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