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

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

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

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

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

THE COURT: All right. Good morning, counsel.

MR. COCHRAN: Good morning, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: Good morning, your Honor.

MR. SHAPIRO: Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: 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. Thompson, Mr. Scheck. The People are represented by Mr. Darden and Mr. Harmon. The jury is not present. Counsel, anything we need to discuss before we invite the jurors to rejoin us?

MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor. Two points. We had a side bar yesterday about denial of reciprocal discovery concerning statements Mr. Yamauchi allegedly made in Mr. Taylor and Mr. Gerdes' company, and I would like to revisit that when we are done with Mr. Sims today because I think that is the tip of the iceberg. Another point is, umm--

THE COURT: Mr. Douglas, are you going to be available at the conclusion of today to discuss these matters with Mr. Harmon?

MR. DOUGLAS: Yes, your Honor, I will.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And the other point, just to alert you, I don't have a lot of redirect with Yamauchi, and Mr. Sims is waiting in the wings, but just to alert the Court, at the close of business yesterday we requested an opportunity to take possession of the socks, item 13. Those socks were taken back to the LAPD laboratory and this morning they were examined with a stereomicroscope by Greg Matheson in the company of Mr. Yamauchi. At that time Mr. Matheson--and the whole point of this exercise was to be able to show the jury that even when these socks are waived under their noses there is still blood on them. There is blood on them today. Mr. Matheson conducted a phenolphthalein test in Mr. Yamauchi's presence and that gave a positive presumptive result, and then subsequent to that we brought a stereomicroscope over here, we've got it in the box right here, and we intend to identify, through Mr. Sims, not through Mr. Yamauchi, who is waiting in the wings, blood-stained areas that Mr. Sims has previously examined and identified and done his own form of presumptive testing, the o-tolidine testing on, and then to request the Court to allow the jury to see the reddish bloodstains that are imperceptible to the naked eye so that the jury can see that the fraud has finally been revealed and that there is blood on those socks today. And so I just wanted to let you know that that is how we are going to end up this whole segment, your Honor, with the Court's permission.

THE COURT: All right. Where are the socks at this moment?

MR. HARMON: Right here, your Honor, (Indicating).

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HARMON: I just wanted to let you know.

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, good morning.

MR. SCHECK: Good morning, your Honor. First is I, umm--I would ask leave of the Court to reopen my cross-examination for about ten to fifteen minutes just to cover a point or two that I have to cover with this witness and no other witness, that I neglected in the rush to finish yesterday.

THE COURT: Yesterday you told me it was five minutes that you had.

MR. SCHECK: Well, it hasn't really expanded that much, but I'm just trying to be conservative. The second thing is that I do have some--I do have objections to what Mr. Harmon is proposing. Certainly I have objections to the use of phenolphthalein tests without any confirmatory tests. I think the Court is clear in the ruling about that, so I don't think that those could be admissible on the redirect examination, and I also think it is beyond the scope of the cross-examination of Mr. Sims and would be improper redirect, and I think that if they want to call--I just don't think it is within the scope of redirect examination of Mr. Sims at this point, certainly if they are going to offer it through him. So whenever they get to that, I want to put the Court on notice, too, that I have some objections. Finally, there is the--I would just like to put the Court on notice that at some time, and I don't want to take up in front of the jury--jury time right now, maybe at the end of the day--I have some applications with respect to the rules concerning discourse between lawyers, and ad homonym statements in argument. And finally, I have a query of the Court as to how we can handle the issue that the Prosecution raised with its board concerning Dr. Lee in terms of how the statements of lawyers are going to be presented to the jury. They brought this up over my objection. They are putting up a board which shows Mr. Harmon and Mr. Clarke as percipient witnesses standing at the shoulder of Dr. Lee. Mr. Harmon and Mr. Clarke have indicated--well, Mr. Harmon on the record and Mr. Clarke--I don't see him here, but I'm sure Mr. Harmon knows, have both indicated that--oh, there you are. Sorry. Have both indicated that neither of them can say whether or not Dr. Lee changed gloves during the course of that examination. They didn't notice that he did or did not do so. They cannot corroborate any affirmative statement of Mr. Yamauchi on that point.

THE COURT: All right. Well, that is an issue, though, that we can take up after we conclude with these two witnesses, so let's not take up the time to--I appreciate your bringing that to my attention so that I am aware that we will need to discuss that.

MR. SCHECK: Well, yes.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: And then finally, your Honor, at the time you consider appropriate, we have submitted to the Court, after rereading the text of everything yesterday and considering it, what we would propose is a curative instruction on the whole issue of the statements of airtight alibi and the Defendant's statements.

THE COURT: All right. Have you given that to Mr. Harmon?

MR. SCHECK: Yes, Mr. Darden--

MR. DARDEN: It was given to me two or three minutes ago.

MR. SCHECK: We have reviewed the record and following the Court's practice, we have given the matter some thought, and the only issue is when you want to take it up.

THE COURT: All right. Well, Mr. Darden, I take it from your comment that means that you would like some additional time to study that?

MR. DARDEN: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Then we will take that up after we conclude with Mr. Yamauchi. All right. Mr. Harmon, any other comment?

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

MR. HARMON: Just on when we get to the Henry Lee board thing, it would be helpful if they provided us some of the reciprocal discovery that they are clearly obligated to at this point in the case, so I think we need to throw that into the mix when they start complaining. He took a lot of notes during that. We saw that. In terms of why I didn't see him change gloves, I wasn't there the whole time. I don't know what happened when I wasn't there. Mr. Clarke, same with him. So we will be happy to discuss that at the appropriate time and look forward to getting the reciprocal discovery we should have gotten months ago.

THE COURT: All right. We will take that up at the appropriate time then today. All right. Let's have the jurors, please.

(Brief pause.)

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

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Mr. Yamauchi, would you come forward, please. Let the record reflect that we have been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good morning.

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

THE COURT: Mr. Collin Yamauchi is again on the witness stand. And yesterday Mr. Scheck had indicated he had completed his cross-examination; however, he has asked permission to ask a few additional questions that he had forgotten to ask and I have granted permission for him to do so. And Mr. Scheck, you have until 9:30 to conclude your cross-examination.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: You are welcome.

MR. SCHECK: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

THE JURY: Good morning.

CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. SCHECK

MR. SCHECK: Good morning, Mr. Yamauchi. My apologies to everybody for prolonging this any further than it has. Mr. Yamauchi, do you have a laminar flow hood in your serology laboratory?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And that is the place where you conducted your extractions in this case?

MR. YAMAUCHI: In that hood and on my work bench.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And what is your understanding of a laminar flow hood. How does it work?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, rather than sucking air in from the environment, it provides its own filtered air.

MR. SCHECK: Now--your Honor, may I get this one board out?

(brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. This is People's exhibit--

MR. SCHECK: 285, I believe.

THE COURT: 285.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Mr. Yamauchi, were you present the morning that Dr. Lee examined the sock?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And, umm, were you participating in the arrangements for Dr. Lee's examination of this sock at your laboratory?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, we were trying to provide him with whatever he requested.

MR. SCHECK: Were you--well, were you aware of when this examination was arranged?

MR. HARMON: Objection. That calls for hearsay. It is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: When it was arranged?

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

MR. YAMAUCHI: The--they came--they just came and told me that this was what was going to happen.

MR. SCHECK: Well, when? How much notice?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I don't think I had more than an hour notice.

MR. SCHECK: Do you know if there were any time limits indicated with respect to the examination of this sock?

MR. HARMON: Objection, calls for speculation, hearsay, no foundation. It is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained on the hearsay, foundation.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Did you have any communication with others from the--people from the District Attorney's office or others in your laboratory as to what the arrangements were to be for the examination of this sock?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Did you know where Dr. Lee was at the SID laboratory and how long he was there before he entered the conference room to examine the sock?

MR. HARMON: Objection, compound, irrelevant, calls for hearsay, speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, he was sitting out in the lobby area.

MR. SCHECK: For how long?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I'm not sure. I think at least half an hour.

MR. SCHECK: At least?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yeah.

MR. SCHECK: While arrangements were being made to bring out the sock so he could examine it?

MR. HARMON: Objection, argumentative, calls for hearsay, speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, we were locating the sock and bringing it to that area.

MR. SCHECK: Now, without telling us what anybody said, did you consult with anyone on this side of the table where Dr. Lee was as to what they perceived in terms of the examination--his examination of the sock and whether or not he--Dr. Lee changed gloves between examinations?

MR. HARMON: Objection. It is irrelevant.

MR. SCHECK: Without telling was they said, did you consult with anyone in that picture?

MR. HARMON: Objection, it is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. SCHECK: All right.

MR. SCHECK: With respect to whether or not Dr. Lee changed his gloves between the examination of the two different socks, did you consult with anybody depicted in those photographs about their observations, but don't tell was they said?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, so that would include Mr. Harmon?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: That would include Mr. Clarke, (Indicating)?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I'm not sure.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, you knew Dr. Lee by reputation before this morning, the morning of this sock examination?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Had you met him previous to that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

MR. SCHECK: Did you expect, before Dr. Lee even came to examine the sock--do you remember when this was? February?

MR. YAMAUCHI: January, February, something like that.

MR. SCHECK: It was while this trial was going on?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I believe so.

MR. SCHECK: While testimony was being taken before this jury?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Could I check?

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: Well, would you accept that it would be some time about February 1st, sometime in that area?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I could look in my notes and find out for sure.

MR. SCHECK: Well, I have five minutes. So sometime around February?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Approximately.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, did you have any feeling--withdrawn. To your knowledge had any expert from the Defense been allowed to examine and touch the socks before this morning when Dr. Lee did so?

MR. HARMON: Objection, it is irrelevant, calls for hearsay, no foundation, speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Had anyone else touched the socks by the Defense? Is that what your question is?

MR. SCHECK: That is my question.

THE COURT: To your knowledge?

MR. YAMAUCHI: To my knowledge.

MR. HARMON: Objection. There is no foundation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: I don't believe so.

MR. SCHECK: Now, you testified--withdrawn. Now, Mr. Yamauchi, did you have any concerns that Dr. Lee might criticize your laboratory?

MR. HARMON: Objection, calls for--it is irrelevant, calls for speculation, no foundation.

THE COURT: Ask another question.

MR. SCHECK: Let me put it this way to you--

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, would you address--turn the podium towards the witness, please?

MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. SCHECK: As you sit here today, do you have any feelings about--

MR. HARMON: Objection, feelings--

MR. SCHECK: Goes to bias.

MR. HARMON: It is irrelevant, your Honor.

THE COURT: I haven't heard the question yet, Mr. Harmon.

MR. SCHECK: Do you have any feelings of resentment towards Dr. Lee?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Resentment, no.

MR. SCHECK: Do you anticipate that he might testify in this case--

MR. HARMON: Objection, it is irrelevant, calls for speculation, no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Are you worried that Dr. Lee might criticize your laboratory?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. You have no feelings of resentment or irritation with Dr. Lee at all?

MR. HARMON: Objection, compound, asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: No. Actually he seemed like a nice congenial man.

MR. SCHECK: That is your feeling?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, let me see if I understand what you are telling us exactly. Are you--

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, your Honor, I object to that--

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: --monologue.

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Yamauchi, are you telling this jury that you are certain that Dr. Lee did not change his gloves in between the examination of the sock? Is that what you are telling us?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, I was sitting there and watching. I never seen him change his gloves.

MR. SCHECK: All right. But are you certain that he didn't change his gloves?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, I mean if he can do some magic trick and do it while I was turning my head away or something, I'm sure that is quite possible, but from my observation point and taking notes in that room, I didn't see him change his gloves while I was there.

MR. SCHECK: All right. You--there is no question in your mind that you were watching him for the entire period, and as far as you are concerned, there is no way that he could have changed his gloves between the examination of those socks without you noticing it? Is that what you are telling us?

MR. HARMON: Objection, compound.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Like I said again, I was just observing him like anybody else would watch somebody putting on a demonstration or looking at something, and to the best of my recollection, and from what I seen there, I didn't notice that.

MR. SCHECK: All right. So that is to the best of your recollection?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, in the first picture on this board, the upper left-hand side that is labeled "Puts arm (No lab coat) into bag to elbow," okay, do you see that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, that is what bag?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I believe that is a bag--that is the bag that the white envelope was in.

MR. SCHECK: The bag that the white envelope was in?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Uh-huh.

MR. SCHECK: And to your knowledge is that the bag that originally contained the socks, the original container?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I believe it was.

MR. SCHECK: And that original container was saved along with the socks, was it not?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And you see in photograph no. 2 that Dr. Lee is taking white paper and it appears angling it as though to put something back into that paper bag?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And between those two pictures did you observe Dr. Lee open up the paper bag, then put it upright, see what material would be on the white piece of paper and then pour it back into the bag? Is that what happened between the picture on the upper left-hand column of the board and the one in the middle?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Could you describe that one more time?

MR. SCHECK: Sure. The first picture shows Dr. Lee putting an arm into the bag and--

MR. YAMAUCHI: Right.

MR. SCHECK: --pushing it out, correct?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Right.

MR. SCHECK: And the second picture shows him putting white paper, right, angling it and putting something back into the bag?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, in between those two pictures did Dr. Lee hold the bag upright with the opening, you know, vertical to the paper, all right--do you remember that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I think I know what you are saying but I'm not sure.

MR. SCHECK: You are not sure?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: Last set of questions. Ask that these two documents be marked Defendant's--where are we at?

THE COURT: 1191. 1191.

(Deft's 1191-A for id = document)

(Deft's 1191-B for id = document)

MR. SCHECK: 1191-A.

THE COURT: Have you shown that to counsel?

MR. HARMON: (Shakes head from side to side.)

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

(brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Now, Mr. Yamauchi, is it the regular course of business in your laboratory to do DQ-Alpha, D1S80 typings on laboratory personnel?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Is it the regular course? Well, we try to get the typings of anybody that wants to volunteer their--their blood or body fluids.

MR. SCHECK: What I am see saying is does your laboratory keep a list of biological samples of personnel that is known as a laboratory controls list?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, we have a lot of control samples, and they are built up primarily of the people that work in the lab.

MR. SCHECK: Is there such a thing as a laboratory controls list where each of the DQ-Alpha, D1S80 and polymarker typings of people that work in the laboratory are compiled?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I believe Erin Riley has compiled such a list.

MR. SCHECK: All right.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Or something to that effect.

MR. SCHECK: Right. And one of the purposes of that list is to have the types on file ever all laboratory personnel as a check against possible cross-contamination?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, yeah, I believe that is a secondary reason why we have it around or it could be used for that reason.

MR. SCHECK: What other reasons do you use them?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, basically standards, and umm, test ourselves in validation. Say somebody wants to become a PCR analyst, they would need a set of samples to test and reflect upon to see if they are getting the right answers.

MR. SCHECK: So Erin Riley is the individual that does the typings?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I've done DQ-Alpha. She has done the polymarker and the D1S80.

MR. SCHECK: And this laboratory control list is something that is done in the regular course of business in your laboratory?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Regular course of business? Could you define what you mean by that?

MR. SCHECK: As a matter of routine in your laboratory one compiles this laboratory controls list of DQ-Alpha, D1S80 and polymarker typings of the people who work there?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, it is not mandatory, but if the people in our laboratory--most of them do want to get their--themselves typed or be a part of this database, so to speak.

MR. SCHECK: And would you rely upon the typings in that laboratory control list as accurate?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, until--if there is a discrepancy that comes up, obviously it has to be looked into, but she has done typing on it and she is--she is a good analyst, she reports it out, and obviously sooner or later somebody else is going to use those same samples, and you know, confirm her results to a certain extent. They are basically set up there for practice purposes, and once they are established as coming up with these types, then they could be used as standards.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, I show you 1191-A and B and ask you if you recognize these documents as being additions to the laboratory control list--please examine them--as compiled by Erin Riley?

MR. YAMAUCHI: (Witness complies.) It looks like something she generated. It has got her signature over there.

MR. SCHECK: Would you recognize this as additions--reliable additions to the laboratory controls list as compiled in your laboratory with respect to the genotypes of Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola?

MR. HARMON: Objection, no foundation, speculation, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Could I just take another look and talk with Miss Clark and we may withdraw an objection. Sure.

(Brief pause.)

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

(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: I am informed there is no objection.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: My last questions are just dependent, two minutes, Mr. Harris is looking for the Bronco results board.

MR. SCHECK: Now, while we are waiting for that board, Mr. Yamauchi, do these records indicate that Dennis Fung--what do they indicate with respect to Dennis Fung's DQ-Alpha type?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I can read directly from the document.

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

MR. YAMAUCHI: It says "Fung, DQ-Alpha, 1.1, 2, LDLR, BB, GY--

MR. SCHECK: Just DQ-Alpha.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Okay.

MR. HARMON: We are withdrawing the entire objection so--

MR. SCHECK: I understand. I--

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

MR. HARMON: May we approach, your Honor?

THE COURT: No. Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: So what is Dennis Fung's DQ-Alpha type?

THE COURT: He has already testified to that.

MR. SCHECK: 1.1, 2; is that right?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And Andrea Mazzola's DQ-Alpha type is a 1.1, 1.2; is that correct?

MR. YAMAUCHI: According to that document, yes.

MR. SCHECK: And Dennis Fung's D1S80 genotype is an 18, 28?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, according to that document.

MR. SCHECK: And Andrea Mazzola's D1S80 genotype is a 31, 39?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: Now, directing your attention, sir, to 260, the Bronco results board, and I call your attention to item no. 29, the steering wheel. Do you see that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, the DQ-Alpha types for the steering wheel from both Cellmark and the Department of Justice indicate a 1.1, a 1.2 and a 4 showing up on the strips; is that correct?

MR. YAMAUCHI: That is what is indicated, yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, given the genotypes of Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola for the DQ-Alpha system, would you not agree--would you degree with me, sir, that neither Dennis Fung nor Andrea Mazzola could be the source of the no. 4 allele on item 29?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Neither could be the source? Neither one of them has a 4 allele.

MR. SCHECK: So that means that neither of them could be the source of the no. 4 allele on no. 29, the steering wheel; isn't that right?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, that's correct.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harmon.

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

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARMON

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi, could you read off the polymarker types from the exhibits 1191-A and B from both Mr. Fung and Miss Mazzola. Mr. Scheck has got the exhibit there.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Okay. According to this document, Fung, LDLR, BB, GYPA, AB, HBGG, AB, D7S8.

MR. HARMON: Could you--well, could you write them up on the board there? I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Well, I mean do you want to just put the exhibit up on the elmo--

MR. HARMON: Sure. I had forgotten.

THE COURT: --rather than drawing stuff.

MR. HARMON: Absolutely.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Yamauchi, LDLR, GYPA, HBGG, D7S8 and GC, what are those?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Those are different loci for genetic marker types.

MR. HARMON: And Mr.--would you just go across with Mr. Fung and recite for the jury what their--what his respective types were for those markers?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Okay. One more time LDLR, BB, GYPA, AB, HBGG, AB, D7S8, AB and GC, BB.

MR. HARMON: Then for Miss Mazzola?

MR. YAMAUCHI: LDLR, AB, GYPA, AB, HBGG, BB, D7S8, AB, and GC, ac.

MR. HARMON: Okay. So if there are any stains that were typed by Cellmark using a polymarker system that produce any types different than Miss Fung and Miss Mazzola, would that mean that neither of those people could be the source of those stains?

MR. YAMAUCHI: If they typed--I'm sorry, one more time.

MR. HARMON: Sure. If any of the stains that were typed by Cellmark using the polymarker system produced results different than the results you have just described for Mr. Fung and Miss Mazzola, Mr. Fung and Miss Mazzola would be excluded as the source of those stains; is that true?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, provided we are talking about single--single source and not a mixture, yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could we put up 1191-A, that is the D1S80 results. Mr. Fung had an 18, 28 and Miss Mazzola had a 31, 39; is that true?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, according to that document.

MR. HARMON: And neither of those people have a 24 allele; is that true?

MR. YAMAUCHI: It is not listed there.

MR. HARMON: And neither of them had a 25 allele; is that true?

MR. YAMAUCHI: It is not listed there.

MR. HARMON: Therefore, neither Mr. Fung nor Miss Mazzola could be the source of any stains that have--the sole source of any stains that have a 24 or 25 allele?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, that's correct.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's go back to the Henry Lee board. Do you mean to criticize Dr. Lee for what he did in your presence during his examination of those socks?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, form.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. HARMON: Are you critical of anything that Dr. Lee did in your presence while he examined the socks, item 39?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

MR. HARMON: And what--what was the point in describing what he did?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, objection. His point?

THE COURT: Legal grounds.

MR. SCHECK: Objection, calls for speculation from this witness, improper question.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Did you have a point in describing your observations that you would down in your notes about Dr. Lee's examination of those socks?

MR. SCHECK: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: What point, if any, did you have--

MR. SCHECK: Same objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

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

MR. HARMON: Why did you write down what you saw Dr. Lee do.

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, basically he has a good reputation, and he handles evidence in the same fashion that we do.

MR. HARMON: You made extensive notes about your observations?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I did.

MR. HARMON: And in your notes did you hesitate at all in describing the fact that Dr. Lee did not change his gloves during the examination?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

MR. HARMON: What did you--would it help to refresh your--do you remember the exact words that you used to describe your observation about Dr. Lee and changing gloves?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I can refer to my notes.

MR. HARMON: Sure, would you do that, if it would help refresh your recollection.

MR. YAMAUCHI: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Have you had a chance to look at your notes, Mr. Yamauchi?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And do you recall what you wrote down at the time you observed Dr. Lee examine those socks?

MR. YAMAUCHI: "Point: Did not change"--

THE COURT: Excuse me. Mr. Scheck, you are going to have to stand some place else. Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: What did you write down when you saw Dr. Lee examine those socks with regard to the gloves?

MR. YAMAUCHI: "Point"--

MR. SCHECK: Objection to the form of that question, your Honor, particularly in light of the notes. I don't think there are--

MR. DARDEN: Speaking objection.

THE COURT: What is the legal basis?

MR. SCHECK: Well, it is hearsay, no. 1.

THE COURT: Overruled. It is a prior consistent statement after cross-examination. Proceed.

MR. YAMAUCHI: I'm sorry.

MR. SCHECK: No, I--

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: My objection in that regard has to do with the point of alleged fabrication, prior consistent--

THE COURT: Overruled. Proceed.

MR. YAMAUCHI: I wrote "Point: Did not change gloves throughout entire process."

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi, are you part of some conspiracy to unjustly convict Mr. Simpson in this case?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi, are you trying to cover up the fact that Detective Lange walked around the LAPD SID lab with a pair of smelly Reeboks on June 14th?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

MR. HARMON: If you had seen that, would you have described that to the jury?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Like I said before, I don't recall whether I saw him or not that day.

MR. HARMON: Let's cover some specific points very briefly, if you will. When did you do the fitzco card, you know, pipetting the blood out of the reference vial and putting it on the card, with respect to your examination and sampling of the glove?

MR. YAMAUCHI: For Mr. Simpson's blood?

MR. HARMON: Yes.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, I did that first so I could allow it to dry.

MR. HARMON: Is that clear in your mind?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, do you have a practice with--you've already described how you work on one microcentrifuge tube at a time and then put it in a rack. Do you have a practice at some point with regard to numbering those tubes in the rack?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, I have to put an extraction number on the top of the cap.

MR. HARMON: When do you do that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: When I go to serology, to the serology area and start my extraction.

MR. HARMON: And is there any reason you would change the order of the tubes that you had previously put in the rack when you did the sampling of the evidence?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

MR. HARMON: When you did your examination of the glove from Rockingham, item no. 9, did you use a stereomicroscope?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

MR. HARMON: Did you change your gloves after you sampled the glove when you touched it with your right hand, when you touched the glove with your right hand, no. 9?

MR. YAMAUCHI: If I touch an item, I will change my gloves before I touch another item or go on and work.

MR. HARMON: With regard to changing gloves, do you change gloves frequently to avoid sample to sample contamination?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I actually change my gloves a lot.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Do you also change them whenever they might have been contaminated with DNA?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Of course, if I expect that--

MR. SCHECK: Objection, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Of course if I suspect that, I would change my gloves.

MR. HARMON: Do you recognize that language as coming right from the amplitype user guide?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, that sounds familiar and it makes logical sense that it would be in there to some extent.

MR. HARMON: Why did you wear gloves yesterday during the sock examination and display for the jury?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, basically there are two reasons, and I think I went over this already why you would wear gloves, and one of them is obviously to protect yourself from contracting any pathogens from any potential evidence, and the other reason is to minimize the risk of contaminating.

MR. HARMON: Let's talk about the LAPD PCR protocol just for a few moments. Mr. Scheck asked you if there is a section in there--section 15 about the yield gel. Do you recall that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I do.

MR. HARMON: And he asked you if there is a section in there, this section 16, about doing a slot-blot; is that right?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: What is the purpose of having those sections discussing those topics in the protocol?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, they are there to explain how step-by-step you would go through that process.

MR. HARMON: Does the--does the LAPD SID PCR protocol also describe more than one extraction procedure?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, it does.

MR. HARMON: And can a forensic scientist get the correct answer, the true answer, without doing either a yield gel or a slot-blot?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Do you recall yesterday Mr. Scheck asked you some questions about section 4, the evidence handling section?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Do you remember that and specifically the topic of receiving evidence for analysis? You recall yesterday the subject category is walk-ins and he asked you to read the section that says: "The only evidence items that will be processed on a walk-in basis will be those items that are received from a detective/officer that has completed a proper transfer of the items into the evidence control unit" and then in parenthesis, "ECU." Do you remember that yesterday?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: What is a walk-in?

MR. YAMAUCHI: A walk-in refers to--like I was explaining before, usually we get our evidence from the evidence control unit, but occasionally the detective will have the evidence in his hand and will want it analyzed so he will walk it in. And generally speaking, we will make them go around and book that first. That is, quote-unquote, what a "Walk-in" means.

MR. HARMON: Is this case a walk-in?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Not--it is not the same because we have a criminalist that was assigned the case, so in that respect that person could be the--umm, the conduit of the evidence.

MR. HARMON: And so this case is not a walk-in as defined in your protocol?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I don't see it that way, no.

MR. HARMON: Now, in that regard, Mr. Scheck asked you questions about detectives in serology. Are detectives routinely allowed into lab spaces without anybody accompanying them or supervising them?

MR. YAMAUCHI: That would be unauthorized if they are by themselves. They would have to be in--accompanied by an authorized person, which would be one of the criminalists in the lab.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Scheck asked you a series of questions the other day with respect to Defense exhibit 1181, had to do with some mock vaginal swab sample. Do you recall that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And you've described that as a sexual assault case and the reported answer that you provided was a 1.2, 4. Do you recall that testimony?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yeah. In the "Result" column of the hybridization sheet that is what was written down.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Do you recall--just to try to demonstrate why you felt that was not an incorrect answer, do you recall what the source of the sperm was, the known source of the sperm was in that case, a 1.2, 1.3?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Okay. I will take your word for it.

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

MR. HARMON: Could you--well, let's assume hypothetically and then I will put the exhibit up on the board. If you would step up to that board--this is the only drawing I will ask you to do and let's assume that we have a sexual assault case where you have a vaginal swab and the victim's type, the victim's known type, which comes from the epithelial cells is a 1.2, 4. And the source of the sperm for the assailant, the alleged assailant, is a 1.2, 1.3. Okay. And let's assume furthermore that you typed--and I will ask you real briefly to describe the typing process that you engage in--that you typed both of the samples that you produced and the result or the typeable result was a 1.2, 4. Okay? Could you explain the process and why you feel that is not an incorrect answer?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Sure. When you deal with sexual assault cases, I believe I went over this in a little bit of detail, but I will try to clarify it now, what happens is you are presented with a mixture, and that mixture is not always an equal mixture. In fact, there are various degrees of it being a mixture. There can be more semen than vaginal secretions or vice versa. Because for PCR we would be dealing with samples that the conventional serologist who initially looked at the swabs would consider low in sperm count, because we deal with these type of samples that have small amounts of semen on them, we wanted to provide ourselves with some challenging replicas of what these type of sexual cases assault swabs would be. The way we did that was we diluted down semen solutions, and with the epithelial cells, which are the cells that line your mouth, we have those in lieu of actual vaginal secretions, which are very similar cell lines. What happens here is what we have is a differential extraction and that is the process by which we try to separate out these two sets of cells, the epithelial cells from the sperm cells. The problem with this, though, is that this separation is not always complete. In other words, in the fraction that is designated SC, this fraction may contain some representation from the epithelial cells, and vice versa. The SC fraction could contain some cells--I mean the EC fraction could contain some cells from the SC fraction in the representation. So because of this, if I present myself with a swab that is quite challenging and there is not enough of the spermatozoa or the sperm in that sample to get a typing result--

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, at this point I would move to strike this answer as a narrative and I would move to strike this point as being without foundation as to what the sample did or did not have.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Okay. Where was I?

MR. HARMON: I think you were just describing where there is not enough sperm there to type.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Exactly. If--I was talking about limits of detection. Our test, although very sensitive, does not always have strong enough detection capabilities to detect everything, so if we were presented with a sample, in this case this is the scenario, where I could not detect this particular typing group, which would be the spermatozoa fraction, then what I would be left with would just be the epithelial cell fraction. And that is why, if you look at the strips, you can see the reputation for the strip for the epithelial cell fraction, it was clear and very dark dots. In the sperm cell fraction I had the same representation, and the reason why was because of that phenomena I described earlier dealing with this differential extraction, some of this spills over into this fraction. And so what I was left with was 1.2, 4 in the epithelial cell fraction, dark and clear, and in the sperm cell fraction I had lighter dots, 1.2, 4, and that was an indication to me that this was consistent with the epithelial cell fraction. And if I was reporting that out I would not make a statement on that because it indicates to me that this type is consistent with that, and if it is not foreign to that epithelial cell fraction, no statement can be made. That is not a wrong result, it is something that is expected when given and presented a swab that is challenging. And that very much represents the type of case work that we are presented with.

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: Sure. May that drawing be marked as People's 286 for identification, your Honor?

THE COURT: People's 286.

(Peo's 286 for id = drawing)

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi, just where you left off there--go ahead, you can sit down.

MR. YAMAUCHI: (Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: It sounds like you encounter this phenomena frequently in sexual cases assault cases; is that true?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Oftentimes it is seen, yes.

MR. HARMON: And is it documented in the literature?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, it should be.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Is this a mistake on your part?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No, by no means.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could we put 1181-C briefly on the elmo, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: I just want you to look at it. And is what you have just described that is drawn up on 286 for identification, that is what is represented in 1-V, but the EC, the epithelial cell sample and the SC, the sperm cell sample?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, it is.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And it was previously known to the laboratory that in fact the sperm DNA type was 1--

MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Was it previously known to the laboratory that the sperm DNA type was a 1.2, 1.3?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I don't understand what you mean by "Previously known to the laboratory."

MR. HARMON: Were these samples typed ahead of time before they would be combined into the mock vaginal swabs?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Oh, the types of the individuals? Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And so--okay.

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

MR. HARMON: Now, this differential extraction and epithelial cells, does this have anything to do with the nature of the samples or the tests you performed in this case?

MR. YAMAUCHI: There are no differential extractions performed in this case by myself, and to my knowledge it wouldn't be necessary in any of the other analyses done by any of the other labs.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Scheck asked you some questions about the danger of cross-contamination, when you process degraded samples along with intact samples. Do you recall that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And I believe you said you can't tell a sample is degraded until do you the processing; is that true?

MR. YAMAUCHI: That's true.

MR. HARMON: And for example, if you were handling old samples, PCR can be done on mummies; is that true?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, there is literature on that.

MR. HARMON: Okay. If you were handling old samples and new samples, what would your approach be with respect to not knowing whether something is degraded ahead of time?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I would go back to my--my same protocol and procedure where I would do everything separately one by one and not allow any two samples open at the same time.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Scheck asked you some questions about a reagent concern that Erin Riley and Greg Matheson dealt with. Do you recall that yesterday toward the end of the day?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Now, from your experience with that, is it true that the negative controls in these kits work the way they were designed to work?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, they did.

MR. HARMON: And is it also true that once the problems were addressed that the negative controls showed no further problems?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And Mr. Scheck asked you some questions about validation samples and case work and you said something about occasional anomalous results. Do you recall that yesterday?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Is it true that the reason you knew there were occasional anomalous results was because the negative controls worked?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: There has been a lot of discussions about whether or not you sampling items and only working on one tube at a time constitutes processing them separately. Do you remember some of the questions Mr. Scheck asked you about that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. I would like to ask you a question. Yesterday you said that the extraction process on June 14th took about a hour and a half. Is that your recollection?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And then how long do you think the extraction process took on June 15th?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Approximately the same amount of time.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Is it--do you recall the exact sequence that you extracted these samples on the June 14th run?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No, I don't. I would have to refer to my notes.

MR. HARMON: Sure. Do you actually have them recorded on an extraction record?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Would it help to refresh your recollection to look at that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, it would. (Witness complies.) The extraction on the 14th?

MR. HARMON: Yes. Would you please recite for the jury the exact order that you processed the sample that you've already described as having sampled and put in tubes.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Okay. The order is item no. 9, glove, A, B, C, D; item no. 112 which that is a photo item number.

MR. HARMON: Is that 47?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, that corresponds to the item no. 47, red stain and then control; and then item no. 13, photo number, which corresponds to 48, red stain control; item no. 114, which is the photo number which corresponds to 49, red stain and control; item no. 115, which is the photo number, corresponds to no. 50, red stain control; no. 117, no. 52, red stain control; item no. 106, photo number, which corresponds to I believe 41, is it? Let me--

MR. HARMON: Yes.

MR. YAMAUCHI: No. 41, red stain control; and then item no. 107 which corresponds to 42, red stain control; item no. 18 which at the time was given to me as the item number, it is--it is item no. 17, O.J. Simpson blood exemplar, blood standard no. 1 and then cloth control, and that is it for that extraction.

MR. HARMON: So there is approximately an hour and a half between when you began the extraction of the glove and when you extracted Mr. Simpson's--DNA from Mr. Simpson's cutting from the Fitzco card; is that correct?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I did--yeah, that extraction, all those in that time period.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And none of these controls caused you any concern about the results that you've already presented to this jury; is that true?

MR. YAMAUCHI: That's true.

MR. HARMON: Let's talk about June 15th, if you will. Would you tell the jury the order in which you processed the samples for extraction on June 15th.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Okay. Let's see here. Item number 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 and then control; item no. 14, red stain and then control; blood exemplar Coroner's, Brown, Simpson Nicole; blood exemplar Coroners, Goldman, Ronald; standard no. 1 and then cloth control.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, is it true that on both the June 14th set of tests and the June 15th set of tests you always alternated between the red stain and the substrate control?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. HARMON: Did you always alternate between the red stain and the substrate control in both the June 14th and 15th runs?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I had them set up in this order.

MR. HARMON: Okay. You always had the reference sample at the end of the line?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Did you always have the reference sample at the end of the line?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, that is the way I had it set up.

MR. HARMON: Was there anything about the controls, either the substrate controls, the negative or the positive controls on the June 15th run, which undermine your confidence in the results you've presented to the jury?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

MR. HARMON: Before we move on to the socks, Mr. Yamauchi, has there been anything in Mr. Scheck's questioning of you where you were--

MR. SCHECK: Object to the form of this question. Self-serving--

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: Has there been anything in Mr. Scheck's questioning of you, which included hypotheticals and possibilities, which in any way undermines the confidence that you had when you presented your DQ-Alpha results to this jury?

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, at one point I wanted to explain my interpretation of a mixture.

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Not responsive.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: This is on--

MR. SCHECK: Move to strike.

THE COURT: I don't strike things that I've overruled.

MR. HARMON: This is on item no. 31?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I believe so.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would it help to refresh your recollection to look at your notes?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, it would.

MR. HARMON: Why don't you do that then and then we will give you a chance to explain that.

MR. YAMAUCHI: (Witness complies.) Yes, okay, I have reviewed them.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Why don't you provide the jury with the explanation you would like to give them on that mixture.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Okay. Once again, it displays a mixture. There is--this is a result that is over that c dot that we talked about, that confidence level, and because of that, that in and of itself would be called, but then there were some other dots that were below the level of that c dot in intensity. They were still distinguishable, but we don't have that confidence level that we use as our standard to call something. Because one of the parts of the whole was not up to the standard that we like to make the call, that is why it had to be labeled inconclusive.

MR. HARMON: And the dots that you saw that were more intense than the c dot were 1.1, 1.2?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And the dots you saw that were less intense were a 1.3 and a 4?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's talk about the socks. Have you had prior experience with processing dark surfaces to try to detect bloodstains?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I have in the past.

MR. HARMON: And what sorts of difficulties have you encountered?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Dark surfaces tend to hide bloodstains or they make it difficult to visually see them right offhand.

THE COURT: I think we have been through this topic about three times now with various witnesses.

MR. HARMON: That was the last question that I intended to ask on that.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HARMON: And so when the words "None obvious" were used to describe what was apparent or not apparent on June 29--

MR. SCHECK: Move to strike. That is not the testimony. Exhibit a says--

THE COURT: Sustained, sustained. Hearsay.

MR. HARMON: On June 29th, when you are in Michele's office looking at the socks, was a stereomicroscope used?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

MR. HARMON: Was there any sort of alternative light source used?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Was there anything else, other than the naked eye, used to scan those socks?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No. We just visually looked at them.

MR. HARMON: Okay. It is true, is it not, that you saw no--

MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading, the form of that question.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Is it true that you saw no apparent stained or discolored areas on the socks on that day?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Did you see any discolored areas on the socks on June 29th?

MR. YAMAUCHI: We didn't look at it that well to note anything.

THE COURT: Mr. Yamauchi, the question was what did you see?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And if subsequent tests revealed the presence of Mr. Simpson's blood on those socks, you didn't see them either?

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

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. HARMON: You didn't even see stains that were later identified as Mr. Simpson's blood on those socks?

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

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Did you see any stains that have since been identified as coming from Mr. Simpson on either of those socks?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: After yesterday's display for the jury did you see any red dust on the paper that was laid out underneath the socks?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No, I didn't.

MR. HARMON: Did you look for it?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I did.

MR. HARMON: This morning did you assist Mr. Matheson in looking at the socks under a stereomicroscope over in the laboratory?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I did.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Can you describe what transpired?

MR. YAMAUCHI: He utilized a stereomicroscope to look for--

MR. SCHECK: Objection to this being beyond the scope, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: --to look for a latent bloodstain. What I mean by that would be a bloodstain that you can't see with the naked eye. Well, he proceeded and found an area where--

THE COURT: Okay. Stop right there.

MR. HARMON: Did you look through the microscope, too?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Did you see some discolored area that Mr. Matheson had focused the microscope on?

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained, sustained. Leading.

MR. HARMON: Did you see a discolored area through the stereomicroscope after Mr. Matheson--

THE COURT: Sustained. What did you see?

MR. HARMON: What did you see after Mr. Matheson manipulated the socks under the stereomicroscope?

MR. SCHECK: Objection to this as beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: There appeared to be some--well, more than discoloration, something that looked like it was sticking and adhering to the fibers.

MR. HARMON: Okay. May I proceed or do we--this is what I alerted the Court to.

THE COURT: I'm sorry, why don't you approach with the court reporter, please.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon--over at the side bar--where are we?

MR. HARMON: Well, we are right about to do a phenolphtalein test.

THE COURT: In front of the jury?

MR. HARMON: No, no, he is going to describe having seen Greg do that on this spot that he looked at. This is--and then Gary is going to testify and actually set it up for the jury to see, Gary Sims.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, could we--

THE COURT: All right. I'm going to sustain the objection to the phenolphthalein tests on the basis of the Court's previous ruling. Anything else?

MR. HARMON: These socks have been processed. They have got blood all over it.

THE COURT: I understand.

MR. HARMON: We are isolating on one.

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, since I am privy to the phenolphthalein--

THE COURT: I'm sorry, one person.

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

MR. HARMON: This is within the Court's ruling where further tests were done. I think if you go back and reflect on it, you wanted some confidence that this red stuff was blood and we have tested--I can count up the number of stains.

THE COURT: Where were the pheno tests done on the sock?

MS. CLARK: Around the cutting.

MR. HARMON: No, it is a separate spot.

THE COURT: Do you have a report from Mr. Matheson about this?

MR. HARMON: No.

THE COURT: All right. No report; no results.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi, did you then bring the socks and the stereomicroscope to Court, to this building, this morning?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And did you assist Gary Sims in setting up and looking at the socks upstairs in our office?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, your Honor, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And did you actually look at the stereomicroscope and look at the socks after Mr. Sims had manipulated the socks?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And will you describe what you saw.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Again he focused in on another area than Mr. Matheson--than Mr. Matheson did, and the same stuff or substance adhering to the fibers of the sock were noted.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Did you say Mr. Matheson or Mr. Sims upstairs?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Upstairs was Mr. Sims and back at the lab was Mr. Matheson.

MR. HARMON: And were these--will you describe what you observed upstairs with Mr. Sims after he manipulated the socks.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes. Once again, it was the same appearing substance adhering to the fibers of the--of the socks.

MR. HARMON: What did it look like?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, it looked like it could possibly be blood.

MR. SCHECK: Objection, move to strike.

THE COURT: Sustained. The answer is stricken. The jury is to disregard.

MR. HARMON: Did it resemble blood?

MR. SCHECK: Same objection.

THE COURT: You can have him describe with particularity what he saw, without the conclusion.

MR. HARMON: Will you describe with particularity what you saw, and if you can compare it with something that you already know, that would be helpful, too.

MR. YAMAUCHI: It was a substance, kind of subtle, reddish, somewhat crystalline, adhering to the fibers of the socks.

MR. HARMON: Have you ever seen blood that looks like that?

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

THE COURT: It is leading.

MR. HARMON: Did it resemble blood?

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. Have you ever seen anything that is similar to what you saw?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: What was that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Blood.

MR. HARMON: Now, was this a different spot than Mr. Matheson looked at and showed you in the lab this morning?

MR. YAMAUCHI: With Gary Sims?

MR. HARMON: Yes.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi, in trying to get results from start to finish on June 14th, did you do anything that would have caused Mr. Simpson to be falsely implicated by the results that you produced?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. The same question as before.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. HARMON: Sure.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi, in working overtime and going from start to finish on the first set of DQ-Alpha tests that you performed on June 14th, did you do anything that undermines your confidence in the results that you've described to this jury?

MR. SCHECK: Object to leading, speculative and asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

MR. HARMON: Thanks, Mr. Yamauchi. No further questions.

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Yamauchi, do you believe that Dr. Henry Lee handles evidence in the same fashion that you do at the LAPD laboratory? Is that what you are telling us?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, from my observations of him.

MR. SCHECK: And in your notes you have a whole series of notations of what Dr. Lee did, correct?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And after each notation do you have "Same gloves"?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Everyone of them?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Not everyone of them, but I did write that in at certain points.

MR. SCHECK: You write down "Same gloves" at the end?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: So basically you wrote down something that after observing the whole observation you didn't recall him changing gloves?

MR. YAMAUCHI: That's right.

MR. SCHECK: Now, you were asked on redirect examination about slot-blots. Do you recall that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: You were asked about degraded samples?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, if one does a slot-blot, that will give you information as to how much human DNA is in the sample?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yeah. It will give you an approximation.

MR. SCHECK: And a reading on how much human DNA is in a sample could assist you in making an assessment as to whether or not you are dealing with degraded samples?

MR. YAMAUCHI: To a certain extent it could, yes.

MR. SCHECK: And don't you agree that in terms of guarding against cross-contamination it is important to know if you are dealing with degraded samples?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Not if you are following procedure to make sure that everything is done at a separate time.

MR. SCHECK: You did not perform a slot-blot in this case, did you?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No, I didn't.

MR. SCHECK: Now--(Discussion held off the record between Deputy District Attorney and Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: Now, Mr. Harmon asked you some questions about the LAPD mock vaginal swab exercise. Yes?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, to your knowledge did anyone else in your laboratory perform the mock vaginal swab exercise?

MR. HARMON: Objection, it is irrelevant, beyond the scope, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: They might have.

MR. SCHECK: Well, wasn't there a standard given out to others in your lab?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, it was made available.

MR. SCHECK: And do you know if anyone else in your laboratory, with respect to sample no. 1, got the 1.2, 1.3 result for the sperm sample?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I'm not sure and I'm not sure they would have examined the same swabs that I did, because a number of swabs were made up with those types on them.

MR. SCHECK: Will you put--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: Now, the way this exercise worked is that vaginal swabs were prepared; is that correct?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And when you were taking the tests, were you supposed to know what the types for the sperm sample and the epithelial fraction of these vaginal swabs was?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, like I was saying before, it wasn't necessarily a test as much as to see if we can type and get what answers that we expect.

MR. SCHECK: My question--

MR. YAMAUCHI: And I made those swabs. I made quite a few of these swabs.

MR. SCHECK: So when you were taking this test did you know ahead of time what you were supposed to find for each of the different vaginal swabs you were examining?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, I suppose I could have looked it up, because like I said, I set it up and made it.

MR. SCHECK: But my question to you, sir, is when you were doing the typings did you know, for example, no. 1, what result you were supposed to get for the sperm sample?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, I made them. Of course I would have known.

MR. SCHECK: Did you--when you did the typing, did you know?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I'm sorry, I'm not understanding you. I made the swabs.

MR. SCHECK: I know you made--

MR. YAMAUCHI: I would know the types that are on there.

MR. SCHECK: My question to you is when you did the typing--could you move that up a little bit. When you did the typing on sample no. 1 on September 9th, 1993, did you have it in mind what you were supposed to get for the sperm fraction as indicated in 2 14-6?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Oh, do you mean did I have it memorized in my head all the type results?

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

MR. YAMAUCHI: No, no. My memory is not that good.

MR. SCHECK: Did you sit there with the code sheet next to you and look at the typing--look at the code sheet as you were reading the strips and putting down the typing result?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

MR. SCHECK: So to that extent you didn't know what the answer was supposed to be or what the expected typing result for the sperm fraction was supposed to be when you did the test, right, on September 3rd, 1993?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, wasn't the point of this exercise to determine whether or not you could accurately and reliably type a mixture?

MR. YAMAUCHI: That was the process and it was to give us some swabs that were challenging enough to test our ability so that we would have a better feel of what it is like to type case work samples.

MR. SCHECK: So the point of this validation study was to determine whether or not the analysts could accurately and reliably type a mixture on a vaginal swab?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, and that is what I did.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. And when you are doing a mixture on a vaginal swab where you have sperm cells and epithelial cells, you can engage in a process of what is known as differential extraction?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And that means that you have one set of detergents that will first remove--burst open the epithelial cells?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, it--it is more than that. It is a little bit more complicated. There is what are known as enzymes or proteases that are involved in that step.

MR. SCHECK: But you put reagents into the tube and that is going to burst open the epithelial cells and remove that DNA and then you proceed to the sperm cells, correct?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Right, but in that first process to a certain extent sometimes the sperm could be lysed also.

MR. SCHECK: But the point is you have a process available known as a differential extraction which permits you, when you have sperm cells and epithelial cells, to attempt to do them separately, right?

MR. YAMAUCHI: To a certain extent, and once again, there is oftentimes spill over from one fraction to the other because the process, it is not perfect.

MR. SCHECK: Now, when you are dealing with bloodstain mixture, there is no process available to you to do a differential extraction?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Why would you need to? Bloodstains are all the same cell line.

MR. SCHECK: If you have a bloodstain that could have been created by mixtures of two or more contributors, one cannot go through a differential extraction process to determine contributors, right?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, that's correct.

MR. SCHECK: So to that extent there are more tools available to the forensic analyst in terms of sorting out mixtures when you are dealing with epithelial cells and sperm cells?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, in that regard.

MR. SCHECK: And so would it be fair to say that doing differential extractions on vaginal swabs is easier than sorting out mixtures on bloodstains?

MR. HARMON: Objection. That is argumentative, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Personally I don't think it is easier, and I don't think anybody else that analyzes these samples do either.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Mr. Yamauchi,--

THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Scheck. Why don't you finish the thought because we need to take a break.

MR. SCHECK: Oh, okay.

THE COURT: Go ahead and finish the thought.

MR. SHAPIRO: Now, with respect to these typing results, there were other instances on this typing run where there was evidence of carry-over between the vaginal, the epithelial cells and the sperm cells, right?

MR. HARMON: Objection, it is beyond the scope. It is irrelevant.

THE COURT: How much more do you have with this, Mr. Scheck?

MR. SCHECK: Two, three minutes.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: There were other instances where there was carry-over, correct, reputed to be carry-over?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: That is to say, you got strong readings that were consistent with the sperm fraction and some weak readings that were consistent with either the epithelial cells or the vaginal or the sperm cells, correct?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Correct.

MR. SCHECK: But what makes no. 1 different here with respect to line 2 is that you got a reading of 1.2, 4 with no indication of other alleles or contributors, right?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, that's correct.

MR. SCHECK: And if you were reporting this out in a case where a suspect had a 1.2, 4 genotype for the DQ-Alpha system, you would have reported a match?

MR. HARMON: Objection, argumentative, it is irrelevant, beyond the scope, speculation.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question. Rephrase the question.

MR. SCHECK: All right.

MR. SCHECK: Let's go both ways. Let's assume, as in the mock vaginal swab exercise here, that the correct genotype for the sperm donor here for the DQ-Alpha system is 1.2, 3.

MR. YAMAUCHI: For the sperm donor?

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Objection, your Honor, it is irrelevant, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: That was the genotype of the sperm donor in this exercise, right?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I would have to see the sheet again.

MR. SCHECK: All right.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: See the sheet? See where it says "SP" at the top?

MR. YAMAUCHI: 1.2, 1.3.

MR. SCHECK: Yes, 1.2, 1.3.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: That is what is supposed to be the sperm contribution, correct?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Correct.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, you reported out a 1.2, 4 on your typing sheet?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Right.

MR. SCHECK: If this had been a case, that would have been a false exclusion?

MR. HARMON: Objection, your Honor. It is argumentative and misstates his testimony and it is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: If you had--if your typing results had been used in a real case instead of a mock case, would that have been an incorrect typing that would have excluded the sperm donor as being a contributor to that vaginal swab?

MR. HARMON: Objection, no foundation, speculation. It is argumentative, it is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Well, the 1.2, 4 is not the correct typing for the sperm contributor, is it?

MR. YAMAUCHI: (No audible response.)

MR. HARMON: Objection, asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: The 1.2, 4 typing does not reflect the true genotype of the sperm contributor?

MR. HARMON: Objection, asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained. Counsel, we have been through this.

MR. SCHECK: Is there any notation whatsoever on your report, or on any review of this by your supervisor, that there was any incorrect typing reported on this mock vaginal swab exercise by you?

MR. HARMON: Objection, asked and answered, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: I didn't mark down anything being wrong and neither did my supervisor.

MR. SCHECK: When you say "Wrong," was the discrepancy even noted?

MR. YAMAUCHI: It is not a discrepancy.

MR. HARMON: Objection, argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Was there any notation put down that the sperm fraction--

MR. HARMON: Objection, asked and answered.

THE COURT: I haven't heard the question.

MR. SCHECK: Was there any notation put down--withdrawn. Other than the report that Collin Yamauchi either got the correct types or no results on all of the validation studies, other than that report, was anything else said about how you did on these mock vaginal swab studies?

MR. HARMON: Objection, calls for hearsay.

MR. SCHECK: In any document you had in regard to the validation studies--

MR. HARMON: Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel. Don't make your objections while the question is being made. It makes it impossible for the court reporter to make an adequate record. You can make your objection at the appropriate time.

MR. HARMON: I appreciate counsel doing the same for the first time, your Honor.

THE COURT: That wasn't necessary, Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: I agree.

THE COURT: All right. I think we are done for the morning session, ladies and gentlemen. We need to take a morning recess, ladies and gentlemen. I need to speak to the lawyers. Would you step back in the jury room. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. Don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't allow anybody to communicate with you, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted. We will be in recess for fifteen minutes.

(Recess.)

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. What happened to Mr. Cochran? Counsel, I sense that we are sliding here. I'm hearing speaking objections, I'm hearing personal comments about people's intelligence or the size of their brains, which I find childish and unprofessional. And as you know, I'm not wild about chastising lawyers in front of the jurors, but the next time I have to do that, I'm going to fine and sanction people in front of the jurors. So let's not let it happen again. All right. Let's have the jury, please. And Mr. Yamauchi, why don't you come on up and save us a few minutes.

(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. Mr. Collin Yamauchi is again on the witness stand undergoing recross-examination by Mr. Scheck. Mr. Scheck, you may continue.

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Yamauchi, just three or four more different questions about this mock vaginal swab exercise. Is there a procedure that is commonly employed by forensic analysts whereby one can look under a microscope at a vaginal swab and literally see sperm cells?

MR. HARMON: Objection, beyond the scope. It is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, you can take a microscopic examination of that.

MR. SCHECK: And after such a microscopic examination one could determine whether or not there were any sperm cells in the sample?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, that's correct.

MR. SCHECK: Did you do that here?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I may or may not have at that point. You understand that was back in the beginning before we started case work. As far as when we do case work, that is a part of our protocol and procedure, to document that to that detail of whether or not we can see the spermatozoa.

MR. SCHECK: Do you have any notes indicating that you performed such an examination in this exercise?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No, I don't.

MR. SCHECK: Was the purpose of this exercise to simulate the techniques that you would use in a real case?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, yes, it was, and to a certain extent we are evolving and trying to decide what were the important needs and what we didn't do, and obviously we came to the conclusion that we needed that microscopic examination because that is what we do in our case work today.

MR. SCHECK: Let me see. Did you just say to me a second ago that you don't know whether you did or did not look at this sample under a microscope?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I did.

MR. SCHECK: So you might have done that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, I might have.

MR. SCHECK: Are you telling us now that as a result of the mock vaginal swab exercise you realized that you had to institute a procedure of looking at samples under a microscope to see whether there were sperm cells? Is that what you are saying now?

MR. HARMON: Objection, argumentative, irrelevant, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: It is not critical to the result, but it does give us information that we can use to troubleshoot later on.

MR. SCHECK: Well, the point of looking at it under a microscope is to see whether there are any sperm cells?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now--

THE COURT: All right, counsel.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, he was--you didn't let me--

THE COURT: I understand that.

MR. SCHECK: Just one more--

THE COURT: One more.

MR. SCHECK: --point about this.

MR. SCHECK: When you reported the type result 1.2, 4 for the sperm contribution in this exercise--

MR. YAMAUCHI: That's the fraction. The sperm cell fraction.

MR. SCHECK: Right. On September 3rd--okay? Are you with me?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: --when you did that, did you believe the 1.2, 4 was the sperm contribution?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No. It had all the signs of being spill over from the epithelial cell fraction.

MR. SCHECK: Did you note--so it is your testimony, sir, that when you saw that 1.2, 4, for the sperm fraction on the hybridization strip for 14-6, that you knew in your mind at that time when you wrote down 1.2, 4, that that wasn't really the sperm contribution, that was the epithelial cell contribution?

MR. HARMON: Objection, it is argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. SCHECK: All right.

MR. SCHECK: Is it your testimony that when you wrote down 1.2, 4 on September 3rd for the epithel--for the sperm cell contribution, you knew at that time that that 1.2, 4 was actually the epithelial cell, not the sperm cell?

MR. YAMAUCHI: You mean spilling over?

MR. SCHECK: Yeah.

MR. YAMAUCHI: (No audible response.)

MR. SCHECK: When you wrote down 1.2, 4 for sperm cell did you know at that time when you wrote it that that was not the sperm contribution, that was the epithelial cell contribution?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, I don't know if at that time I did or not. Basically what I do is I go through them and I read off and write down my results exactly what I see on the strips, so it might have been at a later time when I went back to analyze it further that I realized that.

MR. SCHECK: When did you go back and analyze it further and realize that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I don't know.

MR. SCHECK: Did you ever talk about that with any supervisor, the result of September 3rd, 1993?

MR. HARMON: Objection.

THE COURT: I don't think so. I don't think so.

MR. SCHECK: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: No.

MR. SCHECK: All right.

MR. SCHECK: Did you ever--

THE COURT: Counsel, I have let a lot of cross-examination into this area--

MR. SCHECK: Okay.

THE COURT: --but it is not directly relevant to the processing in this case. I think we have exhausted this.

MR. SCHECK: Can I ask one last question?

THE COURT: One question.

MR. SCHECK: Under the standards of your laboratory, as far as you are concerned, you got the right answer on this mock vaginal swab study with respect to the sperm contribution?

MR. HARMON: Objection, asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Yamauchi, you mentioned on redirect examination that DNA tests have been done on mummies?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, I have seen a book published on that subject.

MR. SCHECK: Have you read it?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I have glanced through it.

MR. SCHECK: Have you read articles about it?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Umm, may have.

MR. SCHECK: To your knowledge has a DQ-Alpha PCR-based test ever been successfully completed on remains of a mummy?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I can't say that specifically I read that. I'm not sure.

MR. SCHECK: Do you--do you think from--do you recall from what you read whether there would be sufficient DNA in the remains of a mummy to perform a DQ-Alpha PCR-based DNA test?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, I think it is completely possible, but I wouldn't know unless I actually read that.

MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. Now, you indicated on redirect examination that you had encountered situations before where dark surfaces hide blood?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, the background makes it hard to--well, doesn't make the blood very obvious.

MR. SCHECK: And that was something that you knew on June 29th when you were examining the sock with Michele Kestler and Greg Matheson?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Well, certainly we could see that it was a dark-colored sock.

MR. SCHECK: Well, you knew that dark surfaces, in your words, can sometimes hide blood?

MR. YAMAUCHI: (No audible response.)

MR. SCHECK: You knew that?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yeah, it can made make it hard to see.

MR. SCHECK: Now, you testified on redirect examination that yesterday you went back into the laboratory with Greg Matheson and you looked under a stereomicroscope to see if yesterday you could see discolorations in the sock under the stereomicroscope?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Actually that was this morning.

MR. SCHECK: All right. You did that this morning?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: You did that with Mr. Sims as well?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, you can't tell this jury anything about whether what you saw under the stereomicroscope last night was on the sock on June 29th?

MR. YAMAUCHI: You mean this morning?

MR. SCHECK: Yeah, what you saw this morning was on the sock on June 29th?

MR. HARMON: Objection. It is argumentative, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: No, I wouldn't know that because we didn't have a stereomicroscope at the time.

MR. SCHECK: Well, when you examined the sock on June 29th none of those cut-outs that we observed yesterday were there?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No, the sock was intact.

MR. SCHECK: And the place that I pointed out to you on sock around the ankle area, would you agree was about three-quarters of an inch long and about a half an inch wide, cut-out area?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I recall something more like a centimeter by four centimeters. I believe that is what I said, too. I'm not sure, though.

MR. SCHECK: Now, you are saying is it--withdrawn. On June 29th, in that area, you did not see any discoloration?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I'm sorry, that was a question? No, there was nothing that was noticeable.

MR. SCHECK: You did not see that area crinkled or puckered in terms of the material?

MR. HARMON: Objection, that is beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Not that I recall.

MR. SCHECK: And yesterday, as we--you indicated there were lots of--there were a number of areas cut out of the sock, correct?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And you wrapped it up, you said on redirect examination, and examined the white paper?

MR. YAMAUCHI: Afterwards the white paper was laying there and I looked at it, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh. And yesterday when you looked at the white paper, when you wrapped up the socks with all the cut-outs having been made in the sock, you saw no evidence of any reddish material, little particles on the paper?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No, there was nothing obvious. I didn't use a stereomicroscope, but I just visually looked at it and I didn't see anything.

MR. SCHECK: And on June 29th when there with no cut-outs in the sock in any area you did not see any reddish particles whatsoever on the white paper?

MR. YAMAUCHI: I don't recall.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARMON

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi, I just have a few questions. We spent about a half our talking about sperm and epithelial cells and mock vaginal swabs, okay?

MR. SCHECK: Motion to strike, colloquy.

THE COURT: Sustained. Just ask a question.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi, do you have any reason to believe that there was any sperm on 78, the bottom of Mr. Goldman's shoe?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

MR. HARMON: Do you have any reason to believe that there was any sperm on the Defendant's steering wheel where item no. 21 was removed from?

MR. SCHECK: Objection, beyond the scope of recross and irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

MR. HARMON: Do you have any reason to believe that there was any sperm on item 117, the rear gate at Bundy on the outside?

MR. YAMAUCHI: No.

MR. HARMON: Does the subject of sperm and epithelial cells and differential extraction have anything to do with the work that you performed in this case?

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

THE COURT: Legal ground.

MR. SCHECK: Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: The differential extraction process was--was not performed. We did the regular blood extraction process, so it has nothing to do with the work that I did on this case.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Thanks, Mr. Yamauchi. No further questions, your Honor.

FURTHER RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Yamauchi, doesn't getting correct results with mixtures have everything to do with the work you did on this case?

MR. HARMON: Objection. It is argumentative, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Yes, you want to get correct results.

MR. SCHECK: And if anything, in terms of the arsenal of tools that a forensic scientist has available to sort out mixtures, isn't it easier to do vaginal swabs that are mixture of sperm and epithelial cells than it is to do bloodstains that have contributions from two or more people?

MR. HARMON: Objection, asked and answered. It is beyond the scope. It is irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled. I assume this is the last question?

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

MR. YAMAUCHI: Okay. For--or one thing, if you are talking about the process--this question is actually two questions. If you are talking about the process, the differential extraction is more complicated, so that is harder to perform. But if you are talking about interpretations, mixtures are always difficult. Sexual assault cases--they are inherent in sexual assault cases so that is a part of that type of work. If you have a mixture with a blood case, the same thing, interpretations will become more difficult.

MR. SCHECK: Isn't interpretation easier in a sexual assault case because you have the ability to do differential extractions and you can literally visualize the sperm cells under a microscope?

MR. HARMON: Objection. It is irrelevant, it is beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. YAMAUCHI: That is an important tool, but because it is not perfect, the same--the same problems exist in interpretation as far as mixtures are concerned.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Yamauchi, thank you very much, sir. You are excused now as a witness. And Mr. Harmon, do we have Mr. Sims available?

MR. HARMON: Yes, we do, your Honor.

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

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, could we have Mr. Yamauchi subject to recall?

THE COURT: Yes, subject to recall.

(Brief pause.)

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, while Mr. Sims is coming down could we approach for one second?

THE COURT: Sure. With the reporter.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: We are over at the side bar.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I understand from Mr. Harmon that what he intends to do now is set up a stereomicroscope and have Mr. Sims look at the socks under the stereomicroscope, and my concern is that this is plainly outside the scope at this point of the redirect examination. And what is happening here is something that I expressed concern about when Mr. Sims was allowed to testify after Mr. Yamauchi and that is that the Prosecution would attempt to use the redirect of Mr. Sims to clean up cross-examination of Mr. Yamauchi. And that is why I had requested to finish the redirect examination of Mr. Sims before we did Mr. Yamauchi. Now, I understand the Court's ruling at that time within its discretion that it was better to not interrupt two witnesses than one, but at the same time, what I would ask here, is that they be prohibited from using the redirect of Mr. Sims at this point to try to counter points that were made on the cross-examination of Mr. Yamauchi. And I think that the issue of the stereomicroscope and examining the socks now and what is on the socks now is plainly outside the scope. And to the extent that it has already been brought out in front of the jury, that is to say that Mr. Sims directed Mr. Yamauchi on how to use the stereomicroscope and pointed out an observation about what blood is on those socks, now that has already been done, he has already testified to it. So I see no reason now to permit them to set up the stereomicroscope and have Mr. Sims look at it and perhaps show jurors what they can see under the stereomicroscope, if that is their intention.

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. HARMON: I know it seems like another lifetime ago, but I remember Mr. Sims--first off, my direct examination of him was quite detailed about his examination of the socks, if you recall.

THE COURT: I recall an excruciating long videotape.

MR. HARMON: Painful. And those socks smiled at me in that videotape, but there was--in addition to the detail of my direct examination, there was equally agonizing excruciating cross-examination of Mr. Sims about his examination of the socks. So it is within the scope. And the difficulties he had or did not have, we talked about fibrils and little things that fell off from the cuttings, so it is--it is within the scope because the clear implication of all this is that the stuff was not there when in reality it is here today, it is in this courtroom. There is blood on those socks today. And I'm prepared to lay a foundation about the presumptive tests, which I can do without even setting up the microscope. I think you will appreciate how this is quite different than the little bit I gave you about Mr. Yamauchi. Mr. Matheson, that is a different subject, but the socks are within the scope of redirect at this point. And I'm sorry, your Honor, just as an aside, should the Court feel that they are not, we will be happy to recall Mr. Sims at whatever--he is coming back, so it is not that big a deal, but it would be nice to clear the air before Barry goes home, your Honor.

THE COURT: I think at this point, though, I think without a report telling the Defense where it was done, what was done, I don't think it is fair to open that up.

MR. HARMON: Okay, your Honor. Your Honor, what I intend to elicit from Mr. Sims is in his report. These are passed o-tolidine tests that reflect closely, and I will lay the foundation. There is nothing--he is not going to say anything new. This is all in the report.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harmon, I want you to show me the report. Let's proceed.

MR. HARMON: Well, it is the notes. We will have to--we may not get to that before lunch.

THE COURT: When we break at lunch why don't you show me the report. All right let's proceed.

MR. COCHRAN: Thanks, your Honor.

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, if you recollect, we interrupted the cross-examination of Mr. Sims to allow Mr. Sims to travel back to his home in the Bay area to take care some of family business, and he is now available to us to complete his examination, so if you recollect your notes.

MR. SCHECK: Redirect.

THE COURT: Redirect, I'm sorry. Redirect. Mr. Sims. You see it has been so long even I forgot.

Gary Sims, called as a witness by the People, having been previously sworn, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: Good morning again, Mr. Sims.

MR. SIMS: Good morning, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Sims, you are reminded, sir, that you are still under oath. Go ahead and get comfortable. And I think we need a--Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: Good morning again.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. HARMON

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, you are not a Ph.D., are you?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. HARMON: You have Ph.Ds in your lab?

MR. SIMS: Yes, we do.

MR. HARMON: Do all crime labs have Ph.Ds in them?

MR. SIMS: No, I don't believe they all do.

MR. HARMON: Is Dr. Blake a Ph.D.?

MR. SIMS: He is a D Crim which is a doctor's degree.

MR. HARMON: But not a Ph.D.?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Is there anyone in his lab that is a Ph.D.?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Beyond the scope of cross, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, just to reflect back on where we left off when you were on redirect examination, I had asked you a series of hypotheticals that purported to be based on when evidence was collected in this case, how it was processed for drying. And I believe the last hypothetical left off with the Defendant's reference sample in a plastic bag. Do you recall that?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I recall that.

MR. SCHECK: There was one beyond that. I'm going to object to any repetition of any more of these.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's pick up and I'm going to have to give you some of that information again because it has been quite a while, but let's pick up at that point where the Defendant's reference sample is in a plastic bag. Okay?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. There was another hypothetical beyond that. I will show the Court the record.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, I want to ask you to assume hypothetically that all the stains from Bundy were seen at midnight, the stains at Rockingham were seen at 6:00 in the morning, that all that evidence from those two locations was collected on June 13th before the Defendant's reference sample was obtained, that all the stains consisted of multiple stain swatches, that all of those items were stored in plastic bags in the same truck. Okay? Are you with me so far?

MR. SIMS: Okay. Yes.

MR. HARMON: And I want to just to go back and generally describe the drying preparation, that only one coin envelope was opened at a time.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Each coin envelope had a bindle for the stains and a bindle for the substrate control.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And that only one bindle was sampled at a time.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. That those stains and their respective substrate control were put in tubes to dry overnight.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And that the next morning the box containing those items was taken back down on the table where they were prepared the day before. I'm sorry, if I said alternating between bindle and coin envelopes, we haven't gotten to that yet. There were plastic bags that those swatches and the substrate controls were in initially. Okay?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: And that they were put into respective tubes to dry overnight.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: The tubes were put into coin envelopes.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Coin envelopes were left open to allow air circulation.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: The next morning the box containing all of these items was taken down.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: A new bindle was created for the stain swatches, the multiple stain swatches.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And the substrate control swatches.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Only one coin envelope was processed at a time.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: That the Defendant's reference sample was kept in a plastic bag during this processing period.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: That after the stains were dried and put into their respective stain bindles and substrate control bindles the Defendant's reference sample was taken out of the plastic bag.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Are you with me so far?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. That at that point, with all the stains and substrate controls in their bindles in closed coin envelopes, Mr. Yamauchi made a fitzco card. Are you familiar with a fitzco card?

MR. SIMS: I am familiar with that type of card, yes.

MR. HARMON: He made that ten to fifteen away--ten to fifteen feet away from where the closed coin envelopes containing the respective bindles were.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Okay. That when Mr. Yamauchi opened the reference tube, the Defendant's reference tube, he had a chem wipe over it.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: That some blood got on the chem wipe.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Blood got on his gloves.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi used a pipetter to prepare the circles on the fitzco card.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Allowed that card to dry.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: He changed gloves after he prepared the fitzco card?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, just I have a standing objection to this whole procedure.

THE COURT: Yes. Noted. Thank you.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi then directed his attention to sampling item no. 9, the glove from Rockingham. Okay?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: He sampled that glove in four separate areas.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: That he changed gloves after he sampled the glove, item no. 9 from Rockingham.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Okay. That then Mr. Yamauchi turned his attention to the coin envelopes that had previously been placed or bindles had been placed into containing the swatches.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Are you with me so far?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Yamauchi only processed one envelope at a time.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: And from within each of those envelopes one bindle at a time.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Okay. That Mr. Yamauchi placed a clean chem wipe under each bindle.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: He changed the chem wipe with each bindle?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: That he used the sterile scalpel to make cuttings from the swatches that were contained in either the stain or the substrate control.

MR. SIMS: And that would be for each sample?

MR. HARMON: For each sample.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Changed sterile scalpels with each cutting.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: That Mr. Yamauchi's sampling consisted, with respect to each of the stains from Bundy, of only cutting a portion of one of multiple stain swatches.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Okay. That I want you to further assume that the balance of the swatches, the ones that he didn't sample, remained in the evidence processing room during the entire subsequent PCR process.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: That Mr. Yamauchi then sampled the fitzco card, which had by now dried.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: And that each--with each sampling Mr. Yamauchi placed the sampling in a separate microcentrifuge tube?

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor--

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, what is your objection?

MR. SCHECK: My objection now is that the hypothetical has gone from assuming something generally to asking him to assume that Mr. Yamauchi in particular did certain things in certain ways.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: And I think that that is--

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: Okay. That with each sampling Mr. Yamauchi put the sampling in a microcentrifuge tube and capped it immediately.

MR. SIMS: Okay. As each one is being processed?

MR. HARMON: As each respective sampling was being done.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: That he never had more than one microcentrifuge tube opened at a time during this sampling process.

MR. SIMS: Yes. That is important. Okay.

MR. HARMON: Based on all the information that I have asked you to assume, can you comment on the likelihood that there was any sample to sample cross-contamination if Mr. Yamauchi used those safeguards?

MR. SIMS: I think it would be extremely unlikely that any cross-contamination would occur and then I think looking at--the key also is to look at any of the results, and if those are negative, then they verify that.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's assume--I want you to assume then that all the substrate controls tested negatively and add that to the hypothetical. What would that contribute to your opinion on that subject?

MR. SIMS: Would that include any reagent blanks and that--

MR. HARMON: Yes, the reagent blanks, all of the negative controls in the PCR processing.

MR. SIMS: Yes. That would contribute to that opinion.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Now, what is the significance of Mr. Yamauchi never having more than one microcentrifuge tube opened at a time?

MR. SCHECK: Objection at this point, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. HARMON: Is there any significance--if you accept the hypothetical about Mr. Yamauchi never having one tube opened at a time, what is the significance of that?

MR. SCHECK: Same objection.

THE COURT: Rephrase the question.

MR. HARMON: Is it significant that Mr. Yamauchi never had more than one--

THE COURT: Rephrase the question. What is the significance of not having more than one microcentrifuge tube opened at a time during the course of PCR testing?

MR. SIMS: Yes. By following that procedure that makes it such that one tube is not likely to contaminate the contents of another tube. In other words, if you open a tube and you have another tube opened, then potentially these things we've talked about, such as aerosol, could occur, but by keeping it one tube at a time you are not going to see that problem and you are also less likely to cross-contaminate and mix up samples.

MR. HARMON: When you say you are not likely, is there any scientific data to support the idea that these amplicons can go through the walls of these tubes?

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: I have never seen anything like that, no.

MR. HARMON: Is that why those tubes are made of whatever they are made of?

MR. SIMS: Well, that is why they are made that way and also they have secure caps on them.

MR. HARMON: What is the significance of only working on one coin envelope containing a substrate control bindle and a stain bindle at a time?

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, at this point asked and answered. He was asked a hypothetical. Now he is going back through each detail of the hypothetical again. And it seems to me that that is cumulative, repetitive and we did it the last time.

THE COURT: Overruled. Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Well, the significance of that is that there is less likelihood of any mix-up and also there is less likelihood of any cross-contamination, because if the sample is all closed up, it will not be contaminated by an open sample.

MR. HARMON: Because it won't get out?

MR. SIMS: Because it can't get out, basically. It is enclosed.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And the last specific question on this series. What is the significance of--remember I asked you to assume that Mr. Yamauchi only cut a portion of one of multiple swatches that then went off to the PCR process. What is the significance of holding back all those other swatches, particularly if they are sent to other laboratories to do testing?

MR. SIMS: Well, the significance of that would be that when that part of the examination, that initial part of the examination is done cleanly, then that can also be checked by having other laboratories run those particular remaining samples. What you gather from that is that if one were to make the hypothesis that there was some contamination, one would expect that there would be at best maybe some sporadic contamination. In other words, it is unlikely that all these swatches would all get this bit of contamination. So by having these swatches in reserve, one can check those against the other results.

MR. HARMON: And I want you to assume, hypothetically, that with respect to Bundy, items 47--these are along the walkway--48, 50 and 52, based on what I have just represented in the hypothetical, that portions of those swatches were processed by Mr. Yamauchi starting in serology, and then in the way they do it, and that the balance of those swatches were sent to your laboratory or Cellmark. Okay?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Let's assume that. What would be the significance of the three laboratories producing the exact same DQ-Alpha typing result? I said three labs; I mean Mr. Yamauchi, LAPD, Cellmark and DOJ.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, let's go back to he has cut a portion of the swatch and portions of those--

THE COURT: Counsel, you can ask him the general question about the significance of other labs testing the same samples, but we do have the problem of overlap between the witnesses. Proceed.

MR. HARMON: I couldn't hear you.

THE COURT: We have the problem between the overlap of the witnesses.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Assume hypothetically that portions were processed by Mr. Yamauchi and by Cellmark and DOJ--

THE COURT: Counsel, why don't you approach without the court reporter, please.

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

(The following proceedings were held in open court:)

THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: Let's try to get this, Mr. Sims. What is the significance, if samples are sent to different labs, of each laboratory getting the same test result?

MR. SIMS: Well, again, by having these multiple swatches and by having different laboratories get the same results, that indicates to me that these are in fact valid results, that there is no evidence at all that contamination occurred.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Are you familiar with the concept of handling--or strike that. Are you familiar with the term of handling a sample downstream in terms of processing things in the PCR process?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I know what that term means.

MR. HARMON: Could you describe that for the jury, please.

MR. SIMS: By processing samples downstream, and I'm working from my left to my right, what I would normally do would be to start with the evidence samples on my left, have those tubes in a rack on my left and then move in this direction of work so that, for example, the reference samples would be--reference samples would be like victim and suspect sample, that sort of sample, those would be downstream in the direction that I'm working, so these would be to my right as I'm working.

MR. HARMON: Why would you do that?

MR. SIMS: Well, the concern would be that if you were to have any sort of cross-contamination you wouldn't want the reference sample to cross-contaminate the evidence. Particularly in a typical case you are worried about the suspect sample cross-contaminating the evidence samples, for example, in a rape case or something like that.

MR. HARMON: And so why is processing it downstream a solution to addressing that problem?

MR. SIMS: Well, because again this goes to having one tube opened at a time and working in a certain order that that makes it unlikely that any possibility would exist whereby the suspect sample could come back this way into the evidence samples.

MR. HARMON: Because you've processed it at a later time?

MR. SIMS: Yes, you processed it at a later time downstream.

MR. HARMON: And are you familiar with the amplitype user guide?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor--

MR. HARMON: May I have a moment, your Honor?

THE COURT: Certainly.

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

THE COURT: Excuse me, Mr. Harmon. Forgive me a moment.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, just to revert back for a second, if Mr. Yamauchi consumed all his samples in testing, okay, assume that, all of his samplings in testing--

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor--

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: --I would--

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, this--this PCR processing the way you do it, is it consumptive testing?

MR. SIMS: Well, one of the advantages of PCR is that you don't have to use up all the sample, if that is what you mean. In other words, you don't--you can get by with using very little material and still get a result and that saves some material, it conserves evidence.

MR. HARMON: Okay. But what you test you consume?

MR. SIMS: Yes. What you extract you--you consume except for the portion of the extract that you didn't use for the typing, for example.

MR. HARMON: And just to revert back to my hypothetical, assume that early on cuttings were made and tested and consumed.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And then you later got samples.

MR. SIMS: Yes. Now I understand what your question is. In other words, those samples, those portions of fabric that have been extracted are no longer useful to us. We would need new portions, unextracted portions of fabric.

MR. HARMON: And that--and you tested different swatches?

MR. SIMS: Yes. I tested different physical pieces of cloth than the ones that Mr. Yamauchi tested.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, we--quite some time ago we saw a Defense exhibit that attempted, through a series of hypotheticals and assumptions that you addressed, to quantify amounts of DNA that was present in 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52. Do you recall that?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I do.

MR. HARMON: And you yourself processed item 117, which was collected from the rear gate at Bundy on July 3rd; is that true?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.

MR. HARMON: What is the significance of comparing--to you as a scientist of comparing how much high molecular weight human DNA is left in the Bundy stains to how much DNA is in item 117 that was collected on July 3rd from the rear gate at Bundy?

MR. SCHECK: Objection to the form.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Well, I don't--I don't think that is a particularly significant comparison because the Bundy samples were clearly--the ones that included 47, 48, 49 and 50, were clearly degraded, so a lot of the human DNA would appear to have been degraded in those samples.

MR. HARMON: Okay. We will talk details in a few minutes, but is there anything about the comparison of items 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52 with 117 in terms of how much DNA is there that suggests scientifically that item 117 was not on that gate on June 13th?

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

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. HARMON: Is there anything about the comparison or the attempt--I will withdraw that. What, if anything, is there about Mr. Scheck's hypothetical which you were directed to assume numerous things about the amount of DNA, human DNA that was in 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52 when compared with 117, that relates to whether or not 117 was actually on that rear gate on June 13th?

MR. SCHECK: Same objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Is there anything about the amounts of DNA that were contained in those items, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52, when compared with 117, that provides any scientific information about whether or not 117 was on that rear gate on June 13th?

MR. SCHECK: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. You can ask whether or not there is any relationship to their relative age.

MR. HARMON: Is there anything about the amounts of DNA that were contained in those items that I keep numbering to you that suggests how long any of those items were at Bundy; 49, 47, 48, 50, 52, when compared with 117?

MR. SIMS: No, again, I don't think it is the amounts of DNA that are significant. I think the significance is probably in the collection, the drying process.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's talk about 115, 116 and 117. You have had a chance to examine and process 115 and 116 as well, have you hot?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I did. I processed those three sample from the rear gate.

MR. HARMON: Have you seen photographs of them?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I have seen some photographs.

MR. HARMON: Let's take them one at a time. What is there--your observation of the photographs and of 115 and your examination of 115 that might shed some light on how long these things were there?

MR. SCHECK: Well, objection to the--that calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: My understanding is that it is no. 115 that is clearly shown in the photographs from June, and that I used that stain then as a basis to compare it to what I saw in my yields of 115, 116 and 117.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Would you describe what you saw there.

MR. SIMS: As far as my yields?

MR. HARMON: Yes, for those three items from the rear get?

MR. SIMS: Yes. The way I calculated is I went back and looked at how much DNA I was getting per each weight of the swatch. In other words, remember we talked about weighing these swatches, and so I looked at the nanograms of DNA that I recovered per each milligram of the swatches that were tested, and the--the data that I came up with from that was--and this is for no. 115, 116 and 117--looking at the high molecular weight DNA for a yield gel, no. 115 was 13.5 nanograms per milligram swatch; no. 116 was 13.6 nanograms per one milligram swatch; and no. 117 was about 27 nanograms per one milligram swatch.

MR. HARMON: So how can you correlate the relative amounts then of those three stains to one another?

MR. SIMS: Well, I would say they are all in the same ballpark.

MR. HARMON: Now, in visualizing or seeing the photographs of 115 and 116, what did they look like as they appeared in the photograph that was taken of them that you saw?

MR. SIMS: Now, this would be 115 and 116?

MR. HARMON: Just 115 and 116.

MR. SIMS: Well, if--could I have that particular photo again just to refresh my memory on that.

MR. HARMON: Sure. I'm not sure--we will come back do that, okay?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Now, you have also had an opportunity, through the hypothetical and through reviewing records, to have looked at how much DNA was in item 6 that was over at the Rockingham address, have you not?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.

MR. HARMON: And item 52, the stain that was processed for RFLP typing that showed a match with Mr. Simpson by Cellmark?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And what can you say about the relative amounts of DNA in 6, in 52 and 115 and 116?

MR. SIMS: Well, it is difficult to compare all of those, but what I did is I looked at no. 6 again with this nanograms of DNA per one milligram swatch because that was a relatively undegraded sample. And I compared that, for example, no. 52 and some of the other Bundy drops as well, and the calculation that I came up with for number 6, which was the Rockingham drop, was about 6.7 nanograms of DNA per one milligram swatch. No. 52 was about 2.4 nanograms DNA per one milligram swatch. And then the other samples, 47, 48, 49 and 50, that ratio was all--all those samples the ratio was less than one so those were the very degraded samples; 47, 48, 49 and 50.

MR. HARMON: I'm sorry to do this belatedly, but could we write the relative amounts and make that 287 for identification, your Honor?

THE COURT: How about if over the lunch hour we have Mr. Sims write that out?

MR. HARMON: Okay. That would be better.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Now, did you also make a comparison, I think you just alluded to the sample, between the kind of DNA that you saw in item no. 6 from Rockingham and the kind of DNA that you saw in item 48 along the Bundy walkway?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I did.

MR. HARMON: What can you tell us about that?

MR. SIMS: Well, I can tell you that there was what I felt was significantly less DNA in that 48, that Bundy drop, than in the Rockingham drop.

MR. HARMON: And how do you know that?

MR. SIMS: Just by doing this type of comparison and also by looking at the--the yield gel determination to show that there was degradation present in that no. 48 sample, the Bundy drop. This was a degraded sample.

MR. HARMON: And how do you know 48 was degraded?

MR. SIMS: Well, I could see evidence that there was some bacterial growth on it, for example, that this was high molecular weight DNA of non-human origin which suggested to me that it was probably bacterial.

MR. HARMON: Now, let's throw in another stain, if you will, item no. 12. Are you familiar with Cellmark's processing of item no. 12 from inside Mr. Simpson's residence?

MR. SIMS: Yes. My understanding is that there was a significant amount of high molecular weight DNA that enabled them to get an RFLP result.

MR. HARMON: Did you make a determination as to what was there?

MR. SIMS: Yes. I believe we did that particular sample very early on in our work-up of this case.

MR. HARMON: Did you review Cellmark's reports on that?

MR. SIMS: Yes. I would like a moment to check that because this was, I believe, back in August.

MR. HARMON: Sure.

MR. SIMS: (Witness complies.)

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, do you want to see what report he is looking at? (Brief pause.)

MR. SIMS: Yes, I--this was on page 4 of my notes from August 13. I noted that there was high molecular weight DNA in Cellmark's sample 08 which is LAPD no. 12.

MR. HARMON: Any signs of degradation?

MR. SIMS: I didn't note any for that sample. I did note some degradation in some of the other samples.

MR. HARMON: Any indicators of bacteria?

MR. SIMS: Again, I don't recall seeing that in that particular sample, but I--I just looked for the high molecular weight band. That is all the information I have.

MR. HARMON: Okay. So far we've discussed 115, 116, 117, 6, 52, 48 and 12?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Just generally speaking, I don't want to belabor this point, umm, what is the impact of bacteria when it is--comes in contact with a fresh bloodstain?

MR. SIMS: Well, the bloodstain provides nutrients for the bacteria to grow so the bacteria basically feeds on that and they thrive at the expense of the bloodstain is what happens.

MR. HARMON: And that is why sometimes you can't type stains?

MR. SIMS: Yes, that is one reason.

MR. HARMON: Okay. In your observations of 115, 116 and 117, when they were processed by you, did you see any signs of bacterial cause degradation?

MR. SIMS: No. I don't recall seeing any bacterial degradation. The type of pattern I did see with the Bundy drops, I don't recall seeing that with those rear gate samples.

MR. HARMON: Do you want to check just to make sure?

MR. SIMS: Yes. I would like to review that yield gel just to confirm that. (Witness complies.) Yes, this is--I'm looking at the results on pages 168 and 170 of my notes. I did not see that type of bacterial degradation pattern on those samples that I did see on the Bundy drops that we subjected to a yield gel.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Assume that item no. 12, the Cellmark RFLP result, that was obtained from inside a residence and there was no apparent presence of bacteria. Would that--would those assumptions be consistent with the kind of results that Cellmark obtained on that sample?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Assume further that 52, the drop that was obtained from outside in the driveway at Bundy--

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: --that that is a different surface or substrate than all the ones along the walkway; 47, 48, 49 and 50.

MR. SIMS: Yes, that is a different substrate.

MR. HARMON: And are you familiar with the kind of substrates that those are, those two areas?

MR. SCHECK: I think that--I don't mind the general inquiry, but I think no foundation for this question.

THE COURT: I'm going to overrule it because, you know, the jury has been out, they have seen the diagram, they know what surface.

MR. SCHECK: I understand. I'm just saying--as far as--

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. SIMS: Yes. My familiarity is from the scene photographs that I have observed and I noted there are some differences in the substrates.

MR. HARMON: And what would those differences be?

MR. SIMS: Well, particularly with the--the drops that my understanding are inside the gate, inside the rear gate, that looked like a somewhat soiled or there was a lot of vegetation around that particular area, whereas 52, my understanding was that was more out by the carport away from vegetation.

MR. HARMON: What is the significance of that in terms of the observations that you made about the stains that were inside the gate along the walkway?

MR. SIMS: Well, again, assuming there was less soil in that particular area, for example, or vegetation, those could be the sorts of sources for bacterial growth, so if 52 was away from that type of substrate, it would most likely suffer less than the Bundy inside drops.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And what about the proximity of the vegetation along the walkway versus distance of the vegetation from where 52 was collected from?

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I think we have now certainly exceeded--

THE COURT: Sustained. Foundation.

MR. HARMON: Sure.

MR. HARMON: Have you looked at the--

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

THE COURT: Counsel, I mean haven't we made the point? The jury has been to the crime scene. They know where the vegetation was. They know where the plant growth was. They know how bacteria affects the degradation process.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Fairtlough, why don't you hang on.

MR. HARMON: So what effect does this biological material have when we are talking about bacterial-caused degradation of bloodstains?

MR. SIMS: Well, again that kind of material could provide the bacteria, for example, that would cause this degradation.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's compare the surfaces along the walkway with the painted rear gate where 115, 116 and 117 were removed from. What is the significance of the different kind of surfaces that pertain to these items and bacterial contamination?

MR. SCHECK: I think this is asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Well, again, assuming that those surfaces are away from this type of vegetation and soil, then they would be less likely to be degraded in this process.

MR. HARMON: What about the painted surface versus the walkway substrate surface?

MR. SIMS: Well, again, assuming that it is a fairly clean surface, then that would be less likely to have this soil or vegetation on it than--than something like a walkway near vegetation.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to take our recess for the morning session. Please remember all of my admonitions to you. Don't discuss this case among yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, don't allow anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. We will stand in recess until one o'clock. And Mr. Sims, you may step down. You are ordered to return at one o'clock.

(At 12:01 P.M. the noon recess was taken until 1:00 P.M. of the same day.)

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 1995 1:00 P.M.

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

APPEARANCES: (Appearances as heretofore noted.)

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

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

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

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All the parties are again present. The jury is not present. Counsel, anything we need to discuss before we invite the jurors to rejoin us?

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, just the--our intention to use the stereomicroscope and have Mr. Sims describe what he saw when he looked at these samples or these socks sometimes in the presence of Mr. Blake way back in November. So there's nothing new he's going to testify about. But I--I'm not sure if the Court has had a chance to look at it. If you want to go ahead with what we have--I don't have a lot more. I hate to try to predict, but less than 30 minutes. So I--this might be the time to take it up or just take a break.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, any comment? Mrs. Robertson?

MR. SCHECK: I'm not sure what--

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: I'm not sure what Mr. Harmon is proposing as he--in terms of the stereomicroscope. Is--obviously, Mr. Sims cannot demonstrate today what he saw under the stereomicroscope before he did his cuttings because he's done his cuttings. He's testified about it. I think it's--I don't see how that's within the scope of the redirect examination at this point.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harmon? So your objection is particularly one of scope?

MR. SCHECK: It's one of scope and also the additional one that we raised before with respect to trying to use this witness to bolster--to in effect redirect Mr. Yamauchi on points that were made with Mr. Yamauchi's cross-examination.

THE COURT: To redirect Sims regarding Yamauchi.

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

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

MR. HARMON: It's--it's--Mr. Sims testified on direct examination quite extensively about his examination of the socks and how difficult it was to see them, and when we saw the exciting video of those socks, Mr. Sims was cross-examined by Mr. Scheck about his examination of those socks. I mean, it seems like a whole lifetime ago that that happened. So I--and sometimes I try to block these things out, but I do recall that. What I wanted to do--and I--when--I think the objection is silly and it really exalts form over substance because at the sidebar, I commented--not facetiously--that that's fine. If we're going to exalt form over substance, then I won't do it on redirect, and he'll just stay here whenever Barry's done the cross-examination, and I'll recall him on it. So we have a right to address it and--

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: We have a right to address it and I'd hope for once, we won't exalt form over substance and let us address it while he is on the stand now. I believe it's within the scope of the redirect examination. And I think what you need to appreciate, your Honor, because that's the--if that's the only objection, you either agree with me or you don't, and I'd just like you to know that I will call Mr. Sims whenever he is done with whatever is appropriate in the scheme of things. We do have time before Mr. Kelberg starts on Friday. So we'll be happy to do it whichever way the Court chooses. But I don't believe it's beyond the scope of the cross-examination. If you'd like me to get to the substance of the proposed testimony, I'd be happy to do that too.

THE COURT: Why don't you make me an offer.

MR. HARMON: Sure. The offer of proof is that Mr. Sims testified in great detail about his examination of the socks. If the Court--the Court had requested that I provide notes. It's not written up in the report because it's not a reportable event as a lot of things are not in the final report. But page 117 is a sketch of the socks. And I'm sure you have as much trouble as I do reading Mr. Sims' handwriting, but you can see where he's designated stains that he did typing. And I think I need to couch this in the context of the Court's previous rulings on phenolphthalein. It is my understanding that the Court ruled that a presumptive test--and in that context, it was phenolphthalein--alone would not be--presumptive positive would not be allowed. And at the point when those discussions took place, we were talking about a single stain and a single spot and we weren't talking about a blood spattered item like sock B, 13-B is. We were talking about, as I recall, single items where no further testing of those items, because they were single items, existed. And I think to me, that's a major distinction because that wasn't before the Court at the time. This sock had--the area in question that Mr. Sims--and it's the only one that we want the jury to look at--if you look towards the rear above the ankle of the sock there, there's a designation of 42B1. Mr. Sims did these orthotolidine presumptive tests in numerous places on both sides of the socks focusing on sock B, which is the only sock that we're interested in showing to the jury at this point. Mr. Sims tested four areas on the opposite side of the sock that's shown on 117 where he--he did orthotolidine and did not sample and do further testing. I just say that for background. So there's four presumptive positive areas on the flip side of the picture that you see on page 117. That's not what we want to show the jury, your Honor, but that's background information. On the side that's shown on page 117, there are three areas where Mr. Sims did the presumptive positive tests, orthotolidine, and no typing was done. We only want the jury to focus on the stain that you see below 42B1. Mr. Sims represents to me that that's approximately one centimeter away from the stain that was typed. Now, I know what Mr. Scheck is going to say and I know what you're thinking about this, your Honor. But rather than debate--

THE COURT: And what is that?

MR. HARMON: The previous ruling. Well, this is--this is a--this could be a different stain or this might not be blood. And by the Court's earlier ruling, you put us in this catch 22; that the only time that we could use a presumptive positive test result is when we have then gone on and tested that precise sample to do further confirmatory testing. The only problem with that is, while that may be safe, that's the time that we could care less about a presumptive positive test because all of these tests that we do are human specific. So we prove by the actual testing or typing results that this is human blood. I think the Court needs to view this circumstantially and say, is there--is there some confidence that this sock, which has seven as yet untested areas that all give positive presumptive results, that also has three other areas that have been tested and proven to be consistent with persons involved in this case, is it--is there any reason to exclude this presumptive test, because we want the jury to see that spot where he did the orthotolidine because you can see it, you can see it today. They couldn't see it yesterday, but it's here. And you can--they can see all the other spots too.

THE COURT: In other words, you're saying that once we isolate that location, you're going to have Mr. Sims testify that he did a presumptive test, got a positive and that if you look at that same exact spot under the stereomicroscope, that you'll see reddish crystalline objects consistent with being blood. Is that what you're saying?

MR. HARMON: I don't mean to put words in his mouth, but words to that effect, your Honor, yes, that's it.

THE COURT: Let's see the microscope.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, maybe I can assist here.

THE COURT: Does this--excuse me just a second. Does this need an external light source?

MR. SIMS: No.

MR. SCHECK: My--I don't know quite how to respond to this for a few reasons. And my suggestion is, is that if Mr. Harmon wants to put on this testimony and essentially talk about new examinations and test results with respect to the sock, the phenolphthalein and the new observations by Mr. Sims that are not recorded in his notes, I don't know under the circumstances whether we would object on the usual grounds, that it's just a presumptive test. I don't know. And the reason I don't know is that Dr. Lee has examined these socks, as the Court knows, and I would want an opportunity to consult with him about what this means in the context of these socks certainly before this cross-examination about what would be new matter. And I'm not even sure that I would necessarily object to the presumptive test. I don't know until I consult with him in the overall scheme of things with respect to the sock. But it seems to me that this goes way beyond anything I discussed in cross-examination. It goes into the whole area of presumptive testing. And I--I would take it that Mr. Englert is going to testify in this case for the Prosecution, a crime scene reconstruction person who is going to be discussing the sock and the rest of it, and all this information goes to that. So I'm in no position to evaluate it now, and it seems to me that it's inappropriate all of a sudden on the redirect examination to bring all this new matter in, new observations, new test results, some of which are presumptive tests, really are presumptive tests which the Court has previously made a ruling on. I can't even assess it much less cross-examine on it. So it would be my position that he should call him at another time if he wants to introduce this, and in fact, I could even make it easier because if I get an understanding--and it's a little unclear to me exactly what it is, but if we can get an understanding as what it is he's observed, where he's observed it, what his test results are and I can consult with my experts, I may not have that presumptive--I'm not saying that's going to be the case, but I may not. So I can't assess this, and it's unfair to raise this now on redirect. I really can't assess it.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harmon, do you have the item available to examine?

MR. HARMON: Sure we do. Can I just respond? There's nothing new. These are observations that he's made--he examined these socks with a stereomicroscope before. When you look at it again, I guess you could call it new, but you're looking at the old thing anew. And while he's not prepared, that sounds like a sad reflection on the fact that they don't want this to come out. And I don't blame them for not wanting it to come out, your Honor, but it's either within the scope or it's not. And if it's not, Mr. Sims will be happy to stay here and recall him as soon as he leaves the seat. And that's not going to--that's not going to preclude us from the reality in those socks being shown to the jury for the first time. It shouldn't be allowed, your Honor, and his lack of preparation, while that may be a sad commentary, I don't think it's a sincere commentary, your Honor.

THE COURT: Counsel, I don't think you should comment on the lack of preparation about any counsel involved here.

MR. HARMON: Those were his words, your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, that's assuming that some of this testing is new. Mr. Sims, would you set up the microscope so I can look at this sock and see what's there.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Need another box of large. All right.

(Brief pause.)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims has located the stain that we have alluded to that's on page 117.

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

MR. SCHECK: Whatever that's worth.

MS. CLARK: I would like to.

(Mr. Scheck viewed People's exhibit 284 through the stereomicroscope.)

THE COURT: How much adjustment of that is necessary for individuals to look at?

MR. SIMS: Just a little focusing.

THE COURT: The main knob?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

THE COURT: Or is there a fine tuning?

MR. SIMS: No. Just one.

(Ms. Clark viewed People's exhibit 284 through the stereomicroscope.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Darden.

(Mr. Darden viewed People's exhibit 284 through the stereomicroscope.)

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

(Mr. Blasier viewed People's exhibit 284 through the stereomicroscope.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bancroft, would you go to the seal please, no photography, please.

(The Court viewed People's exhibit 284 through the stereomicroscope.)

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, while you are here, there's another stain we might want to take a look at. Mr. Sims informs me there is yet another stain where actual testing was done on this same sock that he'd be happy to show everybody to provide an alternative where both the orthotolidine and PCR testing were done.

THE COURT: Let's see it.

MR. HARMON: Okay.

(The parties viewed People's exhibit 284 through the stereomicroscope.)

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

MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor. I propose it's the same presumptive test that was done elsewhere. It's confirmed in numerous other areas. I'd like the jury to see both of them. I realize how subtle they are, but that's either on his redirect or direct examination part two. And I haven't heard a legal objection. I--Mr. Scheck and I discussed, and he was not aware that--these are not new tests. Nothing new has been done. This is all old stuff that's in the lab notes that were turned over in the first report I believe in January. So--

THE COURT: The lab note that you have that you've shown to the Court has a date of November `94.

MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor.

MR. SCHECK: My confusion only was that there was mention of--with Mr. Yamauchi of other new tests being done in unnamed areas with Mr. Matheson and/or Mr. Sims. I don't know how that relates to any of this and maybe they can inform us.

THE COURT: But the thing that is of interest at this point is what is being offered is something that is historic rather than new.

MR. SCHECK: Well, if it--then there are two--then there are these issues. Number one, should phenolphthalein results, presumptive or o-tolidine results, presumptive tests be permissible with respect to the testimony concerning those areas. That would be issue--one issue. Another issue has to do with, how are we going to preserve what we all just saw, which if we all had to describe what we just saw, I think that there might be some significant differences. Mr. Harmon concedes it's subtle.

THE COURT: Uh-huh. Well, Mr. Sims, is there a photo adapter for this microscope available?

MR. SIMS: I would have to check with LAPD on that.

MR. HARMON: I might add, Dr. Lee took pictures of these socks. So--we've never seen them. I saw him do that.

THE COURT: With the stereomicroscope?

MR. HARMON: Uh, through a microscope. I stand corrected. Yes. The device that's on that photo board, Dr. Lee took photos of the socks.

THE COURT: All right. Well, the issue Mr. Scheck raises is a good one. How do we preserve this?

MR. HARMON: How do we preserve any consumed sample. I--

THE COURT: No. No, no.

MR. HARMON: No. I--I--that's--

THE COURT: I don't make that as a facetious question. Since the jury is going to look at this, is there a way that we can preserve what the jury is being shown, assuming I let you do this? I was just asking--I assume that you know whether or not we can attach a photo adapter to this microscope.

MR. HARMON: If that's the only condition that we can do it under, we'll--

MR. SCHECK: I know one can, and that really is one of my points. That before we go through this, at some point in time, if we go through it, that there certainly should be some way to preserve the record because--particularly since other people from our side would then want to observe what this looked like at this point in time with these socks after all the subsequent handling and testing that have gone on since, in particular, Dr. Lee looked at them in February. So that's my point. We have a serious issue here of making a record.

THE COURT: Uh-huh.

MR. SCHECK: And there's--there is the presumptive point. And frankly, my cross-examination of Mr. Sims on these point--on the sock examination was limited to what he could see with his naked eye, and I believe his testimony was that every stain he cut out for testing, he could see with his naked eye. And those were the points I made with him and that was it. So I think that this is again--

THE COURT: Beyond the scope.

MR. SCHECK: Yeah.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, could I just--on this photography stuff, I don't remember us taking pictures of the glove when it came out. I don't remember us taking pictures of the knit cap. I'm not sure that's a legal--

THE COURT: No. Counsel--counsel, the problem is, that's real evidence that the jury gets to look at, correct? But this is something that they will not be able to look at in the jury room in this form.

MR. HARMON: Well, they could. We could--they could do that.

THE COURT: Not easily. I think it would be interesting, were I the finder of fact, to be able to preserve what it is that I see there. Now, what I see there is an ultra-fine weave, appears to be a synthetic material because of its shininess, obviously not cotton. There appeared to be these little reddish spherical items interspersed within these small weavings and they appeared to be dispersed over an area to the top of what I saw there, not in the center. It would be nice if we could preserve it. I just ask, can we do that. That's not a condition.

MR. HARMON: We're working on that, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: That's what we're doing right now, your Honor. We're checking. At a minimum, what we could do at this moment--

THE COURT: But I have to say, since we found out that LAPD doesn't have video cameras, they may not have photo adapters.

MR. HARMON: Maybe someone will donate them when they hear that, your Honor.

MS. CLARK: Might I suggest at a minimum, your Honor, to save time, is that, what we could do is take a photograph of the position of the sock under the microscope to preserve the positioning so that it could be repositioned again when we have the photo adapter and then take the photograph that would preserve the view so that we wouldn't waste any time.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. CLARK: And we could do that at this moment.

THE COURT: All right. The other issue is whether or not I should allow testimony regarding the presumptive testing on the sock. All right. Two issues. Can the Prosecution present a view of the sock to the jury at this time on redirect examination of Mr. Sims. Clearly, the issue presented to the jury, one of the issues is whether or not blood could be seen on the sock at the time that it was examined. First of all, at the time that it was picked up on June the 13th. Also at the time that Mr. Matheson, Mr. Yamauchi and Miss Kestler did their inventory on June 29th, the issue then being how the blood may or may not have been deposited on that sock. So clearly the issue is before the jury. What you can and can't see on a dark colored sock is clearly an issue before the jury. So this testimony has been gone into--excuse me--this questioning has been gone into by both sides with Mr. Sims. So I find it an appropriate questioning within the scope of the redirect examination. So I'll allow the microscopic examination. Next question is whether or not the Court should allow the results of presumptive testing with regards to the sock. I don't think that that lends anything to the finder of fact here because the issue is, can you see blood on it, not whether or not the presumptive testing was done. So what I'll allow is the exhibition of both spots on the sock that you've just shown to the Court and we'll forego any testimony regarding presumptive testing at this time. All right. That's the Court's ruling.

MS. CLARK: If there was other testing though, your Honor, conventional or DNA quality--

THE COURT: Why don't you let Mr. Harmon address this.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I believe on the second area that we showed, we have complied with the Court's earlier ruling.

THE COURT: All right. If the second area is a place that was tested presumptively and then tested with a confirmation test, which the PCR test I assume is, then I'll allow that. That's the Court's ruling that I made two months ago. All right.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, but my concern remains about, I would insist frankly since I know it's possible--whether they have the equipment or not is another issue. I would insist that we have a contemporaneous record through a photograph of exactly through this enhanced view what everybody saw and when they saw it. And that's particularly important if Defense experts are going to get on the stand and comment. And what the jury has already seen, how can they do it without a record particularly if the socks had been put back in the bag and handled again. Without question, the--those areas will change.

THE COURT: All right. Miss Martinez.

MS. MARTINEZ: Mr. Matheson, Miss Kestler aren't available at the moment and Mr. Yamauchi--they're trying to contact Mr. Yamauchi and ask him.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I just contribute that these stains are still here in spite of Dr. Lee rolling them inside out. That was pretty rough treatment he gave back in February.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Harmon, that's not the issue. The issue is, can we preserve this--

MR. HARMON: Sure.

THE COURT: --so that their experts can take a look at it. If it's possible, I would like to do that.

MR. HARMON: Sure. And we'd be happy to. I was just responding to that, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. It's not necessary. Mr. Fairtlough, let's see if you can--how close a fine view through the viewer you can get.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, there are--if this is of any assistance, there are devices which attach to these microscopes.

THE COURT: I know. I have one at home. If I had known, I would have brought it with me.

MR. SCHECK: And there are problems here in terms of being able to get the stereo view.

THE COURT: I understand.

MR. SCHECK: And if it helps--it was my recollection that we had asked at one point whether they had such devices available at the LAPD. In fact, I think the Court recalls this discussion, and I--

THE COURT: I recall we had this discussion because some--Dr. Lee or somebody had to rent a microscope.

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

THE COURT: I recollect that.

MR. SCHECK: So my recollection is that--and don't hold me to it--is that we may be in a futile search at LAPD to get the device that's necessary to create this documentation.

THE COURT: Well, what we may have to do is draw a pencil outline of that sock and the way it is and I'll have to have the bailiff sit here all night and guard the sock until we get a microscope. Mr. Fairtlough, any chance that will focus through the eyepiece?

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'll tell you what. Let's proceed with the testimony, and we'll--

MS. CLARK: Your Honor, what we could do also, we do have an expert here. And if he is the one who positions the socks, he can make notes as to where he positioned it and then have--

THE COURT: Oh, I understand that. I understand that. But I'm just trying to do this as easily as possible. But my proposal is we go forward. Mr. Sims was able to locate these places on the basis of his notes. So I feel confident in his ability to do that. My concern is the concern that Mr. Scheck raises because obviously these are things that can eventually break off or powder off, and I'd just like to get it as close to what we have now that the jury is going to see. Does that make sense?

MS. CLARK: So I guess they're working on it now, your Honor. But I do have confidence actually that if they survived--that if this particular stain survived this long, it's not going anywhere.

THE COURT: Well, I'm glad you're confident about that, but I'm just a little more cautious. If we can get it photographed this afternoon, that's what I would like to do.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, Mr. Sims informs me if we wait a few minutes, he believes he has a microphotograph of that b2 stain before the sampling was done, and we're trying to locate that right now.

MR. SCHECK: If that's what they have, then that's what they ought to use because that's the best evidence.

THE COURT: No. I think maybe the jury can see it. I'm just concerned and compare--if we can prepare the photograph with what we can see here. But my inclination right now--Mr. Harmon, which one of these stains do you want to proceed with? Because what we'll have to do is have the jury cycle through, and I'm going to encourage them to take as much time as they want. So pick the one you want to show first.

MR. HARMON: The one without the cutout, which is below b1.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Sims, would you position that for us, please, right now.

(Mr. Sims complies.)

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, may I address that?

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. SCHECK: How is this going to work? So he'll position the microscope, all right. The jury will come down, they'll take a look. We'll then put a guard here. How am I going to--

THE COURT: No. I'm being facetious, counsel. I'm sure we can find a photo adapter for a microscope between now and 5:00 o'clock.

MR. SCHECK: Well, that--that--but no. That--then let me go on. This will end at some point and I'll be able to get up and ask Mr. Sims some questions. We're going to have to leave it there like that.

THE COURT: No. I think Mr. Sims was able to locate the first sock--excuse me--the first spot on the sock by referring to his notes and other landmarks that are on the sock. I mean, there is a regular pattern to the sock and there's regular decorative interweavings in the sock. He can locate those items and refocus for us. And we won't roll them up. We'll just fold them and put them back into the bag today, and Mrs. Robertson will keep custody of them if we can't accomplish that by 5:00 today.

MR. SCHECK: No. I--

THE COURT: I note your objection. All right. All right. Deputy Magnera, let's have the jury, please.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, do you want me to start with this right now?

THE COURT: Might as well unless you have some lead-up questions.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I ask that when the jury is coming by, that counsel table be cleared of all notes and papers.

THE COURT: Yeah. That's not a bad idea.

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

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Sims, would you resume the witness stand, please.

Gary Sims, The witness on the stand at the time of the lunch recess, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:

THE COURT: Let the record reflect--thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Let the record reflect that all of our jury members have again rejoined us. Good afternoon again, ladies and gentlemen.

THE JURY: Good afternoon.

THE COURT: My apologies to you for the longer than normal lunch hour back there. I had some evidentiary issues I had to rule upon before some items are shown to you, and we had to set some of the physical evidence up to show you. All right. Mr. Gary Sims is again on the witness stand undergoing redirect examination by Mr. Harmon. Good afternoon again, Mr. Sims.

MR. SIMS: Good afternoon, your Honor.

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

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Your Honor, at this time, I would like to have marked as People's 287 for identification the chart that we made up over the lunchtime.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Reflect I have given a copy to counsel.

(People's 287 for id = chart)

REDIRECT EXAMINATION (RESUMED) BY MR. HARMON

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, what I'd like to do is just to recap with the chart that you helped prepare with us over the weekend--or over the lunch hour.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Okay? What I want to do is just kind of discuss the--your numbers real quickly in the groups from which these stains were collected; namely 47, 48, 49 and 50.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Okay? Could you tell us what your figures were for 47?

MR. SIMS: For 47, it was 0.9 nanograms DNA per one-milligram swatch.

MR. HARMON: Okay. So 47 is .9?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

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

MR. HARMON: Okay. And 48?

MR. SIMS: That is 0.6.

MR. HARMON: And 49?

MR. SIMS: 0.1.

MR. HARMON: And 50?

MR. SIMS: 0.53.

MR. HARMON: And in parenthesis, you have slot blot there. That's the method that you used to estimate the amount of DNA?

MR. SIMS: Yes. That was the determination of the total amount of human DNA.

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

MR. HARMON: And if you'd look at the monitor. I just want you to look at the area that these were collected from. That's 47.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: 48.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: 49.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: 50.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And substrate looks comparable in those four?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And then 52, what sort of estimation did you come up with 52, the one from out on the driveway?

MR. SIMS: That was 2.4 by the slot blot also.

MR. HARMON: Okay. That reflects your quantification from 287?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: By the slot blot method again?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. That looks like a different kind of surface?

MR. SIMS: Yes. I would say that appears to be a different surface than the earlier ones.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And then with respect to 6, what was your quantification of item 6 from the Rockingham address?

MR. SIMS: That was 6.7.

MR. HARMON: And what--how did you estimate that?

MR. SIMS: Well, that was based on the high molecular weight from a yield gel blot where we actually tested the DNA for human content.

MR. HARMON: What's the correlation between estimating it in the way you did no. 6 versus 47, 48, 49 and 50?

MR. SIMS: Well, some of those other samples that--in that Bundy series, some of those were subjected to just the yield gel analysis, and we could see this degradation pattern that appeared to be from bacterial contamination.

MR. HARMON: Okay. 6 looks like a different surface?

MR. SIMS: Yes. That--that driveway looks different.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's move to--I'll ask you to assume hypothetically that 12 was on an indoor floor, and we're looking for that photograph now. But let's shift to 115, 116 and 117. Okay. And what are your estimations on the amount of DNA in those three samples?

MR. SIMS: No. 115 was 13.5, no. 116 was 13.6 and no. 117 was 27.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, does that look like the--one of the photographs you've seen for 115, 116, 117?

MR. SIMS: Yes. I believe I've seen that photograph or a similar photo before.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let's show you a close-up of that. Does that look like one of the other photos you've seen?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I think the record should reflect these are July 3rd photos.

THE COURT: Yes. What board is this from?

MR. HARMON: Exhibit 53, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HARMON: Thank you. Move on to 53-D then. It's a photograph of 116. 53-E, it's a photograph of 117 from outside. 53-F, it's a close-up photograph of 117.

MR. HARMON: Have you seen those photographs before?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I have.

MR. HARMON: I'd like to put up 48-A, your Honor, a perspective of the walkway which includes numbered stains that Mr. Sims has seen individual photos of.

MR. HARMON: Do you recognize that, Mr. Sims?

MR. SIMS: I think this is the first time I've seen this perspective photograph.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, at this point, I think it's--the jury's seen it. It's foundational at this point to ask him to comment on photographs that he hasn't even seen.

THE COURT: Redundant, 352?

MR. SCHECK: 352 and foundational objection at this point.

THE COURT: All right. Let's move on.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Mr. Sims, I want you to assume now--we've talked about, you've seen the areas that these things were collected from, you've commented on the differences in substrates. I want you to assume that items 115, 116 and 117 were collected on July 3rd, 1994, okay?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: And they were--that a criminalist was specifically directed to collect those stains, okay?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: That those stains were collected in the same fashion as the stains were collected on June 13th at Bundy, okay?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: They were taken directly to the lab to dry.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: That they were in--

MR. SCHECK: Well, I'm going to object to any more questions along this line because there's--on foundational grounds with respect to the absence of testimony.

THE COURT: All right. That's premature then. Proceed.

MR. HARMON: That they were in the plastic bags which the other items which were collected on June 13th were originally placed in for a shorter period of time.

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SCHECK: No foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: Okay?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Now, you've talked about bacteria getting in there and chewing up the human DNA. If there was no bacteria on the gate as opposed to the bacteria that you saw at the Bundy crime scene--

MR. SCHECK: Objection to this--form of this--foundationally in terms of this hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: I'll withdraw that. You saw no signs of bacterial contamination or degradation in 115, 116 and 117, right?

MR. SIMS: That's correct. I didn't see that pattern that we did see in some of the other Bundy--in some of the Bundy drops.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Is it surprising that you see the amount of human DNA that you do in 115, 116 and 117 given the assumptions I've just asked you to make?

MR. SCHECK: Well, objection to the form of that question. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. HARMON: Is there anything remarkable about the amounts of DNA that you see in 115, 116 and 117 given that you don't see any bacterial caused degradation?

MR. SCHECK: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. HARMON: You didn't see any bacteria in 115, 116, 117?

MR. SIMS: I saw no evidence of that bacterial degradation pattern, no.

MR. HARMON: And what is the significance of that, not seeing any bacterial degradation in light of the amount of DNA that you saw?

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

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Well, the significance that I see in this is that there's no evidence of the kind of massive bacterial contamination of these samples that was seen in some of the other Bundy samples. So in other words, I don't see the evidence of that. So it's not surprising to me that we recovered a good amount of DNA out of these samples to work with.

MR. HARMON: And if 115, 116 and 117 were in fact there on June 13th and there was no bacterial-induced degradation, would you expect to see what you saw when you analyzed those samples?

MR. SIMS: Yes. That's a reasonable expectation.

MR. HARMON: You have reviewed Mr. Matheson's notes and the conventional serological testing that he performed on 115, 116 and 117; have you not?

MR. SIMS: Yes. I've seen that run sheet.

MR. HARMON: Are the conventional serology results obtained by Mr. Matheson with respect to 115, 116 and 117 similar?

MR. SIMS: To each other? Yes, they are.

MR. HARMON: When I say "Similar," I mean to each other within the three samples.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And what markers did Mr. Matheson test those three samples for?

MR. SIMS: He tested for EAP and also PGM.

MR. HARMON: Now, we've heard a lot about EAP and I'm not--I don't intend to go into that with you. But what form of tests did Mr. Matheson use for PGM, the marker PGM?

MR. SIMS: I'm sorry. A little more--could you give me a little more information?

MR. HARMON: Sure. Do you know what kind of tests he performed for the PGM marker in those three stains?

MR. SIMS: Yes. This was protein electrophoresis.

MR. HARMON: And did he perform PGM subtyping?

MR. SIMS: Yes. It was actually a PGM subtyping system.

MR. HARMON: Okay. In your years of doing conventional serology both for Prosecutors and Defendants, is that a marker that you've tested frequently?

MR. SIMS: Yes. Very often.

MR. HARMON: And did you keep abreast and do you keep abreast of the scientific literature about the PGM marker?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: What can you tell us about the term "Persist"--or strike that. Can you--is the term "Persistence" of some technical significance in this area?

MR. SIMS: Yes. That's a term that's used to describe the--how long a period of time and what kind of conditions a sample such as blood could be exposed to and you could still get a typeable result.

MR. HARMON: And could you tell us what you are aware of from the scientific literature about the persistence of the PGM marker based on the scientific literature?

MR. SIMS: Yes. It's a--as far as enzymes are concerned, we would consider it a fairly stable marker. In typical laboratory studies, laboratory prepared bloodstains, it might persist for something like a month, two months, three months, something like that. Now, this is at room temperature.

MR. HARMON: And those are you say laboratory prepared stains.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Could you tell us what that means?

MR. SIMS: Well, what that generally means is that somebody takes a fresh blood sample, puts it on something like a clean cotton swatch material and then just lets it sit at ambient conditions and usually indoors.

MR. HARMON: And what's the range that the studies have shown that the PGM marker persists under those conditions?

MR. SIMS: Well, again, it would go from something like about a month out to maybe several months, something like that. There's--it's a fairly broad range.

MR. HARMON: What can you tell us about--you've told us that the results are comparable for all three stains; is that right?

MR. SIMS: Yes. The results as reported by Mr. Matheson were all comparable.

MR. HARMON: And when you say "Comparable," can you tell us what results were obtained?

MR. SIMS: Well, for all the PGM samples, no activity was observed.

MR. HARMON: What does that mean?

MR. SIMS: That means that you don't see any of these bands on the gel. You look in the lane where that sample was run and you don't see any of the bands.

MR. HARMON: Does that mean that the marker did not persist in the way you've described it a little bit ago?

MR. SIMS: Yes. It's gone off or lost its activity. And again, that assumes that the test was performed correctly and the standards give the proper results, and they appeared to in this case.

MR. HARMON: What sorts of things have an impact on this losing the activity for the PGM marker?

MR. SIMS: Well, again, sometimes with proteins, a lot of different biochemical reactions can take place such that it will be degraded to a point where it may just lose its activity altogether or what usually happens with--especially with PGM, it goes through a series of reactions until it gets weaker and weaker, and then it's just no longer detectable.

MR. HARMON: What's the impact of just time alone on a stain that's been allowed to dry?

MR. SIMS: Well, with time, any stain would--and not--unpreserved, in other words, left in the environment, the ambient environment, it will get to the point where it's no longer typeable.

MR. HARMON: What about sunlight?

MR. SIMS: Yes. Sunlight could have an effect on something like that.

MR. HARMON: Well, what kind of effect?

MR. SIMS: Well, again, it would no longer be--be typeable.

MR. HARMON: And the PG or the EAP results that Mr. Matheson obtained on those three samples, 115, 116, 117, what were they?

MR. SIMS: Again, no activity was detected.

MR. HARMON: Do these comparable results that were produced for all three of the stains, do they support those stains being on the same substrate in the same environment for a comparable period of time?

MR. SIMS: Yes. I mean again, within broad limits. But yes, they all look the same as far as the PGM results.

MR. HARMON: And if testimony is shown that 115, item 115 was on that gate on June 13th, are the comparable results that you've just described consistent with the other two stains having been on the gate on June 13th?

MR. SCHECK: No. No. No. Objection to the foundation of that hypothetical.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Is there anything about your review of Mr. Matheson's testing and your review of all of the data and testing for 115, 116 and 117 support the conclusion that those three stains were on that gate on June 13th?

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

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Is there anything in your review of Mr. Matheson's testing and your actual testing on 115, 116 and 117 which is inconsistent with those three stains being on the rear gate on June 13th?

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: What, if anything, is there in your reports which may be construed as undermining the fact that those three stains, 115, 116 and 117 were on the rear gate on June 13th, 1994?

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. Mr. Harmon, the problem with having the assumption of June the 13th--if there's some comparability as far as age or activity that you can draw from those conclusions, I'll allow that.

MR. HARMON: That's what I was attempting--

THE COURT: But the problem is the assumption about the age--the specific date is the assumption that I'm having problems with.

MR. HARMON: Is there anything about your observations, the testing of those three stains that your lab did as well as your review of Mr. Matheson's test results, which is inconsistent with those stains being on the gate for the same period of time?

MR. SIMS: I found nothing inconsistent.

MR. HARMON: And same question, but let's make that same period of time begin June 13th.

MR. SCHECK: Objection to that.

THE COURT: Foundation.

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

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, is there anything in your--that you've seen in your review of Mr. Matheson's test results on June--on 115, 116 and 117 combined with the actual testing and review of those three stains yourself which is inconsistent with those stains being on that gate for a period of two to three weeks?

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: I found nothing inconsistent with that.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, it's time that we finish and talk about the socks, okay?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: You don't have any idea when the stains you tested on those socks were deposited there, do you?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: You know from the test results that there were many stains; is that true?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: You know from your test results they were from more than one person?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Do you know from your test results that they were from more than one person?

MR. SCHECK: Still leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Do your test results include Nicole Brown and Mr. Simpson as possible sources on sock a?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: Do your test results include Nicole Brown from among the three reference samples as a possible source on sock b?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. HARMON: You previously described numerous microscopic stains between--on sock B between the two stains that you typed as being consistent with Nicole Brown; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes. Within that area of the sock, yes.

MR. HARMON: Those--about a dozen?

MR. SIMS: Something like that, yes.

MR. HARMON: And you previously described that there was no apparent blood which soaked through from 13A1 to the opposite side of that sock?

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor--

THE COURT: Sustained. Leading.

MR. SCHECK: I want to get on with this. It's all leading.

MR. HARMON: Was there any apparent blood that soaked through to the opposite side of the major stain that you tested from Greg Matheson's cutout at 13A1?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Well, again, when I laid that sock out and looked at it, I didn't see any evidence for that.

MR. HARMON: In your opinion--strike that. You've looked and we're going to look at this--at the socks through the microscope. But how many hours did you scan these socks using the microscope for?

MR. SIMS: It--it would--it would be very difficult for me to estimate that, but many hours. I would say many hours looking through the microscope and then also looking at them macroscopically.

MR. HARMON: Having spent many hours looking at the various stains and keeping like the results that you produced, your typing results, when the blood which you've typed as being consistent with Nicole Brown appears dry, okay?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Is it just as difficult to see as the blood that you've typed consistent with Mr. Simpson's blood?

MR. SCHECK: Objection to the--that hypothetical.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. HARMON: You've produced two different sets of typing results on these socks; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Some you've typed consistent with Mr. Simpson?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Some you've typed consistent with Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Having spent those many hours looking at those stains, do the stains that type consistent with Nicole Brown, do they look any differently than the stains that you typed consistent with Mr. Simpson?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Foundation and it's vague as to what stains, what place.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: I--I didn't note any difference, no.

MR. HARMON: So of the two different typing results that you produced, were they equally difficult to visualize?

MR. SCHECK: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence in terms of what's visualized.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Is there any scientific reason to believe that Mr. Simpson's blood is more difficult to see than Nicole's blood on those socks?

THE COURT: Rephrase that question.

MR. HARMON: Are you aware of any scientific principal which would explain why Mr. Simpson's blood might be more difficult to see than Nicole Brown's blood when you look at those socks?

MR. SCHECK: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. HARMON: Are you aware of any scientific literature that says one person's blood is more difficult to see on a pair of black socks than another person's?

MR. SCHECK: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: No, I'm not aware of any such literature.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, let's talk about the socks and specifically sock B at this point.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: In the many hours that you looked at sock B, you--you performed several samplings of sock b; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: How many different cuttings did you make of sock B which led to typing results?

MR. SIMS: There were two stains cut out on B that led to typing results.

MR. HARMON: And those were stains which typed consistent with Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Those were 42B1 or your number 42B1?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: This is from sock 13-B and your number 42B2?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. I want to direct your--do you have your sketch in front of you?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I do.

MR. HARMON: And have you set up sock B here on an area that's--that was of interest to you that you noted when you examined these socks on November 11th, 1994?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And without going into any processing about that specific stain, would you tell us how you located it without talking about any testing and what you were able to see back in November?

MR. SIMS: Well, I was examining it under the stereomicroscope and I was documenting where the reddish stains were.

MR. HARMON: And how many reddish stains did you document just on the side that we're looking at that's reflected on page 117 in your notes?

MR. SIMS: Well, again, it--it was about a dozen. I--I haven't counted them again, but it's--it's in that area of a dozen.

MR. HARMON: These are in addition to the two stains that you've described as having typed b1 and b2?

MR. SIMS: Yes. I believe that's correct.

MR. HARMON: And then at some point, did you flip the sock over and visualize other reddish areas on the other sock?

MR. SIMS: Well, on the other side of that sock, yes.

MR. HARMON: I'm sorry. The other side.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, may I have this sketch marked--projected or marked as 288 and projected on the elmo?

THE COURT: All right. People's 288.

(Peo's 288 for id = sketch)

THE COURT: And how about a foundational question or two about the date that this was prepared?

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, what date did you do this work that's reflected on page 117?

MR. SIMS: The--the actual sketch was made on November 11th of 1994, and then I went--and it says in the middle of the page I went back and noted some additional stains on November 21st of 1994.

MR. HARMON: Okay. May I put that on the elmo, your Honor?

MR. HARMON: What I'd like to do--Mr. Sims, I think we've covered both sides of the sock now. You saw four on the opposite side of the sock, two stains that you typed and then 12 other little areas on the side that's on 288, the sketch, right?

MR. SIMS: Yes. About 12.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And you have already set up the stereomicroscope on one of those areas; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I have.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could we have that up there?

MR. HARMON: And could you help Jonathan? We want to put an arrow to the--that points out the area on the sock that the stereomicroscope is focused on at this point.

MR. SIMS: Okay. Where--

MR. HARMON: Okay. We'll--Mr. Sims, can you step down and help direct Jonathan with this?

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. Is that arrow in the correct place?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And now--go ahead. You can have a seat again.

MR. HARMON: Could we capture that, your Honor?

THE COURT: Please. Please.

MR. HARMON: Thank you. That would be 288-A?

THE COURT: Yes. 288-A.

(Deft's 288-A for id = photograph)

MR. HARMON: Now, Mr. Sims, you've looked at the sock this morning under the stereomicroscope that's before me on the counsel table; have you not?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I have.

MR. HARMON: Before you looked at the sock--or strike that. Is what that arrow is pointing to, is that visible to the naked eye?

MR. SIMS: It's--it's only visible to the naked eye under special--if you illuminate it strongly, get the proper illumination, you can sort of see the discoloration.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And you reviewed this sock B this morning to locate the area on 288-A that we just showed on your sketch there?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Does it look the same as it did when you looked at it back in November of `94?

MR. SIMS: I--I don't notice any difference. It appears to be similar.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, at this point--

THE COURT: Mr. Sims, what do you see at this location?

MR. SIMS: At this particular location, I see some reddish staining. It's almost like a fine powder that's over the--the black fibers that are present, and you can see that--under the microscope, you can see well the difference between the reddish area of the stain against the background.

MR. HARMON: And have you seen that reddish staining in other areas; for example, in an area 42B2 that we'll have the jury look at later on?

MR. SIMS: Yes. It's a similar type of staining on this particular item throughout.

MR. HARMON: Does it look like blood?

MR. SIMS: Yes. It looks like blood.

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, objection. That if we're going to--we have a plan here. I would request that maybe we do--we elicit the foundation as to both places for observation, then just do it in seriatim.

THE COURT: Yeah, but we're going to take a break in between. So--all right. Let's start with juror no. 1492. We'll start at the end of the queue this time. Let's have 1492 come forward, take a look. And, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we'll just bring you up here one at a time to look through the stereomicroscope. Take your time. Don't feel rushed.

(Juror no. 1492 viewed People's exhibit 284 through the stereomicroscope.)

THE COURT: Next.

(Juror no. 2179 viewed People's exhibit 284 through the stereomicroscope.)

THE COURT: Next.

(Juror no. 1386 viewed People's exhibit 284 through the stereomicroscope.)

THE COURT: Next.

(Juror no. 2457 viewed People's exhibit 284 through the stereomicroscope.)

THE COURT: Let's have the next juror up so that we can--come on up. Thank you.

(Juror no. 63 viewed People's exhibit 284 through the stereomicroscope.)

THE COURT: And, ladies and gentlemen, if you have any difficulty seeing this, Mr. Sims, can you fine adjust that? Why don't you step down in case any of the witnesses--excuse me--any of the jurors need assistance in seeing that.

(Juror no. 1489 viewed People's exhibit 284 through the stereomicroscope.)

(Juror no. 98 viewed People's exhibit 284 through the stereomicroscope.)

(Juror no. 1233 viewed People's exhibit 284 through the stereomicroscope.)

(Juror no. 795 viewed People's exhibit 284 through the stereomicroscope.)

THE COURT: Miss Martinez, would you open the gate there for 165.

(Juror no. 165 viewed People's exhibit 284 through the stereomicroscope.)

THE COURT: You need some adjustment?

(Juror no. 247 viewed People's exhibit 284 through the stereomicroscope.)

(Juror no. 984 viewed People's exhibit 284 through the stereomicroscope.)

(Juror no. 19 viewed People's exhibit 284 through the stereomicroscope.)

(Juror no. 1290 viewed People's exhibit 284 through the stereomicroscope.)

(Juror no. 1427 viewed People's exhibit 284 through the stereomicroscope.)

(Juror no. 230 viewed People's exhibit 284 through the stereomicroscope.)

THE COURT: All right. Let the record reflect that all of our jurors and alternates have had an opportunity to view this particular portion of this particular sock. And, Mr. Harmon, you wanted to display one other location?

MR. HARMON: Yes, your Honor. The logistics--could we approach?

THE COURT: Sure.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

THE COURT: We're over at the sidebar. Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: The photographer is here.

THE COURT: I was going to say, let's take a break.

MR. COCHRAN: The routine is to take a break, take the photographs and do all this again? You're almost finished?

MR. HARMON: Almost. No. I'm done.

MR. SCHECK: Take 10 minutes?

THE COURT: Well, you know--

MR. COCHRAN: Why don't you take a picture of both of them.

THE COURT: That's exactly what we're going to do. We'll take this picture first, reset it, then take that picture. All right.

(The following proceedings were held in open Court:)

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take a recess for about 20 minutes just so we can change the location that the microscope looks at. So please remember my admonitions to you, and we'll bring you out as soon as we have that repositioned for you to look at. All right? We'll take about 20 minutes, and let's have the photography accomplished.

(Recess.)

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

THE COURT: Back on the record in the Simpson matter. All parties are again present. Mr. Harmon, did we have success in taking photographs of the sock 13-B in both positions?

MR. HARMON: Yes and no, your Honor. On the first position, they were beautiful photographs. I can--we have about five of them. We've selected one. And the other one, Mr. Sims--I had alluded to this before we started. We actually have Mr. Sims' photograph from November, which shows the area that's not there anymore because he consumed it in testing. So I didn't take it down because I wanted your permission to do that. We just intend to show the jury this photograph that Mr. Sims took that shows a whole bunch of reddish stuff.

THE COURT: May I see that?

MR. HARMON: Sure.

THE COURT: Did you take a photo of the cut-out area that the jury is about to see?

MR. HARMON: No, we didn't, your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, I thought the whole purpose of this was to memorialize what it is that was shown to the jurors.

MR. HARMON: My point was, I'm not going to ask him to look at this. We can just point it out.

THE COURT: You're not going to ask the jurors to look at this second cut-off portion?

MR. HARMON: No. The picture is more important and we've got a diagram of it.

MS. CLARK: The portion shown on the picture is no longer on the sock.

THE COURT: I understand that. I understand that.

MR. HARMON: To me, what's important is what's missing, and we can show where that is.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, you've seen this?

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I just saw this today and I was just permitted very quickly to look at a series of photographs that Mr. Sims had shown. Now, we had given all of Dr. Blake's photographs of these things, of these sock areas to the Prosecution, and I'm just shown this late today right now? I object to this. I don't think this is right. I also think it's potentially very misleading.

THE COURT: How so?

MR. SCHECK: Well, because there are all kinds of different perspectives you can get on--whether you look at it under a microscope, whether you look at it at a distance, and all these go to the issue of whether--what you can see with the naked eye. So I think it becomes misleading, and I would need an opportunity to look at all the different photographs, compare them with Dr. Blake and make assessments. And, you know, there was no excuse for them not turning over these photographs to us a long time ago as we requested and being asked to rely on Dr. Blake's, and we gave them all of Dr. Blake's. Now they're showing this at this time? I would request that they just be restricted to doing what they proposed to do initially. And frankly, I'm distressed that's it's 10 after 3:00, and I don't know how we're going to get through the recross-examination, which I had planned to be reasonable and brief at this point. I'm upset about the whole consumption of time and the way this has been done.

THE COURT: Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: Well, your Honor, I'm not upset. So, you know, without commenting, I have to comment because that's--what he said is partially true. Dr. Blake saw this. He's permitted to look at things, to take pictures, to do whatever he has to do. He has seen--I don't know if he's seen these photographs. He saw the image in there before Mr. Sims cut it out. So while this may be painful once again to see the truth come out at this late date, I don't see that there's any discovery violation.

THE COURT: Well, you've seen Dr. Blake's photographs of similar--of the same location; is that correct?

MR. HARMON: Well, they handed me a whole stack of photographs. To be honest with you, your Honor, I didn't look at them. So I'm not sure how that relates to a legal issue.

THE COURT: No. The legal issue is whether or not both sides had--both sides had access to this piece of evidence and were allowed to conduct photographic examinations of the sock, correct?

MR. HARMON: Oh, yes. To my knowledge--I didn't look. He handed me a box and I gave them to Mr. Sims because I'm confident that Mr. Sims can relate to this jury what has to be related. So I--

THE COURT: Well, let me ask Mr. Sims. Mr. Sims, was Mr. Blake--was Dr. Blake allowed to conduct microphotography?

MR. SIMS: At the time we did the examination that I actually took those photographs, we both looked through the microscope and then we took the photograph. The photographs that he took of the sock were with his 35 millimeter, not under the stereomicroscope.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Sims. Mr. Harmon, why didn't the Prosecution turn this over or copy to the Defense, this microphotography?

MR. HARMON: Because the Defense had access to the real thing, your Honor.

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

MR. HARMON: It's documented in all of his notes, your Honor. If you recall--and I don't want to misspeak because I know there is a record on this--we debated not this specific point, but this generic point that the Defense--we didn't have to turn over photographs of things that they had photographed at the same time or simultaneously or consecutively. We had that generic discussion and you agreed with me the whole--

THE COURT: I did.

MR. HARMON: And this topic was not one of those topics, but it could just as easily have been one of those topics had they asked for it. So--I mean, he's got a suitcase full of photographs that are concurrent with Dr. Blake's photographs which they handed us in a big pile just before Gary started testifying. So I don't think there's been any violation of any discovery--the fact of the photographs is clearly documented. I don't blame them for making a big stink out of it at this point in time, your Honor, but it has never been requested. They have had access to the original information. Dr. Blake, had he chosen to, could have taken his own photographs had he provided his own equipment. He's never requested that. You know, we've had this unusual relationship where whatever he said--we've been weighing things because he said let's weigh things. So there hasn't been any resistance to anything that was ever requested.

THE COURT: No. The issue was, if Dr. Blake had reasonable access to the items of evidence and was allowed to conduct his own photography along with the Department of Justice, then since both sides had equal access at that time, there was no need for one side to provide those copies to the other. But if this--but we're talking - the representation that Mr. Sims has just made to me is that that was macrophotography, not microphotography.

MR. HARMON: Well, and that was Dr. Blake's choice. I mean, he's made a lot of choices in this case that I don't need to reiterate. That was his choice.

THE COURT: Let me ask Mr. Sims another technical question. What kind of camera did you use to do this?

MR. SIMS: That was just a 35 millimeter camera that's mounted onto the actual stereomicroscope that we have in the laboratory.

THE COURT: That's just one of those t-tube mounts on the microscope?

MR. SIMS: Yes. Something like that.

THE COURT: So any single lens reflect that will work with that?

MR. SIMS: Yes. I think you might have to get a mount for that particular camera.

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck, any reason that Dr. Blake didn't avail himself of that?

MR. SCHECK: Well--

THE COURT: Since his photographs, the one that I've seen, also appear to be 35 millimeter.

MR. SCHECK: The point is, as the Court made, is that these are macrophotographs. I can only go on what he gives me and what--you know, and we requested to see what their photographs were. And the point is that if we knew that they were taking extensive microphotographs and saw what those were in contrast to the macrophotographs and what points could be made, then, you know, we can anticipate that and deal with it and take other photographs. But the point is that right now, they want to draw lots of inferences from a microphotograph and we don't have an opportunity--and you can even see from the photographs taken with--right now that there are four--there are five different photographs and they all look remarkably different in terms of the exposures of light and everything else. In terms of looking at the stain that the jury just saw, one of them is very red, the other one isn't so red, one is in between. And we asked for it, they're the ones that resisted it, so that we could see if there was real comparability with the photographs. When it became clear that we wanted to use photographs with the witness, we were in the position where we gave them everything. So it seems to me that at this point in time, to proceed in this fashion is just unfair surprise and it's not something that, you know, we're fairly in a position to assess. Frankly, you know, I think the points are made without this and we weren't in a position to get comparable documentation by the way that they proceeded.

MR. HARMON: Can I respond just briefly, your Honor?

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. HARMON: Just two points. It's very difficult to have a fair and open discussion of this when Blake hasn't been in this courtroom for months and months. So for Mr. Scheck to say--

THE COURT: I don't think he's ever been here.

MR. HARMON: I thought he was before I ever came here. That must have been an out-of-body experience I had.

THE COURT: No. Correct me, if I'm wrong, Mr. Cochran. Has Dr. Blake ever been here?

MR. COCHRAN: Not that I can recall.

THE COURT: I expect to be in a bar in Berkeley and have him come up and introduce himself because I have no idea what the man looks like.

MR. HARMON: I won't touch that, your Honor. He was here during the Griffen hearing.

THE COURT: I don't recollect him.

MR. HARMON: I saw him on television.

THE COURT: Did he testify?

MS. CLARK: No, he didn't testify. I think he was advising counsel.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. HARMON: So--I mean, your Honor, they did have notice. He's there. Gary records when he's there. He was there during this. The fact that they chose not to pursue this--I mean we've weighed things. They never weighed swatches before.

THE COURT: You made that point already, Mr. Harmon.

MR. HARMON: Okay. So they were on actual notice. And the second point is, to say that somebody could draw unfair inferences from that photograph ignores the fact that this is one we don't have to pretend there's no presumptive test on. We have a presumptive test and we have a PCR test. There's no pretending that that's not human blood on there. That is clearly proven by the test results. The inference that one draws is that you can find human blood when you can't even see it, which is the whole materiality of that photograph. There's nothing unfair about that inference. If Dr. Blake chose to ignore that, that's one thing. They were on actual notice and there is nothing unfair. That's the missing piece that was the subject of the testing for 42B2 in this case, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Well, the inference that I draw from this discussion is that Dr. Blake was present when Mr. Sims was conducting part of this examination, that he had microscopic access to the sock and had access to--and was able to take whatever photographs that he chose at that time. So the objection will be overruled. All right. Let's have the jury, please.

MR. HARMON: So, your Honor, we're going to dispense with the second jury showing then.

THE COURT: All right. Your choice.

MR. HARMON: Thank you.

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

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. Let the record reflect that we've been rejoined by all the members of our jury panel. Mr. Sims, would you resume the witness stand, please. All right. Let the record reflect Gary Sims is again on the witness stand undergoing redirect examination by Mr. Harmon. And, Mr. Harmon, you may conclude your redirect examination.

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor. Ladies and gentlemen.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, were you present when photographs were taken of the first area that we showed on the--your sketch of the sock b?

MR. SIMS: Yes. Just a few minutes ago.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And have you had a chance to look at the photographs that were taken?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I have.

MR. HARMON: What kind of device was that that was used to take the photographs?

MR. SIMS: Well, it was a Polaroid camera that's mounted onto the microscope to take photomicrograph.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, at this time, I would request to have marked a series of five photographs. 289?

THE COURT: 289.

MR. HARMON: A through f--e.

THE COURT: E.

(Peo's 289-A through E for id = photographs)

MR. HARMON: May I mark them on the back, your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, I'd like to show you these photographs, 289-A through E. Are those photographs which were taken of the first area on sock 13-B in the area that you focused the stereomicroscope on?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And starting with a, can you just gene--or strike that. Why do the photographs look a little bit different each one of them from the other?

MR. SIMS: Well, the differences occur because there are differences in the exposure time. So in other words, you get a little less or a little more light. And so what you try to do is get the best exposure.

MR. HARMON: And does that change in exposure, does that change the color in any way?

MR. SIMS: It can have an effect on the color balance with Polaroid film.

MR. HARMON: And do you see--in each and every one of those photographs, 289-A through E, do you see the area that looked reddish that looked like blood when you examined the sock 13-B through the stereomicroscope?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could you start with the clearest of those photographs?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Sure. Which one is the clearest one to you?

MR. SIMS: I think a is sharp. Some of them are very similar, but a is fine.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could I put them up on the elmo? I'm just going to put one of them up.

THE COURT: Just one since this is a photograph of something the jurors have seen.

MR. HARMON: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Putting 289-A on the elmo.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, I'm going to ask you to step down here. And if you can, circle the area that is of interest to you on that photograph 289-A.

(Witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: Okay. May we capture that, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. HARMON: So that's 289-A(1)?

THE COURT: 289-A(1).

MR. HARMON: Thank you, your Honor.

(Peo's 289-A(1) for id = photograph)

MR. HARMON: Okay. Go ahead and have a seat, Mr. Sims. Your Honor, I'd like to pass the photographs to the jury.

THE COURT: I'm just a little reluctant timewise because the jurors had the opportunity to look at this, Mr. Harmon, and they can see this on the screen.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Could we just do one, 289-A? No?

THE COURT: They've had--the jurors have each had the opportunity to come down, look through the microscope, which is the best view. This captures for them--refreshes their recollection when they're in the jury room as to what that location was. I think they've seen enough.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, I want to put 288, your sketch from November 11th of sock B, the same sketch that we had up a little while ago, and I want you to focus on your area 41B2.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Okay. How were you able to identify that area on the sock that you ultimately performed PCR testing on?

MR. SIMS: In other words, identify it in terms of its location?

MR. HARMON: Yeah. How did you find it?

MR. SIMS: Well, I found it by looking under the stereomicroscope.

MR. HARMON: And initially, were you aware of its presence before you used the stereomicroscope?

MR. SIMS: On that particular stain, I believe again, I was looking through the stereomicroscope when I found 42B2.

MR. HARMON: Okay. And when you look through the stereomicroscope, do you have the capacity to take photographs of what you see through the stereomicroscope?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Did you take a picture of that before you sampled it?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Let me just back up a little bit. Did you do some sort of presumptive test on that 42B2 area before you sampled it?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: What did you do?

MR. SIMS: I did an orthotolidine test, a presumptive test for blood.

MR. HARMON: And when you say "Presumptive," that means it could be blood?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: Then you ultimately did PCR DQ-Alpha testing on it?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. HARMON: And the results were consistent with Nicole Brown?

MR. SIMS: On 42B2, yes.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, at this time, I would request to have marked as People's 290 for identification Mr. Sims' microphotograph of that stain area. May I mark that on the back?

THE COURT: You may.

(Peo's 290 for id = microphotograph)

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, showing you what's been marked as People's exhibit 290, is that a photograph that you took?

MR. SIMS: Yes. That's a close-up photograph of stain 42B2 before it was cut out.

MR. HARMON: Okay. Can I put that on the projector, your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. HARMON: Now, Mr. Sims, can you--if you can, why don't you come down here and use some arrows and show us the areas that caught your attention when you looked at it through the stereomicroscope.

THE COURT: Mrs. Robertson.

MR. HARMON: Would it be more helpful to circle it or--

MR. SIMS: Well, I could show maybe two arrows or something like that.

MR. HARMON: Sure. Why don't you put some arrows in the area that caught your attention.

(Witness complies.)

THE COURT: Did we just lose our bit screen, Miss Fitzpatrick?

MS. FITZPATRICK: Yes, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, could we try to do it using our small monitor, capture it and then pass both around to the jury?

THE COURT: All right. Let's try that.

MR. HARMON: Try that?

THE COURT: All right. Miss Fitzpatrick, can we just bring up the attorneys' monitors?

MS. FITZPATRICK: Sure.

THE COURT: And then capture a photograph from the elmo from the attorneys' monitors?

MS. FITZPATRICK: I'm not sure we'll be able to catch the photograph without the projector.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Harmon, Miss Fitzpatrick tells me she doesn't think we can--

MS. FITZPATRICK: I'll give it a shot.

THE COURT: We'll try? All right.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Miss Fitzpatrick, have we blown a fuse on the monitor?

MS. FITZPATRICK: I'm not sure, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harris?

MR. HARRIS: Appears so.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. HARMON: Well, your Honor, could we--

THE COURT: Aha. How is the resolution on that, Mr. Harmon? I can't quite see from here.

MR. HARMON: The color is kind of strange.

MR. SIMS: The color is a little--

THE COURT: All right. I have a very sharp image on my monitor.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: Judge, it's blurred. It's as if we're getting a double image.

THE COURT: All right. Let's do this. Let's have Mr. Sims mark the location from the Court's--from the counsel's monitor. Let's take the big screen down and we can have Mr. Sims mark it from the monitor.

(The witness complies.)

MR. HARMON: You're got two arrows on there and one of them is higher than the other. Mr. Sims, what caught your attention in the higher arrow there?

MR. SIMS: There's some reddish staining that you can see in the photograph.

MR. HARMON: Could we capture that, your Honor, make that 298?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Peo's 298 for id = photograph)

MR. HARMON: And the lower arrow, what caught your attention in there?

MR. SIMS: Again, there's some reddish staining in the photograph.

MR. HARMON: Now, how big an area let's say compared to what we see on the screen there that you cut out of the sock to do your DNA testing from?

MR. SIMS: An area compared to that in the photograph?

MR. HARMON: Sure.

MR. SIMS: I think somewhat larger than that as I recall.

MR. HARMON: So the area was actually larger than the area we see in the photograph?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I believe that's correct.

MR. HARMON: How large an area is that in the photograph? Give us a ballpark.

MR. SIMS: Well, again, I'd want to look at my notes on that point.

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

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, could we pass 290 and 290-A around to the jury?

THE COURT: I guess we have to.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harmon, do you have any other questions for--

MR. HARMON: No, I don't. I'm just waiting for the image to come out and--well, Mr. Sims was actually looking to see how large an area that was.

MR. SIMS: The actual cut-out area on 42B2 was about 13 millimeters by five millimeters. So when I took those photomicrographs, there's an earlier one that actually shows a scale, but the purpose of that particular photo was to just show what the substance looked like. It wasn't a documentation of the exact area, the dimensions of the exact area that I cut out.

MR. HARMON: Okay. I have no further questions. I'd just like to pass those around, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. One more pass.

MR. HARMON: Could I start with the--well, I'd like to have them together.

THE COURT: I agree.

MR. HARMON: It did not work, your Honor.

MR. HARMON: Mr. Sims, could you take a look at the screen and see if we've got things lined up again?

MR. SIMS: That appears to be where I put the arrows.

MR. FAIRTLOUGH: On its third pass, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. It is actually quite fast for what it does. All right. Mr. Harmon, if you would hand those two items, please, to juror no. 1.

MR. HARMON: Sure. Can I put 290-A on the back?

THE COURT: You may.

(Peo's 290-A for id = photograph)

(The exhibits were passed among the jurors.)

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, should we pack this up or have Mr. Sims do it?

MR. SCHECK: No. Keep it right there. Your Honor, could we go past 4:00?

THE COURT: How much?

MR. SCHECK: Can I tell you at 4:00 depending on--

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, can we approach?

MR. SCHECK: May we approach?

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

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Harmon, would you collect 290 from Deputy Russell, please? All right. Mr. Harmon, any other questions for Mr. Sims?

MR. HARMON: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: Actually, I just asked Mr. Sims to perform some calculations. But--Mr. Sims, how long do you think that will take you?

MR. SIMS: Two minutes.

MR. SCHECK: Great. Why don't you go ahead and do that. Thank you.

(Brief pause.)

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCHECK

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, let's talk briefly, if we can, first about the sock. Now, Mr. Harmon directed your attention and we all viewed under the stereomicroscope two sections of sock b; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, the second section of sock B that a photograph was just introduced about, that's the one you designated 42B2?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, out of the stains that you testified you saw when you first got the socks at your laboratory, 42B2, was a stain that you discovered for the first time under the stereomicroscope?

MR. SIMS: I believe that's correct, yes.

MR. SCHECK: You might have--is it--that's--you're working off your notes with respect to that?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Is it possible that you might have actually seen that stain with your naked eye before you looked under the stereomicroscope?

MR. HARMON: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. SCHECK: Could you have seen that stain with your naked eye before you looked at it under the stereomicroscope?

MR. HARMON: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Well, to the best of your recollection, can you tell us with certainty whether you saw it first under the stereomicroscope or first with your naked eye?

MR. SIMS: The best of my recollection would be that I saw it first with the stereomicroscope.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Now, that wasn't true of all the stains on the sock, was it?

MR. SIMS: No. I believe--I believe that's correct.

MR. SCHECK: Now, you told us I believe when I was asking you questions on cross-examination that with respect to sock a, 42-A, the first thing you noticed when you saw the socks was, with your naked eye, without a stereomicroscope, you saw a blood drop on 42-A; is that correct?

MR. SIMS: In--I believe this is in the area of 42A2?

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

MR. SIMS: Yes. There was an arrow directing my attention to that stain, and I saw that.

MR. SCHECK: And you saw that without a stereomicroscope?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And then that was near a section on sock a where the largest cutout was taken out of all the cutouts that were made in the sock?

MR. SIMS: That--that was more towards the top than--as opposed to the ankle region?

MR. SCHECK: The ankle. I'm talking about the ankle cutout.

MR. SIMS: Okay. The ankle cutout was more--I'm sorry. I'm losing your question now. Please ask me again. I'm sorry.

MR. SCHECK: Do you still have the gloves available?

MR. SIMS: We do have some gloves, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Could I ask you first to take out sock a and show the jury the area that you saw with the naked eye when you first saw the socks that was a bloodstain on sock A. Could you do that? Come over here, pull out the sock, hold it up and show it to the jury.

(The witness complies.)

MR. SCHECK: You'd like another piece of paper lain down? Well, actually the way we did it before, would it be acceptable to you, Mr. Sims, if we put this paper on top of the Prosecution's cart and you could then take sock a, put it out here, stand before the jury and display it. Does that sound--

MR. SIMS: Yeah. I would like to turn it over.

MR. SCHECK: Whatever you want to do.

MR. SIMS: I believe it was this one where the arrow is pointing to (Indicating).

MR. SCHECK: Could you please hold up sock a, point to the cut-out area where the arrow was for the jury and, please, if you could walk across the jury and show us that area where you saw a bloodstain with your naked eye upon first receiving those socks?

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, I'm going to object. That misstates the testimony, that it was a bloodstain.

THE COURT: Sustained. Rephrase the question.

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, did you later determine that the red spot you saw in the area you're about to display to the jury was a bloodstain?

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, that still misstates the testimony.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Yes. In my opinion, it was.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you. So could you please hold up the sock--it's this area over here (Indicating)?

MR. SIMS: Yes, by the arrow.

MR. SCHECK: By the arrow, could you please start with juror no. 1 and show her and the rest of the jurors here that section that you saw the bloodstain with your naked eye when you first received the sock.

MR. HARMON: Objection. That misstates the testimony, your Honor.

THE COURT: What you later determined to be a bloodstain.

MR. SCHECK: What you later determined to be a bloodstain.

(Witness complies.)

MR. SCHECK: Now, Mr. Sims, could you please now flip the sock over and could you please display for the jury the cut-out area on sock a--well, before you do, let me just ask you a few preliminary questions. Was there a cut-out area--

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: The--there was a cut-out area on sock a that was cut out before you received it?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And portions of that were in a microfuge tube?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And you determined from three of the four swatches that you tested from that area that there was something on the order of how much high molecular weight DNA?

MR. SIMS: It was something in the order of about one and a half micrograms as I recall. Something in that area.

MR. SCHECK: 1,350 nanograms?

MR. SIMS: Something like that, yes.

MR. SCHECK: And that's just three of the four swatches, right?

MR. SIMS: That's three of the four, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Is it fair to say that was highly concentrated DNA?

MR. SIMS: It's a strong deposit, yes.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. Consistent with the kind of high concentration--

THE COURT: Mr. Scheck--excuse me. Excuse me. Mr. Scheck?

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

THE COURT: We have the same problem. We have a witness with his back to the Court and the court reporter who can't hear what you're saying. And you need to address your comments to the witness.

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, please try to keep your voice up if you could.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: And the high concentration of DNA that you found in that section of the sock is consistent with the kind of high concentrations one finds with blood that comes from reference tubes?

MR. SIMS: Well, I mean it's--I'm not sure I understand the question as far as reference tubes. I mean, the blood coming out of a reference tube may be very much like the blood coming out of someone's artery, for example.

MR. SCHECK: Would it be--

MR. SIMS: So I don't understand that context.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Let me put it to you this way. Would you not agree, sir, that blood that comes out of reference tubes tends to be highly concentrated in terms of its DNA content.

MR. HARMON: Your Honor, could we have him go back to the witness stand.

MR. SCHECK: No. I'm going to ask him to display something else in a second.

THE COURT: All right. Proceed.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you. Now, could you please display to the jury the same fashion you did before that cut-out section of the sock, sock a?

(The witness complies.)

THE COURT: All right. You're pointing to that with your left index finger?

MR. SIMS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Cochran?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, may the witness hold it up so it's clearly visible to the people in the back row?

(The witness complies.)

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Sims.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you. Mr. Sims, thank you very much. Maybe you could just return the sock there for a minute. We'll pack it up later if we could if that's all right with the Court, and you can resume your seat and I'll--

MR. SCHECK: Your Honor, I think I can do it in a half hour.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: It's an offer you can't refuse?

MR. SCHECK: Now, Mr. Sims, would it be pair to say that in terms of the blood-stained areas of the sock that you examined, that some areas were more difficult to see than others?

MR. SIMS: Yes. That's true.

MR. SCHECK: And we have just spent--well, withdrawn. The area that Mr. Harmon directed you to point out to the jury and look at under the stereomicroscope, would it be fair to say that that was one of the more subtle areas to observe?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Scheck, why don't you turn the podium toward the witness there.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you.

MR. SCHECK: Now, in the final analysis, Mr. Sims, every bloodstain that you cut out of that sock you could see with your naked eye?

MR. SIMS: Given the proper lighting, that's true.

MR. SCHECK: And let me ask you some questions now about consistency in testing.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: You were asked some questions on redirect examination about multiple tests by different laboratories. Do you recall those?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, the RFLP, DQ-Alpha tests, D1S80 tests that were performed by your laboratory, those tests in and of themselves cannot tell when blood or DNA from blood was deposited on any particular item?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: Nor can it tell you how blood or DNA got on any particular item?

MR. SIMS: That's correct.

MR. SCHECK: Now, if you assume that samples you tested had been previously contaminated with blood or DNA from blood inadvertently or intentionally at LAPD, all right--these are samples that you tested.

MR. HARMON: Objection. That's argumentative, your Honor.

MR. SCHECK: I'm just asking him to assume that.

MR. HARMON: There's no foundation.

THE COURT: Proceed.

MR. SCHECK: Would you expect that another laboratory performing the same tests that you did would get different results than you got?

MR. SIMS: Well, I think when we're talking about multiple swatches, for example, that would be one way that you could touch on the contamination. But as far as the deliberate or--

MR. SCHECK: Or inadvertent.

MR. SIMS: Well, the "Inadvertent" I think is addressed--as far as contamination being inadvertent, to me, it would be unlikely that you would get this uniform contamination across all the swatches. But the second part of your question or the second--

MR. SCHECK: Well, let me stop you for just one second.

MR. HARMON: Excuse me, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. Let him finish the answer.

MR. SCHECK: Go ahead.

MR. SIMS: Well, I think when you use the word "Deliberate," if it was deliberately contaminated, to me, I would assume you're talking about taking a regular liquid sample of blood and making a deliberate contamination, then one might expect to get the same results all the way across.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Then let's just focus on, if you assume--please listen carefully to my question and answer the question I'm asking you, okay?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: If you assume that samples you tested had previously been inadvertently cross-contaminated at LAPD--you have that assumption in mind?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: All right. I'm asking you to assume that.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: Would you expect that another laboratory would get different results than you got when you tested the samples if they were to test the samples after you?

MR. SIMS: This is--now, this is some inadvertent cross-contamination that you're mentioning?

MR. SCHECK: I'm asking you to assume that there was inadvertent cross-contamination of a sample.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: You have that in mind?

MR. SIMS: I have that in mind.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Now, you perform tests on the sample.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: You get results such as the ones--exactly the ones you reported here in Court.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: Now, those same samples are then given to another laboratory to perform the same battery of tests that you performed. Do you have that in mind?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Would you expect that subsequent laboratory to get results different than yours?

MR. HARMON: Objection. Insufficient foundation. It's an improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Well, again, now we're talking about the same sample. But I think in the context of multiple swatches, that would seem unlike--or it would seem that you might see differences in results. If there was contamination say of swatch a, but not of swatch c, then if one lab tested swatch a, another lab tested swatch c, then you might expect to see differences if cross-contamination occurred.

MR. SCHECK: My--my question to you, sir--please listen carefully and answer this question.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: I'm saying that if somebody were to take the samples that you tested, the ones you tested--

MR. SIMS: Now, do you mean the exact piece of cloth or--

MR. SCHECK: The--what remains of the samples that you tested.

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: And then tested them again using the same battery of tests if there were enough sample to conduct such tests. All right?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: And further, we're assuming initially that there had been inadvertent cross-contamination at LAPD, right?

MR. SIMS: Okay.

MR. SCHECK: Would you expect the subsequent laboratory to get test results that were different on the samples--the remainder of the samples that you tested than the results that you got?

MR. HARMON: Objection. No foundation. It's an improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. HARMON: It's not based on the facts, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: Well, again, it gets complicated because I may have tested one swatch and saved another swatch. So if you're assuming that the swatch I got was cross-contaminated, that doesn't mean to me that the other swatch was contaminated. So you may get different results.

MR. SCHECK: You cut part of swatches and left them--some of these were--were extremely small amounts, weren't they?

MR. SIMS: Yes, they were.

MR. SCHECK: On those that you cut, would you expect that the subsequent lab would get a different result than you got from the same swatch?

MR. HARMON: Objection. No foundation. Not based on the facts, your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: In the--in the instance where we're talking about one particular small swatch, in those situations as opposed to those situations where I had multiple swatches to work with, then I would--I think you're right in that particular situation.

MR. SCHECK: Now, the Bundy blood drops were samples that were degraded.

THE COURT: Is that a question?

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Yes, question?

MR. SIMS: Yes. The ones as far as--the ones that we actually examined, I can speak to those, although I think again that one, no. 52, is a Bundy blood drop that an RFLP was obtained from. So I wouldn't say that was so degraded.

MR. SCHECK: To use the terminology that I believe you employed the last time we spoke about this--

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: --you agreed that 47, 48, 49 and 50 were substantially degraded?

MR. SIMS: Yes. That's the right term.

MR. SCHECK: All right.

MR. SIMS: That's the term.

MR. SCHECK: And you gave us on redirect examination some specific numbers that we'll get to in a minute as to how much or how little human DNA were in those samples, correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And as to sample 52, you prefer to use the term "Degraded" as opposed to "Substantially degraded" because an RFLP test rendered a result with Cellmark?

MR. SIMS: Yes. I think that's--that's somewhere where we ended up.

MR. SCHECK: But in terms of numbers, nanograms, you recall we went through an exercise where we estimated amounts of DNA based on milligrams, weight and the amount of DNA that you got on your slot blots. Remember that?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And your projection, according with--according to the assumptions behind the Defense hypothetical and the projections you made is that the total amount of human DNA in sample 52 was 33 nanograms?

MR. SIMS: Again, I think that was based on your assumption about how much of the sample I got because you made the assumption that I think I had 11 and a half percent or something like that.

MR. SCHECK: Now, would an estimate of about 33 nanograms for all of sample 52 be consistent in terms of testimony from Dr. Cotton that the amount of DNA, human DNA that was the basis for the RFLP result at Cellmark was between 25 and 50 nanograms?

MR. SIMS: In other words, is that--does that seem to be in the consistent range?

MR. SCHECK: Yes.

MR. SIMS: Yes. If that's--if that is in fact what Dr. Cotton said, that she had 25 to 50 nanograms on that sample.

MR. SCHECK: Now, in terms of blood drops, how much--how many nanograms of human DNA would you expect to be in one drop of blood?

MR. SIMS: On a--on a typical drop of blood, you may see somewhere in the neighborhood of, oh, 500 nanograms, maybe something like that, maybe up to a microgram depending on the size of the drop obviously.

MR. SCHECK: So notwithstanding the RFLP result on sample 52, you would agree it was degraded?

MR. SIMS: Well, again, I--when I'm talking about how much DNA one might get out of a drop of blood, I'm usually talking about a clean substrate like a cloth--

MR. SCHECK: Uh-huh.

MR. SIMS: --which may yield or give back a stronger yield than the situation where we're talking about collecting no. 52 off of the I believe it's what, the carport area or something like that. That's a different substrate and substrates don't yield the same amount of blood or DNA in the tests.

MR. SCHECK: Let's talk about substrates. As I understand your testimony here on redirect examination, item no. 12, blood drops recovered from the wooden floor in Mr. Simpson's Rockingham home had a higher content of DNA in them than the Bundy drops?

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

MR. SCHECK: So when those samples were being processed, they had a higher content of DNA than the Bundy drops?

MR. SIMS: Well, now, when you're saying when they were being processed, is that opposed to when they were shed or--

MR. SCHECK: No. When they were being collected, packaged, dried, taken out of test tubes, all those processes that took place in the evidence processing room, would it be fair to say that the swatches from item 12 had a higher content of human DNA than the Bundy samples based on the data you've seen?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And even item no. 6 from Rockingham had a higher content of human DNA than the Bundy samples according to the calculations you made for the Prosecutor on redirect examination?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, let's talk further about substrates.

MR. SCHECK: We had a picture, 116, on the front board.

MR. SCHECK: Well, you--do you recall seeing a picture of bloodstains recovered from the front gate, photo no. 116, on June 13th?

MR. SIMS: This is on the front gate you said?

MR. SCHECK: Front gate. LAPD item no. 51, photo no. 116 as you look at it in the pictures.

MR. SIMS: I--that number doesn't ring a bell to me, but I have seen I believe a photo of the front gate.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. And the front gate is the same kind of substrate as the rear gate?

MR. SIMS: Well, I--I don't know that for a fact, but I mean, if it's--

MR. SCHECK: You were answering all kinds of questions from Mr. Harmon about substrates based on looking at photos, right?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And looking at the photo of the front gate and comparing it to the photo of the back gate, would it be fair to say that the front gate and the back gate were the same kind of substrate?

MR. SIMS: I'd like to see the two photos side by side.

MR. SCHECK: All right. We're looking for a photo now, but let's plow on. Now, you also analyzed a sample from the handrail at Bundy.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. And do you recall ever seeing a picture of blood on that handrail?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I believe I have seen that.

MR. SCHECK: Would it be fair to say that in terms of substrates, the blood on the handrail--withdrawn. In terms of substrates, the handrail appeared similar in the photographs to the substrate on the back gate?

MR. SIMS: Yes. Again, you're asking me if it's generally similar. I think it was. It was white painted metal as I recall.

MR. SCHECK: Now, you have done yield gels and slot blots on item 51, the bloodstains from the front gate; have you not?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And were the--and these were the ones collected on June 13th, right?

MR. SIMS: That's my understanding.

MR. SCHECK: And from that substrate on the front gate, were not those bloodstains substantially degraded?

MR. SIMS: Yes, they were.

MR. SCHECK: Bacterial DNA?

MR. SIMS: Well, it appeared to be bacterial. I didn't--again, remember I'm not doing a specific test for bacteria, but it has that degradation pattern as some of the Bundy drops were seen.

MR. SCHECK: So the results from the substrate on the front gate collected on June 13th were comparable to 47, 48, 49 and 50?

MR. SIMS: Yes, they were comparable.

MR. SCHECK: And the results from the substrate of the handrail, you did yield gels and slot blots on that as well?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And those showed--those stains collected on June 13th from a substrate on the handrail, handrail substrate, those also were substantially degraded like 47, 48, 49 and 50?

MR. SIMS: Yes. That's--that is correct. The one point I wanted to make is, I think it's on 47, we didn't actually run that yield gel and see that degradation pattern. But three of the other ones, I know we did, the same kind of pattern that you're talking about on these two additional items.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you. Now, 115, 116 and 117 were collected on July 3rd?

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

MR. SCHECK: And from that--now, we--and those--that's the back gate, right?

MR. SIMS: Yes. That's the rear gate.

MR. SCHECK: And those, as you've said, had no evidence of bacterial degradation?

MR. SIMS: I--I did not see that pattern that we had seen on those other samples from Bundy.

MR. SCHECK: Now, I asked you to look at--you did a chart for the Prosecution where you made a comparison of the amount of DNA in terms of nanograms per milligram, correct?

MR. SIMS: Per milligram of swatch material, yes.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Could you explain to the jury exactly what you mean by that when you're making a comparison of nanograms per milligram?

MR. SIMS: Yes. What I wanted to look at was the basis of how much DNA we were recovering from some of these swatches against what the weight of the swatch material was. So you recall, we talked about weighing all these swatches. I went back and I figured out how much DNA I got per each milligram unit of the swatch material of the stains.

MR. SCHECK: And would it be fair to say that this is an analysis that tries to give you some notion of concentration?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, have you reviewed two charts we prepared at the break based on the data that you gave us on redirect examination in terms of nanograms per milligram?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I have.

MR. SCHECK: All right.

MR. SCHECK: Now, I'd ask that one of these be marked--what are we up to?

THE COURT: 1192.

MR. SCHECK: --1192-A and another one, 1192-B.

(Deft's 1192-A and B for id = charts)

MR. SCHECK: Now, first, have you checked the math on these and does it appear to you to be substantially correct?

MR. SIMS: Yes, it's substantially correct.

MR. SCHECK: Could we please display 1192-A.

THE COURT: The difficulty being that our--

MR. SCHECK: Well, let's take a shot at 1192-A.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. HARMON: Can't see it.

MR. SCHECK: All right. Let me do this. Let me try to hold this up to the jury as best I can and read it off.

THE COURT: Can you put it up on the bulletin board there?

MR. SIMS: Sure.

THE COURT: And use the pointer.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you. Maybe if we clip it up here, that--

THE COURT: All right. Why don't you flip Mr. Yamauchi's chart over.

MR. SCHECK: I see people nodding. I don't think it's really going to--maybe what I can try to do is just--

THE COURT: Do you want to bring that in the center so that it's at least in the center of the room?

MR. SCHECK: Yes. Thank you very much, your Honor. Murphy's law day.

THE COURT: And its first corollary.

MR. SCHECK: Now, you have that in front of you, do you not, Mr. Sims?

MR. SIMS: Yes, I do.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. So this is a comparison of the swatch DNA samples to 117, the rear gate sample?

MR. SIMS: Yes. That's the comparison.

MR. SCHECK: And the rear gate sample, no. 117, has four times as much DNA on the basis of concentration, on the basis of nanograms to milligrams as item no. 6?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And that's--item no. 6 is one of those blood drops found at Rockingham?

MR. SIMS: Rockingham.

MR. SCHECK: And it has 27 times as much DNA as 47, one of the Bundy glove drops?

MR. SIMS: Yes. And again, keep in mind, on 117, 116, 115, that's a yield gel comparison against the slot blots now on 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52.

MR. SCHECK: And as far as 48 is concerned, another Bundy blood drop, it has 45 times as much DNA?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And as far as no. 49 is concerned, it has 270 times as much DNA?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And as far as no. 50, another blood drop, it has 51 times as much DNA?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And as far as no. 52 is concerned, it has 11 times as much DNA?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

THE COURT: We need to actually flip that over. Is that possible? Because that's Mr. Yamauchi's diagram if you recollect.

MR. SCHECK: We actually have it on scotch tape. Then we'll pull it off.

THE COURT: Because you're actually on another exhibit. Thank you, Mr. Harris.

MR. SCHECK: Now, with respect to 115 and 116, same comparison, 115 and 116 have about two times as much DNA as no. 6?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: 15 times as much DNA as no. 47, a Bundy blood drop?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: 22 times as much DNA as 48?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: 135 times as much DNA as 49?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: 25 times as much DNA as 50?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And six times as much DNA as 52?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you, sir.

THE COURT: Mr. Harris.

MR. SCHECK: I'm terrified of moving this.

THE COURT: All right. Why don't you use what time you have left.

MR. SCHECK: Now, Mr. Harmon asked you today and the last time you were here a whole series of hypotheticals based on assumptions about how Dennis Fung and Andrea Mazzola handled samples when they collected them, when they put them in plastic bags, when they put them into test tubes, when they took them out of test tubes after they were allegedly dry and scraped them out of test tubes. Do you recall those?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And he asked you in regard to that set of activities when he was asking you these hypothetical questions to assume that Andrea Mazzola and Dennis Fung systematically alternated the substrate controls and the specimens when they handled the samples.

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And I think on redirect examination last time, you actually characterized that as a critical assumption as far as your answers to these hypotheticals.

MR. SIMS: I--I don't recall using that exact word and I do recall remarking on something being important. I'm not sure it was that specific item, but yes, I think that is important.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you. And Mr. Harmon added to the hypothetical today many assumptions about what Mr. Yamauchi did and did not do when he handled the samples?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, did you ever review Mr. Yamauchi's notes to verify whether or not he performed the activities in question in accordance with the assumptions that were given to you in the hypothetical questions Mr. Harmon asked you?

MR. SIMS: No. I did not review them with that in mind.

MR. SCHECK: Do you know, Mr. Sims, whether or not the Los Angeles Police Department DNA laboratory has a contamination problem that arises from the way they handle samples during the extraction process?

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

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SCHECK: Mr. Sims, can you open a reference tube without--a vacutainer reference tube with a purple top without getting blood on your gloves through a chem-wipe?

MR. SIMS: I--I suppose when--I'm thinking now when I do that, I frequently will double up or maybe even triple up the chem-wipe, and that tends to get most of it. But it wouldn't be unusual for some of that blood to get through the chem-wipe.

MR. SCHECK: It has happened?

MR. SIMS: Onto the glove.

MR. SCHECK: That's the reason to be careful?

MR. SIMS: Yes. Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now--

MR. SCHECK: Incidentally, your Honor, I think we have here exhibit 97, which is a picture of the back gate. Oh, we can't. Front gate. I'm sorry. Can I just for sake of time--

THE COURT: Yes. Why don't you hold it with two hands so it's flat.

MR. SCHECK: Thank you very much.

THE COURT: There you go.

(Mr. Scheck displays the exhibit to the jury.)

THE COURT: It's one of your exhibits, counsel. It's tough when we have to go back to the old ways.

MR. SCHECK: When you get blood on your gloves when you're handling samples, Mr. Sims, do you always know it?

MR. HARMON: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Overruled.

MR. SIMS: In other words, could there be like a very fine, fine drop that you wouldn't see?

MR. SCHECK: Does that happen to you?

MR. SIMS: Well, I--I would change my gloves is the way I would answer that. I would automatically change my gloves when handling that kind of sample.

MR. SCHECK: So by routinely and systematically changing or washing your gloves, you can avoid that problem?

MR. SIMS: Well, yes. That's--that's a good way to avoid that altogether.

MR. SCHECK: Now, you were asked some questions about Mr.--Dr. Blake being a stranger or guest in your laboratory on redirect the last time you were here.

MR. SIMS: I--I would describe him as a guest.

MR. SCHECK: Okay. But the questions you were asked--

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: --in both terms. Now, Dr. Blake has been a friend of yours for 20 years; has he not?

MR. SIMS: Maybe a little longer. More like 22 now.

MR. SCHECK: At one point, when you were a student at Berkeley, he taught you as a teaching assistant?

MR. SIMS: Yes, he did.

MR. SCHECK: He asked you to pose for pictures here indicating how you would handle samples during the course of your examination?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: You worked together late in the evening with him?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: You worked on weekends?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: In an effort to assist you in getting this work done, both of you worked around the soccer schedules of each other's children?

MR. SIMS: I believe that's true.

MR. SCHECK: Dr. Blake works and lives in the Bay area?

MR. SIMS: Yes, he does.

MR. SCHECK: Is it fair to say you're good friends and colleagues?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: Now, when he was in your laboratory, he documented by photographs the evidence as you received it?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: He made documentations of the evidence before you altered it or cut it?

MR. SIMS: Yes.

MR. SCHECK: And he came back to document the strips d1--DQ-Alpha strips or RFLP autorads or D1S80 strips after the test results had been done.

THE COURT: Excuse me. Mr. Scheck, forgive me for interrupting you. Do you have much more?

(Discussion held off the record between Defense counsel.)

MR. SCHECK: I don't know what the scheduling problems are. I'm close.

THE COURT: We have visitation for the jurors this afternoon scheduled and we already have a number of their visitors waiting.

MR. SCHECK: Then I don't want to interfere with that. I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Sims, I guess we'll see you tomorrow morning, 8:45.

MR. SIMS: Okay, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to take our recess for the afternoon. I was trying to finish, but a little slow here. Please remember all of my admonitions to you; don't discuss the case amongst yourselves, don't form any opinions about the case, don't conduct any deliberations until the matter has been submitted to you, do not allow anybody, anybody to communicate with you with regard to the case. See you back here tomorrow morning, 9:00 o'clock. All right. We'll be in recess until 9:00 o'clock.

(At 4:35 P.M., an adjournment was taken until, Thursday, June 1, 1995, 9:00 A.M.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

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

The People of the State of California,)

Plaintiff,)

Vs.) no. Ba097211)

Orenthal James Simpson,)

Defendant.)

Reporter's transcript of proceedings

Wednesday, May 31, 1995

Volume 157

Pages 29938 through 30181, inclusive

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

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 157 pages 29938 - 30181

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

Day date session page vol.

Wednesday May 31, 1995 A.M. 29938 157 P.M. 30064 157

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

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 157 (Resumed) 29947bs 29965rh 30000bs (Further) 30023rh 30025bs

Sims, Gary 157 (Resumed) 30033rh (Resumed) 30092rh 30149bs

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

ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF WITNESSES

Witnesses direct cross redirect recross vol.

Sims, Gary 157 (Resumed) 30033rh (Resumed) 30092rh 30149bs

Yamauchi, Collin 157 (Resumed) 29947bs 29965rh 30000bs (Further) 30023rh 30025bs

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

EXHIBITS

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

286 - drawing by 29980 157 Mr. Yamauchi

287 - 1-page document 30091 157 entitled "Comparison of selected DNA"

288 - 1-page document 30114 157 depicting a sketch of a sock and notes of Gary Sims

288-A - photograph of 30115 157 a sketch of a sock and notes of Gary Sims (Computer printout)

289-A thru 289-E - 30136 157 photographs depicting a microscopic views of a red spot on socks

289-A(1) - photograph of 30138 157 microscopic view of a red circle with red markings

290 - photograph of 30141 157 close-up microscopic view of a sock

290-A - photograph of 30146 157 close-up microscopic view of a sock

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

DEFENSE for in exhibit identification evidence page vol. Page vol.

1191-A - 1-page document 29958 157 from the LAPD Scientific Investigation Divison dated April 21, 1995

1191-B - 1-page document 29958 157 from the LAPD Scientific Investigation Divison dated April 3, 1995

1192-A - chart 30172 157 entitled "Comparison of swatched DNA samples to 115, 116"

1192-B - chart 30172 157 entitled "Comparison of swatched DNA samples to 117"