which sock you are handling, please.

MR. YAMAUCHI: This is the one with the initials that aren't very readable or aren't readable and this is the one that I'm holding up at this time, and previous to that I held up the other sock.

THE COURT: All right. Let's move down to the--

MR. YAMAUCHI: With the initials, yes, that's right.

THE COURT: --the near end of the jury box, Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: Why don't you assist Mr. Yamauchi in bringing the cart down to the bottom end here.

MR. HARMON: Sure.

MR. YAMAUCHI: (Witness complies.)

THE COURT: Go ahead and show this end of the jury box, please.

MR. YAMAUCHI: All right. Okay. This has my initials in it, (Indicating). That is one side. That is the other, (Indicating). And this is the one with the initials that are not clear. That is one side and that is the other, (Indicating).

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor. I think maybe we should put these away now. Can we do that?

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Scheck, do you anticipate cross-examining on that? Well, we won't get to that. Okay. Go ahead and package it back.

MR. HARMON: Okay.

(Brief pause.)

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, while he is doing that, may we approach without the reporter?

THE COURT: Yes.

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

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. Mr. Harmon, let's wind it up.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi, I'm going to try to direct you to certain other items that you processed in this case. On August 16th did you take some cuttings from 78, 81 and 86, those are respectively Ronald Goldman's jeans, Ronald Goldman's shirt and Nicole Brown's dress?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And what was the purpose of taking those cuttings?

MR. YAMAUCHI: They were needed as cloth exemplars. In other words, as we use exemplars for blood for individual, clothing articles for the same purpose need exemplars from for the trace analysis and that is something that will be talked about later, I believe.

MR. HARMON: And what did you do with regard to those items?

MR. YAMAUCHI: They were sent to the FBI.

MR. HARMON: On what date?

MR. YAMAUCHI: On the 16th.

MR. HARMON: Of which month?

MR. YAMAUCHI: August 16th, 1994.

MR. HARMON: Do you want to change now to July 29th, 1994. Did you come into possession of LAPD items 115, 116 and 117?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And will you describe what you did with those items.

MR. YAMAUCHI: They were taken out of the bindle and observed. In other words, I just took my usual description notes where I draw somewhat of a little sketch of the swatches.

MR. HARMON: And then later on September 26th, 1995--1994, were those processed or actually processed for shipping somewhere?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. They were sent out on the 26th.

MR. HARMON: Sent to where?

MR. YAMAUCHI: To the Department of Justice.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And let me ask you about LAPD items 303, 304 and 305. Did you come into possession of those items on September 6th, 1994?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Item no. 305--303 and 304 I don't have listed for this particular date.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Maybe we need to look at, with the Court's permission, exhibit 177-E.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi, why don't you step down at 177-E, if you will, and while it is up there, start out with 115, 116 and 117. Do you recognize 115, 116 and 117 as the items that were sent to DOJ on September 26th, 1994?

(Brief pause.)

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. How about 303, 304 and 305?

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I'm objecting to 303, 304 and 305.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: I objected to 303 and 304 at this point.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. HARMON: Do you recognize those items?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And were 303 and 304 sent to DOJ on the date that is on the board, 9/26?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, let me check my records.

MR. HARMON: Sure.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, they were.

MR. HARMON: And 305, when was that sent to DOJ? Is the board correct when it says "9/7/94"?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, the board is correct.

MR. HARMON: Okay. May I have marked as People's next in order, People's exhibit 285, an additional sock examination board and take down--

THE COURT: All right. People's 285.

(Peo's 285 for id = posterboard)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi, while Mr. Fairtlough is getting that board up, were you present in the Los Angeles Police Department SID on February 16th, 1995, when a Dr. Henry Lee conducted an examination on the socks that you've just shown to the jury that are marked as exhibit 284 for identification?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And what room was that examination conducted in?

MR. YAMAUCHI: It was in our conference room.

MR. HARMON: Okay. How many people were in that room, do you recall?

MR. YAMAUCHI: There were quite a few; about nine.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And where did you sit with respect to where the--Dr. Lee conducted his examination?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Across the table.

MR. HARMON: Did you observe closely Dr. Lee's examination of those gloves?

THE COURT: Excuse me. Examination of the gloves?

MR. HARMON: I'm sorry, the socks.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Do you know Dr. Lee?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I know his reputation and I met him then.

MR. HARMON: And who was he working for when he conducted this examination?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I understand he is retained by the Defense in this case.

MR. SCHECK: Objection, move to strike the word "Retained."

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. HARMON: Was he the Defense consultant in this case?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. How long did Dr. Lee perform his examination of those socks?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, it was over an hour.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you step up to the board and use the pointer, if you will, and I would like you to describe what is depicted in the photographs starting with--the board is entitled "Henry Lee sock examination." Would you point to the photo that says, "Puts arm" paren "No lab coat into bag to elbow."

MR. YAMAUCHI: (Indicating).

MR. HARMON: Did you see Dr. Lee do that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And what is he actually doing in that photograph?

MR. YAMAUCHI: He is reaching in to grab the sock.

MR. HARMON: And what kind of bag was it in?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I don't know. That was a brown paper bag. I'm sorry. He was reaching in there. I don't know for what reason.

MR. HARMON: Where were the socks at the point that he--that you see him reaching into that paper bag?

MR. YAMAUCHI: The socks were in an envelope, a white envelope.

MR. HARMON: And was that envelope in the bag at the time he is reaching into the bag that is shown in the photograph?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No, I don't believe so.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, the next photo shows Dr. Lee standing up and the description under it is "No lab coat or hairnet." Did Dr. Lee wear a lab coat at all during this?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No, he didn't.

MR. HARMON: Did he wear a hairnet?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No, he didn't.

MR. HARMON: Could you describe what is on the table in front of Dr. Lee, the equipment and the other items that are there in front of him?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, there is a microscope and paper for examining stuff on.

MR. HARMON: What kind of microscope is that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, it is a general stereo scope used in low magnification to look over and observe pieces of evidence.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's just jump to the end of that for a second. It appears in the photo on the left there where Dr. Lee is reaching in the bag, he has gloves on; is that correct?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, he does.

MR. HARMON: Did Dr. Lee ever change gloves during this entire one-hour examination of both of those socks?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I didn't see him change his gloves.

MR. HARMON: Does that mean that he did not change his gloves?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, to the best of my knowledge he didn't.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Are the socks shown in the photo where Dr. Lee is standing up, two black items down in the lower left-hand corner?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, that is the socks.

MR. HARMON: Okay. If you would, just try not to block the juror's view. The photo at the top right there, what is Dr. Lee doing in that photograph?

MR. YAMAUCHI: He has a scale in his hand and it looks like he is measuring something.

MR. HARMON: And what--when you say he has got a scale in his hand, is that a ruler?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yeah, it is similar to a small ruler.

MR. HARMON: And what is he is doing with that scale or ruler?

MR. YAMAUCHI: He is measuring something.

MR. HARMON: And is what he is measuring, is he touching the item with the ruler?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, it is hard to tell from this photo, but I have seen him when he was doing that, touching the ruler to the item, yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Did you ever see him flame that ruler when he changed to the other sock?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No. That is ridiculous.

MR. HARMON: Did you ever see him bleach that ruler?

MR. SCHECK: Motion to strike the term "Ridiculous."

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: Did you ever see him bleach that ruler?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

MR. HARMON: Did you ever see him straddle ink that ruler?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

MR. HARMON: Do you know what a straddle ink is?

MR. YAMAUCHI: It is a UV contamination process.

MR. HARMON: What effect would that have on biological material?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Rather degrade DNA, break it down.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And in the lower left-hand photo there is actually a photo showing a ruler sitting on top of one of the socks. Did you see that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And then the next photo in the middle shows Dr. Lee examining the other sock. Do you remember him examining both socks?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And then the final photo shows Dr. Lee turning the sock inside out.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Do you remember him--seeing him do that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Thanks, Mr. Yamauchi. I have no further questions, your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you need a--

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, could we just show the jury the board a little bit better?

THE COURT: Yes. I got a conflicting answer. Do you need a break now or do you want to proceed?

MR. SCHECK: I have to show them boards.

THE COURT: Okay, okay.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: I got a nod and then a shake.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Miss Martinez, Mr. Fairtlough. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the morning session at this time. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, do not form any opinions about the case, don't allow anybody to communicate with you, do not conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you. We will stand in recess until 1:30. All right. Mr. Yamauchi, you may step down.

MR. COCHRAN: 1:30?

THE COURT: 1:30.

(At 11:52 A.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)

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 Thursday, May 25, 1995

Volume 154 pages 29318 through 29428, inclusive

(Pages 29429 through 29575, 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 154 pages 29318 - 29428

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Day date session page vol.

Thursday May 25, 1995 A.M. 29318 154

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Yamauchi, Collin 154 (Resumed) 29333rh

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

Witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.

Yamauchi, Collin 154 (Resumed) 29333rh

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXHIBITS

PEOPLE'S for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

282 - 3-page document 29340 154 entitled "Serology casework summary sheet/DNA analysis"

283 - 1-page document 29341 154 entitled "DNA electrophoresis record - product gel"

284 - Analyzed evidence 29398 154 envelope containing two dark-colored socks

285 - Chart 29420 154 entitled "Henry Lee sock examination"