REPORTER'S DAILY TRANSCRIPT
NOVEMBER 14, 1996

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

SHARON RUFO, ET AL., N/A, PLAINTIFFS,

VS.

ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1996
8:51 AM

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

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

THE COURT: Morning.

JUROR: Morning, Your Honor.

THE CLERK: You're still under oath. Would you please state your name again.

THE WITNESS: Robin Cotton.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

THE COURT: You may proceed.

ROBIN COTTON, the witness on the stand at the time of the recess, having been
previously duly sworn, was examined and testified further as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT (Continued):

Q. Good morning, Dr. Cotton.

A. Good morning.

(Displayed board entitled "Results of DNA Analysis - Bundy Crime Scene.")

Q. I'd like to go back to the results board from the Bundy crime scene. This is
exhibit 291, Your Honor.

Item number 52, this is the item you received the RFLP result on?

A. Yes.

Q. As you explained yesterday, these frequencies represent the commonness or
uncommonness of that blood drop in the population generally, or that DNA
result, in the population, generally?

A. Yes.

Q. So it's true to say that 1 out of every 170 million people, up to 1 out of
every 1.2 billion people, would have that combination of five genetic markers;
is that --

A. Yes.

Q. Could we see the next one, please?

(Displays chart entitled "Results of DNA Analysis.")

Q. This is the results board from Rockingham and item number 12 at Rockingham,
that has the same rate of frequency at -- as item 52 at Bundy?

A. Yes.

Q. Why is that?

A. It's the same banding pattern, that is the Bundy item 52, and the Rockingham
foyer pattern from item number 12, those patterns are the same.

Q. Okay. So let me see if I understand this, the five probe banding pattern for
item number 12 patch, matches that for item number 52?

A. It does.

Q. And both of those match Mr. Simpson?

A. Yes.

Q. And 1 out of every 170 million to 1.2 billion people would have that banding
pattern?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you. Can you take down the Rockingham?

(Mr. Foster complies)

Q. Now, as you mentioned yesterday, Dr. Cotton, in addition to the various
items that you've testified to on this results board, there were other items
that you tested at Bundy, including the blood under Nicole's fingernails and
other item as well; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, for all of the tests that you performed on all of the evidence at the
Bundy crime scene, did you ever obtain results showing the presence of any
alleles that could not have come from one of Mr. Simpson, Nicole Brown or Ron
Goldman?

A. There were no genetic markers, alleles present that were not consistent with
one of those three people.

Q. Okay. Good. Would you explain, just one more time, what an allele is?

A. An allele is simply a version of a gene. So in ABO blood groups, one is one
allele, B is another allele and O is another allele.

In the polymarker system, A is one allele and B is another allele and for every
locus, you will have, and all people will have, two alleles present; one from
each parent.

Q. So for all the blood evidence that you tested at Rockingham, all of that
evidence at Bundy, I'm sorry, all of that evidence is consistent with having
come from one of the three people listed on the board up there?

A. Or someone else with those same --

Q. It varies --

A. -- Types.

Q. Same types.

A. But there are only three groups of types present.

Q. Okay. Thank you.

And then let me ask you about one other item that you tested that we haven't
talked about, and that's item 29. Do you recall that item being tested?

You might have to look at your notes for this one.

A. Can you tell me where that's --

Q. Item 29 is from the Bronco --

A. Yes. Okay.

Q. -- automobile. And you tested that.

Was that an evidence item that you got from LAPD or from the Department of
Justice?

A. I have to look that up.

Q. Okay.

(Witness reviews notebook.)

A. I don't think that I included -- okay. Wait a minute. You want to know
whether we got that as already extracted?

Q. Yes.

A. DNA from the Department of Justice?

Yes, we did. It was DNA that we obtained from the Department of Justice.

Q. And what was your test result on that item? That's another page?

A. Yeah. I'm sorry. I -- I assume you don't want me to read all types here but
--

Q. Just tell me what you -- overall.

A. The overall result is that there are two people. There's more than one
person present in the DNA from that item.

Q. And one of the people that was present, is that -- could that be consistent
with Mr. Simpson?

A. Let me change your wording a little bit.

Q. Okay.

A. Mr. Simpson can't be excluded as being a contributor to the DNA in that
item.

Q. And the other possible contributor, can you include or exclude anybody from
that item?

A. Nicole Brown is excluded. And in our report we also excluded Ron Goldman.

Q. And could you explain why Mr. Goldman was excluded from your report?

A. There is a DQ Alpha 4 allele in that sample. Ron Goldman has a DQ Alpha 4
allele, but he also has a 1.3. The 4 was very light. We did not see a 1.3. So
based on the results that we could see, we excluded him.

Q. Is it scientifically possible that the 1.3 was there, but just too light to
be seen in your test?

A. That's possible.

Q. Now, let's go back to this board for just one more minute before you put it
down. The frequencies that you calculated for the PCR base test, that is the DQ
Alpha and the polymarker match, do those frequencies include any information
based upon the D1S80 runs?

A. No.

Q. This board, which is exhibit 297, is the results of DNA analysis of the
Rockingham socks. Is that one of the evidence items that you tested, Dr.
Cotton?

A. Yes.

Q. And what kind of tests were you able to do on that evidence item?

A. We did a DQ Alpha polymarker test and an RFLP test.

Q. What were your results from the DQ Alpha polymarker test?

A. The DQ polymarker test gave results that were the same as the types of
Nicole Brown.

Q. And the RFLP results, what were you able to obtain with that?

A. The RFLP banding pattern matches the banding pattern of Nicole Brown.

Q. And once again, were you able to obtain banding patterns at all five of your
genetic probes?

A. Yes.

Q. So the possible source of that evidence item is who?

A. Nicole Brown.

Q. And are Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman excluded as possible sources?

A. Yes they are.

Q. And were you able to calculate frequencies for those results?

A. Yes, we were.

Q. Can you put those up on the board?

A. Sure.

(Witness draws on exhibit.)

Q. So let me see if I understand the results here, Dr. Cotton. For the
polymarker in DQ Alpha result, your figures would indicate that those patterns
could come from one in 2500 to one in out of one and -- 26 -- let me start
again.

Your frequency numbers would indicate that those patterns could come from one
in 2500 to one in 26,000 people?

A. Right. That's how often you might see those -- that group of types.

Q. And when you did the RFLP result, we obviously get much more substantial
numbers.

Could you explain those, please?

A. All that's saying is that this banding pattern would be expected to occur in
-- given that we gave, three numbers all together. The lowest frequency that we
got was 16.8 billion people. That means you would have to go through a whole
lot of people before you would find or you would expect to find a banding
pattern that is the same as the pattern that's common to the socks and Nicole
Brown.

Q. And that would be a pretty rare pattern?

A. Yes, it would.

Q. Let's -- we are going to put up on the television screen here -- would you
please identify for the jury what this document is. This is evidence item 285.
Exhibit 285.

(The instrument herein referred to as "Autorad Produced from Socks" displayed
on TV screen was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 285.)

A. That is the first autoradiograph or Autorad that was produced with the
sample from the socks.

Q. And this is the kind of Autorad that we showed the jury a sample of earlier?

A. It's not exactly because we showed the jury a sample of an Autorad where one
probe had been applied. So that for each sample on that example, there were two
bands.

What's done in our lab as a first go around with the data, is to apply four
probes at once. And this Autorad shows the results from the application of four
probes all together. So if each probe produces two bands, you would normally
see eight. Sometimes they may overlap, so you might not count eight but there
would normally be eight there. It may be occasionally six or seven.

So this does not look exactly like the example we showed.

Q. This is a little more complicated?

A. It's a little more complicated.

Q. But it's the same principle that you discussed yesterday?

A. Exactly.

Q. So can you point out for the jury, item number 13, the socks that you
tested?

A. Sure.

The pattern that you see from top to bottom right here, is the pattern from
item number 13.

Q. And would you point out what you compared that to, to match it to Nicole
Brown Simpson?

A. Well, we compared it to all -- all three known individuals. Mr. Simpson's
pattern is here. Nicole Brown's reference blood pattern is here and Ron
Goldman's reference blood pattern is here. And the pattern from the socks is
not the same as Mr. Simpson's. It's not the same as Mr. Brown's.

If you compare the two patterns from the sock and Nicole Brown, each place
there's a band in the sock, there's a corresponding band in Nicole Brown's
pattern. This data is repeated when you do -- go back and do one probe at a
time and generate other Autorads and the pattern from the sock does match the
pattern from Nicole Brown.

Q. And that was also confirmed by the computer analysis of these bands?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. The sock sample that you are showing us up there, evidence item number 13,
is that -- we talked yesterday a little bit about degradation of evidence
samples. Is that a particularly degraded evidence sample?

A. No, it's not and it's in quite good condition.

Q. And can you tell by looking at this Autorad, that it's not particularly
degraded?

A. Well, I can tell from looking at the Autorad. We don't normally put our
Autorads up on a TV screen. You just look at them on a light box, so -- and
that's a lot -- it's a better way to be looking at them. But it's not -- it
wouldn't give you -- to you in such a big format. So both from looking at the
TV screen here and remembering what the Autorad looks like, that sample is in
good condition.

Q. And let me ask you a hypothetical about that: Assume that the socks,
evidence item number 13, that this sample was found on, were worn by the killer
when he killed Nicole Brown Simpson, and that the blood from Nicole Brown
Simpson was splashed onto those socks, fresh out of her body. And that a half
hour later, or thereabouts, the killer took off the socks, left them on a clean
area rug where they dried overnight; air dried overnight. Could that explain
the relative lack of degradation of that evidence sample?

A. Yes, it could.

Q. Why could it?

A. From -- both from experience from making samples in the laboratory, and
particularly looking at a lot of case work, when samples are very fresh and
dried immediately, they do not degrade. We also know -- also know from a lot of
experiment, not just in my laboratory but many others, that drying a sample in
a dry clean environment does preserve the sample very well.

If you have a sample that's in an unclean environment or a lot of heat or a lot
of humidity, that's not as good.

Now, comparing that to the reference sample for Nicole Brown, which we also see
on your Autorad, what's the state of degradation of that reference sample as
tested by you?

A. The reference sample for Nicole Brown is substantially degraded. The dark
background that you see behind the bands, and all the way down (witness
indicates), this dark smear that you see behind the bands, following all the
way down the lane is typical evidence of degradation.

Now, it's not so degraded that you can't obtain an RFLP pattern, but that's
what a degraded -- a sample that has a moderate amount of degradation looks
like.

Q. And if this reference sample was taken during an autopsy of Nicole Brown
Simpson that was performed more than 24 hours after her death, could that
explain that relative state of degradation?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, can you compare the differences in the degradation between Nicole Brown
reference sample in item number 13, the socks?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it a discernable difference in degradation?

A. Yes.

Q. In your opinion, Dr. Cotton, is it likely that the blood you tested on item
number 13, the socks, came from that reference sample that you also tested?

A. No, it's not likely.

Q. I have no further questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Cross-examine.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. LAMBERT: I did forget to introduce my exhibit. May I do that before we
start?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. LAMBERT: Exhibits 2179.

THE CLERK: One moment.

MR. LAMBERT: Sorry.

THE CLERK: Okay.

MR. LAMBERT: Maybe I should try to do it in numerical order

THE CLERK: It doesn't matter.

MR. LAMBERT: It doesn't matter. 2179, 273, 2180, 2181, 276, 274, 275, 2182,
2183, and 285.

THE COURT: Okay. They're received.

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2179 was received in
evidence.)

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 273 was received in
evidence.)

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2180 was received in
evidence.)

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2181 was received in
evidence.)

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 276 was received in
evidence.)

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 274 was received in
evidence.)

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 275 was received in
evidence.)

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2182 was received in
evidence.)

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2183 was received in
evidence.)

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 285 was received in
evidence.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. Dr. Cotton, can you give us an estimate of the amount of time that you spent
on this case when you were working for the prosecution, just approximately?

A. The number of hours I put in?

Q. Yes.

A. I don't know. A lot.

Q. A lot. Didn't you?

A. Yes.

Q. And the tests that were done on the 23 items were paid for by tax payers of
Los Angeles County, correct?

A. Yes, they were.

Q. And all of your time that you spent in the criminal case were paid for by
the taxpayers of Los Angeles County?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, it's -- have the plaintiffs reimburseed taxpayers of Los Angeles County
for any of that work.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) How many hours have you spent working for the plaintiffs in
this case?

A. Probably, including the time that I've been here?

Q. Yes.

A. Probably about eight or nine days.

Q. And what do you charge per day?

A. For my time here, the company will charge $1200 a day for time that I spend
in the office. Some of that time is in short chunks and doesn't really get
charged at all and if it's a substantial block of time, it would be $200 an
hour.

Q. You have no personal knowledge as to how the evidence was collected,
preserved and packaged before it was sent to your lab?

A. That's right.

Q. Would you agree with your -- that your test results are only as good as the
evidence that you're given by an outside agency?

A. Of course,

Q. And if you're given evidence from an outside agency that has been
contaminateed or degraded or tampered with or whatever, you can't make it any
better, can you?

A. No.

Q. So your test results are only as reliable as the evidence that you get?

A. Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I need to get some exhibits back here.

( Pause in the proceedings.)

(Chart entitled "Where is DNA Found" displayed.)

MR. BLASIER: I think that's exhibit 273.

Q. (BY R. BLASIER) Doctor, can you see that from where you're sitting?

A. Sure.

Q. Now, I want to ask you a couple more questions about what DNA is to try and
give us a conceptual framework of what we're talking about. Every cell that has
a nucleus has DNA in it, correct?

A. Yes. We have about six trillion cells in our body, correct?

A. I don't know.

Q. That's an estimate that's given.

A. If it's in some text book somewhere, I would certainly accept that.

Q. That's 6 million, million, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And most of those are nonred blood cells, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now every one of those cells has the same DNA in it as every other cell?

A. Yes.

Q. So if you take some DNA from hair, it's going to be the same as DNA from
your blood from your skin, from other bodily tissue, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's one of the ways you can compare hair sample with blood sample
with DNA technology, correct?

A. Sure.

Q. Now, going back down to the lower level here, the structure of DNA, you
described it as a ladder type structure?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. It's like a coiled up ladder, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And it's made up of only four molecules, correct, that are of significance
to us.

A. Yes.

Q. That's the A, C and the G and T?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, in a single cell the DNA in one cell is you have 6 billion of these
base pairs or 6 billion rungs of the ladder in every cell, correct?

A. Exactly.

Q. And 3 billion of the cells, ru --- rungs you get from mom and 3 billion you
get from dad.

A. Yes.

Q. We can think of it in terms of a tinker toy ladder that has two hubs and a
stick in the middle through the rung. And the left hub is going to be an A and
the right hub is going to be a T. The right hub could be a C and the left hub
could be a G?

A. Yes.

Q. You can figure out how these go together, round letters go together. A and C
and G -- I'm sorry, guess you can't do that. Anyway, they only go together one
way, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, 3 billion base pairs, if we want to try and understand the scale
of this, if you think about a little toy ladder, like a kid might have on a
fire engine, if the rungs of that ladder are half an inch apart, the entire
DNA, if it was stretched, end to end, would be 3 billion half inches, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. I didn't do the math. It turned out to be about 25 thousand miles. Does that
sound right?

A. I haven't done the math.

Q. You can assume that hypothetically.

A. Fine.

Q. Once around the world.

And the second 3 billion pairs of rungs, that comes from the other parents, is
the same length, correct?

A. Yeah. Yeah, about.

Q. Okay.

So you can think of this as two ladders that are side by side that go around
the world?

A. Well, only if the base pairs are half an inch apart.

Q. Right?

A. Which they're not.

Q. You can't see it without a microscope?

A. Yes.

Q. And you can't even see the individual molecules without extremely
sophisticated equipment?

A. That's right.

Q. Now, when you do an RFLP test, would you say, is the -- let me ask you this:

Isn't it true that if you have the DNA from a piece of evidence and the DNA
from a suspect, if there is a single rung of that ladder that is different from
one to the other, it came from different people?

A. Yes. If you have two RFLP patterns and you have a band in one that is
different than --

Q. That wasn't my question, Doctor. A single base pair difference --

A. Oh.

Q. -- Between evidence and suspect means they didn't come from the same person,
correct?

A. Well, that theoretically is correct, but you --

Q. Thank you.

And when you do an RFLP test, what is the average fragment lengths that you
look at?

A. Your -- the range of fragment length that are looked at on our gels are 1600
to about 23,000 base pairs.

Q. Okay. So from 1600, which is about 800 inches, under my scenario, to 23,000
half inches or about 12,000 inches, correct?

That's all you look at?

A. Yes.

Q. Out of the whole 25,000 mile ladder, correct?

A. Yes, we're just looking at a small section of DNA.

Q. An extremely small section of DNA?

A. Yes, compared to the total, sure.

Q. And the polymarker system that -- the alleles that you look at in the
polymarker system are even smaller, aren't they?

They're in the neighborhood of 250 base pairs, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Or 120 inches, like ten feet compared to the whole chain?

A. If we --

Q. Isn't that correct?

A. I don't know about your numbers. If we just stick with base pairs, then I'll
be able to answer your questions a little bit better.

Q. 250 out of 6 billion, correct or 3 billion?

A. For each locus you're looking at a small piece, which may be about 250 base
pairs.

Q. You're not looking at any of the rest of the 6 billion base pairs, are you?

A. No.

Q. Now, you actually don't have one continuous piece of DNA that goes all the
way around the world. It's broken down into 23 sections?

A. It's broken down into 46 sections.

Q. For each ladder is 23, one from mom one from dad, correct?

A. Right.

Q. That corresponds to the chromosomes?

A. Yes.

Q. So it's, you know, one twenty-third, approximately, of the ladder is going
to be one chromosome and scientists have given these numbers, chromosome number
1, number 2, et cetera?

A. Yes.

Q. And if you go down below, within a chromosome, they're broken down into the
smaller segment or they're blocked out in smaller segments that are called
genes, correct?

A. They can be, yes.

Q. Okay. And a gene is simply a series of base pairs that could have a wide
variations in length, but it's just by definition, scientists have defined
certain things to be a gene?

A. A gene is a functional unit that actually conveys information to the cell,
yes.

Q. So a particular section of the ladder that might have 100,000, 200,000 base
pairs scientists might say, we think that this is connected to hair color, for
instance, and so that's a gene that might be conected to hair color?

A. Yes.

Q. An allele is a fairly short segment of DNA, that's all it is, correct?

A. An allele could be very long. It could be very short. It doesn't -- there's
no connection between an allele and length.

Q. But the alleles you look at don't go any higher than 23,000 base pairs?

A. Well that's correct for this test. But you could have an allele of a gene
that was 100,000 base pairs.

Q. For purposes of this test, you're only looking, at the most, 23,000 base
pairs?

A. For one, for one locus.

Q. Okay. If the roughly 10,000 base pairs average from 1600 to 23, -- 20,000 --
excuse me -- and in it's 5 probe matches that you were talking about, there are
two bands for each probe, correct?

A. That's right.

Q. And again, we're talking about two side by side segments of the ladder; one
from mom, one from dad in each probe?

A. Yes.

Q. And those five segments total together, if our average is 10,000 base pairs
per segment, is only 50,000 base pairs that you're looking at for an RFLP test?

A. For five.

Q. For five probes?

A. Yes.

Q. And this is the one that you say conveys the most information of all -- of
all the tests?

A. Yes. Of the testing that people -- labs are doing today, this is the most
powerful test.

MR. BLASIER: Now, can we get the diagram board, Phil?

MR. P. BAKER: Yes.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Doctor, what is a nanogram?

A. It's one times ten to the minus ninth grams.

Q. It's a billionth of a gram, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And how many grams are in a pound, 454?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. So a nanogram is an extremely small amount; is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. How many nanograms are there estimated to be in a single drop of blood?

A. I'm not sure how to -- The way to answer that question is to think of a drop
in a more precise volume. We get about 10,000 nanograms from an amount of blood
that would be a little less than the size of this pen top.

Q. This is exhibit 987.

(The instrument herein referred to as chart entitled "Small Amounts of DNA From
Specs of Blood" was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 987.)

Q. You heard the figure that there are 1,000 to 2,000 nanograms per -- I'm
sorry. Give me that again, your figure of how many nanograms in a -- in a size
of blood the size of --

A. We get about 10 micrograms, which is about 10,000 nanograms in about 700
microliters of blood.

Q. Okay.

A. So you could calculate, sort of. You could go down and workout how many --
what volume of blood would produce a certain amount of nanograms and I haven't
done that recently.

Q. Okay. Just to get a rough estimate, 20 nanograms of blood is going to be
extremely small; is it not?

A. Yeah. It's going to be small but I can't tell you how small.

Q. Okay. And two nanograms is going to be, of course, one tenth as small as 20;
isn't it?

A. Yes, of course.

Q. How many drops of blood are there in a CC, cubic centimeter?

A. I don't know. I mean, how big a drop is, is a very subjective thing. So in
the laboratory, you don't measure things in terms of drops. So I don't really
have a figure for you -- for that. I don't know.

Q. Have you heard the figure 20? Is that an approximation?

A. I haven't heard any physician -- I don't know a common figure for a drop.
I'm not aware that there's a common figure for a drop.

Q. Have you heard an estimate of 20 drops per --

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Calls for hearsay. Irrelevant.

THE WITNESS: There may be such an estimate. I'm just not aware of it, you know.
That's just the state of what I know.

Q. Let's -- can we put the pad up for a second?

(Counsel displays drawing pad.)

Q. Can I borrow your black pen there?

A. Sure.

Q. I'm going to try and draw this.

Now there are a number of different terms that are used in forensic science for
when two things appear to be -- or could come from the same source, aren't
there?

A. Yes, sure.

Q. And I've used the term "match" in the context of DNA testing, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And none of the tests that you do are capable of establishing or do
establish unique identity, do they?

A. No, I don't agree agree with you.

Q. Well, the estimate that you come up in terms of numbers are statistical
estimate based on some formulas that you do, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you cannot possibly look at all of the DNA in a sample. You're only
looking at a very small part of it, correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And these tests do not establish a unique identification the way I've used
them, do they?

A. If you do, if you have available to you, a series of a large enough series
of problems on an RFLP test. I'm not saying that five is necessarily large
enough. I'm just saying if you have enough, I would say perhaps ten or more, I
don't think there's a scientist who would argue with you that you've
established identity.

Q. But no scientist will tell you that with five probes you've established a
unique identification, will they?

A. I don't think that. Yes, I agree that five probes would not be necessarily
considered to be an identification.

Q. And you've heard the term "match" used in the context of, for instance, hair
and fiber evidence where it means a hair could have come from the suspect or,
then again, it might not have, right?

A. Yes.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Excuse me. There's an objection. Objection sustained as being beyond
the scope.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

MR. LAMBERT: Like the answer to be stricken.

THE COURT: Stricken.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) I'm trying to name what a match is for purposes of the
jury's understanding this. Okay, Doctor?

A. Okay.

Q. Now, with RFLP technology, which provides the most information, you look at
bands on an X-ray, correct?

A. It's not an X-ray, but you look at bands on a -- on the spray film.

Q. Okay. But -- and if we consider one band to be from the evidence and one
band to be from the suspect -- you with me so far?

A. Um-hum.

Q. And with RFLP, you look at an average of 10,000 base pairs per band, an easy
round number, okay?

So let's say that you have determined that the evidence band is 10,000 base
pairs?

A. Yes.

Q. In order for your suspect to match the evidence, the suspect's corresponding
band has to be 10,000 base pairs correct?

A. No.

Q. Well, let me rephrase it.

In order for the DNA from the suspect to be identical to the DNA from the
evidence, it has have the same sequence and the same number of base pairs?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. So for identity to be established, would this one section, anyway,
you've got to have 10,000 base pairs from the suspect that matches exactly the
10,000 from the evidence, correct?

A. Right. But --

Q. Okay.

A. Let -- that wouldn't establish identity.

Q. Correct. Well, okay.

Even that's not enough to establish identity?

A. Of course not.

Q. The sequence itself could be different?

A. Even if the sequence was identical, you'd still not have established
identity.

Q. You have a lot of other DNA that you're not even looking at, you're only
looking at one small piece?

A. Yes.

Q. This is what you look at with one band of one probe?

A. Yes.

Q. Correct.

Now, if it turned out that your suspect band was 9,999 and your evidence band
is 10,000, those two samples came from different people, correct?

A. In theory, that would be correct.

Q. In truth that's correct; isn't it?

A. In practice, we can't make that determination.

Q. Doctor, In theory that's true; isn't it?

A. Yes. But you didn't --

Q. Thank you.

A. You --

Q. We'll do this step by step. Okay?

Now, for 10,000 base pair segments, what is the window size that you use --
explain that in a minute. Explain to me what the window size is approximately
in percentages?

A. I think it's around probably 2.6 percent.

Q. Plus or minus 2.6?

A. Yeah. I don't have those figures with me but that will have to do as a --

Q. Okay Let's take plus or minus 2.5, little easier number to work with.

A. Okay.

Q. Now, if you have a suspect sample, that is, percentages are 9,500 base pairs
long and your evidence sample is 10,000, you know that these came from two
different people if you know those numbers precisely?

A. If you knew the numbers precisely, you would know that.

Q. Okay. And further you would know that if the suspect's base -- Fragment was
10,500 base pairs long you would know, if you were able to determine those
numbers precisely, that these two samples came from different people, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And virtually all there are a thousand possibilities between 10,500 and
9,500 of base pair lengths, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Only one of those, 1000 possibilities is going to be identical to your
evidence, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. 999 of them are going to be a different person, correct, if we're able to
measure this?

A. If you're able to measure it, that would be correct.

Q. Now, you're not able to measure it this way are you?

A. No.

Q. And because the measurement techniques that are used are not sophisticated
enough to measure fragment length you give yourself a window within which to
call something a match, don't you?

A. Yes all RFLP labs do that.

Q. What you say is gee, since we can't measure this very precisely we're going
to say if it's 10,500 base pairs, we're going to call it a match to 10,000,
aren't you 'cause that's within your window; isn't it?

A. Well, forgetting the math for a minute, if it's within the window, then it's
called a match. And if it's not within the window, then it would either be an
inconclusive or an exclusion.

Q. Okay. So every one of the thousand possibilities in here within this range,
you will call a match. But only one of them out of the thousand is truly a
match, correct?

A. Theoretically, if you were -- theoretically, yes, what you're saying is
absolutely true.

Q. Okay. Thank you, Doctor?

A. But we don't have that information.

Q. You're not -- you can't measure it good enough, can you?

A. It's not a measure -- matter of measuring it good enough, it's what is the
technique able to do.

Q. The technique is unable to measure it with any, or more precision than this,
correct, Doctor?

A. Yes. That's correct.

Q. And the wider this window is, the more -- the greater the chance is that
you're going to call somebody a match, a suspect and an evidence band as a
match, when it came from different people, correct?

A. I don't think that follows, no.

Q. Oh, you don't. Okay. And this is true, this window that you use, because of
measurement, is used for every one of the problems that you use in RFLP,
correct?

A. There is a window, a size window, yes, that you compare for each probe, for
each band.

Q. So for a five probe match, where you're looking at ten bands, you've got
this, plus or minus, roughly five percent. I know it changes for the size of
the band, but for the sake of discussing it, you've got this same window, if
you will, on every single one of those bands, don't you?

A. Yes, you do.

Q. Could we have this marked next in order, please?

THE CLERK: 2184.

MR. BLASIER: 2184.

(The instrument herein referred to as a Hand Drawn Diagram by Mr. Blasier was
marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2184.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) The one you gave was 530 billion. I think it was a five
probe match using this technique. Would you allow yourself a large -- or a
window -- I won't say a large window, to call something a match when you can't
tell that it's the same, can you?

A. We use this technique to come to that number, yes.

Q. And your computer program that you talked about, that doesn't make it any
more accurately than this either, does it?

A. Computer program, I talked about the computer imaging system; is that what
you're referring to?

Q. Yes.

A. The computer imaging system is what you use to come up with the number in
base pairs that the bands are.

Q. Okay. And -- but that's not a precise number either; is it?

A. No. Each one of those measurements is as good as the technology will allow.

Q. Okay. Of your 1 in 530 billion sample that you told us about, which was --
which one was that?

Q. Do you remember what that was?

A. The sock.

Q. It's a five probe match, 10 band, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You have your sizing sheet with you?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Can I take a look at that these, please?

A. Which one do you want to look at?

Q. All of them. You don't have them on one page? Do you have them on one page?

A. All of the bands for?

Q. For that match?

A. No. The sock?

Q. Correct, for that 1 in 530 billion that you gave us.

A. Yeah. It will take me a few minutes to find it.

Q. Okay. Your Honor this might be a good time to give her a chance to --

THE COURT: Okay. Ten-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen.

(Recess.)

(The following proceedings were held in open court outside the presence of the
jury.)

MR. LAMBERT: Your Honor, I wanted to raise one evidentiary objection to the
line of questioning that Mr. Blasier has been following that has to do with the
request for admission that we intend to read into evidence later. They have
admitted all of these RFLP results. For example, request No. 387 asks that they
admit that the blood contained in the item identified as evidence item 12,
matched Mr. Simpson's blood banding pattern at all five of the single locus
probes tested by Cellmark. They admitted that request for admission. They
admitted all of the RFLP results.

I think this line of questioning is irrelevant and an undue consumption of
time.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, the line of questioning is to show what it means to
say something matches. We did admit those. I'm exploring with this witness,
what a match is and what isn't.

THE COURT: Read that request for admission, please.

MR. LAMBERT: I'll read it specifically the way the language is, Your Honor, and
this is for all of them. I'll read one.

This is number 12, admit that the blood contained in the item identified at the
criminal trial as LAPD evidence item 12, matched your blood's DNA banding
pattern at all of the five single locus probes known as MS1, MS31, MS4 --

THE REPORTER: Excuse me, can you repeat MS ...

MR. LAMBERT: MS1, MS31, MS43, G3 and YNH24 when subjected to an RFLP test by
Cellmark.

MR. BLASIER: We agree we admitted that. I'm not suggesting that they don't
match under the way that term is defined. I'm exploring what that really means,
that it doesn't mean that they're the same. That's the important point that I
can make on cross-examination.

MR. LAMBERT: I would certainly make a 352 objection, Your Honor, that it's been
hours and hours of time talking about what a match means is unnecessary. They
can simply ask her what a match means and that should do it.

MR. BLASIER: I don't think -- they don't like I'm making points with their
witness, Your Honor.

THE COURT: How much more of this do you have?

MR. BLASIER: On this line, not a lot.

THE COURT: What's a lot?

MR. BLASIER: Ten minutes.

THE COURT: Okay. I'll permit ten minutes worth.

Bring the jury in.

THE BAILIFF: Jury walking in.

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

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

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Dr. Cotton, one of the items you testified to was item
number 12, a Rockingham drop, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the frequency that you gave for that five probe match was 170 million to
1 in 1.2 billion, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And as we said before, a five probe match means you're looking at 10 bands,
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you determined that under the way you used the term "match," all of
those matched, correct?

A. That's right.

Q. Now, you use a computer to estimate how long the fragments are of those
bands, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's from your Autorad, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Of those ten bands, tell me how many of them your computer said were the
same length as the evidence band, identical lengths?

A. Okay. But let -- give me just a minute.

Q. So what you want to know is based on our estimated band sizes. Were any of
those identical in length between the DNA banding pattern in the foyer and the
DNA banding pattern from Mr. Simpson?

Your computer comes up with an estimate that this band is 10,120 base pairs,
right?

Isn't that what your computer comes up with?

Where is it?

A. There's no size on here. That's what you just said. Okay.

Q. So it doesn't measure the number of base pairs, does it?

A. Yes, the -- your estimating the number of base pairs that makes up each one
of those bands. I was just trying to clarify and make sure I was answering the
question that you asked me.

Q. Okay.

A. Then you didn't say anything so I -- that helped me with that so --

Q. Well --

A. -- I didn't know what to do.

Q. When you get something from your computer, does it say I estimate this band
to be a specific number of base pairs?

A. Right. Those are the numbers on these two sheets.

Q. Okay. So it looks at the suspect bands, looks at the evidence bands and it
estimates each of those bands, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell me, of the ten bands that you looked at for item number 12, how many of
those did your computer say had the same number of base pairs?

A. Three.

Q. So seven of them, your computer said had a different number of base pairs,
right?

A. Yes. The sizes are different.

Q. And if you have a different number of base pairs, it's a different person;
isn't it?

A. If you knew that then, the answer would be yes.

Q. Okay. And your 1 and 1.2 billion doesn't take into account the fact that you
are just estimating fragment length. You cannot say they are the same, can you?
Can you, Doctor?

A. I can't answer your question because those two things aren't exactly
related. Your question doesn't make sense to me.

Q. In terms of the formula that gets you to the 1.2 billion, does it make any
difference whether your computer says two bands are very close together or two
percent apart?

A. No.

Q. So you score a band, two different bands. If there's a difference in the
evidence of the suspect of two percent, you still call it a match and it counts
such -- just as much as if your computer says they're the same, right?

A. Yes it does.

Q. I'm going to switch to PCR for a second.

PCR is a much less discriminating system than the RFLP system we've been
talking about, correct?

A. In terms of looking at difference between people, what we have now, the
answer is yes.

Q. There's less information that you can glean from, to put into a formula,
correct?

A. Right, for the PCR, things that we're testing.

Q. That's because there is not as much variations among people in the segment
of DNA that you look at with PCR type tests, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, PCR is not exactly a type of test. That's the process by which you
start with a little amount of DNA and make it into a big amount?

A. Yes, exactly.

Q. And that process is called amplification, correct?

A. Yes, it is.

(Counsel displays chart.) (The instrument herein referred to as a chart
entitled "PCR Amplification" was marked for identification as Defendants'
Exhibit No. 988.)

MR. BLASIER: This is number 788.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And what happens in this process is that you don't actually
make copies of the whole DNA. You cut out a small section like we talked about,
for instance, for the DQ Alpha system, each segment that you look at is about
254 base pairs, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. It's a very, very small segment?

A. It's 254 base pairs or whatever it comes to be.

Q. Right. And what you do is if you have a very small amount of DNA in your
evidence, you have to use this process to evaluate it at all, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. The RFLP system is not sensitive enough to evaluate small amounts of DNA,
correct?

A. That's right.

Q. And what you do is you take those fragments and you go through a process
which we don't really have to understand but essentially it goes through cycles
and it doubles the amount of DNA with each cycle, correct?

A. That's right.

Q. So if you started out, just hypothetically, with one fragment, 254 base
pairs long and you went through and you put it in your little machine and it
goes through 32 cycles, theoretically, if it doubled each time, you wind up
with a whole heck of a lot of fragment?

A. Yes.

Q. If you had this many fragments, that's enough to do some analysis on,
correct?

A. That's right.

Q. Whereas the smaller amount is not?

A. That's right.

Q. Now, it is also true, is it not -- this is 989.

THE CLERK: I think that last exhibit is 988.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry 988 that makes sense.

(The instrument herein referred to as a chart entitled "PCR Amplification with
Three Copies" was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 989.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) It is also true, if you have a tiny amount of DNA from more
than one source in a sample, when you put it through these cycles conceivably
every component also multiplies and doubles each time you do it, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So if you have a couple of fragments that came from one source and let's say
a contaminant, which can be a DNA from another source is -- if there's a small
amount, when you amplify it the contaminant gets amplified?

A. Assuming there's enough of it.

Q. The process by which you do this amplification is what gives you the great
sensitivity with PCR test that you don't have with RFLP tests, right?

A. That's right.

Q. By the same token, it's also the biggest weakness in the sense a contaminant
gets multiplied also, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So that you have to take many extra precautions while you're doing PCR work
that may not be as necessary with RFLP work to protect genes against
contamination, giving you the wrong results, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Lambert asked you about degradation. I'm going to to put up --

MR. P. BAKER: This is 1034.

MR. BLASIER: We're going to go through a series of slides here as an exam --
Can you focus that a little better?

(The instrument herein referred to as illustration of blood degradation slide
was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1034.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) This is just a hypothetical situation, you have DNA from
person number one. And just -- my example is you have four different pieces of
DNA and the type is one. You got me -- you with me so far?

THE COURT: I think he's defocusing it.

Q. Doesn't have to be clear to understand what we're doing here?

A. We have four pieces of DNA and they're all A1.

Q. You with me so far?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, the process of degradation is the DNA actually breaking up into pieces,
right?

A. Yes.

Q. And as a piece degrades, for instance, if you have DNA wet, a wet blood
sample for instance, that's out, not sealed into plastic for a period of time,
wet, that can cause degradation, can it not?

A. It might.

Q. And that would mean that you would perhaps, less -- DNA as it breaks into
pieces, you'd have less DNA to analyze, correct?

A. You don't physically have less DNA. The DNA isn't going away but the pieces
that are there are getting smaller.

Q. Right. The portion of it that you can analyze is getting smaller, right?

A. Yes.

MR. P. BAKER: 1035 is displayed.

(The instrument herein referred to as illustration of blood degradation slide
was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1035.)

MR. BLASIER: Now 1036.

(The instrument herein referred to as illustration of blood degradation slide
was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1036.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Heat is another mechanism by which DNA can degrade,
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And so, if we add heat to our mixture here, you might wind up with less DNA
you can analyze, it's still there in pieces but there's less you can analyze,
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. If we add moisture to that --

MR. P. BAKER: 1037.

(The instrument herein referred to as illustration of blood degradation slide
was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1037.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) 1037. Moisture's also factor that can cause DNA to break
down even further?

A. Yes.

Q. If we add all those things together, we might take a sample of DNA, and we
add all those things and you wind up --it's so broke up that you have too
little to test?

A. That's possible.

Q. It's not going to change the type, but you don't get any type, right?

A. Right.

MR. P. BAKER: 1038.

(The instrument herein referred to as illustration of blood degradation slide
was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1038.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) 1038. We might end up at the end of the chain with broken
up DNA that you can't tell anything about?

A. Yes, that's possible.

Q. And if you tested that, you wouldn't get a result?

A. Right.

Q. I want to talk about contamination. The term "contamination" can mean
several things?

A. Sure.

Q. One of the things it can mean is a little DNA from another source getting
into a sample, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And let's say you start it, hypothetically, with a sample that had been
subjected to plastic, heat and moisture and had degraded to the point where
there wasn't enough there to really analyze. And you add blood from a second
person, small amount of blood from the second person. You with me so far?

A. Well sort of, but you said there wasn't enough to analyze, but you still got
one there.

Q. Okay. Well, let's -- you can -- you can -- there is a lower amount beyond
which you can't analyze. It's still there, but you can't analyze it?

A. Right. On your last thing, when you said there wasn't anything, there was no
one there so --

Q. Okay. Assume there's no one there.

MR. P. BAKER: 1041 displayed.

(The instrument herein referred to as illustration of blood degradation slide
was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1041.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Let's say a small amount of DNA from another person gets in
that sample through whatever mechanism. Okay?

A. Okay.

Q. And one mechanism might be that if there was a small amount of blood on the
hand of the person examining a cloth swatch, for instance, it might be
transferred from the person's hand into the swatch, correct.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Misstates the evidence,
improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled on the hypothetical.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) That's one mechanism you can get a contaminant into a
sample, correct?

A. If you have -- you had blood on your -- let's say glove, which would be --
and that blood was wet and you physically touched the swatch, could you
transfer some?

Q. Yeah.

A. Possibly so.

Q. And again we're talking about PCR. We're talking about extremely small
amounts that you can amplify, correct?

A. Yes. You can amplify extremely small amounts and then you also have to worry
about, does your test detect that, so . . .

Q. Right.

A. So there are limitations there.

Q. So when you amplify this particular sample and we're assuming there's not
enough here in the one to come up with a type (referring to exhibit 1041), I
have four -- I have four times as much as one.

Let's say there's no one there when you amplify this, you're going to amplify
all these twos each cycle, correct?

A. Yes. There's no one there and you add those four twos of -- you'll amplify
the twos since there's no one left over.

Q. Okay. And at the end, if you test that because you're not -- Because you've
made much, much more, we'll assume there's no --

MR. BLASIER: What slide is this?

MR. P. BAKER: 1043.

(The instrument herein referred to as illustration of blood degradation slide
was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 1043.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) 1043.

That's going to look like when you test the blood, consistent with person
number 2; isn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, the amounts of DNA and the various samples you tested, 23 samples I
think you said?

A. Yes.

Q. Most of those samples had an -- a very small amount of DNA; isn't that
correct?

A. No. Some of them had fairly substantial amounts of DNA and some of them
didn't.

Q. Okay. You were only able to do RFLP tests, I think, on two or three?

A. We did RFLP tests, got results for RFLP tests on the sock. On the Bundy
drop, number 52 --

Q. 52 and 12?

A. And 12 from the foyer.

Q. That's out of the 23, three of them had enough DNA for an RFLP test?

A. Yes.

Q. What's the minimum amount of DNA that you need to get an RFLP result?

A. You can generally get an RFLP result with about 25 nanograms.

Q. Okay. And if a drop of blood has, hypothetically, 1 to 2 thousand nanograms,
50 nanograms is a very small amount?

A. Is 50 a small amount of 2,000?

Q. Yeah.

A. Yeah.

Q. Okay. And sample number 52, the Bundy drop, you were able -- 52 -- able to
test that to see approximately how much DNA was there before you did the RFLP
test?

A. We did some test that give you an indication of amounts of DNA, yes.

Q. And for 52, it was a very small amount; wasn't it?

A. Actually 52 is in such a small amount.

Q. What was your estimate in terms of nanograms?

A. The estimate, when you go back and you look at how much -- how much you get
on the tests that's designed to do this, you come up with about 200, 250
nanograms in that -- in that sample.

Q. Now, you also did, on the other Bundy drops, you did a similar analysis to
try and find out how much DNA was in the other Bundy drops, correct?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. And do you -- that by means of a test called a slot blot?

A. That's right.

Q. We don't have to understand how that works. They just have a way of
measuring quantities, correct?

A. That's a way of --

Q. Estimate?

A. -- Estimating how much human DNA you have present.

Q. And you did that for item 47, which was the first Bundy drop and you didn't
find any human DNA, did you.

(Pause for witness to review documents.)

A. You just asked me about 47.

Q. Correct.

A. That's right. We did not. On that slot blot test, we're not detecting any
DNA.

Q. And isn't it true that for all of the other Bundy drops, other than 52, and
47 which has none that you detected, the amounts were extremely small?

A. For the other Bundy drops, the amounts were in the range of 50 and less.

Q. And some of them were down. One of them was like 1.8 nanograms,
approximately. These are rough estimates; aren't they?

A. I actually have redone these estimates and I can't remember where I put the
paper where I wrote those down right this second. But there were estimates in
the range of 55. I don't remember if there's one, one specifically at 1.8. That
wouldn't surprise me.

Q. We're talking about small amounts on the Bundy drops with the exception of
52?

A. With the exception of 52.

Q. Which is a small amount of RFLP. It was enough to get a result.

A. Yes.

Q. And the kit that you use for taking DQ Alpha testing is warranted to amounts
no smaller than 2 nanograms, correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant. It's all been admitted.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: What grounds?

THE COURT: What's the relevance of the warranty?

MR. BLASIER: If their using amounts less than what the test is warranted for,
that's relevant.

MR. LAMBERT: It's been admitted.

MR. BLASIER: What's been admitted?

THE COURT: Is there a request for admissions?

MR. BLASIER: This goes to it's weight.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. BLASIER: This goes to it's weight.

THE COURT: You said you were going to develop some numbers. Fine, develop the
numbers. I don't think it would go to the warranty of the testing.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Did you follow the instructions in the manual that comes
with the kit with respect to the minimum quantities that it's warranted for?

A. No, we don't.

MR. LAMBERT: Same objection, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now I'm going ask you a couple questions about
accreditation. There is -- there's an organization in the country that
evaluates forensic labs, crime labs to accredit them?

A. Yes.

Q. What's the name of that organization?

A. It's the American Society of Crime Laboratories, Crime Laboratory Directors
Laboratory Accreditation Board.

Q. And there's a fairly complicated process that you have to go through to show
that your lab is up to speed in terms of following all the required protocols
and doing good work before you can be accredited, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And your lab is accredited; is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. In fact, it's one of the very few. There's only five in the country that's
accredited?

A. There are many labs in the country, but we are the only private lab in the
country that's currently accredited.

Q. Police Department SID lab is not?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, you indicated when you were talking about your
background that you have some connection to the Association of Blood Banks I
think you said.

A. American Association of Blood Banks.

Q. And so you're familiar with the way blood banks do their jobs, correct?

A. Actually, I'm not at all familiar with the way blood banks do their jobs.

Q. Are you familiar with the proficiency testing that is used in that industry?

A. Only as it applies to paternity testing.

Q. Okay.

Now, proficiency testing is a way to kind of monitor yourself to see how well
your people are doing, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the form of proficiency testing that is the most desirable in terms of
giving you the most helpful information is called external blind proficiency
testing, correct?

A. That's one form of testing, but I don't agree that it's necessarily the most
desirable.

Q. Well, that's external, means somebody other than you makes up the test,
right?

A. Yes.

Q. And blind means you don't know you're being tested, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And there are lots of studies that show that if you know you're being
tested, you may perform differently than when you don't know you're being
tested.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Lack of foundation, irrelevant, outside the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled. Direct examination inquired about proficiency tests.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Would you agree with that?

A. I don't know about the proficiency tests that are done in DNA typing labs. I
don't know anything about studies that may be done about what kind of
proficiency tests show what --

Q. Isn't that -- your in charge of all the people that work in your lab, aren't
you?

A. Yes. Of course, I am.

Q. Isn't that something that you would want to be familiar with?

A. The area of proficiency test in general, and whether they are blind or not
blind and how that mentally affects the person that is taking them, is outside
my area of expertise.

Q. So you don't care about that?

A. I didn't say that.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative.

MR. BLASIER: You don't monitor any studies about that?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You're not subjected to external blind proficiency testing,
are you?

A. We are not. I don't know any lab that is.

Q. External blind proficiency testing is used all the time within the medical
field, with blood banks, that sort of thing; isn't it?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Beyond the scope, irrelevant.

THE COURT: That's irrelevant.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now Mr. Lambert asked you about a couple of proficiency
tests that you -- that you took. One was in 1988 and that was put on by the
California Association of Crime Lab Directors, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And in that test you were given, your people knew they were being tested,
correct?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. And you were given 44 different samples, correct?

A. 49.

Q. 49? And you had one error, one false positive out of 49, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that error was a, what's called, a "false positive," correct?

A. It was an incorrect match.

Q. In other words, if that had been a forensic sample, you would have said the
sample matched the suspect and you would have been wrong, correct?

A. That's right.

Q. And what was the frequency when you applied your formula to that one test
that you got wrong? What was the frequency that your match revealed, using your
statistics?

A. I have no idea.

Q. It was 1 and 1.8 billion people; wasn't it, Dr. Cotton?

A. Mr. Blasier, I have not reviewed those numbers in many years and I do not
know what the number is.

Q. Would you like to review that study? It was a very rare number; wasn't it?

A. Any RFLP match is generally a rare number. I'm sure there was a number and
I'm sure it wasn't a common one.

Q. And it was wrong, correct?

A. Well, the number was okay but the match was wrong.

Q. It doesn't come from the two samples -- didn't come from the same person?

A. It's numbers are saying how common that pattern was that we had. What was
important was that the match was not correct.

Q. So the number says nothing about the accuracy of the test that you're doing,
does it?

A. It doesn't tell you whether that match is correct --

Q. Thank you.

A. -- No.

Q. Now, you made some changes in your procedure as a result of that error, did
you not?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. And what procedure did you change?

A. We changed our labeling procedure and we bought an additional piece of
equipment that allowed us to handle large samples, physically large stains.

Q. And you were able to determine, were you not, that what happened in that
particular test is somebody mixed up a sample and you didn't know, correct?

A. Somebody mixed up two twos which were portions of a sample, yes.

Q. And now, as a result of that error, you don't want to have that error occur
again. So you now have two people witness. Every time you put a sample from one
tube to another, you have two people witness it?

A. That was in place at the time. So that's why we changed our labeling
procedures.

Q. So there were two people looking at it?

A. That's right.

Q. Now, in 1989 you were tested again by the same organization, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that one had 50 samples, correct?

A. That's right.

Q. And you made one false positive in that test as well, correct?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. One out of 50, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you made changes in your procedures as a result of that, correct?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. What changes did you make?

A. We changed the procedure so that the DNA extraction from the evidence
samples was done at a separate time as any of the known standards so that they
were not handled for DNA extraction at the same time.

Q. And by known samples, you're talking about such things as reference samples
from a suspect or from a victim?

A. That's exactly what I mean.

Q. That's because a reference sample from a suspect or victim is blood that
might come from the person's arm or from an autopsy that's rich in DNA,
correct?

A. Well, it didn't. It didn't have anything to do with whether it was rich in
DNA. It had to do with -- if you didn't have them out at the same time in the
same location, side by side, you couldn't mix them up.

Q. But the problem is because you've got so much DNA in a reference sample,
very tiny amount of it, if it gets into your evidence, which may be a small
amount to start with, is going to compromise your results; isn't it?

A. Of course.

Q. So you now don't do your reference samples at the same time and place as
your evidence, do you?

A. That's right.

Q. LAPD does it the opposite way?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant, no foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, in your first two years on those two tests, you got
two errors out of roughly 100 or 1 in 50?

A. Yes.

Q. There's a concept in DNA forensic technology known as error rates, correct?

A. I'm sure you could apply that concept to anything, not just DNA.

Q. Sure. And error rates refers to how often does a lab make a mistake?

A. Yes.

Q. And one way to measure that is with these kind of proficiency tests to
determine how often do you screw it up, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And in these two years, in the two tests that your lab took, you screwed it
up once every 50 times, right?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. You in those --

Q. Those two tests?

A. In those two tests, we have 2 errors. That comes down to a fraction of 1 in
50. That doesn't say anything about all the other work that was done in the lab
during those two years.

Q. Right. You don't know one way or another when you made a mistake.

And you can assign a number to that, it's called an error rate. Is -- there's a
lot of controversy about how you do this; isn't there?

A. Yes, there is.

Q. But if you -- if you have error rates in the neighborhood of 1 in 50 or 1 in
1000; isn't that a much more significant figure than 1 in 530 billion?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained. You can argue that to the jury.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Doctor, You use, in your procedure, you use for PCR tests
what's called a laminar flow hood, correct?

A. Yes, we do.

Q. And that is a device -- it's kind of like a work station that has a fan that
creates a wall of air that circulates from the bottom to the top, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And it allows your sample to be inside this wall of air and you kind of put
your hands through the wall of air to work on it?

A. Right.

Q. And the purpose of that is to keep possible contaminants from the outside
coming in to your sample or contaminants from your sample going to the outside,
correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that's considered to be required, correct?

A. No.

Q. That -- it's good practice; isn't it?

A. It's a very good practice but there are many labs who do not have laminar
flow hoods who do perfectly acceptable work. You just have to have another
precaution to be clean.

Q. It's a procedure that you feel is necessary in your lab, correct?

A. We had the hoods and we use them. If we didn't have them, we would have to
do something else.

Q. Now, you also require, when you do testing, that you change the paper on the
bench from one sample to the next, correct?

A. Paper inside the laminar flow hood.

Q. No. I'm talking about when you were working with evidence samples on a work
bench.

A. When we're working with evidence samples on a work bench, you might -- you
would put a clean piece down and then when you're done with that sample, you
would put another piece down.

Q. That's because you know, particularly with dried blood stains, for instance,
there can be flaking. You can get very tiny flecks of something from an
evidence sample. You might not see it and you want to protect against that
contaminating the next piece of evidence.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. All irrelevant in light of the admissions.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BLASIER: It goes to the weight, Your Honor. This is a procedure that they
described.

THE COURT: Well, I'm having a little problem with respect to your request for
admissions and this course of examination. Didn't seem to have any relevance at
all.

MR. BLASIER: The procedure that the lab used doesn't have any relevance?

THE COURT: You stipulated to the results.

MR. BLASIER: I'm talking about the procedure they used by which they got the
results.

MR. BAKER: We stipulated to the numbers, not how they got the numbers.

THE COURT: Well, your argument was that the meaning of the results are
debatable in terms of when windows of errors, et cetera; not as to the results.

MR. BLASIER: This is a completely different area, Your Honor.

THE COURT: No. I sustained the objection.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Do you wipe down the area that you work with samples with
bleach between each sample?

MR. LAMBERT: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Now, you testified on direct that you processed some of the
control or substrate controls sent to you by LAPD, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Those substrate controls, by the way, you didn't process a substrate control
for every -- for every sample, did you?

A. No. We don't have all the substrate controls.

Q. In fact, when LAPD sent them to you, they had been separated from the
evidence samples and they didn't even send you the substrate controls. You
asked for them, correct?

A. Well, actually none of what you said is correct. We didn't ask for them.

Q. They weren't sent at the same time, were they?

A. They weren't sent at the same time and we simply analyzed the samples that
were sent to us. We didn't request any particular samples.

Q. Now, when you prepare bindles from samples, you know what a bindle is?

A. The little wax paper thing.

Q. Yeah. You always put your initials on it, don't you?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant, outside the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer yes or no.

THE WITNESS: Well, nobody in my lab is preparing any bindles. We're opening
bindles, but we're not preparing them, since we're not ever getting evidence as
it comes in directly from the crime scene.

So when we open things, when we close them up, we put our initials on the outer
packaging, not on the immediate thing that the evidence is contained in.

Q. Okay.

THE COURT: Mr --

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) The unbindled drops you got from LAPD --

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: The scintillating examination is having an affect on our jurors.

MR. BLASIER: Well --

THE COURT: I -- one of them. So I think we better take a recess. Okay. Ten
minutes, please.

(Recess.)

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

MR. BAKER: May we approach?

THE COURT: Yes.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench:)

MR. BAKER: Your Honor, juror 15 was asleep through most of this case.

THE COURT: She has -- I had -- I have to admit that.

MR. BAKER: I would appreciate it if the Court -- I know that it isn't
intentional, but when you say something in cross-examination --

THE COURT: I'm sorry. It was a joke and I apologize.

MR. BAKER: I understand. You were very attentive to her on direct and overruled
one of our objections on her direct.

It was very clear to anyone watching you that you were very attentive to her on
direct, and then to say that, I know it wasn't intentional, but I would sure
appreciate it if we could not have that.

I agree to stipulate to dismiss juror number 15 from the panel. I think she has
been asleep throughout a long period of this trial.

MR. PETROCELLI: We don't agree.

MR. BAKER: I would request the Court to remove her from the trial.

Let me just finish that. She has been asleep through major portions and, of
course, I'm glad that she got to sleep -- to sleep through the plaintiffs'
case.

MR. PETROCELLI: I would ask if Your Honor wants to say something to her, that's
fine. There's no cause to dismiss her right now. Also to --

THE COURT: I am quite troubled with her sleeping through. She seems to have
some sort of metabolic problem that causes her to have an inability to stay
awake.

MR. PETROCELLI: Can you speak to her?

THE COURT: What good is speaking to her. She missed already, quite a bit of the
-- bit of the testimony.

MR. PETROCELLI: Do we know if she missed, Your Honor. Let's see what she's
missed, question her about it.

MR. BAKER: How do you question somebody about what they missed? It's like
talking about a negative. But I'll leave that to the Court's discretion

I think we have plenty of alternates right now and this is one who really, if
she were to move to the regular panel, I would object to it just because she's
been kind of heavy lided throughout most of the proceedings so far.

MR. PETROCELLI: The juror in the top corner sleeps a lot too.

MR. BAKER: I noticed that.

MR. PETROCELLI: On the panel, number 7, number 7, she's sleeping quite a bit.

MR. BREWER: Very often.

MR. PETROCELLI: I don't think it's any different than that alternate.

MR. BAKER: Okay.

THE COURT: I'll keep a further eye on her. If I find that she is attempting to
sleep, I will reconsider that.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.

THE COURT: Mr. Blasier if you want, I'll make an apology to you before the
jury. I didn't mean to demean your examination. I think what I meant to say was
the whole topic was --

MR. BLASIER: I would appreciate it.

THE COURT: Not exactly scintillating in terms of juror interest.

MR. LAMBERT: Can I reiterate one other point? I would ask that Mr. Blasier be
instructed to ask no more of these questions about, did the LAPD do that or did
the LAPD do this. All the objections have been sustained. He should stop asking
the questions.

THE COURT: Well, I think my rulings in that regard -- and I think it would be
helpful if you don't ask questions.

MR. PETROCELLI: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Bring the jury in.

THE BAILIFF: Jury panel walking in.

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

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

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, before Mr. Blasier continues, I want to
apologize to Mr.'Blasier for referring to the examination as scintillating and
having an effect on the jury.

Numbers are a very important part of the defense in this case, from the defense
point of view. And so, the fact that the numbers tend to be dry sometimes, and
may have an affect on some of you, jurors should not detract from the
importance of the case and I should not have referred to Mr. Blasier's
examination as scintillating. But that's the nature of the subject matter and I
do apologize for that.

Now, if you get drowsy, please let me know. You know, he didn't want to spend
all of his effort in this examination to have it wasted on you if you're not
able to pay attention.

It's very important that you do pay attention. And if you find that you're
drifting off, let me know. There's no reason why you should be embarrassed to
let me know because it's important that you all pay attention. So raise you
hand or do something. Okay.

Also, I have to be looking at you and everybody else in this courtroom is
looking at you, so you know, if you -- if you feel you concentrate by closing
your eyes or something like that, have some second thoughts about that because
everybody's going to be thinking your drowsing off. All right.

(Laughter.)

THE COURT: You may proceed.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you.

Q. Dr. Cotton, the tests that are done in forensic applications of DNA
applications are very complicated, aren't they?

A. Yes.

Q. We're just really touching the surface of a lot of this, aren't we?

A. We are.

Q. And if we wanted to get really technical, we could go on for days, couldn't
we?

A. I'm sure we could.

Q. We won't do that.

A. Okay.

THE COURT: Thank you.

(Laughter.)

MR. BLASIER: Thank me.

When you got evidence sent to you by LAPD what -- particularly the Bundy drops,
it was in the form of swatches, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. In bindles, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. None of those bindles that you got from the Bundy drops had Andrea Mazzola's
initials on them?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Not to my recollection.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Okay.

Thank you. I need a new number, please, 2185?

THE CLERK: Correct.

(The instrument herein referred to as DNA "DQ Alpha Strips" was marked for
identification as Defendants' Exhibit No. 2185.)

Q. Doctor, the dots we haven't talked yet about. We've looked at Autorads, but
we haven't talked about -- right there for now. We haven't really talked about
what a PCR test result looks like.

Isn't it correct that with PCR test, you don't get something that looks like an
Autorad, you get something called a testing strip that has dots on it?

A. That's correct for PM and DQ Alpha.

THE COURT: Excuse me. It was clearer when you first -- when you first put it
on.

MR. P. BAKER: Somebody touched the button.

MR. BAKER: You ought to see our family photo album.

(Laughter.)

THE COURT: Mr. Petrocelli, could you have your tech help him.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay. Your Honor, bail him out, Steve.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) We'll zoom in so you can see it better. I just want to
just, very briefly, go over how you look at results from a PCR, DQ Alpha test.
These happen to be DQ Alpha strips, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the dots, of course, they have little numbers next to them which
correspond to the alleles that you're looking for, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And again, the allele, that's just all we're talking about, is a piece of
DNA at a particular location on a chromosome, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And we get one of those from dad and one from mom?

A. Yes.

Q. And sometimes we might get the same one from mom the same one from dad, in
which case our type would be 1.1, 1.1 correct?

A. Right.

Q. In fact, Nicole Brown Simpson is a 1.1, 1.1, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So that the dots that would light up would be the ones that would correspond
to the 1.1, correct?

A. Right.

Q. And --

A. Well, and you have --

Q. There's a dot?

A. There's another dot you can't see on your blow-up there.

Q. We'll talk about that in a second, yeah. Can you back it out. There's a 1
here too?

A. Right.

Q. So a 1.1 would light up this dot and this dot, and there's another column at
the far right that says all but 1.3 and that lights up when you get any allele
that's different from 1.3, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So 1.1, 1.1 would light up those three dots?

A. Yes.

Q. This happens to be, if we back out a little bit so Dr. Cotton can look at
this. This is a DOJDQ Alpha testing strip and it includes item number 29.

Stop.

Let's zoom in on the number, I mean, on the label here. Okay.

See that, Doctor, LAPD number 29?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And that's the stain that was found on the steering wheel of the Bronco,
correct?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. That Mr. Lambert asked you about?

A. Yes, that's right.

Q. And you performed a similar test to this on the same stain, correct?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. And I'm going to slide this over a little bit.

We can see -- let's zoom in on the 4 right there. There is a faint dot at the
4, correct?

A. Can I come down and look at this?

Q. Sure.

A. Actually, Yes, I think I see one there.

Q. Sometime it's really hard to see these dots.

A. Well, it would actually be better if we --I were looking at the photo
itself.

Q. But your test results, the board lit up?

A. That's right.

(Referring to view screen.)

Q. Somehow, before you made it bigger.

Let's back off a little bit. That's better.

That tells you there is a 4 allele in that sample, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you ruled out Mr. Gold -- ruled out Mr. Goldman from this sample
because he is a 1.3 and there is no dot at the 1.3, correct?

A. Well, I don't know about this strip but we didn't get a dot at the 1.3.

Q. That tells you that Mr. Goldman's DNA wouldn't be there, correct, as far as
the test results?

A. We couldn't detect it, yes.

Q. Well, are you saying, Doctor --

A. Well, I'm saying exactly what you alluded to earlier. There's a specific
level of detection. And if you don't see something, doesn't necessarily -- that
just means you can't see it. So we didn't see it. And therefore, based on what
we saw, we ruled out that he was there.

Q. Are you saying, Doctor, that this test in some instances you have, can have
DNA in there that won't show-up?

A. Of course.

Q. That's not a particularly good test; is it?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: This is a very good test. I can't think of any test that you could
do that doesn't have some limit to what you can detect. And this has a limit to
what you can detect, like every other DNA test that I'm aware of.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You can have somebody else's DNA in here and not know it
from this test, correct? Small amounts?

A. That would be true of every DNA test.

Q. And would you also agree with me that from this test result on number 29,
there is a contributor to this sample that is someone other than either of the
victims or O.J. Simpson?

A. I wouldn't agree. I don't think -- I think that would be an over statement
of the data. All that you can really say is that there is another person here
and.

Q. Let me --

A. You can't say anything about who it is or isn't because the data that tells
you that another person is there, is very faint. And it's in our test, it was
below the control dot. So that tells you that it's not necessarily a reliable
result.

What that means when it's below the control dot is there could be some other
alleles there and you may or may not be seeing them. So all you can say is
there's another person. There are two people in this -- in this DNA and --

Q. There could be three people?

A. Oh, yeah, sure. Sure.

Q. There could be four people?

A. Oh, yeah, sure. I didn't really state that well.

Q. And this result is consistent with somebody being in there that's a type 4,
4, correct?

A. Well, that's what I'm saying is, I don't think that that's an accurate
interpretation. It's consistent with somebody being in there who has a four.
And we may -- they may be a 4, 4 or they may be a 4 something else and we may
not be seeing what that something else is. So to just say it's a second person
or a another person with a 4, 4 would be an over statement of the results.

Q. So -- well, let's just look at the dots that are there for a moment. Okay?

They're consistent with someone who's a 4, 4, right, being in that sample?

A. That's one interpretation that you could make, yes.

Q. And that doesn't match Mr. Goldman, Ms. Brown Simpson or O.J. Simpson, does
it?

A. That's right. If that was -- if that's the scenario that there's a person
with a 4, 4, then that can't be any of those people.

Q. And there could also be a 4 -- I mean a 1.1 and a 4, couldn't there?

A. Yes.

Q. That doesn't match any of the three people, does it?

A. It -- That's right.

Q. That would have to come from somebody unidentified?

A. Of course.

Q. Now, would you agree that there is certainly a fair amount of subjectivity
that goes into interpreting these kind of strips in testimony of whether there
are dots there or not and how strong they are and how weak they are?

A. Yes, there is.

Q. And isn't it true that one examiner might interpret that same data
differently from the way you've interpreted it?

A. That's possible.

Q. And that's not particularly good for a forensic test, is it?

Do you prefer to have tests where the data -- where the same data is
interpreted the same way, wouldn't you?

A. You would always prefer to have your test results be consistently
interpreted but there are certainly always, with RFLP and PCR, going to be some
variation in interpretations.

Q. And the numbers 1 in 530 billion don't take that into account?

A. No. They're just the frequency group.

Q. Estimated frequency of the group?

A. Estimated frequency of the group.

Q. Doctor, I asked you to locate the polymarker testing strip for the reference
samples. Were you able to do that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Do you have Nicole Brown Simpson?

A. Yes.

Q. You have the GC locus there?

A. Yes.

Q. Let me borrow this. I'll give it back to you at the end.

Let me ask you--

Let's do it this way.

This is civil 1275.

(The instrument herein referred to as a chart entitled "Testing Results NBS and
RG Reference Samples" was marked for identification as Defendants' Exhibit No.
1275.)

Q. Obviously, you have to look at reference samples so you can compare your
evidence to the people, right?

A. Sure.

Q. And the reference samples that you use, supposedly come from the people you
know -- you know they come from and presumably it's a pretty good DNA, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you wouldn't expect to see evidence of more than one person in a
reference sample, would you?

A. No.

Q. Isn't it true, that when you were -- you ran Nicole Brown Simpson's
reference sample, this is supposedly blood from her autopsy, in the GC system
you found evidence of a B allele? The B lit up, didn't it?

A. Just faintly.

Q. Thank you, Doctor?

A. I'm looking puzzled 'cause I don't -- I don't understand why you're pointing
to the chart. It doesn't --

Q. Actually, I'm only pointing to this.

As far as you're concerned, you found a faint B in her reference sample, did
you not?

A. Yes, a GC. She's a type AC and there is a very faint B.

Q. She doesn't have a B, does she?

A. No, that's --

Q. O.J. Simpson has a B, doesn't he?

A. Yes. But that's not . . .

Q. Thank you, Doctor.

MR. LAMBERT: Could she complete her answer?

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Your reference sample should be the complete answer --

THE COURT: You can get her on redirect.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) -- Shouldn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. If everything's done properly, it shouldn't be contaminated.

MR. KELLY: Your Honor, I object and ask she be allowed to answer.

THE WITNESS: There's no indication that this is not a perfectly clean sample.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Oh. So you have evidence of somebody else's DNA in her
reference sample?

A. I don't think anybody else's DNA is in her reference sample. I think that
faint B is there because there's a fair amount of DNA in that sample and that
is a typical -- The correct term is cross-hybridization. That's a typical thing
that can be seen. When you have a fair amount of DNA in a reference sample, you
might have another dot lighting up just faintly.

Q. Are you saying, Doctor, in that test sometimes you have a dot light up and
it isn't DNA, right?

A. I didn't say it wasn't DNA. I said it was due to cross-hybridization.

Q. If the test is done properly, you shouldn't get cross-hybridization, should
you?

A. That's not correct.

Q. You're talking about a dot lighting up that is DNA or type of DNA that
shouldn't be there, correct?

A. What I'm saying is that the fact that there is this faint B, would you --
would you be incorrect to immediately jump to the assumption that there is any
contamination in that sample because there are much more common technical
problems that can cause that faint B that have nothing to do with contamination
of a sample.

Q. All right.

So the dot that can show-up, that, you don't attribute to a person's type,
correct?

A. For reference sample, yes.

Q. And for any sample, you get 1.3's a lot, don't you that you say this isn't
really a real dot we're just going to --

A. No. We don't do that. We write down exactly what we see on our records. We
write down in our records, there's a faint B here. Then you go through and
interpreting that, and is that meaningful; and what do you know about the test;
and have you seen this before and has -- Is this reproducible?

You see it in other reference samples where you have a GC type AC and you do.
And so you could -- there are two causes. One is it's a -- it's an artifact of
cross-hybridization and it's typically seen. And the other explanation is what
you were proposing; that is contamination.

Those two explanations have to be considered and there is no way to definitely
tell one from the other.

Q. All right. Artifact means something appearing real that isn't, correct?

A. That's not too bad a definition. I don't think I can come up with a better
one right this second.

Q. So that dot can be explained one of two ways. Either it's contamination or
it's a dot that appears real, but isn't?

A. Well --

Q. Right?

A. It's real. It's there and there's a real reason why that can happen. And
it's a common reason why that can happen. So the dot's real. The color's real.

It isn't -- it's part of the fact that you're asking, you're doing a DNA test
and every DNA test does not necessarily give you an absolutely tidy clean
result every single time.

Q. And your figures that you come up with in frequencies don't take that into
account either, do they, Doctor?

A. I think I've agreed with you, many times, the frequencies only tell you how
common or rare this group of traits is.

Q. Now I want to ask you about fingernail scrapings.

You did some DNA tests on Nicole Brown Simpson fingernail scrapings, correct?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. Now, fingernail scrapings, when you scrape something from under a person's
fingernails you're going to get more than just blood if there's blood there.
You're going to get skin tissue. You can get dead cells. You can get all sorts
of things, sort of biological material, correct?

A. Sure.

Q. And that constellation of biological material all has DNA in it; isn't --
doesn't it?

A. It's biological material, it will, yes.

Q. And your RFLP test or whatever test you run on an DNA test, doesn't
distinguish whether it's blood that you're looking at or tissue, does it?

A. That's correct.

Q. So isn't it true, that you would always expect, when you take scrapings
under a finger -- person's fingernails and did a DNA test on it, you would
expect to see their, find their DNA under there?

A. Sure.

Q. That's not unusual at all; is it?

A. No, it's not.

Q. Now, if you found evidence of blood that -- let me rephrase that.

Red blood cells are tested for a genetic marker known as EAP, correct.

A. Yes.

Q. That's different from what you're looking at with your DNA test?

A. Correct.

Q. And if you had evidence of blood under those fingernails with an EAP type,
different from Nicole Brown Simpson, that would indicate blood under there from
a different person?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Hypothetical.

A. Yes, it could.

Q. Okay. The fact that her DNA is there from blood tissue, whatever, is not
unusual in and of itself, correct?

A. No, that -- we see that a lot.

Q. Okay.

Now, the sock stain that you testified about, that had a lot of DNA in it, did
it?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you come up with an estimate of the quantity on that? It had over a
thousand, didn't it -- thousand nanograms?

A. I know that we did an estimate. I haven't looked at that, so I don't know
how much it had. Well, besides, I don't know if we got everything that there
was.

Q. What you got had a lot, didn't it?

A. Yeah, it did.

Q. Much more than any other sample in the case, didn't it?

A. I can't answer that without going into my notes and figuring that out.

Q. Well, I don't want you to take time to do that. Do you remember any stain
that had more DNA than that one?

A. I can't answer it, may have had the same amount as in the Rockingham blood
drop. I mean, I can't answer that without going into my notes and doing the
calculation and then telling you.

Q. Now, the Autorad we looked at had one lane for Nicole Brown Simpson and one
lane for the sock, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And the lane for Nicole Brown Simpson was from reference blood?

A. Yes.

Q. You indicated that a reference sample for -- might not necessarily be always
clean, right?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Misstates the evidence.

THE COURT: I think that does. You may rephrase it.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) When you were talking about Ms. Brown Simpson's blood
before, you said that you wouldn't always necessarily expect to have a
completely clean sample, right?

A. I don't remember if I said that. What do you mean by clean?

Q. Well, the lane that's on there is from her reference sample which is the
same reference sample that we already talked about, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. That's the B allele, whatever it's caused by shows-up?

A. Yes.

Q. And the lane that's on there for the sock, that can be -- you have no way of
knowing the source of the blood on -- or how that blood got on that sock, do
you?

A. Of course, not.

Q. Okay.

And blood can be taken from a reference file and put on a piece of cloth and
wiped on a sock and you can get a test result, correct?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Misstates the evidence.
Improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled. Hypothetical.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Correct?

A. So are you asking me, could someone take some blood and wipe it on a sock
and then you would get a type?

Q. Yes.

A. Sure.

Q. Or you could take some blood and wipe it on a cotton swatch and then wipe it
on a sock, couldn't you?

A. That would be harder, but, yes, you could.

Q. There are all sort of ways you could do that; aren't there?

A. Sure.

Q. You can't tell from the intensity of the lanes on that Autorad where that
blood came from, can you?

Whether it came from a reference tube or a wound, can you?

A. No, I do think you can make some conclusions about whether it came from the
reference tube, from the patterns, from the degradation in the two patterns in
that film.

Q. You said there wasn't much degradation, didn't you?

A. I said there's virtually little to no degradation.

Q. Thank you.

A. That had been made from sock.

Q. It's very clean?

A. It's very clean.

Q. Reference samples are very clean, usually, aren't they?

A. This one is not in terms of degradation.

Q. Now, I want to talk about the formula that you used to get these big numbers
called the product rule, correct?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And again, the estimates of frequencies from populations of how frequently
you might see a particular banding pattern from a particular population,
correct?

A. That's right.

Q. Now, you don't actually go out like for your 1 and 530 billion there aren't
530 billion people in the world.

A. I don't think so.

Q. You don't go out and measure that many people, do you?

A. Obviously not.

Q. By the way, the number that you give is not a number, that's the probability
of guilt; is it?

A. Of course, not.

Q. It's not even the probability that someone other than Mr. Simpson is the
source of the stain; is it?

A. No. It's just simply how often you would expect to find this particular
group of genetic characteristics.

Q. Isn't it correctly stated that as the chance if you went out and picked
somebody in the world at random, the chance that they would have the same
pattern?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, since you can't measure everybody in the world, you have to take a
sample of people, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, there's an issue, when you're talking about comparing a band from one
part of the DNA, one allele to another allele from the same person's DNA as to
whether there's any relationship between the two, correct?

Do you know what I'm getting at?

A. No. Try it again.

Q. Okay. Let me use analogy.

If you were concerned about trying to figure out how many people in the
Norwegian population had both blond hair and blue eyes, you could go and count
the number of people that have blue eyes and find out what percentage that is,
find out what percentage the people with blond hair is. But it would be
inappropriate to multiply those two numbers together, wouldn't it?

A. For the two traits that you're talking about, possibly that's true.

Q. That's because there's some connection between the two?

A. That's right.

Q. And the rule that you use, it's called the product rule, and all of these
calculations assumes that there is no relationship between those two fragments
in a given person's DNA, correct?

A. Right. It means that if you have type A, that you're not anymore or less
likely to have as your second type an A or a B or a C, for that matter or
whatever.

Q. And there's been a substantial controversy among scientists in the last five
or six years about whether that's true or not with these kinds of testings,
haven't there?

A. There's been a lot of discussion about it but I think that controversy, as
you phrase it, is pretty much settled.

Q. Doctor. You've been testifying in the last five years about this
controversy, have you not?

That's primarily when you testify. It's in hearings about that controversy;
isn't it?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative, irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. I testified many times about this, but that's not the primary focus of most
of the testimony. But yes, of course, I've testified a number of times.

Q. Now,

A. About that tissue.

Q. The field of discipline that we're talking about here are molecular biology,
population genetics and statistics, right, theories, the kind of three areas
that you borrow expertise from to do these calculations?

A. That's right.

Q. And to -- so in order to use this product rule, when you're talking about
multiplying frequencies together, it doesn't work if there's a relationship
between one band on a person and another band?

A. Right. The genetic characteristics have to be inherited independently.

Q. Okay.

A. That would be the correct term.

Q. Now, there's another thing going on here as well, is there not?

That is, that you can only sample a certain number of people by which to get
frequencies from. For instance, if you counted up in a group of Norwegian
people, how many people had blond hair and blue eyes, let say you got a figure
of 50 percent, it would not be appropriate to say therefore, 50 percent of the
Caucasian population all over the world is going to be half blond hair, blue
eyed, correct?

A. No. That might be a good figure for Norway, but it wouldn't necessarily be a
good figure for everywhere else.

Q. That's because groups of people in different locations, in different ethnics
sorts, have different characteristics, don't they?

A. Yes.

Q. And one of the major issues that has been the subject of testimony in
scientific discussion in this field is whether or not the groups that you use
to come up with these large numbers are really representative of the whole
group of people, correct?

A. That's right.

Q. And that's the issue. There is called substructure, population substructure,
correct?

A. That's one thing. That's part of that issue and the issue is more
specifically by the groups that you have representative of other groups. For
our purposes, would be -- are they representative of other groups in the United
States. We don't need to worry about the whole world, but we do want to worry
about, are they're representative of people in the United States.

Q. Okay. Doctor, now for item number 12, where you gave us a number 1 and 1.2
billion, by the way, is that the African American data base or do you know?

A. I don't believe so. Would you like me to just pull the result report?

Q. Sure.

A. Yes, it's not.

Q. Okay. For African persons, what's the frequency number for that sample?

A. 1 in 170 million.

Q. So that figure of 1 in 170 million is based on how many people that you
tested?

A. About 200.

Q. 200?

A. Yes.

Q. And for that five probe match, how many African persons were tested at all
by probes?

A. Very few.

Q. Two, correct?

A. Not sure if that's correct, but it's very few, so could be two, could be
ten, but nonetheless, all that qualifies as not very many.

Q. That's the underlying data from which you get a number from 1 in 170
million, correct?

A. Yes, it is.

MR. BLASIER: I have no further questions.

THE COURT: Anything further?

MR. LAMBERT: Yes, Your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:

Q. Dr. Cotton, I'd like to touch on a few of the topics that Mr. Blasier talked
about on cross-examination.

First he talked a little bit about the fact that he tried to give you this
example of making the DNA big enough to go all the way around the world.
Remember that example?

A. Yes.

Q. It's not that big?

A. No.

Q. It's much smaller than that?

A. Yes.

Q. And of those -- I think he said 3, is it 3 billion base pairs that are in a
DNA strand?

A. 6 billion.

Q. 6 billion in the DNA strand?

A. In the whole nucleus, all the chromosomes comes to about 6 billion. That
again is an estimate.

Q. And of all that DNA, I think you testified previously that some percentage
of it is common to all of us?

A. At least 99 percent is common to all of us.

Q. So there would be no reason to test any of that DNA that's common to all of
us, would there?

A. No. That wouldn't tell you anything.

Q. So what you test is the portion of the DNA that's unique from person to
person?

A. That's right.

Q. So there's no reason to try to test this long strand of DNA, but rather
focus your tests on the portion that is unique; is that right?

A. If you're asking a question about identification, then you only want to
bother to test those portions that are different from one person to the next.

Q. And therefore in these RFLP probes, you've been talking about where I forget
how many base pairs you said you tested in the RFLP probes, each one of them
was about how many?

A. Well, the average is going to be maybe 8 or 10,000. But even so, even if you
added up all the number of base pairs that you're testing, you're still testing
a very small amount, even of the part that's different. But you're testing the
part that's giving you an enormous amount of information.

Q. And the tests are described, designed and focus on areas where you can
gather a lot of information about identity?

A. Yes.

Q. And these same tests, Doctor, are used medically as well?

A. Yes, they are.

Q. And for what kind of medical reasons are they used?

A. Let me give you two examples that are connected, tissue transplantation, if
somebody is looking for a kidney or a liver or a heart. Those tests are looking
at particular parts of the DNA and those tests are generally done using PCR and
not too different from what we're talking about here.

In cases of bone marrow transplants where you have a person who's ill, they're
getting the transplant and you have a donor of the transplant, those people may
be related because they're related.

It's harder to tell them apart, even with their DNA and RFLP testing.

It's typically used to monitor bone marrow transplants to show as -- After the
transplant, as that patient progresses, you can see whether or not that patient
is continuing to make cells that are from the donor, which the -- which is the
outcome that you want, or the patient is going back to making cells from
themselves, which is not the outcome that you want.

And that's done, that monitoring is done over a period of time and it's done
using RFLP testing.

Q. So in this life or death situation of a bone marrow transplant, the same
RFLP test that you've been talking about here today are used?

A. Yes.

Q. There was also some discussion, Doctor, about using these narrow windows to
make a band match judgment. Do you recall that Mr. Blasier asked some questions
about that?

A. Well, yes. He was asking about the window that you use to call a match and
your calling it narrow. He was calling it wide. You use a window that's
appropriate for your system.

Q. And would you describe how that window system is used?

A. Because the procedure that you're using does not allow you to figure out the
exact lengths of the fragment in base pairs, that is, I can't tell you if
something is exactly five thousand on a system that's used here. That's -- the
system doesn't have that technical capability.

If I see a band and the computer imaging system estimates that it's 5,000, it
could be 5,005 or 5,010 or 4,900. And, you know, 80, whatever. So each
laboratory has to run multiple samples to assess how much variation you see in
as a matter of routine.

And then you use that window, that plus or minus figure of how much variation
you see routinely to assess how, whether two fragment size estimates are close
enough to be considered a match.

Q. Is that same system used by all DNA scientists that use the RFLP method?

A. Every lab that I know of that's doing an RFLP testing, we're talking about
50 or so labs, all use some kind of window to know whether or not they're going
to call a match in the same manner that was described earlier.

Q. And is a match called when you just find a match of one band?

A. Well, you do each band individually. You compare one band with the
comparable band and the other sample and you look at those sizes and you decide
whether they're close. You have -- occasionally they're identical, but are they
close enough to be considered a match? And you do that and then you go on, do
all the bands in the pattern.

Q. And for example, in this case, you were looking at bands at five separate
genetic locations; isn't that right?

A. Yeah. There are ten bands altogether.

Q. You look at all of those bands before you declared a match?

A. Yes.

Q. And does using this system that you've described, affect in any way, the
power of the RFLP system and the results that it generates?

A. No. This is part of the RFLP system. This is -- it's something that you have
to understand in order to understand how to do the interpretations. And if you
were to ignore this and ask that every band be identical in size, you would be
ignoring an enormous amount of data and you wouldn't be doing an appropriate
scientific job.

Q. And once again, the same system is a system that's used medically and in
diagnostic areas in a lot of other areas of science besides forensic?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, I want to touch briefly again on this question of item number 29 on the
steering wheel.

First of all, Doctor, would you find it surprising if there was some DNA that
shows up generally on a steering wheel in an automobile?

A. No, I wouldn't be surprised to find that.

Q. Cause someone else could have had a cut on their hand or been perspiring and
left DNA at some other time?

A. Sure.

Q. Secondly, is it your testimony that based upon that little Department of
Justice DQ Alpha type that he showed you, that although there are various
possible combinations, as Blasier pointed out, one scientifically possible
combination is a 1.3, 4, which would match Ronald Goldman?

A. Right. Let me be clear.

Q. Okay.

A. There's a 4 that you can see. It's very, very faint. It's below the control
dot. That means there may be another allele that you can't see and that other
allele that you can't see can be any other allele that that system tests for;
could be a 1.1, a 1.2 so and so on and so on. And it could be a 1.3.

Q. Now, let's go to the polymarker test result that you got on Nicole Brown
Simpson's reference file.

A. Yes.

Q. You -- on that, there was a faint B that lit up at the GC cite. Am I saying
that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. In your professional opinion; is that faint B lighting up the at GC cite a
result of contamination?

A. No.

Q. What is it a result of?

A. In my opinion, it's a result of cross-hybridization.

Q. Is that something that you, as a professional DNA scientist see and are
familiar with?

A. Yes.

Q. So is it a common kind of occurrence?

A. It's a common occurrence. You can see it in our validation studies. You can
see it in work from many other laboratories. You can -- I think it's even
mentioned in the manual that comes with the test.

Q. Finally, Mr. Blasier asked you some questions about the application of the
product rule to the evidence samples in this case.

In your professional judgment was there anything at all improper about using
the product rule in this case?

A. No, there wasn't.

Q. In -- and the sample sizes that the data basis are based upon, are those
statistically proper sample sizes?

A. They are.

Q. The amount of nanograms that were found in some of the evidence samples in
the case, is it unusual to have a relatively low number of nanograms in a crime
scene evidence sample?

A. No, it's -- that's extremely common.

Q. And the PCR test is a test specifically designed to enable you to get
results on low nanograms amounts; isn't that right?

A. Right. That's the whole value of that test is that you can use that test on
samples where you cannot use any other test.

Q. And the reason that the level of nanograms may be low at a crime scene as
opposed to blood taken out of someone's arm is what, Dr. Cotton?

A. I'm assuming that people don't intend to leave bits of themselves.

Q. And the blood found at a crime scene is usually not something that is in a
unique laboratory environment?

A. Of course, not.

MR. LAMBERT: No further questions.

RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. All right.

Let's just talk about the one percent where there's variations. That's 60
million base pairs; isn't it?

A. Yes.

Q. And you only look at extremely small percentage of that, don't you?

A. Yes that's what I just said a few minutes ago.

Q. And the 99 percent, that's the same? That's an estimate too; isn't it?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Now, Mr. Lambert asked you a question that you only look at the portion that
is unique from person to person. That's not correct, is it? You don't look at
the portion that's unique from person to person, do you?

A. Well, you --

Q. That's -- yes or no?

A. No, it's not. I can't answer that yes or no.

Q. The fragment that you look at, are they unique only one person has the
fragment?

A. No. No on these tests, the pieces that we're looking at are not necessarily
unique, but they are.

Q. That's what you use? Go ahead.

A. They are as a group, part of what makes someone unique.

I didn't mean to imply that a PM result for example, was unique to a given
individual and hopefully I haven't given you that impression.

Q. And now, let's talk about medical application transplants. There's a is
substantial difference between forensic use of DNA technology and medical use;
isn't there?

A. There are some differences.

Q. You don't, for transplants, you don't go and scrape something, a piece of
blood off the ground, do you, to analyze it?

A. Presumably that's not how they're getting it.

Q. You always have clean samples and you always know where they came from,
don't you?

A. Actually, you should always have clean samples, yes. And do hospitals
occasionally mix things up, yes.

Q. Okay. And that gets back to error rates, doesn't it?

A. For the hospital, yes.

Q. And errors occur much more frequently than 1 in 530 billion.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Irrelevant.

MR. BLASIER: I'll withdraw it.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) When you're doing bone marrow transplants, you have an
unlimited amount of DNA to work with. You can do multiple tests to see if you
get the same result, correct?

A. I wouldn't say you have unlimited, but you possibly have enough to do
multiple tests.

Q. Okay. You're not estimating a frequency in a population for a bone marrow
transplant? You never do that?

A. There's no need to do that. All you need to do is make sure that the donor
and recipient have different patterns.

Q. So the whole part of this technology that generates these large numbers is
relatively unique to the forensic area; isn't it?

A. Possibly so, yes.

Q. And this technology wasn't developed in the forensic community, was it? It
was all developed in the medical and research community?

A. It was all developed in the research community.

Q. Now, you used a phrase, as long as these fragments are close enough to be
considered a match. Isn't it true, what you mean by that is because of the
measurements and precision, I can't tell you whether they are the same or not
so I'm going to allow myself a window to call something a match when I can't
really tell you it's the same, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, did the steering wheel -- Are your saying that might be DNA from
another person, some other time and not blood?

A. I'm just saying, yes, there's no way for me to know. I didn't collect that
sample, number one. So even if there was blood on that steering wheel, could
there be something under that, some other cells under that? Sure. I don't --
it's a steering wheel. People are going to grab onto it with their hands.

Q. That could be true for the console too, couldn't it?

A. I suppose it could be, sure.

Q. Do you have kids in a car that sneeze or bloody noses and wipe them on the
console, you're going to get their DNA there, aren't you?

A. If they do that, you would get their DNA there.

Q. O.J. Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson's kids are going to have very similar
if not the same banding patterns as their parents?

They get half of their DNA from one, and half from the other, correct?

A. Banding patterns, they will share characteristics, but the banding patterns
wouldn't be the same as either Nicole Brown or Mr. Simpson for the PCR tests.

The kids, theoretically, since those characteristics are not so powerful at
distinguishing one from another, could any of the kids have as a type that ends
up being the same as one or the other parent, yes, they could.

Q. And these statistics don't work at all where you're talking about possible
sources from relatives, do they?

A. Well, you would do a different calculation.

Q. These calculations don't work for that, do they?

A. It isn't that they don't work, it's that they wouldn't be appropriate.

Q. They don't give you an accurate answer, do they? They don't give you an
accurate estimate, do they?

A. They don't tell you anything about relatives.

Q. Okay. Let's talk about number 29, the blood on the steering wheel. There was
a substrate control taken, that is a sample taken from right next to that blood
stain, correct?

A. I believe so.

Q. Was there any DNA on that?

A. No.

Q. Isn't that an indication that what was taken in that blood stain, that the
blood in there from an unidentified third person, is in that blood stain and
wasn't there before? Wouldn't you, if it had been there before, you'd expect to
find it on the substrate control, wouldn't you?

A. You might.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you. No further questions.

MR. LAMBERT: Nothing further.

THE COURT: You're excused through 1:30, ladies and gentlemen. Don't talk about
the case, don't form or express any opinions.

(At 11:58 A.M. a recess was taken 1:30 P.M. of the same day.)

SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA
NOVEMBER 14, 1996
1:30 P.M.

DEPARTMENT NO. WEQ
HON. HIROSHI FUJISAKI, JUDGE

(REGINA D. CHAVEZ, OFFICIAL REPORTER)

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

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

MR. LAMBERT: Your Honor, before we call the next witness, I'd like to move in
the exhibits that I referred to with Dr. Cotton, which are 988, 989, 1034,
1035, 1036, 1037, 1038, 1041, 1043, 2184, 2185, and 1275.

MR. BLASIER: We object to the handwritten one, if that's a -- one of those --
your handwritten drawing.

THE COURT: Which one is that?

MR. LAMBERT: The one that Mr. Blasier was, himself, writing on the board, I
object to that. It's irrelevant. It's his own testimony.

THE CLERK: 2184, that's the objection.

THE COURT: I think it was in the testimony.

Overruled. It may be received.

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 988 was received in
evidence.)

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 989 was received in
evidence.)

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1034 was received in
evidence.)

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1035 was received in
evidence.)

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1036 was received in
evidence.)

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1037 was received in
evidence.)

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1038 was received in
evidence.)

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1041 was received in
evidence.)

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1043 was received in
evidence.)

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2184 was received in
evidence.)

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2185 was received in
evidence.)

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1275 was received in
evidence.)

MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, Your Honor.

May we call our next witness?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. LAMBERT: We call Renee Montgomery.

RENEE MONTGOMERY, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiffs, was duly sworn
and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause
now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: Please state and spell your name for the record.

THE WITNESS: Renee Montgomery, R-E-N-E-E, M-O-N-T-G-O-M-E-R-Y

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:

Q. Ms. Montgomery, where are you employed?

A. I'm employed by the State of California, Department of Justice at the
Berkeley DNA Laboratory.

Q. And what's your position there?

A. My title is senior criminalist.

Q. And how long have you worked for the California Department of Justice?

A. I've worked for DOJ for approximately eight years -- actually, a little over
eight years.

Q. And how long have you been working in the Department of Justice's DNA
Laboratory?

A. I've been at the Berkeley DNA Lab for -- in excess of four years.

Q. Would you tell us briefly your formal educational background.

A. Yes.

I have a bachelor of science in environmental toxicology from the University of
California at Davis.

I took courses in biochemistry environmental toxicology, biology, and other
science courses.

And after I graduated, I continued my education by taking course work through
the University of California, Berkeley Extension, through the University of
Virginia, through the University of Northern Colorado, and through California
State University, Hayward.

Q. And did any of those courses that you took have anything to do with DNA?

A. Yes, they do.

Q. Which one?

A. All of them that I mentioned, or all of the universities that I mentioned.

The courses at California State, Hayward. The course was genetics which dealt
with DNA.

At the University of Northern Colorado, the course was on DNA sequencing.

At the University of Virginia, it was a six-unit graduate-level course work;
and that was on forensic DNA analysis, both practical laboratory work and
theoretical.

And through the University of California, Berkeley Extension, the courses that
are relevant have been molecular biology, two semesters, biostatistics.

I believe those are the two courses that are relevant.

Q. Since you've been working at the Department of Justice DNA Laboratory, have
you done work in connection with the D1S80 test there?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. When did you first begin doing that?

A. I began work on the system in June of 1993.

Q. And when did the DOJ lab first begin doing D1S80 work?

A. For case-work analysis, we began D1S80 in the spring of '94.

Q. And before doing case-work analysis, have there been studies done in the DOJ
Lab with the D1S80 technique?

A. Yes. We went over nine months examining the system.

Q. Since the DOJ Lab began using that system, has it continued to use it to
today?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it used by other labs around the country, as well?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Can you briefly describe the process Dr. Cotton already told us about, PCR
in general, and the different kinds of tests.

Perhaps you could describe the D1S80 test for us.

A. The D1S80. Actually D1S80 is a location on the genome. The D1 means, DNA 1
chromosome. So Dr. Cotton described two techniques to you, PCR and RFLP.

Well, this process, this particular region we're looking at, is a combination
of both the PCR method and the RFLP method.

The PCR method, where we take this region, this D1S80 region, and we make
multiple copies of that particular region through PCR. Then, using something
similar to RFLP, we use electrophoresis, or we use a gel system, where we
separate the different bands based on size.

Based on molecular weight, as they described to you, with RFLP, you can see a
series of banding pattern where the heaviest bands are closer to the top and
the lighter bands -- or the smaller bands migrate farther in a gel. And that's
how the D1S80 system works.

Q. And Dr. Cotton told us how there are ways to describe, again, between
different DNA types, using a sequence difference and a length difference. Which
difference does this test work for?

A. This is using the length difference. Amplified fragment lengths,
polymorphisms, also known as -- I believe he talked about VNTR, variable number
of tandem repeats.

An example would be the box cars of a train.

Q. So by "box cars of a train," you mean if there are repeating sequences of
the AT/GC base pairs that we saw before, they can repeat like the box cars of a
train; is that what you're saying?

A. Correct.

MR. LAMBERT: Perhaps we could put this up on the Elmo here, and ask you if it
would be helpful if it was turned a little down further, here, I think.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Is this the bottom? Are we all the way down at the bottom?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

MR. BLASIER: Can we have a number?

MR. PETROCELLI: 275.

MR. FOSTER: 326.

MR. PETROCELLI: Oh, sorry. 326.

MR. LAMBERT: 326.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Would you identify what this is, and perhaps describe
generally how -- again, how they're used.

A. This is a copy of a D1S80 gel, and what you can see on this gel is a series
of bands.

This is the origin at the top.

And this is where the DNA migrates to.

And you can see that there are a series of banding patterns here.

The sample at the bottom is a small S, meaning it has the small S number of
repeats.

The one at the top is the largest; it has the largest numbers of repeat.

The samples you see with multiple bands are called composite ladders. These are
like rulers, used for comparison.

And you can see also on this gel that there has been labeling. This was
obviously put on after the gel was run.

And you can see banding patterns with the various individuals and locations.

Q. And these banding patterns that you see on -- on this gel, are they given a
particular letter or number designation?

A. Yes, they are.

Q. So you describe a person's type as D1S80 by doing what?

A. Yes, you describe their type based on the number of repeats that are present
in the sample.

For example, on this particular sample, Mr. Simpson's, there are two bands.
They would be called a 24 and a 25. The 24 has 24 repeats of certain bases, and
the 25 has -- therefore 25 repeats.

Q. And how about for Mr. Goldman?

A. For Mr. Goldman, he has a single-banded pattern. He's a 24 homozygote. That
means from his mother, he inherited a 24 repeat, and from his father, he
inherited a 24 repeat.

Q. And for Nicole Brown?

A. And for Nicole Brown, she's an 18 homozygote. Once again, that means she has
an 18 inherited from her mother and an 18 from her father.

Q. Thank you.

Ms. Montgomery, did you some testing on this case, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And the testing did you was, you did the D1S80 test?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And who at the Department of Justice DNA Lab was in charge, overall, of
testing on this case?

A. Gary Sims was in charge of the case. He was the lead analyst.

Q. Now -- but your particular role was to do D1S80?

A. Yes.

Q. Looking at this board here, this is the result board for the Bundy crime
scene. The evidence items on the left are the LAPD evidence items.

When the Department of Justice gets an item of evidence in to it for study,
does it put its own number on it?

A. In this case, yes, we put our own numbers.

Q. These numbers that we have up there, those are the Department of Justice
numbers where we see number 5?

A. Correct, the second column.

Q. So what I'd like to do is, just to have you go through with us your D1S80
results on -- on these particular blood drops.

First, let's take item 47. What result did you get on that?

A. On --

Q. And I guess we actually have something up here to look at, don't we?
(Referring to board)

A. I'm having a hard time seeing it from my vantage point. I could either step
down there or --

MR. LAMBERT: Just turn it slightly, can you?

THE WITNESS: That's better, much better.

MR. GELBLUM: Exhibit 291.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Can you see it now?

A. Yes.

Q. For item number 47, what was the D1S80 result that you got?

A. From item 47, the D1S80 result was a 24, 25.

Q. And that is consistent with Mr. Simpson's D1S80 type?

A. Yes.

Q. So he is a possible source for that item of evidence; is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And that's consistent with the types we have up here for DQ Alpha, that and
polymarker, as well; is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. And for item number 48, did you do a D1S80 test for that?

A. Yes.

Q. What result did you get?

A. I found that result sample was a 24, 25.

Q. Comma?

A. Comma 25.

Q. For item number 50, did you do a D1S80 test?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what was the result on that?

A. I found that to be a 24, comma, 25, which is consistent with Mr. Simpson.

Q. And for item number 52, what result did you get on that?

A. Once again, for D1S80, I had a result of a 24, comma, 25, which is
consistent with Mr. Simpson.

Q. Okay. Now, item 115, which is a blood drop taken from the rear gate at
Bundy, did you do a D1S80 test on that one?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What was the result that you got?

A. The result for that was a 24, comma, 25.

Q. And who was a possible source for that result?

A. Mr. Simpson.

Q. And is either of Nicole Brown Simpson or Ronald Goldman a possible source
for that item of evidence?

A. No. Nicole Brown could not be the source because there was no 18 allele
present. And by looking at it, there is no indication of any sample from Ronald
Goldman, either, by looking at the DQ Alpha that results.

Q. For that one, for the time being, until we saw the DQ Alpha, that we want
until we see that before we determine if he was completely excluded?

A. Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Okay.

Let's just go through the last two, number 116 from the rear gate. There's
another item of blood evidence from the rear gate and your D1S80, results were
what?

A. A 24, comma, 25.

Q. That can is consistent with whom?

A. That is consistent with Mr. Simpson.

Q. And finally, for number 117 from the rear gate, what were your results
there?

A. That was a D1S80 type 24, comma, 25. That's consistent with Mr. Simpson.

Q. So the results that you got for these various blood drops at Bundy were what
you tested, were all consistent with Mr. Simpson?

A. Yes, they were.

Q. And the D1S80 test is it completely separate and apart fro the DQ Alpha
test?

A. Yes.

Q. And from the RFLP test?

A. Yes.

MR. LAMBERT: Why don't we do the next one.

Number 296 is the next one, Your Honor.

(The instrument herein referred to as Chart entitled Results of DNA Analysis,
Rockingham Residence, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.
296.)

(Counsel displays Exhibit 296 on easel.)

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, on this board, it looks like there's only one D1S80
test that you did at Rockingham -- on the Rockingham results that are listed
here; is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. And which item was that?

A. That was item number -- LAPD item number 6.

Q. And what result did you get there?

A. I found a D1S80 type of a 24, comma, 25 which is consistent with Mr.
Simpson.

Q. Okay.

MR. LAMBERT: Why don't we do the next board.

The next number is number 293.

(The instrument herein referred to as Chart entitled Results of DNA Analysis,
Bronco Automobile, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.
293.)

(Counsel displays Exhibit 293.)

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, this board lists various items of evidence that were
tested from the Bronco automobile of Mr. Simpson. The first one that seems to
have a D1S80 reference is number 25.

Is that one of the items that you tested?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And what did you get on that test?

A. I found a D1S80 type of a 24, comma, 25, which is consistent with Mr.
Simpson.

Q. Okay. And how about item number 26, the driver-side floor mat?

A. On item number 26, I found a D1S80 type of a 24, comma, 25, once again
consistent with Mr. Simpson.

Q. And item 30 from the center console?

A. Item 30 of D1S80 of a 24, comma 25.

Once again, I cannot exclude Mr. Simpson as being a possible source.

Q. And item 31, this is another item from the center console. What was your
D1S80 test?

A. Item 31, I found there was a 24 and a 25 present; and I could not exclude
Mr. Simpson as being a possible source of that.

Q. And then item No. 33 slash 293 from the carpet on the driver-side door, what
was your D1S80 test result on that?

A. On that sample, I found a D1S80 type 18, comma, 18 which is consistent with
Nicole Brown, but --

Q. I'm sorry. Go ahead.

A. I'm sorry.

-- but excludes Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman.

Q. So the only one of these three people who could be the possible source of
that particular item is Nicole Brown; is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. And then the next item on this list, the center console, 303, what was your
result on that?

A. I found a 24 allele present, a 25 allele present, and a weaker 18 allele
present.

Q. And based upon those test results, who could possibly be the sources for
those evidence items?

A. Nicole Brown could be the source; Mr. Simpson could be the source; and also,
with any 24 that's present, Mr. Goldman can also be a source, since he's a 24
homozygote.

Q. Is that the kind of test where we need a little bit more information before
we can decide who's excluded or included?

A. Yes.

Q. And 304, another center console item, what was your result there?

A. I found a 24 allele, a 25 allele, and a weaker 18 allele.

Q. And tell us what -- would you tell us what that tells us about the possible
included persons?

A. Once again, of the three individuals, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Goldman, and Ms.
Brown, I cannot exclude any of them.

Q. Okay.

And finally on this board, item 305, another item taken from the center console
of the Bronco, what were your test results there?

A. I found a 24, a 25 allele, and a weaker 18 allele.

And once again, I cannot exclude any of the three individuals.

Q. And when you say that you found a "weaker allele," what do you mean by that?

A. I mean that allele is less intense than the other two. For example, 24,
comma, 25, that means those two alleles are darker than the 18.

Q. You mean darker on gel than we previously saw on the television?

A. Exactly.

Q. So if one of the bands is darker and another one is lighter, you make note
of that?

A. Correct.

Q. And what does that usually tell us?

A. It tells us that a mixture is present on that sample.

Q. Okay. Thank you.

Now, let's go to the next board, which is No. 300 -- no, 320. Sorry.

(The instrument herein referred to as Chart entitled Results of DNA Analysis,
Rockingham Glove, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.
320.)

(Counsel displays Exhibit 320.)

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) This shows various test results for a glove found on Mr.
Simpson's property at Rockingham.

Did you do a D1S80 test on that glove?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And I see a list from the -- in the left-hand column here -- perhaps I can
point to it -- of various areas that are listed, G1 through G14.

Can you tell us what those numbers mean?

A. Yes. Those numbers are particular areas on the glove that were sampled by
Gary Sims.

Q. So Mr. Sims sampled various -- I guess 14 different areas on that one glove?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. And then you took the samples that he had prepared and did D1S80 tests on
some of them?

A. Correct.

Q. Let's just go through them quickly.

Number -- area G1 -- and this is all part of the glove; it's all part of the
same glove, I take it?

A. Yes.

Q. So area G1, what was your test result there?

A. I found an 18 allele present and a 24 allele.

I should explain at this time, show on this chart -- I should have explained it
to you earlier -- when it says 18, comma, 24 on this chart, that does not
necessarily mean that is the genome type of an individual; that just means
those are the two types that were seen on the sample.

Q. You found an 18 allele and a 24 allele?

A. Correct.

Q. And who could possibly be excluded by that test?

A. Mr. Simpson can be excluded because his 25 allele is not present.

Q. And how about Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman?

A. They cannot be excluded.

Q. And the next one G2, what was your test result there?

A. On G2, I found an 18 allele and a 24 allele. And once again, Nicole Brown
and Mr. Goldman cannot be excluded, but Mr. Simpson can be excluded.

Q. So for both of those two areas, it's possible, based upon your test, that
that blood came from Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman?

A. Correct.

Q. And then the area G3, what was your D1S80 test result there?

A. On G3, I found a 24, comma, 24.

Q. And who can be excluded based upon that?

A. I can exclude Nicole Brown and Mr. Simpson as being a source of that sample.

Q. So for that particular sample, the only person who can be a possible source
of it among the three that we're talking about is Mr. Goldman; is that right?

A. Correct.

Q. And the next item, which is G4, what were your test results there?

A. I found a 24 allele and a weaker 18 allele, indicating a mixture.

Q. And a mixture -- who would possibly be excluded by that mixture?

A. Mr. Simpson would be excluded because the 25 is not present. And Nicole
Brown and Ronald Goldman could not be eliminated.

Q. So they're both possible contributors to that particular item of evidence?

A. Correct.

Q. And in the area G9, which is the next one on our chart here, what was your
result there?

A. I found a 24 allele and 24, comma, 24, and that's consistent with Ronald
Goldman and Nicole Brown. And Mr. Simpson can be excluded as a source of that
24, comma, 24.

Q. Mr. Simpson can be excluded on that one?

A. Exactly.

Q. Because of what reason?

A. It's because a 25 allele is not present.

Q. And then item G10, what was your D1S80 result on that?

A. On G10, I found a mixture; I found a 24 allele and a weaker 25 allele.

Q. And what does that mixture tell you?

A. With that next mixture, it tells me that Nicole Brown cannot be there, but
Ronald Goldman can be a source and Mr. Simpson can be a source.

Q. And of the three people that we're testing here, which of them could
possibly be the source of a 25 allele?

A. Mr. Simpson.

Q. So anytime on this chart we see a 25 allele, that cannot come from Ronald
Goldman or Nicole Brown; is that what you're saying?

A. Correct.

Q. And let's go -- I've lost track. Where am I? I think I'm on G11.

Would you give us your -- what your test results were there.

A. On G11, I found a mixture, 24 allele with a weaker 25 and 18 alleles
present. And that indicates that I can't exclude any of the three individuals
as being a possible source of the mixture.

Q. Okay.

And area G12 on the glove?

A. On G12, I found a mixture. I found mainly a 24 allele, with weaker 18
allele. And that indicates that Mr. Simpson cannot be present on that sample,
or was not detected, and Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman cannot be excluded.

Q. Okay. For these two that you've just done -- let's take the patches off,
because you told us what we can find out about those from all sources. Is that
fair?

A. Correct.

Q. And now we're down to item number G3. This is a stitching on the wrist notch
-- 13. What did I say, 3? G13, right.

What do your test results tell us about that?

A. I found that was a mixture. It was mainly a 24 allele, with weaker 25 and 18
alleles present, indicating a mixture.

I can't exclude the three individuals as being possible sources.

Q. So they could all be possible sources of this.

And finally, number G14, with a -- what does it say, the inside back of the
hand cuff edge.

What were your test results for that?

A. For some sample I found a -- mainly a 24 homozygote. There was a possible
trace 18 present, so I wasn't -- I was able to eliminate Mr. Simpson as being
the source, the main contributor. Could have -- I could not exclude Ronald
Goldman as being the main contributor. And with that possible trace 18, it's
possible that Nicole Brown could have been present.

Q. So a trace is just a faint amount of the 18 allele?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Is that what you're saying?

So we've elicited here as possible Nicole Brown. Does that seem accurate to
you?

A. Yes.

Q. So on this glove results board, anytime your test showed a 25 allele, would
it be fair to say that among the three people listed at the top of the chart,
only Mr. Simpson could have been the source of that?

A. Yes, if there were 25 allele and the 24 present, also.

Q. Okay.

In addition to the results that we've showed you on the boards, did you also do
any testing on LAPD evidence item number 84?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And do you recall what that evidence item was?

A. Yes. Number 84, referring to my report, was the fingernail scrapings.

Q. Fingernail scrapings from whom?

A. From Nicole Brown.

Q. Did the Department of Justice actually receive the so-called fingernail kit
to do its tests with?

A. Gary Sims received those, yes.

Q. And he then obtained the evidence sample for you to do your test on?

A. Correct. He extracted the DNA.

Q. And what were your test results on item number 84?

A. On 84, multiple samples were run.

And I'll refer to my notes on this.

The right-hand scrapings were analyzed; the left-hand scrapings were analyzed.
And the right-hand clippings were analyzed.

And all of the results by D1S80 were an 18 homozygote, indicating that Nicole
Brown could not be excluded as being the source of that sample.

Q. And in all of those tests that you ran on the fingernail scrapings, right
hand, left hand, and so on, did you find any alleles other than 18 in any of
those?

A. No.

Q. I'd like to ask you now about some of the control items.

Did you test any substrate control items in this case?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. First, taking the results from Bundy, do you know which of the control items
from Bundy you tested?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Can you just list them for us?

A. Yes. I'm referring to a list that I have.

They are LAPD number 47, LAPD number 48, LAPD number 50, LAPD number 52, LAPD
115, LAPD 116, and LAPD 117. And those are samples all relating to the Bundy
area.

Q. And as to evidence item 47, the control for that is -- this is a substrate
control for that evidence item that we're talking about?

A. Yes, these are all substrate controls that I'm referring to.

Q. So your test results for evidence item 47 control, what did you get in that
test?

A. I found no DNA was present; therefore, there were no results.

Q. And how about for evidence item 48 control?

A. Once again, there was no DNA present.

Q. And evidence item 50 control?

A. No DNA was present.

Q. And evidence item 52 control?

A. No DNA was present there.

Q. How about evidence item 115 control?

A. No DNA was present.

Q. And evidence item 116 control?

A. No DNA was present.

Q. And finally, evidence item 117 control?

A. No DNA was present there.

Q. Did you also test some of the control items from the Bronco automobile?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Can you list for us the control items tested on the Bronco automobile?

A. Those are LAPD items 25, 26, 30, 31, 293, 303, 304, and 305.

Q. And we'll go through them one at a time.

Perhaps I'll just ask you what your results were on your tests for the controls
for all of those evidence items.

A. I did not find any DNA present on any of those samples.

Q. So all of the control samples you tested, to the Bundy blood drops and the
Bronco evidence, all tested negative for any DNA; is that right?

A. Correct.

MR. LAMBERT: I have no further questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Cross.

MR. BLASIER: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. For all of that list that you just gave us, where you said there was no --

MR. LAMBERT: I think I forgot one board. Can I ask one more question about it?

THE COURT: All right.

MR. LAMBERT: I'm sorry. It's number 297.

I forgot about the results.

(The instrument herein described as Chart entitled Results of DNA analysis,
Rockingham Socks, was admitted into evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 297)

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. LAMBERT:

Q. Can you see that, this overhang?

A. Yes.

Q. These are the results for the Rockingham socks. And I'll just ask you to go
through them fairly quickly for us

Item number 13 up at the top there, what was your D1S80 result on that?

A. Item number 13 is the socks, so the subnumber would be DOJ DNA 42A-1. And I
found a D1S80 type of an 18, 18, which is consistent with Nicole Brown.

Q. And how about for the area that has DOJ number 42A-2, which we call 13A on
the LAPD list, what was your result there?

A. Yes. The D1S80 type was a 24, comma, 25, which is consistent with Mr.
Simpson.

Q. Okay. And for DNA number 42A-3, the DOJ number, what was your result there?

A. The D1S80 type was a 24, comma, 25, which is, once again, consistent with
Mr. Simpson.

Q. And the area 42A-4 on the sock, the toe region, what is your result there?

A. The D1S80 type was a 24, comma, 25, once again, consistent with Mr. Simpson.

Q. And DNA number 42B-1, what was your D1S80 result?

A. The D1S80 type was a 18, comma, 18. That's consistent with Nicole Brown.

Q. And finally, the last one, 42B-2, your result there?

A. D1S80 type 18, 18, which is consistent with Nicole Brown.

Q. Thank you.

MR. LAMBERT: I am now done, Your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Ms. Montgomery, when you gave that list of items that there
was no DNA present, isn't it more accurate to say that there was no DNA
detected by that test?

A. Correct.

Q. It doesn't mean there's no DNA there, does it?

There's a certain level of sensitivity to the test, isn't there?

A. Correct.

Q. Now, how much time did you spend preparing to assist the plaintiffs in this
case?

A. Approximately 16 hours, two days, maybe.

Q. About two days.

And how much have you charged the plaintiffs for that?

A. Nothing. I assume the State of California is getting paid by the plaintiffs.
I'm getting paid.

Q. Do you know that?

A. Yes, they will be getting paid.

Q. At what rate?

A. I don't know.

Q. In your preparation, did you ever actually go over a typed -- pretyped
answer -- questions and answers with Mr. Lambert?

A. We reviewed some questions, yes.

Q. They were all a script of questions right?

A. There were some questions, yes.

Q. Typed out?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have the list of questions with you?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Now, when you did the tests, did the D1S80 test in this -- your lab had only
been using this system in case work for a few months?

A. I believe we had been using it for about four months, I'd say.

Q. Of all the tests we've talked about here this morning, it's the newest, is
it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And were you here this morning to hear Dr. Cotton?

A. No, I was not.

Q. Okay.

Between polymarker DQ Alpha and RFLP and D1S80, D1S80 is the newest?

A. Oh, no, no; I would not say that.

In our laboratory, D1S80 came online before polymarker did.

Q. I stand corrected.

Polymarker is a pretty new system, too, is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, the D1S80 system is not nearly as discriminating as the RFLP
system?

A. That is correct.

Q. And in fact, in the D1S80 system, the 18 allele and the 24 allele are the
most common within a population, correct?

A. Yes. Most individuals are the 18 or 24 being present in a genotype. It's
common.

Q. What percentage of the Caucasian population has an 18 allele, roughly?

A. Approximately 30 percent.

Q. Okay.

A. But that --

Q. How about 24?

A. We should clarify that.

Q. Well, Mr. Lambert can clarify if he likes.

24, how common is that?

A. Approximately 30 percent of the population would have one other allele as a
24.

Q. Thank you.

And between Nicole Brown Simpson and O.J. Simpson, there are three D1S80
alleles, the 18, the 24, and the 25, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And their children would have to have one of those three alleles or two of
them, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. They couldn't have any allele other than 18, 24, 25, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And of course, this system is not discriminating enough to allow you to
separate people that have the same alleles, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And I notice you didn't give us any statistics here. That's because this is
not a very discriminating system, correct?

A. No.

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative; assumes facts not in evidence.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) What are shadow bands?

A. Shadow bands?

Q. Yes.

A. Shadow bands are bands that would run below the primary band, an artifact of
the gel system.

Q. So you can have bands show up that aren't DNA, correct?

A. You would have artifactual bands, correct.

Q. "Artifact" means something that appears real but isn't, correct?

A. "Artifact" would be something that was not an actually -- an actual band,
but it was --

Q. But it shows up on the Autorad --

MR. LAMBERT: Object to not letting her answer the question completely.

MR. BLASIER: I'm sorry. Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: That would show up on a gel.

But for it to be determined by seeing it in your composite ladders.

Q. You talked about with some of these tests as possible traces.

Are you saying that you can -- well, we just said "you." When you talk about a
shadow band and there's a certain amount of subjectivity involved in the
interpretation of these results as there is with DQ Alpha and polymarker, is
there not?

A. No.

Q. No subjectivity at all?

A. It's fairly -- it's an objective test. The subjectivity would come into play
by experience. Experience on -- I wouldn't call it subjectivity.

Q. Some of these things are subject to interpretation, aren't they?

A. Correct. One must interpret.

Q. And you use terms such as "hints" and "traces" in your lab, do you not?

A. Yes.

Q. And the difference between a hint and a trace is what?

A. A hint is a possible banding pattern; there's something that would be seen
in the gel, but you don't feel confident that it is actually a band.

A trace would be a very faint band that you feel confident is a band.

Q. And it takes subjective judgments to decide whether something is a hint or a
trace, doesn't it?

A. It takes experience to determine if something is a hint or a trace.

Q. Are there any standards at all that are used to determine the difference
between a hint and a trace?

A. No.

Q. And when you call something a hint, you're saying I see a band there, but
we're going to say it's not real, right?

A. We're saying that there is a possible band present.

Q. We're not going to call it DNA, right?

A. That we don't feel comfortable calling it a band, correct.

Q. And a trace is where there's something that looks like a band there, and
we'll call it DNA, right?

A. It is a band; it's not something that appears to be a band.

Q. It's a very light band, isn't it?

A. Correct.

Q. Just like a hint, isn't it?

A. Excuse me?

Q. We're talking about very light bands, aren't we?

A. It's a faint band.

Q. Sometimes you call them DNA, sometimes you don't, right?

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Answer the question.

THE WITNESS: No. If there is a band present, you call it a band.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) If you're not sure if the band is present, if it's a faint
indication of some activity in a lane, it's not called a band which can mean
the difference between an exclusion and an inclusion, can it not, when you call
it a hint or a trace, can't it?

A. Yes, it can.

Q. Thank you.

How many items of evidence did you test using the D1S80 system?

A. I would have to go through and count.

Q. Can you give me a rough count?

A. The number?

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, perhaps we can take a break to give her a chance.

THE COURT: Going to be a while?

THE WITNESS: No.

Oh, in excess of 50 samples.

MR. BLASIER: Okay.

And can we show it on the Elmo here, please.

(The instrument herein referred to as Chart entitled was marked for
identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 326.)

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) And you do a lot of those samples in the same runs,
correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay.

And you tested 23 different stains from the clothing of the victims, did you
not?

A. If that's the number you counted, I'll assume that's the correct number,
unless you'd like me to count them.

Q. You did quite a few?

A. Correct.

Q. Remember we discussed this in the criminal case, as well, don't you?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you review your criminal testimony in preparation for your testimony
here?

A. Briefly, yes.

Q. Okay.

And is it not true that 13 of the stains that you found on Ron Goldman's
clothes were consistent with blood from Nicole Brown Simpson?

A. Once again, I'll assume the number is correct, unless you want me to go
through and count them.

But yes, I found blood that was -- or I found D1S80 types. That was consistent
with Nicole Brown on Ron Goldman's clothes.

Q. I'm sorry. And inconsistent with O.J. Simpson?

A. Correct.

Q. You found three stains on Nicole Brown Simpson's dress that were consistent
with Ronald Goldman, correct?

A. Once again, I'll assume the number is correct.

But yes, I found a D1S80 type that was consistent with Ronald Goldman and
inconsistent with Mr. Simpson.

Q. Now, you have found nothing on either victim's clothing consistent with Mr.
Simpson; isn't that correct?

A. Correct.

THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, Mr. Blasier. Does that have a number?

MR. BLASIER: 326.

Your Honor, I wonder if we can take a break. I have to get some exhibits.

THE COURT: Take ten minutes, ladies and gentlemen.

(Recess.)

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

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

MR. BLASIER: Thank you, Your Honor.

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) Ms. Montgomery, just a couple of quick questions.

When you were asked about the fingernail scrapings, item 84, again, you're
looking at DNA and you're not looking at red blood cells, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you have no way of knowing whether the 18, 18 or the DNA that you
collected came from those scrapings, came from tissue or blood or both?

A. Correct.

Q. And an 18, 18 -- 18 is a very common allele, correct?

A. Yes. It occurs in the 18 alone, as we discussed earlier.

Q. Now, the glove. How many different stains did you check on the glove?

A. I --

Q. Do you have that in front of you?

A. I have to refer to --

Q. The number is G13. Does that mean there were 13 samples taken?

A. There were less than 13 samples analyzed by D1S80.

Q. Okay. D1S80.

Okay. And now, I wanted to ask you a hypothetical question:

If somebody was wearing a right-hand glove and had a bloody left hand, and you
used their bloody left hand to take off the right-hand glove, you would expect
to find their glove, in the finger area of the glove --

MR. LAMBERT: Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. Argumentative.

THE COURT: It's a hypothetical question that doesn't go to her field of
expertise. I think it's an argument you can make to the jury.

MR. BLASIER: Let's me ask it this way:

Q. (BY MR. BLASIER) You didn't find any indication of blood consistent with Mr.
Simpson in the finger area of the right-hand glove, did you?

A. Correct.

Q. And you didn't find any blood consistent with Mr. Simpson in the palm area
of the right-hand glove, did you?

A. I'd have to refer to the notes on that one.

Q. Go ahead.

(Witness reviews documents.)

A. Correct.

Q. The three very small amounts that you found that could have come from O.J.
Simpson were all in the wrist area, around the wrist notch of the right glove,
correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And that's the area where there are some initials written, CY for Colin
Yamauchi?

A. I don't know.

Q. You remember the initials being down there?

A. No; I didn't examine the glove.

Q. Okay.

Are you aware of that glove -- the fact that that glove was examined at LAPD
long before the samples came to you guys?

A. I would assume it was, since it came to our laboratory.

Q. In fact, all of the evidence that got to your laboratory started out at
LAPD?

A. I believe so.

Q. And your tests can be no more reliable than the quality of the evidence that
they send you; isn't that correct?

A. Correct.

MR. BLASIER: No further questions.

MR. LAMBERT: Only one or two, Your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Ms. Montgomery, Mr. Blasier asked you some questions about
trace and hint of bands on his cross-examination.

Could you explain to us what the difference between those two is?

A. Yes. A hint is something that, in our interpretation, we wouldn't place any
significance on it; we're not confident that it exists.

A trace is a band that, well, we're confident the band exits, but the actual
genotype, the whole profile of that sample, cannot be determined, meaning we
see the particular band there, but yet we cannot say what the full profile of
that banding pattern is.

Q. And you wouldn't classify something that is a band unless you were confident
that it was a band; is that right?

A. Correct.

MR. LAMBERT: No further questions.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BLASIER:

Q. That relates to the experience of the examiner, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And when you examined these samples, how much experience did you have with
this system?

A. I had approximately a year of experience with it, nine months being
full-time.

Q. How much in case work?

A. Approximately four months of case work.

Q. How many cases? It's less than 20, wasn't it, or about 20?

A. Approximately 20 cases at that time.

Q. That's all.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:

Q. Since that time, have you continued to work on D1S80?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you looked at your results since then, in light of your more recent
experience?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you reinterpret any of those results?

A. No.

Q. Thank you.

MR. BLASIER: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Thank you.

You're excused.

(Witness excused.)

MR. LAMBERT: Could I move into evidence, Your Honor, one exhibit, 326.

MR. BLASIER: No objection.

THE COURT: Received.

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 326 was received in
evidence.)

MR. LAMBERT: Plaintiff calls Gary Sims, Your Honor.

THE CLERK: Please raise right hand.

GARY ALAN SIMS, called as a witness on behalf of Plaintiffs, was duly sworn and
testified as follows:

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause
now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: please be seated. And, sir, if you would, please state and spell
your name for the record.

THE WITNESS: My name is Gary Alan Sims, G-A-R-Y, A-L-A-N, S-I-M-S.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LAMBERT:

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Sims.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. What is your occupation?

A. I am employed as a criminalist supervisor by the California Department of
Justice, DNA Laboratory, in Berkeley.

Q. And as a general proposition, what does the Department of Justice DNA Lab
do?

A. The Department of Justice DNA Lab analyzes samples that are generally
submitted to us by other forensic laboratories who first test samples for
blood, semen, that sort of thing, biological material, and then they send it to
us because we're a specialty lab doing DNA -- forensic DNA testing.

Q. And how long has the DOJ DNA Lab been doing forensic DNA testing?

A. We've been doing case work since 1992.

Q. And when you do forensic DNA testing, do sometimes your test result in a
person who is suspected of being in a crime, being excluded as a suspect?

A. They often do.

Q. And sometimes it results in inclusions?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have any idea as to how frequently the work that you do actually
exonerates somebody from being a suspect?

A. Our figure is somewhere on the order of about 20, 25 percent of the time,
something like that.

Q. Have -- do you have a formal educational background that led to you being in
this field, sir?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Would you describe that for us, please.

A. Yes.

My education began at the University of California at Berkeley, where I
graduated with a bachelor of science degree in criminalistics in 1975.

At that, or shortly after the time, I did some graduate work in criminalistics
at UC Berkeley, and I also did graduate work in criminalistics at California
State University, Los Angeles.

In 1994, I went back to UC Berkeley to complete my graduate education, and I
now hold a master's degree in public health, with a forensic science specialty.

Also, as part of my formal education, because of the need to update my
education with regard to molecular biology and DNA techniques, I went back and
took classes, for example, in genetic molecular biology, recombinant DNA
technology, that sort of thing.

MR. LAMBERT: By the way, let me mark as the next exhibit in order -- give Mr.
Blasier a copy -- a copy of your curriculum vitae, and Ask you to identify
that, please.

What number is this?

THE CLERK: 2186.

MR. LAMBERT: 2186.

(The instrument herein referred to as Curriculum Vitae of Gary Alan Sims was
marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 2186.)

THE WITNESS: Yes, which is a current copy of my C.V.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) When you graduated from Berkeley with your bachelor's
degree, did you obtain any honors?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What was that?

A. Graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Berkeley.

Q. Thank you, sir.

After graduating with your degree in criminalistics, what kind of employment
did you have?

A. I first began my career at the Department of Chief Medical Examiner,
Coroner, here in Los Angeles County, where I worked in the laboratories there
from 1976 until 1979, looking at blood and semen evidence in cases of sexual
assault, homicides that sort of thing.

Then, from 1979 to 1980, I went to work for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department, where I worked in their crime laboratory. And I was specifically
assigned to the serology section, looking at blood and semen and other
biological evidence there.

Then, from 1980 until 1990, I worked for the Institute of Forensic Sciences
Criminalistics Laboratory, which is a private crime laboratory in Oakland,
California, directed by Charles Morton in that laboratory. Since it's a private
laboratory, we analyzed both evidence in defense and prosecution cases.

Then, in 1990, I went to work for the Department of Justice in the DNA
Laboratory. And that's where I've been to date.

Q. Your work at the DNA laboratory, does it involve actual hands-on work on DNA
testing?

A. Yes.

Q. On case work kinds of things?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, did you do, yourself, some DNA testing in this case?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. How many samples altogether did the California Department of Justice
evidence samples -- that is, sample in this case?

A. Something like 108 samples.

Q. Is that a small, normal, or large number of samples for a particular case?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) In a normal criminal investigation, are the items of blood
evidence usually much fewer in number than you had in this case?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: In our laboratory, we would typically analyze ten samples in a
case.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) So in this case, there was a very substantial amount of
evidence to analyze?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, when you did these tests at the DOJ Lab On the blood evidence, was
there anyone not part of the Department of Justice present during that testing?

A. Yes.

Q. And who was that?

A. The individual who was present in our laboratory for virtually all of the
opening of the evidence as we received it from LAPD, and who was also present
for several of the test readings, and who was -- in fact, had a standing
invitation to any of the other evidence examinations -- was Dr. Edward Blake, a
defense consultant from Forensic Science Associates.

Q. Dr. Blake was there for much of your testing on behalf of Mr. Simpson?

A. Yes. He was particularly there for the documentation, the opening of the
evidence, that sort of thing, the initial examinations.

He was also present for some of the actual testing.

Q. And Dr. Blake, himself, does he have his own DNA Lab?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: He is a partner in a laboratory that does DNA work, yes.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And his own laboratory, that is, Dr. Blake's laboratory, is
capable of doing testing of DNA at that lab?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: I'll sustain that.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Were some of the evidence samples that you took in this
case that -- were portions of them specifically set aside so that the defense
could do testing on their own if they wanted to?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant.

May we approach?

THE COURT: You may.

(The following proceedings were held at the bench, with the reporter.)

MR. BLASIER: I object to this line of questioning.

The plaintiffs tried to take Dr. Blake's deposition, and the Court ruled that
they could not do so because he was one of the consultants, not a witness. He
is not an expert that we're calling to testify.

The allegation that we did testing or didn't test is improper. We have no
burden to do any testimony, since there is no burden.

THE COURT: Wait a minute. Go back about a paragraph.

MR. BLASIER: Well, the plaintiffs attempted to take Dr. Blake's deposition in
this case, and the Court -- not this Court, but the Court that was handling law
and motion -- ruled that they could not do so because Dr. Blake was a
consultant and was not a testifying expert for the defense.

And the implication that we did testing or didn't do testing is an improper one
to raise. There's no burden on us to do any testing.

And I object to this line of inquiry based on that.

MR. LAMBERT: It has nothing to do with whether Dr. Blake is going to -- whether
Dr. Blake is going to be a witness or not.

The point is, we're entitled to show to the jury that they had evidence
available to test; they had experts available to do the testing. If they chose
not to do the tests or if they did test, we don't know about it, and choose not
to present the results, the jury is entitled to hear that evidence.

There's a specific evidence rule that says that the jury's entitled to make
whatever inference they choose to draw from the defendant not presenting
evidence that is available to them to present.

If they want to have -- this isn't a criminal case where there's some kind of a
constitutional problem with presenting this evidence. In a civil case, it's
clearly relevant and probative, and the jury should hear that they choose not
to do testing.

That may be what inferences may be drawn from that.

MR. BLASIER: I disagree with Mr. Lambert. Correct, we can do away with the
ability to have a consultant. It is not available to the other side. I don't
think that's appropriate. It's irrelevant; it's prejudicial. I object under
352.

MR. LAMBERT: This isn't a consultant; this is somebody in the lab, watching
everything being done, cutting slices, so it could be available for further
tests if somebody wanted to do further testing. It's not a -- behind the
scenes; it's something that's right there available to do it if they want to do
it.

MR. BLASIER: The Court already ruled he was a consultant.

MR. LAMBERT: Only for purposes of me taking his deposition.

If you choose not to call him, that's fine.

THE COURT: Irrelevant. Overruled.

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

MR. LAMBERT: Would you read that back, please.

(Record read.)

THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And, in fact, Dr. Blake is one of the leading developers of
the PCR techniques?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Irrelevant.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: With regard to forensic technology yes.

MR. LAMBERT: This is 291.

Q. Now, Mr. Sims, Dr. Cotton has previously put on this board some frequency
results based upon her DQ Alpha and polymarker test.

You see her frequencies up there?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, the Department of Justice also did a DQ Alpha test on these particular
samples, didn't it?

A. On number 46, yes.

Q. Your number 5, yeah?

A. Yes.

Q. And what result did you get?

A. The DQ Alpha result was 1.1, 1.2.

Q. That's the same result that Cellmark got?

A. Yes.

Q. In addition, however, the Department of Justice did a D1S80 test which Ms.
Montgomery just testified to, and the results of that test are up on the board
there; see that?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Now, taking that additional test into account, that is, taking it into
account, the D1S80 test in addition to the DQ Alpha test and a polymarker test,
what would be the frequency of all three of those tests combined?

A. The range -- I'll give it as a range -- again, is one in 240,000 to one in
2.2 million.

Q. I'd ask you then to -- if you could, step down. Make sure we get the right
end here.

MR. LAMBERT: Steve, you can help by erasing here, right there. And we'll ask
you, Mr. Sims, to put the frequency in there.

(Witness writes on Plaintiffs' Exhibit 291, entitled Results of DNA Analysis,
Bundy Crime Scene.)

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) So, Mr. Sims, taking these three test results, the two from
Cellmark and the one from the Department of Justice all into account, you would
expect to find those DNA patterns in only one of 240,000 to one in 2.2 million
people; is that right?

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, I'm going to object to erasing data from this exhibit
which is now in evidence. He can put it in beside it, but I think he just
erased something from the top.

MR. LAMBERT: I haven't moved this in; I'm developing this exhibit as I'm going
along. I'll move it in when it's done.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BLASIER: I object to it being erased.

THE COURT: Excuse me?

MR. BLASIER: I object to it being erased.

THE COURT: Why?

MR. BLASIER: Because it changes the exhibit.

THE COURT: He's changing the exhibit as he goes along.

MR. BLASIER: He's taking things off.

There's nothing wrong with it.

THE COURT: It's not an exhibit.

THE CLERK: It's been marked.

MR. BLASIER: I thought it was offered.

MR. LAMBERT: It hasn't been offered, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. LAMBERT: Let's go down to the next item number. Item number 48. Again, this
is --

THE COURT: Excuse me. If you want to preserve it, why don't you go up there and
make an overlay and write it down on your overlay? We'll give you that
opportunity right now.

MR. BLASIER: I have my own notes.

I'm assuming they're going to move that in.

THE COURT: Well, you can -- I've used an overlay before. I would like to not
deprive you of the opportunity of showing the exhibit as it existed prior to
that time that this witness changed it. So if you want to do that, you may.

MR. BLASIER: That's fine. We'll let them do it the way they want.

MR. LAMBERT: May I proceed, Your Honor?

THE COURT: All right.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Going now to item number 48, again, this is an item where
the Department of Justice did a DQ Alpha test?

A. Yes, we did DQ Alpha and D1S80 on that item.

Q. The DQ Alpha test result on that item was what?

A. 1.1, 1.2.

Q. That's the same result that Cellmark got?

A. Yes.

Q. And again, you did a D1S80 test which Ms. Montgomery already testified to.

Can you put in the frequency, taking that test into account?

A. Okay.

(Witness writes on Plaintiffs' Exhibit 291.)

THE WITNESS: The frequency is the same as 47: It's 1 in 240,000 to 1 in 2.2
million.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Okay.

Now, on item number 49, that's not an item that the Department of Justice did
any tests on?

A. We did not do any typing.

Q. So the frequencies on those numbers should stay the same?

A. That's correct.

Q. Let's take a look at item number 50.

It appears that the results you got there are the same as 47 and 48; is that
right?

A. That's correct.

Q. You got the same DQ Alpha test result as Cellmark?

A. That's correct.

Q. Would you please change that frequency to reflect the D1S80 numbers.

(Witness writes on Exhibit 291.)

THE WITNESS: Again, this will be 1 in 240,000 to 1 in 2.2 million.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) And now, finally, on item number 42, that is finally -- 52,
finally, on the Bundy list of items again, you have both DQ Alpha and D1S80
results on that item?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. The DQ Alpha results are the same as Cellmark's?

A. Yes; it's 1.1, 1.2.

Q. Can you put in the frequency in the top panel there for the PCR base test.

(The witness complies.)

A. Again, it's one in 240,000 to one in 2.2 million.

Q. And then, now dropping down to item No. 115, which is from the rear gate of
Bundy, you did your own DQ Alpha test there; is that right?

A. Yes, we did DQ Alpha on that and also D1S80.

Q. And your DQ Alpha test resulted in?

A. Type 1.1, 1.2.

Q. And the D1S80 Ms. Montgomery testified was 24, 25, those results, the DQ
Alpha results and the D1S80 results together, who could be the possible source
of those test results from among Mr. Simpson, Nicole, and Ronald Goldman?

A. Only Mr. Simpson.

Q. Have you calculated the frequency for those two tests, the D1S80 and the DQ
Alpha?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you put that in, please.

A. The results for those two tests would be 1 in 520 to 1 in 1,400.

Q. Now, the reason that the numbers for item number 115 are different than,
say, item number 52, is that explained by the fact that the more genetic
markers that you're able to test, the more the frequency can become less
common?

A. Yes.

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) What's the explanation of the difference between the 115
and, say, number 48?

A. Basically, the more genetic information you're getting, the more types
you're looking at, then the rarer that whole profile becomes.

Q. Let's take a look at item number 116, the rear gate. That appears to be the
same as 115?

A. That's correct.

Q. Would that be right? So the numbers and Mr. Simpson would be the same for
that?

A. That's correct.

Q. Would you please put in the numbers for us there.

A. Again, it's 1 in 520 to one in 1,400.

Q. Now, finally, on this board we have item number 117 the rear gate.

From the rear gate, I see you have both a DQ Alpha and RFLP results; is that
right, sir?

A. That's correct. We did DQ Alpha, D1S80 and we also did a nine-probe match
for the rear-gate sample.

Q. Would you explain what you mean by "nine-probe match?"

A. When doing RFLP, we looked at nine different loci. In other words, we
produced nine different Autorads at different sides of genetic information
take's all nine matched Mr. Simpson's types.

Q. So would you put the frequency in for the RFLP calculation for this item
number 117.

A. Yes.

The range on the RFLP was 1 in 57 billion, with a B, to one in 150 billion.

Q. That last item, the item from the rear gate, because you got a nine-probe
match on that item, the frequency, would you call that a rare frequency?

A. Yes; this would be a rare event.

Q. And the fact that you were able to get an RFLP result off of that particular
evidence item, why could you get it off that, why not off of 115 or 116?

A. There was less DNA recovered in those stains, 115 and 116. 117 had about a
little over 100 nanograms, which is sufficient for an RFLP.

Q. And was that particular evidence item degraded or undegraded?

Do you recall what the state of degradation was?

A. There was only slight degradation indicated in that sample.

Q. And is there a reason why an evidence sample that's found in one location,
say on a gate as opposed to another location, say on the ground, may be more or
less degraded?

A. Yes. It's certainly important how -- what the micro environment is where a
stain occurs.

For example, if it occurs on a walkway, where there's a lot of soil and that
sort of thing, one may expect to see some differences from a sample that's not
in contact with as much dirt and soil, debris, that sort of thing. The
collection and processing can make a difference too.

Q. So the fact that there's more DNA on an evidence item found up on a gate, as
opposed to something on the ground, is that a surprising result, from your
perspective?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

Why don't we take the next board. This will be number 296.

(The instrument herein referred to as Chart entitled Results of DNA Analysis,
Rockingham Residence, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.
296.)

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, this board lists four different evidence items from
the -- collected at Rockingham. The first one, number 6, is from the Rockingham
driveway.

Did you do any DQ Alpha tests on that evidence item?

A. Yes, our laboratory test did that for DQ Alpha and D1S80.

Q. And Ms. Montgomery testified to the D1S80 result. What are the DQ Alpha
results?

A. 1.1, 1.2.

Q. Who would be the possible source among the three we're looking at here, be a
possible source for those evidence items?

A. Mr. Simpson.

Q. And could you once again put the frequency for those two tests in.

A. Frequency for that result would be -- the range would be one in 520 to 1 in
1,400.

Q. Okay. I think that's the only one we have on this, chart. So let's move to
the next one, which is number 293.

(The instrument herein referred to as Chart entitled Results of DNA Analysis,
Bronco Automobile, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.
293.)

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, there's a lot of evidence items to go through on this.

The Department of Justice tested a lot of samples from the Bronco automobile?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. Let's start with number 24 from the instrument panel. Did you do a DQ Alpha
test on that?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. And what was the result?

A. On number 24, which was our item number 15, the DQ Alpha type was 1.1, 1.2.

Q. That's consistent with who?

A. Mr. Simpson.

Q. And could you put the frequency in for that one test for Mr. Simpson on item
number 24.

A. Yes, I can. This is just a DQ Alpha result, so it's one in 12, to one in 40,
is the range.

Q. And for these items here, where we just have D1S80 results 25 and 26,
numbers 25 and 26, are those both consistent with Mr. Simpson as a possible
source, as well?

A. Yes, they are.

Q. And did you calculate what the frequency would be for those two?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Would you please do so.

A. For the number 25, that range would be -- check for a second.

That's where we have a type 1.1, 1.2, Also a 24, 25 result, so the range would
be 1 in 520 to 1 in 1,400. Where we have just the D1S80 result of type 24, 25,
that would be one in 29, to one in 48.

Q. And then while we're here, let's take a look at item number 30 from the
center console.

Did you do a DQ Alpha test on that item?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. And what was the result?

A. That was type 1.1, 1.2.

Q. Tallying the DNA and D1S80 results for that type, who is a possible source
for that particular item?

A. That would be Mr. Simpson.

Q. And what would the frequency for that item be?

A. Again, this is where we have the DQ Alpha and the D1S80, it would be one in
520 to one in 1400 or 1,400.

Q. Evidence item number 31, did you do a DQ Alpha test on that?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. And what results did you obtain?

A. That -- excuse me. The sample No. 31, which is our 18, we obtained a mixture
result. The DQ Alpha indicated the type 1.1, 1.2, along with the weaker typing
of 1.3, comma, 4.

Q. And because of that mixture, who would the possible sources be of that
evidence item?

A. The possible sources would be Mr. Simpson, and also Ronald Goldman.

Q. And then let's drop down to -- now to number 34.

The Department of Justice do a DQ Alpha test on that item?

A. Yes; that was our item number 20. And we did just the DQ Alpha test on that.

The result was 1.1, 1.2.

Q. Which is, again, consistent with who?

A. Mr. Simpson.

Q. Would you put the frequency in for that item?

A. This is DQ Alpha only. It's one in 12 to one in 40, type 1.1, 1.2.

Q. Let's drop down to item number 303, the center console.

Did you do a DQ Alpha test for that evidence item?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. And what results did you obtain?

A. Yes. This was our item number 52.

We obtained a DQ Alpha result with 1.1 was present, possible 1.2 allele a 1.3
was present, and also a 4 was present on DQ Alpha.

Q. Based upon that DQ Alpha test and D1S80 test, who would be the possible
source?

A. Because of the D1S80, it's always 24, 25, with a weaker 18.

All three principals were potential contributors to that blood.

Q. Evidence item 304. Could you describe your DQ alpha results on that, please.

A. Yes. That was DQ alpha type 1.1, with a possible 1.2. 1.3 was there, also 4.
The D1S80 was 24, 25, with a weaker 18.

Q. And again, the possible sources for those results would be?

A. Again, the three principals are potential sources for that mixture.

Q. And then evidence item number 305 from the center console, what were your
results on that test?

A. In that case, it was 1.1, possible 1.2, then a weaker 1.3 and 4.

And then on the D1S80, it was 24, 25 and weaker 18.

Q. And possible contributors again on that would be?

A. Again, the three principals are possible contributors.

Q. These items, 303, 304, and 305, all tests from the center console, were
those all mixtures of more than one person's blood?

A. Yes, they were, stains.

Q. And finally, did you do anything with those three evidence items as a group?

A. Yes. What I was able to do, because individually these samples had
relatively low amounts of DNA, but they did have enough combined to make an
RFLP typing feasible, I proceeded to combine all of them.

In other words, the extracted DNA, I combined all of that, did an RFLP analysis
on that, and then probed it.

We have four-probe RFLP analysis on that sample.

Q. What did that four-probe RFLP analysis tell you about the possible sources
of that blood?

A. The four-probe RFLP match is consistent with the mixture of DNA from Mr.
Simpson and also from Ronald Goldman.

And one sees a stronger contribution that lines up with Mr. Simpson's bands and
a weaker contribution that lines up with Mr. Goldman's bands.

Q. So the possible contributors under that RFLP test are these two individuals?

A. Yes, Mr. Simpson and Mr. Goldman.

Q. Thank you.

Why don't you have a seat.

Before we leave the Bronco automobile, let me ask you about one of the other
items there; that is item number 29.

Did you do a DQ alpha test on item number 29?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. And what results did you get from that DQ alpha test in item number 29?

A. In item number 29, which I believe is a steering wheel, we got a type --
main type of 1.1, 1.2, which was consistent with Mr. Simpson, and we also
detected a weaker 4 allele by itself.

Q. And did you make any conclusion as to who among these three could possibly
be excluded, based upon that test?

A. Well, as far as the exclusion, certainly the 1.1, 1.2 is the major type, is
consistent with Mr. Simpson.

The 4 allele was identified as being present.

The 1.3 of Mr. Goldman was not seen in that particular sample.

My opinion was that this appears to be an exclusion of Mr. Goldman, but I could
not be absolutely certain because of some of the technicalities of this
particular case that we may not -- we, at the very low level of DNA, we were
looking that, potentially, we would lose one of Mr. Goldman's alleles or one of
his dots, basically, but I should point out there was no evidence of the 1.3.

Q. So that was somewhat an ambiguous result, was it?

A. Yes, I would describe that as an ambiguous result, as far as that was
concerned.

Q. Okay.

Why don't we have the next board.

MR. LAMBERT: This is Exhibit No. 320, Your Honor.

(Exhibit 320 displayed by counsel.)

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) This board lists results of tests by the Department of
Justice on the Rockingham glove. Renee Montgomery already testified to some of
these test results.

Mr. Sims, it appears that a significant number of tests with were run on the
glove; is that true?

A. Yes, they were.

Q. Let's just then go through them, if we can.

On item number -- what you call this is your nomenclature, G1?

A. Yes. "G" is for Gary. So that was my stain number one.

Q. Okay. So G1 is one of the stains on the glove?

A. That's correct.

Q. And for that particular stain, did you do a DQ alpha test?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what were your results from that test?

A. On that particular test, it indicated a mixture with a type 1.1, 1.3, a 4,
and then also a possible 1.2 allele.

Q. And then I see you also were able to obtain RFLP results on that particular
item.

A. Yes. I looked at an RFLP on three of those; we did an RFLP; then a fourth
one, we did an RFLP by itself.

Q. And the possible sources of people, pursuant to your tests for this
particular item, are who, sir?

A. On that particular sample, it would be Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman.

Q. And in your five-probe RFLP test results, were you able to see the bands
matching both Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman?

A. Yes. It was consistent with a cross -- with a mixture of DNA from Nicole
Brown and Ronald Goldman on that sample.

Q. So for that particular sample, then, you have both a five-probe RFLP test, a
DQ alpha test, and a D1S80 test that are all consistent with the blood coming
from Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, item area G2, could you describe your DQ alpha test results there.

A. Yes. That was, again, a mixture, 1.1, 1.3, 4, and then possible 1.2.

Q. And you were also able to do an RFLP test on that?

A. Yes. Again, we saw that same type of person, indicating a mixture consistent
with Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman.

Q. And the RFLP test is a test that is a powerful test for identifying people,
isn't it, sir?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And if you have five-probe matches, is that a substantial match, in your
opinion?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, let's go to -- we've already done this one.

Let's go down to area G4.

And can you tell us what your results were there, sir?

A. On G4, The DQ alpha again indicated a mixture, 1.1, 1.3, 4, and then
possible 1.2.

Q. And once again, were you able to type an RFLP result on that evidence item?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And the possible sources for that item of evidence are who, sir?

A. Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown.

Q. And were you able to, at all five of those genetic markers that you probed,
able to see the banding appearance for both Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown?

A. Well, what was interesting especially, was that we looked at G1, G2 and G4,
across one auto series of Autorads, and it was apparent that the bands that
could be attributed to Ronald Goldman were fairly constant in intensity across
the Autorads, whereas the bands that lined up with Nicole Brown's bands tended
to fade out, going from G1, being the stronger, a little weaker for her at G2,
and then weak at G4.

Q. Did you draw any conclusion?

A. Yes.

Q. What conclusion did you draw?

A. Well, I think given that you could see the relative contributions, it was
highly significant that this was a very clear -- clearly consistent with the
mixture of the two.

In other words, you could figure out which band could go to which individual.

Q. And let's go to area G9.

You obtained some DQ alpha results there, as well?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what were those?

A. Again, that was a mixture of possible -- possibly a mixture. I saw on DQ
Alpha we had a type 1.3 and 4 present. There was a possibility of a 1.2 allele
and a possible trace of a 1.1 allele.

Q. And the possible contributors to this evidence item, then, that you were
able to ascertain, would be who?

A. Well, looking at that result with the D1S80, as well as the DQ alpha, we
could only say that it -- with some confidence, that it was consistent with
Ronald Goldman.

Q. Even though you had a possible 1.2 in this, you wouldn't conclude that
there's another possible contributor among the three?

A. Yes. For example, with the possible trace 1.1, we would need a clear 1.1 and
some more information on the D1S80 to attribute it to either Nicole Brown or
Mr. Simpson.

Q. And now taking evidence item G10 from the Rockingham glove, what were your
results there?

A. On that one, again, it was a 1.3, comma 4, possible 1.2, and then a weaker
1.1 allele was detected.

Q. On the D1S80, we've already heard, were a 24 and a weaker 25.

A. Yes.

Q. So the possible sources on that particular item would be who, sir?

A. Ronald Goldman, and then Mr. Simpson, also.

Q. I think we've covered all of these.

Yes.

Yeah. Don't we have the next one?

MR. BLASIER: What number was that, was that last one?

MR. LAMBERT: The last one was 320, and this one is 297.

(The instrument herein referred to as Chart entitled Results of DNA Analysis,
Rockingham Socks, was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No.
297.)

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Now, Mr. Sims, did you receive a pair of socks that were
found in Mr. Simpson's master bedroom floor and marked Exhibit 13?

A. Yes.

Q. Or evidence item 13?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall about when you received those?

A. Yes. The socks were received on September 26, 1994.

Q. And they were sent to you for what purpose, sir?

A. At that point in time, LAPD had detected and analyzed some of the blood
stains present on them, and we were asked to do DNA typing on those blood
stains.

Q. And when you first got the socks, sir, did you examine them?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What did you observe in your initial examination?

A. In the initial examination of the socks, in a large -- relatively large
stain had been cut out around the ankle area of one of the socks.

There was also on that same sock, a -- on the opposite side of that stain,
there was an area indicated with a white arrow. Then there was also on the
other sock, there was an area that had been outlined previous to my
examination.

Q. And did you then do any further examination of the socks after looking at
them?

A. Yes. I examined the socks. First I photographed them to document what was
present. And in the process of photographing those socks, and under very bright
camera lights, photography lights, I noticed that there were additional stains
on those socks.

At that point, then I later did some stereomicroscopic examination of the socks
and determined there were a lot of very small blood stains on those socks.

Q. And were those blood stains that you had not seen with your naked eye before
you did the stereomicroscopic examination?

A. That's correct. These very small ones I did not see with my naked eye.

Q. And was Dr. Blake with you when all this happened?

A. Yes, he was there at the time we initially examined the socks, and he was
there for some of the later examinations.

Q. And then did you do DNA tests on the socks?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. Let's start with the one up at the top here, which is your number 42A-1.

Did you do a DQ alpha test on that one?

A. Yes.

And I should point out, that is the large stain (indicating), and LAPD had
previously cut out some of that stain and submitted that to me in a tube, along
with the socks themselves.

Q. So you tested what you got in the tube from LAPD?

A. That's correct, for that particular stain only.

Q. Your DQ alpha result was what?

A. That was type -- we typed it as type 1.1, 1.1.

Q. And that's consistent with who?

A. Nicole Brown.

Q. And were you also able to do an RFLP test on that particular evidence item?

A. Yes, we were able to obtain an 11 probe match on that particular item.

Q. 11 probe match. Is that a significant match?

A. Yes, it's very significant.

Q. Can you please put in the frequency numbers for that 11 probe match on that
particular evidence item.

A. Yes.

The RFLP loci this is just 6 of those 11 probes the numbers come out to be 1 in
7.7 billion, with a B, to 1 in 41 billion.

Q. And would you describe that as a rare occurrence, sir?

A. Yes, I would.

Q. Okay. Now, let's take number 42A-2.

What was your DQ alpha result there?

A. Yes, the DQ alpha result was 1.1, 1.2.

Q. And who's a possible source identified for those particular types?

A. That would be Mr. Simpson.

Q. And did you do a calculation for the frequency of those two types, counting
the D1S80, as well?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Would you please put that --

A. That number is 1 in 520 to 1 in 1,400.

Q. Now, let's go to evidence item number 42A-3.

What was your result on that item, sir?

A. The DQ alpha type was 1.1, 1.2.

Q. Again, who would the possible source be under the DQ alpha and D1S80 tests?

A. Mr. Simpson.

Q. And on that evidence item, were you able to obtain RFLP results, as well?

A. Yes, we were.

Q. And we have on the board here a nine-probe match.

Is that consistent with your recollection?

A. Yes, that was a nine-probe match.

Q. Is that a significant match, sir?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Can you put the frequencies up on the board for the nine-probe match on that
evidence item.

A. Again, this is just for six of those nine.

The numbers come out to be one in 57 billion to one in 150 billion.

Q. Would you describe that as a rare occurrence, sir?

A. Yes, I would.

Q. Now, could we go to evidence item number 42A-4.

What were your test results there?

A. The DQ alpha was 1.1, 1.2.

Q. And the D1S80, we already heard from Renee Montgomery.

Who would the possible source of that be?

A. Mr. Simpson.

Q. And would you put the frequency number in for that item, as well.

A. Yes. This would be one in 520 to one in 1,400.

Q. Now, we're down to number 42B-1.

And would you tell us what the DQ alpha results were there.

A. The DQ alpha result on that case was a type 1.1, 1.1.

We also thought there might be a possible trace of a 1.2 allele.

Q. The possible source for that, without regarding that, the 1.2, would be who,
sir?

A. Well, again including the D1S80 results, that would be Nicole Brown.

Q. And the possible trace of 1.2, were you able to include anyone as a possible
source based upon that?

A. Well given -- given that I couldn't really say it was there, I wouldn't make
anything on that -- out of that result, that possible trace.

Q. And then finally, on this chart, we have item -- your item 42B-2.

What are your results on that, sir?

A. On 42B-2 was the same, 1.1, 1.1 DQ alpha, possible trace of the 1.2, and the
D1S80 was 18, 18.

Q. Because there was only a possible trace, you wouldn't include that in your
characteristics of the possible sources for that item?

A. That's correct; I would look at D1S80 results, too.

Q. So did you put frequency in for that item, just 1.1 and the 1.1 and the 18,
18 D1S80 results?

A. Yes, for D1 and D2.

Q. Would they be the same?

A. Yes, they would be the same.

Q. Please?

A. They're both one in 990 to one in 8,900.

THE COURT: Let's take a ten-minute recess.

MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, Your Honor.

(Recess.)

(Jurors resume their respective seats.)

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

THE COURT: You may proceed.

MR. LAMBERT: Thank you, Your Honor.

(Exhibit 320 is displayed by counsel.)

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Getting back a second, Mr. Sims, to the Rockingham glove
board, I think I missed something there, on this item G3.

Yes, G3

You were able to obtain an RFLP result on that item, sir?

A. Yes, I did an RFLP result on that -- RFLP analysis on that particular
sample, and obtained an eight-probe match for Mr. Goldman.

Q. Could you give us the frequency for the RFLP result for Mr. Goldman?

A. Yes.

That was one in 1.2 billion to one in 41 billion.

Q. Is that a significant RFLP result?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Would you describe that as a rare occurrence?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Now, let me show you Exhibit No. 319, entitled Rockingham Glove Blood Results.

(The instrument herein referred to as Chart entitled Rockingham Glove Blood
Results was marked for identification as Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 319.)

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Would you describe what this exhibit depicts, sir?

A. Yes. That exhibit depicts the -- the right-hand glove that was analyzed in
our laboratory.

JUROR: We can't see.

MR. LAMBERT: If people can't see, let me take this one down and put this on the
higher one.

(Counsel adjusts exhibit.)

JUROR: Thanks.

Q. (BY MR. LAMBERT) Okay. Please continue.

A. Yes, that item depicts the right-hand glove that was analyzed in our
laboratory. I took those photographs myself. And then the various notations
explained where the approximate locations are for the collection sites for the
various blood stains that were removed from the glove.

Q. The ones that are listed on the other board sitting back in the corner or
over there?

A. That's correct.

Q. The sites where you found the DNA types that were consistent with Mr.
Simpson are on G number 10, G13 and G11?

A. That's correct. That was the D1S80 results by Renee Montgomery.

Q. These are all sort of towards the bottom portion of the glove?

A. Yes. They tend to focus around the wrist notch area on the palm surface.

Q. The place you might touch the glove as you were taking it off, sir?

MR. BLASIER: Objection. Calls for speculation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. LAMBERT: I have no further questions.

MR. BLASIER: Your Honor, may we approach?

THE COURT: What was that exhibit?

MR. LAMBERT: 319.

I should move in two exhibits before I finish with Mr. Sims.

Number 2186, that's his C.V., and 297, which is the socks for the --

MR. BLASIER: Object to 2186, the C.V., Your Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2186 was received in
evidence.)

THE CLERK: We need that exhibit 2186.

MR. LAMBERT: And 319, as well.

THE COURT: Okay.

(The instrument previously marked as Plaintiffs' Exhibit 319 was received in
evidence.)

THE COURT: You may approach.

MR. BLASIER: We don't need the reporter.

(A bench conference was held which was not reported.)

THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll resume the examination tomorrow at
9 o'clock.

Don't talk about the case; don't form or express any opinions.

You may step down. You're excused until tomorrow.

(At 4:05 P.M., an adjournment was taken until Friday, November 15, 1996, at
9:00 A.M.)